text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
author:
- |
Albert Atserias Tuomas Hakoniemi\
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya\
[`{atserias,hakoniemi}@cs.upc.edu`]{}
bibliography:
- 'semialgebraicdegree.bib'
title: |
[**Size-Degree Trade-Offs\
for Sums-of-Squares\
and Positivstellensatz Proofs**]{}
---
**Acknowledgments.** We are grateful to Michal Garlik, Moritz Müller and Aaron Potechin for comments on an earlier version of this paper. We are also grateful to Jakob Nordström for initiating a discussion on the several variants of the definition of *monomial size* as discussed in Section \[sec:preliminaries\]. Both authors were partially funded by European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, grant agreement ERC-2014-CoG 648276 (AUTAR) and MICCIN grant TIN2016-76573-C2-1P (TASSAT3).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: |
Department of Physics and Astronomy,\
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,\
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255, USA.\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- 'P.H. FRAMPTON'
title: 'AdS/CFT-Inspired Unification at About 4 TeV'
---
Quiver Gauge Theory
===================
The relationship of the Type IIB superstring to conformal gauge theory in $d=4$ gives rise to an interesting class of gauge theories. Choosing the simplest compactification[@Maldacena] on $AdS_5 \times S_5$ gives rise to an $N = 4$ SU(N) gauge theory which is known to be conformal due to the extended global supersymmetry and non-renormalization theorems. All of the RGE $\beta-$functions for this $N = 4$ case are vanishing in perturbation theory. It is possible to break the $N=4$ to $N=2,1,0$ by replacing $S_5$ by an orbifold $S_5/\Gamma$ where $\Gamma$ is a discrete group with $\Gamma \subset SU(2), \subset SU(3), \not\subset SU(3)$ respectively.
In building a conformal gauge theory model [@Frampton; @FS; @FV], the steps are: (1) Choose the discrete group $\Gamma$; (2) Embed $\Gamma \subset SU(4)$; (3) Choose the $N$ of $SU(N)$; and (4) Embed the Standard Model $SU(3) \times SU(2) \times U(1)$ in the resultant gauge group $\bigotimes SU(N)^p$ (quiver node identification). Here we shall look only at abelian $\Gamma = Z_p$ and define $\alpha = exp(2 \pi i/p)$. It is expected from the string-field duality that the resultant field theory is conformal in the $N\longrightarrow \infty$ limit, and will have a fixed manifold, or at least a fixed point, for $N$ finite.
Before focusing on $N=0$ non-supersymmetric cases, let us first examine an $N=1$ model first put forward in the work of Kachru and Silverstein[@KS]. The choice is $\Gamma = Z_3$ and the [**4**]{} of $SU(4)$ is [**4**]{} = $(1, \alpha, \alpha, \alpha^2)$. Choosing N=3 this leads to the three chiral families under $SU(3)^3$ trinification[@DGG] $$(3, \bar{3}, 1) + (1, 3, \bar{3}) + (\bar{3}, 1, 3)$$
Gauge Couplings.
================
An alternative to conformality, grand unification with supersymmetry, leads to an impressively accurate gauge coupling unification[@ADFFL]. In particular it predicts an electroweak mixing angle at the Z-pole, ${\tt sin}^2 \theta = 0.231$. This result may, however, be fortuitous, but rather than abandon gauge coupling unification, we can rederive ${\tt sin}^2 \theta = 0.231$ in a different way by embedding the electroweak $SU(2) \times U(1)$ in $SU(N) \times SU(N) \times SU(N)$ to find ${\tt sin}^2 \theta = 3/13 \simeq 0.231$[@FV; @F2]. This will be a common feature of the models in this paper.
4 TeV Grand Unification
=======================
Conformal invariance in two dimensions has had great success in comparison to several condensed matter systems. It is an interesting question whether conformal symmetry can have comparable success in a four-dimensional description of high-energy physics.
Even before the standard model (SM) $SU(2) \times U(1)$ electroweak theory was firmly established by experimental data, proposals were made [@PS; @GG] of models which would subsume it into a grand unified theory (GUT) including also the dynamics[@GQW] of QCD. Although the prediction of SU(5) in its minimal form for the proton lifetime has long ago been excluded, [*ad hoc*]{} variants thereof [@FG] remain viable. Low-energy supersymmetry improves the accuracy of unification of the three 321 couplings[@ADF; @ADFFL] and such theories encompass a “desert” between the weak scale $\sim 250$ GeV and the much-higher GUT scale $\sim 2 \times 10^{16}$ GeV, although minimal supersymmetric $SU(5)$ is by now ruled out[@Murayama].
Recent developments in string theory are suggestive of a different strategy for unification of electroweak theory with QCD. Both the desert and low-energy supersymmetry are abandoned. Instead, the standard $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ gauge group is embedded in a semi-simple gauge group such as $SU(3)^N$ as suggested by gauge theories arising from compactification of the IIB superstring on an orbifold $AdS_5 \times S^5/\Gamma$ where $\Gamma$ is the abelian finite group $Z_N$[@Frampton]. In such nonsupersymmetric quiver gauge theories the unification of couplings happens not by logarithmic evolution[@GQW] over an enormous desert covering, say, a dozen orders of magnitude in energy scale. Instead the unification occurs abruptly at $\mu = M$ through the diagonal embeddings of 321 in $SU(3)^N$[@F2]. The key prediction of such unification shifts from proton decay to additional particle content, in the present model at $\simeq 4$ TeV.
Let me consider first the electroweak group which in the standard model is still un-unified as $SU(2) \times U(1)$. In the 331-model[@PP; @PF] where this is extended to $SU(3) \times U(1)$ there appears a Landau pole at $M \simeq 4$ TeV because that is the scale at which ${\rm sin}^2
\theta (\mu)$ slides to the value ${\rm sin}^2 (M) = 1/4$. It is also the scale at which the custodial gauged $SU(3)$ is broken in the framework of [@DK].
There remains the question of embedding such unification in an $SU(3)^N$ of the type described in [@Frampton; @F2]. Since the required embedding of $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ into an $SU(3)$ necessitates $3\alpha_Y=\alpha_H$ the ratios of couplings at $\simeq 4$ TeV is: $\alpha_{3C} : \alpha_{3W} : \alpha_{3H} :: 5 : 2 : 2$ and it is natural to examine $N=12$ with diagonal embeddings of Color (C), Weak (W) and Hypercharge (H) in $SU(3)^2, SU(3)^5, SU(3)^5$ respectively.
To accomplish this I specify the embedding of $\Gamma = Z_{12}$ in the global $SU(4)$ R-parity of the $N = 4$ supersymmetry of the underlying theory. Defining $\alpha = {\rm exp} ( 2\pi i / 12)$ this specification can be made by ${\bf 4} \equiv (\alpha^{A_1}, \alpha^{A_2},
\alpha^{A_3}, \alpha^{A_4})$ with $\Sigma A_{\mu} = 0 ({\rm mod} 12)$ and all $A_{\mu} \not= 0$ so that all four supersymmetries are broken from $N = 4$ to $N = 0$.
Having specified $A_{\mu}$ I calculate the content of complex scalars by investigating in $SU(4)$ the ${\bf 6} \equiv (\alpha^{a_1}, \alpha^{a_2}, \alpha^{a_3},
\alpha^{-a_3}, \alpha^{-a_2},\alpha^{-a_1})$ with $a_1 = A_1 + A_2, a_2 = A_2 + A_3, a_3 = A_3 + A_1$ where all quantities are defined (mod 12).
Finally I identify the nodes (as C, W or H) on the dodecahedral quiver such that the complex scalars $$\Sigma_{i=1}^{i=3} \Sigma_{\alpha=1}^{\alpha=12}
\left( N_{\alpha}, \bar{N}_{\alpha \pm a_i} \right)
\label{scalars2}$$ are adequate to allow the required symmetry breaking to the $SU(3)^3$ diagonal subgroup, and the chiral fermions $$\Sigma_{\mu=1}^{\mu=4} \Sigma_{\alpha=1}^{\alpha=12}
\left( N_{\alpha}, \bar{N}_{\alpha + A_{\mu}} \right)
\label{fermions2}$$ can accommodate the three generations of quarks and leptons.
It is not trivial to accomplish all of these requirements so let me demonstrate by an explicit example.
For the embedding I take $A_{\mu} = (1, 2, 3, 6)$ and for the quiver nodes take the ordering: $$- C - W - H - C - W^4 - H^4 -
\label{quiver}$$ with the two ends of (\[quiver\]) identified.
The scalars follow from $a_i = (3, 4, 5)$ and the scalars in Eq.(\[scalars2\]) $$\Sigma_{i=1}^{i=3} \Sigma_{\alpha=1}^{\alpha=12}
\left( 3_{\alpha}, \bar{3}_{\alpha \pm a_i} \right)
\label{modelscalars}$$ are sufficient to break to all diagonal subgroups as $$SU(3)_C \times SU(3)_{W} \times SU(3)_{H}
\label{gaugegroup}$$
The fermions follow from $A_{\mu}$ in Eq.(\[fermions2\]) as $$\Sigma_{\mu=1}^{\mu=4} \Sigma_{\alpha=1}^{\alpha=12}
\left( 3_{\alpha}, \bar{3}_{\alpha + A_{\mu}} \right)
\label{modelfermions}$$ and the particular dodecahedral quiver in (\[quiver\]) gives rise to exactly [*three*]{} chiral generations which transform under (\[gaugegroup\]) as $$3[ (3, \bar{3}, 1) + (\bar{3}, 1, 3) + (1, 3, \bar{3}) ]
\label{generations}$$ I note that anomaly freedom of the underlying superstring dictates that only the combination of states in Eq.(\[generations\]) can survive. Thus, it is sufficient to examine one of the terms, say $( 3, \bar{3}, 1)$. By drawing the quiver diagram indicated by Eq.(\[quiver\]) with the twelve nodes on a “clock-face” and using $A_{\mu} = (1, 2, 3, 6)$ I find five $(3, \bar{3}, 1)$’s and two $(\bar{3}, 3, 1)$’s implying three chiral families as stated in Eq.(\[generations\]).
After further symmetry breaking at scale $M$ to $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ the surviving chiral fermions are the quarks and leptons of the SM. The appearance of three families depends on both the identification of modes in (\[quiver\]) and on the embedding of $\Gamma \subset SU(4)$. The embedding must simultaneously give adequate scalars whose VEVs can break the symmetry spontaneously to (\[gaugegroup\]). All of this is achieved successfully by the choices made. The three gauge couplings evolve for $M_Z \leq \mu \leq M$. For $\mu \geq M$ the (equal) gauge couplings of $SU(3)^{12}$ do not run if, as conjectured in [@Frampton; @F2] there is a conformal fixed point at $\mu = M$.
The basis of the conjecture in [@Frampton; @F2] is the proposed duality of Maldacena[@Maldacena] which shows that in the $N \rightarrow \infty$ limit $N = 4$ supersymmetric $SU(N)$gauge theory, as well as orbifolded versions with $N = 2,1$ and $0$[@bershadsky1; @bershadsky2] become conformally invariant. It was known long ago that the $N = 4$ theory is conformally invariant for all finite $N \geq 2$. This led to the conjecture in [@Frampton] that the $N = 0$ theories might be conformally invariant, at least in some case(s), for finite $N$. It should be emphasized that this conjecture cannot be checked purely within a perturbative framework[@FMink]. I assume that the local $U(1)$’s which arise in this scenario and which would lead to $U(N)$ gauge groups are non-dynamical, as suggested by Witten[@Witten], leaving $SU(N)$’s.
As for experimental tests of such a TeV GUT, the situation at energies below 4 TeV is predicted to be the standard model with a Higgs boson still to be discovered at a mass predicted by radiative corrections [@PDG] to be below 267 GeV at 99% confidence level.
There are many particles predicted at $\simeq 4$ TeV beyond those of the minimal standard model. They include as spin-0 scalars the states of Eq.(\[modelscalars\]). and as spin-1/2 fermions the states of Eq.(\[modelfermions\]), Also predicted are gauge bosons to fill out the gauge groups of (\[gaugegroup\]), and in the same energy region the gauge bosons to fill out all of $SU(3)^{12}$. All these extra particles are necessitated by the conformality constraints of [@Frampton; @F2] to lie close to the conformal fixed point.
One important issue is whether this proliferation of states at $\sim 4$ TeV is compatible with precision electroweak data in hand. This has been studied in the related model of [@DK] in a recent article[@Csaki]. Those results are not easily translated to the present model but it is possible that such an analysis including limits on flavor-changing neutral currents could rule out the entire framework.
Predictivity
============
The calculations have been done in the one-loop approximation to the renormalization group equations and threshold effects have been ignored. These corrections are not expected to be large since the couplings are weak in the entrire energy range considered. There are possible further corrections such a non-perturbative effects, and the effects of large extra dimensions, if any.
In one sense the robustness of this TeV-scale unification is almost self-evident, in that it follows from the weakness of the coupling constants in the evolution from $M_Z$ to $M_U$. That is, in order to define the theory at $M_U$, one must combine the effects of threshold corrections ( due to O($\alpha(M_U)$) mass splittings ) and potential corrections from redefinitions of the coupling constants and the unification scale. We can then [*impose*]{} the coupling constant relations at $M_U$ as renormalization conditions and this is valid to the extent that higher order corrections do not destabilize the vacuum state.
We shall approach the comparison with data in two different but almost equivalent ways. The first is “bottom-up” where we use as input that the values of $\alpha_3(\mu)/\alpha_2(\mu)$ and $\sin^2 \theta (\mu)$ are expected to be $5/2$ and $1/4$ respectively at $\mu = M_U$.
Using the experimental ranges allowed for $\sin^2 \theta (M_Z) = 0.23113 \pm 0.00015$, $\alpha_3 (M_Z) = 0.1172 \pm 0.0020$ and $\alpha_{em}^{-1} (M_Z) = 127.934 \pm 0.027$ [@PDG] we have calculated [@FRT] the values of $\sin^2 \theta (M_U)$ and $\alpha_3 (M_U) / \alpha_2(M_U)$ for a range of $M_U$ between 1.5 TeV and 8 TeV. Allowing a maximum discrepancy of $\pm 1\%$ in $\sin^2 \theta (M_U)$ and $\pm 4\%$ in $\alpha_3 (M_U) / \alpha_2 (M_U)$ as reasonable estimates of corrections, we deduce that the unification scale $M_U$ can lie anywhere between 2.5 TeV and 5 TeV. Thus the theory is robust in the sense that there is no singular limit involved in choosing a particular value of $M_U$.
Another test of predictivity of the same model is to fix the unification values at $M_U$ of $\sin^2 \theta(M_U) = 1/4$ and $\alpha_3 (M_U) /
\alpha_2 (M_U) = 5/2$. We then compute the resultant predictions at the scale $\mu = M_Z$.
The results are shown for $\sin^2 \theta (M_Z)$ in [@FRT] with the allowed range[@PDG] $\alpha_3 (M_Z) = 0.1172 \pm 0.0020$. The precise data on $\sin^2 (M_Z)$ are indicated in [@FRT] and the conclusion is that the model makes correct predictions for $\sin^2 \theta (M_Z)$. Similarly, in [@FRT], there is a plot of the prediction for $\alpha_3 (M_Z)$ versus $M_U$ with $\sin^2 \theta(M_Z)$ held with the allowed empirical range. The two quantities plotted in [@FRT] are consistent for similar ranges of $M_U$. Both $\sin^2 \theta(M_Z)$ and $\alpha_3(M_Z)$ are within the empirical limits if $M_U = 3.8 \pm 0.4$ TeV.
The model has many additional gauge bosons at the unification scale, including neutral $Z^{'}$’s, which could mediate flavor-changing processes on which there are strong empirical upper limits.
A detailed analysis wll require specific identification of the light families and quark flavors with the chiral fermions appearing in the quiver diagram for the model. We can make only the general observation that the lower bound on a $Z^{'}$ which couples like the standard $Z$ boson is quoted as $M(Z^{'}) < 1.5$ TeV [@PDG] which is safely below the $M_U$ values considered here and which we identify with the mass of the new gauge bosons.
This is encouraging to believe that flavor-changing processes are under control in the model but this issue will require more careful analysis when a specific identification of the quark states is attempted.
Since there are many new states predicted at the unification scale $\sim 4$ TeV, there is a danger of being ruled out by precision low energy data. This issue is conveniently studied in terms of the parameters $S$ and $T$ introduced in [@Peskin] and designed to measure departure from the predictions of the standard model.
Concerning $T$, if the new $SU(2)$ doublets are mass-degenerate and hence do not violate a custodial $SU(2)$ symmetry they contribute nothing to $T$. This therefore provides a constraint on the spectrum of new states.
Discussion
==========
The plots we have presented clarify the accuracy of the predictions of this TeV unification scheme for the precision values accurately measured at the Z-pole. The predictivity is as accurate for $\sin^2 \theta$ as it is for supersymmetric GUT models[@ADFFL; @ADF; @DRW; @DG]. There is, in addition, an accurate prediction for $\alpha_3$ which is used merely as input in SusyGUT models.
At the same time, the accurate predictions are seen to be robust under varying the unification scale around $\sim 4 TeV$ from about 2.5 TeV to 5 TeV.
One interesting question is concerning the accommodation of neutrino masses in view of the popularity of the mechanisms which require a higher mass scale than occurs in the present type of model. For example, one would like to know whether any of the recent studies in [@FGMY] can be useful within this framework.
In conclusion, since this model ameliorates the GUT hierarchy problem and naturally accommodates three families, it provides a viable alternative to the widely-studied GUT models which unify by logarithmic evolution of couplings up to much higher GUT scales.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Thanks are due to Steve Abel and Alon Faraggi for organizing. This work was supported in part by the Office of High Energy, US Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-97ER41036.
[99]{} J. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2,**]{} 231 (1998). [hep-th/9711200]{}.\
S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A.M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. [**B428,**]{} 105 (1998). [hep-th/9802109]{}.\
E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2,**]{} 253 (1998). [hep-th/9802150]{}. P.H. Frampton, Phys. Rev. [**D60,**]{} 041901 (1999). [hep-th/9812117]{}. P.H. Frampton and W.F. Shively, Phys. Lett. [**B454,**]{} 49 (1999). [hep-th/9902168]{}. P.H. Frampton and C. Vafa. [hep-th/9903226.]{} S. Kachru and E. Silverstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80,**]{} 4855 (1998). [hep-th/9802183]{}. A. De Rújula, H. Georgi and S.L. Glashow. [*Fifth Workshop on Grand Unification*]{}. Editors: P.H. Frampton, H. Fried and K.Kang. World Scientific (1984) page 88. U. Amaldi, W. De Boer, P.H. Frampton, H. Fürstenau and J.T. Liu. Phys. Lett. [**B281,**]{} 374 (1992). P.H. Frampton, Phys. Rev. [**D60,**]{} 085004 (1999). [hep-th/9905042]{}. J.C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. [**D8,**]{} 1240 (1973); [*ibid*]{} [**D10,**]{} 275 (1974). H. Georgi and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**32,**]{} 438 (1974). H. Georgi, H.R. Quinn and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**33,**]{} 451 (1974). P.H. Frampton and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. [**B131,**]{} 340 (1983). U. Amaldi, W. de Boer and H. Fürstenau, Phys. Lett. [**B260,**]{} 447 (1991). H. Murayama and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. [**D65,**]{} 055009 (2002). F. Pisano and V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. [**D46,**]{} 410 (1992). P.H. Frampton, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69,**]{} 2889 (1992). S. Dimopoulos and D. E. Kaplan, Phys. Lett. [**B531,**]{} 127 (2002). M. Bershadsky, Z. Kakushadze and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. [**B523,**]{} 59 (1998). M. Bershadsky and A. Johansen, Nucl. Phys. [**B536,**]{} 141 (1998). P.H. Frampton and P. Minkowski, [hep-th/0208024]{}. E. Witten, JHEP [**9812:012**]{} (1998). Particle Data Group. [*Review of Particle Physics.*]{} Phys. Rev. [**D66,**]{} 010001 (2002). C. Csaki, J. Erlich, G.D. Kribs and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. [**D66,**]{} 075008 (2002). P.H. Frampton, R.M. Rohm and T. Takahashi. Phys. Lett. [**B570,**]{} 67 (2003). [hep-ph/0302074]{}. M. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65,**]{} 964 (1990); Phys. Rev. [**D46,**]{} 381 (1992). S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. [**D24,**]{} 1681 (1981); Phys. Lett. [**B112,**]{} 133 (1982). S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. [**B193,**]{} 150 (1981). P.H. Frampton and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. [**B461,**]{} 95 (1999). P.H. Frampton, S.L. Glashow and D. Marfatia, Phys. Lett. [**B536,**]{} 79 (2002). P.H. Frampton, S.L. Glashow and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. [**B548,**]{} 119 (2002).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Andrew Zammit-Mangion, Tin Lok James Ng,\
Quan Vu & Maurizio Filippone
bibliography:
- 'Bibliography.bib'
title: 'Appendices for ‘Deep Compositional Spatial Models’'
---
\#1
addtoreset[equation]{}[section]{}
Details on the 1D Simulation Experiment {#sec:1D-details}
=======================================
In this appendix we provide implementation details of the models we compared the SDSP/SIWGP to in Section \[sec:1D\]. Details for DGPfull are presented in Section \[sec:DGPfull\]; DGPRFF in Section \[sec:DGPRFF\]; DGPsparse in Section \[sec:DGPsparse\]; GP in Section \[sec:GP\]; and SDSP-MCMC in Section \[sec:SDSP-MCMC\]. Note that in this appendix the notation differs slightly from that of the main text when describing the various methods; terms are explicitly defined, where appropriate, for the reader’s benefit.
DGPfull {#sec:DGPfull}
-------
The DGPfull model we implemented is the following two-layer (i.e., one hidden layer) Gaussian process. Specifically, let ${\mathbf{Z}}\equiv (Z_1,\dots,Z_N)'$ denote the data; ${\mathbf{Y}}\equiv (Y_1,\dots,Y_N)'$ the process at the data locations ${\textbf{S}}\equiv (s_1,\dots,s_N)'$; and ${\textbf{F}}_1 = (f_{11},\dots,f_{1N})'$ the warped locations. We let $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Z}}\mid {\mathbf{Y}}&\sim{\mathrm{Gau}}({\mathbf{Y}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon{\textbf{I}}), \\
{\mathbf{Y}}\mid {\textbf{F}}_1 &\sim{\mathrm{Gau}}({\mathbf{0}}, {\textbf{K}}_2({\textbf{F}}_1)), \\
{\textbf{F}}_1 &\sim {\mathrm{Gau}}({\mathbf{0}}, {\textbf{K}}_1({\textbf{S}})),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\textbf{K}}_2({\textbf{F}}_1) &\equiv (\sigma^2_2\exp(-(f_{1i} - f_{1j})^2/\alpha_2) : i,j = 1,\dots N),\label{eq:Kmat2}\\
{\textbf{K}}_1({\textbf{S}}) &\equiv (\sigma^2_1\exp(-(s_{i} - s_{j})^2/\alpha_1) : i,j = 1,\dots N), \label{eq:Kmat1}\end{aligned}$$ are covariance matrices constructed using the squared-exponential covariance function. Since estimating parameters in the DGPfull model is difficult, the parameters $\sigma^2_\epsilon$, $\sigma^2_i,$ and $\alpha_i$, for $i = 1,2$, were estimated by fitting a DGPRFF model with squared-exponential covariance functions and one hidden layer. Specifically, for the first case study we fixed $\log \sigma^{2}_{\epsilon} = -4.336$, $\log \sigma^{2}_1 = 0.713$, $\log \sigma^{2}_2 = -0.067$, $\log \alpha_1 = -2.194$, and $\log \alpha_2 = -1.406 $, while for the second case study we fixed $\log \sigma^{2}_{\epsilon} = -3.830$, $\log \sigma^{2}_1 = 0.270$, $\log \sigma^{2}_2 = 1.408$, $\log \alpha_1 = -1.645$, and $\log \alpha_2 = -1.032 $.
Let ${\mathbf{Y}}^* \equiv (Y^*_1,\dots,Y^*_{N^*})'$ and ${\textbf{F}}_1^{*} \equiv (f^*_{11},\dots,f^*_{1N^*})'$ denote the processes and hidden layer variables at the $N^*$ prediction locations. The conditional distribution of ${\mathbf{Y}}$, and hence of ${\mathbf{Y}}^*$, when conditioned on the data ${\mathbf{Z}}$, is not available in closed form, and was hence approximated using a Gibbs sampling Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) scheme. Specifically, we iteratively sampled from the distributions $p({\mathbf{Y}}\mid {\textbf{F}}_1, {\mathbf{Z}})$ and $p({\textbf{F}}_1 \mid {\mathbf{Y}})$. While the former of these is Gaussian and hence easy to sample from, the latter is not. As in @Cutajar_2016 we used elliptical slice sampling to sample from this conditional distribution. The full conditional distributions of ${\mathbf{Y}}^*$ and ${\textbf{F}}_1^*$, namely $p({\mathbf{Y}}^* \mid {\mathbf{Y}}, {\textbf{F}}_1^*)$ and $p({\textbf{F}}_1^* \mid {\textbf{F}}_1)$, are Gaussian and available in closed form. Thus, sampling from these distributions proceeds through sampling by composition: First samples of ${\textbf{F}}^*_1 \mid {\textbf{F}}_1$ are generated followed by samples of ${\mathbf{Y}}^* \mid {\mathbf{Y}}, {\textbf{F}}_1^*$.
The MCMC scheme was implemented in `Python`. The number of iterations and burn-in samples were set to 5000 and 100, respectively. The elliptical slice sampler took, on average, about 85 s to generate a single sample from the conditional distribution $p({\textbf{F}}_1 \mid {\mathbf{Y}})$. Convergence was assessed by visually inspecting trace plots of ${\mathbf{Y}}^{*}$ at a small number of randomly-selected prediction locations.
DGPRFF {#sec:DGPRFF}
------
We fit DGPRFF models with one, two, and five hidden layers. Of these, the model with two hidden layers provided the best predictive performance and, therefore, this is the model presented in the main text.
The DGPRFF model with two hidden layers (and a single-dimensional output at each layer) is the hierarchical model given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Z}}\mid {\mathbf{Y}}&\sim{\mathrm{Gau}}({\mathbf{Y}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon{\textbf{I}}), \\
{\mathbf{Y}}\mid {\textbf{F}}_2 &\sim{\mathrm{Gau}}({\mathbf{0}}, {\textbf{K}}_3({\textbf{F}}_2)), \\
{\textbf{F}}_2 \mid {\textbf{F}}_1 &\sim {\mathrm{Gau}}({\mathbf{0}}, {\textbf{K}}_2({\textbf{F}}_1)),\\
{\textbf{F}}_1 &\sim {\mathrm{Gau}}({\mathbf{0}}, {\textbf{K}}_1({\textbf{S}})),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\textbf{K}}_3, {\textbf{K}}_2,$ and ${\textbf{K}}_1$ are constructed from squared-exponential covariance functions (see Section \[sec:DGPfull\]). By Bochner’s Theorem, one can represent the squared-exponential correlation function as an expectation of sums and products of trigonometric functions, where the expectation is taken with respect to a Gaussian distribution (in the spectral domain) that is fully determined by the length scale parameter $\alpha$. One can therefore approximate this expectation (and, hence, the correlation function) through Monte Carlo to obtain a set of trigonometric basis functions that can be used to reconstruct the squared-exponential function in expectation; see @Cutajar_2016 for details.
In summary, dimension-reduction in the DGPRFF is achieved by modelling ${\textbf{K}}_i({\textbf{F}}_{i-1}) = {\mathbf{\Phi}}_i({\textbf{F}}_{i-1}; {{\boldsymbol{\Theta}}}_i){\mathbf{\Phi}}_i({\textbf{F}}_{i-1}; {{\boldsymbol{\Theta}}}_i)'$, for $i = 1,2,3,$ and for ${\textbf{S}}\equiv {\textbf{F}}_0$, where ${\mathbf{\Phi}}_i$ are sine and cosine functions evaluated at the data/warped data locations. The ensuing weight-space view of the DGPRFF model is $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Z}}&= {\mathbf{Y}}+ {\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}, \\
{\mathbf{Y}}&= {\mathbf{\Phi}}_3({\textbf{F}}_2; {{\boldsymbol{\Theta}}}_3){\textbf{w}}_3, \\
{\textbf{F}}_2 &= {\mathbf{\Phi}}_2({\textbf{F}}_1; {{\boldsymbol{\Theta}}}_2){\textbf{w}}_2, \\
{\textbf{F}}_1 &= {\mathbf{\Phi}}_1({\textbf{S}}; {{\boldsymbol{\Theta}}}_1){\textbf{w}}_1, \end{aligned}$$ where ${\textbf{w}}_i \sim {\mathrm{Gau}}({\mathbf{0}}, {\textbf{I}}), i = 1,2,3,$ and ${\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}\sim {\mathrm{Gau}}({\mathbf{0}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon{\textbf{I}})$. The parameters vector ${{\boldsymbol{\Theta}}}_i$ contains the length-scale parameter $\alpha_i$ and the variance $\sigma^2_i$, $i = 1,2,3$. In our implementation we sampled the spectral frequencies associated with $\alpha_i$ once and adjusted them for each step when optimising $\alpha_i$; see the procedure `PRIOR-FIXED` in @Cutajar_2016. The parameters in the variatonal distribution over ${\textbf{w}}_i, i = 1,2,3,$ were found using stochastic gradient descent, while expectations taken with respect to ${\textbf{w}}_i$ were approximated using Monte Carlo (similar to what we did in Section \[sec:SDSP\]); specifically, we used $N_{MC} = 25$ Monte Carlo samples.
At each layer we let the number of Fourier features (i.e., sine and cosine basis functions) equal 256 and ran stochastic gradient descent for 50,000 iterations. For the first 10,000 iterations we kept the covariance-function parameters fixed, and optimised the variational parameters for $w_i, i = 1,2,3$. For the remaining 40,000 iterations we optimised both the weights and covariance-function parameters simultaneously. Each iteration took on the order of a tenth of a second to complete.
DGPsparse {#sec:DGPsparse}
---------
The sparse deep Gaussian process model of @Damianou_2013 was fitted using the `deepGP` package in `R`, which we provide in the Supplementary Material. We used one hidden layer; specifically, we employed the following hierarchical model, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Z}}\mid {\mathbf{Y}}&\sim{\mathrm{Gau}}({\mathbf{Y}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon{\textbf{I}}), \\
{\mathbf{Y}}\mid {\textbf{H}}_1 &\sim{\mathrm{Gau}}({\mathbf{0}}, {\textbf{K}}_2({\textbf{H}}_1)), \\
{\textbf{H}}_1 \mid {\textbf{F}}_1 &\sim {\mathrm{Gau}}({\textbf{F}}_1, \sigma^2_\xi{\textbf{I}}), \\
{\textbf{F}}_1 &\sim {\mathrm{Gau}}({\mathbf{0}}, {\textbf{K}}_1({\textbf{S}})),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\textbf{H}}_1$ can be seen as jittered versions of the smooth warped locations ${\textbf{F}}_1$, and ${\textbf{K}}_2$ and ${\textbf{K}}_1$ are given by and , respectively. Sparsity is introduced into the model through the introduction of inducing points and variables for both ${\mathbf{Y}}$ and ${\textbf{F}}_1$. Denote the inducing points for ${\textbf{F}}_1$ as $\bar{\textbf{S}}_0$, and those for ${\mathbf{Y}}$ as $\bar{\textbf{S}}_1$, and denote the corresponding inducing variables at these points as $\bar{\textbf{F}}_1$ and $\bar{\mathbf{Y}}$, respectively. Then, omitting the dependence on the inputs and the inducing points, $$\begin{aligned}
p({\mathbf{Z}}, {\mathbf{Y}}, {\textbf{H}}_1, {\textbf{F}}_1, \bar{\mathbf{Y}}, \bar{\textbf{F}}_1) &= p({\mathbf{Z}}\mid {\mathbf{Y}})p({\mathbf{Y}}\mid {\textbf{H}}_1, \bar{\mathbf{Y}})p(\bar{\mathbf{Y}}) \times \\
&~~~~ p({\textbf{H}}_1 \mid {\textbf{F}}_1) p({\textbf{F}}_1 \mid \bar {\textbf{F}}_1) p(\bar{\textbf{F}}_1).\end{aligned}$$ Variational Bayes is used to make inference with the deep sparse GP. Specifically, similar to Section \[sec:SDSP\], the marginal likelihood is lower-bounded, and the variational distribution is constrained to take the form $$\begin{aligned}
q({\mathbf{Y}}, {\textbf{H}}_1, {\textbf{F}}_1, \bar{\mathbf{Y}}, \bar{\textbf{F}}_1) &= p({\mathbf{Y}}\mid {\textbf{H}}_1, \bar{\mathbf{Y}}) q({\textbf{H}}_1)q(\bar{\mathbf{Y}}) \times \\
& ~~~~p({\textbf{F}}_1 \mid \bar {\textbf{F}}_1)q(\bar{\textbf{F}}_1).\end{aligned}$$ The package `deepGP` implements the approach of @Damianou_2013, that is, it finds closed-form expressions for $q(\bar{\textbf{F}}_1)$ and $q(\bar{\mathbf{Y}})$ using free-form optimisation, and constrains $q({\textbf{H}}_1)$ using a mean-field approach, so that $$q({\textbf{H}}_1) = \prod_{j=1}^N q(h_{1j}) = \prod_{j=1}^N {\mathrm{Gau}}(m_{1j}, \sigma^2_{1j}).$$ The $\{m_{1j}\}$ and $\{\sigma^2_{1j}\}$ are variational parameters that need to be optimised concurrently with the inducing-point locations $\bar{\textbf{S}}_0$ and $\bar{\textbf{S}}_1$, and the model parameters $\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \sigma^2_1, \sigma^2_2, \sigma^2_\epsilon,$ and $\sigma^2_\xi$.
In early attempts to fit the DGPsparse models, we found difficulty optimising the inducing point locations. We hence resorted to fixing these inducing points such that they are equally spaced in the domain on which they lie, much in the same way as our bijective warpings are rescaled in the SDSP (see ). Such a choice rendered the gradient descent optimisation procedure stable and easy to tune. The number of inducing points in each layer can also affect the predictive performance of DGPsparse. In the first case study, we set the number of inducing points in $\bar{\textbf{S}}_0$ and $\bar{\textbf{S}}_1$ to 10 and 3, respectively. In the second case study, the number of inducing points in $\bar{\textbf{S}}_0$ and $\bar{\textbf{S}}_1$ were set to 35 and 25, respectively. These numbers reflect those that gave us the best predictive performance after several attempts. We optimised the other parameters concurrently for 5000 iterations, with adaption following the 500th iteration (adaption was carried out by halving the learning rate associated with a parameter every time an associated gradient step decreased the lower-bound, rather than increased it).
After the variational and model parameters were estimated, we computed the predictions and prediction variances of the true process at a set of $N^*$ prediction locations, ${\textbf{S}}^*_j \equiv (s_j^*: j = 1,\dots,N^*)'$. Let ${\textbf{H}}_1^* \equiv (h^*_{1j}: j = 1,\dots,N^*)'$ denote the jittered warped inputs at the prediction locations, and ${\mathbf{Y}}^* \equiv (Y_j^*: j = 1,\dots,N^*)'$ as the process of interest at these locations. The variational prediction distribution for ${\mathbf{Y}}^*$ is given by
$$\label{eq:predsparseGP}
p({\mathbf{Y}}^* | {\textbf{Z}}) = \int p({\mathbf{Y}}^*| {\textbf{H}}_1, {\textbf{H}}_1^*, {\mathbf{Z}}) p({\textbf{H}}_1^* | {\textbf{H}}_1) q({\textbf{H}}_1) {\textrm{d}}{\textbf{H}}_1^* {\textrm{d}}{\textbf{H}}_1.$$
Note that the first term of the integrand of is Gaussian, and hence the Monte Carlo approximation $$p({\mathbf{Y}}^* | {\textbf{Z}}) \approx \sum_{l=1}^{N_{MC}}p({\mathbf{Y}}^*| {\textbf{H}}_1^{(l)}, {\textbf{H}}_1^{*^{(l)}}, {\mathbf{Z}}), \quad ({\textbf{H}}_1^{(l)}, {\textbf{H}}_1^{*^{(l)}})\sim q({\textbf{H}}_1, {\textbf{H}}_1^*),$$ is a Gaussian mixture. Note that $q({\textbf{H}}_1, {\textbf{H}}_1^*)\equiv p({\textbf{H}}_1^* | {\textbf{H}}_1) q({\textbf{H}}_1)$ is also Gaussian, and hence easy to sample from. In our implementation we obtained the approximate variational predictive distribution through $N_{MC} = 100$ Monte Carlo samples.
GP {#sec:GP}
--
Standard Gaussian process regression was carried out using the `Python` package `GPflow` [@Matthews_2017]. We considered zero-mean Gaussian processes with Mat[é]{}rn covariance functions, with smoothness parameters $\nu = 1/2, 3/2$, and $5/2$. For both case studies best results were obtained with $\nu = 3/2$, and hence only results using models with this smoothness parameter are discussed in Section \[sec:1D\]. In `GPflow`, the length-scale and variance parameters in the Mat[é]{}rn covariance function, as well as the noise variance, are estimated using maximum likelihood, while the prediction and prediction standard errors are obtained using standard Gaussian-process regression equations [e.g., @Rasmussen_2006 Chapter 2] with the estimated parameters plugged in. Maximum likelihood estimation with GPs with only a few data points is known to be quick. For both case studies optimisation required under a second to complete on our setup.
SDSP-MCMC {#sec:SDSP-MCMC}
---------
The SDSP-MCMC model is the same SDSP model used in Section \[sec:1D\], but with inference made using MCMC. As in Section \[sec:DGPfull\], since parameters are difficult to estimate in deep compositional models using MCMC, we fixed the parameters appearing at the top layer and in the observation model to those estimated using variational Bayes. Specifically, the parameters $\sigma^2$, $l$ (appearing in ${\boldsymbol {\tau}}_{n+1}$) and $\sigma^2_{\epsilon}$ were fixed to $0.442, 0.704$ and $0.010132$, respectively, in the first case study, and to $0.525, 0.312,$ and $0.010146$, respectively, in the second case study.
MCMC was used to determine the posterior distributions over the weights ${\textbf{w}}_2$ and ${\textbf{w}}_1$ using `Stan` [@Carpenter_2017]. Ten thousand samples were generated, and the first 1000 were discarded as burn-in, requiring just over an hour of computation time in total. The predictions and prediction standard errors of ${\mathbf{Y}}^*$ were then obtained through sampling by composition.
Minibatch Stochastic Gradient Descent for Large Datasets {#sec:1D-details}
========================================================
Although all inverses and log-determinants in are relatively small in size and easy to compute, the matrix multiplication ${\textbf{A}}_{{\underline{\Lambda}}}'{\textbf{A}}_{{\underline{\Lambda}}}$ may become infeasible when the dataset is huge. In such cases, it might be reasonable to instead consider the log-likelihood without ${\textbf{w}}_{n+1}$ integrated out which, due to conditional independence, reduces to a sum over data points, that is, $$\log p({\mathbf{Z}}\mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon) = \sum_{j=1}^{N} \log p(Z_j \mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon),\label{eq:sumloglik}$$ where $$Z_j \mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon \sim {\mathrm{Gau}}({\textbf{a}}^{(j)'}_{{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}{\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, \sigma^2_\epsilon),$$ and recall that ${\textbf{a}}^{(j)'}_{{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}$ denotes the $j$th row of ${\textbf{A}}_{{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}$. Now, consider the log-likelihood contribution of a single data point $Z$, where $Z$ is selected uniformly at random from ${\mathbf{Z}}$. Then $P(Z = Z_j) = 1/N$ for $j = 1,\dots,N$, and $$\begin{aligned}
E(\log p(Z \mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon)) &= \sum_{j=1}^N\log p(Z_j \mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon) P(Z = Z_j) \\
&= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N\log p(Z_j \mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon) \\
&= \frac{1}{N}\log p({\mathbf{Z}}\mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon),\end{aligned}$$ from . Therefore $N\log p(Z \mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon)$ is an unbiased estimator of $\log p({\mathbf{Z}}\mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon)$, and $N{\boldsymbol\nabla}\log p(Z \mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon)$ is an unbiased estimator of ${\boldsymbol\nabla}\log p({\mathbf{Z}}\mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon)$. Using the unbiased estimate $N{\boldsymbol\nabla}\log p(Z_j \mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon)$ (where $Z_j$ is randomly sampled from ${\mathbf{Z}}$) instead of the true gradient based on ${\mathbf{Z}}$ when doing gradient descent results in a stochastic gradient descent algorithm.
Similar arguments apply for when grouping the individual data points into minibatches so that$$\log p({\mathbf{Z}}\mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon) = \sum_{j=1}^{N_b} \log p({\mathbf{Z}}^m_j \mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon),$$ where $N_b$ is the number of minibatches, ${\mathbf{Z}}^m_j$ is a minibatch of size $m_b \ll N$, and where we have assumed for convenience that $m_b = N / N_b$ is an integer. In this case $${\mathbf{Z}}^m_j \mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon \sim {\mathrm{Gau}}({\textbf{A}}^{(j)}_{{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}{\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, \sigma^2_\epsilon{\textbf{I}}),$$ where ${\textbf{A}}^{(j)}_{{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}$ contains the rows of ${\textbf{A}}_{{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}$ corresponding to the data in ${\mathbf{Z}}^m_j$. An unbiased estimator of $\log p({\mathbf{Z}}\mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon)$ is then given by $N_b\log p({\mathbf{Z}}^{m} \mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1}, {{\underline {\mathbf{\Lambda}}}}, \sigma^2_\epsilon)$ where ${\mathbf{Z}}^m$ is a random sample of size $m_b$ from ${\mathbf{Z}}$.
Minibatches can also be used when modelling the data using an SDSP, except that now ${\textbf{w}}_{n+1}$ and ${\textbf{F}}_{n+1} \equiv {\mathbf{Y}}$ are not integrated out and instead equipped with a variational distribution $q({\textbf{F}}_{n+1},{\textbf{w}}_{n+1}) \equiv p({\textbf{F}}_{n+1} \mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1})q({\textbf{w}}_{n+1})$ where $p({\textbf{F}}_{n+1} \mid {\textbf{w}}_{n+1})$ is degenerate and $q({\textbf{w}}_{n+1}) = {\mathrm{Gau}}({\textbf{m}}_{n+1}, {\textbf{V}}_{n+1}({{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}_{n+1}))$, where ${\textbf{V}}_{n+1}$ is constrained to be diagonal. Omitting details, for this model we have that $$\mathcal{E}_1 \approx \frac{1}{N_{MC}}\sum_{l=1}^{N_{MC}} \log p({\mathbf{Z}}\mid {\textbf{F}}_{n+1}^{(l)}, \sigma^2_\epsilon),$$ where ${\textbf{F}}_{n+1}^{(l)}$ is sampled akin to . As shown earlier in this section, it is easy to see that $N_b \log p({\mathbf{Z}}^m \mid {\textbf{F}}_{n+1}^{(l)}, \sigma^2_\epsilon)$ is an unbiased estimator of $\log p({\mathbf{Z}}\mid {\textbf{F}}_{n+1}^{(l)}, \sigma^2_\epsilon)$ and that hence one can write $$\mathcal{E}_1 \approx \frac{N_b}{N_{MC}}\sum_{l=1}^{N_{MC}} \log p({\mathbf{Z}}^m_j \mid {\textbf{F}}_{n+1}^{(l)}, \sigma^2_\epsilon),$$ which can be subsequently used for minibatch stochastic gradient descent.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present an overview and current status of research on RR Lyrae stars in binary systems. In present days the number of binary candidates has steeply increased and suggested that multiple stellar systems with an RR Lyrae component is much higher than previously thought. We discuss the probability of their detection using various observing methods, compare recent results regarding selection effects, period distribution, proposed orbital parameters and the Blazhko effect.'
author:
- 'Marek Skarka$^{1,2}$, Jiří Liška$^{2}$, Miloslav Zejda$^{2}$ & Zdeněk Mikulášek$^{2}$'
title: Review of candidates of binary systems with an RR Lyrae component
---
Introduction {#Sec:Introduction}
============
It is generally assumed that majority of stars resides binary or even multiple systems. However, the situation is not so simple because the estimates of their incidence differ for different stellar populations and stellar types. For example, @sana2011 give about 40% of O and B type stars, @duquennoy1991 give 60–80% of F and G stars, @lada2006 proposes that 30% of stars of all stellar types are bound in binaries.
Nevertheless, we know that many pulsating stars really orbit around common center of mass with some kind of companion. There are more than 150 cepheids and more than 100 $\delta$Sct type stars known in binaries [@szabados2003; @liakos2012]. The list assembled from available literature is provided by @zhou2014.
What is the situation with RR Lyrae stars? There are only 61 candidates known so far[^1] [@liska2015c this proceedings], and only one system, in which a pulsating component is not a classical RR Lyrae, has been confirmed [@pietrzynski2012]. Considering the fraction of known to all binary RR Lyrae candidates this is less than 0.1%. The reasons for this unpleasant situation emerge mainly from stellar evolution producing difficulties in detection of binarity.
Expected characteristics of binary candidates {#Sec:Characteristics}
=============================================
Binary system with RR Lyrae component should be well detached because otherwise mass transfer causing different evolutionary scenario could take place. Such wide binary with orbital period longer than a few hundreds of days will be hardly detectable because of very low probability of eclipses, low amplitude of radial velocity (hereafter RV) variations vanishing in RV changes caused by pulsations. Difficulties in detection are also caused by the necessity of long-term monitoring which is not always available, or possible to do.
If the initial mass of the companion was higher than of the RR Lyrae component it would evolve much faster and should presently be in a form of degenerated remnant – either white dwarf, neutron star, or a black hole. Such binaries would definitely not be detectable as eclipsing and only spectral lines of RR Lyrae component would be visible (SB1 type). If the companion evolved faster, then the RR Lyrae component could possibly be contaminated with heavier elements originated form the ejected envelope during the last stadia of more massive companion [e.g. @kennedy2014].
Concerning a low-mass companion, it could be in all evolutionary stadia. Radius and luminosity of the companion will influence to what extend it will manifest itself in observational manner:
- [*Main sequence star*]{} – amplitude of eclipses would be negligible, manifestations of the companion almost undetectable in spectra.
- [*Asymptotic- and red-giant branch star*]{} – significant eclipses will take place, colour would be shifted to red, the amplitude of light variations of the binary caused by pulsations would be significantly lower than in separate RR Lyrae, enrichment with heavier elements would be possible with AGB companion.
- [*Horizontal branch star*]{} – significant eclipses will take place, possible colour excess should be detectable, lower amplitude of light changes than in separate RR Lyrae will be observed.
In all these cases the confirmation of binarity via spectroscopy would be difficult because of low amplitudes in RV domain. Long-term tiny changes in RV can only be revealed using accurate template curves which are still missing [see @guggenberger2015 this proceedings]. Without them it is very difficult to find the zero points of systemic velocities from various measurements which are often based on different spectral lines. In the case of unavailable template curve there is also an indirect method through analysis of the scatter of the pulsation-phased RV curves. After removing the orbital motion the scatter should significantly decrease [see fig. 7 in @liska2015a].
Current situation in binary candidates {#Sec:Situation}
======================================
The first candidate for RR Lyrae in binary system was proposed in 1960s. However, the majority of candidates have been revealed only recently [@hajdu2015a; @liska2015b]. The number of discovered candidates can be seen in the left panel of fig. \[Fig:Year-Mag-hist\]. The mean-magnitude distribution of the candidates is bimodal due to selection effect (most of stars are either from the Galactic bulge, or bright stars from the Galactic field, the right panel of fig. \[Fig:Year-Mag-hist\]).
Except for a few candidates for short-period eclipsing binaries, all other stars have periods longer than a year (the left panel of fig. \[Fig:Per-Metal-hist\]). Longer orbital periods mean that also semi-major axes are large, in the order of astronomical units or larger. When orbital periods are plotted against metallicity (the right panel of fig. \[Fig:Per-Metal-hist\]), no apparent dependence is visible except for the splitting which is again an observation bias. About 1/5 of all candidates shows the Blazhko effect. Mass function in systems with models of the orbit ranges from $4\times10^{-6}$ to several tens of solar masses. For detail statistics see @liska2015c [this proceedings].
Due to all discussed problems in sec. \[Sec:Characteristics\] the most efficient method for revealing the candidates is looking for the variations caused by the orbital motion of RR Lyrae translating in cyclic period changes known as the Light-travel time effect (LiTE). Since this method is only indirect and the variations can be misclassified with other effects (secular erratic changes, long-term Blazhko effect etc.) an independent confirmation is needed in such objects.
![Number of discovered candidates during last 50 years (the left panel) and magnitude distribution of known candidates.[]{data-label="Fig:Year-Mag-hist"}](skarka-fig1.eps "fig:"){width="36.00000%"} ![Number of discovered candidates during last 50 years (the left panel) and magnitude distribution of known candidates.[]{data-label="Fig:Year-Mag-hist"}](skarka-fig2.eps "fig:"){width="36.00000%"}
![Orbital period distribution (the left panel) and orbital period against metallicity (the right panel).[]{data-label="Fig:Per-Metal-hist"}](skarka-fig3.eps "fig:"){width="39.00000%"} ![Orbital period distribution (the left panel) and orbital period against metallicity (the right panel).[]{data-label="Fig:Per-Metal-hist"}](skarka-fig4.eps "fig:"){width="36.00000%"}
Interesting cases {#Sec:Cases}
=================
Among the galactic-field candidates, there are several very interesting cases which deserve attention. The first of them is TU UMa with orbital period of 23 years [@liska2015b] which is the shortest one among the long-period fraction of candidates. It is bright and therefore accurate template curve could be easily accessible. Confirmation of binarity should, therefore, be a task for a few next years.
Period variations of two of the candidates indicate possible high mass companion – RZ Cet ($M_{\rm 2,min}=1.15$M$_{\odot}$) and AT Ser ($M_{\rm 2,min}=1.9$M$_{\odot}$), two of the candidates, VX Her and RW Ari, showed suspicious decrease in brightness which might be caused by an unseen body [@fitch1966; @wisniewski1971]. However, these events were unique and has never repeated. Assuming the depth of the decrease and colour measured in VX Her by @fitch1966 the companion would be a horizontal-branch star. When we take the 83-yr orbital period [@liska2015b], the eclipse should last 500d!
BB Vir and RS Boo were supposed to have extraordinary colour [@fitch1966; @bookmeyer1977; @kanyo1986] and possible LiTE was detected by @liska2015b.
Summary and future prospects
============================
We discussed the status of the research in binary candidates with RR Lyrae component, their characteristics and problems with their detection. Parameters of possible component which would have crucial influence on observable characteristics were discussed. We also highlight the most interesting candidates.
Only the future can prove whether the candidates are real binaries. It is proposed to focus on interesting objects with accumulated interesting features, for example eclipses and LiTE, in a systematic and long-term matter to get reliable results being capable to reveal tiny changes.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Financial support of grants MUNI/A/1110/2014 and LH14300 is acknowledged. MS acknowledges the support of the postdoctoral fellowship programme of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences at the Konkoly Observatory as a host institution.
Bookmeyer, B. B., Fitch, W. S., Lee, T. A., Wisniewski, W. Z., & Johnson, H. L. 1977, RMxAA, 2, 235 Duquennoy, A., Mayor, M 1991 A&A, 248, 485 Fitch, W. S., Wisniewski, W. Z., & Johnson, H. L. 1966, Communications of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, 5, 3 Guggenberger, E., Barnes, T. G., Kolenberg, K., 2015, this proceedings Hajdu, G., Catelan, M., Jurcsik, J., et al. 2015a, , 449, L113 Hajdu, G., Catelan, M., Jurcsik, J. et al., 2015b, this proceedings Jurcsik, J., Sódór, A., Hajdu, G. et al., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 2173 Kanyo, S. 1986, Commmunications of the Konkoly Observatory Hungary, 87, 1 Kennedy, C. R., Stancliffe, R. J., Kuehn, C., et al. 2014, , 787, 6 Lada, 2006, ApJ, 640, 63 Liakos, A., Niarchos, P., Soydugan, E., Zasche, P., 2012, MNRAS, 422, 1250 Liska, J., Skarka, M., Mikulasek, Z., Zejda, M., & Chrastina, M. 2015a, arXiv:1502.03331 Liska, J., Skarka, M., Zejda, M., & Mikulasek, Z. 2015b, arXiv:1504.05246 Liška, J., Skarka, M., 2015, this proceedings (poster P-8) Pietrzyński, G., Thompson, I.B., Gieren, W. et al. 2012, Nature, 484, 75 Sana, H., Evans, Ch.J., 2011, IAUs, 272, 474 Szabados, L., 2003, IBVS, 5394, 1 Wiśniewski, W. Z. 1971, AcA, 21, 307 Zhou, A.-Y. 2014, arXiv:1002.2729v5
[^1]: And several tens of candidates in globular clusters [e.g. @jurcsik2012] and in the Galactic Bulge [@hajdu2015b this proceedings].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose a model for the spectral formation of Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) prompt emission, where the phenomenological Band’s function is usually applied to describe the GRB prompt emission. We suggest that the GRB prompt emission is mainly a result [of two upscattering processes. The first process is the Comptonization of relatively cold soft photons of the star off electrons of a hot shell of plasma of temperature $T_e$ of the order of $10^{9}$ K (or $\kte\sim 100$ keV) that moves sub-relativistically with the bulk velocity $V_{\rm b}$ substantially less than the speed of light $c$.]{} In this phase, the Comptonization parameter $Y$ is high and the interaction between a blackbody-like soft seed photon population and hot electrons leads to formation of a saturated Comptonization spectrum modified by the sub-relativistic bulk outflow. [The second process is an upscattering of the previously Comptonized spectrum by the plasma outflow once it becomes relativistic. This process gives rise to the high-energy power-law component above the peak in the $EF(E)-$diagram where $F(E)$]{} is the energy flux. The latter process can be described by a convolution of the Comptonized spectrum with a broken-power-law Green function. [Possible physical scenarios for this second upscattering process]{} are discussed. [In the framework of our model, we give an interpretation of the Amati relation between the intrinsic spectral peak photon energy and radiated energy or luminosity, and we propose a possible explanation of the GRB temporal variability.]{}'
author:
- 'Lev Titarchuk, Ruben Farinelli, Filippo Frontera and Lorenzo Amati,'
title: 'An upscattering spectral formation model for the prompt emission of Gamma-Ray Bursts'
---
Introduction
============
Understanding the physical processes which give rise to the observed spectra of the prompt emission of Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB) is presently one of the most exciting issues studied by both the theoretical and observational community. The Band function [@band93] up to now widely used to describe their prompt emission is a pure phenomenological model. It consists of two low-energy and high-energy powerlaws with photon index $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$, respectively, smoothly joined at some energy $E_{\rm b}$. Among the physical models proposed for a possible origin of the Band function it is worth mentioning the optically-thin synchrotron model [e.g. @tavani96], in which the electron population of the relativistically expanding shell is accelerated by internal shock collisions, eventually producing a supra-thermal powerlaw-like distribution in the tail of the Maxwellian. This mixed electron population interacts with possible turbulent magnetic fields frozen in the plasma emitting synchrotron photons and forming synchrotron spectra [@rm05]. The observed break in the energy distribution is thus naturally explained by the transition from the optically thick to optically thin emission regime. However the current spectral analysis of both time-integrated [e.g., @crider97] and time-resolved [e.g., @crider98; @frontera00; @ghirlanda03] prompt GRB spectra has revealed some problems related to the synchrotron/SSC emission models.
Many theoretical efforts have also been performed in the thermal (photospheric) interpretation [e.g., @thompson94; @mr00; @beloborodov10; @toma11]. From the observational point of view, @rp09 [hereafer RP09], analyzed a sample of GRBs using archival BATSE data and found that the time-resolved spectra can be fit by a high temperature ($10^9$K) blackbody (BB) spectrum plus a powerlaw (PL). Their model, albeit phenomenological, actually strongly points in favor of the presence of a photospheric emission process at the origin of almost 50% of the total emitted energy. In fact, the low-energy threshold of BATSE prevented RP09 to use more detailed thermal models, but the good fits provided by application of the BB+PL model could point in favor of the presence of a photospheric (Compton-saturated) emission plus a second process giving rise to the PL-like hard X-ray emission. As also argued by RP09, one of the advantages in considering thermal processes is to reduce the kinetic-to-radiation conversion efficiency, which is difficult to account by other theoretical models. However recently [@zy11] demonstrate that the observed high efficiency is a drawback of the internal shock model, but is not an issue for the models that invoke dissipation of a Poynting flux.
Another issue related to the GRB origin is the nature of the progenitor. Long GRBs are preferably observed at high redshift, with an average $z> 2$ [@jakobsson06; @fiore07]. They are concentrated in small, irregular galaxies and show strong evidence of association with Type Ic supernovae [@kkp08]. Both theoretical and observational works point in favor of a Wolf-Rayet star with mass higher than $\sim$40 $M_{\odot}$ [@Raskin08] and stripped H-envelope as the most likely progenitor of long GRBs [the collapsar model, @woosley11]. These progenitor masses are expected to leave, in their explosion, a central remnant and it is generally supposed that the GRB engine is powered by gravitational energy release of a torus of matter debris accreting onto a black hole. In some sense, a temporary *microquasar* forms in the star after core-collapse, and consequently torus accretion may power an expanding (relativistic) jet. However, unlike the case of AGN or microquasar jets, the environment surrounding the outflow is not the interstellar medium but the star photosphere which may play a significant role in dragging the jet kinetic energy. The confinement level of the expanding jet depends on the external environment; if the condition $\theta_{\rm J} M_{\rm J} \la 2$ (where $\theta_{\rm J}$ and $M_{\rm J}$ are the jet opening angle and Mach number, respectively) is satisfied, the pressure equilibrium with the surroundings and jet-structure is almost maintained, while in the opposite case strong shocks inside the jet may form and the overpressure allows a free expansion [@gehrels09]. Baryon-loading may also be a key ingredient in the determination of the jet bulk velocity.
In this context, it is worth mentioning the theoretical work by [@lazzati09], which used a numerically relativistic code [@fryxell00] to evaluate the evolution of a jet as it leaves a massive progenitor star after core-collapse and propagates to the photospheric radius, where radiation is eventually released. In their simulations, [@lazzati09] considered a 16 $M_{\odot}$ Wolf-Rayet progenitor star evolved to pre-explosion and a jet with initial opening angle $\theta_0=10^{\circ}$ and Lorentz factor $\gamma_0=5$ at a distance $R=10^9$ cm from the center of the star. Although limited to this particular configuration, the authors showed that the theoretical light curves are in good agreement with the observed ones. In addition, the photospheric temperatures are in the range 100-300 keV, in turn leading to values of the rest-frame peak energy $\Ep$ consistent with observations. However, also progenitors associated with much more massive stars (Population III stars) cannot be excluded, at least for farthest GRBs. Indeed, supernovae associated with these stars with Helium core $M_{\rm c} > 100 M_{\odot}$, have been observed also in the closer Universe [@gy09]. Such progenitors, with initial mass in the range 130-260 $M_{\odot}$, have been shown to explode due to pair-instability (PI) [e.g., @Langer07; @Woosley07; @woosley11] with no compact remnant. Thus GRBs could be the result of helium burning in degenerated conditions, in which the burning occurs in deflagration regime \[see details in [@cct10]\]. Also in this case, [e.g., @imshennik99; @b06] have shown that a shock runs away from the burning (reaction) zone which leads to the development of an outflow (jet-like) structure. In terms of this model, the GRB spectrum would be originated from Compton upscattering of soft photons (probably $\lax1$ keV) in the hot sub-relativistic bulk outflow region. The hydrodynamical simulations of [@cct10] show that the electron temperature of the hot corona region can be as high as $T_{\rm e} \sim 10^9 K$.
The rapid temporal variability on time scale of order $\Delta T \la 1$ s and shorter, observed during the GRB prompt phase, implies that the sources are compact with size $R<c \Delta T\sim 10^{11} $ cm. To avoid the problem of high compactness, that would imply high optical depth for pair production $\tau_{\gamma\gamma}\gg1$, a high Lorentz factor of the relativistic motion of the emitting plasma is the standard scenario [@piran99]. Alternatively, to decrease $\tau_{\gamma\gamma}$, it is needed to consider a much more extended volume over which the photon field is distributed.
In this Paper we offer a model to explain the GRB prompt spectral formation in the context of [a photospheric scenario in which the main process is the Comptonization of the relatively soft photons of the star by a hot subrelativistic outflow within an area close to the photospheric radius (optical depth of 3-5) likely symmetric with respect to the rotational axis of the star.]{}
We start from the theoretical and numerical results of the Comptonization problem reported in @tmk97 [hereafter TMK97] and @f08 [hereafter F08], but for the case of an early subrelativistic bulk outflow phase produced during the supernova explosion. This physical scenario is natural in the case of PI-SNe and it is foreseen in the case of an electromagnetic outflow [@lb03], while in the collapsar model, the jet formed inside the star is assumed to be initially relativistic. Whether this condition can hold, may depend on several parameters, such as the initial jet energy, the chemical composition of the star envelope (in particular the presence or not of a H-envelope), the core angular momentum and the influence of magnetic torques [@gehrels09; @woosley11].
In §\[Upscattering\] we present the radiative transfer mathematical formalism, necessary to investigate both the spectral formation in the subrelativistic phase, and the formation of the high-energy PL component. In §\[Amati\_relation\] we demonstrate that our upscattering model of GRB radiation reproduces the Amati relation between the $EF(E)$ peak energy $E_p$ and the GRB radiated energy $E_{iso}$ or luminosity $L_{grb}$. In §\[temporal\_var\] we put arguments for the observed high and slow temporal variabilities of GRB emission. In §\[discussion\] we estimate the resulting luminosity of GRB, discuss a formation of the high-energy PL component and our scenario in the light of the [*Fermi*]{} results. In §\[conclusions\] we draw our conclusions.
Upscattering of soft photons of the star in the hot plasma (Compton) cloud {#Upscattering}
==========================================================================
Spectral formation in sub-relativistic outflow {#bulk_compton}
----------------------------------------------
The emergent spectrum produced by Comptonization of soft photons off a thermal electron population in the presence of bulk motion has been first formulated by @bp81a [hereafter BP81] and later investigated by several authors [e.g., @cl82; @colpi88]. Depending on the sign of the divergence of the velocity field, the resulting spectrum can be harder ($\nabla \cdot {\bf V} < 0$) or softer ($\nabla \cdot {\bf V} > 0$) with respect to the case of static medium [@st80 hereafter ST80]. Examples of the first case (converging flow) are reported in TMK97 and F08, while the second case (diverging flow) was investigated by @lt99 [@lt07 hereafter LT07].
The basic idea of the photon scattering effect in the case of bulk inflow and outflow is presented in Fig. 1 of LT07: a photon emitted outwards near inner boundary and then scattered at a certain point by an electron moving with velocity ${\bf V}_1$, is received by an electron having velocity ${\bf V}_2$ with frequency $\nu _2 = \nu _1\left[1+\left({\bf V}_1-{\bf V}_2\right) \cdot{\bf n}/c\right]$ where ${\bf n}$ is a unit vector along the path of the photon at the scattering point. In a diverging flow $\left({\bf V}_1-{\bf V}_2\right)\cdot{\bf n}/c <0$ and photons are successively redshifted, until they are scattered to an observer at infinity. On the other hand, in a converging flow $\left({\bf V}_1-{\bf V}_2\right)\cdot{\bf n}/c >0$ and photons are blueshifted. This pure geometrical (Doppler) effect can be analytically described when the electron temperature is very low, as the contribution of the thermal velocity vector ${\bf V_{\rm th}}$ is negligible compared with the dynamical (bulk) velocity vector ${\bf V_{\rm b}}$. If, on the other hand, the plasma temperature is high enough so that ${\bf V_{\rm b}}$ and ${\bf V_{\rm th}}$ become comparable, then the emergent Comptonization spectrum is marginally modified by the presence of the bulk motion. A detailed analytical treatment of photon diffusion (Fokker-Planck approximation) in a converging flow is reported in TMK97 and F08. Below we will start from the same equations treated by these authors, but we will consider the case of a fluid which is subrelativistically expanding (diverging flow), namely we consider a velocity field with $\nabla \cdot {\bf \Vb} > 0$.
Formulation of the bulk motion problem. The main equation and its solution {#sect_bulk_solution}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we provide the mathematical formulation of the problem required to compute the emerging spectrum due to Comptonization of soft photons by electrons in a hot corona bounced to the top of the star and moving outwardly with subrelativistic velocity (see Fig. \[geometry\]). The spectrum can be derived using the Fokker-Planck expansion of the radiative transfer equation in the presence of bulk motion (BP81, see also Eq. 13 in TMK97):
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{fp_equation}
\frac{\partial n}{\partial t}+{\bf \Vb}\cdot {\bf \nabla} n ={\bf \nabla} \cdot \left[\frac{c}{3k}{\bf \nabla} n\right] +
\frac{1}{3}\nu \frac{\partial n}{\partial \nu} {\bf \nabla} \cdot {\bf \Vb} +
\\\nonumber
\frac{1}{\nu^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial \nu} \left[\frac{kh}{\me c} \nu^4\left(
n + \frac{\kte+ \me \Vb^2/3}{h} \frac{\partial n}{\partial \nu}\right)\right]+ j(r,\nu),
\label{main_fp_equation}\end{aligned}$$
where ${\bf \Vb}$ is the bulk velocity field of the outflow, $\kte$ its electron temperature, $k(r)=\Ne (r)\sigma_T$ is the inverse of the scattering mean free path, $n \equiv n(r,\nu)$ is the zero-moment occupation number of the specific intensity and $j(r,\nu)$ is the source term.
Let $N(r)=N_0(r_0/r)^{\mu}$ be the radial number density profile of the bulk outflow, with radial outward velocity given by $$\beta(r)=\beta_{0}\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^{2-\mu},
\label{velocity_prof}$$ which is easily derived from the continuity equation in spherical geometry. Here $\beta_0=V_0/c$ is the dimensionless outflow velocity with respect to speed of light at the bottom of the shell. Thomson optical depth of the flow from some radius $r$ to infinity is given by
$$\tau=\int^\infty_{r} \Ne \sigma_T dr' = \tau_0(r_0/r)^{\mu-1},
\label{tau}$$
where $\tau_0$ is the optical depth at the bottom of the shell. Using the given radial density profile together with definitions (\[velocity\_prof\]) and (\[tau\]), the steady-state Fokker-Plank (diffusion) equation (\[fp\_equation\]) becomes $$\frac{1}{\Theta} L_{\tau}n +\delta\cdot x \frac{\partial n}{\partial x}+ \frac{1}{x^2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[x^4\left(\fb \frac{\partial n}{\partial x} +n\right)\right]=- \frac{j(\tau, x)}{\Theta k},
\label{red_kin_eq}$$ where
$$\delta= \frac{\mu}{3 \Theta(\mu-1)}\frac{\beta_0}{\tau_0}\left(\frac{\tau}{\tau_0}\right)^{(3-2\mu)/(\mu-1)}.
\label{bulk_parameter}$$
In equation (\[red\_kin\_eq\]), $L_{\tau}$ is the space operator [see @tkb03], $x\equiv h\nu/(\me c^2)$ and $\Theta \equiv \kte/(\me c^2)$ are dimensionless photon energy and electron temperature, respectively, while $\fb=1+(\Vb/c)^2/(3\Theta)$.
We note that $\delta$ in equation (\[bulk\_parameter\]) is constant only for $\mu$=3/2, which corresponds to the free-fall velocity profile case (BP81), while for $\mu \neq 3/2$ it is a function of the optical depth $\tau$. For the particular case of constant outflow velocity ($\mu=2$), equation (\[red\_kin\_eq\]) becomes $$%\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{\Theta} \left[\frac{1}{3} \frac{\partial^2 n}{\partial \tau^2}-(\frac{4}{3\tau}-\beta_0)\frac{\partial n}{\partial \tau}\right]
+\frac{2\beta_0}{3\tau}x\frac{\partial n}{\partial x}+
%\\\nonumber
\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left[x^4\left(\fb \frac{\partial n}{\partial x} +n\right)\right]=-\frac{j(\tau, x)}{\Theta k}.
\label{rte_velconst}$$ The dependence of $\delta$ on $\tau$ does not allow to find a solution of the equation (\[rte\_velconst\]) with the method of variable separation (space and energy). However, LT07 demonstrate that for a constant velocity profile, $\delta$ can be replaced by its value at some effective optical depth $\taueff$, which is a fraction of total optical depth $\tau_0$ of the expanding shell. Thus, replacing $\tau$ with $\tau_{eff}$ in equation (\[bulk\_parameter\]) we can now rewrite equation (\[red\_kin\_eq\]) in the form $$({\cal L}_{\tau} + {L}_x) n(x,\tau)=-\frac{\varphi(x)}{x^3}s(\tau),
\label{eigen_problem}$$ where ${L}_x$ and ${\cal L}_{\tau}=\Theta^{-1}L_{\tau}$ are the energy and space differential operators (see these operators in Eq. \[red\_kin\_eq\] for $\delta=const$ and Eq. \[rte\_velconst\] respectively). $\varphi(x)$ is the occupation number of the seed photons, and $s(\tau)$ their spatial distribution in the bounded medium. The solution of equation (\[eigen\_problem\]) can be conveniently expressed as a series $n(x,\tau)=\sum c_k N_k(x) R_k(\tau)$, where $R_k(\tau)$ are the eigenfunctions of the space operator $L_{\tau}$ and $c_k$ are the expansion coefficients over the seed photon spatial distribution $s(\tau)$. We calculate the Comptonization spectrum using only the first term $k$=1 of the series (TMK97), which is obtained solving the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{energy_op_full}
\fb x^2\frac{d^2N(x)}{d^2x}+(x^2+4\fb x+\delta x)\frac{dN(x)}{dx} \\ \nonumber
+(4x-\gamma)N(x)=-\gamma \frac{\varphi(x)}{x^3},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\delta=\frac{2 \beta_0}{3 \taueff \Theta},
\label{delta_def}$$ is given for $\mu=2$, $\tau_{eff}=<\tau>$ (see Eq. \[bulk\_parameter\]) and $\gamma=\lambda_1^2/\Theta$. Here $\lambda_1^2$ is the first eigenvalue of the space operator, $L_\tau$ specifically $$L_\tau R(\tau)+\lambda_1^2 R(\tau)=0.
\label{eigen_value_problem}$$
For the particular case $(\Vb/c)^2\ll 3\Theta$, $\fb\sim1$ and it is possible to express the analytical solution of equation (\[energy\_op\_full\]) in terms of the convolution of the seed photon spectrum $\varphi(x)$ with the Green function (GF) of the energy operator $L_x$ according to
$$F_{\rm tb}(x)=\int^\infty_0 G(x,x_0) \varphi(x_0) dx_0,
\label{convolution}$$
where the GF is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
G(x,x_0)=\frac{C_{\rm N} e^{-x}}{x_0 \Gamma(q)}
\cases{\displaystyle
{\left (\frac{x}{x_0}\right)^{\alpha+3-\delta} {_1F_1}(\alpha, q, x) I(x_0, \alpha,\delta)},
%\cr
%\cr
{\rm for}~x \leq x_0;
\cr
{\displaystyle\left(\frac{x}{x_0}\right)^{-\alpha} { _1F_1}(\alpha, q, x_0) I(x, \alpha,\delta), }
%\cr
%\cr
~~{\rm for}~~x \geq x_0,}
\label{green_func}\end{aligned}$$ where $$I(x, \alpha,\delta)= \int_0^{\infty}e^{-t} (x+t)^{\alpha+3-\delta} t^{\alpha-1}dt,$$ and
$$q= 2\alpha+4-\delta,$$
while ${ _1F_1}(a, b, z)$ is the Kummer confluent hypergeometric function. Note the change of sign of $\delta$ with respect to the same GF reported in F08 because here we are considering a diverging flow. The energy spectral index $\alpha$ of the GF is given by
$$\alpha=-\frac{3-\delta}{2} + \left[\left(\frac{\delta+3}{2}\right)^2+\gamma\right]^{1/2},
\label{alpha_tb}$$
and the normalization $C_{\rm N} =\alpha(\alpha-\delta+3)$ is chosen in order to conserve the total photon number, namely $$\int_0^\infty {G(x,x_0)}\frac{dx}{x} = {{1} \over {x_0}}.
\label{green_norm}$$
It is worth pointing out that $\lambda^2_1 \propto 1/\tau^2_0$, where $\tau_0$ is the total Thomson optical depth of the shell, so that $\gamma \ll 1$ corresponds to $\Theta \tau^2_0 \gg 1$, namely for the case of saturated Comptonization. In the case of a pure thermal motion ($\delta$ = 0) this condition implies $\alpha \sim 0$ (see Eq. \[\[alpha\_tb\]\]), and the emergent spectrum obtained from equation (\[convolution\]) has a Wien-like shape, no matter which is the spectral distribution $\varphi(x)$ of the seed photons. On the other hand, if bulk motion is present, then $\alpha \approx \delta$.
In Figure \[plot\_green\_func\] we present a typical example of the shape of the GF for different values of the bulk parameter $\delta$ defined in equation (\[delta\_def\]), for the case of soft photon monochromatic injection ($x_0 = 0.1$) and $\gamma \ll 1$. While in Figure \[conv\_spectrum\] we show a convolution of the Green function with a BB seed spectrum (see Eq. \[convolution\]). It is evident that the important role is played by bulk Comptonization in diverging flow in determining the slope of the high-energy wing and the position of the high-energy cut-off, both quantities modify the position of the peak in the EF(E) spectrum (see Fig. 1 in F08 for comparison with the case of converging flow).
As already outlined above, these analytical results can be obtained for the case $\fb$=1 (see Eq. \[energy\_op\_full\]). On the other hand, if $\fb > 1$, the equation has to be solved numerically, and we report the details of the numerical solution in Appendix \[sweep\].
High energy power-law component in the GRB prompt emission {#sect_powerlaw}
----------------------------------------------------------
The solution of equation (\[energy\_op\_full\]) clearly shows that above the energy peak $\Ep$ in the EF(E) diagram, the spectrum has an exponential rollover (see Fig. \[conv\_spectrum\]). This spectral feature is characteristic of Comptonization both in a pure thermal or subrelativistic moving cases. For a thermal Comptonization, the cut-off energy $\Ec$ is dictated only by the plasma electron temperature, with $\Ec \gax 2 \kte$, while when bulk motion is present (inflow or outflow), the bulk-parameter $\delta$ also concurs in dictating the $\Ec$-value (see Figs. \[plot\_green\_func\] and \[conv\_spectrum\]). In both cases, the high-energy exponential rollover arises from the presence of the thermal recoil-effect $\propto N(x)$ in the radiative transfer equation modified by the term $\propto \delta$ (see Eq. \[red\_kin\_eq\]).
However, it is a well established observational result that most (albeit not all) of the observed prompt GRB spectra show an extended PL above the peak energy in the $EF(E)-$diagram \[where $F(E)$ is the energy spectrum\], which is phenomenologically described by the second index $\Gamma_2$ of the Band function. This high-energy feature cannot be reproduced by the solution of Equation (\[energy\_op\_full\]), and a second component to describe the broad-band spectrum is required. One possibility is to simply add a PL to the thermal spectral component, as was done, e.g., by RP09, who fitted the BATSE spectra with a BB+PL model. From a physical point of view, this model can imply a different origin for the apparently thermal and non-thermal part of the GRB spectrum. It is also well known that the inclusion of a simple PL in broad-band spectral model can introduce some biases, because this component, intended to be used for describing only part of the spectrum (usually at high energies), actually covers the whole spectral range, producing undesired effects such as overestimation of the flux at low energies (the effect getting stronger for steeper photon index $\Gamma$) [Frontera et al. 2012, in preparation; @Ghirlanda07].
Here, we investigate a different possibility; there is a general theorem that the solution of an equation with linear differential operator and a source term (such as Eq. \[energy\_op\_full\]) is obtained by the convolution of the GF of the given operator with the source function itself, according to Eq. (\[convolution\]). Examples for this convolution, in addition to the results of previous section, are reported for the case of pure thermal Comptonization (ST80), thermal plus bulk Comptonization (TMK97, F08), and Comptonization in strong-magnetic field [@bw07]. The resulting energy spectrum can be written in the general form as $$F(E)=\frac{1}{A+1} [\varphi(E) + A \times \varphi(E_0) \ast G(E,E_0)],
\label{bmc_equation}$$ where the two terms on the right-hand side represent the direct and Comptonized (convolved) part of the seed spectrum, respectively. The weighting factor $A$ is related to the physical and geometrical configuration of the system. The high-energy behavior of the spectrum depends on the kernel $ G(E,E_0)$; for example, if it is a broken PL with no cut-off, then the convolution with $\varphi(E)$ (see Eq. \[convolution\]) produces a PL (BMC model in the XSPEC package).
Thus the observed GRB prompt spectra, phenomenologically described by the Band function, can be obtained by an equation of the form (\[bmc\_equation\]) with $A \gg 1$, the source term $\varphi(E)$ obtained by the solution of equation (\[energy\_op\_full\]) and using a broken-PL GF with no recoil-term. The latter can be conveniently described by the following form: $$G_{bpl}(x,x_0)=\frac{\alpha_{\rm b}(\alpha_{\rm b}
+3)}{x_0 (2\alpha_{\rm b}+3)}
\large
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\left(\frac{x}{x_0 }\right)^{\alpha_{\rm b}+3} & \mbox{ for $x \leq x_0$;}\\
\left(\frac{x}{x_0}\right)^{-\alpha_{\rm b}} & \mbox{for $x \geq x_0$},
\end{array}
\right.
\label{green_func_up}$$ where the subscript $b$ has been used to avoid confusion with the index $\alpha$ of the GF related to the thermal plus bulk energy operator (Eq. \[green\_func\]). Note that this is the GF of the energy operator in equation (\[red\_kin\_eq\]) with $\fb$=1, $\delta$=0 and the recoil term $\propto x^4~N$ in square brackets dropped [@st80], which leads to the equation $$x^2\frac{d^2W}{dx^2}+4x\frac{dW}{dx}- \alpha_{\rm b}(\alpha_{\rm b}+3) W(x)=- \alpha_{\rm b}(\alpha_{\rm b}+3) \varphi(x),
\label{up_scattering}$$ where $\varphi(x)=N(x)$ is obtained by solving equation (\[energy\_op\_full\]). However, the spectrum obtained as a solution of equation (\[energy\_op\_full\]) has no analytical representation, so performing a numerical convolution according to equation (\[convolution\]) where $G_{bpl}(x,x_0)$ is given by equation (\[green\_func\_up\]) and $\varphi(x)$ by $N(x)$ in equation (\[energy\_op\_full\]) can be time-consuming in terms of CPU computation. We thus again numerically solved equation (\[up\_scattering\]) using a finite-difference method. From the mathematical point of view, there is perfect equivalence between the analytical solutions given by the convolution above described and direct numerical solution of the equation. In our model $\alpha_{b}$ is a free parameter, related to the high-energy PL photon index $\Gamma_2$ of the Band function, by $\alpha_{b}=-\Gamma_2 -1$.
To better explain this behavior, in Fig. \[plot\_bmc\] we show two spectra obtained from the model of the package (TMK97), where the source function $\varphi(E)$ is assumed to be a BB occupation number. Note that when $A \gg1$, only the second (convolution) term contributes to the spectral formation, and the low-energy and high-energy parts of the spectrum smoothly join at the peak energy, in a *qualitative* way which is very similar to the Band function.
This is actually the approach we adopted to develop our model: we first solved the Comptonization equation in the presence of subrelativistic bulk motion (see Eq. \[energy\_op\_full\]) and then we convolved it with the broken-PL GF of equation (\[green\_func\_up\]), setting $A \gg 1$ in equation (\[bmc\_equation\]). In Appendix \[xspec\_model\] we describe the numerical methods used to address these issues.
The Amati’s relation and its interpretation {#Amati_relation}
===========================================
In spite of the still open discussion about the impact of possible selection effects on the correlation between the peak energy of $EF(E)$ diagram $E_p$ and the GRB radiated energy or luminosity [Amati relation, AR, @amati02], it is a matter of fact that all GRBs with known redshifts, but one (GRB 980425), follow this relation \[see, e.g., [@amati09] and references therein\]. In addition, it is found that also within single GRBs, this relation holds [Frontera et al. submitted; @Ghirlanda10].
Thus it is crucial to understand the origin of this relation
, namely which is the mechanism (at first glance universal) which gives rise to the relation $\Ep \propto E_{\rm iso}^{1/2}$ where $\Ep$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ are the peak energy of $EF(E)$ diagram and isotropic radiated energy (fluence) of GRB respectively during the prompt phase.
The main issue to be investigated is to check how the parameters of our model concur in determining the energy peak value $\Ep$ in the $EF(E)$ diagram and the total luminosity $L_{\rm grb}$ which integral over prompt emission time is $E_{\rm iso}$.
In Fig. \[eeuf\_grbcomp\_delta0.5\_alpha1.5-30\] we show the resulting spectra obtained by fixing the parameters of the early sub-relativistic phase and changing the spectral index $\alpha_{\rm b}$ of the GF defined by equation (\[green\_func\_up\]), which is responsible for the high-energy PL component. Given that $\Ep$ very slightly depends (within a factor less than two) on different $\alpha_{\rm b}$-values, we fix $\alpha_{\rm b}$ about 1.5. In Fig. \[spec\_parameters\] we show the theoretical EF(E) spectra obtained using our model alternatively changing $\beta_0$, $\kte$, $\delta$ and $\ktbb$, namely the parameters which characterize the subrelativistic phase. In addition we also show an example of the spectrum obtained using the solution of Eqs. (\[energy\_op\_full\]) and (\[up\_scattering\]) compared them with the Band function in Fig. \[efe\_grbcomp\_band\]. [*The result is that the leading quantity in influence of $\Ep$ is the electron temperature $\kte$.*]{} This result is not surprising because it is evident that in any photospheric model with spectral emission dominated by Comptonization, the electron temperature represents a key ingredient, both in a pure thermal and dynamical cases (for $\beta\ll 1$). On the other hand, it is worth pointing out that $\Ep$ is independent of values of the BB-like seed photon temperature $\ktbb$. Thus different values of $\ktbb$ do not change $\Ep$, but they determine the total (resulting) luminosity, as we discuss below.
The question that naturally arises is whether the observed dependence of $\Ep$ on $E_{\rm iso}$ (or on luminosity $L_{\rm grb}$) and its intrinsic dispersion [@amati08] are the result of a multi-parametric combination of the subrelativistic phase plus the effect of the non-thermal process or is the fundamental effect of $\gamma-$ ray emission. [ As an example, in Figure \[grb990705\] we report the results of the fit using our model (see Appendix B) of the time averaged prompt emission spectrum of GRB990705 obtained with [*Beppo*]{}SAX and, for comparison, with the Band function.]{} With our model, the best-fit parameters are $\ktbb= 1.8^{+ 1.3}_{- 1.4}$ keV, $\kte=94^{+ 30}_{- 10}$ keV, $\delta= 0.32^{+ 0.09}_{- 0.03}$, $\alpha_{b}=1.50^{+ 0.40}_{- 0.17}$ and photospheric radius $\rph= 1.5 \times 10^{13}$ cm, with /dof=168/182. We fixed $\gamma=5\times 10^{-3}$ (as a $\gamma$-value strictly equals to zero produces computer underflow) and outflow velocity $\beta_0=0.2$. The Band function on the other hand provides a low energy photon index $\Gamma_1=-0.86^{+ 3.91}_{- 1.24}$ and $E_0 =292^{+18}_{-22}$ keV with /dof=167/182. In this case however the high-energy index is not constrained and we fixed $\Gamma_2=-2.5$ (note that because of sign convention $\alpha_{\rm b}= - \Gamma_2 -1$).
The small values of the best fit parameters of our model $\gamma$ and $\delta$ correspond to the case of the saturated Comptonization for which the resulting index $\alpha\ll1$ (see Eq. \[alpha\_tb\]). [@st80], [@st85] \[and see also [@ct95]\] derive the formula for the Comptonization enhancement factor $\eta_{\rm comp}$ which is a ratio of the resulting luminosity, that is in our case, the GRB luminosity $L_{\rm grb}$ to the injected luminosity of soft photons $L_{\rm soft}$. Namely $$\eta_{\rm comp}=\frac{L_{\rm grb}}{L_{\rm soft}}=q_{x_0}(\alpha)x_0^{\alpha-1},
\label{enhancement_factor}$$ where
$$q_{x_0}(\alpha)=\frac{\alpha(\alpha+3)\Gamma(\alpha+4)\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(1-\alpha)}{\Gamma(2\alpha+4)} (1-x_0^{1-\alpha}),
\label{q_alpha}$$
and $x_0=2.7\ktbb/\kte$. Thus when $\alpha\ll1$ $$\eta_{\rm comp}\propto \kte.
\label{enhancement_factor_m}$$
But the flux of soft photons illuminating the hot spot (Compton cloud) $L_{\rm soft}$ is $$L_{\rm soft}= \pi B_{\rm soft}S_{\rm hs}
\label{L_soft}$$ where $B_{\rm soft}$ is the intensity of the blackbody radiation of the star and $S_{\rm hs}$ is the surface area of Compton hot spot. The thermal wave propagates in the hot spot with plasma velocity $V_p$ whose value can change from one GRB to another.
As a consequence for each GRB $S_{\rm hs}\propto (V_pt)^2$ and then $$S_{\rm cc}\propto V_p^2\propto kT_{\rm p}= \kte.
\label{hot_spot_area}$$
Thus the luminosity of the GRB hot spot $L_{\rm grb}$ should be $$L_{\rm grb}=\eta_{\rm comp}L_{\rm soft} \propto ( \kte)^2.
\label{L_subrel}$$
In order to calculate the GRB fluence $E_{\rm iso, grb}$ one should integrate $L_{\rm grb}$ over the GRB prompt emission time $T_{pr}$, namely $$E_{\rm iso}=\int_0^{T_{pr}} L_{\rm grb}(t)dt.
%=\eta_{\rm comp}L_{\rm soft} \propto ( \kte)^2.
\label{fluencel}$$ If the time-scale of the GRB prompt emission and its shape is more less the same for any burst then $\Ep$ ($\propto \kte$) is $E_{\rm iso}^{1/2}$ which is precisely seen in the Amati relation \[[@amati02] and [@amati06]\]. The observable scattering of points in the Amati relation along correlation $E_p\propto E_{\rm iso}^{1/2}$ can be caused by the spread of the parameter values that characterize the outflow evolution of each GRB like the bulk velocity $V_b$ and the spectral index of the relativistic phase $\alpha_b$ (see Eq. \[green\_func\_up\] and Fig. \[efe\_grbcomp\_band\]). Another reason for the spread in the Amati relation is the different temperature of the seed (soft) photons, which is related to the emission of the star itself.
Temporal variability {#temporal_var}
====================
One of the most established observational results of GRBs since the beginning is the high temporal variability of their light curves [@meegan92], which can extend down to 10$^{-3}$ s. More recently, in addition to the short time variability, also a slow time variability, with time scales from several seconds to $\sim 100$ s has been discovered, with the GRB prompt light curves being the superposition of both components [e.g., @vetere06; @Gao11]. In particular, @vetere06, by performing the systematic analysis of a sample of GRBs detected with the WFCs aboard also showed that the slow component is more pronounced at lower energies (2-10 keV) than at high energies (10-26 keV). Accumulating evidence from the era suggests that at least the slow component of the GRB variability is closely related to the central engine [@liang06], which was confirmed also by other investigations [@Gao11].
Now we demonstrate that, in our scenario, the slow component with temporal variability of order 1-100 seconds is related to the Compton cloud while the fast variability component with scale of $\ll 1$ s is presumably related to the relativistic outflow (jet). In order to estimate the time scale of emergent radiation from the hot Compton cloud one should take a difference of the arrival time from the outskirt $t_{\rm out}$ and center of Compton cloud $t_{\rm c}$ (see Fig. \[geometry\]). Namely $$\Delta t=t_{\rm out} - t_{\rm c},
\label{time_interval}$$ where $t_{\rm out}= \rho_{\rm out}/c$, $t_{\rm c}= d/c$ and $d$, $\rho_{\rm out}$ are the distances from the observer to the center and outskirt of the hot spot respectively (see Fig. \[geometry\]). Thus $$\rho_{\rm out}= \sqrt{R^2\sin^2\varphi +[d+(R-R\cos\varphi)]^2}
\label{outskirt_distance}$$ where $R$ is the radius of the star and $\varphi$ is angle between the vector directed from the center of the star to outskirt point and vector directed towards the observer. Then for $R\ll d$ we find that $$\Delta t=t_{\rm out} - t_{\rm c}\approx R(1-\cos\varphi)/c
\label{time_interval_mod1}$$ and for $\varphi\ll \pi/2$ we obtain $$\Delta t\approx \varphi^2R/2c.
\label{time_interval_mod2}$$
For example if $\varphi<0.1$ (or $\varphi<5^o$ in degrees) then the variability time scale of the emergent radiation observed from the Compton cloud should be $$\Delta t< 15(R/10^{14}{\rm cm})~ {\rm s}.
\label{time_interval_estimate}$$ which is a typical long time scale of the GRB prompt emission (see above).
On the other hand short time scale variability ($t\ll 1$ s) is presumably related to relativistic outflow (see section \[sect\_powerlaw\] and below). Variations of X-ray$-\gamma$ radiation in the outflow in time scale $T$ detected by the Earth observer as $$T_0=T[1-(V_b/c)\cos\theta]
%=T/(2\Gamma^2_L),
\label{time_scales_observer_vs_jet}$$ where $V_b$ is the outflow velocity in the relativistic phase and $\theta$ is angle between the direction of the outflow motion and the direction to the Earth observer \[see [@rl79]\]. If the observer sees the outflow motion at $\theta\ll1$ then the time scale is very short $$T_0=T/(2\Gamma^2_L)
\label{time_scales_observer_vs_jet_m}$$ where $\Gamma_L$ is the Lorentz factor of the outflow(jet). It means that the short variability time scales should be only seen when the jet is directed towards the observer. The short temporal variability seen in GRB of order of $10^{-3}-10^{-1}$ s can be considered a signature of the outflow for which time scales of X-ray$-\gamma$ variations of order of seconds are seen by the Earth observer as $10^{-3}-10^{-1}$-s variations. In other words the long time scales of order 10-100 s (intrinsic variabilities of X-ray radiation in the hot spot region) are related to the Comptonized radiation of the hot spot in the subrelativistic phase while the short time scales of order $10^{-3}-10^{-1}$ s, as seen by the Earth observer, are originated mainly in the relativistic outflow phase [*similar to that in the standard fireball scenario*]{} [e.g. @m06]. [*Using the emergent spectra itself one cannot distinguish the contribution of Compton cloud and the outflow in the spectrum below the peak energy $\Ep$ because the Comptonization spectrum is wider than the upscattering Green function of the outflow*]{}, at least for $\alpha_b\gax 1.5$ (see section \[sect\_powerlaw\]). The short and long time variabilities should be seen in the same energy range at $E\lax \Ep$ but the short one should be mostly observed alone at high energies (above $\Ep$) where the pure extended power-law component is detected.
Discussion
==========
We have developed a Comptonization model aimed to describe the prompt spectral emission of GRBs over a broad energy range. The assumption is the presence of two ingredients: a thermal bath of soft X-ray photons and the existence of a hot plasma outflow which should be formed as a consequence of the explosion of a star. Both ingredients were also assumed by @Lazzati00 for their Compton-drag model to interpret the prompt emission from GRBs associated with supernovae. In our model, the hot plasma outflow has a bulk velocity which is initially subrelativistic ($V_{\rm b}/c \la 0.1-0.2$) and later it becomes relativistic outside the star photospheric radius. Note that a model consisting of an early subrelativistic followed by a relativistic phase has been proposed by [@Lyutikov03] in the context of GRBs originated by electromagnetic outflow.
Our model consists of two parts: the first one describes the spectra up to the peak energy in the EF(E) diagram and is obtained from the solution of the Fokker-Planck expansion of the radiative transfer equation which takes into account multiple scattering of a BB-like seed photon population off a hot and thick electron plasma \[Compton cloud (CC)\]. The relatively soft BB population ($\ktbb \lax$ 1 keV) presumably originates in the relatively cold star photosphere and illuminates CC (see Fig. \[geometry\]). The spectral output of this early phase is characteristic of saturated Comptonization, but the shape slightly deviates from a pure Wien law because of the modification due to outflow motion (see Figs. \[plot\_green\_func\] and \[conv\_spectrum\]). In this case, the peak of the spectrum in the EF(E) diagram falls slightly below $\Ep \sim 4 \kte$, with respect to that for the standard Comptonization where the bulk outflow velocity $V_b=0$.
The second part of our model describes the prompt emission spectra beyond the peak energy $E_p$. This was obtained by an assumption that, beyond the photosphere, the outflow velocity becomes relativistic and provides a further upscattering of the already Comptonized spectrum. We discuss now some relevant points related to our model.
It is important to estimate the thermalization optical depth $\tau_{\rm eff}$, which also appears in the definition of $\delta$ (see Eq. \[delta\_def\]). This quantity indeed is not an explicit parameter of the Comptonization equation (\[energy\_op\_full\]). Using the best-fit values of $\kte$ and $\delta$ for GRB990705 (with $\beta_0\lax0.2$) we find $\tau_{\rm eff} \sim 2$.
From the continuity equation in spherical symmetry we find $$N_{\rm e} \approx 4 \times 10^{14} \frac{(\dot{m}/10^{-5})}{(\xi_{\Omega}/0.5) r_{14}^2 (\beta_0/0.1)} ~~{\rm cm^{-3}},
\label{cont_eq_b}$$ where $\dot{m}\equiv \dot{M}/\dot{M_{\odot}}$ ($\dot{M_{\odot}} \approx 10^{33}$ g s$^{-1}$), $r_{14} \equiv R/(10^{14} \rm{cm}$), $\xi_{\Omega}=2\pi (1-{\rm cos}~\theta$) and $\theta$ is the half opening angle of the subrelativistic outflow.
Then optical depth of corona located on the top of the star is $$\tau_0=N_{\rm e}\sigma_{\rm T}H\sim7~\frac{(\dot m/10^{-5})(H/3\times10^{10} ~\rm{cm})}{(\xi_{\Omega}/0.5) r_{14}^2(\beta_0/0.1)},
\label{tau_corona}$$ where $H$ is the thickness of the hot corona.
The resulting GRB luminosity {#GRB_luminosity}
----------------------------
The total luminosity of the observable GRB emission can be estimated analytically using the same procedure defined in ST80 and CT95. Let us first define the BB luminosity illuminating the hot Compton cloud as $$L_{bb,il}= 5\times10^{46}(\xi_{\Omega}/0.5)(kT_{\rm bb}/0.1~{\rm keV})^4r^2_{14}~{\rm erg}~{\rm s^{-1}}
\label{illum_BB_luminosty}$$ Using the formula for the enhancement factor $\eta_{\rm comp}$ (see equation \[enhancement\_factor\]) for the case of saturated Comptonization ($\alpha\ll 1$) we obtain
$$L^{\rm comp}_{\rm grb}=\eta_{\rm comp}L_{bb,il}\sim 5\times10^{49}(T^{\rm (e)}_{100}/T^{\rm (bb)}_{0.1})(\xi_{\Omega}/0.5)(T^{\rm (bb)}_{0.1})^4r^2_{14}~{\rm erg}~{\rm s^{-1}},
\label{L_grb}$$
where $T^{\rm (e)}_{100} \equiv \kte/(100~{\rm keV})$ and $T^{\rm (bb)}_{0.1} \equiv \ktbb/(0.1~{\rm keV})$, respectively.
If the high-energy power law index of the hard component, which is presumably formed due to the inverse Compton effect, is $\alpha_{\rm b}\gax 2$ then the related enhancement factor $\eta_{\rm rel}$ $$\eta_{\rm rel}=\frac{\alpha_{\rm b}(\alpha_{\rm b}+3)}{(\alpha_{\rm b}-1)(\alpha_{\rm b}+4)}
\label{alpha_b}$$ is order of 1. Thus the resulting enhancement factor $ \eta_{res}\sim \eta_{\rm comp}$ and the GRB resulting luminosity $L_{\rm grb}=\eta_{\rm rel}L^{\rm comp}_{\rm grb}\sim L^{\rm comp}_{\rm grb}$.
On the origin of the high-energy power-law component
----------------------------------------------------
As we already outlined in Section \[sect\_powerlaw\], subrelativistic bulk motion Comptonization is characterized by a rollover feature around an energy which is of the order of the electron temperature, slightly modified by the presence of matter velocity field. In any case, this process cannot give rise to any PL component extending up to GeV as observed in GRBs [e.g., @abdo09]. Actually a second component must be included in the X/$\gamma$-ray spectral model. If the subrelativistic phase Comptonization spectrum and the high-energy PL have different origin, then in terms of spectral modeling the latter could be described by simply adding a PL spectral feature. However, a physically unconnected origin of the two components seems unlikely, given that all the GRB spectra show a smooth joining of the low-energy and high-energy features around the peak energy, and the GeV emission for most [*Fermi*]{} GRBs is consistent with the extrapolation of the MeV component [@zhang11 hereafter Z11].
Here, we suggest this physical link in terms of the solution of Equation (\[up\_scattering\]) where the bulk Comptonization spectrum of the subrelativistic phase (Eq. \[energy\_op\_full\]) is convolved with a broken-PL GF (Eq. \[green\_func\_up\]) leading to the emergent broad-band spectrum (see Figs. \[spec\_parameters\]-\[efe\_grbcomp\_band\]).
The critical point to be addressed is of course the nature of the upscattering process that gives rise to the suggested GF (Eq. \[green\_func\_up\]). The apparently non-thermal origin of the high-energy GRB component leads to include mechanisms of particle non-thermal acceleration in shock regions. The standard fireball model actually allows the possibility to consider shocks as possible sites for particle acceleration, which eventually lead to non-thermal distributions $N_{\rm e}(E) \propto E^{\rm -p}$. In this context, the high-energy PL would be produced through synchrotron and/or inverse processes by this non-thermal particle bath. An intermediate case where the electron population has a Maxwellian distribution plus a supra-thermal tail was also considered by [@tavani96].
One of the key assumptions of the fireball scenario is that the GRB outflow is highly relativistic since the beginning of the event, with $\Gamma \ga 100$. In our model, however, the first phase of the GRB phenomenon is subrelativistic. How to conciliate this significant difference? Is really an unavoidable requirement that the photosphere is ultra-relativistic? Let us consider this possible scenario: when the top bounce of the hot shell emerges from the star photosphere with bulk velocity $V_{\rm b}/c \la 0.1$, the underlying star photospheric luminosity is huge ($L_{*} \ga 10^{10} L_{\rm Edd}$), and it illuminates the shell itself, which subtends a solid angle $\Omega/4\pi <1$. This particular configuration (hot plasma, anisotropic high radiation pressure) could be suitable to give rise to an efficient plasma acceleration through the so-called “Compton-rocket effect” [@cod81]. For instance, in the case of an illuminating point source, the ratio of the radiative forces acting on a hot and cold plasma, respectively, is $f_{\rm hot}/f_{\rm cold}$ = 2/3 $<(\gamma\beta)^2>$ [@odell81], where $<(\gamma\beta)^2>$ is the quadratic average momentum of a Maxwellian electron distribution. Numerical simulations by [@rh00] show that electron-positron jet populations with non-thermal distribution illuminated by an underlying accretion disk can be accelerated up to Lorentz factors of several tens.
It is beyond the scope of our paper to investigate quantitatively the hydrodynamical configuration leading to plasma acceleration under the underlying star radiation field. Here we just claim a qualitative scenario where the accelerated plasma may interact with the interstellar medium and/or star wind producing shocks with associated particle non-thermal populations. The high-energy photons of the subrelativistic phase then interact with these electrons via inverse Compton effect (Fig. \[geometry\]) and the GF of such a process in given by equation (\[green\_func\_up\]). Note that in this case, the radiative production mechanism is not qualitatively different from the standard fireball model. No matter whether synchrotron or inverse Compton dominate the spectral formation, what is important is the *total* electron Lorentz factor, $\Gamma_{\rm tot} \sim \Gamma_{\rm sh} \gamma_{e}$, where $\Gamma_{\rm sh}$ and $\gamma_{e}$ are the Lorentz factors of the expanding shell and of the electron in the shell frame, respectively. A quantitative treatment of the radiation transfer problem is needed in this case. Other models have been proposed to explain the GRB prompt emission in the framework of inverse Compton processes [see reviews by @m06; @gehrels09]. The key difference between our model and the other photospheric or synchrotron scenarios is that in our model case *the energy peak of the EF(E) diagram is independent of any Lorentz $\Gamma_L-$factor associated to relativistic expansion.* The main parameter driving the peak position (the electron temperature $\kte$) is essentially the same in the fluid and observer frame (apart from cosmological redshift effects), [unlike that suggested by @ghirl12 who claim that the extension of $E_p$ energy of the $EF(E)-$diagram to a few MeV is mostly due to distribution of Lorentz factors in the relativistic shell (or jet).]{}
The scenario in the light of the results
-----------------------------------------
The thermal nature of GRB spectra is still subject to debate. Blackbody components are predicted in various models [@mr00; @Peer06; @Thompson07; @toma11] and actually they have been found in time resolved GRB spectra using the [*Beppo*]{}SAX Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor and Wide Field Camera 2 [@frontera01] and BATSE instruments [@ghirlanda03; @ryde04; @ryde05 RP09]. However, from the recent broad band observations with the GRBM plus LAT instruments it is not so clear whether the existence of a thermal component is a general property of GRBs. Indeed, on the basis of the systematic and detailed time-integrated and time-resolved analysis of a sample of 17 GRB data observed with GBM and LAT, Z11 found that most of the GRBs in this sample could be fitted with a Band function over the whole energy range. Only in two cases (GRB 090902B and possibly GRB 090510) the spectrum was peculiar, in that it could be described by a BB+PL model, similarly to what reported in RP09. The paradigm of Z11 is that the Band-only spectra are better consistent with a Poynting-dominated rather than baryon-dominated flow, thus discarding in most (albeit not all) cases a photospheric scenario. Against a pure photospheric emission the authors argue that the extension is up to GeV energies. The preponderance of the non-detection of high temperature BB-like features in the GRB spectra as reported in Z11 is not, in our opinion, necessarily in contrast with our photospheric scenario. Indeed, in our proposed model the seed thermal photons and the electrons are decoupled and the low-energy slope of the emerging spectrum (up to the peak energy $\Ep$) is mostly dictated by the optical depth and plasma temperature of the hot corona and slightly modified by subrelativistic outflow velocity $V_{\rm b}\ll c$ (see Figs. \[conv\_spectrum\] and \[spec\_parameters\]). The Band function itself can thus be yet the result of photospheric Comptonization process, but with a different configuration of the radiation field and electron plasma (decoupled) with respect to the standard scenario (where both are coupled). It is also worth noting that the above-mentioned BB features detected in BASTE and spectra have characteristic observer-frame temperatures of orders of hundreds keV, and thus must not be confused with the cool BB seed photons ($\lax 1$ keV) of our model. More specifically, we identify these hot BB component with the optically thick subrelativistically expanding plasma of the earlier phase in our scenario.
Actually, an important theoretical prediction of our model, to be tested with observations, is the spectral steepening at low-energies in comparison with the Band function (see Fig. \[efe\_grbcomp\_band\]). The change of slope is predicted to occur below $\sim 4 \ktbb$ keV in the EF(E) diagram, where $\ktbb$ is the seed photon BB temperature, and it does represent the low-energy tail (Rayleigh-Jeans law) of the input BB. Thus a spectral slope $F(E) \propto E^2$ should be a universal GRB observational feature at soft X–ray energies (see also Fig. \[spec\_parameters\]). Unfortunately, this issue cannot be solved by or as their energy thresholds are about 15 keV or 8 keV, respectively. The GRBs observed with both GRBM and WFCs are more suitable to be used to test our model, even if the lower threshold of the passband (2 keV) is nearby the limit of the energy range foreseen for the seed photons. A test of our model has been performed using the [*BeppoSAX*]{} data(Frontera et al. 2012, in preparation).
Conclusions
===========
We have developed a spectral model aimed to describe the broadband prompt emission of GRBs. We propose that the spectral emission during the prompt phase, phenomenologically modeled by the Band function, is the result of an earlier phase where soft BB-like photons are Comptonized by an optically thick and hot electron shell ($T_{\rm e} \sim 10^9$ K), something like a Compton cloud sub-relativistically moving outwards the star surface. On the other hand in the relativistic phase, these Comptonized photons are subjected to a second upscattering process which can be mathematically described by a broken power-law Green function whose spectral index models the high-energy slope of the Band function. An important prediction of our proposed model is that the peak energy in the EF(E) diagram originated in the early subrelativistic phase (see Fig. \[geometry\]) is directly related to the plasma temperature of the hot plasma $T_e$. We demonstrate that [*the resulting luminosity of $X/\gamma$-rays luminosity of GRB $L_{\rm grb}$ is proportional to $(\kte)^2$*]{} (see Eq. \[L\_subrel\]).
In fact , $L_{\rm grb}$ is a product of the Comptonization enhancement factor $\eta_{\rm comp}$ and luminosity of the soft blackbody photons $L_{bb,il}$ but in the case of the saturated Comptonization, when $\alpha\ll1$, $\eta_{\rm comp}\propto \kte$ (see Eq. \[enhancement\_factor\]) but $L_{\rm bb,il}$ (or $L_{\rm soft}$) is also proportional to $\kte$ because the surface area of Compton cloud illuminated by the soft photons is proportional to $\kte$ (see Eq. \[hot\_spot\_area\]). Thus we claim that [ *the model dependence of $L_{\rm grb}\propto (\kte)^2$ on the hot plasma temperature $T_{\rm e}$ explains the observed Amati relation in which $E_{iso}=\int L_{\rm grb}(t)dt \propto E_{\rm p}^2$*]{}. It is worth noting that the peak energy $\Ep$ of the emergent Wien spectrum should be equal to $3\kte$. Our model also explains both the observed long and short temporal variability during GRB prompt emission phase. The former one is related to time scale of the radiation formed in the sub-relativistically moving Compton cloud while the short time scale is related to time scale of radiation formed in the sub-relativistically moving Compton hot spot while the short time scale is related to the time scale of radiation coming to the Earth observer from the relativistically driven outflow. We do not quantitatively investigate the physical conditions underlying the origin of the high-energy component. Different scenarios, not necessarily excluding each other, can be operating such as a second inverse Compton process off non-thermal electrons accelerated by super Eddington radiation pressure (for which $L \gg L_{Edd}$) as the hot shell moves out of the star. Self-synchrotron Compton or direct synchrotron effects can not be excluded. An important prediction of our model is that the peak energy in the EF(E) diagram originates in the early sub-relativistic phase and is proportional to plasma temperature $\kte$ and the resulting luminosity $L_{\rm grb}$ is proportional to $(\kte)^2$. This dependence is the same, after cosmological corrections, in the source and observer frame. In fact, no fine tuning related to some Lorentz $\Gamma$-factor of relativistic expansion is required. We claim that this result of our model [*naturally*]{} explains the physical origin of the Amati relation.
A systematic application of our model to a sample of time-resolved GRB prompt spectra of the [*Beppo*]{}SAX archive by Frontera et al. (2012, to be submitted) proves that in *all the cases* the -values are equal or better than those derived with the Band function. To our knowledge, this is the first time that a model for the GRB prompt emission other than the Band function has been developed under the X-ray spectral fitting package XSPEC.
[*Acknowledgements*]{} The authors acknowledge very productive discussions with Davide Lazzati, Pawan Kumar and Alexandre Chekhtman which strongly improved the quality of our paper. Important suggestions have been given by the anonymous referee, which have allowed us to better clarify the main topics of our model.
Numerical solution of Fokker-Planck radiative transfer equation using finite differences {#sweep}
========================================================================================
We consider the Fokker-Planck expansion of the radiative transfer equation for the zero-moment occupation number N(x), in the presence of subrelativistic bulk motion (see Eq. \[energy\_op\_full\]): $$f_{\rm b}x^2\frac{d^2N(x)}{d^2x}+(x^2+4f_{\rm b} x+\delta x)\frac{dN(x)}{dx}+(4x-\gamma)N(x)=- \frac{\varphi(x)}{x^3},
\label{sweep_total}$$ where $x \equiv E/\kte$, $\Theta \equiv \kte/\me c^2$, $f_{\rm b}=1+3\beta_0^2/\Theta$, while $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are defined in Sect. \[sect\_bulk\_solution\]. For $\varphi(x)$ we assume a BB spectrum (see Eq. \[bb\_seed\]).
In terms of the zero-moment intensity $J(x)=N(x)x^3$ the equation becomes $$fx^2\frac{d^2J(x)}{d^2x}+(x^2-2fx+\delta x)\frac{dJ(x)}{dx}+(x-\gamma-3\delta)J(x)=- \varphi(x).$$ In order to provide logarithmic binning of the a dimensional energy $x$, we introduce the new variable $y$ such that $x=e^y$, thus obtaining the new equation in terms of this variable $$f\frac{d^2J(y)}{d^2y}+(e^y-3f+\delta)\frac{dJ(y)}{dy}+(e^y-\gamma-3\delta)J(y)=- \varphi(y).$$
For numerical integration, we divide the domain of $y$ from $y_{\rm min}$ to $y_{\rm max}$ into N equally-stepped sizes $h=(y_{\rm max} - y_{\rm min})/N$, so that equation can be presented, using finite differences, as
$$p_{\rm n} \frac{J_{\rm n+1} -2 J_{\rm n} + J_{\rm n-1}}{h^2}+g_{\rm n} ~\frac{J_{\rm n+1} - J_{\rm n}}{h}+r_{\rm n} J_n=- \varphi_{\rm n},
\label{finite_diff}$$
where $$p_{\rm n}=f, ~~~~~~~ g_{\rm n}=(e^{y_{\rm n}} -3f-\delta)~~~~~~{\rm and} ~~~~~~~~r_{\rm n}=(e^{y_{\rm n}}+3\delta - \gamma).$$
The two boundary conditions for the intensity J(x) are $$J[0]=0, ~~~~J[N]=0,
\label{bc_intensity}$$ resembling the physical conditions $J(x)=0$ for $x \rightarrow 0$ and $x \rightarrow \infty$.
Collecting the terms with the same index in equation (\[finite\_diff\]) and using the boundary conditions (\[bc\_intensity\]), we may rewrite the equation as
$$a_{\rm n}J_{\rm n-1}+b_{\rm n}J_n+c_{\rm n}J_{\rm n+1}=g_{\rm n},
\label{num_eq}$$
with coefficients $a_{\rm n}$, $b_{\rm n}$, $c_{\rm n}$ defined as
$$\begin{aligned}
\cases{{\displaystyle a_0=0,~~~~b_0=-1,~~~~~~~c_0=0,~~~~~\varphi_0=0, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n=0}
\cr
{\displaystyle a_{\rm n}=\frac{p_{\rm n}}{h^2},~~b_{\rm n}=-\left(\frac{2p_{\rm n}}{h^2}+\frac{g_{\rm n}}{h}-r_{\rm n}\right), ~~~~c_{\rm n}=\frac{p_{\rm n}}{h^2}+\frac{g_{\rm n}}{h}, ~~\varphi_n=\varphi(t_n),~~~{\rm for}~~n=1,...N-1,}
\cr
{\displaystyle a_{\rm N}=0,~b_{\rm N}=1,~~c_{\rm N}=0, ~~~\varphi_{\rm N}=0, ~~~~~~~~~~n=N.}
}\end{aligned}$$
For $n=0$ Equation (\[num\_eq\]) can be presented as
$$\begin{aligned}
J_0=L_{0}J_1+K_{0},~~~{\rm where}~L_{0}=-c_0/b_0, ~~{\rm and} ~~K_{0}=0.
\label{n_0_L_K}\end{aligned}$$
Excluding $J_0$ from equation (\[num\_eq\]) for $n=1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(a_1L_{0}+b_1)J_1+c_1J_2=g_1-a_1K_{0}.
\label{eps_1_eps_2}\end{aligned}$$
Because $a_1L_{0}+b_1\neq0$ we also obtain that
$$\begin{aligned}
J_1=L_{1}J_2+K_{1},
\label{eps_1_eps_2_mm}\end{aligned}$$
where we have introduced new coefficients
$$\begin{aligned}
L_{1}=-\frac{c_1}{a_1L_{0}+b_1}, ~~ {\rm and}~~K_{1}=\frac{g_1-a_1K_{0}}{a_1L_{0}+b_1}.
\label{L2_K2}\end{aligned}$$
Continuing the process of exclusion of $J_n$ we obtain in general
$$\begin{aligned}
J_{\rm n}=L_{\rm n}J_{\rm n+1}+K_{\rm n},
\label{epsn_epsn+1}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
{\rm where}~~L_{\rm n}=-\frac{c_{\rm n}}{a_{\rm n}L_{\rm n-1}+b_{\rm n}},~~ {\rm and}~~K_{\rm n}=\frac{g_{\rm n}-a_{\rm n}K_{\rm n-1}}{a_{\rm n}L_{\rm n-1}+b_{\rm n}}.
\label{Ln_Kn}\end{aligned}$$
Now, using the right boundary condition J\[N\]=0 and relation (\[epsn\_epsn+1\]) it is possible to find $$J_{\rm N-1}=L_{\rm N-1}J_{\rm N}+K_{\rm N-1},$$ and so on until all $J_{\rm N-2},~J_{\rm N-3},...J_{3},~J_{2}, ~J_{1}, ~J_{0}$ are calculated. This algorithm was first introduced by Israel Gelfand is called by the sweep (progonka) method.
In order to reproduce the unbroken PL Component of the high-energy spectrum, we solved Equation (\[up\_scattering\]) for the zero moment intensity, replacing $\varphi(x)$ with $F_{\rm tb}(x)$ which gives
$$x^2\frac{d^2J(x)}{d^2x}-2x\frac{dJ(x)}{dx}- \alpha_{\rm b} (\alpha_{\rm b}+3) J(x)=-F_{\rm tb}(x).
\label{sweep_up}$$
As we have already shown in Sect. \[sect\_powerlaw\], this is equivalent to calculation of the convolution integral in Equation (\[convolution\]) with the GF given by formula (\[green\_func\_up\]) and $\varphi(x)=F_{\rm tb}(x)$. The procedure for the numerical solution of equation (\[sweep\_up\]) is identical to that used for solving Equation (\[sweep\_total\]) but just changing the expression for the cofficients $a_{\rm n}, ~b_{\rm n}$ and $c_{\rm n}$.
Development of a spectral model for XSPEC {#xspec_model}
=========================================
We develop a numerical model for the X-ray spectral fitting package XSPEC. The model can be actually divided into two parts, one strictly physical, in terms of the parameter setting, and the second one which is more phenomenological.
0.25cm *Step 1: Comptonization in subrelativistic outflow* 0.25cm
The first part of the model computes the spectrum obtained as a result of Comptonization of a BB-like seed photon population off a hot electron corona which is subrelativistically expanding, according to equation (\[fp\_equation\]). For practical purposes, actually we solved equation (\[energy\_op\_full\]), which is obtained from the variable separation method, with the bulk parameter $\delta$ defined in Eq. (\[delta\_def\]).
The input seed spectrum is given by the Planck’s law $$\varphi(x)= N_{\rm bb}( \kte)^3 \frac{x^3}{e^{(\kte/\ktbb)x}-1},
\label{bb_seed}$$ where $x \equiv E/\kte$, while $\ktbb$ and $\kte$ are the BB and electron temperatures, respectively.
The normalization constant $N_{\rm bb} \equiv R^2_{9}/D^2_{\rm Mpc}$, where $R_{9}$ is the BB apparent photospheric radius in units of $10^{9}$ cm and $D_{\rm Mpc}$ is the source distance in Mpc, respectively. Note that this is the source term appearing in the right-hand side of equation (\[energy\_op\_full\]). We numerically solved the latter equation using a fast finite-difference method (see Appendix \[sweep\]) rather then performing a convolution with GF defined in Eq. (\[convolution\]). The free-parameters of the model at this step are the BB temperature and normalization ($\ktbb$ and $N_{\rm bb}$, respectively), the electron plasma temperature $\kte$, the bulk parameter $\delta$, the $\gamma$-parameter (which, in fact, is the inverse of the Comptonization parameter $Y$) and the second power of the (constant) outflow velocity $\beta_0^2$.
We note that the outflow velocity $\beta_0$ appears in Equation (\[energy\_op\_full\]) both explicitly in the term $\fb=1+\beta_0^2/(3\Theta)$ and implicitly in the definition of the $\delta$-parameter (see Eq. \[delta\_def\]). The linear dependence on $\beta_0$ via the bulk parameter $\delta$ is related to the effect of Fermi first-order photon down (up)-scattering and the net result is photon red-shift or blue-shift, depending on the sign of ${\bf \nabla} \cdot {\bf \Vb}$, while the quadratic dependence of $\beta_0$ in $\fb$ provides the second-order Fermi process and represents an up-scattering contribution (when averaged over angles) term in addition to that coming from the electron thermal velocity component. By setting $\beta_0^2\ll 3\Theta$, it is possible to find the analytical solution for the emerging spectrum $F_{\rm tb}(x)$ using convolution (\[convolution\]) and the analytical presentation of the GF (see Eq. \[green\_func\]). A comparison between the numerical and analytical solution in this limit has shown an excellent agreement between the two cases.
0.25cm *Step 2: high-energy powerlaw component* 0.25cm
We should point out that in principle a *general* broken-PL GF is described by two indexes for $E < E_0$ and $E > E_0$, while in the GF of equation (\[green\_func\_up\]) they both depend on $\alpha_{\rm b}$. However, for our purposes, it is important that the red wing of the GF, $\propto E^{\alpha_{\rm b}+3}$, is significantly steeper than the blue wing $\propto E^{-\alpha_{\rm b}}$. Actually, it is this up-scattering term of the GF which dominates the convolution process. We show an example of spectrum obtained from the solution of Eqs. (\[energy\_op\_full\]) and (\[up\_scattering\]) compared with the Band function in Figure \[efe\_grbcomp\_band\]. It is evident their similarity, but we also draw the attention of the reader to the change in the slope at low energy of our model with respect to the Band function. The low-energy steepening occurs at $E \la 4~\ktbb$ in a EF(E) diagram, where $\ktbb$ is the temperature of the seed BB photons, and it is related to the Rayleigh-Jeans part of the Planckian distribution, where $F(E) \propto E^2$. For the case reported in Fig. \[efe\_grbcomp\_band\] we assumed $\ktbb=1$ keV, so that the steepening occurs below 4 keV. We subsequently implemented our model in the package and tested it on GRB990705 (z=0.842; Amati 2006), observed by the BeppoSAX/WFC+GRBM instruments.
Abdo, A. A. et al. 2009, Science, 323, 1688 Amati, L. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 233 Amati L., Frontera, F. & Guidorzi, C. 2009, , 508, 173 Amati, L. et al. 2002, , 390, 81 Amati L. et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 577 Band D. et al. 1993, , 413, 281 Becker, P.A. & Wolff, M.T. 2007, , 654, 435 Beloborodov, A.M. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1033 Blandford R.D. & Payne, D.G. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 1041 (BP81) Bychkov, V., Popov, M.V., Oparin, A.M., Stenflo, L. & Chechetkin, V.M. 2006, Astronomy Reports, 50, 298 Chakrabarti, S. K. & Titarchuk, L. G. 1995, , 455, 623 Chardonnet, P., Chechetkin, V. & Titarchuk, L. 2010, , 325, 153 Cheng, A.Y.S. & Odell, S.L. 1981, , 251, L49 Colpi, M. 1988, , 326, 223 Cowsik, R. & Lee, M.A. 1982, Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A, 383, 409 Crider, A., Liang, E.P. & Preece, R.D.1998, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Gamma-Ray Bursts, Vol. 428, 4th Hunstville Symposium, Eds. C.A.Meegan, R.D. Preece, & T.M. Koshut, 428, 359-363 Crider, A. et al. 1997, , 479, L39 Farinelli, R., Titarchuk, L. Paizis, A. & Frontera, F. 2008, , 680, 602, (F08) Fiore, F., Guetta, D., Piranomonte, S., D’Elia, V., Antonelli, L.A. 2007, , 470, 515 Frontera, F. et al. 2000, , 127, 59 Frontera, F. et al. 2001, , 550, L47 Fryxell, B. et al. 2000, , 131, 273 Gal-Yam, A. et al. 2009, , 462, 624 Gao, H. Zhang, B.B. & Zhang, B. 2012, , 748, 134 Gehrels, N., Ramirez-Ruiz, E. & Fox, D.B. 2009, , 47, 567 Ghirlanda, G., Bosnjak, Z., Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F. & Firmani, C. 2007, , 379, 73 Ghirlanda, G., Celotti, A. & Ghisellini, G. 2003, , 406, 879 Ghirlanda, G. et al. 2012, , online Early, arXiv:1203.0003 Ghirlanda, G., Nava, L. & Ghisellini, G. 2010, , 511, A43 Imshennik, V.S., Kal’Yanova, N.L., Koldoba, A.V. & Chechetkin, V.M. 1999, Astronomy Letters, 25, 206 Jakobsson, P. et al. 2006, , 447, 897 Kelly, P.L., Kirshner, R.P. & Pahre, M. 2008, , 687, 1201 Langer, N., Norman, C.A., de Koter, A., Vink, J.S., Cantiello, M. & Yoon, S.-C. 2007, , 475, L19 Laurent, P. & Titarchuk, L. 2007, , 656, 1056 (LT07) Laurent, P. & Titarchuk, L. 1999, , 511, 289 Lazzati, D., Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A. & Rees, M.J. 2000, , 529, L17 Lazzati, D., Morsony, B.J. & Begelman, M.C. 2009, , 700, L47 Liang, E. et al. 2006, , 646, 351 Lyutikov, M. & Blandford, R. 2003, arXiv:astro-ph/03035410 Lyutikov, M., Pariev, V.I. & Blandford, R. 2003, , 597, 998 Meegan, C.A. et al. 1992, , 355, 143 M[é]{}sz[á]{}ros, P. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259 M[é]{}sz[á]{}ros, P. & 2000, , 530, 292 Odell, S.L. 1981, , 243, L147 Thompson07 Pe’er, A., M[é]{}sz[á]{}ros, P. & Rees, M.J. 2006, , 642, 995 Piran, T. 1999, , 314, 575 Raskin, C., Scannapieco, E., Rhoads, J. & Della Valle, M. 2008, , 689, 358 Rees, M. & M[é]{}sz[á]{}ros, P. 2005, , 628, 847 Renaud, N. & Henri, G. 2000, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements, 80, C125 Rybicki, G.B. & Lightman, A.P. 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics, New York, Wiley-Interscience, 393 p. Ryde, F. 2005, , 625, L95 Ryde, F. 2004, , 614, 827 Ryde, F. & Pe’er, A. 2009, , 702, 1211 Sunyaev, R.A. & Titarchuk, L.G. 1985, , 143, 374 Sunyaev, R.A. & Titarchuk, L.G. 1985, , 86, 121 (ST80) Tavani, M. 1996, , 466, 768 Thompson, C. 1994, , 270, 480 Thompson, C., M[é]{}sz[á]{}ros, P. & Rees, M.J. 2007, , 666, 1012 Titarchuk, L. Kazanas, D. & Becker, P.A. 2003, , 598, 411 Titarchuk, L., Mastichiadis, A. & Kylafis, N.D. 1997, , 487, 834 (TMK97) Toma, K., Wu, X.-F. & M[é]{}sz[á]{}ros, P. 2011, , 415, 1663 Vetere, L., Massaro, E., Costa, E., Soffitta, P. & Ventura, G. 2007, , 447, 499 Woosley, S.E. 2011, arXiv:1105.4193 Woosley, S.E., Blinnikov, S. & Heger, A. 2007, , 450, 390 Zhang, B.B. 2011, , 730, 141, (Z11) Zhang, B.B. & Yan, H. 2011, , 726, 90
![Schematic view of the explosion of a massive star and associated emergent spectral components. At the first stage, the spectrum is formed by Comptonization of blackbody-like seed photons ([*red arrows*]{}) placed at the bottom of a hot sub-relativistically outflow (SROF or Compton cloud) on the top of the star photosphere ([*orange region*]{}). The emergent Comptonization spectrum ([*bright-blue arrows*]{}) is obtained using the solution of Eq. (\[energy\_op\_full\]). The Compton cloud can be accelerated by the underlying radiation pressure of the star photosphere leading to the relativistic outflow (ROF). Inverse Compton scattering of the Comptonized photons of the subrelativistic phase off non-thermal relativistic electrons of ROF can be the origin of the extended power-law observed above the peak in the EF(E) diagram ([*dark-blue arrows*]{}).[]{data-label="geometry"}](f1.eps){width="16cm" height="14cm"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We discuss the physics and computation of lattice QCD, a space-time lattice formulation of quantum chromodynamics, and Kenneth Wilson’s seminal role in its development. We start with the fundamental issue of confinement of quarks in the theory of the strong interactions, and discuss how lattice QCD provides a framework for understanding this phenomenon. A conceptual issue with lattice QCD is a conflict of space-time lattice with chiral symmetry of quarks. We discuss how this problem is resolved. Since lattice QCD is a non-linear quantum dynamical system with infinite degrees of freedom, quantities which are analytically calculable are limited. On the other hand, it provides an ideal case of massively parallel numerical computations. We review the long and distinguished history of parallel-architecture supercomputers designed and built for lattice QCD. We discuss algorithmic developments, in particular the difficulties posed by the fermionic nature of quarks, and their resolution. The triad of efforts toward better understanding of physics, better algorithms, and more powerful supercomputers have produced major breakthroughs in our understanding of the strong interactions. We review the salient results of this effort in understanding the hadron spectrum, the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements and CP violation, and quark-gluon plasma at high temperatures. We conclude with a brief summary and a future perspective.'
author:
- Akira Ukawa
date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'
title: Kenneth Wilson and lattice QCD
---
[example.eps]{} gsave newpath 20 20 moveto 20 220 lineto 220 220 lineto 220 20 lineto closepath 2 setlinewidth gsave .4 setgray fill grestore stroke grestore
Introduction {#intro}
============
In early 1974, Kenneth Wilson circulated a preprint entitled “Confinement of Quarks”. The paper was received by Physical Review D on 12 June 1974, and was published in the 15 October issue of that journal [@Wilson1974]. In this paper, Wilson formulated gauge theories on a space-time lattice[^1]. Using an expansion in inverse powers of the bare gauge coupling constant, Wilson demonstrated that lattice gauge theories at strong coupling confine charged states. He also argued that the absence of Lorentz invariance (or Euclidean invariance for the imaginary time used for the lattice formulation) is not a hindrance if there is a second order phase transition at some value of the gauge coupling constant, for in the vicinity of such a phase transition the lattice spacing can be taken to zero while fixing the physical correlation length at a finite value.
This paper laid the conceptual foundation for understanding the quark confinement phenomenon. It showed that large quantum fluctuations of gauge fields at strong coupling can generate a force between charged states which stays constant at arbitrary distances. This is a novel type of force, essentially different from the Yukawa force due to exchange of particles which tends to zero at large distances.
Initially, Wilson’s idea did not catch on rapidly. Techniques were hard to come by which allowed calculations of physical quantities such as hadron masses and connect them to physical predictions in the continuum space-time. The situation changed dramatically around 1979–1980 when Creutz, Jacobs and Rebbi [@CreutzJacobsRebbi1979], and Wilson himself [@Wilson1979], showed the possibility of numerically calculating the observables on a computer. Particularly dramatic was the calculation of the static quark-antiquark potential by Creutz for SU(2) gauge group in 1979 [@Creutz1979], and the calculations in 1981 of hadron masses by Weingarten [@Weingarten1982] and by Hamber and Parisi [@HamberParisi1981].
Traditional quantum field theory until that time could only deal with weakly coupled bound states such as hydrogen. The possibility of a technique which enables calculation of the properties of relativistic and strongly coupled bound states such as pion and proton was entirely new.
The timing was also perfect from computational point of view. The CRAY-1 supercomputer which appeared in 1976 had revolutionized scientific computing, and lattice QCD computation could quickly exploit vector supercomputers in the 80’s. Perhaps more important in retrospect, rapid development of microprocessors in the 70’s stimulated more than a few groups of particle theorists around the world to start developing parallel computers for lattice QCD.
The development of lattice QCD has been continuous since then. With large-scale numerical simulations on parallel supercomputers, understanding of physics of lattice QCD progressed, which in turn led to better algorithms for computation. These algorithms allowed a better exploitation of the next generation of more powerful computers, which brought even more progress of physics.
In the four decades of progress, lattice QCD has brought a deep understanding on the physics of the strong interactions. It has matured to the point where one can make calculations with the physical values of quark masses, on lattices with sufficiently large sizes, at lattice spacings small enough so that a continuum limit can be carried out with confidence.
In this article we review lattice QCD from four perspectives in the following four chapters. In Chapter \[sec:1\], we discuss the foundation of lattice QCD, touching upon the connection between quantum field theory in Euclidean space time and statistical mechanics which was consciously exploited by Wilson. We show how it led to a conceptual breakthrough in the understanding of confinement. We also explain the issues related with chiral symmetry. In Chapter \[sec:2\], we discuss the computational aspects. We review how lattice QCD embodies an ideal case of massively parallel computation, and how this led to the development of parallel supercomputers for lattice QCD, which impacted seriously on the history of supercomputers up to the present time. Also discussed is a special computational difficulty posed by the fermionic nature of quark fields, and how overcoming that difficulty has led to the algorithm in use today. In Chapter \[sec:3\] we discuss some major physics results achieved so far in lattice QCD. The themes include the hadron mass spectrum, the determination of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix and CP violation in the Standard Model, and the properties of quark gluon plasma at high temperatures and densities. Finally, in Chapter \[sec:4\] we collect some thoughts on how Kenneth Wilson’s thinking and vision helped develop the subject.
The tone of this article is partly historical, describing the development of lattice QCD and the role Kenneth Wilson played in it. It also reviews the achievements made in the four decades since its inception in 1974.
Quantum chromodynamics on a space-time lattice {#sec:1}
==============================================
Hadrons, Quarks, Quantum Chromodynamics {#sec:1-1}
---------------------------------------
If one looks up the Reviews of Particle Physics web page [@PDG], one finds there an entire list of particles and their properties experimentally discovered to date. In addition to “Gauge and Higgs Bosons", “Leptons" and “Quarks", there are two lists named “Mesons" and “Baryons", each of which contains hundreds of particles. Protons and neutrons, which make up atomic nuclei, are two representative particles belonging to the family of baryons. Pions and K mesons are less familiar, but important particles for binding protons and neutrons into nuclei, and they belong to the family of mesons. The mesons and baryons are collectively called “hadrons". Their chief characteristic is that they participate in the strong interactions in addition to the electromagnetic and weak interactions, while leptons participate only in the latter two interactions.
Many of hadrons were discovered in the accelerator experiments in the 50’s and 60’s. In 1964 Gell-Mann and Zweig proposed that hadrons are composed of more fundamental particles, which Gell-Mann named quarks. Quarks were predicted to have unusual properties such as fractional charge in units of electron charge. Evidence has gradually built up, however, that quarks are real entities. Yet experimental efforts for detecting them in isolation have been unsuccessful. This situation is often called “quark confinement".
Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) proposes to explain the constitution of hadrons from quarks and their interactions. It is a quantum field theory with local SU(3) gauge invariance in which the quark field $q(x)$, with $x$ the space-time coordinate, transforms under the fundamental ${\bf 3}$ representation of SU(3). The SU(3) quantum numbers are called color since the basic premise of the theory is that only color neutral states, trivial under SU(3), carry finite energy and hence exist as physical states. This is a general statement of “quark confinement”.
Local gauge invariance is a requirement that the frame of reference of an internal symmetry may be freely rotated at each space-time point without altering the content of the theory. Thus QCD as a gauge theory is to remain invariant under the transformation $q(x)\to V(x)q(x)$ where $V(x)\in {\rm SU(3)}$ may vary from point to point in space-time. This invariance requires the existence of a vector gluon field $A_\mu(x)$ with values in the Lie algebra of SU(3) which tells how the local frame at a point $x$ and at a different point $y$ are related.
QCD as field theory thus contains gluon as well as quark fields. It is defined by the Lagrangian density given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:QCDLagrangian}
\cal{L}_{\rm QCD}&=&\frac{1}{2g^2}{\rm Tr}\left(F_{\mu\nu}(x)^2\right)+\overline{q}(x)\left(i\gamma_\mu D_\mu+m\right)q(x).\end{aligned}$$ Here, $q (x)=(q_1(x), \cdots, q_{N_f})$ is a spin 1/2 Dirac spinor field for quarks, $N_f$ denotes the number of quark flavors with $m=(m_1, \cdots, m_{N_f})$ the quark mass matrix, and $D_\mu=\partial_\mu-iA_\mu (x)$ is the covariant derivative with $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu+[A_\mu, A_\nu]$ the gluon field strength, and $g$ is the QCD coupling constant.
The discovery of asymptotic freedom [@GrossWilczek; @Politzer] in 1974 showed that the coupling strength of non-Abelian gauge theories decreases toward zero at large momenta. Since deep inelastic electron nucleon scattering experiments carried out in the late 60’s indicated just such a behavior called scaling, the discovery boosted QCD to the leading candidate of the theory of strong interactions.
A beautiful prediction of asymptotic freedom is the existence of logarithmic violation of scaling which can be quantitatively calculated [*via*]{} renormalization group methods. The prediction was later confirmed by experiments, thus establishing the validity of QCD beyond doubt at high energies.
Since asymptotic freedom at high energies means that the coupling strength increases in the opposite limit of low energies, it was natural to speculate that QCD also provided a solution to the long standing puzzle that quarks had never been observed in experiments. However, quantum field theory at the time, though quite sophisticated, did not possess means to analyze the behavior of QCD for large coupling constant expected at low energies.
Formulation of QCD on a space-time lattice {#sec:1-2}
------------------------------------------
An essential ingredient for a strong coupling analysis is a mathematically well-defined formulation of QCD in which ultraviolet divergences are controlled. Kenneth Wilson approached this problem with three key ideas: (i) use Euclidean space-time with imaginary time rather than Minkowski space-time with physical time, (ii) replace Euclidean space-time continuum by a discrete 4-dimensional lattice to control ultraviolet divergence, and (iii) maintain local gauge invariance as the guiding principle to construct field variables and action on the lattice.
The use of Euclidean space-time brings out a beautiful and powerful connection between quantum field theory and statistical mechanics. This connection was realized in the 60’s by Kurt Symanzik and others from the viewpoint of rigorously defining quantum field theory [@Symanzik1969]. The explosive development in the theory of critical phenomena due to Leo Kadanoff, Michael Fisher, Wilson himself and others in the late 60’s and early 70’s brought the importance of the concept to the foreground [@WilsonKogut1973]. A formal proof that quantum field theory in real time can be recovered from that in imaginary time under a set of axioms was given in the first half of 70’s [@OsterwalderSchrader1973]. This connection, then, was a hot topic at the time and Wilson consciously exploited it in his work on lattice QCD.
Let us consider a simple cubic 4-dimensional lattice in Euclidean space-time. The lattice points, called sites, are labeled by an integer component 4-vector $n=(n_1, n_2, n_3, n_4)\in {\bf Z}^4$, and have a physical coordinate $x=na$ with $a$ the lattice spacing. A pair of neighboring sites at $n$ and $n+\hat{\mu}$ with $\hat{\mu}$ the unit vector in the direction $\mu=1,2,3,4$ are connected by the link between the two sites which may be denoted as $\ell=(n, \mu), n\in{\bf Z}^4, \mu=1, 2, 3, 4$. An elementary square, or plaquette, on the lattice is then labelled by $P=(n, \mu, \nu)$ with $n$ the lowest corner and the two directions spanning the square denoted by $\mu$ and $\nu$. The lattice construction is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:lattice\].
It is natural to place a quark field $q(x)$ on each site $q(x)=q_n$ with $x=na$. If one replaces the derivative $\partial _\mu q(x)$ by a finite difference $(q_{n+\hat{\mu}}-q_{n-\hat{\mu}})/2a$, the quark Lagrangian on a lattice will contain a bilocal term $\overline{q}_nq_{n\pm\hat{\mu}}$.
In the continuum space-time, bilocal quantities such as $\overline{q}(y) q(x)$ are rendered gauge invariant by inserting a path ordered phase factor $U(y,x)=P\exp(i\int_x^yA_\mu(x)dx_\mu)$, which transforms as $U(y,x)\to V^\dagger(y)U(y,x)V(x)$ under the local gauge transformation. Wilson proposed to employ the phase factor along the lattice link $U_{n\mu}\sim P\exp(i\int_{na}^{(n+\hat{\mu})a}A_\mu(x)dx_\mu)$ as the fundamental gluon field variable on the lattice. The lattice quark action can then be made invariant by inserting appropriate $U_{n\mu}$’s to the bilocal terms. One thus finds for the quark action on the lattice, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:latticeaction}
S_{\rm quark}= \frac{a^3}{2}\sum_{n\mu}\left(\overline{q}_n\gamma_\mu U_{n\mu}q_{n+\hat{\mu}}-\overline{q}_n\gamma_\mu U_{n-\hat{\mu}\,\mu}^\dagger q_{n-\hat{\mu}}\right)
+ a^4\sum_n\overline{q}_n m_0 q_n,\end{aligned}$$ with $m_0$ the bare quark mass matrix.
A classical action for gluons which reduces to the continuum action in the limit $a\to 0$ can be constructed by taking the product of $U_{n\mu}$’s around the boundary of a plaquette $P$ [@Wilson1974]: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm gluon}&=&\frac{1}{g_0^2}\sum_{P}{\rm Tr}\left[\prod_{n\mu\in\partial P}U_{n\mu}\right], \end{aligned}$$ where ${\rm Tr}$ stands for trace over SU(3) indices. Here $g_0$ is the bare gauge coupling constant at the energy scale of the lattice cutoff $1/a$.
Lattice QCD as quantum theory is defined by the Feynman path integral. If $O(U,q, \overline{q})$ is an operator corresponding to some physical quantity, the vacuum expectation value over the quantum average is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1}
\left< O(U,q, \overline{q})\right> = \frac{1}{Z_{\rm QCD}}\int\prod_{n\mu}dU_{n\mu}\int\prod_n d\overline{q}_n dq_n O(U,q, \overline{q}) \exp (S_{\rm QCD})\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:partition}
Z_{\rm QCD}=\int\prod_{n\mu}dU_{n\mu}\int\prod_n d\overline{q}_n dq_n \exp (S_{\rm QCD}),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm QCD}=S_{\rm gluon}+S_{\rm quark}.\end{aligned}$$
The gluon link variable $U_{n\mu}$ takes values in the group SU(3) rather than the Lie algebra for the vector gluon field $A_\mu(x)$. The integration over $U_{n\mu}$’s should be defined as invariant integration over the group SU(3). Since SU(3) has a finite volume under this integration, the lattice Feynman path integral is well-defined without gauge fixing.
The integration over the quark fields also requires some care. Since quarks are fermions, the path integral has to be defined in terms of Grassmann numbers which anticommute under exchange, [*i.e.,*]{} $q_n q_{m} = - q_{m} q_n$. These points are clearly spelled out in the Wilson’s original paper in 1974 [@Wilson1974].
Confinement of color {#sec:1-3}
--------------------
Whether quarks are confined in QCD can be examined if one knows how to calculate the energy of an isolated quark in interaction with the gluon fields: an isolated quark would exist only if the energy of that state is finite. An elegant method invented by Wilson is to consider a pair of static quark and antiquark, which is created at some point in space-time, then separated to some distance, stays in that configuration for some time, and finally is brought together to a point and annihilated. Geometrically, the space-time trajectory of the pair forms an oriented closed loop $C$. Since the color charge of the quark interacts with gluon fields, the creation and annihilation of the pair inserts a phase factor $$\begin{aligned}
W\left[C\right] = P\exp\left( i\oint_C dx_\mu A_\mu(x) \right)\end{aligned}$$ in the path integral where $P$ indicates ordering along the path. This is the Wilson loop operator.
If the loop has the shape of a rectangle of a width $R$ in the spatial direction and an extent $T$ in the temporal direction as shown in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:wilsonloop\], the quantum average of the Wilson loop operator measures the energy $E(R)$ of the quak-antiquark pair relative to the vacuum over a temporal length $T$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\left< W\left[R\times T\right]\right>\propto \exp\left(-E(R)T\right),\quad T\to\infty.\end{aligned}$$
Wilson speculated that for large values of the gauge coupling, fluctuations of gluon fields would be large, leading to a significant cancellation among the contributions to the Wilson loop. This would mean that the Wilson loop average rapidly decreases for larger loops, or equivalently the probability decreases that the quark and antiquark are found in a well-separated configuration. This would mean confinement. Another equivalent statement would be that the energy $E(R)$ grows for larger separations $R$, so that separating quark from antiquark is not possible.
An amazingly simple calculation suffices to verify this picture if one employs lattice QCD. Let us assume, following Wilson, that quark fields do not play an essential role. When the bare coupling $g_0$ becomes large, the gluon path integral in (\[eq:1\]) can be calculated by an expansion in inverse powers of $g_0^2$. The leading term is obtained when one tiles the $R\times T$ surface of the Wilson loop by a set of plaquettes from the expansion of the gluon part of the weight $\exp\left( S_{\rm gluon}\right)$, as shown in the right panel of Fig \[fig:wilsonloop\]. We then find that $$\left< W\left[R\times T\right]\right> =N_c\left(\frac{1}{N_cg_0^2}\right)^{RT/a^2}\left(1+O(g_0^{-8})\right), \quad g_0^2\to\infty,$$ with $N_c=3$ for SU(3) so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:strongcoupling}
E(R)\to \sigma R, \quad R\to\infty \quad {\rm with } \quad \sigma=\frac{1}{a^2}\left(\log\left(N_cg_0^2\right)+O(g_0^{-8})\right),\end{aligned}$$ namely, a static pair of quark and antiquark are bound by a potential linearly rising with the separation. Hence they cannot be separated to infinite distance with any finite amount of energy.
A closed loop $C$ has two geometrical characteristics, the length of the loop $L[C]$ and the area of the minimal surface $A[C]$ spanned by the loop. The confinement behavior corresponds to an area decay for large loop; $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:area}
\left<W\left[C\right]\right> \propto \exp\left(-\sigma A[C]\right).\end{aligned}$$ If, on the other hand, the Wilson loop expectation value decays with the loop length, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:perimeter}
\left<W\left[C\right]\right> \propto \exp\left(-\mu L[C]\right),\end{aligned}$$ the energy of a quark-antiquark pair saturates to a constant $E(R)\to \mu$ for large separation $R\to\infty$. Hence there is no longer confinement. The confining and non-confining phases of gauge theories are thus distinguished by the behavior of the Wilson loop expectation value.
The possibility that there can be both confining and non-confining phases raises an interesting question whether a confining phase can turn into a non-confining phase if some parameters of the theory are varied. Temperature is such an important parameter. As we discuss in more detail in Sec. \[sec:3-4\], the confining property becomes lost through a phase transition when the temperature is raised sufficiently.
Continuum limit {#sec:1-4}
---------------
Let us go back to the strong coupling result in (\[eq:strongcoupling\]). If one uses the phenomenological value $\sqrt{\sigma}\approx 440 {\rm MeV}$, and if one assumes that a value $\log\left(N_cg_0^2\right)\sim O(1)$ is sufficient for the strong coupling expansion to converge, the corresponding value of the lattice spacing equals $a\sim 0.5$ fm with 1 fm$=10^{-15}$ m. This value is comparable to a typical length scale of the strong interactions, [*e.g.,*]{} the charge radius of proton $R_p\sim 0.9$ fm. We certainly know that space-time is continuous well below such length scales. Thus one need to know if confinement holds for smaller lattice spacings.
In Fig. \[fig:potential\] we show the static potential $E(R)$ calculated by Monte Carlo simulation of the pure gluon theory [@BaliShilling1993]. We observe a linearly rising potential $E(R)\sim \sigma R$ at large distances. There is also a Coulomb behavior $V(R)\sim \alpha/R$ at short distances, which is consistent with a perturbative one gluon exchange expected from asymptotic freedom. The lattice spacing estimated from the phenomenological value $\sqrt{\sigma}\approx 440$ MeV is $a\approx 0.0544(4)$ fm. This is one of many evidences that the property of confinement holds not just at strong coupling but also toward weak couplings with small lattice spacings.
The question then is whether the confinement property really persists as the lattice spacing is taken toward the limit of continuous space-time $a\to 0$. For Wilson, who elucidated critical phenomena with his renormalization group ideas, this was not a conceptually difficult issue. The strong coupling calculation demonstrates that the system of gluons without quarks is in a confining phase. When one decreases the coupling constant $g_0$, this property persists as long as one does not encounter a phase transition to a non-confining phase characterized by perimeter decay (\[eq:perimeter\]). Suppose that there is such a second-order phase transition at $g_0^2=g_c^2$. Close to the critical point, the correlation length measured in lattice units diverges $\xi(g_0)/a\to\infty$ as $g_0\to g_c$. This means that one should be able to hold the physical correlation length $\xi(g_0)$ fixed to a physical value observed in experiment while sending the lattice spacing to zero $a\to 0$, recovering physics in the space-time continuum.
One can define lattice gauge theory for a variety of groups and space-time dimensions. As with the case for spin systems, the existence and position of second-order phase transition points would depend on them. For the group SU(3) in 4 dimensions, a particularly attractive possibility is $g_c=0$. In fact, this is the only possibility if confinement at low energies and asymptotic freedom at high energies are to coexist in the same phase.
The renormalization group allows a more concrete discussion. The change of gauge coupling $g_0\to g_0+dg_0$ under a change of cutoff scale $a\to a+da$ while fixing a physical scale constant defines a renormalization group $\beta$ function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:beta}
a\frac{dg_0(a)}{da} = - \beta(g_0),\end{aligned}$$ where the minus sign is inserted to be compatible with the conventional definition using momentum slicing. The strong coupling result (\[eq:strongcoupling\]) shows that $\beta(g_0)$ is large and negative for large $g_0$. For small values of $g_0$, one can employ perturbation theory to confirm the asymptotic freedom result, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:two-loop}
\beta(g_0)=-b_0g_0^3-b_1g_0^5+O(g_0^7)\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
b_0&=&\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}\left(\frac{11}{3}N_c-\frac{2}{3}N_f\right),\\
b_1&=&\frac{1}{(4\pi)^4}\left(\frac{34}{3}N_c^2-\frac{N_c^2-1}{N_c}N_f-\frac{10}{3}N_cN_f\right),\end{aligned}$$ for $SU(N_c)$ gauge group and $N_f$ flavors of fermions in the fundamental representation. The first two coefficients are negative for our world with $N_c=3$ and $N_f=6$. A natural supposition is that the beta function is negative for all values of the coupling, with the only zero residing at $g_c=0$.
Wilson started a numerical Monte Carlo calculation to check this by a block spin renormalization group for gauge group SU(2) [@Wilson1979]. This attempt was followed by several serious calculations with SU(3) gauge group in the 80’s. The results, though mostly restricted to the pure gluon theory and had fairly large errors, showed that the beta function stayed negative and became consistent with the two-loop result (\[eq:two-loop\]) toward weak coupling (see, [*e.g.*]{}, Refs. [@Bowleretal1986; @Guptaetal1988]).
A different, and perhaps a more elegant, approach was developed in the 90’s by the Alpha Collaboration [@Luscheretal1994]. Their method of step scaling function defines the renormalized coupling constant at a scale $1/L$ through the Schrödinger functional on a lattice of a finite size $L^3\times T$ with a prescribed boundary condition in time, and follows the evolution of the coupling under a change of scale by a factor 2. The continuum limit is systematically taken in this process. Therefore, the end result is the evolution of the renormalized coupling from low to high energies in the continuum theory.
In Fig. \[fig:running\] we show the result for the pure gluon theory (solid circles) and a comparison with perturbation theory (dashed and dotted lines). The full evolution runs from 10 GeV down to a few hundred MeV, where the system is in a strong coupling non-perturbative regime. Thus the confining behavior at large distance is continuously connected with the asymptotically free behavior at short distances. The full evolution runs almost parallel to the two-loop evolution. Similar results have been obtained in full QCD with $N_f=2, 3, 4$ dynamical quarks [@ALpha2005; @PACS-CS2009a; @AlphaNf4].
Based on the results described above, one can state, though a mathematically rigorous proof is yet lacking, that QCD is in the confining phase over the entire range of coupling from zero to infinity.
Quarks and chiral symmetry {#sec:1-5}
--------------------------
### Chiral symmetry {#sec:1-5-1}
An important feature of the strong interaction which was recognized in the late 50’s and early 60’s is chiral symmetry. Studies in this period led to the concept of spontaneous breakdown of symmetry, and a realization that it is accompanied by the emergence of massless bosons, called Nambu-Goldstone bosons today.
In QCD language, chiral symmetry is invariance under the global transformation $q(x)\to Wq(x)$, where $W=\exp( i\alpha\gamma_5) \in {\rm SU(N_f)}$ acts on the Dirac-flavor indices and rotates left and right handed chiral components of $q(x)$ in the opposite direction. This symmetry is explicitly broken by the quark mass term. Hence it holds approximately for three light quarks, up, down and strange. It is not very relevant for the heavier quarks, charm, bottom and top. The octet of pseudo scalar mesons, $\pi, K, \eta$, are identified as the Nambu-Goldstone bosons corresponding to spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry. With a strongly interacting dynamics at large distances, QCD should dynamically explain spontaneously broken chiral symmetry and its physical consequences.
### chiral symmetry on a space-time lattice {#sec:1-5-2}
Introduction of a space-time lattice affects bosons and fermions in different ways. This is most easily seen by looking at the kinetic term in the free field case. For a boson field $\phi_n$, the second-order derivative $-\partial_\mu^2\phi(x) $ is discretized as $-(\phi_{n+\hat{\mu}}+\phi_{n-\hat{\mu}}-2\phi_n)/2a^2$, whereas for a fermion field $q(x)$, the first order derivative $\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu q(x)$ is discretized as $\gamma_\mu(q_{n+\hat{\mu}}-q_{n-\hat{\mu}})/2a$. The momentum space expression then becomes $2(1-\cos(p_\mu a))/a^2$ and $i\gamma_\mu\sin(p_\mu a)$, respectively. There is a crucial difference in the location of the zeros in the Brillouin zone: the boson case has a zero only at $p_\mu=0$ for all $\mu$ whereas the fermion case has a set of zeros for $p_\mu=0$ or $\pi/a$ for each $\mu$. Since the zeros gives rise to poles in the propagator, a naive fermion discretization leads to multiple copies of the state at $p_\mu=0$. This is the fermion species doubling problem.
Building upon a pioneering work by Karsten and Smit [@KarstenSmit1981], Nielesen and Ninomiya [@NielsenNinomiya1981] proved that essentially the same conclusion holds under a set of rather general conditions. The theorem states that if the fermion action satisfies (i) chiral symmetry $q_n\to\exp(i\alpha\gamma_5)q_n$, (ii) invariance under unit translation on the lattice, (iii) Hermiticity, and (iv) locality, then the spectrum of fermions contains even number of particles, half of them left handed and the other half right handed.
An elegant topological proof runs as follows [@karsten]. If we write a Dirac fermion action on a lattice in a general form, $S_F=\sum_{n,m}\overline{q}_nD_{n,m}q_m$, the assumptions (i) and (ii) imply that $D_{n,m}=\sum_{\mu}\gamma_\mu F_\mu(n-m)$ where $F_\mu(n)$ is a vector function which, by (iii) satisfies $F_\mu^\dagger(n)=F_\mu(-n)$, and by (iv) rapidly decreases as $\vert n\vert$ becomes large. The Fourier transform $\tilde{F}_\mu(p)$ is, therefore, a well-defined real vector field over the Brillouin zone in momentum space. Let $p=p^{(i)}, i=1,2,\cdots$ be the zeros of the vector field $\tilde{F}_\mu(p)=f_{\mu\nu}(p_\nu-p^{(i)}_{\nu})+O((p-p^{(i)})^2)$. They correspond to the poles of the propagator $D^{-1}(p)$, and hence to the particle states. The relative chirality of these states are determined by the index, ${\rm sign}( \det f_{\mu\nu})$. Since the sum of index of a vector field over the 4-dimension torus vanishes by the Poincaré-Hopf theorem, there has to be an equal number of fermion states with opposite chirality.
The Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem indicates that one either has to abandon chiral symmetry or one has to allow for the presence of species doubling. Wilson’s choice, which he actually wrote down [@Wilson1975] prior to the publication of the theorem, was to add a term which softly breaks the chiral symmetry of the naive lattice action in (\[eq:latticeaction\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:wilson}
\delta S_{\rm W}&=&\frac{a^3}{2}\sum_{n\mu}\left(2\overline{q}_nq_n-\overline{q}_nU_{n\mu}q_{n+\hat{\mu}}-\overline{q}_nU_{n-\hat{\mu}, \mu}^\dagger q_{n-\hat{\mu}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ For the free field case, this term adds $\sum_\mu (1-\cos p_\mu a)/a$ to the kinetic term $i\sum_\mu \gamma_\mu\sin p_\mu a$, and hence removes the zeros at $p_\mu=\pi /a$.
Let us add that toward the continuum limit $a\to 0$ the Wilson’s added term becomes of form $a\overline{q}(x)D_\mu^2q(x)$ relative to the original term $\overline{q}(x)i\gamma_\mu D_\mu q(x)$ in (\[eq:latticeaction\]), [*i.e.*]{}, higher order in $a$. Apart from removing the doublers, the effect of the added term disappears in the continuum limit.
Chiral breaking effects of the Wilson’s added term can be analyzed by the method of Ward identities [@Bochicchioetal1985]. In particular, a definition of quark mass can be given that satisfies the PCAC relation [@Bochicchioetal1985; @ItohIwasakiOyanagiYoshie1986]. A detailed analysis of the phase structure on the $(g_0, m_0)$ plane was made [@Kawamoto1981], and the existence of a massless pion, in spite of chiral symmetry breaking, was explained as due to spontaneous breakdown of parity Z(2) symmetry [@Aoki1984]. With these analytical developments, Wilson’s formulation provides a quantitative framework for the computation of physical observables, and is used extensively in Monte Carlo studies.
A variant of Wilson’s formulation is to consider two flavors of quarks as a pair and add a twisted mass term to the naive action (\[eq:latticeaction\]) [@tmQCD2001]: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta S_{\rm tm}=a^4\sum_n\overline{q}_n i\mu_q\gamma_5\tau_3 q_n,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_3$ acts on the flavor index. This formulation has an attractive feature that one can twist the angle $\alpha=\arctan \mu_q/m_0$ in such a way that $O(a)$ lattice artifacts are absent in physical observables [@tmQCD2004; @AokiBaer2006]. Large-scale simulations are being made using such “maximally” twisted QCD.
There is a different method, called the staggered formulation [@Susskind1977], which retains a U(1) chiral symmetry at the cost of a four fold species doubling. In the 4-dimensional Euclidean formulation [@SharatchandraThusWeisz1981], it starts with a single component fermion field $\chi_n$ at each site, and reconstructs four species of Dirac fields $\psi =(\psi_1, \cdots, \psi_4)$ from 16 $\chi$’s on the 16 vertices of a 4-dimensional unit hypercube [@KlubergSternetal1981]. The original action is invariant under an even-odd U(1) symmetry $\chi_n\to\exp(i(-1)^{\vert n\vert}\alpha)\chi_n$, which translates into an axial U(1) transformation on the four Dirac fields of form $\psi\to\exp(i\alpha\gamma_5\otimes\xi_5)\psi$ where $\xi_5$ acts on the species index $\alpha$ of the Dirac field $\psi_\alpha, \, \alpha=1, \cdots, 4$.
It is generally believed that lattice QCD with the staggered fermion formalism converges to continuum QCD with $N_f=4$ degenerate flavors of quarks [@Sharpe2006]. An elaborate effective theory description has been developed to control the breaking of the full 4 “flavor” chiral symmetry down to the U(1) subgroup at finite lattice spacing [@LeeSharpe1999]. On these theoretical bases, the staggered formalism is also extensively used in Monte Carlo simulations.
### Lattice fermion action with chiral symmetry {#sec:1-5-3}
In 1981, a year after Nielsen and Ninomiya presented their theorem, Wilson revisited the issue of chiral symmetry from a different perspective with Ginsparg [@Wilson1981]. He asked what would be the relation satisfied by a lattice Dirac operator $D_{n,m}$ if it were derived by a (chiral symmetry breaking) block spin transformation from a chiral invariant theory. The answer turned out to be remarkably simple; it is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GW}
\gamma_5 D_{n,m}+D_{n,m}\gamma_5 = a \sum_k D_{n,k}\gamma_5 D_{k,m}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $D$ does not anticommute with $\gamma_5$, assumption (i) of the Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem is not satisfied, and so the conclusion of the theorem does not hold. In fact, there is no species doubling. Furthermore, the axial vector current for this action has the correct U(1) anomaly.
One can rewrite (\[eq:GW\]) in terms of the propagator $G=D^{-1}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GWI}
\gamma_5 G_{n,m}+G_{n,m}\gamma_5 = a\delta_{nm}\gamma_5.\end{aligned}$$ Hence the breaking of chiral symmetry is a local effect. One may expect then that a modified form of symmetry may exist. This was found almost 20 years later [@Luescher1998]. Fermion actions that satisfy the Ginzparg-Wilson relation (\[eq:GW\]) are invariant under an infinitesimal transformation given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\overline{\psi}=\overline{\psi}(1-\frac{1}{2}aD)\gamma_5,\quad \delta\psi=\gamma_5 (1-\frac{1}{2}aD)\psi.\end{aligned}$$
Several forms of fermion action which satisfy the Ginsparg-Wilson relation were discovered in the 90’s. One form is a domain-wall formalism [@Kaplan1992; @FurmanShamir1995] in which the 4-dimensional fermion field is constructed as the zero mode of a 5-dimensional theory generated by a mass defect at the boundary in a fictitious fifth dimension. Another form is given by the overlap formalism [@NarayananNeuberger1995; @Neuberger1998]. In this case an explicit form of the operator $D$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
D=\frac{1}{a}\left(1+\gamma_5H(H^\dagger H)^{-1/2}\right), \quad H=\gamma_5 (aD_W-1)\end{aligned}$$ with $aD_W+m_0$ the operator for the Wilson fermion action with a negative mass $m_0=-1$. The two forms are equivalent in the limit of infinite fifth dimension [@Neuberger1998-2; @Borici1999].
Yet another form is the perfect action [@HasenfratzNiedermeyer1998], so named because it is defined as the fixed point of a block spin transformation of renormalization group for QCD. This form follows from the line of reasoning of Ginsparg and Wilson, but it was pursued and arrived at independently almost two decades later.
All forms of action, particularly the domain wall and overlap actions, have come to be used extensively in the last decade. The domain wall formalism has been exploited by RBC-UKQCD Collaborations (see, [*e.g.,*]{} [@RBCUKQCDDomainwall2013]), and the overlap formalism by JLQCD (see [@KEKOverlap2012] for a recent review). The situation with the perfect action is reported in [@Hasenfratzetal2005].
### Spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry {#sec:1-5-4}
Spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry is best studied by examining the behavior of the order parameter of chiral symmetry. This is given by the quark bilinear operator $\Sigma=\left<\overline{q}_nq_n\right>$. If $\Sigma\ne 0$ after sending the spatial volume to infinity $V\to\infty$ followed by the limit of quark mass to zero $m_q\to 0$, then chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken.
In Fig. \[fig:chiral\] we show the result for $\Sigma$ as a function of the degenerate up-down quark mass $m_{ud}$ in lattice units obtained with the overlap formulation for $N_f=2+1$ lattice QCD. We choose these data since the overlap formalism is the cleanest regarding the chiral aspect among lattice fermion formulations. The terminology $N_f=2+1$ refers to the fact that the up and down quark masses are taken degenerate, while the strange quark mass has a separate value. Strictly speaking, the values shown in Fig. \[fig:chiral\] are obtained from the eigenvalue distribution of the Dirac operator and not by calculating the condensate directly.
The concave curvature as a function of $m_{ud}$ is consistent with the presence of a logarithm term predicted by chiral perturbation theory. Extrapolating to $m_{ud}=0$ including the effect of the logarithm yields a non-zero value, supporting spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry. The dependence of the pion mass is consistent with $m_\pi^2\propto m_{ud}$ (up to logarithmic corrections), as follows from the Nambu-Goldstone theorem.
Similar results have been obtained for the staggered fermion formalism which has U(1) chiral symmetry. The analysis is more complicated for the Wilson fermion formulation, since one needs to carry out a subtractive renormalization for both chiral condensate and quark mass due to the soft chiral symmetry breaking induced by the Wilson term (\[eq:wilson\]). Once these subtractions are done, one finds the signatures expected for spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry, such as the relation $m_\pi^2\propto m_{ud}$ for an appropriately defined quark mass [@Bochicchioetal1985; @ItohIwasakiOyanagiYoshie1986].
Heavy quarks on a lattice {#sec:1-5-5}
-------------------------
The three light quark quantum numbers, [*i.e.*]{}, up, down and strange, have been known from 1930’s and 1950’s. In contrast, heavier quarks were discovered more recently, [*i.e.,*]{} charm quark in 1974, bottom quark in 1977, and top quark in 1995. These heavy quarks occupied the central place in the experimental and theoretical studies toward establishing the Standard Model, particularly with the construction of B factories in the 90’s and experiments with them in the 2000’s.
Studying heavy quarks with lattice QCD poses the problem that for a large value of a heavy quark mass $m_h$, the dimensionless combination $m_ha$ is also large, leading to an amplification of lattice discretization errors, especially if $m_ha\gg 1$. This situation applies to the bottom quark with a mass $m_b\approx 5$ GeV, since lattice QCD simulations to date have been made with inverse lattice spacings in the range $a^{-1}\approx 2-4$ GeV.
Several methods have been formulated and employed to deal with this problem. The static approximation [@Eichten88] is an expansion in $1/m_h$, NRQCD [@LepageThacker88] is a reformulation of QCD for non-relativistic quarks with an expansion in powers of the quark velocity $v$, and a relativistic formalism [@ElKahdra1997; @AokiKuramashi2003; @ChristLin2007] modifies the Wilson quark action so as to systematically reduce the effects of large $m_ha$.
All three methods have been extensively used to calculate physical quantities involving charm or bottom quark. In particular, matrix elements such as the pseudoscalar decay constants and form factors calculated with these methods have been playing an important role in constraining the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements including the CP violation phase.
It should be mentioned that with increasingly smaller lattice spacings becoming accessible with progress of algorithms and computer power, direct simulations are replacing calculations with effective heavy quark theories. This has already occurred for charm quark, and it may not be too far into the future that bottom quark becomes treated in a similar way.
Lattice QCD as computation {#sec:2}
==========================
Numerical simulation and lattice QCD {#sec:2-1}
------------------------------------
Lattice QCD offered a framework for conceptually understanding the dynamics of non-Abelian gauge fields. In particular, it elucidated the mechanism of confinement in a way which would have been impossible in the perturbative framework of field theory. Nonetheless, calculation methods to obtain physical results did not really exist; for example, higher order strong coupling expansions were very cumbersome and hard to extrapolate to the continuum limit expected at $g_0\to 0$.
Monte Carlo simulations offered a new approach to solve this impasse. Of course Monte Carlo methods had been known since the pioneering era of electronic computers in the late 40’ and early 50’s. The Metropolis algorithm to handle multi-dimensional integrations for statistical mechanical systems was formulated in 1953 [@Metropolis]. Applications to spin systems in statistical mechanics started to appear in the 60’s and was pursued increasingly in the 70’s.
It is in this context that Creutz, Jacobs and Rebbi carried out a Monte Carlo study of Ising gauge theory with Z(2) gauge group in 4 dimensions in 1979, finding a first-order phase transition [@CreutzJacobsRebbi1979]. Creutz extended the application to SU(2) gauge group [@Creutz1979], and extracted the string tension $\sigma$ in front of the area decay of the Wilson loop. The dependence of $\sigma$ on the gauge coupling $g_0$ turned out to be consistent with the scaling law predicted by the renormalization group. This suggested the possibility that a continuum limit could be successfully taken, giving rise to a hope that the confinement problem could be solved in a numerical way.
Wilson’s interest in numerical analyses and computer applications started early in his career [@Wilson2005]. He often used numerical methods to carry out his analyses.[^2] In his 1979 lecture at the Cargése Summer School [@Wilson1979], Wilson reported a block-spin renormalization group analysis for SU(2) gauge group using Monte Carlo methods to evaluate the necessary path integral averages.
These attempts introduced a method hitherto unknown in field theory. The method looked very promising, and immediately attracted attention of particle theorists. In particular, it was applied to calculate masses of hadrons directly from quarks and gluons. The method was based on the observation that if $O_{\rm H}(t)$ is an operator at a time slice $t$ corresponding to a hadron H, [*e.g.,* ]{} $\pi^+\sim \overline{u}\gamma_5 d$ for pion or $p\sim ({}^tuC\gamma_5d)d $ for proton, then the 2-point Green’s function for this operator behaves for large times as $$\begin{aligned}
\left<O_{\rm H}(t)O_{\rm H}^\dagger(0)\right>\to Z\exp\left(-m_{\rm H}a t\right), \quad t\to\infty, \end{aligned}$$ where $m_{\rm H}$ denotes the mass of hadron H. Therefore, calculating the two-point function by a Monte Carlo simulation and extracting the slope of the exponential decay would yield the mass of hadron H.
This program was carried out by Weingarten [@Weingarten1982], and by Hamber and Parisi [@HamberParisi1981] in 1981. The lattice size employed was $12^4$ for the Icosahedral subgroup of SU(2) for the former, and $6^3\times 12$ for SU(3) for the latter work. Albeit very modest in today’s standards, their studies clearly demonstrated the feasibility of their approach, which accelerated an explosive development of Monte Carlo simulations in lattice QCD.
Massive parallelism and lattice QCD {#sec:2-2}
-----------------------------------
Monte Carlo simulation of lattice QCD is based on the method of importance sampling. Let $\phi_n$ be a field variable at a site $n$ on a lattice $\Lambda$ with $V$ lattice points, and $O(\phi)$ an operator. In field theory, one wishes to calculate the average value of $O(\phi)$ weighted with the action $S[\phi]$ according to, $$\begin{aligned}
\left< O(\phi)\right> = \frac{1}{Z}\int\prod_{n}d\phi_n O(\phi) \exp\left(S[\phi]\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
Z=\int\prod_{n}d\phi_n O(\phi) \exp\left(S[\phi]\right).\end{aligned}$$
Let us define a configuration $C$ as a point $C=(\phi_1, \cdots, \phi_V)$ in the integration space of all fields on the lattice $\Lambda$. Monte Carlo evaluation of the integral proceeds by setting up a stochastic chain of configurations $C_1\to C_2\to\cdots\to C_N $ such that the distribution of configurations converges to the weight of the integral: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_N(C)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\delta(C-C_i)\to \frac{\exp\left(S[C]\right)}{Z}, \quad N\to\infty.\end{aligned}$$ In the well-known Metropolis algorithm, the convergence is guaranteed by accepting or rejecting a new trial configuration $C_ {\rm trial}$ according to the probability $P_{\rm acc}={\rm Min}\left(1, \exp(S[C_{\rm trial}]-S[C_{\rm old}])\right)$ where $C_{\rm old}$ is the latest configuration of the chain.
A very important property in Monte Carlo calculations of field theoretical systems is locality. A field variable $\phi_n$ at a site $n$ interacts only with those variables $\phi_m$’s in a limited neighborhood of the site $n$. In creating a trial configuration $C_{\rm trial}$ from an old configuration $C_{\rm old}$, and in calculating the difference of the action $S[C_{\rm trial}]-S[C_{\rm old}]$, the numerical operations at a site $n$ can be carried out independently of those at a site $m$ unless the pair is within the limited neighborhood of each other.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:lattice-PU\], let us divide the entire lattice $\Lambda$ into a set of sub-lattices $\Lambda_\alpha, \alpha=1,2,\cdots, N_P$, and assign each sub-lattice $\Lambda_\alpha$ to a processor $P_\alpha$. Because of locality, calculations by the processor $P_\alpha$ can be carried out independently of those by the other processors, except that the processors with overlapping boundaries have to exchange values of $\phi_k$’s in the boundaries before and/or after the calculations in each sub lattice. This means that, for a fixed lattice size, the computation time can be reduced by a factor $N_P$, and for a fixed sub-lattice size, one can enlarge the total lattice size proportionately to the number of processors $N_P$ without increasing the computation time.
This is an ideal case of the parallel computation paradigm. The locality property, which is one of the fundamental premises of field theoretic description of our universe, allows a mapping of calculations on a space-time lattice to a parallel array of processors interconnected with each other according to the connection of space-time sub-lattices.
Parallel computers for lattice QCD {#sec:2-3}
----------------------------------
Immediately after Monte Carlo calculations started in lattice QCD, several groups started to plan the building of a parallel computer for lattice QCD calculations. A crucial factor which helped push such an activity was a rapid development of microprocessors in the 70’s. As shown in Table \[tab:microprocessors\], starting with a 4 bit Intel 4004 in 1971, increasingly more powerful microprocessors were developed and were put out on the market at prices affordable by academic scientific projects.
In Table \[tab:80s\] we list the parallel computers developed by physicists for lattice QCD in the 80’s. Typically, these machines employed a commercial microprocessor such as those listed in Table \[tab:microprocessors\] as the control processor, and combined it with a floating point unit to enhance numerical computation capabilities.
[llll]{} year & name & bit & price/chip\
1971 & Intel 4004 & 4 bit & \$ 60\
1972 & Intel 8008 & 8 bit &\$120\
1974 & Intel 8080 & 8 bit &\$360\
1974 & Motorola 6800 & 8 bit &\$360\
1978 & Intel 8086 & 16 bit & \$320\
1979 & Motorola 68000 &32 bit &\
[llllll]{} name & year & authors & CPU & FPU & peak speed\
PAX-32\* & 1980& Hoshino-Kawai & M6800 & AM9511 & 0.5 MFlops\
Columbia & 1984& Christ-Terrano & PDP11 & TRW & –\
Columbia-16 & 1985 & Christ et al & Intel 80286 & TRW & 0.25 GFlops\
APE1 & 1988 & Cabibbo-Parisi & 3081/E & Weitek & 1 GFlops\
Columbia-64 & 1987 & Christ et al & Intel 80286 & Weitek & 1 GFlops\
Columbia-256 &1989& Christ et al& M68020 & Weitek &16 GFlops\
ACPMAPS &1991& Mackenzie et al& micro VAX & Weitek &5 Gflops\
QCDPAX & 1991 & Iwasaki-Hoshino & M68020 & LSI-logic &14 GFlops\
GF11 & 1992 & Weingarten & PC/AT & Weitek & 11 GFlops\
\
The famous CRAY-1 vector supercomputer came on the market in 1976. Vector supercomputers developed rapidly, and dominated the market in the 70’ and 80’s. However, the progress of parallel computers was even faster. By the end of the 80’s, parallel computers caught up and even overtook vector computers in speed. We can observe this trend by tracking blue and green symbols (vector computers) and red and violet symbols (parallel computers) from the 80’s to early 90’s in Fig. \[fig:computerspeed\].
[llllll]{} name & year & authors & CPU & vendor & peak speed\
APE100 & 1994& APE Collab. & custom & – & 0.1Tflops\
CP-PACS& 1996& Iwasaki et al& PA-RISC & Hitachi(SR2201) & 0.6TFlops\
QCDSP& 1998& Christ et al & TI DSP & – & 0.6TFlops\
APEmille & 2000& APE Collab. & custom & – & 0.8Tflops\
QCDOC & 2005& Christ et al & PPC-based & IBM(BG/L) &10TFlops\
PACS-CS&2006&Ukawa et al& Intel Xeon & Hitachi & 14TFlops\
QCDCQ&2011& Christ et al & PPC-based & IBM(BG/Q) &500TFlops\
QPACE & 2012& Wettig et al & PowerXCell & – & 200TFlops\
In Table \[tab:90s\] we list the parallel computers developed in the 90’s and later for lattice QCD. Big success continued with CP-PACS in Japan, which occupied the top position in the Top 500 list of supercomputers in November 1996, and QCDSP in USA. We observe an increasing involvement of major vendors such as Hitachi and IBM. This was necessary to secure advanced technology and computer building knowhow to develop those fast computers. Probably the most well-known of this trend is the QCDOC project, which gave rise to the IBM BlueGene/L, and the QCDCQ project which ran parallel with the IBM BlueGene/Q development. In this way lattice QCD has seriously influenced the development of parallel supercomputers for scientific computing. Another trend one can observe in Table \[tab:90s\] is the use of commodity processors such as Intel Xeon for a quick machine building. This was the option adopted by PACS-CS and QPACE.
Today, the fastest supercomputers have reached the peak speed of $O(50)$ Pflops [@top500]. This has been achieved in two ways. The K computer in Japan and Sequoia (BlueGene/Q) in USA connected $O(10^5)$ multi-core processors running at $O(100)$ Gflops. Tianhe-2 in China and Titan in USA boosted the computing power by adding multiples of GPGPU’s running at $O(1)$ Tflops to each node. Further increase of computing speed faces a serious issue that the memory cannot supply data fast enough to the processing units and the power consumption is becoming too large for large systems. Serious effort is already going on, however, to overcome these problems.
Fermion problem and hybrid Monte Carlo method {#sec:2-4}
---------------------------------------------
Monte Carlo calculation for the gluon fields, though somewhat complicated by the SU(3) nature of the field variable, is straightforward. Calculations for the quark fields, on the other hand, cannot be directly put on a computer since quark fields are represented by anticommuting Grassmann numbers. Instead one uses the identity [^3] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int\prod_n d\overline{q}_n dq_n\exp\left(\sum_{n,m}\overline{q}_nD_{n,m}(U)q_m\right) \\
&=&\int\prod_n d\phi^\dagger_n d\phi_n\exp\left(-\sum_{n,m}\phi^\dagger_nD^{-1}_{n,m}(U)\phi_m\right), \end{aligned}$$ where $D$ represents the lattice Dirac operator and $\phi_n$ represents a bosonic field with 4 Dirac and 3 color indices to rewrite $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fullQCD}
Z_{\rm QCD}=\int\prod_{n\mu}dU_{n\mu}\int\prod_n d\phi^\dagger_n d\phi_n \exp\left(S_{\rm gluon}-\sum_{n,m}\phi^\dagger_nD^{-1}_{n,m}(U)\phi_m\right).\end{aligned}$$ with which the fundamental variables $U_{n\mu}$’s and $\phi_n$’s are all bosonic.
The inverse $D^{-1}_{n,m}(U)$ is a non-local quantity. A change of a $\phi_n$ spreads across the lattice through the inverse. Therefore preparing a trial configuration whose acceptance can be controlled is not straightforward. A number of methods were developed in the 80’s including the micro canonical [@CallawayRahman1982; @PolonyiWyld1983] and Langevin [@UkawaFukugita1985] methods. The latter was also explored by the group at Cornell including Wilson [@Wilson1985]. The standard method has settled on the hybrid Monte Carlo (HMC) method proposed in 1987 [@DuaneKennedyPendleton1987], which we now discuss.
The first step of HMC is to introduce an SU(3)-algebra valued momentum $P_{n\mu}$ conjugate to $U_{n\mu}$, and rewrite the path integral (\[eq:fullQCD\]) of full QCD as a partition function of a fictitious classical system of $U_{n\mu}$’s and $P_{n\mu}$’s as $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\rm QCD}=\int\prod_{n\mu}dP_{n\mu}\prod_{n\mu}dU_{n\mu}\int\prod_n d\phi^\dagger_n d\phi_n \exp\left(-H\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is a fictitious Hamiltonian defined by $$\begin{aligned}
H=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n\mu}\mathrm{Tr}\left(P_{n\mu}^2\right)-S_{\rm gluon}(U)+ \sum_{n,m}\phi^\dagger_nD^{-1}_{n,m}(U)\phi_m.\end{aligned}$$
We now wish to generate a set of configurations distributed according to the weight $\exp(-H)/Z_{\rm QCD}$ by a Monte Carlo procedure. For this purpose, one introduces a fictitious time $\tau$ conjugate to the Hamiltonian $H$. Starting with a given configuration of $U_{n\mu}$ and $\phi_n$ at $\tau=0$, we solve Hamilton’s equations for the canonical pair, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\tau}U_{n_\mu}&=&iU_{n\mu}P_{n\mu},\\
\label{eq:hamilton}
\frac{d}{d\tau}P_{n\mu}&=&\frac{\partial}{\partial U_{n\mu}}S_{gluon}(U) \nonumber \\
&+&\sum_{n,k,l,m}\phi_n^\dagger D_{n,k}^{-1}(U)\frac{\partial}{\partial U_{n\mu}}D_{k,l}(U)D_{l,m}^{-1}(U)\phi_m\end{aligned}$$ over some interval of $\tau$. The configuration at a final time $\tau$ is used as a new configuration in the Monte Carlo procedure.
In numerical implementations, a continuous fictitious time evolution is discretized with a finite step size $\delta\tau$. Since the Hamiltonian is no longer conserved, the configuration generated after a number of steps $\tau_n=n\delta\tau$ suffers from a bias. This is corrected by accepting or rejecting the generated configuration according to the Metropolis probability $P_{\rm acc}={\rm min}(1, \exp(-\delta H))$ where $\delta H=H(P(\tau_n), U(\tau_n))-H(P(0), U(0))$ is the difference of Hamiltonian over the trajectory of length $\tau_n=n\delta\tau$.
Hybrid Monte Carlo is an elegant method. It is (i) exact, (ii) allows control of acceptance, [*i.e.,*]{} the probability that a trial configuration is accepted, through the magnitude of $\delta\tau$, and (iii) solving Hamltion’s equations can be executed in a parallel fashion. However, at every discretized step $\delta\tau$ in updating the fields according to the Hamilton’s equation, it requires the inverse of the lattice Dirac operator of form $x_n=\sum_m D_{n,m}^{-1}(U)\phi_m$ for given $U_{n\mu}$ and $\phi_n$.
The inverse can be obtained by solving the lattice Dirac equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Dirac}
\sum_m D_{n,m}(U)x_m=\phi_n. \end{aligned}$$ This is a linear equation for a large but sparse matrix $D_{n,m}$, which can be obtained by iterative algorithms such as the conjugate gradient method. The number of iterations $N_{\rm iter}$ needed to reach an approximate solution is controlled by the condition number $\kappa(D)$ of the matrix $D$. It is given by $\kappa(D)=\lambda_{\rm max}/\lambda_{\rm min}$ where $\lambda_{\rm max}$ and $\lambda_{\rm min}$ are the maximum and minimum value of the eigenvalues of $D$. Typically, the iteration number $N_{\rm iter}$ is inversely proportional to the condition number. Since the minimum eigenvalue for the lattice Dirac operator is of the order of quark mass $m_qa$ in lattice units, and the maximum eigenvalue is $O(1)$, one finds $N_{\rm iter}\propto 1/m_qa$.
Among the six types of quarks known experimentally, the lightest up and down quarks have masses of the order of a few MeV. This is three orders of magnitude smaller than the typical hadronic scale of 1 GeV. The condition number of the lattice Dirac operator for these quarks is large, and therefore, hybrid Monte Carlo simulation slows down considerably as one tries to approach the physical values of quark masses.
Physical point calculation {#sec:2-5}
--------------------------
Lattice QCD simulations including quark effects through hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm developed rapidly toward the end of the 90’s. By the turn of the century, there was enough experience accumulated to empirically estimate how much computing is needed to calculate observables with a quotable error for a given quark mass. In Fig. \[fig:Berlinwall\] is shown a typical plot [@Ukawa2001], taking the case of $N_f=2$ flavor simulations for a lattice box of a size 3 fm, a minimum value to contain a hadron such as a nucleon within the box. The vertical axis shows the amount of computing in units of Tflops$\times$year, [*i. e.*]{}, 1 year of running a computer executing 1 Tflop$=10^{12}$ floating point operations per second. The horizontal axis is the ratio of $\pi$ meson to $\rho$ meson masses, which varies with up and down quark masses and equals $m_\pi/m_\rho=0.18$ in experiment. The three curves correspond to the inverse lattice spacing $1/a=1, 2, 3$ GeV, with $1/a=2$ GeV or larger being needed for a reliable continuum extrapolation. We observe a sharp rise of the curves toward the physical value of $m_\pi/m_\rho=0.18$. This is a critical slowing down of the hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm, primarily arising from the slowdown of the Dirac solver toward $m_qa\to 0$.
The rapid increase presented a major problem for lattice QCD simulations. Without overcoming this problem, one could only compute at quark masses much heavier than the physical values. The results had to be extrapolated to the physical point, but such an extrapolation involved large systematic errors because of the existence of logarithmic terms of the form $\sim m_q \log m_q/\Lambda$ expected at vanishing quark mass.
The difficulty was resolved in the middle of the 2000’s [@Luescher2005]. Since the force in the Hamilton’s equation (\[eq:hamilton\]) involves $D^{-1}_{nm}(U)$, there are contributions coming from the short-distance neighborhood of the link $n\mu$ being updated and from those further away. It is possible to rewrite the quark determinant $\det D(U)$ such that these two types of contributions are separated. It was shown in [@Luescher2005] that, decomposing the lattice $\Lambda$ into a set of sub-lattices $\Lambda_i, i=1,2,\cdots$, one can write $$\begin{aligned}
\det D(U) = \prod_i \det D_i(U)\cdot \det R(U),\end{aligned}$$ where $D_i(U)$ is the Dirac operator restricted to a sub-lattice $\Lambda_i$ and $R$ couples sites belonging to different sub-lattices. Rewriting each determinant factor on the right hand side as a bosonic integral, one can write the force term as $$\begin{aligned}
F_{n\mu}=F_{n\mu}^{\rm gluon}+F_{n\mu}^{\rm UV}+F_{n\mu}^{\rm IR},\end{aligned}$$ where $F_{n\mu}^{\rm gluon}$ is the term coming from the gluon action, $F_{n\mu}^{\rm UV}$ those arising from $D_i(U)$’s, and hence represents short-distance contributions, and $F_{n\mu}^{\rm IR}$ is the term from $R(U)$ giving long-distance contributions.
In Fig. \[fig:luescher\] we show the magnitude of the three terms observed in a hybrid Monte Carlo run [@Luescher2005]. There is a clear separation of magnitude for the gluon, and UV and IR quark contributions. Therefore, the step size $\delta\tau_{\rm IR}$ for the IR part $F_{n\mu}^{\rm IR}$ can be taken much larger than $\delta\tau_{\rm UV}$ for the UV part, which in turn can be taken much larger than $\delta\tau_{\rm gluon}$ for the gluon part. An evolution with different step sizes for different parts of the force can be realized by a multi-time step integrator originally developed in [@SextonWeingarten].
![Magnitude of the force term $F_{n\mu}^{\rm gluon} (k=0)$, $F_{n\mu}^{\rm UV}(k=1)$, and $F_{n\mu}^{\rm IR}(k=2)$ as a function of distance from sub lattice boundary. From Ref. . []{data-label="fig:luescher"}](fig9.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Since inverting the long-distance part of the operator $R$ is the computationally most intensive, using different step sizes for the three parts of the force lead to acceleration of the evolution by a large factor of order $\delta\tau_{\rm IR}/\delta\tau_{\rm gluon}\approx 10-50$. Simulations incorporating such an acceleration technique were first carried out in the late 2000’s [@PACS-CS2009], and reached the physical quark masses for the up and down quarks.
The separation of UV and IR parts of the quark force can be realized in a different manner [@Hasenbusch] by rewriting the Dirac operator for a quark mass $m_0$ as a product of ratios of successively heavier masses, $$\begin{aligned}
D(U, m_0)=\prod_{i=0}^{N}\left(D(U,m_i)D^{-1}(U, m_{i+1})\right)\cdot D(U, m_N),\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{i+1}$ is taken larger than $m_i$. Qualitatively speaking, one is separating the contributions to the force according to the eigenvalues in the range $[m_i, m_{i+1}]$ with $m_{N+1}$ equal to the largest eigenvalue.
A somewhat different method to accelerate the hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm is provided by the rational hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm [@Horvathetal1999]. One writes $$\begin{aligned}
\det D =\left[\det D^{1/n}\right]^n=\int\prod_{i=1}^n d\phi^{i\dagger}d\phi^{i}\exp\left[-\sum_{i=1}^n\phi^{i\dagger}D^{-1/n}\phi^{i}\right]\end{aligned}$$ for some positive integer $n$, and applies a rational approximation to the fractional power $x^{-1/n}$. If $\kappa$ is the condition number of $D$, the n-th root $D^{1/n}$ will have a smaller condition number $\kappa^{1/n}$. The magnitude of the force, compared with that of the hybrid Monte carlo method, will be reduced by a factor $\kappa^{1-1/n}$. Hence the step size can be increased by the corresponding factor, leading to an acceleration of the molecular dynamics evolution.
A final comment concerns the iterative inversion of the lattice Dirac operator (\[eq:Dirac\]). Since the increase of the number of iterations toward small quark masses is the cause of the slowdown of the hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm, an ultimate optimization of the algorithm would be realized if one could remove the critical slowdown. This has recently been achieved by understanding the modes corresponding to the small eigenvalues of the lattice Dirac operator. One can either construct these modes explicitly and “deflate” ([*i.e.*]{}, remove) them from the inversion [@Luescher2007], or employ multi-grid techniques to adaptively generate and incorporate these modes in the inversion [@Babichietal2010; @Frommeretal2013].
Over the years, the improvements as described here plus the development of an increasingly powerful computers have made it possible to carry out lattice QCD calculations at the physical quark masses. Such calculations are now routinely done. This is an impressive achievement. It also carries an aesthetic appeal; with the physical quark masses, one is no longer simulating, but rather calculating, the physical processes of the strong interactions as they are taking place in our universe.
Physics results {#sec:3}
===============
Light Hadron spectrum {#sec:3-1}
---------------------
### Mass spectrum of light mesons and baryons {#sec:3-1-1}
Since the masses of hadrons are dynamical quantities, whether lattice QCD can quantitatively explain the experimentally known mass spectrum provides a stringent test of the validity of QCD at low energies. Furthermore, the success of such a calculation forms the basis on which the reliability of lattice QCD predictions of other physical quantities are to be built. For these reasons, the calculation of the hadron mass spectrum, in particular those of the ground states of light mesons and baryons composed of up, down, and strange quarks, has been pursued since the beginning of lattice QCD and numerical simulations.
A precise determination of the mass spectrum has to control a number of sources of errors. They are (i) statistical error due to the Monte Carlo nature of the calculation, (ii) systematic error due to extrapolation to the physical quark masses, (iii) systematic error due to finite lattice sizes, (iv) systematic error due to finite lattice spacings. In addition, until the late 90’s, most calculations were carried out with the so-called quenched approximation in which effects of quark-antiquark pair creation and annihilation are entirely ignored by dropping the quark determinant $\det D$ from the path integral. This was due to a high cost of including the quark effects into the simulations.
The first systematic attempt at a precision calculation of the light hadron spectrum was carried out by Weingarten and his colleagues within the quenched approximation in 1993 [@gf11]. The calculation took 1 year of dedicated computer time on GF11 computer developed by him at IBM. This was a landmark calculation in that a controlled extrapolation to the physical quark masses, to infinite volume and to zero lattice spacing, was systematically attempted. The masses of $\pi$, $\rho$ and $K$ mesons were employed to fix degenerate up and down, and strange quark masses. The masses of $K^*$ and $\phi$ for the meson octet, nucleon $N$ for the baryon octet, and $\Delta, \Sigma^*, \Xi^*$ and $\Omega$ for the baryon decuplet were obtained as predictions. They are plotted by filled circles in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:quenched\]. The masses of $\Lambda, \Sigma$ and $\Xi$ of the baryon octet were not reported. The horizontal bars show the experimental values. We observe that the calculated values are consistent with experiment within one standard deviation. However, for baryons, a sizable magnitude of the errors of O(10$\%$) make it difficult to conclude if there is a precise agreement.
![The left panel shows the result of the first systematic quenched light hadron mass spectrum calculation published in 1993. The right panel shows the definitive quenched result reported in 2000. []{data-label="fig:quenched"}](fig10-1.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![The left panel shows the result of the first systematic quenched light hadron mass spectrum calculation published in 1993. The right panel shows the definitive quenched result reported in 2000. []{data-label="fig:quenched"}](fig10-2.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
A definitive calculation of the hadron spectrum within the quenched calculation followed in 2000 [@CP-PACS]. This work took half a year of CP-PACS computer which was 55 times faster than GF11. The results for the light meson and baryon ground states are shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:quenched\]. As one clearly sees there, the quenched spectrum systematically deviates from the experimental spectrum. If one uses the K meson mass $m_K$ as input to fix the strange quark mass (filled data points), the vector meson masses $m_{K^*}$ and $m_\phi$ are smaller by 4%($4\sigma$) and 6% ($5\sigma$), the octet baryon masses are smaller by 6% – 9% ($4-7\sigma$), and the decuplet mass splittings are smaller by 30% on average. Alternatively, if the $\phi$ meson mass $m_\phi$ is employed (open circles), $m_{K^*}$ agrees with experiment within 0.8% ($2\sigma$) and the discrepancies for baryon masses are much reduced. However, $m_K$ is larger by 11% ($6\sigma$). In other words, there is no way to match the entire spectrum beyond 5 to 10% precision in quenched QCD.
The CP-PACS calculation heralded the end of the era of quenched calculations. Efforts toward full QCD simulations, which had already been taking shape in the late 90’s, intensified. A first systematic calculation in full QCD was made by the CP-PACS Collaboration with dynamical up and down quarks ($N_f=2$) [@CP-PACS2000]. With the algorithmic development in the middle of the 2000’s, which we described in Sec. \[sec:2-5\], calculations around the physical quark masses became possible. The PACS-CS Collaboration carried out $N_f=2+1$ flavor calculations in which the strange quark mass was taken close to the physical value and the pion mass was decreased down to $m_\pi=155$ MeV as compared to the physical value of 135 MeV [@PACS-CS2009].
Finally, the BMW Collaboration carried out an infinite volume and continuum limit extrapolated calculation in 2008 [@BMW2008]. We reproduce their results in Fig. \[fig:BMW\]. There is good agreement with the experimental spectrum within the errors of 2–5% except for $\Delta$ for which the error is 13%.
Some of hadrons, including $\rho$ and $\Delta$, are resonances which decay for physical quark masses and infinite volume. A general relation between energy levels of two body states at finite volume and scattering phase shift, from which resonance parameters can be extracted, was established by Lüscher some time ago [@Luescher1991]. The BMW Collaboration assumed the Breit-Wigner form for the phase shift, and used this relation to correct the measured masses for the effects of decay coupling.
A more rigorous approach in which the phase shift is first extracted from measured energy levels and Lüscher’s formula, and resonance masses and widths are subsequently determined from the phase shift, was pioneered in [@Ishizuka2007]. Because of severe computational cost, it will take more time before physical point calculations can treat resonances numerically precisely in this way.
![Light hadron mass spectrum in $N_f=2+1$ flavor QCD [@BMW2008] reported in 2008. Masses of $\pi$, $K$ and $\Xi$ are used to fix the degenerate up-down and strange quark masses as well as scale. Boxes of shaded grey show resonance masses and widths. Color online.[]{data-label="fig:BMW"}](fig11.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
### Isospin splittings of light hadron masses
The isospin multiplets of hadrons exhibit small mass differences of a few MeV. These tiny effects are nonetheless very important to understand our universe. For example, neutron with a mass $m_n=939.565379(21)$ MeV is heavier than proton of a mass $m_p=938.272046 (21)$ MeV by $m_n-m_p = 1.2933322(4)$ MeV. Because of this difference, neutron undergoes a $\beta$ decay with a mean life of $880.3(1.1)$ sec, which has important consequences in nucleosynthesis after the Big Bang, and the composition of nuclei as we see them today.
Since isospin mass splittings arise from the mass difference of up and down quarks, $N_f=1+1+1$ simulations with different masses for up, down, and strange quarks become necessary. Once we take the quark mass difference into account, one also likes to consider the electromagnetic effects, since the magnitude of the effect, expected at the order of a few MeV, is similar to those arising from the up-down quark mass difference.
A pioneering work on isospin breaking effects was carried out in the mid-90’s [@DuncanEichtenThacker1996]. The RBC Collaboration rekindled interest by pointing out its importance [@Blumetal2010]. Both quenched QED [@Blumetal2010] and full QED [@Ishikawaetal2012; @PACS-CS2012] have been attempted. The most recent calculation has been reported by the BMW Collaboration [@BMW2014]. They carried out $N_f=1+1+1+1$ QCD and QED simulations with independent up, down, strange, and charm quark masses and three values of QED coupling for a variety of lattice sizes and spacings. A careful analysis of finite size effects due to the infinite range of photon was made. The infinite volume and continuum limit extrapolation was carried out. The final result is $$\begin{aligned}
m_n-m_p = +1.51(28) {\rm ~MeV}\end{aligned}$$ in good agreement with experiment. Treating the hadron mass differences to first order in $m_u-m_d$ and QED coupling $\alpha$, they could separate QCD and QED contributions with the result, $$\begin{aligned}
m_n-m_p = +2.52(30)_{\rm QCD} - 1.00(16)_{\rm QED} {\rm ~MeV}.\end{aligned}$$ There is a delicate cancellation between the QCD and QED effects before the final number settles on the experimental value.
Fundamental constants of the strong interaction {#sec:3-2}
-----------------------------------------------
### Quark masses {#sec:3-2-1}
[lllllll]{} year & &action & $\frac{m_u+m_d}{2}$ & $m_u$ & $m_d$ & $m_s$\
&\
2000 & CP-PACS [@CP-PACS] & Wilson & 4.57(18) & – & – & 115.6(2.3)$^{1)}$\
& & & & & & 143.7(5.8)$^{2)}$\
&\
2000 & CP-PACS [@CP-PACS2000] & Wilson & $3.45^{+0.14}_{-0.20}$ & – & – & $89^{+3}_{-6}$$\,\,^{1)}$\
& & & & & & $90^{+5}_{-10}$$^{2)}$\
\
2010 & MILC [@MILC09] & staggered & 3.19(18) & 1.96(14) & 4.53(32) & 89.0(4.8)\
2010 & BMW [@BMW2010] & Wilson & 3.469(67) & 2.15(11) & 4.79(14) & 95.5(1.9)\
2012 &RBC/ & domain & 3.37(12) & – & – & 92.3(2.3)\
&UKQCD [@RBCUKQCDDomainwall2013] & wall\
\
1998 & PDG [@PDG1998] & & 2–6 & 1.5–5 & 3–9 & 60–170\
2012 & PDG [@PDG2012] & & $3.5^{+0.9}_{-0.2}$ &$2.3^{+0.7}_{-0.5}$ & $4.8^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$ & $95\pm 5$\
[llllll]{} year & &action & $m_c$ & $m_b$ & $m_t$\
\
2010 & HPQCD [@HPQCD2010] & staggered & 1.273(6) & 4.164(27) & –\
1998 & PDG [@PDG1998] & &1.1–1.4 & 4.1–4.4 & 173.8(5.2)\
2012 & PDG [@PDG2012] & &1.275(25) & 4.18(3) & 173.07(89)\
The determination of quark masses is a very important consequence of hadron mass spectrum calculations with lattice QCD. Since quarks are confined unlike leptons, lattice QCD provides the only reliable way for finding the values of this set of fundamental constants of our universe.
In Table \[tab:quarkmasses\] we list representative lattice results as well as estimates by Particle Data Group over the years. Even as late as 1998, the Review of Particle Physics listed quite a wide band of values as shown in this table. This exemplifies how uncertain quark masses were only a decade and a half ago. Two years later, the CP-PACS quenched spectrum calculation narrowed the range considerably. However, the limitation of quenched QCD is manifest in a large discrepancy of the strange quark mass depending on the input.
The $N_f=2$ full QCD calculation [@CP-PACS2000] including dynamical up and down quarks but treating strange quark in the quenched approximation showed that (i) quark masses are significantly smaller than indicated by the quenched results, and (ii) the discrepancy of strange quark mass depending on the input almost disappears.
The recent results from $N_f=2+1$ full QCD listed in Table \[tab:quarkmasses\] covers 3 types of fermion actions. All three calculations carry out infinite volume and continuum extrapolations, albeit the degree of sophistication differs among the three. The separate values of up and down quark masses are estimated using additional input on isospin breaking such as the $K^0-K^+$ mass difference and estimations on electromagnetic effects. The three sets of results are reasonably consistent. The 2012 Review of Particle Physics values reflect this progress.
In Table \[tab:heavyquarkmasses\] we list the masses of charm and bottom quarks as determined by lattice QCD, together with those in Reviews of Particle Physics over the years. We also list the value for the top quark for completeness.
Lattice QCD is rapidly moving into the era when all three light quarks are treated independently, and dynamical effects of charm quark is also included. It will be soon that such calculations yield a direct calculation of each of the quark masses with a few % error.
### Strong coupling constant {#sec:3-2-2}
![Strong coupling constant $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ obtained from experiment and from lattice QCD. Here experiment means determinations from scattering and decay data combined with perturbative QCD. For further explanations, see text.[]{data-label="fig:alphas"}](fig12.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
The value of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s(\mu)=g^2(\mu)/4\pi$ defined in terms of the QCD coupling $g(\mu)$ at some prescribed scale $\mu$ is another fundamental constant of our universe, on a par with the fine structure constant $\alpha=e^2/4\pi$ for electromagnetism with the famous value $\alpha^{-1}=137.035 999 074(44)$.
In Fig \[fig:alphas\] we plot the determinations obtained from scattering and decay data combined with perturbative QCD as of Fall 2013 [@PDG2013revision], and compare them with lattice QCD values from recent $N_f=2+1$ calculations. By convention, the scale is taken to be the Z boson mass $m_Z=91.1876(21)$ GeV, and five flavors of quarks excluding top is incorporated in the running of the coupling. Lattice QCD determinations employ experimental quantities at low energies such as hadron masses and decay constants for fixing the scale. The methods employed range from step scaling function using the Schrödinger functional by PACS-CS [@PACS-CS2009], current 2-point function and Wilson loops by HPQCD [@HPQCD2010], to static quark antiquark potential by Bazavov [*et al*]{} [@Bazavov2012]. The vertical band corresponds to the average over the four experimental determinations [@PDG2013revision], $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1183(12)$.
The determinations with perturbative QCD still show some scatter and relatively large errors, and so do lattice QCD determinations depending on the method, the ones from current 2-point function and Wilson loops having the smallest error. There is consistency with experiment at 1% level, and the precision of lattice determinations will steadily improve.
CP violation in the Standard Model {#sec:3-3}
----------------------------------
### CKM matrix elements {#sec:3-3-1}
The connection between six types of quarks and CP violation is a salient feature of the Standard Model. The complex phase characterizing CP violation is encoded in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix $V$ which appears in the weak interaction Lagrangian as $$\begin{aligned}
L_{int}=ig\left( \begin{array}{ccc} \overline{u}, \overline{c}, \overline{t} \end{array} \right)_L\gamma_\mu
V \left( \begin{array}{c} d\\ s\\ b \end{array} \right)_LW_\mu^- + {\rm h.c.} \end{aligned}$$ In the Wolfenstein parametrization, the matrix takes the form, $$\begin{aligned}
V=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} V_{ud}, V_{us}, V_{ub}\\
V_{cd}, V_{cs}, V_{cb}\\
V_{td}, V_{ts}, V_{tb}\\
\end{array}\right)
= \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1-\lambda^2/2, \lambda, A\lambda^3(\rho-i \eta)\\
-\lambda, 1-\lambda^2/2, A\lambda^2\\
A\lambda^3(1-\rho-i\eta), -A\lambda^2, 1\\
\end{array}\right) + O(\lambda^4), \end{aligned}$$ with three real parameters $A, \lambda, \rho$ and an imaginary term $i\eta$ characterizing CP violation.
Constraining the CKM matrix requires matching experimental data on weak processes of hadrons to the theoretical expressions for the transition amplitudes which follow from the interaction Lagrangian above. Since quarks interact strongly according to QCD, the weak transition amplitudes are dressed by QCD corrections. These corrections can be calculated by lattice QCD.
One of weak processes which plays an important role is the CP violating mixing of neutral $K^0$ and $\overline{K}^0$ mesons. The experimentally measured state mixing amplitude $\epsilon$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon=C\hat{B}_K\left\{\eta_1S(x_c){\rm Im}(\lambda_c^2)+\eta_2S(x_t){\rm Im}(\lambda_t^2)+2\eta_3S(x_c,x_t){\rm Im}(\lambda_c\lambda_t)\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $C$, $\eta_{1,2,3}$, $S(x, y)$, $S(x)=S(x,x)$ are known constants and functions, $x_q=m_q^2/m_W^2$ with $m_q$ and $m_W$ the mass of quark $q$ and W boson, and $\lambda_q=V_{qs}^*V_{qd}$ is the product of CKM matrix elements. The K meson bag parameter $B_K$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
B_K=\frac{\left<\overline{K}^0\vert \left(\overline{s}\gamma_\mu d\right)_L\left(\overline{s}\gamma_\mu d\right)_L\vert K^0\right>}{\frac{8}{3}f_K^2m_K^2},\end{aligned}$$ where the expectation value is taken for QCD, and $\hat{B}_K$ is its renormalization group invariant value. We see then that the precision with which we can compute $B_K$ directly reflects in the precision in the determination of the CKM matrix elements through the products $\lambda_q=V_{qs}^*V_{qd}$.
Similarly, for the mixing of $B_q^0$ and $\overline{B}_q^0$ mesons with $q=d$ or $s$, the oscillation frequency $\Delta m_q$ is proportional to the $B_q$ meson decay constant $f_{B_q}$ and the bag parameter $B_{B_q}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
B_{B_{q}}=\frac{\left<\overline{B}^0\vert \left(\overline{b}\gamma_\mu q\right)_L\left(\overline{b}\gamma_\mu q\right)_L\vert B^0\right>}{\frac{8}{3}f_{B_q}^2m_{B_q}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, the decays of $B$ mesons in the leptonic ($B\to \ell\nu$) and semi-leptonic (such as $B\to\pi\ell\nu$ and $B\to D^*\ell\nu$) channels are used to constrain the matrix elements $\vert V_{ub}\vert$ and $\vert V_{cb}\vert$.
![Latest constraints on the CKM matrix element expressed in the $(\overline{\rho}, \overline{\eta})$ plane. From Ref. . Color online.[]{data-label="fig:CKM"}](fig13.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
The constraint on the CKM matrix is usually written on the complex $(\overline{\rho}, \overline{\eta})$ plane defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\rho}+i \overline{\eta}=\left(1-\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\right)\left(\rho+i\eta\right).\end{aligned}$$ In Fig. \[fig:CKM\] we show the latest result compiled by the UTfit Group [@UTfitter]. The result by the CKMfitter group [@CKMfitter] is similar. The inside of various regions are allowed from each of the constraints. There has to be a common overlap region if the Standard Model is to be consistent with experiment. Fitting data to the Standard Model, UTfit finds $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\rho}=0.132(23), \quad \overline{\eta}=0.351(13).\end{aligned}$$
[llllll]{} observable & PDG [@PDG]/ & & matrix & FLAG [@FLAG2014]&\
&HFAG [@HFAG] & & element & &\
$\epsilon$ & $2.228(11)\times 10^{-3}$&0.49%&$\hat{B}_K$&0.7661(99)&1.3%\
$\Delta m_s/\Delta m_d$&$34.8(2)$&0.60%&$\frac{f_{B_s}\sqrt{B_{B_s}}}{f_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}}}$&$1.268(63)$ [@FNAL2012]&5.0%\
${\cal B}(B\to\tau\nu)$&$1.14(27)\times 10^{-4}$&24%&$f_B ({\rm MeV})$&$190.5(4.2)$&2.2%\
${\cal B}(B\to\pi\ell\nu)^{1)}$&$0.38(2)\times 10^{-4}$&5% & $\Delta\zeta^{B\to\pi} $& 2.16(50) [@HPQCD2006; @FNAL2008] & 23%\
$B\to D^*\ell\nu$ & $35.85(45)\times 10^{-3}$& 1.3% & $F^{B\to D^*}(1)$& 0.906(13) [@FNAL2014] & 1.4%\
\
For each region in Fig. \[fig:CKM\] the width of the allowed band represents experimental uncertainties as well as those of lattice QCD determinations. In the two left columns of Table \[tab:CKM\], we list the experimental inputs, and their percentage errors, used for constraining the allowed regions. The quantities and percentage errors listed in the two right columns are the QCD matrix elements which are needed to convert the experimental inputs to constraints in the $(\overline{\rho},\overline{\eta})$ plane.
The experimental values are taken from Reviews of Particle Physics [@PDG] and a compilation of heavy flavor data by the Heavy Flavor Averaging Group [@HFAG]. The lattice QCD values for hadronic matrix elements are taken from a recent compilation by the Flavor Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG) [@FLAG2014]. We select the values quoted for $N_f=2+1$ calculations that passes FLAG criteria for the control of systematics errors including the continuum extrapolation. In some cases, only a few calculations are available, in which cases we quote the original references.
We observe that B meson related quantities still has a significant margin for improvement, both on the experimental and lattice QCD sides. The SuperKEKB experiment, which will start in a few years, is expected to reduce the experimental error by another order of magnitude. Improvements in lattice QCD values should keep pace. We should also remark that the large error in the $B$ decay measurement affects the determination of $V_{cb}$, which in turn broadens the band for $\epsilon$. The determination of $B_K$ itself is already quite precise.
### CP violation in the two pion decays of K meson
Historically, CP violation was discovered through an observation of K mesons decaying into two pions in 1964. The strength of direct CP violation relative to that in the state mixing is measured by the ratio $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon} = \frac{\omega}{\sqrt{2}\vert\epsilon\vert} \left[\frac{{\rm Im}A_2}{{\rm Re}A_2}-\frac{{\rm Im}A_0}{{\rm Re}A_0}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $A_I$ denotes the decay amplitude with isospin $I$ in the final state, and $$\begin{aligned}
\omega^{-1}=\frac{{\rm Re}A_0}{{\rm Re}A_2}.\end{aligned}$$ Two heroic experiments, NA48 at CERN [@NA48] and KTEV at FNAL [@KTeV], spanning two decades from the 80’s to early 2000’s, measured $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ with the result, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\epsilon'}{\epsilon} =\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
18.5(7.3)\times 10^{-4},&\quad {\rm NA48}\\
&\\
20.7(2.8)\times 10^{-4},&\quad {\rm KTeV}\\
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ It has also been a long standing puzzle that the amplitude for the $I=0$ final state is sizably larger than that for $I=2$, namely $\omega^{-1}\approx 22$. This is called the $\Delta I=1/2$ rule. Whether the Standard Model can successfully explain these features of $K\to 2\pi$ decay has been a major problem in particle physics. Since the issue boils down to calculating the strong interaction corrections to the effective weak interaction Hamiltonian, this has been an important challenge to lattice QCD since the 80’s.
There are three obstacles to a successful calculation of the $K\to\pi\pi$ amplitudes in lattice QCD. The first obstacle is chiral symmetry. Chirality plays an essential role in weak interactions. The effective 4-quark weak interaction Hamiltonian obtained at a lattice cutoff scale of a few GeV starting from a much higher weak interaction scale has a definite chiral structure [@Buras]. Thus one has to employ a lattice fermion formulation which has chiral symmetry. If, on the other hand, one uses non-chiral formulations such as Wilson’s, one has to carefully control chiral symmetry violation effects under renormalization. The former option was not available until the late 90’s when domain-wall and overlap formulations were proposed. The latter problem was successfully resolved for the Wilson fermion action only recently, with an enticing conclusion that the renormalization structure is the same as in the continuum for $K\to\pi\pi$ decay [@Doninietal1999; @Ishizuka2013].
The second obstacle stems from the fact that, in the Euclidean Green’s function for the $K\to\pi\pi$ transition by the weak Hamiltonian, the two-pion state with zero relative momentum, being the state with lowest energy in this channel, dominates for large times. This contradicts the physical kinematics of the decay; the two pions decaying from a K meson at rest should have an equal and opposite momentum $p=\sqrt{m_K^2/4-m_\pi^2}$. Thus a naive calculation does not yield physical results. A resolution was found in 2001 [@LelloucheLuscher]. One makes a calculation for a finite lattice volume chosen such that the energy of the two pion state matches the energy of the K meson. The physical amplitude for infinite volume can then be obtained by the following formula, $$\begin{aligned}
\vert A_{phys}(K\to\pi\pi)\vert^2=8\pi\frac{E_{\pi\pi}}{p}\left\{p\frac{d\delta_{\pi\pi}(p)}{dp}+q\frac{d\phi(q)}{dq}\right\}\vert\left<K\vert H_W\vert\pi\pi\right>_{lat}\vert^2.\end{aligned}$$ Here $p$ is the pion momentum, $\delta_{\pi\pi}(p)$ the elastic $\pi\pi$ phase shift at momentum $p$, $q=pL/(2\pi)$, and $\phi(q)$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\tan\phi(q)=-\frac{q\pi^{3/2}}{Z_{00}(1;q^2)}, \quad Z_{00}(1;q^2)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi}}\sum_{\vec{n}\in Z^3}\frac{1}{\vec{n}^2-q^2}.\end{aligned}$$
The third issue is specific to the $I=0$ channel and computational in character. In this channel, there are diagrams with disconnected quark loops, [*e.g.,*]{} quarks from the pions annihilate themselves. In addition, the so-called Penguin diagrams in which a pair of quarks from the weak Hamiltonian forms a loop are also present. These diagrams suffer from large statistical fluctuations, rendering the statistical average difficult. This problem is gradually being overcome with efficient algorithms for computing disconnected and Penguin contributions, and with increase of computing power which allows a large number of Monte Carlo ensembles.
Recently there has been significant progress assembling these developments together. The RBC Collaboration has developed applications of the domain-wall formulation of QCD having chiral symmetry. It has succeeded in calculating the $I=2$ amplitude for the physical pion mass [@RBRC2012]. Their result, obtained at a lattice spacing of $a\approx 0.14$ fm, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Re}A_2&=&+1.381(46)_{\rm stat}(258)_{\rm syst}\times 10^{-8} {\rm GeV},\\
{\rm Im}A_2&=&-6.54(46)_{\rm stat}(120)_{\rm syst}\times 10^{-13} {\rm GeV}.\end{aligned}$$ The real part is in good agreement with experiment: ${\rm Re}A_2^{\rm exp}=1.479(4)\times 10^{-8}$ GeV.
The RBC Collaboration has been attacking the much more difficult $I=0$ channel, using a special $G$-periodic boundary condition to force the pions to carry momentum so that an energy matching is realized between the K meson and 2 pions. Preliminary results have been presented at Lattice 2014 Conference this year.
Another group at Tsukuba has been pursuing the problem using the Wilson fermion formulation [@Ishizuka2013]. The renormalization structure for the operator relevant for $K\to\pi\pi$ decay turned out to be the same as in the continuum except for the mixing with dimension 3 operator $\overline{s}\gamma_5d$, which is subtracted non-perturbatively. Their calculation so far does not achieve physical kinematics. The $\pi$ meson mass is artificially taken large so that $2m_\pi=m_K$ is satisfied. Nonetheless they reported an encouraging first result for $I=0$ channel as well as for $I=2$ at Lattice 2014 Conference.
It is hoped that progress in the near future brings definitive results on the $I=0$ amplitude $A_0$. This will put an independent constraint on the CP violating phase $\bar{\eta}$ in Fig. \[fig:CKM\] as the ratio $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ is proportional to $\bar{\eta}$.
Quark-gluon matter at high temperature and density {#sec:3-4}
--------------------------------------------------
Confinement of quarks and spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry are both dynamical consequences of QCD. A very interesting question then is how these properties may or may not change if parameters (or dials) external to QCD are varied. One of important dials is temperature, which increases toward the Big Bang in the Early Universe. Another dial is baryon number density, which has a large value in extreme conditions such as in the core of neutron stars.
In both cases one is interested in an aggregate of hadrons, rather than individual hadrons, and wants to understand how its properties change at extremely high temperature or density. As we discuss below, a general conclusion from lattice studies is that a gas of hadrons turns into a different state in which quark and gluon degrees of freedom becomes manifest. The novel state of matter is often called quark-gluon plasma (QGP).
### Phase diagram of QCD at finite temperature:analytical considerations {#sec:3-4-1}
The Euclidean formulation adopted for lattice QCD is well suited for studies of its properties at finite temperatures. If one considers a lattice with $N_t$ sites in the temporal direction, and imposes periodic and antiperiodic boundary condition for gluon and quark fields, respectively, the lattice path integral (\[eq:partition\]) is equal to the canonical partition function $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\rm QCD}={\rm Tr}\left[\exp\left(-H_{\rm QCD}/T\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ at a physical temperature $$\begin{aligned}
T=\frac{1}{N_ta}.\end{aligned}$$ This connection shows that methods developed for zero temperature studies, including Monte Carlo calculations, are readily applicable to the finite temperature case.
In order to discuss what happens as the temperature is raised from zero, it is helpful to consider a two-dimensional plane of the average up-down quark mass $m_{ud}$ and the strange quark mass $m_s$, often dubbed Columbia Plot, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:columbia\] [@Columbia1990]. One can examine various limiting cases as follows.
#### (i) Pure gluon theory:
The top right corner in Fig. \[fig:columbia\] for $m_{ud}=m_s=\infty$ corresponds to the pure gluon theory without quark degrees of freedom. This case is important, nonetheless, since confinement is a dynamical consequence of the gluon fields.
The pure gluon theory possesses a center $Z(3)$ symmetry defined by the transformation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:centerZ(3)}
U_{n4}\to \zeta U_{n4}, \quad \zeta\in Z(3),\end{aligned}$$ for the sites $n$ on some fixed time slice $t$. The corresponding order parameter is the Wilson loop winding around the space-time in the time direction at a fixed spatial site $\vec{n}$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:polyakov}
\Omega(\vec{n}) = {\rm Tr}\left(\prod_{n_t=1}^{N_t}U_{(\vec{n},n_t)4}\right).\end{aligned}$$ This operator, often called Polyakov loop, transforms under the center Z(3) symmetry as $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega(\vec{n}) \to \zeta \Omega(\vec{n}). \end{aligned}$$ Polyakov[@Polyakov] and Susskind [@Susskind] argued that the center Z(3) symmetry is intact at low temperatures with $\left<\Omega(\vec{n})\right>=0$, but becomes spontaneously broken beyond a certain temperature $T=T_c$ with a non-zero expectation value $\left<\Omega(\vec{n})\right>\ne 0$.
The connection with deconfinement is most easily understood in the following way. The 2-point correlation function of Polyakov loops defined by $\left<\Omega(\vec{n}) \Omega^\dagger(\vec{m})\right>$ is connected with the free energy $F(\vert\vec{n}-\vec{m}\vert)$ of a static quark at site $\vec{n}$ and an antiquark at site $\vec{m}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\exp\left(-F(r)/T\right) = \left<\Omega(\vec{n}) \Omega^\dagger(\vec{m})\right>, \quad r=\vert\vec{n}-\vec{m}\vert.\end{aligned}$$ Assuming the presence of a mass gap $\mu$, the 2-point function on the right hand side is expected to behave for large $r$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\left<\Omega(\vec{n}) \Omega^\dagger(\vec{m})\right>
\to
\left<\Omega(\vec{n})\right>\cdot \left< \Omega^\dagger(\vec{m})\right> + O\left( \exp\left(-\mu r\right) \right),\quad r\to\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Depending on the expectation value $\left<\Omega\right>$, one finds for $r\to\infty$ that $$\begin{aligned}
F(r) &\to& \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\sigma r, &\quad \left<\Omega\right>=0, \quad T<T_c \\
&\\
c + O(\exp\left(-\mu_D r\right)), &\quad \left<\Omega\right>\ne 0, \quad T>T_c\\
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma=T\mu$ for $T<T_c$, and $c$ is a constant and $\mu_D=\mu$ is a color electric Debye screening mass for $T>T_c$.
Analytical considerations indicate that this deconfinement phase transition should be of first order [@YaffeSvetitsky]. If this is the case, the first-order transition will extend into the region of large but finite quark masses [@BanksUkawa], terminating at a line of second-order transition as depicted in Fig. \[fig:columbia\].
#### (ii) $N_f=2$ and $N_f=3$ massless QCD:
The top left corner of Fig. \[fig:columbia\] corresponds to $N_f=2$ massless QCD with $m_{ud}=0$ but $m_s=\infty$, and the bottom left corner to $N_f=3$ massless QCD with $m_{ud}=0$ and $m_s=0$.
For $N_f$ flavors of massless quarks, QCD is invariant under a global $SU(N_f)\otimes SU(N_f)$ chiral symmetry, which is spontaneously broken down to vector $SU(N_f)$ symmetry with a non-zero vacuum expectation value of the order parameter $\Sigma=\left<\overline{q}_nq_n\right>\ne 0$. The $N_f^2-1$-plet of pseudo scalar mesons are the corresponding Nambu-Goldstone bosons.
When one raises the temperature, thermal fluctuations tend to destabilize the chiral order parameter $\Sigma$. Thus one expects a phase transition restoring chiral symmetry at some temperature. A more detailed examination is possible using an effective non-linear sigma model for the order parameter field $\Phi_n^{ij}=\overline{q}_n^iq_n^j$ with $i,j=1, \cdots, N_f$ and renormalization group methods. The result [@PisarskiWilczek] indicates that (i) for $N_f=3$ or larger, chiral symmetry is restored through a first order phase transition, while (ii) for $N_f=2$ the phase transition is of first or of second order depending on whether flavor singlet $U(1)$ axial symmetry is effectively restored or not at $T>T_c$.
#### (iii) Connecting $N_f=2$ and $N_f=3$ massless QCD:
One can interpolate between the $N_f=2$ and $3$ cases by changing the strange quark mass $m_s$ from $\infty$ to $0$. If the $N_f=2$ transition is of second order, the first order transition for $N_f=3$ at $m_s=0$ has to change to a second order transition at a tricritical point at some $m_s=m_s^c$.
#### (iv) $N_f=3$ symmetric QCD:
In general, a first order phase transition is stable under symmetry breaking perturbations up to a critical value where it terminates with a second order phase transition. For the second order case, the phase transition immediately disappears if symmetry breaking perturbations are turned on. Thus one expects a sheet of first order transition extending from the bottom left corner corresponding to $N_f=3$ massless QCD to the interior of the phase diagram. The sheet should terminate at a line of second order phase transitions, which is expected to belong to the Ising universality class [@GavinGokschPisarski].
If the $N_f=2$ transition at $m_{ud}=0$ is of second order, this line of second order transitions will hit the vertical axis at $m_s=m_s^c$ with a power law $m_{ud}\propto (m_s^c-m_s)^{5/2}$ [@Rjagopal1995], as depicted in the left panel of Fig. \[fig:columbia\]. If, on the other hand, the $N_f=2$ transition is of first order, the line will go up to the top horizontal line (the right panel of Fig. \[fig:columbia\]).
### Monte Carlo study of the finite-temperature phase diagram {#sec:3-4-2}
Lattice QCD simulations are carried out for a fixed temporal lattice size $N_t$. One then regulates the temperature indirectly by varying the bare gauge coupling constant $g_0^2$; since the continuum limit $a=0$ is located at $g_0^2=0$, weaker couplings correspond to smaller lattice spacing, and hence to higher temperatures, and [*vice versa*]{} for stronger couplings and to lower temperatures.
The basic tool for studying the phase diagram is finite size scaling theory developed in the late 60’s and 70’s [@FSS]. This theory helps to analyze how singularities marking phase transitions develop from numerical data obtained at finite volumes.
#### (i) Pure gluon theory:
The first instance where finite size scaling method was crucially effective was the deconfinment transition of the pure gluon theory. Early simulations quickly found that the Polyakov loop expectation value exhibited a rapid increase from $\left<\Omega\right>\approx 0$ to non-zero values over a narrow range of temperature as expected. A subtle issue is if a rapid increase actually signifies a phase transition, and if so, whether it is a first order phase transition with a discontinuous jump of $\left<\Omega\right>$ at $T_c$ or a second order phase transition with a continuous $\left<\Omega\right>$ but having a singular derivative.
The susceptibility of Polyakov loop is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_\Omega=\frac{1}{L^d}\sum_{\vec{n},\vec{m}}\left<\Omega(\vec{n})\Omega^\dagger(\vec{m})\right>\end{aligned}$$ with $L$ the linear extent of the system, and $d$ the space dimension. For a finite volume, the susceptibility exhibits a peak. The infinite behavior of the peak height $\chi_\Omega^{\rm max}$ distinguishes the order of the phase transition. According to finite size scaling theory, if one parametrizes the volume dependence by a power law, $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_\Omega^{\rm max}(L)\propto L^\alpha, \quad L\to\infty,\end{aligned}$$ the value $\alpha=d$, [*i.e.,*]{} the dimensionality of space, signals a first order transition, while values $\alpha<d$ characterizes a second order transition in which case $\alpha$ is related to the critical exponents. Similar criterion holds for the volume dependence of the width of the peak.
These criteria were utilized to establish the first order nature of the deconfinement transition in the pure gluon theory [@FukugitaOkawaUkawa], in agreement with the analytical considerations.
#### (ii) Chiral transition with quarks:
The chiral phase transition in the presence of quarks has also be studied extensively. Ideally one would like to use a fermion formulation preserving chiral symmetry such as the domain-wall or overlap. They became available only in the early 2000’s, and are computationally very costly, however. For these reasons, most of the calculations have utilized, and still use, the staggered fermion formulation and, to a lesser extent, the Wilson formulation.
Broadly speaking, results accumulated to date are as follows. For $N_f=3$ degenerate flavors, the phase transition is consistent with being of first order for small quark masses. Increasing the quark mass, the transition weakens and terminates at a second order transition whose exponents are consistent with the Ising universality class (see Refs. [@Kayaetal1999; @Karschetal2001] for early representative work and references). These calculations are made at most for $N_t=6$ lattices, and the continuum limit is yet to be taken [@Dingetal2011].
For $N_f=2$, the situation is more complicated. Early simulations were consistent with a second order phase transition both with the staggered [@JLQCDNf2Thermo] and with the Wilson [@CP-PACSThermoNf2001] fermion formulations. For the staggered case, however, the critical exponents did not come out consistent with either $O(4)$ nor $O(2)$ values. There have also been simulations suggesting consistency with a first order transition [@Bonatietal2009].
As already pointed out in Ref. [@PisarskiWilczek], the order of the $N_f=2$ chiral transition is connected with the $U_A(1)$ anomaly. Recently, a theoretical argument has been put forward [@AokiFukayaTaniguchi] that the anomaly effects disappear for certain sets of correlation functions if chiral symmetry is restored. At the moment, the order of the $N_f=2$ transition is not settled completely.
### Thermodynamics with physical quark masses {#sec:3-4-3}
Physically, the crucial issue is where the point with physical quark masses lies on the phase diagram in Fig. \[fig:columbia\]. The staggered results are unanimous that it lies beyond the line of critical end points. Hence there is only a continuous crossover and no phase transition with a singular behavior. The basis for this conclusion includes an extensive study at physical quark masses with infinite volume and continuum extrapolations using susceptibilities of various physical observable [@WB2006].
Since the transition is a continuous crossover, the transition temperature is not uniquely determined but depends on the quantity used. For example [@WBTc2010], one finds $T_c=147(2)(3)$ MeV if one uses the susceptibility peak of chiral order parameter, and $T_c=157(4)(5)$ MeV from the inflection point of the energy density. An independent calculation [@HotQCD2012] reported $T_c=154(9)$ MeV from $O(4)$ scaling analysis of chiral susceptibility. The results are consistent, and altogether indicate $T\approx 150-160$ MeV as the temperature range across which the physical chiral transition takes place.
![Thermodynamic quantities in the continuum limit in 2+1 flavor QCD as a function of temperature. Left panel shows the energy density $e/T^4$ and interaction measure $I/T^4=(e-3p)/T^4$ in units of $T^4$, and right panel shows energy density $e$ in units of GeV/fm$^3$. From Refs. . Color online.[]{data-label="fig:thermo"}](fig15-1.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Thermodynamic quantities in the continuum limit in 2+1 flavor QCD as a function of temperature. Left panel shows the energy density $e/T^4$ and interaction measure $I/T^4=(e-3p)/T^4$ in units of $T^4$, and right panel shows energy density $e$ in units of GeV/fm$^3$. From Refs. . Color online.[]{data-label="fig:thermo"}](fig15-2.pdf "fig:"){width="46.00000%"}
In the left panel of Fig. \[fig:thermo\] we show the energy density $e/T^4$ and interaction measure $I/T^4=(e-3p)/T^4$, with $p$ the pressure, in units of $T^4$ calculated in the staggered quark formalism by two groups [@WBEoS2014; @HotQCD2014]. They are obtained at the physical quark masses, and infinite volume and continuum extrapolations are made. We observe very good agreement up to about 200 MeV beyond which a one standard deviation difference appears. Physically important is the feature that the Stefan-Boltzmann value for free gluons and quarks, $e_{\rm SB}/T^4=\pi^2(8+21 N_f/4)/15=15.62\cdots$ for $N_f=3$, is reached only slowly, with significant deviations remaining at $T/T_c\sim 2 - 3$. This indicates that the quark-gluon matter is strongly interacting at these temperature ranges. The right panel shows the energy density in units of GeV/fm${}^3$.
Experimental effort toward detection of quark-gluon plasma through heavy ion collisions in accelerators has been going on for a long time. It started with the Bevalac at Berkeley in the 70’s, the AGS at BNL and the SPS at CERN in the 80’s, with RHIC at BNL since 2000 and with the LHC at CERN most recently.
Let us see how lattice QCD predictions compare with heavy ion experiments at RHIC and the LHC. Phenomenological estimates on the energy density reached at the initial stage of the collision range from $e\approx 5.6$ GeV/fm$^3$ for Au–Au collisions at RHIC with $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV [@PHENIX2005], to $e\approx 15$ GeV/fm$^3$ for Pb–Pb collisions at the LHC with $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV [@CMS2012]. Looking at the right panel of Fig. \[fig:thermo\] we read out a temperature of order $T\approx 200$ MeV and $300$ MeV, respectively, for these energy densities which are high enough for the collision product to be in the high temperature phase. For comparison, an experimental estimate of the temperature using the low $p_T$ excess of direct photons that are supposed to come from the initial thermalized state gave $T=221(27)$ MeV at RHIC [@PHENIX2010] and $T=304(51)$ MeV at the LHC [@ALICE2012].
The initial fireball rapidly cools as it expands, and hadrons are formed once the temperature falls below the transition temperature $T_c$. It has been known that the yield of various hadrons from the collision could be well fitted with statistical thermal distribution parametrized by a chemical freeze out temperature $T_f$. This temperature increases with the collision energy and saturates at $T_f\approx 160$ MeV at RHIC energies [@Andronic2009], though slightly decreasing at LHC energies.
Furthermore, the azimuthal anisotropy in the transverse hadron yields, quantified in terms of the elliptic flow $v_2$ and higher moments where $v_n=\langle \cos n\phi\rangle$, is well described by hydrodynamical models with no or small viscosity and using the equation of state from lattice QCD.
Thus, while small viscosity was a surprise, the experimental data are broadly consistent with the production of strongly interacting high temperature quark-gluon matter with the properties as predicted by lattice QCD. It is interesting to note that small shear viscosity close to the quantum limit $\eta/s=1/4\pi$ [@Kovtunetal2005] is observed by lattice QCD calculations of transport coefficients in the pure gluon case [@NakamuraSakai2006; @Meyer2007].
From a heavy-ion collision point of view, the transition temperature and equation of state are only indirectly reflected in the characteristics of the final hadronic state. The moments of conserved charges such as electric charge $Q$, strangeness $S$, and baryon number $B$ provide interesting quantities which are calculable in lattice QCD and are directly observable in experiments. Thus they have been attracting much interest recently [@Stephanovetal1999; @EjiriKarschRedlich2006; @Karsch2012; @Bazabovetal2012; @Borsanyietal2014].
### Dynamics at finite baryon number density {#sec:3-4-5}
Theoretical expectations on the phases of QCD at finite temperature $T$ and finite baryon number density $\rho_B$ is depicted in Fig. \[fig:Tmuplane\]. The chiral crossover transition at $T_c\approx 150-160$ MeV continues into the finite $\rho_B$ region, and hits a second order critical point at some $(T_E, \rho_E)$ beyond which the transition turns into a first order phase transition. For sufficiently large baryon number density, one expects novel phases such as a color superconductor.
![Schematic phase diagram of QCD on the temperature baryon density plane.. []{data-label="fig:Tmuplane"}](fig16.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
Finite baryon number density can be introduced by adding a quark chemical potential $\mu$ to the Hamiltonian. On a lattice, this is achieved by multiplying the positive temporal hopping term of the quark action by $\exp(\mu a)$, and the negative hopping term by $\exp( -\mu a)$.
Solid quantitative results are still not available on the phase diagram. The main reason is that for non-zero quark chemical potential, the quark Dirac determinant $\det D(U, \mu)$ is complex, so that the Monte Carlo methods based on a probability interpretation of the weight $\det D\cdot \exp (-S_G(U))$ no longer work in general.
One can see the difficulty by defining the phase of the determinant by $$\begin{aligned}
\theta (U, \mu)=-i\log\frac{\det D(U,\mu)}{\vert\det D(U,.\mu)\vert},\end{aligned}$$ and rewriting expectation values in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
\left< O \right> &=&\frac{\left< O \exp\left( i\theta (U,\mu)\right)\right>_{\vert\vert}}{\left< \exp\left( i\theta (U,\mu)\right)\right>_{\vert\vert}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\left<\cdot\right>_{\vert\vert}$ means the average with respect to the phase quenched determinant $\vert\det D(U,\mu)\vert$. The quenched average of the phase factor in the denominator is a ratio of the two partition functions: $$\begin{aligned}
\left< \exp\left( i\theta (U,\mu)\right)\right>_{\vert\vert}&=&\frac{Z(\mu)}{Z_{\vert\vert}(\mu)},\\
Z_{\vert\vert}(\mu)&=&\int\prod_{n\mu}dU_{n\mu}\vert\det D(U,\mu)\vert\exp (S_{\rm gluon}(U)).\end{aligned}$$ If the quenched average defines a statistical system with a free energy density $f_{\vert\vert}(\mu)$, one can write $$\begin{aligned}
\left< \exp\left( i\theta (U,\mu)\right)\right>_{\vert\vert}=\exp\left(-\frac{V (f(\mu)-f_{\vert\vert}(\mu)}{T}\right),\end{aligned}$$ with $f(\mu)$ the free energy density of the original system. The right hand side vanishes exponentially fast for large spatial volumes $V\to\infty$. This is one way of explaining the sign problem.
A variety of methods have been devised and explored to overcome this problem. Besides the phase quenched calculation described above, they include reweighting of the determinant [@FodorKatz2001], analytic continuation from imaginary chemical potential [@RobergeWeiss1986; @ForcrandPhilipsen2002], Taylor expansion in powers of $\mu/T$ [@Alltonetal2003; @Ejirietal2012], canonical ensemble simulation [@Lietal], complex Langevin simulation [@Aartsetal; @Sexty2013], and others. These methods have yielded some success for not too large values of $\mu/T$. The main problem, however, has been the difficulty of controlling errors in the results. The precise location of the critical point E and physics of finite density QCD for larger baryon number density is still largely open at present.
Conclusions {#sec:4}
===========
Lattice QCD is a major contribution of Kenneth Wilson to physics. In our view, it is on a par in significance with his renormalization group theory of critical phenomena which won him Nobel Prize in Physics in 1982. Conceptually, it clarified how quantum fluctuations of gauge fields give rise to a confining force which is essentially distinct in its origin from the forces arising from exchange of a particle such as the electromagnetic force. At the same time, coupled with supercomputers, it opened a way to calculate the physical predictions from its first principles, making possible detailed comparisons with experiment.
In 2004, Kenneth Wilson delivered a talk entitled “The Origins of Lattice Gauge Theory" at International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory held at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory [@Wilson2005]. Looking back on the development of lattice QCD, he said that [*“The lattice gauge theory was a discovery waiting to happen, once asymptotic freedom was established."*]{}, and went on to describe works of his contemporaries who could have preceded or shared the discovery. Nonetheless it is clear that, because of his previous studies leading to his encounter with statistical mechanics and phase transitions, he was in a unique position to be the first to grasp the deep significance of strongly coupled gauge dynamics in relation to confinement.
In the same article, he commended on the vast progress in lattice QCD in the thirty years since 1974, the year of his seminal paper [@Wilson1974], due [*“in part to improved algorithms, in part to increased computing power, and in part to the increased scale of the research effort underway today"*]{}, but urged on that [*“this does not mean that the present state of lattice gauge computations is fully satisfactory. The knowledge and further advances that will likely accumulate over the next thirty years should be just as profound"*]{}.
As if corroborating his view, in just a decade since then, the physical point computation was realized, and many beautiful physics results ensued, as summarized in Sec. \[sec:3\].
The past decade, then, was a turning point of lattice QCD in our view; prior to this event, despite the premise that it provided a first-principle calculation, it remained a method of uncertain reliability, requiring chiral extrapolations which were difficult to control. We are now able to calculate and understand many properties of hadron states including masses and matrix elements, at the physical quark masses and controlling errors of calculations. The precision of the calculation has now reached the level of a few % or better in many quantities. Consequently, important constraints are now available on the CKM matrix elements and CP violation in the Standard Model.
This is not to say that progress has been uniform in all fronts. In thermodynamics of QCD, while some basic quantities such as the transition temperature and equation of state have been calculated, the region of finite baryon number density is still largely unexplored. A major methodological breakthrough will be needed to extend our understanding to the entire phase diagram of QCD.
One area which did not even exist at the time of Wilson’s talk in 2004 is nuclear physics based on lattice QCD. In fact, while there were pioneering studies on H di-baryon in the late 80’s [@Mackenzie1985; @Iwasaki1988] and nucleon scattering lengths in 1994 [@Fukugitaetal1994], it is in 2007 that the two nucleon potential was first extracted from lattice QCD [@Ishiietal2007], and in 2009 that the binding energy of Helium was calculated directly from Helium correlation function [@Yamazakietal2009]. This is a challenging area in terms of physics as well as in calculational techniques; one has to deal with a small energy scale of 0(10) MeV, the number of Wick contractions for quark fields increases factorially fast with the mass number, and so does the statistical error of nuclei propagators for large time separations.
In theoretical physics, theory and computing go hand in hand. Calculations are indispensable in order to confirm the validity of theory, and even more so to explore the consequences of theory which help us better understand why our world works the way it does. Lattice QCD is a prime example of such a relationship between theory and computing. Kenneth Wilson clearly foresaw the importance and future potential of supercomputing in this connection, and many of his thoughts and vision in the early 80’s [@Lax1982] came to be realized since then. Looking toward future, as he prophesied [@Wilson1983], our understanding of the strong interactions will become more profound as the computing power increases toward exascale and possibly beyond in the decades to come.
My first encounter with lattice QCD was in the spring of 1974 in Tokyo, Japan, when I was a graduate student under the supervision of Kazuhiko Nishijima at University of Tokyo. Kenneth Wilson’s preprint was introduced at a seminar organized by graduate students of the particle theory group. I was struck by the novelty of the idea, which I vividly remember, but I do not think I understood the full impact of that preprint at that time.
I had a good fortune to spend two years from September 1975 to August 1977 as a postdoctoral fellow of Toichiro Kinoshita at Laboratory of Nuclear Studies of Cornell University. Kenneth Wilson had his office one floor below. John Kogut’s office was on the same floor across the corridor, and there were a number of graduate students, all of them very active, including Gyan Bhanot, Paul Mackenzie, Michael Peskin, Serge Rudaz, Steve Shenker, and Junko Shigemitsu.
At Cornell I worked with Tom Kinoshita on mass singularities and, in later terminology, perturbative QCD. I was of course aware of the work of Ken Wilson, operator product expansions, renormalization group, lattice QCD, Kondo problem, but somehow he was a somewhat distant figure for me throughout my stay at Cornell. But I do remember him very well. A lean and taciturn man, often with his shirt tail hanging out in the back, and he always wore a slight kindly smile on his face, which deepened from time to time when something apparently amused him.
My serious involvement with lattice QCD started after I left Cornell, first with analytic studies on Z(n) duality at Princeton, and then, after I came back to Japan, with numerical simulations and even supercomputer development. The 40 years of lattice QCD since 1974 overlap with my scientific career. It is an honor for me to write this article on Kenneth Wilson and lattice QCD.\
\
I would like to thank Sinya Aoki, Norman Christ, Carleton De Tar, Zoltan Fodor, Shoji Hashimoto, Yoichi Iwasaki, Kazuyuki Kanaya, Frithjof Karsch, Andreas Kronfeld, Martin Lüscher, and Paul Mackenzie for valuable comments on the manuscript.
[^1]: Contemporary research toward lattice gauge theory was described by Wilson in his plenary talk at 1983 Lepton Photon Symposium [@Wilson1983], and in more detail in his historical talk at 2004 International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory at FNAL [@Wilson2005].
[^2]: Probably his most famous numerical work is a renormalization group solution of the Kondo problem [@Wilson1975-2]. The numerical rigor he maintained for this work has become legendary. For the universal ratio of the two temperatures $T_K$ and $T_0$ characterizing the high and low temperature scales, he obtained $W/(4\pi)=(4\pi)^{-1}T_K/T_0=0.1032(5)$. Six years later, an exact solution by the Bethe ansatz yielded $W/(4\pi)=0.102676\cdots$ [@AndreiLowenstein1981], verifying the Wilson’s number to the fourth digit within the estimated error!
[^3]: Strictly speaking, this identity requires positivity of the Hermitian part of matrix $D$. We shall not go into this technical detail and mention only that this can be guaranteed.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Patrick Baumann, Iván Ramírez, Jorge Meléndez, Martin Asplund, and Karin Lind'
bibliography:
- '15137.bib'
date: 'Received …; accepted …'
title: 'Lithium depletion in solar-like stars: no planet connection'
---
We have determined precise stellar parameters and lithium abundances in a sample of 117 stars with basic properties very similar to the Sun. This sample selection reduces biasing effects and systematic errors in the analysis. We estimate the ages of our sample stars mainly from isochrone fitting but also from measurements of rotation period and X-ray luminosity and test the connection between lithium abundance, age, and stellar parameters. We find strong evidence for increasing lithium depletion with age. Our sample includes 14 stars that are known to host planets and it does not support recent claims that planet-host stars have experienced more lithium depletion than stars without planets. We find the solar lithium abundance normal for a star of its age, mass, and metallicity. Furthermore, we analyze published data for 82 stars that were reported to support an enhanced lithium depletion in planet hosts. We show that those stars in fact follow an age trend very similar to that found with our sample and that the presence of giant planets is not related to low lithium abundances. Finally, we discuss the systematic biases that led to the incorrect conclusion of an enhanced lithium depletion in planet-host stars.
Introduction
============
The lithium abundances of solar-like stars in the solar neighborhood spread over more than two orders of magnitude, which is much larger than the range of abundances seen for other elements [e.g., @Reddy-03]. The Sun, in particular, has a very low lithium abundance compared to many nearby solar analogs [e.g., @Lambert-Reddy-04]. Furthermore, the photospheric solar lithium abundance is about 160 times lower than that measured in meteorites [$\log\epsilon_{\rm Li,\odot}=1.05\pm0.10$ dex[^1], $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li,met}=3.26\pm0.05$ dex; both values are from @Asplund-09]. This difference between the current solar and protosolar values is not predicted by standard stellar evolution models [e.g., @Dantona-Mazzitelli-84].
The wide range of observed lithium abundances in nearby solar-like stars is most likely due to a dependency between $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ and the star’s age and mass [e.g., @Montalban-Schatzman-00; @Charbonnel-Talon-05; @Xiong-Deng-09; @DoNascimento-09]. Lithium is easily destroyed by proton capture reactions in stellar interiors. Thus, if lithium is transported between the chemically mixed outer convection zone and deeper lying regions with temperatures that are high enough for lithium destruction, the photospheric abundance will decrease with time. Diffusion probably contributes to the lowering of the surface lithium abundance throughout the main-sequence stage. This would explain why the photospheric solar abundance is much smaller than the meteoritic one. We expect an enhanced lithium depletion in stars with larger convection zones on the main sequence as well as in stars with a higher degree of differential rotation between the radiative core and the convective envelope (see below). The reason is that lithium is only depleted as it moves to deeper and therefore hotter regions of a star, where the temperature is high enough (about 2.5 million K) for proton capture [see, e.g., @Pinsonneault-97].
Recently, it has been suggested that the presence of planets around a star could affect the evolution of the photospheric lithium abundance [e.g., @Bouvier-08]. A long-lasting star-disk interaction during the star’s pre-main sequence phase could slow down the host-star’s rotation and therefore increase the degree of differential rotation between the star’s core and envelope. Rotationally-driven mixing is then enhanced, thus destroying more lithium than in stars without planets because fast rotators evolve with little core-envelope decoupling. Planet migration affects the star’s angular momentum, which might also have an impact on $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$. Finally, the ingestion of a planet can increase the surface lithium abundance [e.g., @Montalban-Rebolo-02; @Israelian-01].
The possibility of a lithium-planet connection is subject of ongoing discussions. Recent work by [@Gonzalez-08], [@Gonzalez-Carlson-Tobin-10], [@Castro-08], and [@Israelian-09] suggests a possible $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$-planet dependency, whereas [@Ryan-00] and [@Luck-Heiter-06] find that stars with planets show the same lithium distribution as the comparison field stars. [@Takeda-07; @Takeda-10] describe the stellar angular momentum as the crucial factor that determines the lithium abundance of solar-like stars and find that slow rotators show an enhanced lithium depletion. Planets *could* be the reason for a slow rotation, but they were not able to draw firm conclusions due to the low number of planet hosts in their sample and the fact that their use of the star’s projected rotational velocity, $v \sin i$, instead of measured rotation periods introduces additional uncertainty, since the inclination angle $i$ is unknown.
From a practical point of view, an enhanced lithium depletion in planet-hosts would be greatly beneficial for the search for extrasolar planets, because all known methods for extrasolar planet detection (e.g., radial velocity, transits, or microlensing) are very time consuming. With an enhanced lithium depletion, however, one could preselect planet-host candidates just by obtaining the stars’ chemical composition.\
In this paper, we derive lithium abundances and ages for a sample of solar-type stars to examine whether there is a correlation between lithium and age as well as a possible connection between lithium and planets. We also examine lithium abundances and ages for the solar analog sample of [@Israelian-09], who claim to have found evidence for an enhanced lithium depletion in planet-host stars.
Observations & analysis {#chap:observations}
=======================
Our sample consists of 117 solar-like stars selected from the Hipparcos catalog [@Perryman-97] as in [@Melendez-Ramirez-07]. They where observed at the McDonald (Robert G. Tull coudé spectrograph on the 2.7m Harlan J. Smith telescope; RGT), Las Campanas (MIKE spectrograph on the 6.5m Magellan Clay telescope), and La Silla (HARPS spectrograph on the 3.6m ESO telescope) observatories. Our few solar twins observed at Keck [@Melendez-Dodds-Eden-Robles-06] are not discussed here since they are already included in the McDonald sample.
The RGT and MIKE data (spectra as well as stellar parameters) are from @Ramirez-Melendez-Asplund-09 [hereafter R09] and @Melendez-09 [@Melendez-10 hereafter M09], respectively; two stars (HIP10215 and HIP79672) are part of both samples. HARPS spectra for 12 more stars were obtained from the ESO archive, while spectra for 6 other stars were obtained from the S$^4$N database [@AllendePrieto-04][^2]. One of the objects (HIP80337) occurs in both the HARPS and the S$^4$N samples (we use the HARPS parameters, because they have the smaller uncertainties), so that we have 17 additional stars. The spectra for these stars were analyzed in an identical fashion as in R09 (see below). All sub-samples contain one or more solar reference objects for normalization: R09 used the light reflected from the asteroids Ceres and Vesta, M09 used Vesta, and for the stars added in this work, spectra of asteroid Ceres, Jupiter’s moon Ganymedes, and the Moon were used. Table \[table:obs\] shows the specifications of each sub-sample, where the last two lines describe the additional data from this work. All spectra have a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) greater than about 200, which allows the determination of lithium abundances as low as solar. Note that three stars in our sample are also included in M09 (HIP79672) and R09 (HIP14614 and HIP42438). For the further analysis, we use the parameters with the smaller uncertainties.
-------- ----------------- ------------ ---------------------------- -------- --
sample instrument/ wavelength spectral number
name telescope coverage resolution of
(in $\AA$) $R=\Delta \lambda/\lambda$ stars
R09 RGT / McDonald 3800-9125 60,000 63
M09 MIKE / Magellan 3400-10000 65,000 42
this RGT / McDonald, 3800-9125 45,000– 18
work HARPS / ESO 3783-6865 110,000
-------- ----------------- ------------ ---------------------------- -------- --
: Specifications for the different sub-samples.
\[table:obs\]
The HARPS and S$^4$N data were analyzed by first measuring and equivalent widths (EWs), where a line list of 45 iron lines (34 and 11 lines) within the wavelength range from 4445 to 8294 $\AA$ was used. The Fe lines have a broad range of excitation potentials (from $\sim 0.1$ to $\sim 4.6$ eV). The line list adopted is from Scott et al. [in preparation, see also @Asplund-09]. To calculate the iron abundances (\[Fe/H\]) from the / lines, we used the spectrum synthesis program *MOOG* [@Sneden-73] and ATLAS 9 model atmospheres without convective overshoot [e.g., @Kurucz-93]. We iteratively assigned the stellar parameters effective temperature, surface gravity, and microturbulent velocity by forcing simultaneously excitation equilibrium and / ionization equilibrium. For a more detailed description see [@Ramirez-Melendez-Asplund-09]. With the method described above, we derived the following mean errors: $\sigma(\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{eff}})=40\,$K, $\sigma(\log g )=0.06$ dex, and $\sigma([\mathrm{Fe/H}])=0.025$ dex.
Stellar ages and masses were determined primarily from the location of stars on the theoretical HR-diagram ($T_\mathrm{eff}$ vs. $\log g$) as compared to theoretical predictions based on stellar evolution calculations (isochrones). We produced a grid of Y$^2$ isochrones [e.g., @Yi-01] with steps of 0.01dex in metallicity around the solar value. For each star, we computed the age probability distribution of all isochrone points included within a 3-$\sigma$ radius from the observed stellar parameters. The adopted mean age and 1-$\sigma$ Gaussian-like upper and lower limits were derived from the age probability distribution [e.g., @Lachaume-99; @Reddy-03]. Although isochrone ages of unevolved stars are typically unreliable, the high precision of our stellar parameters allowed us to infer reasonably accurate absolute isochrone ages, even for stars as young as $\sim3$Gyr; relative ages are naturally even better determined. For most stars younger than about $3\,$Gyr only upper limits could be determined. For these younger stars, we adopted ages based on measurements of rotational periods [@Gaidos-Henry-Henry-00; @Barnes-07] and X-ray luminosity [@Agueros-09] along with the rotation-age relation by [@Barnes-07] and the X-ray luminosity-age relation by [@Guinan-Engle-09]. In a few cases of stars in the intermediate age region ($2-4\,$Gyr), an average of isochrone and rotational ages was determined to improve the age estimate. For stars with very unreliable isochrone ages we used the activity-based ages by [@Mamajek-Hillenbrand-08] and [@Saffe-Gomez-Chavero-05]. Our adopted ages and the methods to obtain them are listed in Table \[table:parameters\].
Cluster Age in Gyr $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ $\sigma(\log\epsilon_{\rm Li})$ \[Fe/H\] Source
----------------- ------------ ------------------------- --------------------------------- ---------- ----------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
IC2602 & IC2391 0.030 2.9 0.1 -0.05 [@Randich-01]
Pleiades 0.07 2.8 0.1 -0.03 [@Soderblom-93]
Blanco 1 0.10 2.9 0.1 +0.04 [@Ford-Jeffries-Smalley-05]
M34 (NGC1039) 0.25 2.8 0.1 +0.07 [@Jones-97]
Coma Berenices 0.6 2.4 0.15 -0.05 [@Ford-01]
NGC762 2.0 2.1 0.1 +0.01 [@Sestito-Randich-Pallavicini-04]
M67 3.9 1.2 0.5 +0.05 [@Pasquini-08]
\[table:clusters\]
Using our stellar parameters as well as those in R09 and M09, we derived the lithium abundances for all 117 stars with line synthesis using *MOOG*. For this purpose we generated a line list from 6697 to 6717 $\AA$, i.e. 10 $\AA$ around the lithium doublet at 6707.8 $\AA$. The whole wavelength range was synthesized with *MOOG*, where hyperfine splitting and the Li-doublet were taken into account. Knowing the basic stellar parameters, we were able to fit the lithium line including the effects of the projected rotational velocity $v \sin i$ and the microturbulent and macroturbulent velocities. We derived lithium abundances with a mean error of $\sigma=0.05$ dex for stars in which the lithium doublet was detected. Our mean of all solar spectra is $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}=1.03\pm0.04$ dex.
Initially, we derived Li abundances assuming line formation in LTE (local thermal equilibrium), in 1D, hydrostatic, plane parallel ATLAS 9 model atmospheres. Abundance corrections were thereafter applied to account for departures from LTE in the formation of the Li resonance line. The non-LTE modeling procedure is the same as described in [@Lind-Asplund-Barklem-09a], but extended to cover also super-solar metallicities. For our sample stars, the abundance corrections range from -0.03 dex to +0.08 dex, depending on the lithium line strength and exact stellar parameters. In stars for which the equivalent width of the lithium line is below $\sim 100$ m$\AA$, over-ionization of neutral lithium results in positive abundances corrections, increasing with increasing metallicity and decreasing effective temperature. When the line starts to become saturated, increased photon losses pushes the statistical equilibrium in the opposite direction, i.e. into over-recombination, resulting in negative corrections for some stars [see @Lind-Asplund-Barklem-09a for more details]. The non-LTE corrections are very small in comparison to the full range covered in lithium abundance, and hence the qualitative results of this study are the same for lithium abundances inferred in LTE and non-LTE. Note that the NLTE corrections are computed using MARCS models [@Gustafsson-08]. Our NLTE corrected solar lithium abundance is $1.07\pm0.04$, in good agreement with the 3D-NLTE estimate by [@Asplund-09].
Our adopted stellar parameters and derived LTE and non-LTE lithium abundances are given in Table \[table:parameters\]. Fig. \[li-all\] shows the good agreement between the three observational sub-samples, which reduces errors introduced by inhomogeneous data processing and therefore makes the analysis more reliable. It also is a proof of the consistently good quality of the data.
We have also considered the lithium abundances of solar twins from 8 open clusters as listed in Table \[table:clusters\]. Data are from the compilation by [@Sestito-Randich-05] as shown in Table \[table:clusters\] with updated data for M67 by [@Pasquini-08]. The age for M67 is taken from [@VandenBerg-07] and [@Yadav-08], the lithium abundances for M67 stars are from [@Castro-10]. The clusters IC2602 and IC2391 are listed as one here, because their parameters are basically the same. We only used open clusters around solar metallicity ($0.0 \pm 0.1$ dex) and with reliable data. The solar twins that we select in open clusters are stars of one solar mass by definition, i.e. they are main sequence stars with 1M${_{\odot}}$ based on their effective temperature. We take into account the increase of the solar effective temperature with increasing age in the selection of stars from open clusters.
![NLTE lithium abundance, $\log g$, and metallicity plotted against effective temperature. R09 and M09 stand for data from [@Ramirez-Melendez-Asplund-09]and [@Melendez-09; @Melendez-10], respectively; TW is data re-analyzed in this work. []{data-label="li-all"}](15137fg1.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![$\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ vs. age for stars from the three observational sub-samples. Down-arrows denote upper limits. The Sun is marked with $\odot$. []{data-label="age-li-all"}](15137fg2.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![$\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ vs. age for solar twins from R09, M09, TW and from the solar twins in solar metallicity open clusters. Note the different scale compared to Fig. \[age-li-all\]. The solid lines are the predicted values from the models by [@Charbonnel-Talon-05] for different initial rotational velocities.[]{data-label="solar-twins"}](15137fg3.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Results
=======
Lithium and age
---------------
Using our sample of solar-like stars a clear lithium-age trend is observed (Fig. \[age-li-all\]). The dependency is as expected: older stars show more lithium depletion. The Spearman correlation coefficient is $r_{\rm tot}=-0.61$. This trend becomes clearer when we restrict the sample to solar twins, as in Fig. \[solar-twins\]. We define solar twins as stars with \[Fe/H\] $=0.0\pm0.1$ and M $=(1.00\pm0.04)\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ The stars from the open clusters given in Table \[table:clusters\] fit the trend in Fig. \[solar-twins\] very well. This is very important, because the ages of these clusters are well determined and the fact that they lie in the midst of the lithium vs. age trend of the field solar twins suggests that the ages we derived for individual stars are reliable. The Spearman correlation coefficient for the solar twin $\log \epsilon_{\rm Li}$-age trend including the open cluster data is $r_{\rm twin}=-0.75$. Another interesting thing to point out here is the fact that the Sun (marked with $\odot$ in the figures) fits the trend very well. This leads to the conclusion that the Sun does not have a particularly low lithium abundance compared to stars of similar age, mass, and metallicity.
Fig. \[solar-twins\] also compares our observational data with model predictions from [@Charbonnel-Talon-05] for different initial rotational velocities of the stars. These hydrodynamical models give predictions for the evolution of surface Li abundance in solar-type stars, accounting self-consistently for element segregation and transport of angular momentum by rotation, gravity waves, and meridional circulation. They agree not only with the general lithium depletion trend observed by us, but it could also explain the relatively large scatter as a result of differences in initial stellar rotational velocities.
![Same as Fig. \[solar-twins\] but for metal-rich solar analogs (\[Fe/H\]$=0.25\pm0.15$, M$=1.08\pm0.08\,$M$_{\odot}$).[]{data-label="solar-analogs"}](15137fg4.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Lithium and planets
-------------------
In Fig. \[solar-analogs\] we plot lithium abundance against age, this time for a sample of metal-rich solar analogs. As metal-rich solar analogs we define stars with $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]=0.25\pm0.15$ and M $=(1.08\pm0.08)\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$. We use those criteria because our sub-sample of planet-hosts is biased towards those higher metallicities and masses. In this case we make a distinction between stars that are known to host planets (filled symbols) and those for which planets have not yet been detected (open symbols).
We used a two-dimensional Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test to measure the probability that the samples of metal-rich solar analogs with and without planets in Fig. \[solar-analogs\] belong to the same parent population. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, we took into account the errors in lithium abundance and age by choosing random, normally distributed values within each variable’s 1-$\sigma$ environment on the linear scale, which means that instead of $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$, we used $10^{\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}-12}$, that is $\frac{n_{\rm Li}}{n_{\rm H}}$. The upper limits were accounted for by distributing the values uniformly between 0 and the upper limit.
We averaged the outcome of $1,000$ KS tests. This gave a probability for our metal-rich solar analogs with planets and those without planets to be part of the same parent sample of $64\pm15\%$; if we ignore the error bars and upper limits, this probability goes up to $80\%$. This is very important for the further analysis of the data, because it tells us that there is no *intrinsic* difference between the two sub-samples. It is highly unlikely that the planet-hosts and comparison stars are different regarding their surface lithium abundance.
The age-lithium correlation coefficient for the solar twins is similar to that corresponding to the metal-rich solar analogs ($r_{\rm twin}=-0.75$, $r_{\rm analog}=-0.71$). However, the shapes of those trends are not identical. In the range from 3 to 6 Gyr, in particular, it is clear that for a given age, metal-rich solar analogs have on average lower lithium abundances than solar twins (see also Fig. \[israelian\] (c)). This is independent of whether the star has a planet or not. The age-lithium trend in Sun-like stars is thus metallicity dependent. This metallicity effect is predicted by stellar models due to the deeper convection zone in more metal-rich stars [@Castro-09] and has lately been confirmed [see, e.g. @doNascimento-daCosta-DeMedeiros-10 Fig. 5]. Note, however, that the mass ranges being compared are somewhat different, and that this will have an impact on the lithium evolution of those two samples.
![Comparison between the sample from @Israelian-09 [I09] and our sample (B10). The solid line, identically drawn in each panel, is an arbitrary reference line to guide the eye to the different $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ levels in solar twins an metal-rich solar analogs. Note that for consistency we use the LTE $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ values here.[]{data-label="israelian"}](15137fg5.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![$\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ vs. $\log g$ for the stars from our sample (B10) and I09.[]{data-label="logg"}](15137fg6.eps){width="8.5cm"}
Discussion
==========
Recently, it was claimed that planet-harboring solar-type stars show an enhanced lithium depletion and that lithium surface abundances in Sun-like stars do not correlate with stellar ages [@Israelian-09; @Sousa-10 hereafter I09 and S10, respectively].
In Fig. \[israelian\], we plot age versus lithium abundance for all 82 stars used in I09 along with the objects from this work (hereafter B10[^3]). With the stellar parameters adopted by I09 we derived the ages for that sample using the same techniques as for our sample; the ages we derive for the I09 sample are given in Table \[table:israelian\]. Fig. \[israelian\] shows the results for all stars panel (a), the solar twins (panel (b)), and the metal-rich solar analogs (panel (c)). We are using the same selection criteria for solar twins and metal-rich solar analogs as in Sect. \[results\]. The agreement between the age-lithium relation found with our sample and that by I09 is excellent, in particular when looking at the solar twin plot. This shows that the stellar parameters used by I09 [which were derived by @Sousa-08] are essentially on the same scale as ours and therefore the combination of both samples for this analysis does not introduce systematic errors. In fact, for the 10 stars in common between our sample and I09 we find differences of $3\pm20\,$K in T$_{\rm eff}$, $0.02\pm0.04$ in $\log g$, $0.003\pm0.023$ in \[Fe/H\], and $0.06\pm0.11$ in $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ (the latter for the only 3 stars with lithium doublet detection).
In Fig. \[israelian\](a), ten stars with ages greater than 4 Gyr and higher than average $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ can be seen above the main locus. Taking a closer look at those “outliers”, the most interesting fact is that they have a particularly low surface gravity ($\log g \simeq 4.1$) compared to the rest of stars. In Fig. \[logg\], we show $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ vs $\log g$. The surface lithium abundance on the low-$\log g$ side does not follow the main track, for which $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ decreases with lower surface gravity, which is essentially the age effect, given that all these stars have similar masses. To exclude the possibility of systematic errors in the analysis of the low $\log g$ outliers, we compared the parameters and in particular their ages with various sources (see Table \[table:israelian\_ages\]). Our derived ages for these outliers are in reasonably good agreement with respect to the the values given in the literature. Only two stars appear to be older than the ages given in the consulted references, but even that difference is only around 2 Gyr and therefore not big enough for these stars to cease being outliers. This leads us to the conclusion that the ages we derived for the I09 sample and the stellar parameters adopted by I09 [mostly derived by @Sousa-08] are correct and the high-lithium envelope in the lithium-age plane is most likely real. Thus, when restricted to a narrow range of T$_{\rm eff}$ around the solar value, $\log g\simeq4.1$ stars have higher lithium abundances than less evolved stars of similar age.\
We have examined the results by S10, who claim that there is no correlation between lithium and age in the I09 sample. The S10 sample is basically the same as in I09, but reduced to the 60 stars studied in [@Sousa-08] because of the high homogeneity of the stellar parameters. We show their lithium-age trends in Fig. \[sousa\]. The selection criteria we used for the solar twins and the metal-rich solar analogs are the same as in Fig. \[israelian\]. However, this time we are using the masses and ages determined by S10. Although their full sample appears to show no correlation (Fig. \[sousa\]a), the solar twin sample shows a clear trend between lithium and age. Note that the one planet-host in this sample has a low lithium abundance because of its old age and not the fact that it hosts a planet. There is no clear correlation between lithium and age for the metal-rich solar analog sample in this case, but this could be due to uncertain ages. Since the solar twin sample includes only 6 stars, we define another sample of “extended solar twins” with $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]=0.0\pm0.1$ and $M=1.00\pm0.10M_{\odot}$. The resulting figure shows a very definite trend of $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ with age and only a single outlier appears. This outlier (HD215456), however, shows a relatively low $\log g$ of 4.10 (and an almost solar mass of 1.04M$_{\odot}$).\
![$\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ vs. age for the S10 sample. The selection criteria for the four panels are given in the text. Masses and ages adopted to make this figure are from S10.[]{data-label="sousa"}](15137fg7.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![Lithium abundance as a function of $T_{\rm eff}$ in stars with and without detected planets from the I09 sample. Filled and open circles represent stars with and without detected planets, respectively. In the upper panel the original comparison made is shown, which is not appropriate because the sample being compared span different ranges in evolutionary phases and metallicities. A less biased comparison is shown in the bottom panel, where we only plot stars without detected planets with stellar parameters ($T_{\rm eff}, \log g$, \[Fe/H\]) within $2 \sigma$ of the planet-hosting stars. When a proper comparison is made, i.e., using stars with similar fundamental parameters, lithium is not abnormally low in stars with detected giant planets.[]{data-label="teff-ali_is"}](15137fg8.eps){width="8.5cm"}
We have also examined the lithium vs. effective temperature diagram presented by I09. As shown in Fig. \[teff-ali\_is\] (a), they found that almost all stars with a high lithium abundance ($\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}\gtrsim$1.5 dex) have not been shown to be planet hosts yet, whereas planet hosts and objects where no planets have been found are distributed quite equally below that lithium abundance, although the high number of upper limits makes a direct comparison difficult. In order to make a more robust comparison, we have restricted the comparison sample using the following criteria: we only considered comparison objects within a $2\sigma$ range in \[Fe/H\], log$g$, and T$_{\rm eff}$ around planet hosts, where $\sigma$ are the average values of the uncertainties in the stellar parameters given by [@Sousa-08]. In this way, we make sure that all stars lie within the same region of parameter space and are not influenced by the age or metallicity effects we find. Note that we do not restrict the lithium range, only metallicity, surface gravity and effective temperature. Using this selection allows for a homogeneous and unbiased comparison. When we restrict the parameter range covered by the comparison stars as described above, the lithium-planet connection disappears; as seen in Fig. \[teff-ali\_is\] (b), it is not possible to conclude on stronger lithium depletion in planet hosts compared to other stars. We stress that this figure is plotted directly from the I09 data without further manipulation or use of new parameters.
Three systematic biases have led I09 and S10 to conclude that solar-type planet-hosts feature an enhanced lithium depletion and that there is no age dependence:
1. At \[Fe/H\] $\simeq 0.0$, the existing HARPS sample of solar analogs with planets are on average older and therefore more depleted in lithium than non-planet-hosts, but not because they have planets.
2. At higher \[Fe/H\], where most of the I09 planet-hosts concentrate, there is a slightly different $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ vs. age trend such that, at a given age in the $3-6\,$Gyr range, metal-rich solar analogs are more lithium-poor compared to solar metallicity ones. This is true for both planet-hosts as well as single stars.
3. I09 and S10 samples include a number of peculiarly high lithium abundance and relatively low $\log g\,(\simeq 4.1)$ stars; only one of them is a planet host.
The apparently lower lithium abundances of planet-hosts found by I09 can thus be fully explained by a combination of age and metallicity effects, not separately but through the age vs. lithium relation.
object age in Gyr mass in M$_{\odot}$ $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ in dex ages from other sources in Gyr$^a$
---------- ------------ --------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------------
HD221420 4.70 1.30 2.75 4.5 (GCS), 4.1 (VF05),
5.1 (RP98)
HD114613 6.03 1.19 2.69 5.1 (RP98), 5.6 (B07,rot),
4.9 (VF05), 4.9 (RP98)
HD2151 6.53 1.12 2.58 5.2 (GCS), 5.8 (VF05), 6.7 (V05)
HD215456 8.36 1.04 2.38 7.3 (GCS), 7.0 (I02)
HD32724 9.07 0.97 1.63 9.9 (GCS)
HD4307 9.08 1.01 2.48 7.8 (W04, $R'_{HK}$, rot),
7.4 (GCS), 6.4 (VF05)
HD78612 9.27 0.96 1.62 8.8 (GCS)
HD114729 9.68 0.97 2.00 10.9 (GCS), 6.45 (RP98)
\[planet-host\]
HD145809 10.28 0.96 2.13 6.9 (W04, $R'_{HK}$, rot),
7.9 (GCS), 7.4 (VF05)
HD32923 10.75 0.96 1.66 9.0 (VF05), 6.2 (W04),
9.9 (GCS), $>9.5$ (S83)
$\!^a$The abbreviations used here are the following:\
GCS: The Geneva-Copenhagen survey, [@Nordstrom-04], VF05: [@Valenti-Fischer-05], RP98: [@Rocha-Pinto-Maciel-98], V05: [@Vardavas-05], I02: [@Ibukiyama-Arimoto-02], W04: [@Wright-04] and S83: [@Soderblom-83]).
Conclusions
===========
1. In stars of solar mass and solar metallicity, it is clear that older stars have experienced more surface lithium depletion. Both the overall lithium-age trend as well as the scatter that we observe in this sample of stars can be explained by the theoretical models by [@Charbonnel-Talon-05].
2. Metal-rich (\[Fe/H\]$\sim 0.25$) solar analogs (M$\sim 1.08$M$_{\odot}$) also exhibit a lithium-age trend, which is different from that seen in 1M$_{\odot}$, \[Fe/H\]$=0.0$ stars. At any given age in the 3 to 6 Gyr range, the metal-rich solar analogs are more lithium-poor. This is true for both planet-hosts and single stars.
3. For solar-like stars, the lithium vs age trends for planet-hosts and stars where no planets have been found are statistically identical. Thus, the presence of a planet does not influence the observed surface lithium abundance.
4. A number of solar-like stars with unusually high lithium abundance for their age are present in the field. We note that all of them have relatively low $\log g\simeq4.1$. We intend to pursue further observational work to better understand this small group of relatively low surface gravity and peculiarly high lithium abundance.
We thank G. Israelian for sending us the lithium abundance data from I09.
HIP HD $\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{eff}}$ $\sigma(\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{eff}})$ $\log g$ $\sigma(\log g)$ \[Fe/H\] $\sigma(\mathrm{[Fe/H]})$ $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ (LTE) $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ (NLTE) $\sigma(\log\epsilon_{\rm Li})$ Mass $\sigma$(m) Age $\sigma(\tau)$ Source($\tau$) Parameters Planets
------- -------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------------- ---------- ------------------ ---------- --------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------ ------------- ------ ---------------- ---------------- -------------------------- ---------
Sun Sun 5777 - 4.44 - 0.000 - 1.03 1.07 0.04 1.00 0.01 4.5 0.5 iso - yes
348 225194 5777 40 4.41 0.07 -0.130 0.024 1.08 1.11 0.05 0.97 0.01 6.2 1.5 iso R09 no
996 804 5860 41 4.38 0.07 0.000 0.022 1.56 1.59 0.05 1.03 0.01 5.1 1.1 iso R09 no
1499 1461 5756 44 4.37 0.05 0.189 0.015 0.89 0.95 -1.00 1.06 0.01 4.8 0.6 iso R09+V05+LH06+T07+S08 yes
2131 236416 5720 41 4.38 0.07 -0.210 0.026 0.10 0.13 -1.00 0.92 0.01 8.9 1.3 iso R09 no
2894 - 5820 44 4.54 0.07 -0.030 0.025 1.81 1.84 0.05 1.02 0.01 1.6 0.8 iso R09 no
4909 6204 5836 54 4.44 0.07 0.020 0.024 2.42 2.43 0.06 1.03 0.01 0.7 0.2 x-ray R09+G09 no
5134 6470 5779 38 4.49 0.07 -0.190 0.023 1.81 1.84 0.05 0.97 0.01 4.1 1.9 iso R09 no
6407 8291 5787 25 4.47 0.03 -0.090 0.011 1.74 1.77 0.03 0.99 0.01 3.8 0.8 iso R09 no
7245 9446 5843 47 4.53 0.07 0.100 0.023 1.87 1.91 0.06 1.07 0.01 1.3 0.7 iso R09 yes
8507 11195 5720 55 4.44 0.08 -0.080 0.026 1.58 1.62 0.07 0.96 0.01 5.6 2.0 iso R09 no
8841 - 5676 45 4.50 0.06 -0.120 0.021 0.19 0.23 -1.00 0.95 0.01 4.3 1.8 iso R09 no
9349 12264 5825 28 4.49 0.06 0.010 0.017 2.03 2.06 0.04 1.03 0.01 2.5 1.2 iso R09+T07 no
10710 - 5817 43 4.39 0.06 -0.130 0.022 1.90 1.92 0.05 0.98 0.01 6.5 1.1 iso R09 no
11072 14802 5897 84 4.01 0.058 -0.037 0.057 2.42 2.42 0.02 1.15 0.02 0.7 0.1 rot TW+B07 no
11728 15632 5738 30 4.37 0.05 0.045 0.019 1.29 1.34 0.04 0.99 0.01 6.9 0.8 iso R09+T07 no
11915 16008 5793 43 4.45 0.06 -0.050 0.021 1.69 1.72 0.05 1.00 0.01 4.3 1.6 iso R09 no
12186 16417 5812 34 4.09 0.05 0.094 0.04 1.70 1.74 0.07 1.11 0.01 7.0 0.4 iso TW+V05+S08 yes
14614 19518 5803 28 4.47 0.03 -0.104 0.016 1.59 1.62 0.03 0.99 0.01 3.6 0.9 iso R09+T07+TW no
14632 19373 6026 42 4.28 0.05 0.136 0.019 2.46 2.47 0.07 1.17 0.01 3.7 0.3 iso R09+V05 unknown
15457 20630 5771 65 4.56 0.016 0.078 0.041 2.18 2.22 0.03 1.02 0.01 0.5 0.0 rot TW+V05 unknown
18261 24552 5891 34 4.44 0.05 0.002 0.016 2.27 2.28 0.04 1.05 0.01 3.1 1.1 iso R09+T07 no
22263 30495 5826 48 4.54 0.012 0.005 0.029 2.45 2.46 0.02 1.02 0.01 0.5 0.1 rot TW+V05 unknown
22528 - 5683 52 4.33 0.10 -0.350 0.035 0.46 0.49 -1.00 0.87 0.01 12.2 1.5 iso R09 no
23835 32923 5723 33 4.16 0.05 -0.184 0.017 1.66 1.69 0.05 0.96 0.01 10.7 0.4 iso R09+V05 unknown
25670 36152 5755 37 4.38 0.05 0.071 0.017 1.24 1.29 0.05 1.01 0.01 6.0 0.9 iso R09+T07 unknown
28336 40620 5713 61 4.53 0.08 -0.170 0.027 1.19 1.23 0.07 0.95 0.01 4.0 1.8 iso R09 no
29525 42807 5715 61 4.41 0.037 -0.005 0.036 1.99 2.03 0.02 0.97 0.01 0.4 0.0 rot TW+B07 no
30037 45021 5690 30 4.42 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.66 0.71 -1.00 0.98 0.01 5.9 1.4 iso M09 no
30502 45346 5745 25 4.47 0.05 -0.01 0.02 0.95 0.99 -1.00 1.00 0.01 3.8 1.4 iso M09 no
36512 59711 5740 15 4.50 0.03 -0.092 0.02 1.27 1.31 0.04 0.99 0.01 2.7 1.0 iso M09+T07+S08 unknown
38072 63487 5839 68 4.53 0.11 0.060 0.037 1.67 1.71 0.08 1.05 0.01 2.4 1.2 iso R09 no
38228 63433 5693 58 4.52 0.07 0.007 0.025 2.51 2.53 0.07 0.99 0.01 0.3 0.0 rot R09+V05, $\tau$ from G00 unknown
39748 67578 5835 30 4.48 0.06 -0.20 0.03 2.16 2.17 0.03 0.98 0.01 3.8 1.6 iso M09 no
41317 71334 5724 15 4.46 0.03 -0.044 0.02 0.92 0.96 -1.00 0.98 0.01 4.7 0.8 iso M09+V05+S08 unknown
42438 72905 5864 47 4.46 0.09 -0.052 0.026 2.89 2.85 0.07 1.02 0.01 0.2 0.0 rot R09+TW no
43190 75288 5775 30 4.37 0.06 0.12 0.03 0.65 0.70 -1.00 1.04 0.01 5.3 0.9 iso M09 no
44324 77006 5934 49 4.51 0.06 -0.020 0.019 2.41 2.41 0.06 1.07 0.01 1.5 0.6 iso R09+T07 no
44713 78429 5784 35 4.36 0.027 0.096 0.024 0.91 0.96 0.10 1.03 0.01 5.8 0.6 iso TW + VF05 + S08 unknown
44935 78534 5800 25 4.41 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.95 0.99 -1.00 1.03 0.01 4.6 1.0 iso M09 no
44997 78660 5782 29 4.52 0.04 0.033 0.02 0.99 1.03 0.06 1.03 0.01 1.5 0.5 iso M09 + T07 no
46066 80533 5709 65 4.49 0.12 -0.070 0.039 1.37 1.41 0.08 0.96 0.01 5.2 2.3 iso R09 no
46126 81700 5890 30 4.48 0.06 0.14 0.03 2.17 2.20 0.03 1.09 0.01 1.7 0.8 iso M09 no
47990 84705 5910 40 4.53 0.08 0.12 0.03 2.24 2.27 0.02 1.10 0.01 0.8 0.4 iso M09 no
49572 - 5831 52 4.33 0.06 0.010 0.021 1.32 1.35 0.06 1.02 0.01 6.6 0.8 iso R09 no
49756 88072 5804 52 4.45 0.07 0.041 0.023 1.61 1.65 0.07 1.03 0.01 3.6 1.6 iso R09+V05+T07 unknown
50826 - 5725 30 4.47 0.06 -0.28 0.03 0.95 0.98 0.08 0.92 0.01 6.1 1.8 iso M09 no
51258 90722 5720 25 4.23 0.05 0.360 0.03 0.72 0.80 -1.00 1.17 0.02 5.1 0.2 iso M09+V05 unknown
52040 91909 5785 44 4.51 0.06 -0.090 0.021 1.69 1.72 0.05 0.99 0.01 3.0 1.2 iso R09 no
52137 92074 5842 69 4.56 0.08 0.070 0.026 2.25 2.28 0.08 1.06 0.01 0.9 0.5 iso R09 no
53721 95128 5916 53 4.48 0.015 0.027 0.038 1.79 1.81 0.02 1.07 0.01 1.0 0.5 iso + rot TW+V05+S05+M08 yes
54102 96116 5870 30 4.51 0.06 0.04 0.03 2.20 2.22 0.03 1.06 0.01 1.6 0.7 iso M09 no
55409 98649 5760 25 4.52 0.05 -0.01 0.02 0.84 0.88 0.07 1.01 0.01 2.1 0.8 iso M09 no
55459 98618 5838 21 4.42 0.03 0.038 0.012 1.53 1.56 0.04 1.03 0.01 4.1 0.7 iso R09+V05+M06+T07 unknown
56948 101364 5795 23 4.43 0.03 0.023 0.014 1.30 1.34 0.04 1.01 0.01 4.4 0.7 iso R09+MR07+T09 unknown
56997 101501 5559 65 4.53 0.08 -0.030 0.027 1.08 1.14 0.08 0.94 0.01 4.6 2.1 iso R09+V05 unknown
57291 102117 5690 22 4.30 0.04 0.304 0.03 0.73 0.81 -1.00 1.11 0.01 5.6 0.2 iso M09+V05+S08 yes
59357 105779 5810 30 4.45 0.06 -0.24 0.03 1.70 1.72 0.04 0.95 0.01 5.5 1.5 iso M09 no
59610 106252 5899 62 4.34 0.041 -0.034 0.041 1.71 1.73 0.04 1.04 0.01 5.7 0.7 iso TW+V05 yes
60081 107148 5811 21 4.38 0.04 0.315 0.03 1.33 1.40 0.06 1.12 0.01 3.4 0.5 iso M09+V05+S08 yes
60314 107633 5874 72 4.52 0.10 0.110 0.033 1.85 1.89 0.09 1.07 0.01 1.9 0.9 iso R09 no
HIP HD $\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{eff}}$ $\sigma(\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{eff}})$ $\log g$ $\sigma(\log g)$ \[Fe/H\] $\sigma(\mathrm{[Fe/H]})$ $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ (LTE) $\log\epsilon_{\rm Li}$ (NLTE) $\sigma(\log\epsilon_{\rm Li})$ Mass $\sigma$(m) Age $\sigma(\tau)$ Source($\tau$) Parameters Planets
-------- -------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------------- ---------- ------------------ ---------- --------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------ ------------- ------ ---------------- ---------------- ------------------------------- ---------
60370 107692 5897 25 4.46 0.05 0.171 0.03 2.31 2.34 0.02 1.11 0.01 1.6 0.8 iso M09+V05 unknown
60653 108204 5725 30 4.38 0.06 -0.29 0.03 0.92 0.95 -1.00 0.90 0.01 9.6 1.2 iso M09 no
62175 110869 5849 51 4.43 0.06 0.140 0.021 1.91 1.95 0.06 1.08 0.01 2.9 1.2 iso R09+T07 no
64150 114174 5755 41 4.39 0.05 0.056 0.016 0.76 0.81 -1.00 1.00 0.01 5.9 1.0 iso R09+V05+T07 unknown
64497 114826 5860 110 4.56 0.11 0.120 0.037 2.60 2.61 0.13 1.07 0.02 1.3 0.8 iso R09 no
64713 115169 5815 25 4.52 0.05 -0.01 0.02 1.43 1.46 0.04 1.03 0.01 1.7 0.8 iso M09 no
64794 115382 5743 61 4.33 0.08 -0.100 0.027 0.61 0.65 -1.00 0.96 0.01 8.8 1.0 iso R09 no
64993 115739 5875 30 4.56 0.06 0.09 0.03 2.30 2.32 0.03 1.08 0.01 0.9 0.5 iso M09 no
66618 118475 5951 25 4.35 0.05 0.135 0.03 0.96 0.99 -1.00 1.12 0.01 3.6 0.5 iso M09+V05 unknown
66885 119205 5685 30 4.48 0.06 -0.38 0.03 0.77 0.80 -1.00 0.88 0.01 7.4 1.9 iso M09 no
69063 123152 5670 30 4.31 0.06 -0.45 0.03 0.74 0.76 -1.00 0.83 0.01 14.1 0.7 iso M09 no
71683 128620 5840 22 4.33 0.04 0.228 0.03 1.52 1.57 0.03 1.11 0.01 4.3 0.3 iso M09+V05+PM08 unknown
72659 131156 5517 67 4.56 0.09 -0.117 0.033 2.44 2.47 0.10 0.91 0.01 0.2 0.0 rot R09+V05 unknown
73815 133600 5803 33 4.34 0.05 0.020 0.016 0.98 1.02 -1.00 1.01 0.01 6.8 0.6 iso R09+MR07 no
74341 134902 5853 57 4.51 0.08 0.090 0.026 1.44 1.48 0.07 1.07 0.01 1.9 0.9 iso R09 no
74389 134664 5859 24 4.48 0.04 0.105 0.03 2.08 2.12 0.03 1.07 0.01 1.6 0.7 iso M09+S08 unknown
75923 138159 5775 25 4.56 0.05 -0.02 0.02 2.21 2.24 0.04 1.02 0.01 0.9 0.2 iso M09 no
77052 140538 5697 33 4.54 0.023 0.035 0.023 1.49 1.54 0.01 1.01 0.01 0.6 0.4 iso TW+V05 unknown
77466 - 5700 56 4.40 0.09 -0.280 0.028 0.43 0.46 -1.00 0.90 0.01 9.3 1.9 iso R09 no
77740 141937 5900 19 4.45 0.04 0.125 0.03 2.38 2.40 0.02 1.09 0.01 1.3 0.9 iso + rot M09+M05+S05+V05+LH06+S08 yes
77883 142331 5695 25 4.39 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.75 0.80 -1.00 0.98 0.01 7.0 0.9 iso M09 no
78028 - 5879 98 4.57 0.12 -0.030 0.041 1.79 1.81 0.11 1.04 0.02 1.8 1.0 iso R09 no
78680 144270 5923 67 4.57 0.08 -0.000 0.027 2.61 2.61 0.08 1.06 0.01 0.6 0.4 iso R09 no
79186 145514 5709 48 4.27 0.08 -0.120 0.024 0.29 0.33 -1.00 0.95 0.01 10.3 0.7 iso R09 no
79304 145478 5945 30 4.53 0.06 0.11 0.03 2.09 2.12 0.03 1.11 0.01 0.4 0.2 iso M09 no
79578 145825 5860 33 4.53 0.07 0.072 0.03 2.05 2.08 0.03 1.07 0.01 1.3 0.6 iso M09+V05 unknown
79672 146233 5822 9 4.45 0.02 0.051 0.02 1.55 1.59 0.04 1.04 0.01 3.1 0.5 iso M09+TW+S08 unknown
80337 147513 5881 33 4.53 0.024 0.033 0.022 2.01 2.04 0.02 1.06 0.03 0.6 0.1 rot TW (S$^4$N+HARPS)+V05+S08+B07 yes
81512 - 5790 58 4.46 0.07 -0.020 0.025 0.89 0.92 -1.00 1.01 0.01 4.0 1.7 iso R09 no
82853 150027 5640 30 4.21 0.06 -0.18 0.03 0.60 0.64 -1.00 0.92 0.01 12.5 0.5 iso M09 no
83601 154417 6071 43 4.38 0.08 0.048 0.028 2.82 2.79 0.06 1.13 0.01 2.4 1.1 iso R09+V05 unknown
83707 152441 5880 30 4.45 0.06 0.15 0.03 1.83 1.87 0.03 1.10 0.01 2.3 1.0 iso M09 no
85042 157347 5692 37 4.39 0.022 0.037 0.026 0.56 0.61 -1.00 0.98 0.01 7.2 0.5 iso TW+V05+S08 unknown
85272 156922 5700 30 4.42 0.06 -0.34 0.03 0.58 0.61 -1.00 0.88 0.01 9.4 1.4 iso M09 no
85285 157691 5730 30 4.43 0.06 -0.39 0.03 0.71 0.73 -1.00 0.88 0.01 8.8 1.5 iso M09 no
86796 160691 5809 22 4.28 0.04 0.298 0.03 1.06 1.13 0.07 1.15 0.01 4.6 0.2 iso M09+V05+S08 yes
88194 164595 5735 21 4.40 0.03 -0.071 0.010 0.98 1.02 0.04 0.96 0.01 7.3 0.6 iso R09+V05+T07 unknown
88427 - 5810 57 4.42 0.07 -0.160 0.025 0.85 0.87 -1.00 0.97 0.01 5.7 1.5 iso R09 no
89162 165357 5835 30 4.32 0.06 0.07 0.03 1.35 1.39 0.09 1.05 0.01 6.0 0.6 iso M09 no
89443 238838 5796 73 4.48 0.12 -0.020 0.038 1.06 1.09 -1.00 1.01 0.01 4.4 1.9 iso R09 no
89650 167060 5855 25 4.48 0.05 0.02 0.02 1.03 1.06 0.07 1.05 0.01 2.2 1.0 iso M09 no
91332 171918 5775 25 4.20 0.05 0.206 0.03 1.40 1.46 0.09 1.12 0.02 6.4 0.7 iso M09+V05 unknown
96402 184768 5713 49 4.33 0.032 -0.029 0.030 0.64 0.68 -1.00 0.97 0.01 8.7 0.7 iso TW+T07 no
96901 186427 5737 28 4.34 0.04 0.055 0.016 1.38 1.42 -1.00 1.00 0.01 7.5 0.5 iso R09+V05+LH06+T07 yes
96895 186408 5808 39 4.33 0.05 0.097 0.020 0.81 0.86 0.06 1.05 0.01 6.0 0.6 iso R09+V05+LH06 unknown
100963 195034 5802 17 4.45 0.03 0.008 0.013 1.72 1.75 0.05 1.02 0.01 3.6 0.8 iso R09+T07+T09 no
100970 195019 5823 40 4.23 0.026 0.083 0.025 1.39 1.43 0.10 1.06 0.01 7.2 0.4 iso TW+V05 yes
102152 197027 5737 47 4.35 0.06 -0.010 0.022 0.65 0.69 -1.00 0.98 0.01 7.7 0.9 iso R09+M09 no
104504 201422 5836 48 4.50 0.06 -0.160 0.022 2.42 2.42 0.06 1.00 0.02 3.0 1.4 iso R09 no
107350 206860 6015 50 4.48 0.07 -0.020 0.019 2.91 2.87 0.07 1.09 0.01 0.2 0.0 rot R09+V05 unknown
108708 209096 5875 51 4.51 0.07 0.150 0.024 2.42 2.44 0.06 1.10 0.01 1.3 0.6 iso R09 no
108996 209562 5838 56 4.50 0.08 0.060 0.027 2.40 2.42 0.07 1.05 0.01 2.3 1.1 iso R09 no
109110 209779 5817 60 4.46 0.033 0.062 0.030 2.51 2.52 0.01 1.04 0.01 0.7 0.1 rot TW+V05+T07+B07 unknown
109931 - 5739 74 4.29 0.08 0.040 0.026 0.95 1.00 -1.00 1.00 0.01 8.2 0.9 iso R09 no
113357 217014 5803 47 4.38 0.05 0.221 0.017 1.36 1.42 0.07 1.09 0.01 3.9 0.7 iso R09+V05+LH06 yes
115604 - 5821 51 4.43 0.06 0.140 0.019 0.85 0.90 -1.00 1.07 0.01 3.1 1.2 iso R09 no
118159 224448 5905 44 4.55 0.07 -0.010 0.022 2.69 2.68 0.05 1.06 0.01 0.8 0.4 iso R09 no
\[table:parameters\]
$\!^b$The abbreviations of the sources in Table \[table:parameters\] are the following:\
R09, M09 and TW are from [@Ramirez-Melendez-Asplund-09], [@Melendez-09], [@Melendez-10] and this work, as before. M06 is [@Melendez-Dodds-Eden-Robles-06], V05 is [@Valenti-Fischer-05], S08 is [@Sousa-08], B07 [@Barnes-07], LH06 [@Luck-Heiter-06], PM08 [@PortodeMello-Lyra-Keller-08], T07 and T09 are [@Takeda-07] and [@Takeda-Tajitsu-09], respectively, G00 is [@Gaidos-Henry-Henry-00] and MR07 is [@Melendez-Ramirez-07]. S05 is [@Saffe-Gomez-Chavero-05], G09 is [@Guinan-Engle-09], and M08 [@Mamajek-Hillenbrand-08].\
The $-1$ in $\sigma(\log\epsilon_{\rm Li})$ denotes upper limits.
Star name or HIP HD Mass $\sigma$(m) Age $\sigma(\tau)$ Star name or HIP HD Mass $\sigma$(m) Age $\sigma(\tau)$
------------------ -------- ------ ------------- ------ ---------------- -- ------------------ -------- ------ ------------- ------ ----------------
WASP 5 - 0.99 0.06 7.9 3.3 52409 92788 1.08 0.01 3.8 1.0
XO-1 - 1.01 0.01 2.3 1.2 53837 95521 0.98 0.01 3.4 1.1
1499 1461 1.07 0.01 4.5 0.6 54287 96423 1.01 0.01 7.2 0.6
1954 2071 0.97 0.01 4.6 1.1 54400 96700 0.97 0.01 6.6 0.6
2021 2151 1.12 0.08 6.7 1.4 97998 97998 0.90 0.01 1.9 0.6
5339 4307 1.01 0.01 9.0 0.4 60081 107148 1.12 0.01 3.0 0.6
6455 8406 0.98 0.01 3.0 0.6 60729 108309 1.05 0.01 7.5 0.3
8798 11505 0.93 0.01 8.6 0.6 62345 111031 1.10 0.01 3.4 0.8
9381 12387 0.91 0.01 9.1 1.7 64408 114613 1.20 0.02 5.9 0.3
9683 12661 1.10 0.03 4.5 1.3 64459 114729 0.97 0.01 9.7 0.2
12048 16141 1.09 0.01 6.9 0.3 64550 114853 0.92 0.01 7.4 0.9
12186 16417 1.12 0.01 6.7 0.2 65036 115585 1.13 0.03 5.3 0.5
14501 19467 0.94 0.01 10.0 0.3 71683 128620 1.17 0.07 4.1 1.5
15442 20619 0.94 0.01 3.9 1.2 74500 134987 1.10 0.02 5.4 0.5
15330 20766 0.94 0.02 3.4 1.7 78330 143114 0.88 0.01 9.9 0.8
15527 20782 0.98 0.01 7.3 0.3 78459 143761 0.98 0.02 6.1 2.6
16365 21938 0.86 0.01 10.8 0.7 79524 145809 0.96 0.01 10.3 0.3
19925 27063 1.01 0.01 4.2 1.2 79672 146233 1.03 0.01 3.3 0.8
20625 28471 0.97 0.01 7.7 0.3 83906 154962 1.22 0.03 4.7 0.8
20677 28701 0.89 0.01 9.5 0.5 160691 160691 1.14 0.02 4.8 0.3
23627 32724 0.97 0.01 9.2 0.3 95962 183658 1.01 0.01 5.3 0.7
22504 34449 1.02 0.01 1.5 0.8 96901 186427 1.02 0.02 5.0 1.9
25670 36152 1.05 0.01 2.6 0.9 97336 187123 1.07 0.01 3.5 1.5
26737 37962 0.94 0.01 5.2 1.8 97769 188015 1.10 0.02 1.8 0.9
27435 38858 0.95 0.01 3.3 0.7 98959 189567 0.92 0.01 8.4 0.4
30243 44420 1.11 0.01 3.5 0.6 98589 189625 1.09 0.01 2.5 1.0
30104 44594 1.08 0.00 4.1 0.5 102664 198075 0.99 0.01 2.3 1.0
30476 45289 0.97 0.00 8.8 0.3 104903 202206 1.09 0.01 1.4 0.6
34065 53705 0.97 0.01 6.8 2.3 106006 204313 1.06 0.01 4.6 0.5
36512 59711A 0.96 0.01 5.3 1.0 108468 208704 0.99 0.01 6.6 0.3
39417 66428 1.09 0.02 5.8 1.0 109821 210918 0.96 0.01 8.2 0.4
43726 76151 1.05 0.01 1.5 0.5 110109 211415 0.96 0.01 6.5 1.2
43686 76700 1.17 0.07 4.5 1.2 112414 215456 1.04 0.01 8.4 0.4
44713 78429 1.02 0.01 7.0 0.5 113357 217014 1.08 0.02 3.4 1.6
44890 78538 1.01 0.01 2.5 1.1 - 219542 1.04 0.02 4.6 1.5
44860 78558 0.85 0.01 12.5 0.7 115577 220507 0.98 0.01 9.3 0.5
44896 78612 0.96 0.01 9.4 0.3 116250 221420 1.29 0.06 4.7 0.7
46007 81110 1.11 0.01 0.4 0.1 116852 222480 1.15 0.03 5.6 0.8
49728 88084 0.97 0.01 6.2 0.8 116906 222582 0.99 0.01 6.7 0.8
50534 89454 1.03 0.01 3.0 1.1 117320 223171 1.09 0.01 6.7 0.3
52369 92719 1.01 0.01 1.6 0.9 118123 224393 0.92 0.01 3.6 1.0
\[table:israelian\]
[^1]: We use the standard notation $\log\epsilon_{\rm X}=\log\frac{n_{\rm X}}{n_{\rm H}}+12$, where $n_{\rm X}$ and $n_{\rm H}$ are the the number densities of element X and hydrogen, respectively.\
Also, for metallicities we use the common abbreviation \[Fe/H\]$=\log\epsilon_{\rm Fe}-\log\epsilon_{\rm Fe}^{\odot}$.
[^2]: The Spectroscopic Survey of Stars in the Solar Neighbourhood (S$^4$N) data and more detailed information can be found at http://hebe.as.utexas.edu/s4n/
[^3]: For consistency, we used our LTE lithium abundance in this discussion because the I09 work does not take into account non-LTE corrections.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we propose two theoretical schemes for implementation of quantum phase gates by engineering the phase sensitive dark state of two atoms subjected to Rydberg-Rydberg interaction. Combining the conventional adiabatic techniques and newly developed approaches of phase control, a feasible proposal for implementation of a geometric phase gate is presented firstly, where the conditional phase shift (Berry phase) is achieved by adiabatically and cyclically changing the parameters of the driving fields. Here, we find that the geometric phase acquired is related to the way how the relative phase is modulated. In the second scheme, the system Hamiltonian is adiabatically changed in a noncyclic manner, so that the acquired conditional phase is not a Berry phase. A detailed analysis of the experimental feasibility and the effect of decoherence is also given. The proposed schemes provide new perspectives for adiabatic manipulation of interacting Rydberg systems with tailored phase modulation.'
address: 'Fujian Key Laboratory of Quantum Information and Quantum Optics and Department of Physics, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350116, P. R. China'
author:
- 'Huaizhi Wu, Xi-Rong Huang, Chang-Sheng Hu, Zhen-Biao Yang, and Shi-Biao Zheng'
bibliography:
- 'Ryd\_gates.bib'
- 'Ryd\_QIP.bib'
- 'Ryd\_exp.bib'
- 'Ryd\_AP.bib'
- 'geo\_zheng.bib'
- 'others.bib'
- 'Ryd\_asym.bib'
title: 'Rydberg-interaction gates via adiabatic passage and phase control of driving fields'
---
Introduction
============
Neutral atoms in highly excited and long-lived Rydberg states are considered as the ideal architecture for quantum information processing since it provides strongly interatomic interaction on demand, while keeps interacting with the environment weakly [@Saffman2010; @Browaeys2016]. There have been numerous proposals to use Rydberg-Rydberg interactions for implementation of quantum logic gates [@Cozzini2006375; @Brion2007; @Muller2009; @PhysRevA.82.034307; @Rao2014; @Keating2015; @Beterov2016a], quantum error correction [@Zeiher2015; @PhysRevLett.100.110506], quantum algorithms [@Chen2011; @Sanders2014; @Petrosyan] and quantum repeater [@Han2010; @PhysRevA.81.052329; @PhysRevA.85.042324; @Solmeyer2015a]. By following the pioneering works proposed by Jaksch et al. [@PhysRevLett.85.2208] and Lukin et al. [@PhysRevLett.87.037901], promising schemes for realizing two-qubit controlled-Z and controlled-NOT gates that rely on dynamical control of dipolar coupling and intrinsic Förster interaction have been widely studied in both the Rydberg blockade [@Muller2009; @Isenhower_PRL2010; @Zhang_PRA12_FideRydGate; @Muller2014; @Maller2015] and antiblockade regimes [@Su2017; @Petrosyan2014]. Therein, the validity of the gate operations is predominantly determined by the detailed laser parameters as well as the Rydberg interaction strength. Experimental demonstrations in producing quantum entanglement of few Rydberg atoms [@Barredo2014; @Zeng2017] and two-qubit logic operations [@Maller2015] have recently made great progress by addressing the system’s evolutional dynamics, however, the fidelity achieved to date is significantly limited by the imprecise control of experimental parameters.
The requirement of precise control of coherent dynamics can be avoided by using the adiabatic techniques, such as stimulated Raman adiabatic passage (STIRAP) and adiabatic rapid passage (ARP), where the sensitivity to imprecise Rabi control and other experimental perturbations is strongly suppressed [@Vitanov2017]. The theoretical proposals based on the STIRAP and the ARP have been proposed for coherent population transfer [@PhysRevA.84.023413; @Yan2011; @Qian2015a; @Tian2015; @Petrosyan2015d], preparation of entangled states [@Moller2008; @Petrosyan], and implementation of quantum logic gates [@Goerz2014; @PhysRevA.88.010303; @Rao2014; @Keating2015] with Rydberg atoms, which exhibit robustness properties against moderate fluctuations of experimental parameters. Furthermore, the adiabatic technique alternatively provides a chance for geometric manipulation of Rydberg systems [@Moller2008; @PhysRevA.86.032323; @PhysRevA.88.010303], which is naturally robust against certain control errors [@Zheng2015; @Zheng2016] and is a promising approach for implementation of a built-in fault-tolerant two-qubit logic gate.
Here, we put forward two new schemes for implementing quantum phase gates via adiabatic passage and phase control of the driving fields. The first scheme is based on the geometric manipulation of the system’s Hamiltonian in the parameter space. In contrast to the previously similar approach [@Moller2008], the geometric phase acquired here is not due to the variance of the phase difference of the control pulses, and is alternatively accumulated by changing the phases of the driving fields in step and keeping the phase difference null. Remarkably, we find that the geometric phase acquired is strongly dependent on the way how the relative phase is modulated. In the second scheme, neither is the conditional phase shift of dynamical origin since the qubit system evolves in the dark state space, nor is it a Berry adiabatic phase as the system Hamiltonian is not cyclically changed. The conditional phase arises from the adiabatic manipulation of the dark state with staircase phase control. The experimental feasibility, gate fidelity and docoherence effect for the proposed schemes are carefully studied.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we propose the level addressing scheme for two neutral atoms interacting via the Rydberg-Rydberg interaction and examine the role of the phases of driving fields in adiabatic control. In Sec. III, the schemes for implementing conditional phase gates based on Berry phase and non-Berry adiabatic phase are presented. In Sec. IV, we provide a detailed discussion about the experimental feasibility of the two schemes. In Sec. V, the effect of atomic spontaneous emission and interatomic force on the gate fidelity is studied. The conclusion appears in Sec. VI.
Dark state of two interacting Rydberg atoms
===========================================
 (a) Schematic level configuration. The Rydberg state $|3\rangle$ is excited from the ground state $|1\rangle$ via an intermediate state $|2\rangle$ with two lasers of optical frequencies. Double excitation of the Rydberg state $|3\rangle$ will be shifted by $V_{33}$ due to the interatomic interaction. $\Omega_{p}$ and $\Omega_{\mu}$ are Rabi frequencies for the transitions $|1\rangle\leftrightarrow|2\rangle$ and $|2\rangle\leftrightarrow|3\rangle$, respectively. (b) STIRAP pulse sequence applied to the interacting Rydberg atoms with $\tau$ being the overlapping time. (c) Addressing scheme with multiple Rydberg levels. The ground state $|1\rangle$ is resonantly coupled to the Rydberg state $|2\rangle$ via single photon transition with Rabi frequency $\Omega_{p}$ and the atomic transition between Rydberg states $|2\rangle$ and $|3\rangle$ is driven by a microwave field with Rabi frequency $\Omega_{\mu}$. The ground state $|0\rangle$ is the auxiliary qubit state. $V_{22}$ , $V_{23}$ , and $V_{33}$ are energy shifts induced by the Rydberg-Rydberg interaction. ](Fig1){width="1\columnwidth"}
We first introduce the schematic description of the system. Consider a pair of identical three-level atoms with a ground state $|1\rangle$, an intermediate state $|2\rangle$, and a highly excited Rydberg state $|3\rangle$, see Fig. \[fig:level structure\](a), which are trapped in optical tweezers or optical lattices. Two excitation lasers of optical frequencies resonantly drive the atomic transitions $|1\rangle\leftrightarrow|2\rangle$ and $|2\rangle\leftrightarrow|3\rangle$ with the Rabi frequencies $\Omega_{p}\equiv|\Omega_{p}|e^{i\phi_{p}}$ and $\Omega_{\mu}\equiv|\Omega_{\mu}|e^{-i\phi_{\mu}}$ (taken as complex number), respectively. The atoms experience an energy shift $V_{33}$ when both atoms are excited to the Rydberg state $|3\rangle$. The total Hamiltonian of the system in the rotating wave approximation is $$\begin{aligned}\mathcal{H}_{R}= & \mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{I}_{2}+\mathcal{I}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2}+V_{33}|3\rangle_{1}|3\rangle_{22}\langle3|_{1}\langle3|,\end{aligned}$$ with (from now on, we put $\hbar=1$) $$\mathcal{H}_{i}=\Omega_{p}|2\rangle_{ii}\langle1|+\Omega_{\mu}|3\rangle_{ii}\langle2|+h.c.,\;i=1,2.$$ In terms of the symmetric two-atomic basis states spanned by $\{|\phi_{j}\rangle\}$, $j=1,...,6$, with $$\begin{aligned}
|\phi_{1}\rangle & = & |1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2},\\
|\phi_{2}\rangle & = & \textrm{ }\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1\rangle_{1}|2\rangle_{2}+|2\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}),\\
|\phi_{3}\rangle & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1\rangle_{1}|3\rangle_{2}+|3\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}),\\
|\phi_{4}\rangle & = & \textrm{ }|2\rangle_{1}|2\rangle_{2},\\
|\phi_{5}\rangle & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|2\rangle_{1}|3\rangle_{2}+|3\rangle_{1}|2\rangle_{2}),\\
|\phi_{6}\rangle & = & \textrm{ }|3\rangle_{1}|3\rangle_{2},\end{aligned}$$ $\mathcal{H}_{R}$ can be rewritten as $$\mathcal{H}_{R}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & \sqrt{2}\Omega_{p}^{*} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
\sqrt{2}\Omega_{p} & 0 & \Omega_{\mu}^{*} & \sqrt{2}\Omega_{p}^{*} & 0 & 0\\
0 & \Omega_{\mu} & 0 & 0 & \Omega_{p}^{*} & 0\\
0 & \sqrt{2}\Omega_{p} & 0 & 0 & \sqrt{2}\Omega_{\mu}^{*} & 0\\
0 & 0 & \Omega_{p} & \sqrt{2}\Omega_{\mu} & 0 & \sqrt{2}\Omega_{\mu}^{*}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \sqrt{2}\Omega_{\mu} & V_{33}
\end{array}\right].\label{eq:HR}$$ There exists a nondegenerate eigenspace and a unique dark state for the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{R}$, which is given by $$\begin{aligned}
|d_{2}(t)\rangle & \propto & (|\Omega_{\mu}|^{2}-|\Omega_{p}|^{2})|\phi_{1}\rangle+\Omega_{p}^{2}|\phi_{4}\rangle-\sqrt{2}\Omega_{\mu}\Omega_{p}|\phi_{3}\rangle.\nonumber \\
\label{eq:ds2_unm}\end{aligned}$$ Expressing the relative strength of the two Rabi frequencies $\Omega_{p}$, $\Omega_{\mu}$ as $\textrm{tan}\theta=|\Omega_{p}|/|\Omega_{\mu}|$ and keeping their phases nonvanishing, the Eq.(\[eq:ds2\_unm\]) after normalization is rewritten as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
|d_{2}(t)\rangle & = & \mathcal{N}^{-1}[(\textrm{cos}^{2}\theta-\textrm{sin}^{2}\theta)|\phi_{1}\rangle+\textrm{sin}^{2}\theta e^{i2\phi_{p}}|\phi_{4}\rangle\nonumber \\
& & -\sqrt{2}\textrm{sin}\theta\textrm{cos}\theta e^{-i(\phi_{\mu}-\phi_{p})}|\phi_{3}\rangle],\label{eq:ds2_norm}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\textrm{cos}\theta=\frac{|\Omega_{\mu}|}{\sqrt{|\Omega_{\mu}|^{2}+|\Omega_{p}|^{2}}},$$ $$\textrm{sin}\theta=\frac{|\Omega_{p}|}{\sqrt{|\Omega_{\mu}|^{2}+|\Omega_{p}|^{2}}},$$ and $$\mathcal{N}=\sqrt{\textrm{cos}^{4}\theta+2\textrm{sin}^{4}\theta}.$$ Eq.(\[eq:ds2\_norm\]) has a similar form to the dark state firstly studied by Møller et al. (\[eq:ds2\_norm\]) $|EPR\rangle_{as}=(|\phi_{1}\rangle-|\phi_{4}\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ The co-existence of the phase factors $1,$geometric phases acquired during adiabatic evolution assisted by phase control and
 (a) $\phi_{p}$-dependent wavelike interference fringes in the probabilities of $|EPR\rangle_{s}$ (solid blue) and $|EPR\rangle_{as}$ (dashed red). (b), (c) Numerically calculated time-dependencies of the phases (divided by $\pi$) of the states $|\phi_{1}\rangle$ (solid blue) and $|\phi_{4}\rangle$ (dashed red) for $\phi_{p}=0$ and $\phi_{p}=\pi/2$, respectively. The two-atom system is initially in the state $|\phi_{1}\rangle$ and adiabatically evolves along $|d_{2}(t)\rangle$. The Rabi frequencies are modeled by sine-function pulses . We fix units of .](Fig2){width="1\columnwidth"}
\[fig:level structure\]an irreversible spontaneous decay $|2\rangle$ has a short lifetime, therefore adiabatic manipulation of the (unstable) dark state becomes not experimentally feasible (see section V for further discussion). To avoid the defect, we then consider atoms with two ground hyperfine states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ and two Rydberg states $|2\rangle$ and $|3\rangle$, see Fig. \[fig:level structure\](c). The atomic transition $|1\rangle\leftrightarrow|2\rangle$ is resonantly excited by a single-photon field $\Omega_{p}$ and the transition $|2\rangle\leftrightarrow|3\rangle$ is driven by a microwave field $\Omega_{\mu}$. The auxiliary level $|0\rangle$ is introduced as a qubit information for the later discussed gate protocols. While both atoms are excited to the Rydberg states, two relevant interparticle interactions are involved, i.e. the van der Waals (vdW) interaction $V_{22}$ ($V_{33}$) between the states $|2\rangle$ ($|3\rangle$) and the exchange dipole-dipole interaction (DDI) $V_{23}$ between an atom in $|2\rangle$ and another in $|3\rangle$. When including the Rydberg-Rydberg interaction, the two-atom Hamiltonian governing the temporal evolution of the compound system takes the form
$$\begin{aligned}\mathcal{H}'_{R}= & \mathcal{H}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{I}_{2}+\mathcal{I}_{1}\otimes\mathcal{H}_{2}+V_{33}|3\rangle_{1}|3\rangle_{22}\langle3|_{1}\langle3|\\
& +V_{22}|2\rangle_{1}|2\rangle_{22}\langle2|_{1}\langle2|+V_{23}(|2\rangle_{1}|3\rangle_{22}\langle3|_{1}\langle2|\\
& +|3\rangle_{1}|2\rangle_{22}\langle2|_{1}\langle3|).
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:Hamil_2RydS}$$
If the two atoms only weakly interact with each other while they are in the state $|2\rangle$ (e.g., due to a dispersive Förster process) such that the vdW shift $V_{22}$ becomes negligible comparing with other Rydberg interaction energies $V_{33}$, $V_{23}$, i.e. $V_{22}\ll V_{23,}V_{33}$, then the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}'_{R}$ with $V_{22}\rightarrow0$ has one dark state, which is exactly given by Eq. (\[eq:ds2\_norm\]). The interatomic DDI $V_{23}$ does not shift the zero eigenenergy and change the form of the dark state. Therefore, the single-Rydberg-level effects with respect to $|d_{2}\rangle$ hold true for the multiple-Rydberg-level model as long as the adiabatic condition is well guaranteed, and adiabatic control of the dark state becomes more feasible for long radiative lifetime of the Rydberg levels.
In another parameter regime where the interaction between the Rydberg states $|3\rangle$ is sufficiently weak comparing with the vdW shift $V_{22}$ and the DDI strength $V_{23}$, i.e. $V_{33}\ll V_{22,}V_{23},$ by setting $V_{33}=0$ we again find a dark state for $\mathcal{H}'_{R}$, but with a different form $$\begin{aligned}
|d'_{2}(t)\rangle & = & \textrm{cos}^{2}\theta e^{i2\phi_{r}}|\phi_{1}\rangle+\textrm{sin}^{2}\theta|\phi_{6}\rangle\nonumber \\
& & -\sqrt{2}\textrm{sin}\theta\textrm{cos}\theta e^{i\phi_{r}}|\phi_{3}\rangle,\label{eq:ds2_v33}\end{aligned}$$ which can be exactly expressed as the direct product of the dark states for the single-atom Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{i}$ ($i=1,2$), i.e. $|d'_{2}(t)\rangle=|d_{1}(t)\rangle_{1}\otimes|d_{1}(t)\rangle_{2}$, with
$$|d_{1}(t)\rangle_{i}=\textrm{cos}\theta e^{i\phi_{r}}|1\rangle_{i}-\textrm{sin}\theta|3\rangle_{i}.\label{eq:ds1}$$
In this case, the relative phase $\phi_{r}$ is the only degree of freedom for phase modulation during the system’s adiabatic evolution along $|d'_{2}(t)\rangle$.
If we further assume that $V_{22}=V_{33}=0$ but with $V_{23}\neq0$, the zero-energy eigenstate for the two-atom Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}'_{R}$ can then be written as the superposition of the degenerated dark states $|d_{2}(t)\rangle$ and $|d'_{2}(t)\rangle$. A finite Rydberg interaction strength $V_{22}$ or $V_{33}$ between the states $|2\rangle$ or $|3\rangle$ results in the removal of the degeneracy, which cannot occur with only the DDI due to the missing component $|\phi_{5}\rangle$.
Suppose that the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}'_{R}(t)$ is time dependent through the set of parameters $\mathbf{R}(t)=(\theta(t),\phi_{p}(t),\phi_{r}(t))$ and the interacting two-atom system is initially in the ground eigenstate $|g(\mathbf{R}(0))\rangle$ of the instantaneous $\mathcal{H}'_{R}(t=0)$. If $\mathbf{R}(t)=(\theta(t),\phi_{p}(t),\phi_{r}(t))$ is modulated under the condition $$|\langle e(t)|\frac{d\mathcal{H}'_{R}}{dt}|g(t)\rangle|\ll|E_{e}-E_{g}|^{2}$$ such that the Hamiltonian is adiabatically changed along a closed curve $\boldsymbol{C}$ in the parameter space (i.e. $\mathbf{R}(T)=\mathbf{R}(0)$), where $|e\rangle$ is any one of the instantaneous excited state, then the system will keep in the ground state and acquire a purely geometric phase $\text{\ensuremath{\varphi}}_{g}$ in additional to the usual dynamical phase $\text{\ensuremath{\varphi}}_{d}$: $$|g(\mathbf{R}(T))\rangle=exp\{i[\varphi_{g}(T)+\varphi_{d}(T)]\}|g(\mathbf{R}(0))\rangle\text{,}\label{eq:adiabatic_evolution}$$ where $$\varphi_{g}=i\oint_{\boldsymbol{C}}d\mathbf{R}\cdot\langle g(\mathbf{R}(t))|\nabla_{\mathbf{R}}|g(\mathbf{R}(t))\rangle\label{eq:geo_phase_def}$$ and $$\varphi_{d}(T)=-\int_{0}^{T}E_{d}(\mathbf{R}(t))dt,\label{eq:dyn_phase_def}$$ which is vanished for a dark state $|g(t)\rangle=|d(\mathbf{R}(t))\rangle$ with zero eigenenergy $E_{g}=0$.
Schemes for implementing Controlled-Z gates via adiabatic passage
=================================================================
We encode qubit information on the ground state $|1\rangle$ and the auxiliary level $|0\rangle$ that is uncoupled from any pulse sequences of the control field. Thus, the computational basis states are given by $\{|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2},\textrm{ |0\ensuremath{\rangle_{1}}|1\ensuremath{\rangle_{2}},}\textrm{ }|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2},\textrm{ |1\ensuremath{\rangle_{1}}|1\ensuremath{\rangle_{2}}}\}$. The controlled-Z gate is implemented by applying a counterintuitive pulse sequence and by modulating the phases of the control fields.
 (a) The amplitudes $|\text{\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{p}(t)|$, $|\Omega_{\mu}(t)|$ and phases $\phi_{p}$, $\phi_{\mu}$ of Rabi frequencies as a function of rescaled time. (b) Time dependent population of the states $|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ ($|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$) (black), $|0\rangle_{1}|3\rangle_{2}$ ($|3\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$) (blue) and $|0\rangle_{1}|2\rangle_{2}$ ($|2\rangle|0\rangle_{2}$) (green), and the phase of state $|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ ($|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$) (magenta) for the system initially in $|d_{1}(0)\rangle$. (c) Time dependent population of the states $|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ (solid black), $|\phi_{2}\rangle$ (dash black), $|\phi_{3}\rangle$ (solid blue), $|\phi_{4}\rangle$ (solid green), $|\phi_{5}\rangle$ (dash green) and $|\phi_{6}\rangle$ (dash blue), and the phase of state $|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ (magenta) for the system initially in $|d_{2}(0)\rangle$. We fix units of .](Fig3){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
**Scheme 1.** Geometric phase gate with the phases of the Rabi frequencies varying in step (i.e. $\phi_{r}=$const.). It has been realized that the dark states (\[eq:ds2\_norm\]) and (\[eq:ds1\]) under adiabatic evolution can acquire the geometric phases $\varphi_{2}=2\int\textrm{sin}^{2}\theta\textrm{cos}^{2}\theta(\textrm{cos}^{4}\theta+2\textrm{sin}^{4}\theta)^{-1}d\phi_{r}$ and $\varphi_{1}=\int\textrm{sin}^{2}\theta d\phi_{r}$, respectively, for a nonvanishing and time-dependent relative phase $\phi_{r}(t)$ [@Moller2008]. In contrast, we find that the two-atom dark state (\[eq:ds2\_norm\]) can acquire a Berry phase even though the relative phase is kept invariant.
Suppose the two-atom system is initially in $|d_{2}(0)\rangle=|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ (i.e. $\textrm{cos}\theta=1$) and the phases of the driving fields are $\phi_{p}(0)=0$, $\phi_{\mu}(0)=0$ without loss of generality. The time-dependent amplitudes of the Rabi frequencies are chosen as ($0\leq t\leq2\tau$) $$|\Omega_{p}(t)|=\Omega\textrm{sin}(\frac{\pi}{2\tau}t),\:|\Omega_{\mu}(t)|=\Omega|\textrm{cos}(\frac{\pi}{2\tau}t)|,\label{eq:pulse_s1}$$ which corresponds to $\theta(t)$ varying from $0$ to $\pi/2$ and the corresponding reverse process. The phases $\phi_{p,\mu}(t)$ are synchronized with each other in real time and have a simply linear time dependence $\phi_{p,\mu}(t)=\text{\ensuremath{\pi}}t/\tau$. Therefore, the system makes a cyclic evolution with starting point and ending point $\theta=0$, see temporal evolution of the probability amplitudes and the phases of the relevant states as shown in Fig. \[fig:population\_geo\]. The geometric phase $\varphi'_{2}$ (i.e. the Berry phase) accumulated during the adiabatic process can be calculated by using the standard formula Eq. (\[eq:geo\_phase\_def\]). Since $\phi_{r}$ remains zero at any time, the relevant parameter space reduces to $\mathbf{R}(t)=(\theta(t),\phi_{p}(t))$. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi'_{2} & = & -\oint_{C}\frac{2\textrm{sin}^{4}\theta}{\textrm{cos}^{4}\theta+2\textrm{sin}^{4}\theta}d\phi_{p}\nonumber \\
& = & -\oint_{C}\frac{4\textrm{sin}^{4}\theta}{\textrm{cos}^{4}\theta+2\textrm{sin}^{4}\theta}d\text{\ensuremath{\theta}}\label{eq:geo_phase_s1}\end{aligned}$$ for $d\phi_{p}(t)/d\theta(t)=2$ taken in our example. Apart from that, while the system is initially in the state $|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$, $|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ or $|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$, no geometric phases can be acquired during the cyclic evolution. The sudden increase of the phases of $|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ ($|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$) around $t=\tau$ is due to imperfect state transfer and is automatically eliminated at the end of the pulse sequence. Thus, we have successfully implemented a controlled phase gate based on the conditionally geometric phase shift: $$\begin{gathered}
|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}\longrightarrow|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2},\quad|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}\longrightarrow|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2},\nonumber \\
|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}\longrightarrow|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2},\quad|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}\longrightarrow e^{i\varphi'_{2}}|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}.\label{eq:geo-gate}\end{gathered}$$ concurrency control ofWhile for the system initially being in the two-atom dark state $|d_2'(t)\rangle$ under the condition $V_{33}\ll V_{22,}V_{23}$, no geometric phases can be acquired since $\phi_{r}$ is invariant.
 The acquired geometric phases $\varphi_{2}$, $\varphi_{2}'$ and $\varphi_{2}''$ versus $\theta$. The system in the initial state $|d_{2}(0)\rangle=|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ is adiabatically taken to the superposition state with a given $\theta$ followed by sweeping the phase of the controlled fields: $\phi_{p}$, $\phi_{\mu}$: $0\rightarrow\pi$ (red), $\phi_{p}=0$, $\phi_{\mu}$: $0\rightarrow\pi$ (blue) and $\phi_{p}$: $0\rightarrow\pi$, $\phi_{\mu}=0$ (green), respectively. The amplitudes of the applied pulse sequence and other parameters are as in Fig. \[fig:population\_geo\]. ](Fig4){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Thus, we find three different ways of phase control for geometrically manipulating the interacting two-atom system. A comparison of the acquired geometric phases for the three cases is shown in Fig. \[fig:geo\_vs\_theta\], from which one can easily read out $\varphi_{2}$, $\varphi_{2}'$ and $\varphi_{2}''$ by $4\theta_{m}\overline{f(\theta)}$, with $\theta_{m}$ and $\overline{f(\theta)}$ being the given $\theta$ with respect to the preset dark state $d_{2}(\theta_{m},\phi_{p},\phi_{\mu})$ and the $\theta$ average of the curves on the plots (indicated by dash lines for scheme 1), respectively.
 (a) The amplitudes $|\text{\ensuremath{\Omega}}_{p}(t)|$, $|\Omega_{\mu}(t)|$ and phases $\phi_{p}$, $\phi_{\mu}$ of Rabi frequencies as a function of rescaled time. Without loss of generality, we set $\phi_{p,\mu}(0)=0$. (b) Time dependence of the population of states $|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ ($|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$) (black), $|0\rangle_{1}|3\rangle_{2}$ ($|3\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$) (blue) and $|0\rangle_{1}|2\rangle_{2}$ ($|2\rangle|0\rangle_{2}$) (green), and the phase of state $|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ ($|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$) (magenta) for the system initially in $|d_{1}(0)\rangle$. (c) Time dependence of the population of states $|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ (solid black), $|\phi_{2}\rangle$ (dash black), $|\phi_{3}\rangle$ (solid blue), $|\phi_{4}\rangle$ (solid green), $|\phi_{5}\rangle$ (dash green) and $|\phi_{6}\rangle$ (dash blue), and the phase of state $|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ (magenta) for the system initially in $|d_{2}(0)\rangle$. Other parameters as same in Fig. \[fig:population\_geo\]. ](Fig5){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
**Scheme 2.** Gate based on non-Berry adiabatic phase arisen from staircase phase control. The operation procedure is generally divided into two steps during the time interval $0\leqslant t\leqslant2\tau$, in which the time-dependent amplitudes of the Rabi frequencies again vary according to Eq.(\[eq:pulse\_s1\]), and the phases of the driving fields follow $$\phi_{p}(t)=\textrm{const.},\:\phi_{r}(t)=\frac{\pi}{2}\Theta(t-\tau),$$ with $\Theta(x)$ being the unit step function. Note that the relative phase is changed only at the end of the first half of the pulse sequence ($t=\tau$) without the limit of adiabaticity, and the system Hamiltonian is not changed along a closed curve in the parameter space $\mathbf{R}(t)=(\theta(t),\phi_{r}(t))$. Therefore, it is fundamentally different from the geometric operation (leading to the Berry phase) proposed by Møller et al. , where the relative phase should be adiabatically modulated when the applied pulses overlap, and the initial and the final Hamiltonian of the evolutional system should remain the same (i.e. $\mathbf{R}(2\tau)=\mathbf{R}(0)$). The idea of realizing a phase gate through adiabatic manipulation of the dark state with staircase phase control was firstly studied in ion traps [@Zheng_PRL2005].
In the first step ($0\leqslant t\leqslant\tau$), the phase factors $\phi_{p}$, $\phi_{\mu}$ are set to be equal so that $\phi_{r}=0$, e.g. $\phi_{p}=\phi_{\mu}=0$ for simplicity. $\theta$ is adiabatically increased from $0$ to $\pi/2$ by adjusting the relative intensity of the coupling fields as in Eq. (\[eq:pulse\_s1\]). For $V_{22}\ll V_{23,}V_{33}$, the temporal evolution of the basis states will follow the dark states [\[]{}Eqs. (\[eq:ds2\_norm\]) and (\[eq:ds1\]) [\]]{} throughout the procedure, leading to the transformations $$\begin{gathered}
|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}\rightarrow|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2},\quad|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}\rightarrow-|0\rangle_{1}|3\rangle_{2},\nonumber \\
|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}\rightarrow-|3\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2},\quad|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}\rightarrow\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(-|\phi_{1}\rangle+|\phi_{4}\rangle).\end{gathered}$$
In the second step ($\tau\leqslant t\leqslant2\tau$), $\theta$ is tuned adiabatically from $\pi/2$ back to $0$ but with $\phi_{p}=0$ and $\phi_{\mu}=\pi/2$ (i.e. $\phi_{r}=\pi/2$), which gives rise to $$\begin{gathered}
|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}\rightarrow|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2},\quad-|0\rangle_{1}|3\rangle_{2}\rightarrow e^{i\pi/2}|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2},\nonumber \\
-|3\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}\rightarrow e^{i\pi/2}|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2},\quad\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(-|\phi_{1}\rangle+|\phi_{4}\rangle)\rightarrow|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}.\label{eq:Ng_transf}\end{gathered}$$ Since the two processes are highly adiabatic, the population of the basis states return to the initial state after the counterintuitive pulse sequence. It is interesting to see that the basis states $|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ and $|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$ finally acquire an additional phase factor $e^{i\varphi_{ng}}$ with $\varphi_{ng}=\text{\ensuremath{\pi}/2}$, which does not exist for $|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$ and $|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ (see Fig. \[fig:population\_ng\]). Because the dark states are the eigenstates of $\mathcal{H}_{i}$ ($i=1,2$) with zero eigenvalues, $\varphi_{ng}$ has no dynamic origin. On the other hand, here the Hamiltonian is not required to make a cyclic evolution in the parameter space as for the accumulation of the adiabatic Berry phase.
Finally, by applying single-qubit operations $|1\rangle_{1,2}\rightarrow e^{i\pi/2}|1\rangle_{1,2}$ to both atoms, we recover the familiar controlled-Z gate $$\begin{gathered}
|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}\rightarrow|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2},\quad|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}\rightarrow|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2},\nonumber \\
|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}\rightarrow|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2},\quad|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}\rightarrow-|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2},\label{eq:QPG}\end{gathered}$$ which can be easily transformed to a controlled-NOT gate by using two additional $\pi/2$ pulses rotating the target qubit around the $y$-axis in the opposite directions. Note that for $V_{33}\ll V_{22,}V_{23}$, repeating the operation procedure above will lead to the transformation for the basis states: $|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}\rightarrow e^{i\pi/2}|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$, $|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}\rightarrow e^{i\pi/2}|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$ and $e^{i\pi}|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$, which is impossible to become a universal binary gate under any local operations.
From a comparison between the two schemes we can see that the non-Berry phase gate via the staircase phase control is built on a completely different mechanism in contrast to the normal dynamical and geometric phase gates: the qubit system does not undergo any dynamical phase shift since it works in the zero-energy eigenspace; the Hamiltonian is not changed along a closed curve in the parameter space; precisely adiabatic modulation of the phases of the driving fields and adiabatic control of the population transfer at the same time is unnecessary, thus, the errors in obtaining the required geometric solid angle are avoided and the operation procedure is simplified.
Physical realization: asymmetric Rydberg coupling
=================================================
In the context of Rydberg experiments, the strongly asymmetric coupling condition $V_{22}\ll V_{23,}V_{33}$ can be found, for example, by mapping the Rydberg states to $|2=40p_{3/2},m=1/2\rangle$ and $|3=41s_{1/2},m=1/2\rangle$ of Rubidium atoms separated at an interatomic distance $R$ of several micrometers. In this case, the blockade interaction between the states $|2\rangle$ and $|3\rangle$ is an exchange process of resonant dipole nature ($\sim n^{4}/R^{3}$ with $n$ being the principal quantum number), where the zero-interaction angle can be avoided either by using a spatial light modulator to create the preset trap pattern or by applying a weak external magnetic field ($B=10^{-7}$ T) to couple the atomic Zeeman states of different magnetic quantum numbers. The anisotropic interaction between states $|2\rangle$ and isotropic interaction between states $|3\rangle$ are both induced by the Förster process, where the two-atomic interaction potential can transit from the dipole-dipole to the van der Waals limit ($\sim n^{11}/R^{6}$), depending on the interatomic distance [@Saffman2008]. It is therefore possible to restrict our consideration to the asymmetric coupling regime, which represents the dominant interaction mechanism at the atomic separation of interest. For $R=3$$\mu$m, the interaction strengths $V_{23}$ and $V_{22}$ can respectively vary from $5$ MHz to $20$ MHz, and from $0.02$ MHz to $0.1$ MHz by adjusting the angle between the dipoles, and the interaction strength $V_{33}$ approximates $2\pi\times3.7$ MHz [@PhysRevLett.102.240502].
On the other hand, the excitation of Rydberg $p$-states from ground $s$-states in a single photon transition has recently become feasible due to the availability of ultraviolet (UV) laser sources, which results in much larger Rabi frequency $\Omega$ (scaling as $\Omega\sim n^{-3/2}$) compared to a three-photon excitation process [@Hankin2014b]. In addition, the optical excitation of a Rydberg state followed by a microwave-driven coupling between two neighboring Rydberg levels has been experimentally demonstrated as well, where the Rabi frequency of the Rydberg-Rydberg transition can reach several tens of MHz by increasing the intensity of the microwave field [@PhysRevLett.110.103001]. Thus, it becomes very promising to implement the proposed schemes with asymmetric Rydberg-Rydberg interaction by integrating the current experimental techniques [@Barredo2015].
 Fidelities of gates based on Berry phase (a) and non-Berry adiabatic phase (b) v.s. the energy shift $V_{33}/\Omega$ of the collective Rydberg states $|3\rangle_{1}|3\rangle_{2}$ for the DDI strength $V_{23}/\Omega=0,1,2\text{,4}$ (from top to bottom) and $V_{22}/\Omega=0.005$. Other parameters are as in Fig. \[fig:population\_geo\].](Fig6){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
To evaluate the performance of the controlled-Z gate, we use the fidelity $F=[\textrm{Tr}\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho_{tar}}\rho(2\tau)\sqrt{\rho_{tar}}}]^{2}$ to measure the desired output $\rho_{tar}$ given an input of all the logical states $|\psi_{0}\rangle=\frac{1}{2}(|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}+|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}+|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}+|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2})$, where $\rho_{tar}=|\psi_{tar}\rangle\langle\psi_{tar}|$ with $|\psi_{tar}\rangle$ being the target state obtained through an ideal gate operation $|\psi_{tar}\rangle=U_{CZ}|\psi_{0}\rangle$, and $\rho(2\tau)$ is the actual output state in the logical space produced in the presence of the error sources, such as nonadiabatic transitions, docoherence induced by atomic spontaneous emission and atomic motion. In Fig. \[fig:fidelity\_Nsp\], we have shown the fidelity of the controlled-Z gate [\[]{} Eq.(\[eq:geo-gate\]) and Eq.(\[eq:QPG\])[\]]{} under the condition of asymmetric Rydberg coupling $V_{22}\ll V_{23},V_{33}$ in the coherent regime. Considering (), the fidelity reaches its optimum at $V_{33}=0.7$, $V_{23}=1$ and $V_{33}=0.9$, $V_{23}=1$ for gates based on the Berry and the non-Berry adiabatic phase, respectively, where the interaction strengths $V_{23},V_{33}$ are of comparable magnitude with the maximum of the Rabi frequencies $\Omega$, corresponding to the intermediate coupling regime $V_{23},V_{33}\sim\Omega$. Further increasing $V_{23}$ or $V_{33}$ will lead to reduction of the gate fidelity (due to nonadiabatic transfer towards the nonzero-energy eigenstates), however, note that the non-Berry operation is more robust against the variation of the Rydberg interactions compared with the geometric Berry operation. For the special situation where $V_{22}\simeq0$ and $V_{23}=0$, available for a cascaded level configuration involving a single Rydberg state (see later discussion), the condition for a high-fidelity gate performance is simply $V_{33}>2\Omega$, which lies in the regime of Rydberg blockade. In this case, the optimal implementation of the Berry-phase-based controlled-Z gate requires slightly weaker $V_{33}$ than that for the non-Berry adiabatic operation, but again, the latter exhibits its robustness as $V_{33}$ increases.
 Time dependence of the state populations during the gate operations based on Berry phase [\[]{}(a), (b)[\]]{} and non-Berry adiabatic phase [\[]{}(c), (d)[\]]{} with $(V_{22},V_{23},V_{33})/\Omega=(1,1.5,0.1)$. The color scheme and other parameters are as in Fig. \[fig:population\_geo\].](Fig7){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
For small $V_{33}$, the temporal evolution of the system is no longer adiabatically confined in the state $|d_{2}(t)\rangle$ and the effect of the other dark component $|d_{2}'(t)\rangle$ should be considered. In this case, the nonadiabatic transition to the doubly excited state $|3\rangle_{1}|3\rangle_{2}$ accompanied with interatomic interaction will introduce a dynamical phase, which may be constructive for implementing the controlled-Z gate as well. To gain the insight, we have repeated the procedures for generating the Berry and the non-Berry phases as before under the condition of $V_{33}\ll V_{22},V_{23}$. If $V_{33}=0$, the system strictly evolves along the dark state $|d'_{2}(t)\rangle$, where the phase difference $\phi_{r}$ of the control fields becomes the only relevant phase factor for the modulation process. For the operation to obtain Berry phases, the system acquires no geometric phase during the cyclic evolution since $\phi_{r}$ is kept invariant [\[]{}see Fig. \[fig:population\_DynPG\](a-b)[\]]{}. Alternatively, for the operation to obtain non-Berry adiabatic phases, the rise up of $\phi_{r}$ at $t=\tau$ introduces phase factors $e^{i2\phi_{r}}=e^{i\pi}$ and $e^{i\phi_{r}}=e^{i\pi/2}$ to the basis states $|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ and $|1\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$ (or $|0\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$), respectively, which are irrelevant to a binary gate. While for a finite $V_{33}$, the instantaneous ground state of $\mathcal{H}'_{R}$ evolves from the bare $|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ state into a “dressed” state with some admixture of $|3\rangle_{1}|3\rangle_{2}$, which additionally supplements a dynamical phase $\varphi_{d}\approx\int\textrm{sin}^{4}\theta V_{33}dt$ to $|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}$ [\[]{}see Fig. \[fig:population\_DynPG\](c-d)[\]]{}. Therefore, the implementation of a controlled-Z gate via the completely dynamical control is still available for $\varphi_{d}=\pi$ for both cases, and is sensitive to the fluctuation of Rydberg interactions nevertheless.
The effect of Spontaneous emission and interatomic force
========================================================
 Fidelities of the gates based on Berry phase (a) and non-Berry adiabatic phase (b) for different atomic spontaneous emission rates as functions of the Rydberg interaction $V_{33}$ for (solid) and (dash). We here set $\gamma_{2}=\gamma_{3}=\gamma$.](Fig8){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The two atoms excited to Rydberg states are subjected to decoherence due to atomic spontaneous emission and interatomic force. The dissipative dynamics can be calculated by the Lindblad master equation for the density operator $\rho$ of the two-atom system, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho}(t) & = & -i[\mathcal{H}'_{R},\rho(t)]+\sum_{i=1}^{2}\sum_{k=1}^{2}\mathcal{L}[A_{i,k}]\rho(t),\label{eq:master_eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{L}[A_{i,k}]\rho=A_{i,k}\rho A_{i,k}^{\dagger}-\frac{1}{2}\{A_{i,k}^{\dagger}A_{i,k},\rho\}$, $A_{i,1}=\sqrt{\gamma_{2}}|1\rangle_{ii}\langle2|$ and $A_{i,2}=\sqrt{\gamma_{3}}|2\rangle_{ii}\langle3|$ with $\gamma_{2}$ and $\gamma_{3}$ being the spontaneous decay rates for the transition channels $|2\rangle_{i}\rightarrow|1\rangle_{i}$ and $|3\rangle_{i}\rightarrow|2\rangle_{i}$ respectively. In Fig. \[fig:Fide\_sp\], we show overlap (fidelity) between the realistic density matrix $\rho(2\tau)$ at the end of the pulse sequences from Eq.(\[eq:master\_eq\]) and the ideal result $\rho_{tar}$ (for $\gamma_{2}=\gamma_{3}=0$), for the system initially in $|\psi_{0}\rangle$. Since the lifetime of the Rydberg states $|2\rangle$ ($|3\rangle$) with principal quantum number $n=40$ or $41$ is around $60\mu s$, thus the decay rates are taken as $\gamma_{2}=\gamma_{3}=10^{-4}\Omega$, $10^{-3}\Omega$, corresponding to the peak Rabi frequency $\Omega/2\pi=20$MHz, $2$MHz, respectively. For the former case, the fidelities of the gates relying on the Berry phase and non-Berry adiabatic phase are 0.983 and 0.992, respectively; while for the latter case, fidelity of better than 0.92 is still achievable for both schemes. On the other hand, the interatomic force (induced by double excitation of Rydberg states) during the gate operation can couple the internal degree of freedom to the externally atomic motion. Its perturbative effect on the gate fidelity can be estimated by $\sim\frac{3\lambda_{0}V_{33}}{R\omega_{0}}(1-e^{-i\omega_{0}\tau})$ to the first order, with $\omega_{0}$ the trapping frequency and $\lambda_{0}$ the wavelength of trapping light [@Rao2014]. Thus, one can enlarge the Rabi frequency $\Omega$ to reduce the gate duration $\tau$ or alternatively use an optical lattice (instead of an optical tweezer trap) with higher trapping frequency to trap the atoms such that the motional effect can be reasonably ignored.
 Level configuration. Two hyperfine ground states $|1\rangle$, $|2\rangle$ are coupled via the Raman process with the effective Rabi frequency $\Omega_{p}$. The Rydberg state $|3\rangle$ is excited via a single photon transition of the Rabi frequency $\Omega_{\mu}$.](Fig9){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
As mentioned before, the controlled-Z gate can be implemented as well with the atomic level scheme involving only a single Rydberg state. In this case, the microwave control becomes unnecessary. However, for the usual Rydberg EIT configuration (i.e. a cascaded three-level system), the populated intermediate state $|2\rangle$ (such as $6p_{1/2}$ for Rb and $7p_{1/2}$ for Cs atoms) is an excited state with strong spontaneous emission rate, which will irreversibly deteriorate the coherent population transfer and then the gate fidelity [@Moller2008; @Rao2014]. However, the obstacle can be overcome by using the single-photon excitation scheme for the ground-Rydberg transition and by mapping $|1\rangle$ and $|2\rangle$ to the atomic hyperfine states, which can couple to each other via two-photon Raman processes (see Fig. \[fig:level\_Raman\]). Therefore, the fidelity can be further improved by selecting a Rydberg state with larger principal quantum number and longer lifetime. For example, in a 300K environment, the Cs Rydberg states $|90p\rangle$, $|95p\rangle$ have the lifetimes $361\text{\ensuremath{\mu}s}$ and $406\text{\ensuremath{\mu}s}$, respectively [@Beterov2016a]. Moreover, double excitation of Rydberg states is avoided, and thus the effect of the interatomic force that may entangle their motional degree of freedom can be neglected.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, we have shown that the Rydberg-Rydberg interaction between two highly excited atoms can be exploited for implementing a reliable controlled-Z gate via adiabatic passage and tailored phase modulation. The newly developed addressing schemes drive the system Hamiltonian to change in a cyclic or a noncyclic manner, giving rise to a Berry phase or a non-Berry adiabatic phase for implementation of conditional phase gates. In the former case, the geometric phase is acquired through concurrent control of the phases of the driving fields, and can be alternatively obtained via modulation of the relative phase in two different ways, while for the latter the requirement of adiabatic phase control becomes unnecessary and therefore the experimental complexity can be significantly released. We also pointed out that the implementation of the schemes with multilevel atomic configuration involving a unique Rydberg state might be more promising for experimental demonstration. We note that our adiabatic Rydberg gates may not replace the conventional approaches with fast dynamical control, however, the merits of the adiabatic technique itself and the new addressing schemes of phase modulation found here will provide new perspectives for adiabatic manipulation of interacting Rydberg systems.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 11374054, No. 11534002, No. 11674060, No. 11575045, and No. 11405031; and the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province under Grant No. 2017J01401.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The Controlled Molecule Imaging group (CMI) at the Center for Free Electron Laser Science (CFEL) has developed the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CMIstark</span>]{} software to calculate, view, and analyze the energy levels of adiabatic Stark energy curves of linear, symmetric top and asymmetric top molecules. The program exploits the symmetry of the Hamiltonian to generate fully labeled adiabatic Stark energy curves.
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CMIstark</span>]{} is written in Python and easily extendable, while the core numerical calculations make use of machine optimized BLAS and LAPACK routines. Calculated energies are stored in HDF5 files for convenient access and programs to extract ASCII data or to generate graphical plots are provided.
address:
- 'Center for Free-Electron Laser Science, DESY, Notkestrasse 85, 22607 Hamburg, Germany'
- 'Fritz-Haber-Institut der MPG, Faradayweg 4-6, 14195 Berlin, Germany'
- 'General Physics Institute RAS, Vavilov str. 38, 119991, Moscow, Russia'
-
-
author:
- 'Yuan-Pin Chang'
- Frank Filsinger
- 'Boris G. Sartakov'
- Jochen Küpper
bibliography:
- 'string.bib'
- 'cmi.bib'
title: '[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CMIstark</span>]{}: Python package for the Stark-effect calculation and symmetry classification of linear, symmetric and asymmetric top wavefunctions in dc electric fields'
---
=1
molecular rotation ,linear top molecule ,symmetric top molecule ,asymmetric top molecule ,electric field ,Stark effect
Program summary {#sec:program-summary}
===============
#### Program title:
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CMIstark</span>]{}
#### Catalogue identifier:
(to be added in production)
#### Program summary URL:
(to be added in production)
#### Program obtainable from:
CPC Program Library
#### Licensing provisions:
GNU General Public License version 3 or later with amendments. See code for details.
#### No. of lines in distributed program, including test data, etc.:
3394
#### No. of bytes in distributed program, including test data, etc.:
61962
#### Distribution format:
tar.gz
#### Programming language:
Python (version 2.6.x, 2.7.x)
#### Computer:
Any Macintosh, PC, or Linux/UNIX workstations with a modern Python distribution
#### Operating system:
Tested on Mac OS X and a variety of Linux distributions
#### RAM:
2 GB for typical calculations
#### Classification:
Atomic and Molecular Physics, Physical Chemistry and Chemistry Physics
#### External routines:
Python packages numpy and scipy; utilizes (optimized) LAPACK and BLAS through scipy. All packages available under open-source licenses.
#### Nature of problem:
Calculation of the Stark effect of asymetric top molecules in arbitrarily strong dc electric fields in a correct symmetry classification and using correct labeling of the adiabatic Stark curves.
#### Solution method:
We set up the full $M$ matrices of the quantum-mechanical Hamiltonian in the basis set of symmetric top wavefunctions and, subsequently, Wang transform the Hamiltonian matrix. We separate, as far as possible, the sub-matrices according to the remaining symmetry, and then diagonalize the individual blocks. This application of the symmetry consideration to the Hamiltonian allows an adiabatic correlation of the asymmetric top eigenstates in the dc electric field to the field-free eigenstates. This directly yields correct adiabatic state labels and, correspondingly, adiabatic Stark energy curves.
#### Restrictions:
The maximum value of $J$ is limited by the available main memory. A modern desktop computer with 16 GB of main memory allows for calculations including all $J$s up to a values larger than $100$ even for the most complex cases of asymmetric tops.
#### Additional comments:
#### Running time:
Typically 1 s–1 week on a single CPU or equivalent on multi-CPU systems (depending greatly on system size and RAM); parallelization through BLAS/LAPACK. For instance, calculating all energies up to $J=25$ of indole (*vide infra*) for one field strength takes 1 CPU-s on a current iMac.
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Over the last decade, the manipulation of the motion of molecules using electric fields has been revitalized [@Meerakker:CR112:2012; @Filsinger:PCCP13:2076; @Schnell:ACIE48:6010; @Bell:MP107:99; @Kuepper:FD142:155]. Exploiting the Stark effect, large asymmetric-top polar molecules have been deflected [@Holmegaard:PRL102:023001], focused [@Filsinger:PRL100:133003], and decelerated [@Wohlfart:PRA77:031404]. These techniques can be used to spatially separate neutral molecules according to their quantum states [@Nielsen:PCCP13:18971], structural isomers [@Filsinger:PRL100:133003; @Filsinger:ACIE48:6900], and cluster sizes [@Trippel:PRA86:033202]. These techniques promise advanced applications of well-defined samples of complex molecules in various research fields, [e.g.]{}, modern spectroscopies [@Dian:Science320:924; @Hennies:PRL104:193002] or the direct imaging of structural and chemical dynamics [@Filsinger:PCCP13:2076; @Sciaini:RPP74:096101; @Barty:ARPC64:415; @Kuepper:LCLSdibn:inprep]. However, successful implementation of these methods requires a thorough theoretical understanding of the molecule-field interaction for the involved molecular quantum states. Here we provide a well-tested and optimized program package for the calculation and labeling of so called Stark curves, [i.e.]{}, the energies of molecules as a function of electric field strength, for general use. This software package will benefit the advance of those forthcoming applications, [esp. ]{}also for complex molecules. Moreover, it allows non-specialists and newcomers to the field to concentrate on their envisioned applications of controlled molecules.
The code presented here is designed to calculate eigenenergies of very cold (on the order of a few Kelvin) ensembles of polar molecules in the presence of external electrostatic fields. The interaction of the molecular dipole moment with the dc electric field changes the internal energy, and this is called Stark effect. To quantify this behavior, the eigenvalue problem of the Hamiltonian is solved. [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CMIstark</span>]{}does this calculation in terms of numerically diagonalizing the corresponding Hamiltonian matrix. An efficient method of diagonalizing the matrix, exploiting underlying physics phenomena, is employed. Moreover, a correct method of correlating eigenvalues to quantum states, [i.e.]{}, labeling the calculated energies for all field strengths, is also required for further use in order to predict or simulate and analyze control experiments.
The software package is named [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CMIstark</span>]{}. It is developed and maintained by the Controlled Molecule Imaging (CMI) group at the Center for Free Electron Laser Science (CFEL), DESY, in Hamburg, based on earlier work by some of the authors at the Fritz Haber Institut of the MPG in Berlin.
Description {#sec:description}
===========
Stark energies are obtained by setting up and diagonalizing the Hamiltonian matrix for a given electric field strength. The matrix elements can be obtained analytically (*vide infra*) and the resulting matrix is diagonalized numerically to obtain its eigenvalues, corresponding to the energies of the molecular states. First, the matrix is block-diagonalized as far as possible using symmetry considerations in order to correctly assign quantum numbers to eigenvalues. The block-diagonalization also significantly reduces the overall computation time, which is dominated by the diagonalization. The resulting blocks are diagonalized using LAPACK’s dsyevr or zheevr subroutines for real and complex matrices, respectively. The following overview section will provide a brief review of the main concepts of the above approach.
Overview {#sec:overview}
--------
The quantum-mechanical energy of a molecule, $E$, can be obtained by solving the Schrödinger equation $$H\Psi=E\Psi.
\label{eq:sch_eq}$$ Neglecting translation, $H$ denotes the Hamiltonian operator in the center-of-mass frame and $\Psi$ is the wavefunction. For a rigid rotor and neglecting nuclear hyperfine-structure effects, the Hamiltonian can be expressed in terms of components of the total angular moment operator ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}$ about the principal axes ($a,b,c$), [i.e.]{}, ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_a,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_b,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_c$ [@Gordy:MWMolSpec; @Zare:AngularMomentum]: $$H_{\text{rigid}} = \hbar^2(\frac{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_a^2}{2I_a}+\frac{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_b^2}{2I_b}+\frac{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_c^2}{2I_c}) = h(A{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_a^2+B{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_b^2+C{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_c^2),
\label{eq:ham-rot}$$ where $h$ is Planck’s constant, $\hbar=h/2\pi$, and $I_a$, $I_b$ and $I_c$ are three principal moments of inertia of the rotor. By convention, the principal axes of inertia ($a,b,c$) are labeled such that $I_a\le{}I_b\le{}I_c$. Note that, in the program, instead of moments of inertia we use rotational constants, $A,B,C$, which in units of Hertz (Hz) are [@Gordy:MWMolSpec; @Zare:AngularMomentum]: $$A=\frac{h}{8\pi^2I_a},\quad B = \frac{h}{8\pi ^2I_b},\quad C=\frac{h}{8\pi ^2I_c}.
\label{eq:rot-const}$$ Molecular rotors are classified in terms of the magnitudes of their inertial moments, or rotational constants, as shown in .
moments of inertia rotational constant rotor type
----------------------- --------------------- -----------------------
$I_a=0;I_b=I_c$ $A=\infty,B=C$ linear top
$I_a=I_b=I_c$ $A=B=C$ spherical top
$I_a<I_b=I_c$ $A>B=C$ prolate symmetric top
$I_a=I_b<I_c$ $A=B>C$ oblate symmetric top
$I_a\neq I_b\neq I_c$ $A\neq B\neq C$ asymmetric top
: Types of rotors defined through their inertial parameters.[]{data-label="tab:rotor"}
Several quantum numbers are used to denote zero-field wavefunctions and energies of the rotational states of molecules [@Gordy:MWMolSpec; @Zare:AngularMomentum]. The Schrödinger equation of $H_\text{rigid}$, and , of linear rotors and symmetric tops in free space (see ) can be solved analytically, and their eigenfunctions of $H_\text{rigid}$ are expressed as spherical harmonics $|J,M\rangle$ and Wigner $D$ matrices $|J,K,M\rangle$, respectively [@Gordy:MWMolSpec; @Zare:AngularMomentum]. $J$ represents the quantum number of total angular momentum ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}$, $K$ characterizes the projection of ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}$ onto the symmetry axis of the symmetric top, and $M$ is the quantum number characterizing the projection of ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}$ onto a space fixed $Z$-axis. For asymmetric tops $K$ is not a good quantum number and the Schrödinger equation of $H_\text{rigid}$ cannot generally be solved analytically. A numerical calculation uses symmetric top wavefunctions $\left|J,K,M\right>$ as a basis set for obtaining asymmetric top eigenfunctions $\left|J_{K_aK_c}M\right>$. Here, the quantum number $J$ and two pseudo quantum numbers $K_a,K_c$ specify the zero-field rotational states. Finally, we only focus on closed shell molecules, [i.e.]{}, molecules which do not have unpaired electrons. Therefore, the values of $J$, $K$ and $M$ are integer.
However, a real molecular system is not rigid. It is assumed that all non-rigidity under the experimental conditions (on the order of 1K) can be described by a Hamiltonian representing centrifugal distortion, $H_\text{d}$, with corresponding centrifugal distortion constants [@Gordy:MWMolSpec]. The Hamiltonian for such a nonrigid rotor is thus written as: $H_\text{rot} = H_\text{rigid} + H_\text{d}$. The further details of $H_\text{d}$ for each type of rotor are described in the next sections. In all cases we have implemented the lowest order quartic centrifugal distortion terms. Higher order terms can easily be added if necessary.
The Stark effect of a polar molecule in a dc electric field is dominated by the interaction $\vec{\mu}\cdot\vec{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}}$ of the molecule’s dipole moment $\vec{\mu}$ with the field $\vec{{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}}$. While higher-order effects become relevant in strong field, they can still be neglected in our case. For instance, the permanent dipole moment of benzonitriles ground state leads to an energy shift of 300 GHz at 200 kV/cm, but the corresponding effect due to the polarizability of the very similar non-polar molecule benzene is only 50 MHz [@Okruss:JCP110:10393], [i.e.]{}, almost four orders of magnitude smaller.
The dipole interaction with the electric field is described by the following contribution to the Hamiltonian: $$H_\text{Stark}=-{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}\sum_{g=x,y,z}{\mu_g\phi_{Z_g}},
\label{eq:Hstark}$$ where $x,y,z$ represent a molecule-fixed coordinate system, $\mu_g$ represent the dipole moment components along the molecule-fixed axes $x,y,z$, and $\phi_{Z_g}$ are the direction cosines of the $x,y,z$ axes with reference to the space-fixed $X,Y,Z$-axes. $Z$ is oriented along the electric-field direction. In the program, the principle axis system $(a,b,c)$ is identified with the molecule-fixed system $(x,y,z)$ in representation $I^r (x=b,y=c,z=a)$ [@Gordy:MWMolSpec; @Zare:AngularMomentum]. Note that this definition has the advantage that the Stark Hamiltonian does not mix states with different values of $K$ if the dipole moment is parallel to the molecular $a$ axis. The rotational Hamiltonian in the field [$\varepsilon$]{}can thus be written as: $H_\text{rot,\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}} = H_\text{rot} + H_\text{Stark}$.
In the program, the Schrödinger equation of the Hamiltonian in the field, $H_\text{rot,\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}}$, is solved numerically. The corresponding Hamiltonian matrix and the strategy of its diagonalization are described in following sections for each type of rotor. Finally, the program assigns the calculated rotational energies in the field to “adiabatic quantum numbers”, [i.e.]{}, to the adiabatically corresponding field-free rotor states [@Filsinger:JCP131:064309]. To ensure correct assignments, a symmetry classification of $H_\text{rot,\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}}$ and quantum states according the electric field symmetry group [@Watson:CJP53:2210; @Bunker:MolecularSymmetry] is required. In addition to the separation of $M$ and, for the symmetric top, $K$, this is achieved through an appropriate unitary transformation of $H_\text{rot,\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}}$ following Wang’s method [@Gordy:MWMolSpec; @Wang:PR34:243].
Linear top {#sec:linear-top}
----------
In a linear polyatomic molecule, the moment of inertia about the principal axis $a$ is zero whereas the two other moments of inertia along axes $b$ and $c$ are equal: $I_b=I_c=I$. The centrifugal distortion Hamiltanion $H_\text{d}$ takes the form $$H_\text{d} = -hD{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}^4$$ where $D$ (Hz) is a centrifugal distortion constant. The first-order perturbation energy, which is the expectation value of $H_\text{d}$ over field-free linear rotor wavefunctions, $|J,M\rangle$, is included in the Hamiltonian matrix. The dipole moment of a linear molecule is along its symmetry axis $z$, [i.e.]{}, $\mu_z=\mu$ and $\mu_x=\mu_y=0$. Thus the Stark Hamiltonian simply becomes $$H_\text{Stark} = -\mu{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}\phi_{Z_z}
\label{eq:stark_lin}$$ The non-zero matrix elements for $H_\text{rot}$ and $H_\text{Stark}$ in the basis of linear top wavefunctions $|J,M\rangle$, are provided in \[app:lin\_rot\]. The Hamiltonian matrix is diagonalized directly without any further simplification.
Symmetric top {#sec:symmetric-top}
-------------
A molecule in which two of the principal moments of inertia are equal is a symmetric-top rotor, such as a prolate top ($I_a<I_b=I_c$) and an oblate top ($I_a=I_b<I_c$). The figure axis of the molecule,[^1] which is parallel to the dipole moment, must lie along the special principal axis of inertia, [i.e.]{}, along the $a$ axis for a prolate top and the $c$ axis for an oblate top. The non-rigidity of a symmetric top is taken into account by including the first order perturbation energy of the corresponding centrifugal distortion Hamiltonian ($H_\text{d}$) [@Gordy:MWMolSpec] into the Hamiltonian matrix. The Stark Hamiltonian $H_\text{Stark}$ of symmetric tops is the same as that for linear rotors, as shown in . The matrix elements for $H_\text{rot}$ and $H_\text{Stark}$ in the basis of symmetric top wavefunctions, $|J,K,M\rangle$, are listed in \[app:sym\_rot\]. Finally, the strategy for diagonalizing symmetric and asymmetric top Hamiltonian matrices is the same, and is described in the next section. Moreover, in the case of the symmetric top, $K$ is a good quantum number and an additional factorization into separate $K$ blocks is possible.
Asymmetric top {#sec:asymmetric-top}
--------------
An asymmetric-top molecule has three non-zero and non-equal principal moments of inertia. As mentioned before, its Schrödinger equation even in the field-free case has no trivial analytical solution for general $J$, and field-free symmetric top wavefunctions, $\left|J,K,M\right>$, are used as the basis set for the Hamiltonian matrix $H_\text{rot,\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}}$ [@Gordy:MWMolSpec]. All nonzero matrix elements of $H_\text{rot,\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}}$ in this basis set are listed in \[app:asym\_rot\]. Note that, in this Hamiltonian matrix $H_\text{rot,\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}}$, there are no off-diagonal matrix elements in $M$, because $M$ is still a good quantum number in the field. Thus, the blocks of each value of $M$ in the matrix, as shown in , can be diagonalized separately. As $K$ in the asymmetric top case and $J$ in the non-zero field case are not good quantum numbers the set of basis functions for the block must cover a wide enough range of $K$ and $J$ to ensure the accuracy of the numerical solution of the eigenvalue problem.
![Schematic illustration of the factoring of the Hamiltonian matrix into blocks, labeled by $H_i^M$, in terms of $M$ (depicted by dashed lines) and symmetry. Nonzero elements are only present in the shaded blocks. The number of shaded blocks in each $M$ block depends on the molecular properties, [i.e.]{}, the symmetry and the dipole moment direction; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:matrix-layout"}](matrix){width="0.5\linewidth"}
A further simplification of the matrix can be obtained by considering the symmetry properties of the Hamiltonian. As mentioned before, the symmetry classification is required in order to distinguish avoided crossings (between curves with the same symmetry) and real crossings (between curves with different symmetries) and to assign the energy levels correctly. The field-free Hamiltonian operator ($H_\text{rigid}$ and $H_\text{rot}$) belongs to a symmetry group called Fourgroup and it is designated by $V(a,b,c)$ (see \[app:four\_group\] for a detailed introduction). However, symmetric top wavefunctions, which are the natural basis set, do not belong to the Fourgroup. A transformation to a symmetrized basis is provided by the Wang transformation of the Hamiltonian matrix [@Gordy:MWMolSpec]: $$H_\text{Wang} = \widetilde{X}HX = \sum_iH_i$$ where $X$ denotes the Wang transformation matrix and $H_i$ denotes a sub-matrix for each symmetry species $i$. Thus, the Hamiltonian is expressed in a basis of linear combinations of symmetric top wavefunctions which obey the Fourgroup symmetry [@Gordy:MWMolSpec]. For a field-free asymmetric top, its Wang transformed Hamiltonian matrix, [i.e.]{}, $H_\text{Wang,\,rot}$, can be factorized into four sub-matrices in terms of the Fourgroup symmetry species, as described in \[app:four\_group\].
When an external field is applied, the number of sub-matrices in the Hamiltonian matrix, $H_\text{Wang,\,rot,\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}}$, usually reduces depending on the dipole moment direction in the molecule and on the values of $M$. As described in \[app:Wang\_trans\] and \[app:sym\_field\], if the molecule’s dipole moment is parallel to one principal axis of inertia, $H_\text{Wang,\,rot,\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}}$ can be factorized into two sub-matrices for $M\neq0$, and four for the special case $M=0$. If the molecule’s dipole moment is not parallel to any principal axis of inertia, no factorization of $H_\text{Wang,\,rot,\,{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}}$ is possible for $M\neq0$. For $M=0$ a factorization into two blocks is still possible if one dipole moment component $\mu_\alpha(\alpha=a,b,c)$ is zero. In any case, the above block diagonalization ensures that all eigenstates obtained from the diagonalization of each sub-matrix $H_i^M$ (see ) belong to a same symmetry. This means that all crossings between eigenstates of each sub-matrix are avoided and that the energy order of these states remains the same adiabatically, at any field strength. As a result, we can sort the resulting states of each $H_i^M$ by energy and assign quantum number labels in the same order as for energy-sorted field-free states of the same symmetry. This yields a correct assignment of “adiabatic quantum number labels”, $\tilde{J}_{\tilde{K}_a\tilde{K}_c}\tilde{M}$, to rotational states in the field [@Filsinger:JCP131:064309].
Results {#sec:results}
-------
In practice, the calculation of the Stark energies is performed for a number of electric field strengths – typically in steps of 1kV/cm from 0kV/cm to 200kV/cm – and the resulting energies are stored for later use. The calculated Stark curves and effective dipole moments for lowest-lying rotational quantum states of OCS (linear rotor), iodomethane (symmetric top), and indole (asymmetric top) are plotted using `cmistark_plot_energies` and are shown in , , and , respectively.
\
\
\
Here the effective dipole moment, ${\ensuremath{\mu_\text{eff}}\xspace}$, is introduced as: $${\ensuremath{\mu_\text{eff}}\xspace}({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace})=-\frac{\partial E({\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace})}{\partial {\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}}$$ This is the space fixed dipole moment, [i.e.]{}, the projection of the molecular frame dipole moment onto the field direction. It is extremely useful in further simulations on the manipulation of polar molecules with inhomogeneous electric fields, where the force exerted on the molecule is directly proportional to ${\ensuremath{\mu_\text{eff}}\xspace}$ [@Bethlem:JPB39:R263].
Firstly, in these figures, the Stark energy curves from different $M$ always cross, [i.e.]{}, $M$ is a good quantum number. Secondly, while the energy curves of OCS ( L) and iodomethane ( L) show relatively simple structures, those for indole ( L) show more complicated behavior. Furthermore, for curves of indole of each $M$ ( L), most crossings between Stark curves are avoided, because the dipole moment of indole is not parallel to any principal axis ($\mu_a\neq0,\mu_b\neq0,\mu_c=0$). Thus, for $M\neq0$ all states in the field have the same symmetry. For OCS and iodomethane, the sign of the effective dipole moment, [$\mu_\text{eff}$]{}, can be negative or positive, depending on the quantum state and field strength, as shown in R and R. However, for indole, the sign of [$\mu_\text{eff}$]{}is mostly positive, as shown in R. The rapid changes of signs and values of [$\mu_\text{eff}$]{}shown in R are due to avoided crossings between Stark curves.
In order to evaluate the performance, we have calculated the energy curves for OCS at 151 field strengths in the range 0 to 150 kV/cm using the different algorithms for three types of rotors for all states up to $J=32$. This yields the following computation times on a current iMac:
- [Linear rotor code: 1.0 s]{}
- [Symmetric-top code: 55 s]{}
- [Asymmetric-top code: 300 s (3 min 20 s, 150 % CPU utilization)]{}
Note that the runtime largely reflects the time spent on diagonalizing the matrix, and thus the size of the matrix. According to the LAPACK benchmark report in LAPACK Users’ Guide [@Anderson:Lapack], for diagonalizing dense symmetric $N$ by $N$ matrices by using dsyevr, the computing time for $N=1000$ is about 400 times of that for $N=100$. However, the computing time for $N=2000$ is about 10 times of that for $N=1000$. In practice, for asymmetric top calculations an increase of the maximum $J$ by $10$ ([e.g.]{}, $J=40\rightarrow50$ or $J=90\rightarrow100$) included in the calculation roughly doubles the runtime.
Installation instructions {#sec:installation_ins}
=========================
Requirements {#sec:requirements}
------------
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CMIstark</span>]{}needs an operational Python installation, the external Python packages, numpy, scipy, PyTables, matplotlib, and a command-line interface to start the various python scripts provided here.
Obtaining the code {#sec:obtaining-code}
------------------
The program is available from CPC Program Library, Queen’s University, Belfast, N. Ireland. The latest version of the program can also be obtained from the Controlled Molecule Imaging (CMI) group.
Installation {#sec:installation}
------------
Installation is performed by executing the generic Python install command `python setup.py install` in the unpacked source code directory. This requires a write access to the packages directory tree of the Python distribution. Alternatively, on Unix-like systems the provided shell-script `user-install.sh` can be used to install the program into an user-specified directory, such as `$HOME/.python`. This method requires the user to define the shell variable `PYTHONHOME` to include this directory in the python search path.
Documentation {#sec:documentation}
=============
A full documentation is provided within the source code and only briefly summarized here. To perform a Stark effect calculation the script file `cmistark_calculate_energy` is used. Some of its general command-line options are
- [`–<moleculename>`: specify which molecule is used in the calculation,]{}
- [`–dc-fields`: specify the range of the dc electric field strength,]{}
- [`–Jmax_calc`: specify the maximum value of $J$ included in the calculation,]{}
- [`–Jmax_save`: specify the maximum value of $J$ of Stark curves saved in the output file.]{}
Two scripts `cmistark_plot_energy` and `cmistark_print_energy` are provided to access existing files with stored Stark curves, and plot or convert to text, respectively, all or selected Stark energy curves.
Calculating the Stark curves of OCS is as simple as running the command
cmistark_calculate_energy --Jmax_save=2 --Jmax_calc=10 \
--dc-fields=0:150:151 --OCS
The data is saved in OCS.molecule and no command-line output is produced. The correct output resulting from this calculation is provided in the `samples/` directory of the source code. The plot in L can then be produced by running
cmistark_plot_energy OCS.molecule
Currently, isotopologues of the following molecules are implemented in `cmistark_calculate_energy`, with parameters from the literature as referenced in the code: 3-aminophenol, carbonylsulfide, water, indole, indole(water)$_1$, iodomethane, difluoroiodobenzene, aminobenzonitrile, benzonitrile, iodobenzene, and sulfurdioxide. Implementing a new molecule is as simple as adding a code block in `cmistark_calculate_energy` to define relevant molecular parameters, molecular constants and dipole moment components. For the *cis* and *trans* conformers of 3-aminophenol [@Filsinger:PCCP10:666], this is implemented in the following way:
def three_aminophenol(param):
# Inertial parameters: Filsinger et al, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 10, 666 (2008)
# dipole moment: Filsinger et al, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 10, 666 (2008)
param.name = "3-aminophenol"
param.watson = 'A' # specify Watson's A reduction
param.symmetry = 'N' # specify "no symmetry" in the dc electric field
if param.isomer == 0: # cis-conformer
# the following line specifies the rotational constants (A, B, C)
# in unit of Hz.
param.rotcon = convert.Hz2J(numpy.array([3734.93e6, 1823.2095e6, 1226.493e6]))
# the following line specifies the dipole moment components ($\mu_a,\mu_b,\mu_c$)
# in unit of Debye.
param.dipole = convert.D2Cm(numpy.array([1.7718, 1.517, 0.]))
elif param.isomer == 1: # trans-conformer
param.rotcon = convert.Hz2J(numpy.array([3730.1676e6, 1828.25774e6, 1228.1948e6]))
param.dipole = convert.D2Cm(numpy.array([0.5563, 0.5375, 0.]))
Alternative software {#sec:alternative-software}
====================
Several programs exist for the simulation of rotationally resolved spectra of asymmetric top molecules, such as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pgopher</span> [@Western:pgopher], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">spfit/spcat</span> [@Pickett:JMolSpec148:371; @spfit], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">qstark</span> [@Kisiel:JPC104:6970; @Kisiel:CPL325:523; @Kisiel:QSTARK], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">dbsrot</span> [@Borst:thesis:2001; @Kang:JCP122:174301], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">krot</span> [@Kuepper:thesis:2000], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">asyrot</span> [@Birss1984] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">jb95</span> [@Majewski:LTC], as well as programs for automated fitting of high resolution spectra, [e.g.]{}, based on genetic algorithm [@Meerts:CanJC82:804]. Inherently these programs work by calculating the energies of all states possibly involved in the relevant transitions, [i.e.]{}, they do perform similar calculations as [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CMIstark</span>]{}. So far, to the best of our knowledge, only the programs <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pgopher</span> [@Western:pgopher] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">qstark</span> [@Kisiel:JPC104:6970; @Kisiel:CPL325:523; @Kisiel:QSTARK] can also calculate Stark energies of linear, symmetric, and asymmetric rotors. The program <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">qstark</span> [@Kisiel:JPC104:6970; @Kisiel:CPL325:523; @Kisiel:QSTARK] allows calculations including quadrupole coupling effects for one nucleus. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pgopher</span> [@Western:pgopher] can take into account some internal motions, such as internal rotations (torsion) or inversion motions, [e.g.]{}, in NH$_3$. These effects will be implemented in future versions of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CMIstark</span>]{}. However, they require considerably more intricate handling of symmetry properties. However, the available programs are not well suited for simulations in the controlled molecules field where it is necessary to calculate Stark energies in very strong fields and to correctly label large numbers of quantum states over the full field-strength regime. For example, while the program <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">qstark</span> calculates Stark energies essentially correctly in strong fields, labeling problems are known when the off-diagonal elements in the $H$ matrix become sufficiently large [@Kisiel:QSTARK]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pgopher</span> provides direct access to the Stark curves of individual or a few quantum states. However, its graphical/text based access is not convenient for the calculation and storage of many precisely calculated Stark curves with a sufficiently large range of quantum states. Note that, even for relatively small complex molecules, such as benzonitrile or indole under conditions of only few K, many thousand Stark curves need to be calculated with $J$ up to 50, with hundreds of energies per curve for specific dc field strengths, and they must be stored for easy retrieval in further calculations.
Outlook {#sec:outlook}
=======
The current program has been successfully used in the calculation of Stark energy maps of various asymmetric top molecules, for instance, benzonitrile [@Wohlfart:PRA77:031404], 4-aminobenzonitrile [@Filsinger:PRA82:052513], 3-aminophenol [@Filsinger:PRL100:133003; @Filsinger:ACIE48:6900], indole, and indole-water clusters [@Trippel:PRA86:033202]. Those calculation results from the progam were successfully applied to fit and analyze experimental data on the manipulation of molecules with electric fields. The program was also tested against the energies of lowest rotational states from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">qstark</span> [@Kisiel:JPC104:6970; @Kisiel:CPL325:523; @Kisiel:QSTARK], with a relative error on the order of $10^{-6}$ limited by the numerical precision of slightly different implementations of the Hamiltonian and the matrix diagonalization.
The current program will be further improved in several directions. For example, for molecules containing large nuclear quadrupole constants the corresponding quadrupole coupling terms need to be implemented. The challenge here is to still automatically symmetrize the Hamiltonian and to correctly label the resulting states. Moreover, especially many of the small molecules employed in electric-field manipulation experiments are open-shell, [i.e.]{}, they possess electronic (orbital and spin) angular momentum. The respective Hamiltonians could also be implemented in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CMIstark</span>]{}. We will implement such extensions as they are relevant for the simulation of our manipulation experiments. We will support third parties to extend our code to their needs, under the provision that it is provided to all users after a reasonable amount of time.
Acknowledgments {#sec:acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Rosario González-Férez, Bas van der Meerakker, Gerard Meijer, and members of the CFEL-CMI group for helpful discussions. Izan Castro Molina implemented the initial linear and symmetric top calculations. This work has been supported by the DFG priority program 1116 “Interactions in ultracold and molecular gases” and by the excellence cluster “The Hamburg Center for Ultrafast Imaging – Structure, Dynamics and Control of Matter at the Atomic Scale” of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
Matrix elements for linear rotors {#app:lin_rot}
=================================
For the linear top, the matrix elements of $H_\text{rigid}$ and $H_\text{d}$ can be written as [@Gordy:MWMolSpec]: $$\langle J,M|H_\text{rigid}|J,M\rangle = hBJ(J+1),$$ $$\langle J,M|H_\text{d}|J,M\rangle = -hDJ^2(J+1)^2,$$ where $B$ (Hz) and $D$ (Hz) are the corresponding rotational constant and the quartic centrifugal distortion constant, respectively. The matrix elements for the Stark Hamiltonian $H_\text{Stark}$ are expressed as following [@Zare:AngularMomentum]: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle J+1,M|H_\text{Stark}|J,M\rangle
& = \langle J,M|H_\text{Stark}|J+1,M\rangle \notag \\
& = -\frac{\sqrt{(J+1)^2-M^2}}{\sqrt{(2J+1)(2J+3)}}\mu{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}\end{aligned}$$
Matrix elements for symmetric tops {#app:sym_rot}
==================================
For the rigid prolate and oblate symmetric top the matrix elements of $H_\text{rigid}$ can be written as [@Gordy:MWMolSpec]: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle J,K,M|H_\text{rigid}|J,K,M\rangle &= h\left[BJ(J+1)+(A-B)K^2\right] \quad \text{(prolate)} \\
\langle J,K,M|H_\text{rigid}|J,K,M\rangle &= h\left[BJ(J+1)+(B-C)K^2\right] \quad \text{(oblate)}\end{aligned}$$ with the rotational constants $A$, $B$, $C$ (Hz). The matrix elements of $H_\text{d}$ are expressed as following [@Gordy:MWMolSpec]: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle J,K,M|H_\text{d}|J,K,M\rangle =-h\left[\Delta_JJ^2(J+1)^2+\Delta_{JK}J(J+1)K^2+\Delta_KK^4\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_J, \Delta_{JK}$ and $\Delta_K$ are the first-order (quartic) centrifugal distortion constants (Hz). The matrix elements of $H_\text{Stark}$ are [@Zare:AngularMomentum]: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle J,K,M|H_\text{Stark}|J,K,M\rangle &= -\frac{MK}{J(J+1)}\mu{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}\\[1ex]
\langle J+1,K,M|H_\text{Stark}|J,K,M\rangle &=\langle J,K,M|H_\text{Stark}|J+1,K,M\rangle \nonumber \\
&= -\frac{\sqrt{(J+1)^2-K^2}\sqrt{(J+1)^2-M^2}}{(J+1)\sqrt{(2J+1)(2J+3)}}\mu{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}\end{aligned}$$
Matrix elements for asymmetric tops {#app:asym_rot}
===================================
For the rigid asymmetric top, the matrix elements of $H_\text{rigid}$ in terms of $I^r$ representation [@Gordy:MWMolSpec] can be written as [@Gordy:MWMolSpec; @Zare:AngularMomentum]: $$\langle J,K,M|H_\text{rigid}|J,K,M\rangle=h\left[\frac{B+C}{2}(J(J+1)-K^2)+AK^2\right],$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle J,K+2,M|H_\text{rigid}|J,K,M\rangle=\langle J,K,M|H_\text{rigid}|J,K+2,M\rangle \nonumber \\
&=\frac{h(B-C)}{4}\sqrt{J(J+1)- K(K+1)}\sqrt{J(J+1)-(K+1)(K+2)},\end{aligned}$$ with the rotational constants $A$, $B$, $C$ (Hz). The distortable rotor is described using Watson’s A reduction [@Watson:VibSpecStruct6:1]: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle J,K,M|H_\text{d}|J,K,M\rangle =-h\left[\Delta_J(J(J+1))^2+\Delta_{JK}J(J+1)K^2+\Delta_KK^4\right],\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle J,K+2,M|H_\text{d}|J,K,M\rangle =& \;\langle J,K,M|H_\text{d}|J,K+2,M\rangle \nonumber\\
=& \;-h\left[\delta_JJ(J+1)+\frac{\delta_K}{2}((K+2)^2+K^2)\right] \nonumber\\
& \times\sqrt{J(J+1)-K(K+1)} \\
& \times\sqrt{J(J+1)-(K+1)(K+2)} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with the five linearly independent quartic distortion constants $\Delta_J, \Delta_{JK}, \Delta_K,
\delta_J$ and $\delta_K$ (Hz). The contribution of $\mu_a$, [i.e.]{}, the dipole moment component along the principal axis of inertia $a$, is [@Zare:AngularMomentum; @Cross:JCP12:210]: $$\langle J,K,M|H^{a}_\text{Stark}|J,K,M\rangle=-\frac{MK}{J(J+1)}\mu_a{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}\label{eq:asy_stark_a_diag}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\langle J+1,K,M|H^{a}_\text{Stark}|J,K,M\rangle &=\langle J,K,M|H^{a}_\text{Stark}|J+1,K,M\rangle\nonumber \\
&= -\frac{\sqrt{(J+1)^2-K^2}\sqrt{(J+1)^2-M^2}}{(J+1)\sqrt{(2J+1)(2J+3)}}\mu_a{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}\label{eq:asy_stark_a_off}\end{aligned}$$ The contribution of $\mu_b$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle J,K+1,M|H^{b}_\text{Stark}|J,K,M\rangle=-\frac{M\sqrt{(J-K)(J+K+1)}}{2J(J+1)}\mu_b{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}\label{eq:asy_stark_b_diag}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\langle J+1,K\pm1,M|H^{b}_\text{Stark}|J,K,M\rangle \\
=\pm\frac{\sqrt{(J\pm K+1)(J\pm K+2)}\sqrt{(J+1)^2-M^2}}{2(J+1)\sqrt{(2J+1)(2J+3)}}\mu_b{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}\end{gathered}$$ The $H_\text{Stark}$ matrix elements involving $\mu_c$ are: $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle J,K\pm 1,M|H^{c}_\text{Stark}|J,K,M\rangle=\pm i\frac{M\sqrt{(J\mp K)(J\pm K+1)}}{2J(J+1)}\mu_c{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}\label{eq:asy_stark_c_diag}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\langle J+1,K\pm1,M|H^{c}_\text{Stark}|J,K,M\rangle \\
=-i\frac{\sqrt{(J\pm K+1)(J\pm K+2)}\sqrt{(J+1)^2-M^2}}{2(J+1)\sqrt{(2J+1)(2J+3)}}\mu_c{\ensuremath{\varepsilon}\xspace}\end{gathered}$$ Note that the equations above use the representation $I^r$ with the phase convention and formalism of Zare [@Zare:AngularMomentum].
Fourgroup {#app:four_group}
=========
The symmetry properties of the rotational Hamiltonian, as well as rotational wavefunctions, of a rigid asymmetric top molecule may be deduced from its ellipsoid of inertia, which is symmetric not only to an identity operation $E$ but also to a rotation by $180\degree$, a $C_2$ operation, about any of its principal axes of inertia. This set of symmetry operations forms the Fourgroup (*Viergruppe*), which is designated by $V(a,b,c)$ [@Gordy:MWMolSpec]. These symmetry operations cause the angular momentum to transform in the following manner [@Gordy:MWMolSpec]: $$\begin{aligned}
E: &\quad {\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_a\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_a},{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_b\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_b},{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_c\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_c} \\
C^a_2: &\quad {\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_a\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_a},{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_b\rightarrow{-{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_b},{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_c\rightarrow{-{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_c} \\
C^b_2: &\quad {\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_a\rightarrow{-{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_a},{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_b\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_b},{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_c\rightarrow{-{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_c} \\
C^c_2: &\quad {\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_a\rightarrow{-{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_a},{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_b\rightarrow{-{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_b},{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_c\rightarrow{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{J}}}_c}\end{aligned}$$ The character table of the Fourgroup can is shown in .
V E $C_2^a$ $C_2^b$ $C_2^c$
------- --- --------- --------- ---------
A 1 1 1 1
B$_a$ 1 1 -1 -1
B$_b$ 1 -1 1 -1
B$_c$ 1 -1 -1 1
: character table for the four group V[]{data-label="tab:fourgroupv:character-table"}
Wang transformation {#app:Wang_trans}
===================
The field-free semirigid rotor Hamiltonian operators $H_\text{rigid}+H_\text{d}$ described above can be symmetrized to belong to the Fourgroup V and every field-free rotor wavefunction can be classified according to its behavior under $V(a,b,c)$ [@Gordy:MWMolSpec]. This symmetry classification is provided in .
submatrix $K$ $s$ $J_{even}$ $J_{odd}$
----------- ----- ----- ------------ -----------
$E^+$ e 0 $A(ee)$ $B_a(eo)$
$E^-$ e 1 $B_a(eo)$ $A(ee)$
$O^+$ o 0 $B_b(oo)$ $B_c(oe)$
$O^-$ o 1 $B_c(oe)$ $B_b(oo)$
: Symmetry classification of asymmetric top wavefunctions $|J_{K_aK_c},M\rangle$ for representation $I^r$ [@Zare:AngularMomentum]. The symmetry species of each $J_{K_aK_c}$ is determined by the eveness or oddness of $K_a$ and $K_c$, which is indicated in parentheses in columns 4 and 5. The classification of Wang sub-matrices is also provided.[]{data-label="tab:Wang:symmetry"}
The symmetrized basis functions constructed by Wang transformation are defined as [@Gordy:MWMolSpec; @Wang:PR34:243; @Mulliken:PR59:873]: $$\begin{aligned}
|J,0,M,0\rangle &= |J,0,M\rangle &&\quad\text{for } K=0 \\
|J,K,M,s\rangle &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|J,K,M\rangle+(-1)^s|J,-K,M\rangle) &&\quad\text{for } K\neq0\end{aligned}$$ where $s$ is 0 (symmetric) or 1 (antisymmetric) and $K$ now takes on only positive values. The Wang transformation can be expressed in a matrix form and the transformation matrix $X$ of order $(2J+1)$ can be expressed as: $$X = X^{-1} = \tilde{X} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{bmatrix}
\ddots & & & \vdots & & & \reflectbox{$\ddots$} \\
& -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \\
& 0 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \\
\cdots & 0 & 0 & \sqrt{2} & 0 & 0 & \cdots \\
& 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \\
& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \\
\reflectbox{$\ddots$} & & & \vdots & & & \ddots \\
\end{bmatrix}$$ The change of basis can be written as $\mathbf{\Psi}_\text{Wang}=\tilde{X}\mathbf{\Psi}$. For fixed values of $J$ and $M$, the vector $\mathbf{\Psi}$ consists of $(2J+1)$ symmetric top basis functions $|J,K,M\rangle$, whereas $\mathbf{\Psi}_\text{Wang}$ is the vector of new basis functions that contains the $(2J+1)$ symmetrized functions $|J,K,M,s\rangle$: $$\mathbf{\Psi}_\text{Wang} =\begin{pmatrix}
|J,J,M,1\rangle \\
|J,(J-1),M,1\rangle \\
\vdots \\
|J,1,M,1\rangle \\
|J,0,M,0\rangle \\
|J,1,M,0\rangle \\
\vdots \\
|J,(J-1),M,0\rangle \\
|J,J,M,0\rangle \\
\end{pmatrix}, \quad
\mathbf{\Psi} =\begin{pmatrix}
|J,-J,M\rangle \\
|J,(-J+1),M\rangle \\
\vdots \\
|J,-1,M\rangle \\
|J,0,M\rangle \\
|J,1,M\rangle \\
\vdots \\
|J,(J-1),M\rangle \\
|J,J,M\rangle \\
\end{pmatrix}$$ In the new basis the Hamiltonian matrix factorizes into four sub-matrices that are historically denoted as $E^+,O^+,E^-,O^-$ [@Wang:PR34:243; @Mulliken:PR59:873]: $$H_\text{Wang,\,rot}=\tilde{X}H_\text{rot}X=E^+ + O^+ + E^- + O^-
\label{eq:Wang:ks}$$ These sub-matrices are classified by the eveness and oddness of $K$ and $s$, as shown in . For a single value of $J$, $|J,K,M,s\rangle$ wavefunctions within each sub-matrix all belong to a same symmetry species of $V$ [@Hainer:JCP17:826; @Gordy:MWMolSpec] and the correlation is given in . Thus, $H_\text{Wang,\,rot}$ can also be block-diagonalized in terms of four symmetry species, $A$, $B_a$, $B_b$, and $B_c$. This symmetrization of the basis by the Wang transformation simplifying the numerical evaluation and, most importantly, is necessary for the correct adiabatic labeling of the eigenstates in the electric field.
Block diagonalization of the Hamiltonian matrix {#app:sym_field}
===============================================
The Hamiltonian is block-diagonal in $M$ and the calculations are performed for each $M$ separately. In the field-free case all $M$s are degenerate and only $M=0$ is calculated. For the symmetric top, $K$ is a good quantum number and the matrix is always also factorized into separate $K$ blocks. As mentioned in \[app:Wang\_trans\], the Hamiltonian matrix of field-free symmetric or asymmetric tops can be block diagonalized into four blocks according to Fourgroup symmetry. An external dc electric field can mix these blocks, but remaining symmetries allow partial factorization. In we summarize the block diagonalization of the Hamiltonian matrix in an electric field according to $V$ for all possible cases of non-zero dipole moment directions, [i.e.]{}, all possible combinations of non-zero dipole-moment components in the principal axes of inertia system. We note that the remaining symmetry can be higher for $M=0$ than for $M\neq0$. This can also be seen from the matrix elements given above, where the $\Delta{J}=0$ Stark-coupling elements are always proportional to $M$, [i.e.]{}, these couplings vanish for $M=0$.
---------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------------------------ -------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ------- -------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------
$A$ $B_a$ $B_b$ $B_c$ $A$ $B_a$ $B_b$ $B_c$
$\mu_a$ $\mu_b$ $\mu_c$ $E^+$ $E^-$ $O^+$ $O^-$ $E^-$ $E^+$ $O^-$ $O^+$
$\neq 0$ $0$ $0$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\bigcirc \blacksquare$ $\triangle \blacklozenge$ $\Diamond \blacklozenge$ $\bigcirc \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\Diamond \blacklozenge$ $\triangle \blacklozenge$
$0$ $\neq 0$ $0$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\bigcirc \blacklozenge$ $\triangle \blacksquare$ $\Diamond \blacklozenge$ $\triangle \blacksquare$ $\Diamond \blacklozenge$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\bigcirc \blacklozenge$
$0$ $0$ $\neq 0$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\bigcirc \blacklozenge$ $\triangle \blacklozenge$ $\Diamond \blacksquare$ $\lozenge \blacksquare$ $\triangle \blacklozenge$ $\bigcirc \blacklozenge$ $\square \blacksquare$
$\neq 0$ $\neq 0$ $0$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\lozenge \blacksquare$ $\lozenge \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\lozenge \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\lozenge \blacksquare$
$0$ $\neq 0$ $\neq 0$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\lozenge \blacksquare$ $\lozenge \blacksquare$ $\lozenge \blacksquare$ $\lozenge \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$
$\neq 0$ $0$ $\neq 0$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\lozenge \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\lozenge \blacksquare$ $\lozenge \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\lozenge \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$
$\neq 0$ $\neq 0$ $\neq 0$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$ $\square \blacksquare$
---------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------------------------ -------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ------- -------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------
: Symmetries of asymmetric tops in dc electric fields. Different shapes represent the distinct symmetry species (matrix blocks) for the case of $M=0$ (open symbols) and $M\neq0$ (filled symbols)[]{data-label="tab:symmetries"}
The factorization summarized in can be understood in terms of the symmetry properties of the direction cosine $\phi_{Z_g}$ in [@Gordy:MWMolSpec]. For the case of $\mu=\mu_\alpha$ and $M\neq0$, basis functions of symmetries $A$ and $B_\alpha$ are coupled, as well as those of symmetries $B_{\alpha'}$ and $B_{\alpha''}$, where $\alpha\neq\alpha'\neq\alpha''\neq\alpha$. However, no coupling between these two subsets exist. The Hamiltonian matrix can thus be factorized into two blocks, as listed in , one (filled square symbol) containing $A$ and $B_\alpha$ and the other one (filled diamond symbol) containing $B_{\alpha'}$ and $B_{\alpha''}$. For the special case of $M=0$, states of symmetries $A$ and $B_\alpha$ for any given $J$ are also not coupled, nor are states of symmetries $B_{\alpha'}$ and $B_{\alpha''}$ coupled [@Escribano:PRA62:023407]. This is due to the vanishing matrix elements , , and for $M=0$. As a result, states of symmetry $A$ in $J_{even}$ ($J_{odd}$) only couple with those of symmetry $B_\alpha$ in $J_{odd}$ ($J_{even}$), etc. This remaining symmetry for the case $\mu=\mu_\alpha$ is represented by the open square symbol (open circle symbol) in the first line of . States of symmetries $B_{\alpha'}$ and $B_{\alpha''}$ also couple in the same manner, and their remaining symmetries are represented by open triangle and open diamond symbols in . Similar behavior is observed for all cases when the dipole moment is along a principal axis of inertia. For the cases with more than one non-zero dipole moment component states of all four symmetry species $A$, $B_a$, $B_b$ and $B_c$ are coupled for $M\neq0$ and only one symmetry species remains. For $M=0$ and one $\mu_\alpha=0$, the Hamiltonian matrix can be factorized into two blocks. For a dipole moment with components along all principal axes of inertia no partial Fourgroup symmetry remains in an electric field.
References {#sec:references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: Here we consider axially symmetric molecules, ignoring molecules which accidentally have an equivalent tensor of inertia.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The helicity of a photon traversing a magnetized plasma can flip when the $B$–field along the trajectory slowly reverses. Broderick and Blandford have recently shown that this intriguing effect can profoundly change the usual Faraday effect for radio waves. We study this phenomenon in a formalism analogous to neutrino flavor oscillations: the evolution is governed by a Schrödinger equation for a two-level system consisting of the two photon helicities. Our treatment allows for a transparent physical understanding of this system and its dynamics. In particular, it allows us to investigate the nature of transitions at intermediate adiabaticities.'
author:
- Basudeb Dasgupta
- 'Georg G. Raffelt'
date: 19 June 2010
title: 'Adiabatic Faraday effect in a two-level Hamiltonian formalism'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Different polarization states of electromagnetic waves propagating in media and/or external $B$–fields usually have different refractive indices, leading to a nontrivial evolution of a given polarization state. In astronomy, the rotation of the plane of polarization caused by a magnetized medium along the line of sight (Faraday effect) is the most important example. Such phenomena are perfectly analogous to particle oscillations and, in particular, to neutrino flavor oscillations where the role of polarization is played by flavor.[^1] Moreover, in addition to mixing photons of different polarization, $B$–fields also mix photons with certain other particles, notably gravitons, neutral pions, or hypothetical axion-like particles, which in this context play the role of additional photon polarization states [@Raffelt:1987im].
If the medium (taken to include external fields) varies along the photon trajectory, the refractive indices of two polarization states may cross over. In the adiabatic limit a true crossing is avoided and opposite helicity states are adiabatically connected, leading to complete transformation. In neutrino physics, this phenomenon is known as the Mikheev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) effect, allowing for large flavor transformations even when the vacuum mixing angle is small [@Wolfenstein:1977ue; @Mikheev:1986gs; @Bethe:1986ej]. Such resonant transformation effects have also been studied in the context of photon–axion oscillations [@Raffelt:1987im].
However, the case of photons with different polarization has been ignored until recently when Broderick and Blandford [@Broderick:2009ix] for the first time considered the Faraday effect across regions of slow $B$–field reversal where the dispersion relations of photons with opposite helicities cross over. If this transition is adiabatic[^2], photons flip their helicity. The practical astronomical consequence is that the usual rotation measure for photon polarization ${\rm RM}\propto\int {\bf B}\cdot{{\rm d}}\bm{\ell}$ changes to $\pm\int |{\bf B}\cdot{{\rm d}}\bm{\ell}|$ and thus can build up continuously across regions of opposite field direction. The adiabaticity condition depends on photon frequency. Comparing the Faraday effect at frequencies above and below a certain $\omega_{\rm
crit}$ may allow one to study the geometry of astrophysical magnetic fields.
The main purpose of our paper is to formulate the adiabatic Faraday effect in the more familiar language of particle oscillations using a linearized wave equation. In this way the evolution of photon polarization is described by a Schrödinger equation for the two-level system consisting of the two photon helicity states. While the underlying physics, of course, is precisely as discussed in Ref. [@Broderick:2009ix], our approach helps to bring out the explicit analogy to neutrino oscillations and therefore allows one to borrow both intuition and results from more familiar cases. In addition, we recover the nature of Faraday rotation at intermediate adiabaticity.
The article is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:EoM\] we derive a two-level Schrödinger equation for photon polarizations and identify the condition for adiabatic helicity flipping. In Sec. \[sec:faraday\] we work out the impact on linearly polarized states and recover the adiabatic Faraday effect. We also discuss a signature for the transition from adiabatic to non-adiabatic evolution. We conclude in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\].
Hamiltonian Approach {#sec:EoM}
====================
Linearizing the wave equation {#sec:linear}
-----------------------------
The evolution of photon polarization, neutrino flavor oscillations, and similar phenomena derive from the underlying wave equation for the relevant fields. Since dispersion plays a central role, it is easiest to assume harmonic time variation ${{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}\omega t}$ for all fields, i.e. to study the spatial variation of a monochromatic wave. Using natural units with $\hbar=c=1$, one finds a stationary Klein-Gordon equation of the form[^3] $$\label{eq:KG1}
-\bm{\nabla}^2\,\bm{{\sf A}}=
\left({\omega^2}-{\sf\Pi}\right)\bm{{\sf A}}\,,$$ where $\bm{{\sf A}}$ is a “spinor” of amplitudes describing the multi-component wave phenomenon. For photon propagation, this is the Jones vector formed by the transverse components of the electric field (Appendix A), whereas for neutrinos the wavefunction in flavor space comes into play. For photons, ${\sf\Pi}$ is the “polarization tensor,” whereas for neutrinos, ${\sf\Pi}={\sf M}^2$ with ${\sf M}$ being the mass matrix that is non-diagonal in the interaction basis.
The problem simplifies further if the waves are relativistic, i.e.$\omega^2\gg |m^2|$, where $m^2$ is a typical eigenvalue of ${\sf
M}^2$ or of ${\sf\Pi}$. In the language of refractive indices, the dispersion relation is written as $k=n\omega$ and the relativistic assumption amounts to $|n-1|\ll 1$. The propagating waves now involve a short length scale (the wave length) and a long one corresponding to the phase difference (the oscillation length). Assuming propagation in the $z$–direction, one can easily separate the fast and slow variation by the nominal substitution [@Raffelt:1987im] $$-\left({\partial}_z^2+\omega^2\right)=
({{\rm i}}\partial_z+\omega)({{\rm i}}\partial_z-\omega)
\to -2\omega({{\rm i}}\partial_z+\omega)\;,$$ where we have used $-{{\rm i}}\partial_z\to k\approx\omega$ in one of the terms. This approximation replaces the Klein-Gordon equation with a linear equation $${{\rm i}}\partial_{z}\bm{{\sf A}}=
\left(-\omega+\frac{{\sf\Pi}}{2\omega}\right)\bm{{\sf A}}\,.$$ Moreover, we are not interested in the overall phase of the wave, but only in phase differences between different components. Therefore, on the r.h.s. we may drop terms that are proportional to the unit matrix and find $$\label{eq:schrodinger}
{{\rm i}}\partial_{z}\bm{{\sf A}}={\sf H}\bm{{\sf A}}\,.$$ The “Hamiltonian” is ${\sf H}={\sf\Pi}/2\omega={\sf M}^2/2\omega$.
Sometimes Eq. (\[eq:schrodinger\]) is written in terms of a parameter “time,” playing the role of an affine parameter along the trajectory. The linear wave equation then manifestly resembles a Schrödinger equation for a two-level system such as a spin evolving in a magnetic field. We stress, however, that Eq. (\[eq:schrodinger\]) is a [*classical*]{} equation. Using natural units somewhat obscures that $\hbar$ does not appear anyway, at least not when considering the variation of photon polarization along a trajectory.
The analogy to a Schrödinger equation reveals that the linear wave equation provides for unitary evolution along the beam, i.e., any photon that disappears from one polarization state must appear in another. Linearizing the wave equation has removed such physical effects as reflection by inhomogeneities or discontinuities of the medium. In the context of neutrino physics such effects are always vanishingly small, except perhaps near a supernova core, whereas for photons near propagation threshold, polarization-dependent reflection effects may play a nontrivial role.
Likewise, the wave may suffer deflection caused by density variations in the transverse direction. Therefore, the requirement that all polarization components follow the same trajectory with sufficient precision poses nontrivial constraints [@Broderick:2009ix]. Typically, relativistic propagation will be required because near propagation threshold the refractive indices between different components are largest and the differential deflection of different polarization states would be largest.
The connection between a classical two-level equation and a true quantum equation as well as the precise role of the relativistic approximation will be explored elsewhere. Here we simply take advantage of the formal equivalence of our problem with a two-level quantum system.
Photon dispersion in magnetized plasma
--------------------------------------
Photon dispersion in a cold collisionless plasma with electron density $n_e$ and weak external magnetic field ${\bf B}$ is determined by the plasma frequency and cyclotron frequency that are respectively[^4] $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{\rm p}&=&e\,\sqrt{\frac{n_e}{m_e}}
=3.7\times10^{-11}~{\rm eV}\,
\left(\frac{n_e}{{\rm cm}^{-3}}\right)^{1/2}\,,
\\
\omega_{\rm c}&=&e\,\frac{B}{m_e}\kern0.9em
=1.16\times10^{-8}~{\rm eV}\,
\left(\frac{B}{{\rm Gauss}}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the elementary charge $e$ was taken to be positive. The analogous contributions from ions are much smaller and will be neglected.
We decompose ${\bf B}$ into a longitudinal component $B_\parallel$ along the direction of propagation ($z$–direction) and a transverse one $B_\perp$. The impact of the magnetic field is determined by the dimensionless parameters $$\label{eq:bparameters}
b_{\parallel,\perp}=\frac{\omega_{\rm c}}{\omega}\,
\frac{B_{\parallel,\perp}}{B}
=e\,\frac{B_{\parallel,\perp}}{\omega\,m_e}\,.$$ Propagating modes exist only if (Appendix A) $$\omega>{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\,\omega_{\rm c}+
\sqrt{{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}\omega_{\rm c}^2+\omega_{\rm p}^2}\,.$$ The assumption that we are dealing with relativistic waves thus implies that $|b_{\parallel,\perp}|\ll 1$.
The Hamiltonian for the evolution of photon polarization is found to be (Appendix A) $$\label{eq:ham}
{\sf H}=\frac{\omega_{\rm p}^2}{2\omega}\,
\begin{pmatrix}\vspace{0.2cm}
b_\parallel&-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\,{{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}2\varphi}\, b_\perp^2\\
-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \,{{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}2\varphi}\, b_\perp^2&-b_\parallel\end{pmatrix}\,,$$ where we have dropped terms proportional to the unit matrix. We have used the helicity basis, i.e. the components of the spinor $\bm{{\sf A}}$ are the amplitudes of the two circular polarization components of the wave. The angle $\varphi$ describes the direction of ${\bf B}_\perp$ relative to a fixed direction transverse to the photon trajectory.
To linear order in $B$, the matrix ${\sf H}$ is always diagonal and even if $B$ changes or reverses along the trajectory, nothing new happens. Photons that begin linearly polarized stay that way, except that their plane of polarization rotates by an angle proportional to $\int B_\parallel {{\rm d}}z$. Therefore, we had to include the quadratic terms, responsible for the Cotton-Mouton effect. It is these terms that can flip the photon helicity.
The same conclusion is reached by observing that a longitudinal $B$–field is symmetric relative to rotations around the $z$–direction. Therefore, angular momentum along $z$ is conserved and a longitudinal $B$–field can not induce transitions between photons of opposite helicity. This can be achieved only by the transverse field. By the same token, transverse fields are required to achieve mixing with spin-0 particles such neutral pions or axions or with spin-2 particles such as gravitons.
Adiabatic helicity flip
-----------------------
If photons propagate in the presence of a purely transverse $B$–field, the Cotton-Mouton effect provides a refractive difference between the modes that are linearly polarized parallel and orthogonal to the field. A photon that is initially circularly polarized will acquire elliptic polarization, eventually reverse its helicity, and later return to the initial polarization in the spirit of an oscillation phenomenon.
However, a realistic situation is different. Astrophysical magnetic fields are not homogeneous and vary in magnitude and direction along any given photon path. In the relativistic limit where $|b_{\parallel,\perp}|\ll 1$, the refractive effect of $B_\parallel$ is much larger than that of $B_\perp$ because the Faraday effect is linear in $B$, the Cotton-Mouton effect quadratic. Therefore, almost everywhere the “mass difference” of photons with opposite helicity is large compared with the mixing energy provided by the transverse field. In other words, the unitary transformation between helicity and propagation eigenstates involves a small mixing angle.
However, $B_\parallel$ may vanish somewhere and may reverse while $B_\perp$ remains at a typical value. At the $B_\parallel$ inversion point the helicity eigenstates become degenerate and their effective masses cross over, except for the small perturbation provided by the transverse field. It prevents an actual crossing of the eigenvalues and leads to an adiabatic helicity reversal in the spirit of the MSW effect.
Within the Landau-Zener approximation [@Landau:1932; @Zener:1932ws], the probability for the state to *jump* over the avoided level crossing while preserving its helicity is $$P_{\rm j}={{\rm e}}^{-\pi \gamma/2}\,.
\label{eq:pjump}$$ The adiabaticity parameter $\gamma$ compares the rate-of-change of the energy splitting with the oscillation frequency. When the unperturbed levels would cross (here the $B_\parallel$ reversal), one finds the usual result $$\gamma=\frac{4|{\sf H}_{12}|^2}{|{\sf H}'_{22}-{\sf H}'_{11}|}\,
\bigg|_{{\sf H}_{22}={\sf H}_{11}}\,,$$ where a prime denotes ${{\rm d}}/{{\rm d}}z$. In our case this is $$\label{eq:gamma}
\gamma=\frac{\omega_{\rm p}^2}{2\omega}
\,\frac{b_\perp^4}{|2b_\parallel'|}
=\frac{\omega_{\rm p}^2\omega_{\rm c}^3}{4\omega^4}\,\ell_B\,,$$ where we have used that at a $B_{\|}$ reversal $B=B_\perp$ and therefore $b_\perp=\omega_{\rm c}/\omega$. We have also introduced the length scale of $B$-variation $\ell_B^{-1}=|B_\parallel'/B_\perp|$. If the magnitude $B$ is fixed so that $B_\parallel=B\cos\theta$ and $B_\perp=B\sin\theta$ with $\theta$ the angle between photon direction and ${\bf B}$, we find $\ell_B=|\theta'|^{-1}$. Moreover, using cycle frequencies $\nu=\omega/2\pi$, we find that the upper $\nu$ limit given in Eq. (6) of Ref. [@Broderick:2009ix] corresponds in our treatment to $\gamma=1$. In other words, $\gamma=1$ defines a critical frequency $$\label{eq:wcrit}
\omega_{\rm crit}
=\left(\frac{\omega_{\rm p}^2\omega_{\rm c}^3}{4}\,\ell_B\right)^{1/4}$$ such that we are in the adiabatic regime for $\omega\ll\omega_{\rm
crit}$ and in the nonadiabatic regime for $\omega\gg\omega_{\rm
crit}$.
The Landau-Zener approximation is strictly applicable only when ${B}_{\|}$ decreases linearly and certain other conditions are met [@Haxton:1986bc]. There is however substantial literature on its refinements [@Kuo:1989qe]. In particular, the “double exponential” ansatz parameterizes the jump probability in a more widely applicable way [@Petcov:1987zj]. We will continue to use the Landau-Zener formula for its simplicity, but our discussion proceeds unaltered if one substitutes a more accurate expression.
Thus far we assumed that the transverse $B$–field points in a fixed direction, but of course this direction changes on the same length scale $\ell_B$ as all other properties. This may have interesting consequences [@Ralston:1997yp]. However, in the adiabatic approximation, $B$–field twisting is slow compared with the oscillation length and thus would not produce new effects. Rapid twisting would lead to non-adiabatic transitions.
The $B$–field may have other variations, for example fast variations caused by turbulence. The evolution of photon polarization in such circumstances could be performed on the level of our Schrödinger equation. Both for solar and supernova neutrino oscillations it was found that relatively small density fluctuations of the medium can severely affect the MSW effect [@Burgess:1996mz; @Fogli:2006xy]. Similar phenomena for radio waves are expected and would be an interesting subject of study.
Faraday Rotation {#sec:faraday}
================
Ordinary Faraday effect
-----------------------
We now investigate the role of adiabatic helicity flips on the rotation of linearly polarized radiation traversing a region of magnetized plasma. If we begin with $\bm{{\sf A}}_0$ at the source, at the detector we will have $$\bm{{\sf A}}_{\rm D}={\sf U}_{\rm tot}\bm{{\sf A}}_0\,.$$ The unitary matrix taking the initial to the final state is $${\sf U}_{\rm tot}={\cal S}\,\exp\left(-{{\rm i}}\int_0^{\rm D}{\sf H}\,{{\rm d}}z\right)\,,$$ where the Hamiltonian in the helicity basis is given by Eq. (\[eq:ham\]). The parameters $\omega_{\rm p}$, $b_{\parallel,\perp}$ and $\varphi$ all depend on $z$. At different locations the matrices ${\sf H}(z_1)$ and ${\sf H}(z_2)$ do not in general commute, so the exponential is understood in the space-ordering convention symbolized by ${\cal S}$. Note that we work in the helicity basis. However, if photons are produced and detected in regions that do not involve large transverse fields, the helicity states are identical to the propagation states at source and detector. Thus oscillatory terms depending on the mixing angle at source and detector, as in Ref. [@Parke:1986jy; @Petcov:1997am], will vanish.
In the extreme case when the transverse field $B_\perp$ is either zero or so small that it plays no role, ${\sf H}$ is always diagonal and one finds explicitly $$\label{eq:phi}
{\sf U}_{\rm tot}=
\begin{pmatrix} {{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}\,\phi}&0\\0&{{\rm e}}^{+{{\rm i}}\,\phi}\end{pmatrix}$$ with the phase $$\phi=\frac{1}{2\omega}\int_0^{\rm D}{{\rm d}}z\,\omega_{\rm p}^2\,b_\parallel
=\frac{e^3}{2\omega^2m_e^2}\int_0^{\rm D}n_e{\bf B}\cdot{{\rm d}}\bm{\ell}\,.$$ The two helicity states pick up equal but opposite phases, implying that the plane of polarization rotates by the angle $\phi$: the usual Faraday effect. However, the polarization direction at the source is not known, so the measurable quantity is the variation of $\phi$ with frequency. This “rotation measure” is $${\rm RM}=\frac{\phi}{\lambda^2}=
\frac{e^3}{8\pi^2m_e^2}\int_0^{\rm D}n_e{\bf B}\cdot{{\rm d}}\bm{\ell}\,,
\label{eq:RM}$$ where $\omega=2\pi/\lambda$ has been used, with $\lambda$ being the wavelength. RM itself does not depend on frequency.
Adiabatic Faraday effect
------------------------
In order to understand the impact of an adiabatic helicity flip we subdivide ${\sf U}_{\rm tot}$ into several pieces. To be specific we assume a single $B$-field reversal. The propagation up to somewhat before this point is described by the ordinary Faraday effect. The same is true after the reversal onwards. Therefore, the overall effect is $${\sf U}_{\rm tot}={\sf U}_2{\sf U}_{\rm flip}{\sf U}_1
\label{eq:Utot}$$ with $${\sf U}_{1,2}=
\begin{pmatrix} {{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}\,\phi_{1,2}}&0\\0&{{\rm e}}^{+{{\rm i}}\,\phi_{1,2}}\end{pmatrix}.$$ The phases are given by ordinary Faraday integrals on path 1, leading from the source to the reversal, and path 2, leading from the reversal to the detector. If the reversal is non-adiabatic, ${\sf U}_{\rm flip}$ is the unit matrix and we recover the previous result: $\phi=\phi_1+\phi_2$.
On the other hand, if the reversal is perfectly adiabatic it has the effect of exchanging the left- and right-handed helicity states $${\sf U}_{\rm flip}=
\begin{pmatrix} 0&1\\1&0\end{pmatrix}.
\label{eq:adflip}$$ In general, an additional relative phase arises—we will be more precise later. The flip matrix implies $${\sf U}_{\rm tot}=
\begin{pmatrix} 0&{{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}(\phi_1-\phi_2)}\\ {{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}(\phi_1-\phi_2)}
&0\end{pmatrix}.$$ If the initial linear polarization state is $\bm{{\sf A}}_{0}=(1,1)$ the non-adiabatic (na) and adiabatic (ad) final states are $$\bm{{\sf A}}_{\rm D}^{\rm na}=
\begin{pmatrix} {{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}(\phi_1+\phi_2)}\\ {{\rm e}}^{+{{\rm i}}(\phi_1+\phi_2)}\end{pmatrix},
\quad
\bm{{\sf A}}_{\rm D}^{\rm ad}=
\begin{pmatrix} {{\rm e}}^{+{{\rm i}}(\phi_1-\phi_2)}\\ {{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}(\phi_1-\phi_2)}\end{pmatrix}\,.$$ The impact of the second part of the trajectory is the same in both cases: the helicity components acquire a relative phase $\phi_2$, whereas the impact of the first part is reversed. The overall rotation of linear polarization is $$\Phi^{\rm na}=\phi_1+\phi_2
\quad{\rm and}\quad
\Phi^{\rm ad}=-\phi_1+\phi_2\,.$$ In other words, the adiabatic helicity flip has the effect of reversing the rotation measure accrued on the path before the flip. This is physically understood: The helicity states in terms of electric fields are $(E_x\pm {{\rm i}}E_y)/\sqrt2$. Exchanging helicities amounts to $E_y\to - E_y$ and thus reverses the polarization angle relative to the $x$–direction.
![Evolution of the rotation measure in a magnetized plasma with changing $B$-field orientation. The ordinary (non-adiabatic) and adiabatic cases are shown.\[fig:bfields\]](fig1.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
We juxtapose the non-adiabatic and adiabatic evolution of RM in Fig. \[fig:bfields\] that is analogous to Fig. 2 of Ref. [@Broderick:2009ix]. An important difference is that for the adiabatic case these authors actually show the evolution of the phase difference between the two propagation eigenmodes, a quantity that indeed always increases. However, the only observable quantity is the RM. It acquires a minus sign at each adiabatic reversal and thus jumps by a large amount. The overall adiabatic RM is $${\rm RM}^{\rm ad}= \pm\,
\frac{e^3}{8\pi^2m_e^2}
\int_0^{\rm D}n_e|{\bf B}\cdot{{\rm d}}\bm{\ell}|\,.
\label{eq:RMad}$$ The absolute sign is identical with the sign of $B_\parallel$ on the last sub–trajectory.
Intermediate adiabaticity
-------------------------
The final polarization of the beam depends crucially on the degree of adiabaticity. The entire effect of the reversal is parameterized in the flip matrix. In general, ${\sf U}_{\rm flip}$ is given by a unitary matrix $${\sf U}_{\rm flip}={{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}\alpha}
\begin{pmatrix} {{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}\delta_1}\cos\xi&{{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}\delta_2}\sin\xi\;\\
-{{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}\delta_2}\sin\xi&{{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}\delta_1}\cos\xi\;\end{pmatrix},$$ where $\cos\xi=\sqrt{P_{\rm j}}$ and ${P}_{\rm j}$ is the probability to jump between helicities at the crossing. Note the presence of other phases acquired at the reversal. The non-adiabatic limit is obtained for $\cos\xi=1$ with other phases set to zero. Similarly the adiabatic limit is obtained for $\sin\xi=1$, which is the same as in Eq. (\[eq:adflip\]) for overall phase choices $\alpha=\delta_2=\pi/2$.
If the initial linear polarization state is $\bm{{\sf A}}_{0}=(1,1)$, the final state (up to an overall phase) is $$\bm{{\sf A}}_{\rm D}=
\begin{pmatrix}
{{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}(\delta_1-\phi_2)}\cos\xi+{{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}(\delta_2+2\phi_1-\phi_2)}\sin\xi\\
{{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}(\delta_1-2\phi_1-\phi_2)}\cos\xi-{{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}(\delta_2-\phi_2)}\sin\xi
\end{pmatrix}.$$ The intensity of the left and right helicity components of this state are $${I}_{\pm}=1\pm \sin2\xi\cos\left(\delta-2\phi_1\right)\,,
\label{eq:phaseeffect}$$ where $\delta=\delta_1-\delta_2$ is a combination of the phases acquired at the reversal.
At the fully adiabatic or fully non-adiabatic limit, $\sin2\xi=0$ and the two helicities arrive with equal intensity: the beam is linearly polarized. At intermediate adiabaticity this is no longer true and the final beam is elliptically polarized to a degree depending on frequency. Using Eqs. (\[eq:gamma\]) and (\[eq:wcrit\]), we find $$\cos\xi=\exp\left[{-\frac{\pi}{4}\left(\frac{\omega}{\omega_{\rm crit}}\right)^4}\right]\;,$$ whereas from Eq. (\[eq:phi\]) we find that $\phi_1$ varies as $\int{{{\rm d}}z}\,\omega_{\rm p}^2\,b_{\|}/2\omega$, the integral extending from the source to the point of reversal.
The degree of elliptical polarization thus has two variations imprinted upon it as a function of frequency. One arises from the usual RM accrued between source and field reversal which determines the orientation with which the linear polarization enters the cross-over region. The other is a slow variation determined by the jump probability as a function of frequency, approximately given by the Landau-Zener formula. If one could measure the polarization state over a reasonably broad range of frequencies, a measure of $B$–field tomography would become possible. Unlike the adiabatic or non-adiabatic limit, at intermediate adiabaticity one has the opportunity to probe the magnetic fields in specific segments of the path traveled.
Multiple reversals
------------------
We have mostly confined our discussion to a single field reversal, but the formalism is easily extended to multiple reversals. As emphasized by Broderick and Blandford, the ordinary Faraday effect for $N\gg1$ domains, each causing a rotation $\phi_i$, adds up to $$\Phi^{\rm na}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\phi_i\propto \sqrt{N}\;.$$ On the other hand, the adiabatic Faraday effect leads to a rotation by $$\Phi^{\rm ad}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\phi_i\propto N\;.$$ Clearly, for media with multiple reversals this leads to a larger Faraday rotation at adiabatic frequencies.
For quasi-adiabatic frequencies, multiple reversals lead to loss of linear polarization by each of the reversals. Schematically, for $N$ domains with $N-1$ field reversals, the intensities of the helicity components arriving at the detector is $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
I_{+}\\
I_{-}
\end{array}
\right)=\prod_{i=1}^{N-1}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos^2\xi_i&\sin^2\xi_i\\
\sin^2\xi_i&\cos^2\xi_i
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1\\
1
\end{array}
\right)\;,$$ where we have ignored the fast oscillatory terms. Clearly, there is increased elliptic polarization at the critical frequencies corresponding to each of the magnetic field reversal. A more precise prediction, including interference effects due to the oscillatory terms, can be calculated using the recipe prescribed in Ref. [@Dasgupta:2005wn].
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have studied the adiabatic Faraday effect that was recently discovered by Broderick and Blandford. We have used a simple formalism that linearizes the photon Klein-Gordon equation and amounts to a Schrödinger equation for a two-level system consisting of the photon helicities. This approach is commonplace in the context of neutrino flavor oscillations. Once the photon dispersion relation has been identified, the adiabaticity condition follows immediately from well-known textbook results such as the Landau-Zener approximation. Formulating the adiabatic Faraday effect in a language familiar from neutrino physics may allow for a broader appreciation of this intriguing “MSW effect for photons.”
Despite the similarities, Faraday rotation also has important differences with neutrino oscillations. For neutrinos, the initial states are always weak-interaction eigenstates, whereas photons can in general be produced in any polarization state. During propagation, neutrinos typically have non-maximal mixing except on the MSW resonance, causing large flavor transitions. For photons, the plane of polarization is typically rotated by many full cycles independently of any transverse field. Therefore, the adiabatic helicity flip does not enhance the transition between linear polarization states, it modifies the rotation measure, the way the rotation of the plane of polarization varies with frequency. Finally, unlike a neutrino detector, a photon detector in the radio band has the capability of identifying not merely the intensities of each polarization state, but also the relative phase between them. So the observational manifestation of the MSW effect is rather different for neutrinos and photons.
To summarize, the adiabatic Faraday effect is the process of photon helicity getting flipped adiabatically in regions of slow $B$-field reversal, and has the effect of reversing the rotation measure accrued by the photon up to that point on its trajectory. Therefore, the subsequent Faraday effect goes effectively in the same direction as the Faraday effect before the reversal region, giving much larger overall rotation measure. The global sign of the rotation measure depends only on the $B$–field direction on the last leg of the photon path.
The rotation measure both in the adiabatic and non-adiabatic regime is independent of frequency. Observations over a broad range of frequencies, ranging from below to above the critical frequency, would reveal a transition range of fast modulations of elliptic polarization. In the adiabatic regime, similar variations can arise in the transverse direction across the sky. The astronomical potential of these effects for $B$–field tomography has been explored by Broderick and Blandford. The main purpose of our note was to clarify the basic principles of the adiabatic Faraday effect that is a neat application of the formalism usually applied to the MSW effect in neutrino oscillations.
Note Added in Proof {#note-added-in-proof .unnumbered}
===================
After our manuscript had gone to press, D. Melrose circulated a preprint [@Melrose:2010zu], claiming that the adiabatic modification of the Faraday effect was not observable. We believe that underlying this critique is a misunderstanding.
We fully agree with the formalism used by Melrose. Our complex two-spinor $\bm{{\sf A}}$ is equivalent to a $2\times2$ density matrix ${\sf S}_{ij}=\bm{{\sf A}}_i\bm{{\sf A}}_j^*$ and our Eq. (\[eq:schrodinger\]) can be written as a commutator equation in the form ${{\rm i}}\partial_z{\sf
S}=[{\sf H},{\sf S}]$. Moreover, any Hermitean $2\times2$ matrix ${\sf R}$ can be written in terms of a three-vector ${\bf R}$ in the form $\frac{1}{2}{\rm Tr}({\sf R})+\frac{1}{2}{\bf R}\cdot\bm{\sigma}$ with $\bm{\sigma}$ being a vector of Pauli matrices. Our Eq. (\[eq:schrodinger\]) is equivalent to $\partial_z{\bf S}={\bf H}\times{\bf S}$ where ${\bf S}$ is the vector representing ${\sf S}$ and ${\bf H}$ the one representing ${\sf H}$. Therefore, our Eq. (\[eq:schrodinger\]) is equivalent to the “spin-precession equation” described after Eq. (4) of Ref. [@Melrose:2010zu]. In particular, we agree, that ${\bf S}^2$ is invariant and that ${\bf H}\cdot{\bf S}$ is an adiabatic invariant if ${\bf H}$ changes slowly as a function of $z$. A precessing spin following a slowly changing $B$-field is the usual visualization of adiabatic neutrino oscillations.
![The rotation measure as a function of frequency. The ordinary (non-adiabatic) and adiabatic regimes are shown.[]{data-label="fig:fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
The adiabatic limit is defined by the oscillation length being shorter than the length scale of field reversal, implying that the position angle (PA) of linearly polarized light must undergo many Faraday revolutions between source and detector. Therefore, we agree that PA, being measurable only modulo $\pi$, carries no information about the difference between normal and adiabatic Faraday effect. This information is contained in how quickly PA changes with frequency, i.e. the rotation measure (RM). In our Fig. \[fig:bfields\] we have sketched how RM varies as a function of distance of a hypothetical observer from the source. However, a real observer is at a fixed location and observes the effect as a function of frequency as sketched in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]. The observed RM in the normal and adiabatic regime can be different, and are given by Eqs. (\[eq:RM\]) and (\[eq:RMad\]) respectively. Of course, in the transition region between adiabatic and ordinary Faraday effect, the photon polarization is elliptical. Eq. (\[eq:phaseeffect\]) shows that unless the probability of helicity flip is zero or one, the light is always elliptically polarized . Since the RM is not strictly defined in that case, we sketch the RM for the major axis of the polarization ellipse.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank John Beacom and Leo Stodolsky for inspiring discussions and specific suggestions. This work was partly supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under grant TR-27 “Neutrinos and Beyond” and the Cluster of Excellence “Origin and Structure of the Universe” (Munich and Garching). B.D. thanks the Max-Planck-Institut für Physik for support during the initial stages of this work.
Photon dispersion in a cold magnetized plasma
=============================================
The propagation of electromagnetic waves in plasma is governed by Maxwell’s equations, including polarizations and currents induced by the response to the wave. Assuming a homogeneous cold magnetized plasma, harmonic time variation ${{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}\omega t}$ for all quantities, and spatial variation of the wave only along the $z$–direction, one finds a stationary Klein-Gordon equation for the electric field vector ${\bf E}$ of the form [@Ginzburg:1970] $$\label{eq:KGE}
-\begin{pmatrix}\partial_z^2\\&\partial_z^2&\\&&0\end{pmatrix}
{\bf E}=\left(\omega^2-\omega_{\rm p}^2\,\hat\Pi\right){\bf E}\,,$$ where $\omega_{\rm p}$ is the plasma frequency. $\hat\Pi$ is the reduced polarization tensor (polarization tensor in units of $\omega_{\rm p}^2$) which depends on $\omega$ and the medium properties.
Assuming the ${\bf B}$ field has components $B_z=B_\parallel$, $B_x=B_\perp$ and $B_y=0$ and using the $b$ parameters defined in Eq. (\[eq:bparameters\]) one finds $$\hat\Pi=
\dfrac{1}{1-b_\parallel^2-b_\perp^2}\,
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\vspace{0.2cm}
1-b_{\perp}^2&
{{\rm i}}b_{\|}&
-b_{\|}b_{\perp}\\
\vspace{0.2cm}
-{{\rm i}}b_{\|}&1&
{{\rm i}}b_{\perp}\\
-b_{\|}b_{\perp}&
-{{\rm i}}b_{\perp}&
1-b_{\|}^2\\
\end{array}
\right)\,.$$ The lowest frequencies arise in the homogeneous case when all spatial derivatives vanish and the l.h.s. of Eq. (\[eq:KGE\]) vanishes identically, leading to $$\omega_0=\omega_{\rm p}
\quad\hbox{or}\quad
\omega_0=
{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\,\omega_{\rm c}+
\sqrt{{\textstyle\frac{1}{4}}\omega_{\rm c}^2+\omega_{\rm p}^2}\,.$$ The first solution corresponds to the ordinary plasma oscillation. The other connects to the dispersion relation for propagating modes for non-vanishing $k$ and thus is the minimum frequency required for a propagating wave.
For propagating modes the $z$–equation of Eq. (\[eq:KGE\]) represents a constraint, allowing one to eliminate $E_z$. We represent the propagating modes by the usual Jones vector $\bm{{\sf
A}}=(E_x,E_y)$, leading to a stationary Klein-Gordon equation in the form $$\label{eq:KG2}
-{\partial}_z^2\, \bm{{\sf A}}=
\left({\omega^2}-\omega_{\rm p}^2\hat{\sf\Pi}\right)
\bm{{\sf A}}\,.$$ The $2\times2$ reduced polarization matrix is found to be $$\hat{\sf\Pi}_{ij}=\hat{\Pi}_{ij}+ \frac{\hat{\Pi}_{iz}\hat{\Pi}_{zj}}
{\omega^2/\omega_{\rm p}^2-\hat{\Pi}_{zz}}\,,\quad
i,j=x~{\rm or}~y\,.$$ With the dimensionless parameter $b_{\rm p}=\omega_{\rm p}/\omega$ we find for $\hat{\sf\Pi}$ the expression $$\label{eq:poltensor2}
\frac{1}{\big(1-b_{\rm p}^2\big)\big(1-b_\parallel^2\big)-b_\perp^2}
\begin{pmatrix}\vspace{0.2cm}
1-b_{\rm p}^2-b_\perp^2&{{\rm i}}b_\parallel\big(1-b_{\rm p}^2\big)\\
-{{\rm i}}b_\parallel\big(1-b_{\rm p}^2\big)&1-b_{\rm p}^2\end{pmatrix}.$$ Notice that the absence of absorption renders this matrix Hermitean.
If all of $b_{{\rm p},\perp,\parallel}$ are small compared to unity and we expand up to quadratic order we find $$\label{eq:poltensor3}
\hat{\sf\Pi}=1+b_{\parallel}^2+
\begin{pmatrix}\vspace{0.2cm}
0&{{\rm i}}b_\parallel\\
-{{\rm i}}b_\parallel&b_{\perp}^2\end{pmatrix} +{\cal O}(b^3)\,.$$ In general the ${\bf B}$–field has components $B_\perp\cos\varphi$, $B_\perp\sin\varphi$ and $B_\parallel$ relative to a coordinate system with a fixed $x$–direction, implying that the polarization matrix must be rotated correspondingly. Moreover, for some purposes it is simpler to work in the helicity basis where the electric field has the two components $(E_x\pm{{\rm i}}E_y)/\sqrt{2}$. Altogether these transformations lead to $$\label{eq:poltensor4}
\hat{\sf\Pi}=1+b_{\parallel}^2+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}b_{\perp}^2+
\begin{pmatrix}\vspace{0.2cm}
b_\parallel&-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\,{{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}2\varphi}\, b_\perp^2\\
-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \,{{\rm e}}^{{{\rm i}}2\varphi}\, b_\perp^2&-b_\parallel\end{pmatrix}\,.$$ This is the result used in the main text.
[00]{}
C. Weinheimer, “Neutrino oscillations with a polarized laser beam: an analogical demonstration experiment,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**64**]{}, 205 (2010). G. Raffelt and L. Stodolsky, “Mixing of the photon with low mass particles,” Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{}, 1237 (1988). L. Wolfenstein, “Neutrino oscillations in matter,” Phys. Rev. D [**17**]{}, 2369 (1978). S. P. Mikheev and A. Yu. Smirnov, “Resonance enhancement of oscillations in matter and solar neutrino spectroscopy,” Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**42**]{}, 913 (1985) \[Yad. Fiz. [**42**]{}, 1441 (1985)\]. H. A. Bethe, “Possible explanation of the solar-neutrino puzzle,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 1305 (1986). A. E. Broderick and R. D. Blandford, “Understanding the geometry of astrophysical magnetic fields,” Astrophys. J. [**718** ]{} (2010) 1085-1099. L. Landau, “A theory of energy transfer II,” Phys. Z. Sowjetunion [**2**]{} (1932) 46. C. Zener, “Nonadiabatic crossing of energy levels,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A [**137**]{}, 696 (1932). W. C. Haxton, “Analytic Treatments Of Matter Enhanced Solar Neutrino Oscillations,” Phys. Rev. [**D35** ]{} (1987) 2352.
T. K. Kuo and J. T. Pantaleone, “Neutrino oscillations in matter,” Rev. Mod. Phys. [**61**]{} (1989) 937. S. T. Petcov, “Exact analytic description of two neutrino oscillations in matter with exponentially varying density,” Phys. Lett. B [**200**]{} (1988) 373. J. P. Ralston, P. Jain and B. Nodland, “The corkscrew effect,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{} (1998) 26 C. P. Burgess and D. Michaud, “Neutrino propagation in a fluctuating sun,” Annals Phys. [**256**]{}, 1 (1997) G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Mirizzi and D. Montanino, “Damping of supernova neutrino transitions in stochastic shock-wave density profiles,” JCAP [**0606**]{}, 012 (2006) S. J. Parke, “Nonadiabatic Level Crossing in Resonant Neutrino Oscillations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57** ]{} (1986) 1275-1278.
S. T. Petcov, “Describing analytically the matter enhanced two neutrino transitions in a medium,” Phys. Lett. [**B406** ]{} (1997) 355.
B. Dasgupta and A. Dighe, “Phase effects in neutrino conversions during a supernova shock wave,” Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{} (2007) 093002 V. L. Ginzburg, [*The propagation of electromagnetic waves in plasmas*]{} (Pergamon, Oxford, 1970).
D. B. Melrose, “Faraday rotation: effect of magnetic field reversals,” Astrophys. J. [**725** ]{} (2010) 1600-1606.
[^1]: Optical birefringence can be used to explain neutrino oscillations in a pedagogical demonstration experiment [@Weinheimer:2010ar].
[^2]: Broderick and Blandford use the term “super adiabatic” in this context, but we prefer to keep the usual terminology.
[^3]: We use sans-serif letters to denote matrices in polarization space and bold faced sans-serif letters for “spinors” in this space.
[^4]: In the particle-physics literature, rationalized units with $\alpha=e^2/4\pi\sim 1/137$ are almost always employed, whereas in the context of plasma physics and photon propagation, unrationalized units corresponding to $\alpha=e^2\sim
1/137$ are used, assuming $\hbar=c=1$ in both cases. We follow the particle-physics tradition and note that a magnetic field of 1 Gauss then corresponds to $1.95\times10^{-2}~{\rm eV}^2$. The critical field strength, defined by $\omega_{\rm c}=m_e$, is then correctly found as $B_{\rm crit}=m_e^2/e=(0.511~{\rm
MeV})^2/\sqrt{4\pi\alpha}=8.6\times10^{11}~{\rm
eV}^2=4.4\times10^{13}~{\rm Gauss}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Stabilization of instable periodic orbits of nonlinear dynamical systems has been a widely explored field theoretically and in applications. The techniques can be grouped in time-continuous control schemes based on Pyragas, and the two Poincaré-based chaos control schemes, Ott-Gebogi-Yorke (OGY) and difference control. Here a new stability analysis of these two Poincaré-based chaos control schemes is given by means of Floquet theory. This approach allows to calculate exactly the stability restrictions occuring for small measurement delays and for an impulse length shorter than the length of the orbit. This is of practical experimental relevance; to avoid a selection of the relative impulse length by trial and error, it is advised to investigate whether the used control scheme itself shows systematic limitations on the choice of the impulse length. To investigate this point, a Floquet analysis is performed. For OGY control the influence of the impulse length is marginal. As an unexpected result, difference control fails when the impulse length is taken longer than a maximal value that is approximately one half of the orbit length for small Ljapunov numbers and decreases with the Ljapunov number.'
address: 'Institut für Theoretische Physik und Astrophysik, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, 24098 Kiel, Germany'
author:
- Jens Christian Claussen
date: 'June 4, 2007'
title: 'Floquet Stability Analysis of Ott-Grebogi-Yorke and Difference Control'
---
\
Introduction
============
Controlling chaos, or stabilization of instable periodic orbits of chaotic systems, has matured to a field of large interest in theory and experiment [@hubler; @Ott90; @Pyragas92; @Bielawski93a; @Pyragas95; @Kittel95; @tracking; @Janson; @boccaletti; @handbook2; @schusterjust; @baba02; @halfperiod; @parmananda99; @pyragas01; @ahlborn04; @fiedler07; @Fukuyama02]. Most of these techniques are applied to dissipative systems, but with respect to applications as suppression of transport in plasmas, there has been recent interest also in controlling chaos in Hamiltonian systems [@C1; @C2; @C3; @C4; @C5; @C6; @C7] and in the stability of periodic orbits in multidimensional systems [@C8]. Control of chaos in general, however, does not rely on the existence of a Hamiltonian, so the system can be given as any dynamical system described by a set of differential equations, or can be an experimental system. The aim of chaos control is the stabilization of unstable periodic orbits (UPOs), or modes in spatial systems. The central idea of the Hübler and Ott-Grebogi-Yorke approaches to the control of chaos is to utilize the sensitive dependence on initial conditions, be it [*system variables*]{} [@hubler], or [*system parameters*]{} [@Ott90] to steer the trajectory on an (otherwise unstable) periodic orbit of the system. To accomplish this task, a feedback is applied to the system at each crossing of a suitably chosen Poincaré plane, where the feedback is set proportional to the actual deviation of the desired trajectory. Contrary to Pyragas control [@Pyragas92], where control is calculated quasi continuously at a high sampling rate, here the approach is to stabilize by a feedback calculated at each Poincaré section, which reduces the control problem to stabilization of an unstable fixed point of an iterated map. The feedback can be chosen proportional to the distance to the desired fixed point (OGY scheme), or proportional to the [*difference*]{} in phase space position between actual and last but one Poincaré section. This latter method, [*difference control*]{} [@Bielawski93a], or Bielawski-Derozier-Glorieux control, being a time-discrete counterpart of the Pyragas approach [@Pyragas92], allows for stabilization of inaccurately known fixed points, and can be extended by a memory term [@Claussen98a; @Claussen98c] to improve stability and to allow for tracking [@tracking] of drifting fixed points [@Claussen98a].
In this paper the stability of perturbations $x(t)$ around an unstable periodic orbit being subject to a Poincaré-based control scheme is analyzed by means of Floquet theory [@Hale93]. This approach allows to investigate viewpoints that have not been accessible by considering only the iteration dynamics between the Poincaré sections, as measurement delays and variable impulse lengths. The impulse length is, both in OGY and difference control, usually a fixed (quasi invisible) parameter; and the iterated dynamics is uniquely definded only as long as this impulse length is not varied. The influence of the impulse length has not been point of consideration before; if mentioned at all, usually a relative length of approximately 1/3 is chosen without any reported sensitivity. Whereas for the Pyragas control method (in which the delayed state feedback enforces a time-continuous description) a Floquet stability analysis is known [@Just97], here the focus is on the time-discrete control.
Floquet stability analysis
--------------------------
The linearized differential equations of both schemes are invariant under translation in time, $t\to{}t+T$. Herby, we assume that the system under control is not explicitely time-dependent. According to the theory of delay-differential equations [@Hale93], a stability condition can be derived from a simple eigenvalue analysis of Floquet modes. The Floquet ansatz expands the solutions after periodic solutions $u(t+T)=u(t)$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
x(t) = {\rm{}e}^{\gamma t} u_\gamma(t).\end{aligned}$$ The necessary condition on the Floquet multiplier ${\rm e}^{\gamma T}$ of an orbit of duration $T$ for stability of the solution is Re$\gamma<0$; and $x(t)\equiv{}0$ refers to motion along the orbit. In Poincaré-based control the effective motion can be transformed into the unstable eigenspace, see e.g. App. A in [@Claussen98c]; the stability is governed by the motion therein. For the case of one unstable Lyapunov exponent, this subspace is one-dimensional.
OGY control
-----------
The method proposed by Ott, Grebogi and Yorke [@Ott90] applies a control amplitude $r(t)=\varepsilon (t) (x(t_\times) -x^*)$, in vicinity of a fixed point $x^*$. Here $\varepsilon (t)$ is a (possibly time-dependent) feedback gain parameter, and $x(t_\times)$ is the position of the last Poincare crossing. Without loss of generality, we can place the fixed point at $x=0$, so that the OGY feedback scheme becomes $r(t)=\varepsilon(t) x(t_\times)$, where $t_\times \equiv t-(t ~{\rm{}mod}~ T)$ is the time of the last Poincare crossing. Now one considers the linearized motion in vicinity of an unstable periodic orbit (which is a stable periodic orbit of a successfully controlled system). The Poincaré crossing reduces the dimensionality from $N$ to $N-1$ dimensions, in the lowest-dimensional case from 3 to 2. In this case it is sufficient to consider a linearized one-dimensional time-continuous motion around the orbit, $\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t) + \mu r(t)$, which now can be complex-valued to account for flip motion around the orbit [@Just97], i.e., one has the dynamical system $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t) + \mu\varepsilon x( t-(t ~{\rm{}mod}~ T)).\end{aligned}$$ Without control ($r(t)=0$), the time evolution of this system is simply $x(t)={\rm e}^{\lambda t}$ and the Ljapunov exponent of the uncontrolled system is ${\rm Re}\lambda$. Here it must be emphasized that assuming constant $\lambda$ and $\mu$ is a quite crude approximation, so only qualitative results can be concluded. Now we see – a central observation – that no delay-differential equation [@Hale93] is obtained: As the “delay” term always refers to the last Poincaré crossing, this type of dynamics can be integrated piecewise. In the first time interval between $t=0$ and $t=T$ the differential equation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\forall_{0<t<T} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t) + \mu\varepsilon x(0).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Integration of this differential equation yields $$\begin{aligned}
x(t) =
\left((1+ \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda} )
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda t} - \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda}
\right) x(0).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This gives us an iterated dynamics (here we label the begin of the time period again with $t$) $$\begin{aligned}
x(t+T) =
\left((1+ \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda} )
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda T} - \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda}
\right)
x(t).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This equation allows to determine the Floquet modes $x(t+T)={\rm e}^{\gamma T} x(t)$ by inspection. The Floquet multiplier ${\rm e}^{\gamma T}$ of an orbit, assuming an impulse duration of full orbit length, therefore is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm{}e}^{\gamma T}= (1+ \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda})
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda T} - \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda}.\end{aligned}$$ The remainder of the paper investigates, both for OGY and difference control, how the Floquet multiplier is modified for different impulse lengths.
Influence of impulse length: OGY case
=====================================
The time-discrete viewpoint now allows to investigate the influence of timing questions on control. First we consider the case that the control impulse is applied timely in the Poincaré section, but only for a finite period $pT$ within the orbit period ($0<p<1$) (see Fig. \[schemaPS\]a).
This situation is described by the differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t) + \mu\varepsilon x( t-(t ~{\rm{}mod}~ T))
\Theta((t ~{\rm{}mod}~ T) - p),\end{aligned}$$ here $\Theta$ is a step function ($\Theta(x)=1$ for $x>0$ and $\Theta(x)=0$ elsewhere). In the first time interval between $t=0$ and $t=pT$ the differential equation reads $
\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t) + \mu\varepsilon x(0).
$ Integration of this differential equation yields $$\begin{aligned}
\forall_{0<t \leq pT} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
x(t)
=
\left((1+ \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda} )
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda t} - \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda}
\right) x(0).
$$ In the second interval between $t=pT$ and $t=T$ the differential equation is the same as without control, $
\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t).
$ From this one has immediately $$\begin{aligned}
\forall_{pT<t<T} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
x(t) = {\rm{}e}^{\lambda (t-pT)} x(pT)\end{aligned}$$ and the Floquet multiplier of an orbit is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm{}e}^{\gamma T}
=
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda T}
\left(
1+\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda}
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda pT})
\right).
\label{eq:floquet_ogy_impulslaenge}\end{aligned}$$ The consequences are shown in Fig. \[fig:floq\_ogyhyperbel2d\]. One finds that in zero order the “strength” of control is given by the product $pT\mu\varepsilon$; in fact there is a weak linear correction in $p$. This analysis reproduces well the experimental results of Mausbach [@mausbachPhd]. For $\lambda{}pT\leq{}1$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm{}e}^{\gamma T}&=& {\rm{}e}^{\lambda T}
(1+\mu\varepsilon pT -
\frac{1}{2} \mu\varepsilon \lambda p^2 T^2 + o(p^3))
$$ i.e. the condition of a constant strength of control reads $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\varepsilon pT = \frac{1 }{1-\frac{\lambda T}{2}p}
=1 +\frac{\lambda T}{2}p +o(p^2).
\label{eqappro}\end{aligned}$$ The result is: Apart from a weak linear correction for OGY control the length of the impulse can be chosen arbitrarily, and the “strength” of control in zero order is given by the time integral over the control impulse.
For the case where the system can only be measured delayed – by a delay time of the orbit length and longer – stability borders [@Claussen98b; @Just99] and improved control schemes have been given in [@Claussen98c; @claussenthesis] and successfully applied experimentally [@Claussen98a; @mausbach99; @klinger01]. In experimental situations one often has the intermediate case that there is a measurement delay $sT$ that is not neglectable, but within the orbit length. To keep the case general, we again consider a finite impulse length $pT$ with $0<p<1$ und $0<(s+p)<1$, see Fig. \[schemaPS\]b. Again we can integrate piecewise, and the Floquet multiplier is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:floquet_ogy_impulslaenge_and_s}
{\rm{}e}^{\gamma T}={\rm{}e}^{\lambda T}
\left(
1+\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda}
{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda sT}
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda pT})
\right)\end{aligned}$$ and (\[eq:floquet\_ogy\_impulslaenge\]) is included as the special case of $s=0$.
Impulse length influence: Difference control
============================================
Now we analyze the difference control scheme [@Bielawski93a] $$\begin{aligned}
r(t)=\varepsilon (x(t_{\times})-x(t_{\times\times})),
\label{eq:difkont_r}\end{aligned}$$ where $t_{\times}$ and $t_{\times\times}$ denote the times of last and last but one Poincaré crossing, respectively. Again the starting point is the linearized equation of motion around the periodic orbit when control is applied. For difference control now there is a dependency on two past time steps, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}(t)&=&\lambda x(t) + \mu\varepsilon x( t-(t ~{\rm{}mod}~ T))
\nonumber\\&&
~~~
- \mu\varepsilon x( t-T-(t ~{\rm{}mod}~ T)).
\label{eq:difkont_kont_dyn}\end{aligned}$$ Although the right hand side of (\[eq:difkont\_kont\_dyn\]) depends on $x$ at three different times, it can be nevertheless integrated exactly, which is mainly due to the fact that the two past times (of the two last Poincaré crossings) have a fixed time difference being equal to the orbit length. This allows not only for an exact solution, but also offers a correspondence to the time-discrete dynamics and the matrix picture used in time-delayed coordinates.
Now also for difference control the experimentally more common situation of a finite but small measurement delay $sT$ is considered, together with a finite impulse length $sT$ (here $0<p<1$ and $0<(s+p)<1$). An analogeous calculation [@claussenthesis; @claussenenoc] as for the OGY case can also be performed as follows. Piecewise integration in the first interval $0<t<T\cdot s$, where the differential equation reads $\dot{x}(t)=\lambda x(t)$, yields again $ x(T\cdot s) = {\rm{}e}^{\lambda T\cdot s} x(0)$. In the second interval $T\cdot s<t<T\cdot (s+p)$ the differential equation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x}(t)
= \lambda x(t)
+ \mu\varepsilon (x(0)-x(-T)).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Integration yields $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\forall_{T\cdot s<t<T\cdot (s+p)} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
x(t) &=& -\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda} (x(0)-x(-T)) \\
&& +\left( \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda} (x(0)-x(-T))
+{\rm{}e}^{ \lambda sT} x(0)
\right) {\rm{}e}^{ \lambda (t-sT)}
\nonumber
\\
\nonumber
x(T\cdot (s+p))
&=&
-\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda} (x(0)-x(-T))
\\
\nonumber
&&
\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda} (x(0)-x(-T))
+{\rm{}e}^{ \lambda pT}
+
{\rm{}e}^{ \lambda (s+p)T} x(0).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For the third interval again there is no control, thus $$\begin{aligned}
\forall_{T\cdot (s+p)<t<T} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
x(t) =
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda(t-(s+p)T)} x(T\cdot (s+p)).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Collecting together, we find for $x(T)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
x(T)&=&x(0){\rm{}e}^{\lambda T}
\left(
1+\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda}
{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda sT}
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda pT})
\right)
\nonumber
\\
&& -x(-T) {\rm{}e}^{\lambda T}
\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda}
{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda sT}
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda pT})\end{aligned}$$ or, in time-delayed coordinates of the last and last but one Poincaré crossing $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\!\!\begin{array}{c}x_{n+1}\\x_{n}\end{array}\!\!\right)
\!=\!
\nonumber
\mbox{\small$
\left(
\!\!\!
\begin{array}{cc}
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda T}
\! \left(
\!
1
\!+
\!
\frac{\mu\varepsilon
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda pT})
}{\lambda
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda sT}
}
\!\right)
\!
& -{\rm{}e}^{\lambda T}
\frac{\mu\varepsilon
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda pT})
}{\lambda
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda sT}
}
\\
1 & 0
\end{array}
\!\!
\right)
$}\!\!
\left(\!\!\begin{array}{c}x_{n}\\x_{n-1}\end{array}\!\!\right)\!\!.
\nonumber
$$ If we identify with the coefficients of the time-discrete case, and $\mu_{\sf d} \varepsilon_{\sf d}
={\rm{}e}^{-\lambda s T} (1- {\rm{}e}^{\lambda p T})
\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda} $, the dynamics in the Poincaré iteration $t=nT$ becomes identical with the pure discrete description; this again illustrates the power of the concept of the Poincaré map. In principle, due to the low degree of the characteristic polynomial, one could explicitely diagonalize the iteration matrix, allowing for a closed expression for the $n$-th power of the iteration matrix. However, for the stability analysis only the eigenvalues are needed. For the Floquet multiplier one has $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\rm{}e}^{2\gamma T}&=&
{\rm{}e}^{\gamma T}
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda T}
\left(
1+\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda}
{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda sT}
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda pT})
\right)
\\
&&
- {\rm{}e}^{\lambda T}
\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda}
{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda sT}
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda pT}).\end{aligned}$$ This quadratic equation yields two Floquet multipliers, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\rm{}e}^{\gamma T} &=&
\frac{1}{2}
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda T}
\left(
1+\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda}
{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda sT}
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda pT})
\right)
\\&& \nonumber
\pm\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{
\left({\rm{}e}^{\lambda T}
\big(
1+\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda}
{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda sT}
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda pT})
\big)
\right)^2
~~~~~~~} \nonumber\\
&&
\mbox{} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\overline{~~~~~~~
+ 4 {\rm{}e}^{\lambda T}
\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda}
{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda sT}
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda pT})
}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Figures \[fig:floq\_diff\_pre.eps\] and \[fig:floq\_diffkont\_keil.eps\] show, by example of Re$\lambda=0.2$, (resp. Re$\lambda=0.6$) that at Im$\lambda=\pi$ for $p<p_{\rm max}({\rm Re}\lambda=0.2)\simeq 0.505401$ (resp $p<p_{\rm max}({\rm Re}\lambda=0.6)\simeq 0.367$) there exists an island of stability, whose width decreases to zero for $p\to p_{\rm max}$. Here explicitely the influence of the impulse length can be seen. The maximal value of $p_{\rm max}$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:floq\_diffkont\_pmax\].
Discussion of the time-continuous model: Relaxing the assumption of a constant local Ljapunov exponent
======================================================================================================
The quantitative analysis given above was based on the model assumption that one has a constant local Ljapunov exponent around the orbit – a condition that will almost never be fulfilled exactly for a typical orbit of a chaotic system. To test whether this assumption is crucial, the stability can be investigated for OGY control by assuming $\lambda$ to be time-dependent along the orbit. For simplicity, we consider the exemplaric case shown in Fig. \[schemaEL\] that $\lambda(t)=\lambda_1$ for $0<t < qT$ and $\lambda(t)=\lambda_2$ for $qT < t < T$, generalizing the case $q=1/2$ already sketched in [@claussenenoc].
The case $p<q$ of a short impulse
---------------------------------
If we assume $p<q$, we have for the OGY case, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
x(pT)&=&
( {\rm{}e}^{\lambda_1 pT}
(1+ (\mu\varepsilon / \lambda_1))
- (\mu\varepsilon / \lambda_1) )
x(0)
\\
x(qT)&=& {\rm{}e}^{\lambda_1 (qT - pT)} x(pT)
\nonumber
\\
x(T)&=& {\rm{}e}^{\lambda_2 (T-qT)} x(qT).\end{aligned}$$ Using $\bar{\lambda}:=q\lambda_1+(1-q)\lambda_2$, the Floquet multiplier reads now $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm{}e}^{\gamma T}
=
{\rm{}e}^{\bar{\lambda} T}
\left(
1+\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_1}
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda_1 pT})
\right)
\label{eq:floquuet_ogy_lambda12}\end{aligned}$$ in contrast to eq. (\[eq:floquet\_ogy\_impulslaenge\]). Again in zero order the “strength” of control is given by the product $p\mu\varepsilon$; in first order $\lambda_1{}pT\leq{}1$ again the weak linear dependence on $p$ applies, $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm{}e}^{\gamma T}
=
{\rm{}e}^{\bar{\lambda} T}
(1+\mu\varepsilon pT (1-\frac{1}{2} \lambda_1 p T + o(p^2) )),\end{aligned}$$ i.e. for a constant “strength” of control, one has to fulfill $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\varepsilon pT = \frac{1 }{1-\frac{\lambda_1 T}{2}p}
+o(p^2)
=1 +\frac{\lambda_1 T}{2}p +o(p^2). \end{aligned}$$ Thus, the value of $\lambda_1$, i.e. here, the deviation of $\lambda(t)$ from its average value $\bar{\lambda}$ during the control impulse, only contributes in first order. More complicated cases can be tackled likewise, giving corrections for the quantitative $p$-dependence of the optimal control gain $\varepsilon$, but preserving the qualitative behaviour discussed above.
The case $p>q$ of a long impulse
--------------------------------
While a short impulse is the experimentally more feasible case, for completeness, also the $p>q$ shown in Fig. \[schemaELlong\] can be investigated in this manner. Here we have two time intervals where the control is active; and in the second one the initial condition $x(pT)$ has to be distinguished from the position $x(0)$ at the last Poincaré crossing, from which the control value is calculated and which determines the inhomogenity of the ODE.
Integration over the three time intervals yields $$\begin{aligned}
x(qT)
&=&
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda_1 q T} x(0) \Big(1+\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_1}\Big)
- x(0) \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_1}
\nonumber
\\
x(pT) &=&
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda_2 (pT-qT)}
\Big(x(qT)+x(0)\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_2}\Big)
-x(0)\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_2}
\nonumber
\\
x(T) &=& {\rm{}e}^{\lambda_2 (T-pT)} x(pT)
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ so that we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
x(T)
&=& x(0) {\rm{}e}^{\bar{\lambda}T}
\Bigg[ 1+ \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_1}
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda_1 q T})
+ \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_2}
(1-{\rm{}e}^{-\lambda_2 (p-q) T}) {\rm{}e}^{-\lambda_1 q T}
\Bigg].\end{aligned}$$
### Weakly nonlinear approximation for $q=1/2$ {#weakly-nonlinear-approximation-for-q12 .unnumbered}
As $p>q$, and $q$ is a fixed value for the given system, a discussion of $p \lambda T \ll 1$ can no longer be based on the $p \to 0$ case. As $p$ is of order 1, an expansion as above is meaningful only for the case where $\lambda T \ll 1$, i.e., we derive an approximation for those UPOs which have an only marginally positive Floquet multiplier. For $q=1/2$ we now explicitely discuss this “weakly nonlinear” case $\lambda_1 T \ll 1$, $\lambda_2 T \ll 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
x(T) &=& x(0) {\rm{}e}^{\bar{\lambda}T}
\Bigg[ 1+ \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_1} \Big( -\lambda_1
\frac{T}{2} +\frac{\lambda_1^2 T^2}{8} - \frac{\lambda_1^3 T^3}{48}\Big)
\\
\nonumber
&& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_2} \Big(-\lambda_2 T (p-\frac{1}{2}) +
\frac{\lambda_2^2T^2(p-\frac{1}{2})^2}{2}\Big) \Big(-\frac{\lambda_1 T}{2} +
\frac{\lambda_1^2 T^2}{8} \Big) \Bigg]
\\
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\nonumber
&=&
x(0) {\rm{}e}^{\bar{\lambda}T}
\left[1-\frac{\mu\varepsilon T}{2} \Big(1-\lambda_1 T (p-\frac{1}{4}) +
o(\lambda_1^2,\lambda_1 \lambda_2, \lambda_2^2) \Big) \right]
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ that is, control is kept constant in lowest order for $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mu\varepsilon T}{2} \stackrel{!}{=} \frac{1}{1-\lambda_1 T
(p-\frac{1}{4})}
\simeq 1 + \lambda_1 T(p-\frac{1}{4})
$$ for orbits sharing the same value of $\bar{\lambda}$.
Difference control and nonconstant local Ljapunov exponent
----------------------------------------------------------
For completeness, now also the case of difference control is considered. As has been shown before, for the case of a constant Ljapunov exponent, impulse lengths of $p>\frac{1}{2}$ do not lead to stable control; therefore the case $p>q$ is completely irrelevant, and only the case $p<q$ has to be be considered. In the first interval, $\lambda_1$ is active and integration yields $$\begin{aligned}
x(pT)={\rm{}e}^{\lambda_1 pT}
\left[ x(0) \big( 1+\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_1} ( {\rm{}e}^{-\lambda_1 pT}-1) \big)
-x(-T) \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_1} ( {\rm{}e}^{-\lambda_1 pT}-1)
\right]\end{aligned}$$ and the subsequent intervals have the control switched off, $$\begin{aligned}
x(T)&=&
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda_2 (1-q)T} x(qT)
=
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda_2 (1-q)T}
{\rm{}e}^{\lambda_1 (q-p)T}
x(pT)
\\
&=& {\rm{}e}^{\bar{\lambda}T}
\left[ x(0) \big( 1+\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_1} ( {\rm{}e}^{-\lambda_1
pT}-1) \big)
-x(-T) \frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_1} ( {\rm{}e}^{-\lambda_1 pT}-1)
\right].\end{aligned}$$ Again we use the average value $\bar{\lambda}=\lambda_1 q + \lambda_2 (1-q)$ to simplify the expressions, and the coordinates in the Poincaré countings $x_{n+1}=x(T)$, $x_n=x(0)$, $x_{n-1}=x(-T)$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{c}x_{n+1} \\ x_n \end{array}\right) =
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\rm{}e}^{\bar{\lambda}T}
(1+\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_1}( {\rm{}e}^{-\lambda_1 pT}-1))
&
-{\rm{}e}^{\bar{\lambda}T}
\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_1}( {\rm{}e}^{-\lambda_1 pT}-1)
\\ 1&0 \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}x_{n} \\ x_{n-1} \end{array}\right)
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ which leads to the characteristic equation for the two Floquet multipliers ${\rm{}e}^{\gamma T}$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm{}e}^{2 \gamma T} =
{\rm{}e}^{\gamma T}
{\rm{}e}^{\bar{\lambda}T}
\Big(1+\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_1}( {\rm{}e}^{-\lambda_1 pT}-1)\Big)
- {\rm{}e}^{\bar{\lambda}T}
\frac{\mu\varepsilon}{\lambda_1}( {\rm{}e}^{-\lambda_1 pT}-1).\end{aligned}$$ This generalizes the discussion of difference control to the case of nonconstant $\lambda$.
Conclusions and Outlook
=======================
To summarize, a new time-continuous stability analysis of Poincaré-based control methods was introduced. This general and novel approach allows to investigate timing questions of Poincar[é]{} based control schemes that cannot be analyzed within the picture of the Poincaré iteration. For both OGY and difference control it has been possible for a homogeneous case to integrate the dynamics exactly. While for OGY control the impulse length turns out not to be crucial, for difference control it is, and the impulse has to be shorter than a critical fraction of the period, which is of the order of half of the period and decreases for larger Ljapunov exponents. Such timing dependence is not completely uncommon in feedback systems with delay; in time-continuous feeedback control, a half-period feedback resulted in an enlarged stability range [@choe07].
Techniques of chaos control, be it Poincaré-based, following the Pyragas technique, or open-loop [@claussenPOR; @lima90; @filatrella93; @mettin; @kivshar] have been of great interest not only in technical systems, but also in biologically, especially neural systems and excitable media [@balanov06; @tass]. Besides the approach of controlling pathological neural subsystems directly, the intact brain already bears implementations of feedback control [@dahlem08], implying that the failure of the respective circuits eventually results in migraine or stroke. Also the human gait system, as virtually any perception-motor system, performs control of a bio-mechanical system with delays; and disturbances of the delay loops as well as the cortical control may result in tremor and related movement disorders [@gait; @tremor; @govindan05; @timmer]. In the thalamocortical system, a designated impulse shape, formed by the so-called slow waves that emerge in the cortex during S2 sleep, has been shown to act as an open-loop controller of thalamic oscillator networks [@mayer07]. This offers further possibilities to influence human sleep in the case of sleep disturbances: Recent control techniques by transcranial electrical or magnetic stimulation [@tcs; @stickgold; @siebner04; @siebner05] have been demonstrated to influence human sleep as well as to affect memory consolidation during sleep. In most of these techniques, the impulse shape and relative duration of the control impulse has significant impact on the results, thus different control goals may become accessible within the same setup. For the systematic understanding how such control techniques influence the brain, detailed models are of likewise importance as the methodical understanding of the theoretically possible control methods.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
The author acknowledges financial support from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through SFB-654 “Plasticity and Sleep”.
[12]{}
A. W. Hübler, Helv. Phys. Acta [**62**]{}, 343 (1989).
E. Ott, C. Grebogi. J. A. Yorke, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1196 (1990).
K. Pyragas, Phys. Lett. A [**170**]{}, 421 (1992).
S. Bielawski, D. Derozier, P. Glorieux, Phys. Rev. A [**47**]{}, 2492 (1993).
K. Pyragas, Phys. Lett. A [**206**]{}, 323 (1995).
A. Kittel, J. Parisi, and K. Pyragas, Physics Letters A [**198**]{}, 433 (1995).
Z. Gills, C. Iwata, R. Roy, I. B. Schwartz and I. Triandaf, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 3169 (1992).
A. G. Balanov, N. B. Janson, and E. Schöll, Phys. Rev. E [**71**]{}, 016222 (2005).
S. Boccaletti, C. Grebogi, Y.-C. Lai, H. Mancini, and D. Maza, Physics Reports 329, 103 (2000).
E. Schöll and H. G. Schuster (Eds.), [*Handbook of chaos control,*]{} Wiley-VCH, Berlin (2007).
H. G. Schuster, W. Just, [*Deterministic chaos: an introduction*]{}, 4$^{\rm th}$ ed., Wiley-VCH, Berlin (2005).
N. Baba, A. Amann, E. Schöll and W. Just, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 074101 (2002).
H. Nakajima and Y. Ueda, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 1757 (1998).
P. Parmananda, R. Madrigal, M. Rivera L. Nyikos, I. Z. Kiss, and V. Gáspár, Phys. Rev. E [**59**]{}, 5266 (1999).
K. Pyragas, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 2265 (2001).
A. Ahlborn and U. Parlitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 264101 (2004).
B. Fiedler, V. Flunkert, M. Georgi, P. Hövel, and E. Schöll, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 114101 (2007).
T. Fukuyama, K. Taniguchi, and Y. Kawai, Phys. Plasmas [**9**]{}, 1570 (2002).
G. Ciraolo, C. Chandre, R. Lima, M. Vittot, M. Pettini, Ph. Ghendrih, Cel. Mech. Dyn. Astron. [**90**]{}, 3 (2004). G. Ciraolo, C. Chandre, R. Lima, M. Vittot, M. Pettini, C. Figarella, P. Ghendrih, J. Phys. A [**37**]{}, 3589 (2004). G. Ciraolo, F. Briolle, C. Chandre, E. Floriani, R. Lima, M. Vittot, M. Pettini, C. Figarella, and P. Ghendrih, Phys. Rev. E [**69**]{}, 056213 (2004). G. Ciraolo, C. Chandre, R. Lima, M. Vittot, M. Pettini, Ph. Ghendrih, Europhys. Lett. [**69**]{}, 879 (2005). C. Chandre, M. Vittot, Y. Elskens, G. Ciraolo and M. Pettini, Physica D [**208**]{}, 131 (2005).
R. Barchelard, C. Chandre, and X. Leoncini, Chaos [**16**]{}, 023104 (2006).
T. Benzekri, C. Chandre, X. Leoncini, R. Lima, and M. Vittot Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 124503 (2006).
C. Skokos, Physica D [**159**]{}, 155 (2001).
J. C. Claussen, T. Mausbach, A. Piel, H. G. Schuster, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 7256 (1998).
J. C. Claussen, H. G. Schuster, Phys. Rev. E [**70**]{}, 056225 (2004).
J. K. Hale, S. M. Verduyn Lunel, [*Introduction to Functional Differential Equations*]{}. Springer, New York (1993).
W. Just, T. Bernard, M. Ostheimer, E. Reibold, H. Benner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 203 (1997).
J. C. Claussen, Phys. Rev. E [**70**]{}, 046205 (2004).
W. Just, D. Reckwerth, E. Reibold, and H. Benner, Phys. Rev. E [**59**]{}, 2826 (1999).
J. C. Claussen PhD thesis, Kiel, Germany (1998).
T. Mausbach, T. Klinger, and A. Piel, Physics of Plasmas [**6**]{}, 3817-3823 (1999).
T. Klinger, C. Schröder, D. Block, F. Greiner, A. Piel, G. Bonhomme, and V. Naulin, Physics of Plasmas [**8**]{}, 1961-1968 (2001).
T. Mausbach, PhD thesis, Kiel, Germany (1998).
J. C. Claussen, Proc. ENOC 2005, Eindhoven, p. 1100-1107 (2005).
Chol-Ung Choe, Valentin Flunkert, Philipp Hövel, Hartmut Benner, and Eckehard Schöll, Phys. Rev. E [**75**]{}, 046206 (2007).
R. Lima and M. Pettini, Phys. Rev. A [**41**]{}, 726 (1990).
G. Filatrella, G. Rotoli, and M. Salerno, Phys. Lett. A [**178**]{}, 81-84 (1993).
R. Mettin, A. Hübler, A. Scheeline, and W. Lauterborn, Phys. Rev. E [**51**]{}, 4065 (1995).
Y. S. Kivshar, F. Rödelsperger, and H. Benner, Phys.Rev. E [**49**]{}, 319 (1994).
J. C. Claussen, J. Carstensen, M. Christophersen, S. Langa, and H. Föll, Chaos (AIP) [**13**]{}, 217-224 (2003).
A. G. Balanov, V. Beato, N. B. Janson, H. Engel and E. Schöll, Phys. Rev. E [**74**]{}, 016214 (2006).
O. V. Popovych, C. Hauptmann, and P. Tass, Physical Review Letters [**94**]{}, 164102 (2005).
J. B. Nielsen and T. Sinkjaer, J. of Electromyography and Kinesiology 12, 213-217 (2002).
G. Deuschl, J. Raethjen, R. Baron1, M. Lindemann, H. Wilms, P. Krack J. of Neurology [**247**]{}, V33-V48 (2000).
R.B. Govindan, J. Raethjen, F. Kopper, J.C. Claussen, G. Deuschl, Physica A [**350**]{}, 277 (2005).
J. Timmer, S. Häussler, M. Lauk, and C.-H. Lücking, Chaos [**10**]{}, 278 (2000).
M. A. Dahlem, F. M. Schneider, and E. Schöll, Failure of feedback as a putative common mechanism of spreading depolarizations in migraine and stroke, arXiv:[0803.2362]{} (2008).
J. Mayer, H. G. Schuster, J. C. Claussen and M. Mölle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 068102 (2007).
F. Fregni [*et al.*]{}, Movement Disorders [**21**]{}, 1693 - 1702 (2006).
M. P. Walker, R. Stickgold, D. Alsop, N. Gaab, G. Schlaug, Neuroscience [**133**]{}, 911.917 (2005).
H. R. Siebner et al., J. Neurosci. [**24**]{}, 3379 (2004).
L. Marshall, M. Mölle, H. R. Siebner and J. Born, BMC Neuroscience [**6**]{}, 23 (2005).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We develop the formalism of the macroscopic monopolization – that is the monopole moment per unit volume – in periodic solids, and discuss its relationship to the diagonal magnetoelectric effect. For the series of lithium transition metal phosphate compounds we use first-principles density functional theory to calculate the contributions to the macroscopic monopolization from the global distribution of magnetic moments within the unit cell, as well as from the distribution of magnetization around the atomic sites. We find one example within the series (LiMnPO$_4$) that shows a macroscopic monopolization corresponding to a ferromonopolar ordering consistent with its diagonal magnetoelectric response. The other members of the series (LiMPO$_4$, with M = Co, Fe and Ni) have zero net monopolization but have antiferromonopolar orderings that should lead to $q$-dependent diagonal magnetoelectric effects.'
author:
- 'Nicola A. Spaldin'
- Michael Fechner
- Eric Bousquet
- Alexander Balatsky
- Lars Nordström
title: The macroscopic monopolization in diagonal magnetoelectrics
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
The linear magnetoelectric response of a solid is the linear order magnetization induced by an electric field or equivalently the linear order electric polarization induced by a magnetic field. It is described by a second-rank tensor, $\alpha$, which can be non-zero when both time-reversal and space-inversion symmetries are broken, and may have diagonal or off-diagonal components, corresponding to a response parallel or perpendicular to the applied field respectively.
Materials with anti-symmetric off-diagonal linear magnetoelectric responses have the same symmetry as the toroidal component of the second-order term in the magnetic multipole expansion, and so there has been much recent discussion in the literature of whether the toroidal moment, $t$, is a relevant and useful concept for describing such magnetoelectric effects. In particular, the term [*ferrotoroidics*]{} has been introduced to describe materials in which the toroidal moments are aligned cooperatively, and such materials have been considered to complete the group of primary ferroics.[@Schmid:2003; @Schmid:2004; @VanAken_et_al:2007] Motivated by this suggestion, a theory of [*toroidization*]{} – defined to be the toroidal moment per unit volume – in bulk crystalline solids has been developed, which appropriately treats the multi-valuedness caused by the periodic boundary conditions [@Ederer/Spaldin:2007]. Ferrotoroidic switching has been reported [@VanAken_et_al:2007], and attempts to demonstrate that the toroidal moment can act as a primary order parameter are ongoing. In addition, the [*local*]{} toroidal moments associated with the atomic V sites in V$_2$O$_3$ and the atomic Cu sites in CuO have been detected directly using resonant x-ray diffraction [@Lovesey_et_al:2007; @Fernandez-Rodriguez_et_al:2010; @Scagnoli_et_al:2011]. Such local toroidal moments could be of tremendous importance, as it has been proposed that they are candidates for the order parameter in the pseudo-gap phase of cuprate superconductors[@Shekhter/Varma:2009].
The second-order term in the magnetic multipole expansion contains two additional contributions beyond the toroidal term, which describe in turn magnetic quadrupolar and magnetic monopolar components that couple respectively to the gradient and divergence of the magnetic field (see detailed derivation below). While the latter has not been extensively discussed on the grounds that Maxwell’s equations tell us formally that ${\bm{B}}$ does not diverge, it is in fact non-zero in materials with a [*diagonal*]{} linear magnetoelectric response. Indeed, it could appropriately be described as a [*magnetoelectric monopole*]{} to distinguish it from the zeroth order term in the multipole expansion of the magnetic field which is the magnetic analogue to the electrical charge and indeed is formally zero. We emphasize also that the magnetoelectric monopole discussed here is a [*ground state property*]{} of the system, and so is distinct from those recently proposed and verified in spin ice, in which nonlocal magnetic monopoles exist as [*excited states*]{} [@Castelnovo/Moessner/Sondhi:2008; @Morris_et_al:2009].
The origin of the relationship between the monopolar contribution to the multipole expansion and the diagonal magnetoelectric response is illustrated in Fig. \[vortices\] (a) and (b) where we follow the discussion from Ref. . The monopolar magnetic vortex in panel (a) consists of local spin magnetic moments (black solid arrows) oriented outwards from a point – note that Maxwell’s equations are not violated; while ${\bm{M}}$ diverges, it is compensated for by ${\bm{H}}$ and so ${\bm{B}}$ does not diverge. Since the spin moments ${\bm{s}}_i$ are never parallel, it is known from the theory of multiferroics that there is a local radial electric polarization $\propto {\bm{s}}_i \times {\bm{s}}_j$ (unfilled grey arrows) associated with each pair of spins [@Mostovoy:2006; @Katsura/Nagaosa/Balatsky:2005]. However these local radial polarizations are uniform around the vortex and the net electric polarization is zero. On application of a magnetic field, however, the spin moments reorient to align themselves more closely parallel to the field (panel (b)). The local contributions to the electric polarization no longer average to zero and a net polarization parallel to the magnetic field direction results.
For completeness, we show in Figure \[vortices\] (c) and (d) the analogous relationship between a toroidal vortex and the off-diagonal magnetoelectric response. In this case an applied magnetic field modifies the spin orientations so that a net magnetic moment is induced perpendicular to the direction of applied field.
![Diagonal ((a) and (b)) and off-diagonal ((c) and (d)) magnetoelectric responses of monopolar and toroidal spin arrangements. From Ref. . []{data-label="vortices"}](vortices.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In the next section we review the definition of the magnetoelectric monopole starting from a multipole expansion of the magnetic field and show that it couples to the divergence thereof. In Section \[Calculation\_and\_Measurement\] we describe how the monopole can be calculated from first-principles electronic structure methods, as well as how it could be directly measured experimentally. We introduce the term [*monopolization*]{} to describe the monopole per unit volume in periodic solids, and show that it is natural both theoretically and experimentally to divide the total monopolization into two contributions: That arising from the local monopoles around individual ions, and that arising from the global distribution of magnetic moments within the solid. We discuss also the problems associated with defining the monopolization for an infinite periodic solid, and propose a practical solution. In Section \[Transition\_metal\_phosphates\] we present results of the calculated monopolizations for the family of lithium transition metal phosphates, LiMPO$_4$, M = Mn, Fe, Co, Ni. All members of this family have the same structure and overall magnetic order, but they differ in their local magnetic anisotropy and hence their magnetic symmetry. We find that the different magnetic symmetries lead to different monopolar orderings: In one case there is ferromonopolar ordering with a net macroscopic monopolization, and the remaining three cases have zero net monopolization, but with hidden “anti-ferromonopolar” orderings that have not previously been identified. In section \[GLTheory\] we develop the Ginzburg-Landau theory describing the coupling of the monopolization to homogeneous external magnetic and electric fields. In the final section we discuss the possible relevance of these concepts.
The multipole expansion {#MultipoleExpansion}
=======================
Following the derivation in Ref. , we consider a magnetization density ${\bm{\mu}}({\bm{r}})$, that may arise from both spin and orbital contributions, in an inhomogeneous magnetic field ${\bm{H}}\left({\bm{r}}\right)$ that varies slowly on the scale of the system size. Then the interaction energy, $H_{\rm int}$, of the magnetization density with the magnetic field $$\label{eq:inhomog1}
H_{\rm int} = - \int {\bm{\mu}}({\bm{r}}) \cdot
{\bm{H}}\left({\bm{r}}\right) d^3 {\bm{r}}$$ can be expanded in powers of field gradients calculated at some arbitrary reference point ${\bm{r}}
= 0$: $$\label{eq:inhomog2}
H_{\rm int} = - \int {\bm{\mu}}({\bm{r}}) \cdot {\bm{H}}\left(0\right) d^3 {\bm{r}}
- \int r_{i} {\mu}_{j} ({\bm{r}}) \partial_{i} H_{j}\left(0\right) d^3 {\bm{r}} - \ldots.$$ where $i,j$ are Cartesian directions. The first term is the interaction of the field with the magnetic moment of the system $${\bm{m}} = \int {\bm{\mu}} ({\bm{r}}) d^3 {\bm{r}} \quad .$$ In the second term, the tensor ${\cal M}_{ij} = \int r_{i} {\mu_j({\bm{r}})}d^3 {\bm{r}}$ with nine components can be decomposed into three parts (summation over repeated indices is implied):
- the pseudoscalar from the trace of the tensor, $$a = \frac{1}{3} {\cal M}_{ii} = \frac{1}{3} \int {\bm{r}} \! \cdot
{\bm{\mu}}({\bm{r}}) d^3 {\bm{r}} \quad,
\label{Eqn_monopole}$$\
- the toroidal moment vector dual to the antisymmetric part of the tensor, $t_{i} = \frac{1}{2} \varepsilon_{ijk} {\cal M}_{jk}$, $$\label{eq:spinT}
{\bm{t}} = \frac{1}{2} \int {\bm{r}} \! \times {\bm{\mu}}({\bm{r}}) d^3 {\bm{r}} \quad,$$ and\
- the traceless symmetric tensor $q_{ij}$ describing the quadrupole magnetic moment of the system, $$\begin{aligned}
q_{ij} &=& \frac{1}{2}\left({\cal M}_{ij} + {\cal M}_{ji} - \frac{2}{3} \delta_{ij} {\cal
M}_{kk}\right)\nonumber \\ &=& \frac{1}{2} \int \left[r_i \mu_j +
r_j \mu_i - \frac{2}{3} \delta_{ij} {\bm{r}}\! \cdot {\bm{\mu({\bm{r}})}}
\right] d^3{\bm{r}} \quad.\end{aligned}$$
The expansion of Eqn. (\[eq:inhomog2\]) can then be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:inhomog3}
H_{\rm int} & = & - {\bm{m}} \cdot {\bm{H}}\left(0\right) \nonumber \\
& & - a \left(\nabla \cdot {\bm{H}}\right)_{{\bm{r}} = 0} \nonumber \\
& & - {\bm{t}} \cdot \left[ \nabla \times {\bm{H}} \right]_{{\bm{r}} = 0} \nonumber \\
& & - q_{ij} \left(\partial_{i} H_{j} + \partial_{j} H_{i}\right)_{{\bm{r}} = 0} - \ldots .\end{aligned}$$ We see that the toroidal moment ${\bm{t}}$ couples to the curl of the magnetic field, and the quadrupole moment $q_{ij}$ couples to the field gradient, while the pseudoscalar $a$ is coupled to the divergence of magnetic field, and so represents a monopolar component.
Calculation and measurement of the magnetoelectric monopole in bulk, periodic solids {#Calculation_and_Measurement}
====================================================================================
In this section we discuss the difficulties associated with the definition of the monopole in bulk, periodic solids, and propose solutions that allow a correspondence between calculated monopole moments and possible experimental measurements. First we note a simplification: Since the orbital contribution to the magnetization density, ${\bm{\mu}}^{\text{orb}}({\bm{r}})$ is proportional to ${\bm{r}} \times {\bm{p}}({\bm{r}})$, where ${\bm{p}}$ is the momentum, and ${\bm{r}} \cdot {\bm{r}} \times {\bm{p}}$ is zero, the orbital contribution to the monopole is always formally zero, and only the spin contribution need be considered.
For systems of finite size, such as molecules or molecular clusters, that have zero net magnetic moment, the value of the monopole can be evaluated directly from the spin part of the magnetization density through the integral in Eqn. \[Eqn\_monopole\]. Eqn. \[Eqn\_monopole\] is not directly applicable to extended systems where periodic boundary conditions are employed, however, because the integral contains the position operator, ${\bm{r}}$. Therefore for a general continuous magnetization density ${\bm{\mu}}({\bm{r}})$ it will lead to arbitrary values, depending on the choice of unit cell used in the calculation.
Decomposition of the monopole moment into atomic site and local moment contributions {#Decomposition}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In anticipation of treating the bulk, periodic case, we re-write Eqn. \[Eqn\_monopole\] by decomposing the position operator ${\bm{r}}$ into the positions of the constituent atoms, ${\bm{r}}_\alpha$, relative to some arbitrary origin, plus the distance from each atomic center, $[{\bm{r}} - {\bm{r}}_\alpha]$. The integral over all space then separates into a sum over the atomic sites, $\sum_\alpha$ and an integral around each atomic site, $\int_{\text{as}}$, and Eqn. \[Eqn\_monopole\] can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
a & = & \frac{1}{3} \int {\bm{r}} \! \cdot {\bm{\mu}}({\bm{r}}) d^3 {\bm{r}} \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{3} \sum_\alpha \int_{\text{as}} ({\bm{r}}_\alpha + [{\bm{r}}-{\bm{r}}_\alpha])\! \cdot {\bm{\mu}}({\bm{r}}) d^3 {\bm{r}} \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{3} \sum_\alpha \left( {\bm{r}}_\alpha \cdot \int_{\text{as}} {\bm{\mu}}({\bm{r}}) d^3 {\bm{r}} + \int_{\text{as}} [{\bm{r}} - {\bm{r}}_\alpha] \cdot {\bm{\mu}}({\bm{r}}) d^3 {\bm{r}} \right) \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{3} \sum_\alpha \left( {\bm{r}}_\alpha \cdot {\bm{m}}_\alpha + \int_{\text{as}} [{\bm{r}} - {\bm{r}}_\alpha] \cdot {\bm{\mu}}({\bm{r}}) d^3 {\bm{r}} \right) \end{aligned}$$ where the summation, $\sum_\alpha$ is over all of the atoms $\alpha$ in the system, and ${\bm{m}}_\alpha$ is the local magnetic moment on the $\alpha$th atom.
We see then that the monopole can be decomposed into two components: The first, comes from the local monopoles at the atomic sites, which arise from the same current distribution around the site that simultaneously gives rise to the local dipole moment. We call this contribution $a^{\text{as}}$ for “atomic site”, and at each site, $\alpha$, it is given by $$\label{atomic_multipole}
a^\text{as}_{\alpha} = \frac{1}{3} \int_{\text{as}} [{\bm{r}} - {\bm{r}}_{\alpha}] . {\bm{\mu}}({\bm{r}}) d^3 {\bm{r}}$$ where the atomic nucleus is at position ${\bm{r}}_{\alpha}$ and the integral is over some localized region around the atomic nucleus; in an electronic-structure calculation this can be chosen to be the “atomic sphere” or the “pseudo-atomic orbital” depending on the details of the implementation and the integral can in principle be evaluated over this finite region.
In practice, we calculate the atomic site contributions to the monopole through expectation values of spherical tensors using a generalization of the method used previously to obtain inversion-even tensor moments in studies of correlated $d$ or $f$ electron materials[@vanderLaan/Thole:2009; @Bultmark_et_al:2009]. For each atomic site $\alpha$ a local density matrix $\gamma_{\alpha}$ inside a site-centered sphere is obtained from the electronic structure and expanded in spherical harmonics and spinors. In the present work we use the augmented plane wave plus local orbital (APW+lo) method and these spheres are naturally chosen to be the muffin-tin spheres. The density matrices are then further expanded with respect to their behavior (either even or odd) under space inversion $i$ and time inversion $\theta$: $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{\alpha} & = &\sum_{\nu=0}^{1}\sum_{\eta=0}^{1} \gamma_{\alpha}^{\nu\eta} \nonumber \\
\theta \gamma_{\alpha}^{\nu\eta} & = & (-1)^{\nu}\gamma_{\alpha}^{\nu\eta} \nonumber \\
i \gamma_{\alpha}^{\nu\eta} & = & (-1)^{\eta}\gamma_{\alpha}^{\nu\eta} \quad .\end{aligned}$$ For magnetoelectrically active multipole moments such as monopoles, only the component that is odd in both space inversion and time reversal that is $\gamma_{\alpha}^{11}$, is relevant. In addition, for convenience we expand the density matrices in the Pauli matrices and the identity matrix in spin space, $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^{\nu\eta}=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\beta=0}^{3} \sigma^{\beta}\gamma_{\alpha}^{\nu\eta\beta} \nonumber \\
\gamma_{\alpha}^{\nu\eta\beta}&=\mathrm{Sp}\, \sigma^{\beta}\gamma^{\nu\eta}\,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{Sp}$ is the trace over the spin degree of freedom.
Now the monopole moment can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
a_{\alpha}=\frac{1}{2} \sum_{\beta={1}}^{3} \mathrm{Tr}\, \Gamma^{(110)} \sigma^{\beta}\gamma_{\alpha}^{11\beta}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here the operator $\Gamma^{(110)}$ describes the coupling of two rank one tensors, $\bm{r}_{\alpha}$ and $\bm{m}_{\alpha}$, to a rank zero $a_{\alpha}$, and and $\mathrm{Tr}$ is the trace over the orbital degree of freedom. In Figure \[hedgehog\] we show the generic magnetization textures for positive and negative atomic site monopoles, as well as for completeness the $z$ component of a toroidal moment and the $z^2$ component of the quadrupolar tensor. The arrows represent the magnetization orientation on a sphere surrounding an atomic site and the color indicates whether the magnetization points outwards (green) or inwards (red).
![Representation of (left to right) positive and negative monopoles, the $z$ component of the toroidal moment and the $z^2$ component of the quadrupole moment. []{data-label="hedgehog"}](Hedgehog_Illustrator.eps){width="1.10\columnwidth"}
Note that these atomic site monopoles can in principle be measured by resonant x-ray spectroscopy[@Lovesey/Scagnoli:2009], which has been used successfully to detect an atomic site toroidal moment[@Staub_et_al:2009; @Scagnoli_et_al:2011]. No unambiguous measurement of atomic monopoles has been made to date, however, because a material has not yet been identified that meets the stringent conditions required to achieve an observation in the resonant x-ray measurement. We point out also that, provided that the local magnetic site is not an inversion center, the atomic monopoles can be non-zero even in a system with overall zero monopole moment; we will explore some examples in Section \[Transition\_metal\_phosphates\]. Such systems might be described as “anti-monopolar” and should show a $q$-dependent magnetoelectric effect.
The second contribution to the monopole, which we write $a^{\text{lm}}$ for “local moment”, arises from representing the magnetization density by a distribution of localized magnetic moments ${\bm{m}}_\alpha$ at the atomic sites: $$\label{a_local_moment}
a^\text{lm} = \frac{1}{3} \sum_\alpha {\bm{r}}_\alpha . {\bm{m}}_\alpha
\quad .$$ In systems such as insulating $3d$ transition metal oxides, which have large localized magnetic moments that are spatially separated by distances of a few Å we expect this contribution to be the dominant contribution to the total monopole.
![Representative arrangements of local magnetic moments (shown by arrows) that have monopolar contributions. The arrangements in a) and b) are purely monopolar, and have equal and opposite monopoles. c) consists of the sum of a monopolar contribution (of size half that of b) and a quadrupolar contribution; the decomposition is shown in the lower panel.[]{data-label="monopoles_cartoons"}](monopoles_cartoons.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Using Eq. (\[a\_local\_moment\]) we can straightforwardly evaluate the monopoles of the arrangements of magnetic moments shown in Fig. \[monopoles\_cartoons\]. Taking the $\pm y$-oriented magnetic moments to be spaced a distance $d$ apart along the $y$ direction, and the $\pm x$-oriented moments a distance $d$ apart along $x$, then the monopoles of arrangements a) and b) in Fig. \[monopoles\_cartoons\] are $a = -\frac{2}{3}d m$ and $+\frac{2}{3}d m$ respectively, where $m$ is the magnitude of each local magnetic dipole moment. Applying Eq. \[a\_local\_moment\] to the arrangement show in c) yields the value $+\frac{1}{3}d m$; this can also be obtained by inspection by recognizing that c) consists of a monopole with magnetic moments at the same position of as in b) but of half the magnitude, plus a quadrupole, as shown in the lower panel of Fig. \[monopoles\_cartoons\].
The total monopole resulting from these two contributions is then $$a = a^\text{lm} + \sum_\alpha a_\alpha^\text{as}$$ where the sum is over all the atomic sites.
In all the cases shown in Fig. \[monopoles\_cartoons\], the net magnetization is zero. There exists a complication, however, in the case where the region over which the monpole is to be evaluated has a net magnetic dipole. The complication is that all multipoles in systems with non-zero lower-order multipoles (the magnetic dipole in the case of the magnetoelectric monopole) are dependent on the choice of origin used to evaluate them. It is straightforward to see that for systems with nonvanishing magnetic dipole moment, for a change of origin defined by $${\bm{r}} \rightarrow {\bm{r}}' = {\bm{r}} + {\bm{R}}_0$$ the monopole changes as $$a \rightarrow a' = a + \frac{1}{3} {\bm{R}}_0 . \int {\bm{\mu(r)}} d^3 {\bm{r}} \quad .$$ It remains an open question in general, which we do not address here, whether such origin dependence of the multipoles is physically meaningful (see for example Ref. ). One practical approach is to always choose as the origin the position of the average magnetic moment, $\bar{{\bm{R}}}$, defined so that $ \int {\bm{\mu(r-\bar{R})}} d^3 {\bm{r}} =0 . $ This is equivalent to neglecting any uncompensated part of the magnetization and retaining only the compensated part in the calculation of the monopole[@Ederer/Spaldin:2007]. Care must be taken, however, in situations where a change in net magnetic dipole moment, or a structural rearrangement occurs, to ensure that a consistent choice of origin is maintained.
Bulk systems with periodic boundary conditions; the problem of multi-valuedness {#sec:bulk}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next we turn to the case of a system with periodic boundary conditions. It is often convenient to describe the properties of a bulk crystalline solid in terms of a small repeat unit – the unit cell – which is then replicated using periodic boundary conditions to generate the infinite solid. Many intensive quantities such as the magnetization, which is defined to be the magnetic moment per unit volume, can then be simply obtained as the value of the quantity in a single unit cell divided by the unit cell volume. For the case of the macroscopic monopole per unit volume – which we propose to call the [*monopolization*]{} by analogy with magnetization, polarization, etc. – Eqn. \[Eqn\_monopole\] is not directly applicable to extended systems with periodic boundary conditions, because for a general continuous magnetization density ${\bm{\mu}}({\bm{r}})$, Eq. (\[Eqn\_monopole\]) evaluated over one unit cell will lead to arbitrary values, depending on the particular choice of unit cell used in the calculation. We note that this behavior is distinct from the origin dependence discussed in Section \[Decomposition\], and persists even in the case when the net magnetization is zero. In fact the difficulties are exactly analogous to those encountered in defining a macroscopic bulk toroidization, and indeed reflect those involved in defining a macroscopic bulk ferroelectric polarization, which were solved through the introduction of the modern theory of polarization[@Resta:1993; @Resta:1994; @King-Smith/Vanderbilt:1993]. A proposed solution in the case of the toroidization was described in detail in Ref. . In this section we extend the description to the case of the monopole and address the following questions:
1. [How should the monopole density – the monopolization – of a bulk periodic solid be formally defined?]{}
2. [What are the consequences of the periodic boundary conditions within a bulk crystalline solid?]{}
For simplicity we develop the formalism for the case of the monopolization coming from the local moment contribution. First we note that, as we shall see later, the formalism requires that each local moment, ${\bm{m}}_\alpha$, is equal to an integer number of Bohr magnetons. Since we consider only the spin part of the magnetic moment (the orbital part does not contribute to the monopole), a magnetic moment that is an integer number of Bohr magnetons corresponds to the moment of an integer number of electrons. In general, however, an integer number is not obtained from integrating the magnetization density over a sphere around an atomic site in a solid; in fact this number is not uniquely defined as it depends on the choice of integration radius. Rather, the spin moment of the corresponding spin-polarized Wannier function should be used; since a Wannier function in an insulating system contains an integer number of electrons its spin is always an integer number of Bohr magnetons.
We then define the local moment monopolization, $A^\text{lm} =
a^\text{lm}/V$, where $V$ is the volume of the system with local moment monopole $a^\text{lm}$. Then, for a large finite system containing $N$ identical unit cells each of volume $\Omega$: $$\begin{aligned}
A^\text{lm} & = \frac{1}{3 N \Omega} \sum_{\alpha}
{\bm{r}}_{\alpha} . {\bm{m}}_{\alpha} \\ & = \frac{1}{3 N \Omega}
\sum_{n,i} ({\bm{r}}_i+ {\bm{R}}_n) . {\bm{m}}_i \quad .\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\bm{r}}_i$ are the positions of the magnetic moments ${\bm{m}}_i$ relative to the same (arbitrary) point within each unit cell, ${\bm{R}}_n$ is a lattice vector with index $n$, and we have used the fact that the orientation of the magnetic moments is the same in each unit cell. The summation over $i$ indicates the summation over all moments within a unit cell, and that over $n$ indicates the summation over all unit cells. Expanding the scalar product, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
A^\text{lm} & = \frac{1}{3 \Omega} \sum_i {\bm{r}}_i . {\bm{m}}_i +
\frac{1}{3 N \Omega} \sum_{n} {\bm{R}}_n . \sum_i {\bm{m}}_i \nonumber \\
& = \frac{1}{3 \Omega} \sum_i {\bm{r}}_i . {\bm{m}}_i \quad ,\end{aligned}$$ using the fact that the sum over all lattice vectors contains both ${\bm{R}}_n$ and $-{\bm{R}}_n$, so that $\sum_n {\bm{R}}_n = 0$. Thus, the local moment monopole of a system of $N$ unit cells is just $N$ times the monopole evaluated for one unit cell, and the corresponding monopolizations are identical.
In an infinite periodic solid, we have a freedom in choosing the basis corresponding to the primitive unit cell of the crystal. In particular, we can translate any spin of the basis by a lattice vector ${\bm{R}}_n$ without changing the overall periodic arrangement. However, such a translation of a spin by ${\bm{R}}_n$ leads to a change in the local moment monopolization as follows: $$\label{quantum}
\Delta A^{\text{lm}}_{ni} = \frac{1}{3 \Omega} {\bm{R}}_n \cdot \hat{m}_i \mu_B \quad ,$$ where $\hat{m}_i$ is a unit vector oriented in the direction of magnetic moment ${\bm{m}}_i$. The freedom in choosing the basis corresponding to the primitive unit cell thus leads to a multivaluedness of the monopolization with respect to certain “increments” (defined by Eq. (
\[quantum\])) for each magnetic sub-lattice $i$ and lattice vector ${\bm{R}}_n$.
This multivaluedness of the monopolization is reminiscent of the modern theory of electric polarization,[@King-Smith/Vanderbilt:1993; @Vanderbilt/King-Smith:1993; @Resta:1994] where the polarization changes by $e{\bm{R}}_n/\Omega$ when an elementary charge $e$ is translated by a lattice vector ${\bm{R}}_n$. The resulting multivaluedness has led to the concept of the “polarization lattice” corresponding to a bulk periodic solid,[@Vanderbilt/King-Smith:1993] with $e{\bm{R}}_n/\Omega$ called the “polarization quantum” if ${\bm{R}}_n$ is one of the three primitive lattice vectors. An even closer analogy is provided by the toroidization, which is multivalued with values spaced by the toroidization increment $\frac{1}{2\Omega} {\bm{R}}_n \times {\bm{m}}$, corresponding to translation of an elementary magnetic moment, ${\bm{m}}$ by a lattice vector [@Ederer/Spaldin:2007]. Eq. (\[quantum\]) suggests the existence of an analogous “monopolization lattice”, with monopolization increments $\frac{1}{3 \Omega} \mu_B {\bm{R}}_n \cdot \hat{m}_i$, where ${\bm{R}}_n$ is any primitive lattice vector and $\hat{m}_i$ are the unit vectors indicating the orientations of the magnetic moments. Note that the monopolization, and hence the monopolization increments are scalar quantities. As a result the corresponding monopolization lattice can become rather dense, particularly in cases where the three lattice vectors are unequal but close in size, and the spin moments are noncollinear and canted away from the lattice vector directions.
We illustrate the behavior and implications of the monopolization lattice next with a simple model one-dimensional example.
A one-dimensional example {#chain}
-------------------------
#### The periodic non-monopolar state. {#afm_chain_a}
![Calculation of the monopolization for two different one-dimensional antiferromagnetic periodic arrangements of magnetic moments. Our choice of unit cell is indicated by the shaded area in each case. a) shows a non-monopolar state, which is space-inversion symmetric with respect to each moment site. b) is a monopolar state.[]{data-label="lattice"}](lattice.eps){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
To illustrate some consequences of the multivaluedness of the monopolization in periodic systems described in the previous section, we now consider the example of a one-dimensional antiferromagnetic chain of equally spaced magnetic moments as shown in Fig. \[lattice\]a. The moments, with magnitude $m = \mu_B $, are spaced a distance $d$ apart from each other along the $x$ axis, and are alternating in orientation along $\pm x$. Thus, the unit cell length is $2d$ and there are two oppositely oriented magnetic moments in each unit cell. Since this configuration does not possess a macroscopic magnetic dipole moment, the corresponding monopole moment is origin independent.
The arrangement of magnetic moments in Fig. \[lattice\]a is space-inversion symmetric with respect to each moment site and thus cannot exhibit a macroscopic monopole moment. The local moment monopole of the single unit cell highlighted in Fig. \[lattice\]a, calculated using Eq. (\[a\_local\_moment\]), however, is identical to that calculated for the finite moment configuration in Fig. \[monopoles\_cartoons\]c, i.e. $a^\text{lm} = \frac{1}{3} d m$, and the corresponding monopolization, $A^\text{lm} =
a^{\text{lm}}/\Omega = \frac{1}{3} \frac{d m}{2d} = \frac{1}{3} \frac{m}{2}$ (since the “volume” $\Omega$ of the one-dimensional unit cell is just its length, $2d$). Since the moments of magnitude $\mu_B$ are oriented exactly parallel to the $x$ axis, the elementary monopolization increment in this case is $\Delta A^\text{lm}
= \pm \frac{1}{3} \mu_B $, which means that the monopolization of the unit cell is exactly equal to one half of the monopolization increment, and the allowed monopolization values for the periodic arrangement are $A_n = (\frac{1}{2} + n)\frac{1}{3} \mu_B$, where $n$ can be any integer number.
We see that in our example the allowed local moment monopolization values form a one-dimensional lattice of values, centrosymmetric around the origin. This is analogous to the cases of the electric polarization and the toroidization, where the polarization and toroidization lattices are invariant under all symmetry transformations of the underlying crystal structure. In particular, the polarization and toroidization lattices corresponding to centrosymmetric crystal structures are inversion symmetric, which is achieved in lattices that include either the zero or the half quantum/increment. We see that the same holds true for the local moment monopolization of our one-dimensional example, and that a centrosymmetric set of monopolization values can be understood as representing a non-monopolar state of the corresponding system. We also note that the formalism is only consistent for the case of local magnetic moments corresponding to integer numbers of Bohr magnetons, which in turn correspond to the spin contribution from integer numbers of electrons.
In the case of the electric polarization, it is now widely recognized that only differences in the polarization lattices between different configurations, such as between a centrosymmetric non-polar reference structure and a ferroelectric polar crystal, are in fact measurable quantities. Since these differences are the same for each point of the polarization lattice they are well-defined quantities. Likewise in the case of the toroidization, only differences in toroidization lattices between for example different arrangements of magnetic moments or different ionic positions are measurable[@Ederer/Spaldin:2007]. In the next section we show that, in analogy with the cases of the toroidization and electric polarization, only differences in local moment monopolization, corresponding to two different bulk configurations, are measurable quantities and correspond to physical observables such as the difference in monopolization between a ferromonopolar state and its non-monopolar paraphase. Such quantities can be obtained by monitoring the change in monopolization on one arbitrarily chosen *branch* within the allowed set of values, when transforming the system from the initial to the final state along a well-defined path.
#### Monopolar state and changes in monopolization.
In order to obtain a nontrivial macroscopic monopolization the system has to break both space and time inversion symmetry. In the case of the one-dimensional antiferromagnetic chain this can be achieved by “moment pairing”, i.e. if the distances between neighboring magnetic moments alternate as shown in Fig. \[lattice\]b. Here the magnetic moments of magnitude $m= \mu_B$ are spaced alternately a distance of $(1-\lambda)d$ and $(1+\lambda)d$ apart from each other along the $x$ axis ($-1 < \lambda < 1$). The non-monopolar example above corresponds to $\lambda = 0$. Since the unit cell size is the same as in the non-monopolar case, the elementary monopolization increment is again $\Delta A^\text{lm} = \pm \frac{1}{3} \mu_B$. The monopolization of the unit cell indicated in Fig. \[lattice\]b is $A^\text{lm} = \frac{1}{3} (-\frac{\lambda}{d} +1) \frac{\mu_B}{2}$, so that the allowed values of $A^\text{lm}$ for the full periodic arrangement are: $$\label{T-chain}
A^\text{lm} = \left(\frac{1}{2} + n \right) \frac{1}{3} (-\frac{\lambda}{d} +1) \mu_B
\quad .$$ Fig. \[a\_of\_d\] shows the allowed monopolization values as a function of the displacement $\lambda$ of the moments from their positions in the centrosymmetric, non-monopolar state.
![Allowed values of the monopolization for the antiferromagnetic chain of Fig. \[lattice\] as a function of displacement $\lambda$ from the non-toroidal case ($\lambda=0$). The cartoons at the bottom indicate the corresponding positions of the magnetic moments within the unit cell. []{data-label="a_of_d"}](a_of_d.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The change in monopolization between two configurations with $\lambda=\lambda_1$ and $\lambda=\lambda_2$ for a certain branch $n$ is given by: $$A_n^{\text{lm}}(\lambda_2) - A_n^{\text{lm}}(\lambda_1) = \frac{1}{3}
\frac{\lambda_2 - \lambda_1}{d} \frac{\mu_B}{2}
\quad ,
\label{A_model}$$ i.e. it is independent of the branch index $n$. In particular, if the non-centrosymmetric distortion is inverted ($\lambda_2=\lambda_0$, $\lambda_1=-\lambda_0)$, the change in monopolization is $2A^\text{lm}_\text{s} = \frac{1}{3} \frac{\lambda_0 \mu_B}{d}$ so that $A^\text{lm}_\text{s} = \frac{1}{3} \frac{\lambda_0 \mu_B}{2d}$ can be interpreted as the *spontaneous monopolization*, again in analogy to the case of the electric polarization, where the spontaneous polarization is given by the branch-independent change in polarization compared to a centrosymmetric reference structure.
Another possible way to alter the monopolization is by changing the orientation of the magnetic moments instead of changing their positions. In particular, we expect that a full 180$^\circ$ rotation of all magnetic moments, which is equivalent to the operation of time reversal, should invert the macroscopic “spontaneous monopolization”, and should therefore lead to the same change $2A_\text{s}^{\text{lm}}$ as discussed above. If we allow the magnetic moments to rotate out of the $x$ direction, while preserving the antiparallel alignment of the two basis moments, the monopolization is given by $$A^\text{lm}_n(\lambda,\alpha) = \left(\frac{1}{2} + n \right)
\frac{1}{3} (-\frac{\lambda}{d} +1) \mu_B \cos{\alpha}
\quad ,$$ where $\alpha$ is the angle between the magnetic moments and the $x$ direction. Note here a difference from the case of the toroidization – since the monopolization is a scalar, rotation of the magnetic moments away from perfect alignment reduces the absolute magnitude of the monopolization. In contrast, in the toroidal case a rotation could reduce the toroidization along one axis while simultaneously increasing it along another. Interestingly, in this example, the magnetic moment rotation which reduces the monopolization induces a toroidization, effectively converting the monopolar response into a toroidal one through the moment reorientation. The change in monopolization for a full 180$^\circ$ rotation of the moments is thus: $$\label{A-change}
A^\text{lm}_n(\lambda_0,180^\circ) - A^\text{lm}_n(\lambda_0,0^\circ)
= 2 \left(\frac{1}{2} + n \right)
\frac{1}{3} (-\frac{\lambda_0}{d} +1) \mu_B
\quad ,$$ and apparently depends on the branch index $n$. However, if one calculates the same change in monopolization for the non-monopolar state with $d=0$, one obtains: $$\label{improper}
A^\text{lm}_n(0,180^\circ) - A^\text{lm}_n(0^\circ)
= -2 \left(\frac{1}{2} + n \right)
\frac{1}{3} \mu_B
\quad .$$ Obviously, in this case the corresponding change in macroscopic monopolization should be zero, since both the initial and final states (and all intermediate states) correspond to a non-monopolar configuration and thus $A_\text{s}^{\text{lm}}=0$. If one subtracts the *improper* change in $A^{\text{lm}}$, Eq. (\[improper\]), from the change in monopolization calculated in Eq. (\[A-change\]), one obtains the *proper* change in monopolization $2A^\text{lm}_\text{s} = \frac{1}{3} \frac{\lambda_0 \mu_B}{d}$, which is identical to that obtained by inverting the non-centrosymmetric distortion $\lambda$. Here, we use the terminology “proper” and “improper” in analogy to the case of the proper and improper piezoelectric response, [@Vanderbilt:2000] where a similar branch dependence is caused by volume changes of the unit cell, and the improper piezoelectric response has to be subtracted appropriately.
![Effect on the magnetic moment configuration of Fig. \[lattice\]b (middle panel) of a reversal of all magnetic moments (lower panel) and of a reversal of the non-centrosymmetric distortion $d$ (upper panel). Note that the upper and lower final states are identical, with the moments in the upper and lower panels translated by half a unit cell relative to each other.[]{data-label="spin_flip"}](spin_flip.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[spin\_flip\] shows the initial and final states for the two cases where either the atoms carrying the moments are displaced, or the magnetic moment directions are inverted. The two final states are equivalent except for a translation of all moments by half a unit cell along $y$, which, due to Neumann’s principle, is irrelevant for the macroscopic properties. The spontaneous monopolization of the upper state in Fig. \[spin\_flip\] is therefore the same as for the lower state in the Figure.
Monopolizations in real materials – the [Li]{} transition-metal phosphates {#Transition_metal_phosphates}
==========================================================================
![\[fig6\] Structure of the lithium transition metal phosphates. The 1 - 4 labeling of the transition metal atoms is consistent with their labeling in Tables \[tab:magnetic\_orderings\] and \[tab:LiMPO4-character\]. ](struct.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
We now turn to a real materials example, and choose the family of lithium transition-metal phosphates, LiMPO$_4$, M = Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, as our model system. All of the LiMPO$_4$ compounds crystallize in the olivine structure with the orthorhombic space group $Pnma$ and the crystallographic point group $D_{2h}$.[@Destenay:1950; @Newnham/Redman:1965; @Geller/Durand:1960; @Santoro/Newnham:1967; @Abrahams/Easson:1993] The lattice parameters and atomic coordinates, obtained from first-principles calculations in this work and Refs. and , are given in Table \[Structure\].
[l l l S S S S]{} & & & Mn & [Fe]{} & Co & [Ni]{}\
a (Å)& & &10.440 &10.330 & 10.202& 10.032\
b/a & & & 0.583 &0.582 & 0.581 &0.584\
c/a & & & 0.455 & 0.454 &0.461 & 0.466\
M & $4c$&x & 0.280 & 0.282& 0.223 & 0.225\
M & $4c$ &z & 0.477 & 0.480&0.507 & 0.488\
P & $4c$ &x & 0.093 & 0.096& 0.096& 0.095\
P & $4c$ &z &-0.085 & -0.072&-0.074& -0.076\
O$_1$ & $4c$ &x & 0.097 & 0.097&0.101 & 0.101\
O$_1$ & $4c$ &z & 0.237 & 0.254&0.248 & 0.250\
O$_2$ & $4c$ &x & 0.455 & 0.458&0.455 & 0.452\
O$_2$ & $4c$ &z &-0.292 & -0.300&-0.193 &-0.305\
O$_3$ & $8d$ &x & 0.171 & 0.168&0.168 & 0.170\
O$_3$ & $8d$ &y & 0.048 & 0.045& 0.457 & 0.040\
O$_3$ & $8d$ &z &-0.218 & -0.204&-0.212 & -0.220\
The transition metal cations occupy the sites with Wyckoff positions $4c$; these are surrounded by strongly distorted oxygen octahedra and have local $C_s=\{e,i_{2y}\}$ symmetry. All compounds have a transition to an antiferromagnetic state at some tens of kelvin. The resulting magnetic order breaks the inversion symmetry in all cases and hence allows for the linear magnetoelectric effect. Across the series, however, three distinct antiferromagnetic orderings emerge [@Vaknin_et_al:2002; @Liang_et_al:2008; @Santoro/Newnham:1967; @ToftPetersen_et_al:2012; @Jensen_et_al:2009], summarized in Table \[tab:magnetic\_orderings\]. These different antiferromagnetic orderings lead in turn to different magnetic symmetries and different allowed monopolar contributions.
[X c c c]{} & Mn & Fe / Co & Ni
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$m_1$ & ($m$, 0, 0) & (0, $m$, 0) & (0, 0, $m $)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$m_2$ & ($-m$, 0, 0) & (0, $-m$, 0) & (0, 0, $-m$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$m_3$ & ($-m$, 0, 0) & (0, $-m$, 0) & (0, 0, $-m$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$m_4$ & ($m$, 0, 0) & (0, $m$, 0) & (0, 0, $m $)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$|m|^{\text{lm}}_\text{spin}$ ($\mu_B$) & 5 & 4 / 3 & 2\
$4a$ (Li) $8d$ (O$_3$)
---------- ----- ----------- -------------- ---------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------------------------ ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- --------- --------- --------- -------- ------------
$D_{2h}$ $e$ $c_{2z}$ $c_{2y}$ $c_{2x}$ $i$ $i_{2z}$ $i_{2y}$ $i_{2x}$ $a$, $q_{z^{2}/x^{2}-y^{2}}$ $t_{x}$, $q_{yz}$ $t_{y}$, $q_{zx}$ $t_{z}$, $q_{xy}$ $m_{x}$ $m_{y}$ $m_{z}$ $a$ $a$
$A_{g}$ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 $+--+$ 0 $++--$ 0 $+-+-$ 0 0 $++++----$
$B_{1g}$ 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 $++--$ 0 $+--+$ 0 $+-+-$ 0 $++++$ 0 $++----++$
$B_{2g}$ 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 0 $++--$ 0 $+--+$ 0 $++++$ 0 0 $+-+--+-+$
$B_{3g}$ 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 $+--+$ 0 $++--$ 0 $++++$ 0 $+-+-$ 0 $+--+-++-$
$A_{u}$ 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 $++++$ 0 $+-+-$ 0 $+--+$ 0 $++--$ $++++$ $++++++++$
$B_{1u}$ 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 0 $+-+-$ 0 $++++$ 0 $+--+$ 0 $++--$ $++--++--$
$B_{2u}$ 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 $+-+-$ 0 $++++$ 0 $++--$ 0 $+--+$ $+-+-$ $+-+-+-+-$
$B_{3u}$ 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 0 $++++$ 0 $+-+-$ 0 $++--$ 0 $+--+$ $+--++--+$
Symmetry analysis
-----------------
In Table \[tab:LiMPO4-character\] we show the character table of the $D_{2h}$ symmetry group and indicate which irreducible representations are adopted by each possible collinear ordering of the transition metal magnetic moments, $m$, along the cartesian axes, as well as the symmetries of the possible monopolar $a$, toroidal $t$ and quadrupolar $q$ orderings on the transition metal sites.
In LiMnPO$_4$ the easy axis is the $a$ axis, and the magnetic moments adopt a C-type antiferromagnetic ordering with order parameter $m_1 - m_2 - m_3 + m_4$[@ToftPetersen_et_al:2012], this combination belongs to the $A_u$ irreducible representation of the the $D_{2h}$ symmetry group. (This ordering allows for a simultaneous A-type antiferromagnetic canting along the $c$ axis which is negligible in our DFT calculations and we neglect here. Note that a weak ferromagentic canting has also been reported, which is not compatible with the $Pnma$ symmetry analysis[@Arcon_et_al:2004]; this we also neglect.) We see from the line corresponding to the $A_u$ irreducible representation in Table \[tab:LiMPO4-character\] that the ordering of local M-site monopole moments all with the same sign also has $A_u$ symmetry, therefore LiMnPO$_4$ is ferromonopolar and supports a macroscopic monopolization. Conversely there is no net toroidal moment, with only an anti-ferrotorodial ordering along the $b$ direction allowed on the Mn sites. This is consistent with the experimental observation that the magnetoelectric response has only diagonal components[@Mercier/Gareyte/Bertaut:1967]. We note also that the $z^2$ and $x^2-y^2$ quadrupolar components have the same symmetry as the monopole; these quadrupolar contributions are responsible for the inequality between the magnitudes of the diagonal elements of the magnetoelectric tensor.
LiCoPO$_4$ has been of particular recent interest because the observation of ferrotoroidic domains using nonlinear optical techniques has been reported.[@VanAken_et_al:2007] Both LiCoPO$_4$ and LiFePO$_4$ also adopt a C-type antiferromagnetic ordering, but in contrast to LiMnPO$_4$, both have their easy axis primarily along the $b$ axis[@Santoro/Segal/Newnham:1966; @Liang_et_al:2008]. This corresponds to the $B_{1u}$ irreducible representation which we see from Table \[tab:LiMPO4-character\] disallows both a macroscopic monopolization and any local monopolar contribution on the transition metal sites. This symmetry allows, however, a toroidal moment parallel to the $c$ axis. As a result the magnetoelectric responses of both compounds are entirely off-diagonal[@Mercier/Bauer/Fouilleux:1968; @Mercier/Gareyte/Bertaut:1967]
, although $\alpha_{xy}$ is not exactly equal to -$\alpha_{yx}$ (which would be the case for a purely toroidal response) because a ferroquadrupolar $q_{xy}$ component is allowed with the same symmetry as $t_z$. (We note that recently it was found that the magnetic moments in LiCoPO$_4$ and LiFePO$_4$ are rotated slightly away from the $b$ direction [@Vaknin_et_al:2002; @Li_et_al:2006]. Such a symmetry lowering is not compatible with the $Pnma$ space group and requires an additional structural distortion that has not yet been identified. We do not treat these further symmetry lowerings here.)
Finally we turn to the case of LiNiPO$_4$, which again has C-type AFM ordering, but this time with easy axis along the $c$ direction[@Jensen_et_al:2009], so that the Ni sublattice has magnetic point group $mm'm$ and transforms according to the $B_{2u}$ representation. (This symmetry also allows a small A-type AFM canting of the magnetic moments along the $a$ direction which has been reported [@Jensen_et_al:2009] and which we neglect here). While this symmetry does not allow a net macroscopic monopolization, local monopoles are allowed on the Ni ions and must order with an [*antimonopolar*]{} arrangement. A macroscopic toroidal moment is again allowed, this time along the $b$ direction, consistent with the corresponding off-diagonal magnetoelectric effect[@Mercier/Bauer:1968; @Jensen_et_al:2009; @Bousquet/Spaldin/Delaney:2011].
In this series, therefore, we find one example – LiMnPO$_4$ – of a material with a net monopolization, in which the local monopole moments on the transition metal sites are aligned in a ferromonopolar arrangement. We also find an example – LiNiPO$_4$ – which has no macroscopic monopolization, but has a finite-$q$ antimonopolar ordering on the transition metal sites. In the remaining two compounds – LiCoPO$_4$ and LiFePO$_4$ – the macroscopic monopolization and the local monopoles on the transition metal sites are both zero by symmetry. We summarize our symmetry analysis in Table \[Eric\_Symmetry\].
[lccccc]{} label & $M$ & magnetic order & ME & Toroidal & Monopole
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$A_u$ & Mn & $C_x$, $A_z$ & $\begin{pmatrix} \alpha_{xx} & & \\
& \alpha_{yy} & \\
& & \alpha_{zz} \\
\end{pmatrix}
$ & $(0,0,0)$ & $\varnothing$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$B_{1u}$ & Co, Fe & $C_y$ & $\begin{pmatrix} &\alpha_{xy} & \\
\alpha_{yx}& & \\
& & \\
\end{pmatrix}
$ & $(0,0,T_z)$ & 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$B_{2u}$ & Ni & $C_z$, $A_x$ & $\begin{pmatrix} & & \alpha_{xz} \\
& & \\
\alpha_{zx}& & \\
\end{pmatrix}
$ & $(0,T_y,0)$ & 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
While it is at first sight tempting to describe LiCoPO$_4$ and LiFePO$_4$ as [*non-monopolar*]{}, this is not strictly correct, as we discuss next. First, we note that in the LiMPO$_4$ family, the P atom and the O$_1$ and O$_2$ atoms also occupy $4c$ sites, and so follow the same symmetry transformations as the transition metal ions. This means that for LiMnPO$_4$ and LiNiPO$_4$ local monopoles are allowed on these atoms. Of the remaining sites, the $4a$ of Li have only $\i$ as a symmetry operation, and the $8d$ sites of the O$_3$ have no site symmetry. In Table \[tab:LiMPO4-character\] we also list the symmetries and possible monopole orderings of the $4a$ and $8d$ sites. We find that for the $A_{1u}$ irreducible representation of LiMnPO$_4$, the monopoles on Li and O$_3$ have the same ferromonopolar ordering as the Mn sites. Likewise, for LiNiPO$_4$, in which the Ni sites have antiferromonopolar ordering, an antiferromonopolar ordering of the Li and O$_3$ monopoles is also found. Most notably, for LiFePO$_4$ and LiCoPO$_4$, which have non-monopolar transition metal $4b$ sites, antiferromagnetically ordered monopoles are allowed on the $4a$ and $8d$ sites.
In the next section we use first-principles density functional theory to calculate the magnitudes of these various contributions.
Density functional calculations of atomic site monopoles and macroscopic monopolizations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our calculations were done using the local spin density approximation with an additional Hubbard $U$ correction on the transition metal sites (the LSDA$+U$ method). We took values of $U$=5eV and $J$=0.75eV for all systems; these values correctly reproduce the experimentally reported magnetic orderings and anisotropies. For structural optimizations we used the Vienna ab initio simulation package (VASP) [@Kresse/Furthmueller_PRB:1996] with a plane-wave basis set and projector augmented wave[@Kresse/Joubert:1999] potentials. Our energy cutoff and $k$-point grid were 500 eV and $2\times 2\times 4$ respectively. We used default VASP PAW potentials with the following electrons in the valence: Li (1s, 2s), O (2s, 2p), P (3s, 3p), Co (3d, 4s), Mn, Fe and Ni (3p, 3d, 4s). Structural relaxations were performed in the absence of spin-orbit coupling. For the monopole calculations we used the structures obtained form the VASP code, then used the linearized augmented plane wave (LAPW) method as implemented in the ELK code[@ELK] with spin-orbit coupling included to calculate the charge and spin density. We used a basis set of $l_{max(apw)}=10$, a $9 \times 5 \times 5$ k-point sampling of the Brillouin zone and took the product of the muffin tin radius and the maximum reciprocal lattice vector to be 7.5. To calculate the atomic site monopoles ($a^{\text{as}}$) we decomposed the the density matrix into tensor moments as described in Section \[Calculation\_and\_Measurement\] [@Bultmark_et_al:2009] and evaluated the $d-p$ matrix elements for the transition metal atoms and the $p-s$ matrix elements for the Li, P and O atoms.
In Table \[Results\] we report our calculated local atomic site monopoles $a^\text{as}$, for the series of transition metal phosphates, as well as the local moment contribution, $a^\text{lm}$. Note that the orbital component makes no contribution by symmetry to the atomic site monopoles, and its magnitude is negligible in the local moment monopole of the ferromonopolar LiMnPO$_4$ because of the half-filled Mn$^{2+}$ $d$ shell. We also report the total macroscopic monopolizations, normalized to the unit volume, $A$.
The first thing to note is that, in the ferromonopolar case of LiMnPO$_4$, the local moment monopole is as expected considerably larger – by around three orders of magnitude – than the atomic site monopoles. The value of the local moment monopole in one four-formula unit unit cell is 2.09 $\mu_B \AA$, whereas the local atomic site monopoles are all around 10$^{-3} \mu_B \AA$. Even when summed over all the atomic sites, the contribution from the atomic site monopoles is still only $8.52 \times 10^{-3} \mu_B \AA$; it is so small in part because of cancellations between site monopoles of different sign. The macroscopic monopolization, $A$, which is the total monopole per unit volume, then derives almost entirely from the local moment contribution. We obtain a value of $A= 6.95 \times 10^{-3} \mu_B/\AA^2$ modulo the monopolization increment of $11.54 \times 10^{-3} \mu_B /\AA^2$ $\mu_B/\AA^2$. Note that, since we treat the magnetic moments as collinear along a lattice vector there is just one monopolization increment.
For the other compounds a net monopolization is forbidden by symmetry, and so the local moment monopole and the total monopolization are both formally zero. We find, however, non-zero values for those atomic site monopoles that are allowed by symmetry, always with the appropriate symmetry-allowed antiferromagnetic ordering. Particularly interestingly, we find that when atomic site monopoles are symmetry allowed on the P and O atoms, they are comparable to or larger than the values on the transition metals. The relative sizes of the atomic site monopoles can be understood from inspection of the magnetization density: In Fig. \[mag\_density\] we show the isosurface of our calculated magnetization density at 0.00125 $\mu_B / \AA\ ^3$ for LiNiPO$_4$, with blue and red surfaces indicating positive and negative density, as well as a slice through the magnetization density coinciding with the Ni site positions. The small deviation from a perfectly spherical distribution around the Ni atom is indicative of the monopolar and other non-dipolar multipolar contributions. It is clear that the magnetization density around the oxygen atoms, while smaller in magnitude, is more non-spherical than that around Ni. In particular, the magnetization density changes sign at the O$_3$ sites, indicating a highly non-spherical magnetization density which is consistent with their having the largest atomic site monopoles, The atomic site monopole on Li, although non-zero by symmetry for every case, is always small, consistent with the highly ionic nature of the Li$^+$ ion; since the charge density around the Li ions is close to zero, the magnetization density is too (Fig. \[mag\_density\]). Finally we note that the atomic site monopole on Ni in LiNiPO$_4$ is one order of magnitude smaller than that on Mn in LiMnPO$_4$, even though its local magnetic dipole moments is only $\sim$2.5 times smaller. Our initial computer experiments suggest that this is partly a result of the different magnetic anisotropy in the two cases, as a calculation with the Ni moments constrained to have the same orientation as those of Mn in LiMnPO$_4$ yields increased atomic site monopoles. A detailed study of the factors that determine the magnitudes of atomic site monopoles will be the subject of future work.
![Calculated magnetization density isosurface for LiNiPO$_4$. The blue and red surfaces correspond to positive or negative density, respectively. []{data-label="mag_density"}](fig2.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
[lrrrr]{} & Mn & Fe & Co & Ni
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$a^{\text{as}}$ ($\times 10^{-3} \mu_B \AA$) & & & &\
M & 1.94 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Li & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
P & 3.20 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.49
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
O$_1$ & -7.68 & 0.00 & 0.00 & -3.14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
O$_2$ & 7.14 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 4.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
O$_3$ & -1.26 & -6.02& -6.74 &-7.63
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$\sum a^{as}$ ($\times 10^{-3} \mu_B \AA$)& 8.52 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$a^{lm}$ ($\times 10^{-3} \mu_B \AA$)& 2091.94 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$A^{\text{lm}}$ ($\times 10^{-3}\mu_B$/Å$^2$) & 6.92 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$A$ ($\times 10^{-3}\mu_B$/Å$^2$) & 5.95 & 0.00 &0.00 & 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Multiferroic Free Energy with monopole contributions {#GLTheory}
====================================================
As stated above, from a macroscopic symmetry point of view, the symmetries which allow for a macroscopic monopolization are identical with that allowing for a diagonal component of the linear magnetoelectric effect tensor. In this section, we develop the relationship between these two quantities by analyzing the following free energy expression: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{free-energy}
U = \frac{1}{2 \epsilon} P^2 - {\bm{P}}\cdot{\bm{E}} + \frac{1}{2 \chi} M^2 -
{\bm{M}}\cdot{\bm{H}} \\
+ \frac{1}{2} \beta A^2 + \frac{1}{4}\gamma A^4 + c A {\bm{P}} \cdot {\bm{M}}
\quad ,\end{gathered}$$ where $\epsilon$ and $\chi$ are the electric and magnetic susceptibilities, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are temperature-dependent coefficients, and $c$ determines the strength of the magnetoelectric coupling. This is the simplest possible free energy expression that can simultaneously describe (i) a phase transition from a para-monopolar ($A=0$) into a ferromonopolar phase ($A \neq 0$), (ii) the coupling of the electric polarization ${\bm{P}}$ and the magnetization ${\bm{M}}$ to the electric field ${\bm{E}}$ and the magnetic field ${\bm{H}}$, respectively, and (iii) a coupling between the electric polarization, the magnetization, and the monopolization. Note that only the magnetization and the polarization couple to ${\bm{H}}$ and ${\bm{E}}$, the monopolization in general does not couple to any homogeneous external fields, in agreement with the fundamental definitions discussed in Sec. \[MultipoleExpansion\]. The trilinear form of the coupling term in Eq. (\[free-energy\]) is the lowest possible order that is compatible with the overall space and time reversal symmetries. Since our purpose here is to discuss the new features arising from this trilinear coupling, we leave for future work the analysis of gradient terms in the free energy that would be required to describe for example variations in monopolization, magnetization or polarization at domain walls. The equilibrium values for ${\bm{P}}$ and ${\bm{M}}$ can be obtained by minimizing Eq. (\[free-energy\]). This leads to: $$\label{pol}
{\bm{P}} = \epsilon ( {\bm{E}} - c A {\bm{M}} )$$ and $$\label{mag}
{\bm{M}} = \chi ( {\bm{H}} - c A {\bm{P}} ) \quad .$$ If one inserts Eq. (\[mag\]) into Eq. (\[pol\]) one obtains (to leading order in $A$): $$\label{PME}
{\bm{P}} = \epsilon ( {\bm{E}} - \chi c A {\bm{H}} ) \quad .$$ The last term in Eq. (\[PME\]) is a symmetric linear magnetoelectric effect proportional to the monopolization. Thus, the presence of the trilinear coupling term between monopolization, magnetization, and polarization in Eq. (\[free-energy\]) gives rise to a diagonal magnetoelectric effect ${\bm{P}} = \alpha {\bm{H}}$ in the ferromonopolar phase, with $$\alpha_{ii} = \alpha_{jj} = \alpha_{kk} = \epsilon \chi c A \quad .$$ (Note that an off-diagonal magnetoelectric effect is obtained from a trilinear coupling between toroidization, magnetization and polarization, as discussed in Ref. ).
Conversely, the presence of a monopolar contribution can be inferred from the existence of a diagonal linear magnetoelectric response, the magnitude of which is determined by the product of the dielectric susceptibility, magnetic permeability, monopolization and the strength of the coupling between $A$, ${\bm{P}}$ and ${\bm{M}}$. If the linear magnetoelectric response is diagonal and isotropic, then there can be no quadrupolar contributions and the response arises entirely from monopolar contributions. We see also from Eqn. \[PME\] that in the case of antiferromonopolar ordering, a homogeneous magnetic field will induce a finite-$q$ polarization. Such a relationship could be used in the case of $q=\pi/a$, to provide a more fundamental definition of an antiferroelectric in simultaneously antiferromonopolar systems, than the current unsatisfactory working definition based on the observation of double-loop hysteresis. Finally we mention that an additional interesting consequence of the relationship between the monopolization and the diagonal magnetoelectric effect is the induction of monopoles by electric charge. This has been discussed previously in the context of axion electrodynamics[@Wilczek:1987], and is currently being revisited in the context of topological insulators[@Essin/Moore/Vanderbilt:2009].
Summary, conclusions, and outlook {#conclusions}
=================================
In summary we have presented a theoretical analysis of magnetoelectric monopoles in bulk periodic solids. We introduced the term “monopolization” to describe the monopole moment per unit volume, and considered two contributions, one arising from the local variation in magnetization density around the atom and the second from the distribution of localized magnetic dipole moments throughout the unit cell. We found that the latter dominates the total monopolization in transition metal compounds with ferromonopolar ordering. We showed that, for ferromonopolar materials, periodic boundary conditions lead to a multivaluedness of the monopolization, suggesting that only differences in monopolization are well-defined observable macroscopic quantities. We found also that care must be taken in evaluating such monopolization differences: For example in the example of the distorted one-dimensional antiferromagnetic chain discussed in Sec.\[chain\], the change in monopolization due to a structural distortion can be calculated straightforwardly, whereas in the case of a magnetic moment reversal one has to subtract the improper monopolization change that is caused by the corresponding change in the monopolization increment.
Quantitative measurements of monopolizations are challenging. The atomic site monopolization can in principle be detected using resonant x-ray scattering, although the experimental constraints are rather rigorous and a suitable material for such an experiment has not yet been identified. In particular, for most space group symmetries the sites that allow an atomic site monopole also allow an atomic site quadrupolar component, and disentangling the two contributions is not straightforward [@Staub_et_al:2009]. This problem can be circumvented by selecting materials with an isotropic diagonal magnetoelectric response [@Hehl_et_al:2008], however few such materials have been identified to date. Even more problematic is the question of how to measure the macroscopic local moment monopolization. According to the fundamental definition of the monopole moment, this is in principle possible by measuring the effect on a sample of a diverging magnetic field, however such a field is not accessible. It is possible that earlier observations of a quadrupolar magnetic field around a spherical sample of the prototypical diagonal magnetoelectric Cr$_2$O$_3$ [@Astrov/Ermakov:1994; @Astrov_et_al:1996] also incorporate a monopolar contribution; the theory underlying these measurements will be revisited in future work [@Dzyaloshinskii:1992]. It has also been recently proposed that signatures of monopolar behavior will manifest in the transport properties of diagonal magnetoelectrics [@Khomskii:2013]
An open question, both for ferrotoroidic and ferromonopolar materials is whether the toroidal moment or monopole moment respectively can be a primary order parameter, or is always secondary to an antiferromagnetic or structural ordering. Currently no case has been identified even theoretically in which the monopolization is non-zero while there is no magnetic ordering, although it is possible that some “hidden-order parameter” materials that are of current interest might prove to fall into this class [@Shekhter/Varma:2009]. The fact that the monopole order parameter is a scalar might be helpful in distinguishing responses that arise from the antiferromagnetism from those of the monopole, in cases where the antiferromagnetic order parameter is a vector. Within the class of secondary ferromonopolar materials, it is also an open question whether there is a fundamental difference between the case in which the primary order parameter is the AFM ordering, and that where it is a structural phase transition from a centrosymmetric antiferromagnet (which does not allow monopolization) to a non-centrosymmetric monopolar state.
Finally, we mention that it has been argued that ferrotoroidicity is a key concept for fitting all forms of ferroic order in a simple fundamental scheme based on the different transformation properties of the corresponding order parameters with respect to time and space inversion (see Refs. , in particular Fig. 2 in Ref. ). It is clear that from a symmetry point of view, that the monopolization could play a similar role, since a ferromonopolar material also breaks both space-inversion and time-reversal symmetry. As a result the nonlinear optical techniques used in Ref. to identify ferrotoroidic ordering are sensitive also to the monopolar symmetry breaking, and could provide indirect evidence for the presence of monopolization. In addition, the four fundamental forms of ferroic order, with order parameters transforming according to the four different representations of the “parity group” generated by the two operations of time and space reversal[@Ascher:1974] could be chosen to be ferroelasticity, ferroelectricity, ferromagnetism, and ferromonopolicity (rather than ferrotoroidicity). Whether the scalar nature of the monopole, compared with the vector nature of the toroidal moment, makes this choice more or less appropriate is an open question.
This work was supported financially by the ETH Zürich (NAS, MF and EB), by the ERC Advanced Grant program, No. 291151 (NAS and EB), by the Max Rössler Prize of the ETH Zürich (NAS), Nordita (AB), US DoE (AB) and the Swedish Research Council (AB and LN). EB is a Research Associate of the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique, FNRS, Belgium. NAS thanks Nordita, the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics, for their hospitality during a visit where much of this work was performed.
[52]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, in **, edited by (, ), pp. .
(, ), pp. .
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, (), <http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.85.224415>.
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
**.
, ****, (), <http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1799>.
, , , ****, (), <http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.146805>.
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (), .
, ****, ().
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
This is the fifth in a series of papers where we prove a conjecture of Deser and Schwimmer regarding the algebraic structure of “global conformal invariants”; these are defined to be conformally invariant integrals of geometric scalars. The conjecture asserts that the integrand of any such integral can be expressed as a linear combination of a local conformal invariant, a divergence and of the Chern-Gauss-Bonnet integrand.
The present paper complements [@alexakis4] in reducing the purely algebraic results that were used in [@alexakis1; @alexakis2] to certain simpler Lemmas, which will be proven in the last paper in this series, [@alexakis6].
author:
- 'Spyros Alexakis[^1]'
title: 'The decomposition of Global Conformal Invariants V.'
---
Introduction
============
This is the fourth in a series of papers [@alexakis1; @alexakis3; @alexakis4; @alexakis5; @alexakis6] where we prove a conjecture of Deser-Schwmimmer [@ds:gccaad] regarding the algebraic structure of global conformal invariants. We recall that a global conformal invariant is an integral of a natural scalar-valued function of Riemannian metrics, $\int_{M^n}P(g)dV_g$, with the property that this integral remains invariant under conformal re-scalings of the underlying metric.[^2] More precisely, $P(g)$ is assumed to be a linear combination, $P(g)=\sum_{l\in L} a_l C^l(g)$, where each $C^l(g)$ is a complete contraction in the form:
$$\label{contraction}
contr^l(\nabla^{(m_1)}R\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{(m_s)}R);$$
here each factor $\nabla^{(m)}R$ stands for the $m^{th}$ iterated covariant derivative of the curvature tensor $R$. $\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection of the metric $g$ and $R$ is the curvature associated to this connection. The contractions are taken with respect to the quadratic form $g^{ij}$. In this series of papers we prove:
\[thetheorem\] Assume that $P(g)=\sum_{l\in L} a_l C^l(g)$, where each $C^l(g)$ is a complete contraction in the form (\[contraction\]), with weight $-n$. Assume that for every closed Riemannian manifold $(M^n,g)$ and every $\phi\in C^\infty (M^n)$: $$\int_{M^n}P(e^{2\phi}g)dV_{e^{2\phi}g}=\int_{M^n}P(g)dV_g.$$
We claim that $P(g)$ can then be expressed in the form: $$P(g)=W(g)+div_iT^i(g)+\operatorname{Pfaff}(R_{ijkl}).$$ Here $W(g)$ stands for a local conformal invariant of weight $-n$ (meaning that $W(e^{2\phi}g)=e^{-n\phi}W(g)$ for every $\phi\in C^\infty (M^n)$), $div_iT^i(g)$ is the divergence of a Riemannian vector field of weight $-n+1$, and $\operatorname{Pfaff}(R_{ijkl})$ is the Pfaffian of the curvature tensor.
Before we discuss the position of the present paper in the series [@alexakis1]–[@alexakis6], we digress to describe the relation between the present series of papers with classical and recent work on scalar local invariants in various geometries.
[**Broad Discussion:**]{} The theory of [*local*]{} invariants of Riemannian structures (and indeed, of more general geometries, e.g. conformal, projective, or CR) has a long history. As discussed in [@alexakis1], the original foundations of this field were laid in the work of Hermann Weyl and Élie Cartan, see [@w:cg; @cartan]. The task of writing out local invariants of a given geometry is intimately connected with understanding polynomials in a space of tensors with given symmetries; these polynomials are required to remain invariant under the action of a Lie group on the components of the tensors. In particular, the problem of writing down all local Riemannian invariants reduces to understanding the invariants of the orthogonal group.
In more recent times, a major program was laid out by C. Fefferman in [@f:ma] aimed at finding all scalar local invariants in CR geometry. This was motivated by the problem of understanding the local invariants which appear in the asymptotic expansion of the Bergman and Szegö kernels of strictly pseudo-convex CR manifolds, in a similar way to which Riemannian invariants appear in the asymptotic expansion of the heat kernel; the study of the local invariants in the singularities of these kernels led to important breakthroughs in [@beg:itccg] and more recently by Hirachi in [@hirachi1]. This program was later extended to conformal geometry in [@fg:ci]. Both these geometries belong to a broader class of structures, the [*parabolic geometries*]{}; these admit a principal bundle with structure group a parabolic subgroup $P$ of a semi-simple Lie group $G$, and a Cartan connection on that principle bundle (see the introduction in [@cg1]). An important question in the study of these structures is the problem of constructing all their local invariants, which can be thought of as the [*natural, intrinsic*]{} scalars of these structures.
In the context of conformal geometry, the first (modern) landmark in understanding [*local conformal invariants*]{} was the work of Fefferman and Graham in 1985 [@fg:ci], where they introduced the [*ambient metric*]{}. This allows one to construct local conformal invariants of any order in odd dimensions, and up to order $\frac{n}{2}$ in even dimensions. The question is then whether [*all*]{} invariants arise via this construction.
The subsequent work of Bailey-Eastwood-Graham [@beg:itccg] proved that this is indeed true in odd dimensions; in even dimensions, they proved that the result holds when the weight (in absolute value) is bounded by the dimension. The ambient metric construction in even dimensions was recently extended by Graham-Hirachi, [@grhir]; this enables them to indentify in a satisfactory way [*all*]{} local conformal invariants, even when the weight (in absolute value) exceeds the dimension.
An alternative construction of local conformal invariants can be obtained via the [*tractor calculus*]{} introduced by Bailey-Eastwood-Gover in [@bego]. This construction bears a strong resemblance to the Cartan conformal connection, and to the work of T.Y. Thomas in 1934, [@thomas]. The tractor calculus has proven to be very universal; tractor buncles have been constructed [@cg1] for an entire class of parabolic geometries. The relation betweeen the conformal tractor calculus and the Fefferman-Graham ambient metric has been elucidated in [@cg2].
The present work [@alexakis1]–[@alexakis6], while pertaining to the question above (given that it ultimately deals with the algebraic form of local [*Riemannian*]{} and [*conformal*]{} invariants), nonetheless addresses a different [*type*]{} of problem: We here consider Riemannian invariants $P(g)$ for which the [*integral*]{} $\int_{M^n}P(g)dV_g$ remains invariant under conformal changes of the underlying metric; we then seek to understand the possible algebraic form of the [*integrand*]{} $P(g)$, ultimately proving that it can be de-composed in the way that Deser and Schwimmer asserted. It is thus not surprising that the prior work on the construction and understanding of local [*conformal*]{} invariants plays a central role in this endeavor, in the papers [@alexakis2; @alexakis3].
On the other hand, a central element of our proof are the main algebraic Propositions 5.1, 3.1, 3.2 in [@alexakis1; @alexakis2]; these deal [*exclusively*]{} with algebraic properties of the [*classical*]{} scalar Riemannian invariants.[^3] The “fundamental Proposition \[giade\]” makes no reference to integration; it is purely a statement concerning [*local Riemannian invariants*]{}. Thus, while the author was led to led to the main algebraic Propositions in [@alexakis1; @alexakis2] out of the strategy that he felt was necessary to solve the Deser-Schwimmer conjecture, they can be thought of as results of an independent interest. The [*proof*]{} of these Propositions, presented in the present paper and in [@alexakis6] is in fact not particularily intuitive. It is the author’s sincere hope that deeper insight (and hopefuly a more intuitive proof) will be obtained in the future as to [*why*]{} these algebraic Propositions hold.
We now discuss the position of the present paper in this series of papers.
The purpose of the present paper is to complete the part IIA in this series: In [@alexakis1; @alexakis2; @alexakis3] we proved that the Deser-Schwimmer conjecture holds, [*provided*]{} one can show certain “Main algebraic propositions”, namely 5.2 in [@alexakis1] and 3.1, 3.2 in [@alexakis2]. In [@alexakis4] we claimed a more general Proposition which [*implies*]{} Proposition 5.2 in [@alexakis1] and Propositions 3.1, 3.2 in [@alexakis2]; this new “fundamental Proposition” 2.1 in [@alexakis4] is to be proven by an induction of four parameters. In [@alexakis4] we also reduced the inductive step of Proposition 2.1 to three Lemmas (in particular we distinguished cases I,II,III on Proposition 2.1 by examiniming the tensor fields appearing in its hypothesis, see (\[hypothese2\]) below; Lemmas 3.1, 3.2, 3.5 in [@alexakis4] correspond to these three cases). We proved that these three Lemmas [*imply*]{} the inductive step of the fundamental Proposition in cases I,II,III respectively, apart from certain [*special cases*]{} which were deferred to the present paper. In these special cases we will derive Proposition 2.1 in [@alexakis4] directly,[^4] in section \[specialcases\]. Now, in [*proving*]{} that the inductive step of Proposition \[giade\] follows from Lemmas 3.1, 3.2, 3.5 in [@alexakis4] we asserted certain [*technical Lemmas*]{}, whose proof was deferred to the present paper. These were Lemmas 4.6, 4.8, and 4.7, 4.9 in [@alexakis4]; also, the proof of Lemma 5.1 in [@alexakis4] was deferred to the present paper. We prove all these Lemmas from [@alexakis4] in section \[technical.lemmas\].
For reference purposes, and for the reader’s convenience, we recall the precise formulation of the “fundamental Proposition” 2.1 in [@alexakis4], referring the reader to [@alexakis4] for a definition of many of the terms appearing in the formulation. First however, we will recall (schematically) the “main algebraic Proposition” 5.2 in [@alexakis1]; this is a [*special case*]{} of Proposition 2.1 in [@alexakis4], and provides a simpler version of it.
[*A simpler version of Proposition 2.1 in [@alexakis4]:*]{} Given a Riemannian metric $g$ over an $n$-dimensional manifold $M^n$ and auxilliary $C^\infty$ scalar-valued functions $\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p$ defined over $M^n$, the objects of study are linear combinations of tensor fields $\sum_{l\in L} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g$, where each $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g$ is a [*partial contraction*]{} with $\alpha$ free indices, in the form: $$\label{gen.form1}
pcontr(\nabla^{(m)}R\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{(m_s)}R\otimes
\nabla^{(b_1)}\Omega_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{(b_m)}\Omega_p);$$ here $\nabla^{(m)}R$ stands for the $m^{th}$ covariant derivative of the curvature tesnor $R$,[^5] and $\nabla^{(b)}\Omega_h$ stands for the $b^{th}$ covariant derivative of the function $\Omega_h$. A [*partial contraction*]{} means that we have list of pairs of indices $({}_a,{}_b),\dots, ({}_c,{}_d)$ in (\[gen.form1\]), which are contracted against each other using the metric $g^{ij}$. The remaining indices (which are not contracted against another index in (\[gen.form1\])) are the [*free indices*]{} ${}_{i_1},\dots, {}_{i_\alpha}$.
The “main algebraic Proposition” 5.2 in [@alexakis1] (roughly) asserts the following: Let $\sum_{l\in L_{\mu}} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ stand for a linear combination of partial contractions in the form (\[gen.form1\]), where each $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ has a given number $\sigma_1$ of factors and a given number $p$ of factor $\nabla^{(b)}\Omega_h$. Assume also that $\sigma_1+p\ge 3$, each $b_i\ge 2$,[^6] and that for each contracting pair of indices $({}_a,{}_b)$ in any given $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g$, the indices ${}_a,{}_b$ do not belong to the same factor. Assume also the rank $\mu>0$ is fixed and each partial contraction $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g, l\in L_\mu$ has a given [*weight*]{} $-n+\mu$.[^7] Let also $\sum_{l\in L_{>\mu}} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_{y_l}}_g$ stand for a (formal) linear combination of partial contractions of weight $-n+y_l$, with all the properties of the terms indexed in $L_\mu$, [*except*]{} that now all the partial contractions have a different rank $y_l$, and each $y_l>\mu$.
The assumption of the “main algebraic Proposition” 5.1 in [@alexakis1] is a local equation in the form:
$$\label{assumption.1}
\sum_{l\in L_\mu} a_l Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_\mu}C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g+
\sum_{l\in L_{>\mu}} a_l Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_{y_l}}C^{l,i_1\dots i_{y_l}}_g=0,$$
which is assumed to hold [*modulo*]{} complete contractions with $\sigma+1$ factors. Here given a partial contraction $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g$ in the form (\[gen.form1\]) $Xdiv_{i_s}[C^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g]$ stands for sum of $\sigma-1$ terms in $div_{i_s}[C^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g]$ where the derivative $\nabla^{i_s}$ is [*not*]{} allowed to hit the factor to which the free index ${}_{i_s}$ belongs.[^8]
Proposition 5.2 in [@alexakis1] then asserts that there will exist a linear combination of partial contactions in the form (\[gen.form1\]), $\sum_{h\in H} a_h C^{h,i_1\dots i_{\mu+1}}_g$ with all the properties of the terms indexed in $L_{>\mu}$, and all with rank $(\mu+1)$, so that:
$$\label{assumption.1}
\sum_{l\in L_1} a_l C^{l,(i_1\dots i_\mu)}_g+
\sum_{h\in H} a_h Xdiv_{i_{\mu+1}}
C^{l,(i_1\dots i_\mu)i_{\mu+1}}_g=0;$$
the above holds modulo terms of length $\sigma+1$. The symbol $(\dots)$ means that we are [*symmetrizing*]{} over the indices between prentheses.
In [@alexakis4] we set up a multiple induction by which we will prove Proposition 5.2 in [@alexakis1] (outlined above) and also the main algebraic Propositions 3.1, 3.2 in [@alexakis2]. The generalized proposition \[giade\] which we formulated in [@alexakis4] deals with tensor fields in the forms: $$\label{form1}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla^{(m_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{(m_s)}R_{ijkl}
\otimes
\\& \nabla^{(b_1)}\Omega_1\otimes\dots\otimes \nabla^{(b_p)}\Omega_p
\otimes\nabla\phi_1\otimes\dots \otimes\nabla\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{form2}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla^{(m_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{(m_{\sigma_1})}
R_{ijkl}\otimes \\&S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_t)} R_{ijkl}\otimes
\\& \nabla^{(b_1)}\Omega_1\otimes\dots\otimes
\nabla^{(b_p)}\Omega_p\otimes
\\& \nabla\phi_{z_1}\dots \otimes\nabla\phi_{z_w}\otimes\nabla
\phi'_{z_{w+1}}\otimes
\dots\otimes\nabla\phi'_{z_{w+d}}\otimes\dots \otimes
\nabla\tilde{\phi}_{z_{w+d+1}}\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla\tilde{\phi}_{z_{w+d+y}}).
\end{split}$$
(See the introduction in [@alexakis4] for a detailed description of the above form). We remark that a complete or partial contraction in the above form will be called “acceptable” if each $b_i\ge 2$, for $1\le i\le p$.[^9] This convention was introduced in [@alexakis4].
The claim of Proposition is a generalization of the “main algebraic Proposition” in [@alexakis1]:
\[giade\] Consider two linear combinations of acceptable tensor fields in the form (\[form2\]):
$${\sum}_{l\in L_\mu} a_l
C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u),$$
$${\sum}_{l\in L_{>\mu}} a_l
C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\beta_l}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u),$$ where each tensor field above has real length $\sigma\ge 3$ and a given simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$. We assume that for each $l\in L_{>\mu}$, $\beta_l\ge \mu+1$. We also assume that none of the tensor fields of maximal refined double character in $L_\mu$ are “forbidden” (see Definition (2.12)).
We denote by $${\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)$$ a generic linear combination of complete contractions (not necessarily acceptable) in the form (\[form1\]) that are simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$.[^10] We assume that:
$$\label{hypothese2}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{l\in L_1} a_l Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_{\alpha}}
C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\alpha}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)+
\\&{\sum}_{l\in L_2} a_l Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_{\beta_l}}
C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\beta_l}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)+
\\& {\sum}_{j\in J} a_j
C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)=0.
\end{split}$$
We draw our conclusion with a little more notation: We break the index set $L_\mu$ into subsets $L^z, z\in Z$, ($Z$ is finite) with the rule that each $L^z$ indexes tensor fields with the same refined double character, and conversely two tensor fields with the same refined double character must be indexed in the same $L^z$. For each index set $L^z$, we denote the refined double character in question by $\vec{L}^z$. Consider the subsets $L^z$ that index the tensor fields of [*maximal*]{} refined double character.[^11] We assume that the index set of those $z$’s is $Z_{Max}\subset Z$.
We claim that for each $z\in Z_{Max}$ there is some linear combination of acceptable $(\mu +1)$-tensor fields,
$${\sum}_{r\in R^z} a_r C^{r,i_1\dots i_{\alpha +1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,
\dots ,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u),$$ where each $C^{r,i_1\dots i_{\mu +1}}_{g}(\Omega_1, \dots
,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)$ has a $\mu$-double character $\vec{L^z_1}$ and also the same set of factors $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ as in $\vec{L}^z$ contain special free indices, so that:
$$\label{bengreen}
\begin{split}
& {\sum}_{l\in L^z} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots
,\phi_u)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon -
\\&{\sum}_{r\in R^z} a_r X div_{i_{\mu +1}}
C^{r,i_1\dots i_{\mu +1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon=
\\& {\sum}_{t\in T_1} a_t
C^{t,i_1\dots i_\mu}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,,\phi_1,\dots
,\phi_u)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots \nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon,
\end{split}$$
modulo complete contractions of length $\ge\sigma +u+\mu +1$. Here each $$C^{t,i_1\dots i_\mu}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)$$ is acceptable and is either simply or doubly subsequent to $\vec{L}^z$.[^12]
(See the first section in [@alexakis4] for a description of the notions of [*real length, acceptable tensor fields, simple character, refined double character, maximal refined double character, simply subsequent, strongly doubly subsequent*]{}). The Proposition \[giade\] is proven by a multiple induction on the parameters $-n$ (the [*weight*]{} of the complete contractions appearing in (\[hypothese2\])), $\sigma$ (the total number of factors in the form $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}, S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}, \nabla^{(A)}\Omega_h$ among the partial contractions in (\[hypothese2\])),[^13] $\Phi$ (the number of factors $\nabla\phi_1,\dots,\nabla\phi_u$ appearing in (\[hypothese2\])), $\Phi$ (the number of factors $\nabla\phi,\nabla\phi',\nabla\tilde{\phi}$ appearing appearing in (\[hypothese2\])), and $\sigma_1+\sigma_2$ (the total number of factors $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}, S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$). Proposition \[giade\] when $\Phi=0$ [*coincides*]{} with the “Main algebraic Proposition” in [@alexakis1] outlined above.[^14]
Proof of the technical Lemmas from [@alexakis4]. {#technical.lemmas}
================================================
Re-statement of the technical Lemmas 4.6–4.9 from [@alexakis4].
---------------------------------------------------------------
We start by recalling a definition from [@alexakis4] that will be used frequently in the present paper:
\[proextremovable\] Consider any tensor field in the form (\[form2\]). We consider any set of indices, $\{{}_{x_1},\dots,{}_{x_s}\}$ belonging to a factor $T$ (here $T$ is not in the form $\nabla\phi$). We assume that these indices are neither free nor are contracting against a factor $\nabla\phi_h$.
If the indices belong to a factor $T$ in the form $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_1$ then $\{{}_{x_1},\dots,{}_{x_s}\}$ are removable provided $B\ge s+2$.
Now, we consider indices that belong to a factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ (and are neither free nor are contracting against a factor $\nabla\phi_h$). Any such index ${}_x$ which is a derivative index will be removable. Furthermore, if $T$ has at least two free derivative indices, then if neither of the indices ${}_i,{}_j$ are free then we will say one of ${}_i,{}_j$ is removable; accordingly, if neither of ${}_k,{}_l$ is free then we will say that one of ${}_k,{}_l$ is removable. Moreover, if $T$ has one free derivative index then: if none of the indices ${}_i,{}_j$ are free then we will say that one of the indices ${}_i,{}_j$ is removable; on the other hand if one of the indices ${}_i,{}_j$ is also free and none of the indices ${}_k,{}_l$ are free then we will say that one of the indices ${}_k,{}_l$ is removable.
Now, we consider a set of indices $\{{}_{x_1},\dots,{}_{x_s}\}$ that belong to a factor $T=S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ and are not special, and are not free and are not contracting against any $\nabla\phi$. We will say this set of indices is removable if $s\le\nu$. Furthermore, if none of the indices ${}_k,{}_l$ are free and $\nu>0$ and at least one of the other indices in $T$ is free, we will say that one of the indices ${}_k,{}_l$ is removable.
For the first two Lemmas, \[obote\], \[obote3\] we will consider tensor fields in the form:
$$\label{form2'}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla^{(m_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{m_{\sigma_1}}
R_{ijkl}\otimes
\\&S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_t)} R_{ijkl}\otimes \nabla Y\otimes
\\& \nabla^{(b_1)}\Omega_1\otimes\dots\otimes
\nabla^{(b_p)}\Omega_p\otimes
\\& \nabla\phi_{z_1}\dots \otimes\nabla\phi_{z_w}\otimes\nabla
\phi'_{z_{w+1}}\otimes
\dots\otimes\nabla\phi'_{z_{w+d}}\otimes\dots \otimes
\nabla\tilde{\phi}_{z_{w+d+1}}\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla\tilde{\phi}_{z_{w+d+y}}).
\end{split}$$
(Notice this is the same as the form (\[form2\]), but for the fact that we have inserted a factor $\nabla Y$ in the second line). Our claims are then the following:
\[obote\] Assume an equation:
$$\label{guillemin3}
\begin{split}
& {\sum}_{h\in H_2} a_h X_{*} div_{i_{1}}\dots X_{*} div_{i_{a_h}}
C^{h,i_{1}\dots i_{a_h}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots , \Omega_p,Y,
\phi_{1},\dots,\phi_{u'})=
\\& {\sum}_{j\in J} a_j
C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p, \phi_{1},\dots,\phi_{u'}),
\end{split}$$
where all tensor fields have rank $a_h\ge \alpha$. All tensor fields have a given $u$-simple character $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$, for which $\sigma\ge 4$. Moreover, we assume that if we formally treat the factor $\nabla Y$ as a factor $\nabla\phi_{u'+1}$ in the above equation, then the inductive assumption of Proposition \[giade\] can be applied. (See subsection 3.1 in [@alexakis4] for a strict discussion of the multi-parameter induction by which we prove Proposition \[giade\].)
The conclusion (under various assumptions which we will explain below): Denote by $H_{2,\alpha}$ the index set of tensor fields with rank $\alpha$.
We claim that there is a linear combination of acceptable[^15] tensor fields, ${\sum}_{d\in D} a_d C^{d,i_{1}\dots i_{\alpha +1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,
\Omega_p,Y,\phi_{1},\dots, \phi_u)$, each with a simple character $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$ so that:
$$\begin{split}
\label{vaskonik} &{\sum}_{h\in H_{2,\alpha}} a_h C^{h,i_{1}\dots
i_{\alpha }}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p, Y,\phi_{1},\dots,
\phi_{u'})\nabla_{i_{1}}\upsilon\dots \nabla_{i_{\alpha}}\upsilon-
\\& X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}{\sum}_{d\in D} a_d
C^{d,i_{1}\dots i_{\alpha +1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
Y,\phi_{1},\dots, \phi_{u'})\nabla_{i_{1}}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_{\alpha}}\upsilon=
\\&+{\sum}_{t\in T}
a_t C^t_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots , \Omega_p
,Y,\phi_{1},\dots,\phi_{u'},\upsilon^{\alpha}).
\end{split}$$
The linear combination on the right hand side stands for a generic linear combination of complete contractions in the form (\[form2’\]) with a factor $\nabla
Y$ and with a simple character that is subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$.
[*The assumptions under which (\[vaskonik\]) will hold:*]{} The assumption under which (\[vaskonik\]) holds is that there should be no tensor fields of rank $\alpha$ in (\[guillemin3\]) which are “bad”. Here “bad” means the following:
If $\sigma_2=0$ in $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$ then a tensor field in the form (\[form2’\]) is “bad” provided:
1. [The factor $\nabla Y$ contains a free index.]{}
2. [If we formally erase the factor $\nabla Y$ (which contains a free index), then the resulting tensor field should have no removable indices,[^16] and no free indices.[^17] Moreover, any factors $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$ should be [*simple*]{}. ]{}
If $\sigma_2>0$ in $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$ then a tensor field in the form (\[form2’\]) is “bad” provided:
1. [The factor $\nabla Y$ should contain a free index.]{}
2. [If we formally erase the factor $\nabla Y$ (which contains a free index), then the resulting tensor field should have no removable indices, any factors $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$ should be [*simple*]{}, any factor $\nabla^{(2)}_{ab}\Omega_h$ should have at most one of the indices ${}_a,{}_b$ free or contracting against a factor $\nabla\phi_s$.]{}
3. [Any factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ can contain at most one (necessarily special, by virtue of 2.) free index. ]{}
Furthermore, we claim that the proof of this Lemma will only rely on the inductive assumption of Proposition \[giade\]. Moreover, we claim that if all the tensor fields indexed in $H_2$ (in (\[guillemin3\])) do not have a free index in $\nabla Y$ then we may assume that the tensor fields indexed in $D$ in (\[vaskonik\]) have the same property.
\[obote3\] We assume (\[guillemin3\]), where $\sigma=3$. We also assume that for each of the tensor fields in $H_2^{\alpha,*}$[^18] there is at least one removable index. We then have two claims:
Firstly, the conclusion of Lemma \[obote\] holds in this setting also. Secondly, we can write: $$\begin{split}
\label{vaskonik} &{\sum}_{h\in H_2} a_h Xdiv_{i_{1}}\dots
Xdiv_{i_{\alpha}}C^{h,i_{1}\dots i_{\alpha}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p, Y,\phi_{1},\dots, \phi_{u'})=
\\&{\sum}_{q\in Q} a_q Xdiv_{i_{1}}\dots
Xdiv_{i_{a'}} C^{q,i_{1}\dots i_{a'}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p, Y,\phi_{1},\dots,\phi_{u'})
\\&+{\sum}_{t\in T} a_t C^t_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots , \Omega_p
,Y,\phi_{1},\dots,\phi_{u'}),
\end{split}$$ where the linear combination ${\sum}_{q\in Q} a_q C^{q,i_{1}\dots
i_{a'}}_{g}$ stands for a generic linear combination of tensor fields in the form: $$\label{form2''}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla^{(m_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{(m_{\sigma_1})}
R_{ijkl}\otimes
\\&S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_t)} R_{ijkl}\otimes \nabla^{(B)} Y\otimes
\\& \nabla^{(b_1)}\Omega_1\otimes\dots\otimes
\nabla^{(b_p)}\Omega_p\otimes
\\& \nabla\phi_{z_1}\dots \otimes\nabla\phi_{z_w}\otimes\nabla
\phi'_{z_{w+1}}\otimes
\dots\otimes\nabla\phi'_{z_{w+d}}\otimes\dots \otimes
\nabla\tilde{\phi}_{z_{w+d+1}}\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla\tilde{\phi}_{z_{w+d+y}}),
\end{split}$$ with $B\ge 2$, with a simple character $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$ and with each $a'\ge \alpha$. The acceptable complete contractions $C^t_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots , \Omega_p
,Y,\phi_{1},\dots,\phi_{u'})$ are simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$. $Xdiv_i$ here means that $\nabla_i$ is not allowed to hit the factors $\nabla\phi_h$ (but it is allowed to hit $\nabla^{(B)}Y$).
For our next two Lemmas, we will be considering tensor fields in the general form:
$$\label{tavuk}
\begin{split}
&contr(\nabla^{(m_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots \otimes
\nabla^{(m_s)}R_{ijkl}\otimes
\\&S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_b)}R_{ijkl}\otimes \nabla^{(B,+)}_{r_1\dots
r_B}(\nabla_a\omega_1\nabla_b\omega_2-\nabla_b\omega_1\nabla_a\omega_1)
\\&\otimes \nabla^{(d_1)}\Omega_p\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{(d_p)}
\Omega_p \otimes \nabla\phi_1\otimes\dots\otimes
\nabla\phi_u);
\end{split}$$
here $\nabla^{(B,+)}_{r_1\dots r_B}(\dots )$ stands for the sublinear combination in $\nabla^{(B)}_{r_1\dots r_B}(\dots )$ where each $\nabla$ is not allowed to hit the factor $\nabla\omega_2$.
\[vanderbi\] Consider a linear combination of partial contractions, $${\sum}_{x\in X} a_x C^{x,i_1\dots
i_a}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_{u'}),$$ where each of the tensor fields $C^{x,i_1\dots
i_a}_{g}$ is in the form (\[tavuk\]) with $B=0$ (and is antisymmetric in the factors $\nabla_a\omega_1,\nabla_b\omega_2$ by definition), with rank $a\ge\alpha$ and real length $\sigma\ge 4$.[^19] We assume that all these tensor fields have a given simple character which we denote by $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$ (we use $u'$ instead of $u$ to stress that this Lemma holds in generality). We assume an equation:
$$\label{para3enh}
\begin{split}
& {\sum}_{x\in X} a_x X_{*}div_{i_1}\dots
X_{*}div_{i_a}C^{x,i_1\dots i_a}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)+
\\& {\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)=0,
\end{split}$$
where $X_{*}div_i$ stands for the sublinear combination in $Xdiv_i$ where $\nabla_i$ is in addition not allowed to hit the factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$. The contractions $C^j$ here are simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$. We assume that if we formally treat the factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$ as factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ (disregarding whether they are contracting against special indices) in the above, then the inductive assumption of Proposition \[giade\] applies.
The conclusion we will draw (under various hypotheses that we will explain below) is that we can write:
$$\label{para3enh2} \begin{split} &{\sum}_{x\in X} a_x
X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_a}C^{x,i_1\dots
i_a}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)=
\\&{\sum}_{x\in X'} a_x
X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_a}C^{x,i_1\dots
i_a}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)+
\\& {\sum}_{j\in
J} a_j C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)=0,
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $X'$ on the right hand side are in the form (\[tavuk\]) with $B>0$. All the other sublinear combinations are as above. We recall from [@alexakis4] that $X_{+}div_i$ stands for the sublinear combination in $Xdiv_i$ where $\nabla_i$ is in addition not allowed to hit the factor $\nabla\omega_2$ (it is allowed to hit the factor $\nabla^{(B)}\omega_1$).
[*Assumptions needed for (\[para3enh2\]):*]{} We claim (\[para3enh2\]) under certain assumptions on the $\alpha$-tensor fields in (\[para3enh\]) which have rank $\alpha$ and have a free index in one of the factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$ (say to $\nabla\omega_1$ wlog)–we denote the index set of those tensor fields by $X^{\alpha,*}\subset X$.
The assumption we need in order for the claim to hold is that no tensor field indexed in $X^{\alpha,*}$ should be “bad”. A tensor field is “bad” if it has the property that when we erase the expression $\nabla_{[a}\omega_1\nabla_{b]}\omega_2$ (and make the index that contrated against ${}_b$ into a free index) then the resulting tensor field will have no removable indices, and all factors $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$ will be simple.
\[vanderbi3\] We assume (\[para3enh\]), where now the tensor fields have length $\sigma=3$. We also assume that for each of the tensor fields indexed in $X$, there is a removable index in each of the real factors. We then claim that the conclusion of Lemma \[vanderbi\] is still true in this setting.
For the most part, the remainder of this paper is devoted to proving the above Lemmas. However, we first state and prove some further technical claims, one of which appeared as Lemma 5.1 in [@alexakis4].[^20]
Two more technical Lemmas.
--------------------------
We claim an analogue of Lemma 4.10 in [@alexakis4] can be derived when we have tensor fields with a given simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$, and where rather than having [*one*]{} additional factor $\nabla \phi_{u+1}$ (which is not encoded in the simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$), we have [*two additional factors*]{} $\nabla_{a}\phi_{u+1},\nabla_{b}\phi_{u+2}$.
\[addition2\] Consider a linear combination of acceptable tensor fields in the form (\[form2\]) with a given $u$-simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$:\
$\sum_{l\in L} a_l
C^{l,i_1\dots
i_\beta}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)$. Assume that the minimum rank among those tensor fields above is $\alpha\ge 2$. Assume an equation:
$$\begin{split}
\label{alexandraoik} & \sum_{l\in L} a_l X_{*}div_{i_3}\dots
X_{*}div_{i_\beta} C^{l,i_1\dots
i_\beta}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\phi_{u+2}+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)=0
\end{split}$$
(here $X_{*}div_i$ means that $\nabla^i$ is in addition not allowed to hit the factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$, $\nabla\phi_{u+2}$). We also assume that if we formally treat the factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$, $\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ as factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$, $\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ then (\[alexandraoik\]) falls under the inductive assumption of Proposition \[giade\] (with respect to the parameters $(n,\sigma,\Phi,u)$). Denote by $L^\alpha\subset L$ the index set of terms with rank $\alpha$. We additionally assume that none of the tensor fields $C^{l,i_1\dots
i_\beta}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)$ are “forbidden”, in the sense defined above Proposition 2.1 in [@alexakis4].
We then claim that there exists a linear combination of $(\alpha+1)$-tensor fields with a $u$-simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$ (indexed in $Y$ below) so that:
$$\label{palataki}
\begin{split}
& \sum_{l\in L^\alpha} a_l
C^{l,i_1\dots
i_\alpha}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\phi_{u+2}
\nabla_{i_3}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon
\\+&X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}\sum_{y\in Y} a_y
C^{l,i_1\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\phi_{u+2}
\nabla_{i_3}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon
\\&+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\phi_{u+2}
\nabla_{i_3}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon.
\end{split}$$
Furthermore, we also claim that we can write:
$$\begin{split}
\label{alexandraoik'} & \sum_{l\in L} a_l Xdiv_{i_3}\dots
Xdiv_{i_\beta} C^{l,i_1\dots
i_\beta}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\phi_{u+2}=
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q_1} a_q Xdiv_{i_3}\dots
Xdiv_{i_\alpha} C^{q,i_1\dots
i_\alpha}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_{u+2})
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\phi_{u+2}+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q_2} a_q Xdiv_{i_3}\dots
Xdiv_{i_\alpha} C^{q,i_1\dots
i_\alpha}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_{u+2}),
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $Q_1$ are acceptable with a u-simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$ and with a factor $\nabla^{(2)}\phi_{u+1}$ and a factor $\nabla\phi_{u+2}$. The tensor fields indexed in $Q_2$ are acceptable with a u-simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$ and with a factor $\nabla^{(2)}\phi_{u+2}$ and a factor $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$.
[*Proof of Lemma \[addition2\]:*]{} We may divide the index set $L^\alpha$ into subsets $L^\alpha_I,L^\alpha_{II}$ according to whether the two factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ are contracting against the same factor or not–we will then prove our claim for those two index sets separately. Our claim for the index set $L^\alpha_{II}$ follows by a straightforward adaptation of the proof of Lemma 4.10 in [@alexakis1]. (Notice that the forbidden cases of the present Lemma are exactly in correspondence with the forbidden cases of that Lemma). Therefore, we now prove our claim for the index set $L^\alpha_{I}$:
We denote by $L_I\subset L, J_I\subset J$ the index set of terms for which the two factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ are contracting against the same factor. It then follows that (\[alexandraoik\]) holds with the index sets $L,J$ replaced by $L_I,J_I$–denote the resulting new equation by New\[(\[alexandraoik\])\]. Now, for each tensor field $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\beta}_g$ and each complete contraction $C^j_g$, we let $Sym[C^{l,i_1\dots i_\beta}_g]$, $Sym[C^{l,i_1\dots i_\beta}_g]$, $AntSym[C^j_g], AntSym[C^j_g]$ stand for the tensor field/complete contraction that arises from $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\beta}_g,C^j_g$ by symmetrizing (resp. anti-symmetrizing) the indices ${}_a,{}_b$ in the two factors $\nabla_a\phi_{u+1},\nabla_b\phi_{u+2}$. We accordingly derive two new equations from New\[(\[alexandraoik\])\], which we denote by New\[(\[alexandraoik\])$]_{Sym}$ and New\[(\[alexandraoik\])$]_{AntSym}$.
We will then prove the claim separately for the tensor fields in the sublinear combination $\sum_{l\in L_I^\alpha} a_l
Sym[C]^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g$ and the tensor fields in the sublinear combination $\sum_{l\in L_I^\alpha} a_l AntSym[C]^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g$.
The claim (\[palataki\]) for the sublinear combination $\sum_{l\in L_I^\alpha} a_l AntSym[C]^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g$ follows directly from the arguments in the proof of Lemma \[vanderbi\]. Therefore it suffices to show our claim for the sublinear combination $\sum_{l\in L_I^\alpha} a_l
Sym[C]^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g$.
We prove this claim as follows: We divide the index set $L_I^\alpha$ according to the [*form*]{} of the factor against which the two factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ are contracting: List out the non-generic factors in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$,[^21] $\{T_1,\dots, T_a\}$. Then, for each $k\le a$ we let $L^\alpha_{I,k}$ stand for the index set of terms for which the factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ are contracting against the factor $T_k$. We also let $L^\alpha_{I,a+1}$ stand for the index set of terms for which the factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ are contracting against a generic factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$. We will prove our claim for each of the sublinear combinations $\sum_{l\in L^\alpha_{I,a+1}}
a_l Sym[C]^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g$ separately.
We firstly observe that for each $k\le a+1$, we may obtain a new true equation from (\[alexandraoik\]) by replacing $L$ by $L_{I,a+1}$–denote the resulting equation by (\[alexandraoik\]$)_{I,Sym,k}$. Therefore, for each $k\le a+1$ for which $T_k$ is in the form $\nabla^{(p)}\Omega_h$, our claim follows straightforwardly by applying Corollary 1 from [@alexakis1].[^22]
Now, we consider the case where the factor $T_k$ is in the form $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{abcd}$: In that case we denote by $L_{I,k,\sharp}$ the index set of terms for which one of the factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ is contracting against a special index in $T_k$. In particular, we will let $L^\alpha_{I,k,\sharp}\subset L_{I,k,\sharp}$ stand for the index set of terms with rank $\alpha$. We will then show two equations:
Firstly, that there exists a linear combination of tensor fields as claimed in (\[palataki\]) so that: $$\label{bestdays}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{l\in L^\alpha_{I,k,\sharp}} a_l Sym[C]^{l,i_1\dots
i_\alpha}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\omega\nabla_{i_3}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon-
\\&\sum_{y\in Y} a_y Xdiv_{i_{\alpha+1}}
C^{y,i_1\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\omega\nabla_{i_3}
\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon
\\&=\sum_{l\in L^\alpha_{OK}} a_l Xdiv_{i_{\alpha+1}}
C^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha i_{\alpha+1}}_g\nabla_{i_1}
\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\omega\nabla_{i_3}
\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\omega\nabla_{i_3}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon,
\end{split}$$ where the tensor fields in $L^\alpha_{OK}$ have all the properties of the terms in $L_{I,k}$, rank $\alpha$ and furthermore none of the factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},
\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ are contracting against a special index.
Then (under the assumption that $L^\alpha_{I,k,\sharp}=\emptyset$) we claim that we can write: $$\label{bestdays2}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{l\in L_{I,k,\sharp}} a_l Xdiv_{i_3}\dots Xdiv_{i_\beta}
Sym[C]^{l,i_1\dots
i_\beta}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\phi_{u+2}
\\&=\sum_{l\in L_{I,k,OK}} a_l Xdiv_{i_3}\dots Xdiv_{i_\beta}
Sym[C]^{l,i_1\dots
i_\beta}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\&\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\phi_{u+2}
+\sum_{j\in J} a_j Sym[C]^{j,i_1 i_2}_g
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\phi_{u+2},
\end{split}$$ where the tensor fields in $L_{I,k,OK}$ have all the properties of the terms in $L_{I,k}$, but they additionally have rank $\ge \alpha+1$ and furthermore none of the factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},
\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ are contracting against a special index.
If we can show the above two equations, then we are reduced to showing our claim under the additional assumption that no tensor field indexed in $L$ in Sym(\[alexandraoik\]) has any factor $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$, $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$ contracting against a special index in $T_k$. Under that assumption, we may additionally assume that none of the complete contractions indexed in $J$ in (\[alexandraoik\]) have that property.[^23] Therefore, we may then [*erase*]{} the factor $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$ from all the complete contractions and tensor fields in (\[alexandraoik\]$)_k$ by virtue of the operation $Erase$, introduced in the Appendix of [@alexakis1]–our claim then follows by applying Corollary 1 from [@alexakis1] to the resulting equation and then re-introducing the erased factor $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$.
[*Outline of the proof of (\[bestdays\]), (\[bestdays2\]):*]{} Firstly we prove (\[bestdays\]): Suppose wlog $T_k$ is contracting against $\nabla\tilde{\phi}_1$ and $\nabla\phi'_2,\dots,\nabla\phi'_h$; then replace the two factors $\nabla_a\phi_1,\nabla_b\phi_{u+1}$ by $g_{ab}$ and then apply $Ricto \Omega_{p+1}$,[^24] (obtaining a new true equation) an then apply the eraser to the resulting true equation. We then apply Corollary 1 from [@alexakis1] to the resulting equation,[^25] and finally we replace the factor $\nabla^{(b)}_{r_1\dots r_b}
\Omega_{p+1}$ by an expression $$S_{*}\nabla^{(b+h-1)}_{y_2\dots y_hr_1\dots r_{b-1}}
R_{ijkr_b}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^j\phi_{u+2}\nabla^k\phi_{u+1}
\nabla^{y_2}\phi'_2\dots \nabla^{y_h}\phi'_h.$$ As in the proof of Lemma 4.10 in [@alexakis4], we derive our claim. Then, (\[bestdays2\]) is proven by iteratively applying this step and making $\nabla\upsilon$’s into $Xdiv$’s at each stage.
We analogously show our claim when the factor $T_k$ is in the form $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$: In that case we denote by $L_{I,k,\sharp}$ the index set of terms for which [*both*]{} the factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ are contracting against a special index in $T_k$. We will then show two equations:
Firstly, that there exists a linear combination of tensor fields as claimed in (\[palataki\]) so that: $$\label{bestdays'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{l\in L^\alpha_{I,k,\sharp}} a_l Sym[C]^{l,i_1\dots
i_\alpha}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\omega\nabla_{i_3}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon-
\\&\sum_{y\in Y} a_y Xdiv_{i_{\alpha+1}}
C^{y,i_1\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\omega\nabla_{i_3}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon=
\\&\sum_{l\in L^\alpha_{OK}} a_l Xdiv_{i_{\alpha+1}}
C^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha i_{\alpha+1}}_g\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\omega\nabla_{i_3}
\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\omega\nabla_{i_3}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon,
\end{split}$$ where the tensor fields in $L^\alpha_{OK}$ have all the properties of the terms in $L_{I,k}$, but they additionally have rank $\alpha$ and furthermore one of the factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1}, \nabla\phi_{u+2}$ does not contract against a special index. Then (under the assumption that $L^\alpha_{I,k,\sharp}=\emptyset$) we denote by $L_{I,k,\sharp}$ the sublinear combination of terms in $L_{I,k}$ with [*both*]{} factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$ or $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$ contracting against a special index in $T_k$. We claim that we can write:
$$\label{bestdays2'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{l\in L_{I,k,\sharp}} a_l Xdiv_{i_3}\dots Xdiv_{i_\beta}
Sym[C]^{l,i_1\dots
i_\beta}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\\&\nabla_{i_2}\phi_{u+2}=
\sum_{l\in L_{I,k,OK}} a_l Xdiv_{i_3}\dots Xdiv_{i_\beta}
Sym[C]^{l,i_1\dots
i_\beta}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\& \nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\phi_{u+2}+
\sum_{j\in J} a_j Sym[C]^{j,i_1 i_2}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{i_2}\phi_{u+2},
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields in $L_{I,k,OK}$ have all the properties of the terms in $L_{I,k}$, but they additionally have rank $\ge \alpha+1$ and furthermore one of the factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1}, \nabla\phi_{u+2}$ does not contract against a special index.
If we can show the above two equations, then we are reduced to showing our claim under the additional assumption that no tensor field indexed in $L$ in Sym(\[alexandraoik\]) has the two factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1}, \nabla\phi_{u+2}$, contracting against a special index in $T_k$. Under that assumption, we may additionally assume that none of the complete contractions indexed in $J$ in (\[alexandraoik\]) have that property. Therefore, we may then [*erase*]{} the factor $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$ from all the complete contractions and tensor fields in (\[alexandraoik\]$)_k$–our claim then follows by applying Lemma 4.10 in [@alexakis4] to the resulting equation[^26] and then re-introducing the erased factor $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$.
[*Outline of the proof of (\[bestdays’\]), (\[bestdays2’\]):*]{} Firstly we prove (\[bestdays’\]). Suppose wlog $T_k$ is contracting against $\nabla\phi_1,\dots,\nabla\phi_h$ (possibly with $h=0$); then replace the two factors $\nabla_a\phi_1,\nabla_b\phi_{u+1}$ by $g_{ab}$ and then apply $Ricto \Omega_{p+1}$ (obtaining a new true equation) an then apply the eraser to the factors $\nabla\phi_1,\dots,\nabla\phi_h$ in the resulting true equation. Then (apart from the cases, discussed below, where the above operation may lead to a “forbidden case” of Corollary 1 in [@alexakis4]), we apply Corollary 1 frm [@alexakis4] to the resulting equation, and finally we replace the factor $\nabla^{(b)}_{r_1\dots r_b}\Omega_{p+1}$ by an expression $$\nabla^{(b+h)}_{s_1\dots s_hr_1\dots
r_{b-2}}R_{ir_{b-1}kr_b}\nabla^i\phi_{u+1}\nabla^k\phi_{u+2}\nabla^{s_1}\phi_1\dots\nabla^{s_h}\phi_h.$$ As in the proof of Lemma 4.10 in [@alexakis4], we derive our claim. Then, (\[bestdays’\]) is proven by iteratively applying this step and making $\nabla\upsilon$’s into $Xdiv$’s at each stage (again, provided we never encounter “forbidden cases”). If we do encounter forbidden cases, then our claims follow by just making the factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ into $Xdiv$’s and then applying Corollary 1 in [@alexakis1] to the resulting equation (the resulting equation is not forbidden, since it will contain a factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ with two free indices), and in the end re-naming two factors $\nabla\upsilon$ into $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\nabla\phi_{u+2}$. $\Box$
[**A Further Generalization: Proof of Lemma 5.1 from [@alexakis4].**]{}
We remark that on a few occasions later in this series of papers we will be using a generalized version of the Lemma \[addition2\]. The generalized version asserts that the claim of Lemma \[addition2\] remains true, for the general case where rather than one or two “additional” factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ we have $\beta\ge 3$ “additional” factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\dots,\nabla\phi_{u+\beta}$. Moreover, in that case there are no “forbidden cases”.
\[additiongen\] Let $\sum_{l\in L_1} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu,i_{\mu+1}\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)$,
$\sum_{l\in L_2} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_{b_l},i_{b_l+1}\dots i_{b_l+\beta}}_g
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)$ stand for two linear combinations of acceptable tensor fields in the form (\[form2\]), with a $u$-simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$. We assume that the terms indexed in $L_1$ have rank $\mu+\beta$, while the ones indexed in $L_2$ have rank greater than $\mu+\beta$.
Assume an equation:
$$\begin{split}
\label{paragon} & \sum_{l\in L_1} a_l Xdiv_{i_{\beta+1}}\dots
Xdiv_{i_{\mu+\beta}} C^{l,i_1\dots
i_{\mu+\beta}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\dots \nabla_{i_\beta}\phi_{u+\beta}
\\&+\sum_{l\in L_2} a_l Xdiv_{i_{\beta+1}}\dots
Xdiv_{i_{b_l}} C^{l,i_1\dots
i_{b_l+\beta}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\dots \nabla_{i_\beta}\phi_{u+\beta}
\\&+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_{u+\beta})=0,
\end{split}$$
modulo terms of length $\ge\sigma+u+\beta+1$. Furthermore, we assume that the above equation falls under the inductive assumption of Proposition 2.1 in [@alexakis4] (with regard to the parameters weight, $\sigma,\Phi,p$). We are not excluding any “forbidden cases”.
We claim that there exists a linear combination of $(\mu+\beta+1)$-tensor fields in the form (\[form2\]) with $u$-simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$ and length $\sigma+u$ (indexed in $H$ below) such that:
$$\begin{split}
\label{paragon.conc} & \sum_{l\in L_1} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots
i_{\mu+\beta}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_{1}}\phi_{u+1}\dots \nabla_{i_\beta}
\phi_{u+\beta}\nabla_{i_{\beta+1}}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_{\beta+\mu}}\upsilon
\\&+\sum_{h\in H} a_h Xdiv_{i_{\mu+\beta+1}} C^{l,i_1\dots
i_{\mu+\beta+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\dots \nabla_{i_\beta}
\phi_{\beta+1}\\&\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_{\beta+\mu}}\upsilon+
\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g(\Omega_1,\dots,
\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_{u+\beta},\upsilon^\mu)=0,
\end{split}$$
modulo terms of length $\ge\sigma+u+\beta+\mu+1$. The terms indexed in $J$ here are $u$-simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$.
[**Proof of Lemma \[additiongen\]:**]{} The proof of the above is a straightforward adaptation of the proof of Lemma \[addition2\], [*except*]{} for the cases where the tensor fields $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu,i_{\mu+1}\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$ are “bad”, where “bad” in this case would mean that all factors are in the form $R_{ijkl}$, $S_*R_{ijkl}$, $\nabla^{(2)}\Omega_h$,[^27] and in addition each factor $\nabla^{(2)}\Omega_h$ contracts against at most one factor $\nabla\phi_h, 1\le h\le u+\beta$. So we now focus on that case:
Let us observe that by weight considerations, [*all*]{} tensor fields in (\[alexandraoik\]) must now have rank $\mu$.
We recall that this special proof applies only in the case where there are special free indices in factors $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$ among the tensor fields of minimum rank in (\[alexandraoik\]). (If there were no such terms, then the regular proof of Lemma \[addition2\] applies). We distinguish three cases: Either $p>0$, or $p=0, \sigma_1>0$ or $p=\sigma_1=0$ and $\sigma_2>0$. We will prove the above by an induction on the parameters $(weight)$, $\sigma$: Suppose that the weight of the terms in (\[paragon\]) is $-K$ and the real length is $\sigma\ge 3$. We assume that the Lemma holds when the equation (\[paragon\]) consists of terms with weight $-K', K'<K$, or of terms with weight $-K$ and real length $\sigma', 3\le \sigma'<\sigma$.
[**The case $p>0$:**]{} We first consider the $\mu$-tensor fields in (\[alexandraoik\]) with the extra factor $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$ contracting against a factor $\nabla^{(2)}\Omega_h$. Denote the index set of those terms by $\overline{L}_\mu$. We will firstly prove that:
$$\label{basilissa}
\sum_{l\in L_\mu} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots
i_{\mu+\beta}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\dots \nabla_{i_\beta}\phi_{u+\beta}
\nabla_{i_{\beta+1}}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_{\beta+\mu}}\upsilon=0.$$
It suffices to prove the above for the sublinear combination of $\mu$-tensor fields where $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$ contracts against $\nabla^{(2)}\Omega_1$. (\[basilissa\]) will then follows by repeating this step $p$ times.
We start by a preparatory claim: Let us denote by $\overline{L}_{\mu,\sharp}\subset \overline{L}_\mu$ the index set of $\mu$-tensor fields for which the factor $\nabla^{(2)}\Omega_1$ contains a free index, say the index ${}_{i_1}$ wlog. We will firstly prove that:
$$\label{sponsor}
\sum_{l\in L_{\mu,\sharp}} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}\dots\nabla_{i_\beta}\phi_{u+\beta}
\nabla_{i_{\beta+1}}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_{\beta+\mu}}\upsilon=0.$$
[*Proof of (\[sponsor\]):*]{} We will use the technique (introduced in subsection 3.1 of [@alexakis5]) of “inverse integration by parts” followed by the silly divergence formula.
Let us denote by $\hat{C}^l_g$ the complete contraction that arises from each $C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$ by formally erasing the expression $\nabla^{(2)}_{si_1}\Omega_1\nabla^s\phi_{u+1}$ and then making all free indices ${}_{i_{\beta+1}},\dots ,{}_{i_{\beta+\mu}}$ into internal contractions.[^28] Then, the “inverse integration by parts” implies a new integral equation:
$$\label{oloklhrwma}
\int_{M^n} \sum_{l\in L_\mu} a_l \hat{C}^l_g
+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g+\sum_{z\in Z} a_z C^z_gdV_g=0.$$
Here the complete contractions indexed in $J$ have length $\sigma+u$, $u$ factors $\nabla\phi_u$ but are simply subsequent to the simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$. The terms indexed in $Z$ either have length $\ge\sigma+u+1$ or have length $\sigma+u$, but also at least one factor $\nabla^{(B)}\phi_h$ with $B\ge 2$.
Now, in the above, we consider the complete contractions indexed in $\overline{L}_{\mu,\sharp}\subset \overline{L}_\mu$ and we “pull out” the expression $\Delta\nabla_t\Omega_1\nabla^t\phi_{u+1}$ to write: $$\sum_{l\in L_{\mu,\sharp}} a_l \hat{C}^l_g=
\sum_{l\in L_{\mu,\sharp}} a_l \overline{C}^l_g\cdot (\Delta
\nabla_t\Omega_1\nabla^t\phi_1).$$
Now, we consider the silly divergence formula applied to (\[oloklhrwma\]) obtained by integrating by parts with respect to the function $\Omega_1$. If we denote the integrand in (\[oloklhrwma\]) by $F_g$, we denote the resulting (local) equation by $silly[F_g]=0$. We consider the sublinear combination $silly^*[F_g]$ which consists of terms with length $\sigma+u$, $\mu$ internal contractions and $u-1+\beta$ factors $\nabla\phi_h, h\ge 2$ and a factor $\Delta\phi_{u+1}$. Clearly, this sublinear combination must vanish separately modulo longer terms: $$silly^*[F_g]=0.$$ The above equation can be expressed as: $$\label{papadopoulos}
Spread^{\nabla^s,\nabla_s}
[\sum_{l\in \overline{L}_{\mu,\sharp}} a_l \overline{C}^l_g]\cdot \Omega_1\cdot \Delta\phi_{u+1}=0.$$ (Here $Spread^{\nabla^s,\nabla_s}$ is a formal operation that acts on complete contractions in the form (\[form1\]) by hitting a factor $T$ in the form $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ or $\nabla^{(p)}\Omega_h$ with a derivative $\nabla^s$ and then hitting another factor $T'\ne T$ in the form $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ or $\nabla^{(p)}\Omega_h$ by a derivative $\nabla_s$ which contracts against $\nabla^s$ and then adding over all the terms we can thus obtain.) Now, using the fact that (\[papadopoulos\]) holds formally, we derive:[^29] $$\label{papadopoulos'}
\sum_{l\in L_{\mu,\sharp}} a_l \overline{C}^l_g=0.$$ Thus, applying the operation $Sub_\upsilon$ $\mu-1$ times to the above and then multiplying by $\nabla_{i_1i_2}\Omega_1\nabla^{i_1}\upsilon\nabla^{i_2}\phi_{u+1}$ we derive (\[sponsor\]). So for the rest of this proof we may assume that $\overline{L}_{\mu,\sharp}=\emptyset$.
Now we prove our claim under the additional assumption that for the tensor fields indexed in $\overline{L}_\mu$, the factor $\nabla^{(2)}\Omega_1$ contains no free index.
We again refer to the equation (\[oloklhrwma\]) and perform integrations by parts with respect to the factor $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_1$. We denote the resulting local equation by $silly[L_g]=0$. We pick out the sublinear combination $silly^*[L_g]$ of terms with $\sigma+u$ factors, $u+\beta$ factors $\nabla\phi_h$, $\mu$ internal contractions, with $u+\beta-1$ factors $\nabla\phi_h,h\ge 2$ and a factor $\Delta\phi_1$. This sublinear combination must vanish separately, $silly^*[L_g]=0$; the resulting new true equation can be described easily: Let us denote by $\hat{C}^{l,j_1}_g$ the 1-vector field that arises from $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g, l\in L_{\mu,*}$ by formally erasing the factor $\nabla^{(2)}_{js}\Omega_1\nabla^s\phi_1$, making the index ${}^j$ that contracted against ${}_j$ into a free index ${}_{j_1}$, and making all the free indices ${}_{i_1},\dots, {}_{i_{\mu}}$ into internal contractions. (Denote by $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$ the simple character of these vector fields). Then the equation $silly^*[L_g]=0$ can be expressed in the form:
$$\label{dialogos}
\sum_{l\in L_{\mu,*}} a_l\{ Xdiv_{j_1}\hat{C}^{l,j_1}_g\}\Delta\phi_1
+\sum_{\in J} a_j C^j_g\Delta\phi_1=0;$$
here the complete contractions $C^j_g$ are simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$. The above holds modulo terms of length $\ge\sigma+u+1$. Now, we apply the operation $Sub_\omega$ $\mu$ times (see the Appendix in [@alexakis1]). In the case $\sigma>3$, applying the inductive assumption of our Lemma \[additiongen\] to the resulting equation (notice that the above falls under the inductive assumption of this Lemma since we have lowered the weight in absolute value; we ensure that Lemma \[additiongen\] can be applied by just labeling one of the factors $\nabla\omega$ into $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$. We derive (due to weight considerations) that there [*can not be*]{} tensor fields of higher rank, thus: $$\label{dikh}
\sum_{l\in L_{\mu}} a_lSub_\omega^{\mu-1}[\hat{C}^{l,j_1}_g]\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\Delta\phi_1=0.$$ Now, formally replacing the factor $\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon$ by $\nabla^{(2)}_{j_1t}\Omega_1\nabla^{t} \phi_1$, and then setting $\omega=\upsilon$, we derive the claim of our Lemma. In the case $\sigma=3$ (\[dikh\]) follows by inspection, since the only two possible cases are $\sigma_2=2$ and $\sigma_1=2$; in the first case there are only two possible tensors field in $\overline{L}_\mu$ while in the second there are four. The equation (\[dialogos\]) (by inspection) implies that the coefficients of all these tensor fields must vanish, which is equivalent to (\[dikh\]).
Now, we will prove our claim under the additional assumption $\overline{L}_{\mu}=\emptyset$ (still for $p>0$). We again refer to (\[oloklhrwma\]) and again consider the same equation $silly[L_g]=0$ as above. We now pick out the sublinear combination of terms with $\sigma+u$ factors, $u+\beta$ factors $\nabla\phi_h$, and $\mu$ internal contractions. We derive:
$$\label{dialogos3}
\sum_{l\in L_{\mu}} a_l Xdiv_{j_1}Xdiv_{j_2}\hat{C}^{l,j_1j_2}_g
+\sum_{\in J} a_j C^j_g=0;$$
here the terms $\hat{C}^{l,j_1j_2}_g$ arise from the $\mu$-tensor fields $C^{li_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ by replacing all $\mu$ free indices by internal contractions, erasing the factor $\nabla_{jk}^{(2)}\Omega_1$ and making the indices ${}^j,{}^k$ into free indices ${}^{j_1},{}^{j_2}$. Now, applying $Sub_\omega$ $\mu$ times, and then applying the inductive assumption of Lemma 4.10 \[additiongen\] (this applies by length considerations as above for $\sigma>3$; while if $\sigma=3$ the claim (\[dialogos4\]) will again follow by inspection) we derive:
$$\label{dialogos4}
\sum_{l\in L_{\mu}} a_l\hat{C}^{l,j_1j_2}_g\nabla_{j_1}\upsilon\nabla_{j_2}\upsilon=0;$$
Replacing the expression $\nabla_{j_1}\upsilon\nabla_{j_2}\upsilon$ by a factor $\nabla_{j_1j_2}^{(2)}\Omega_2$ and then setting $\omega=\upsilon$, we derive our claim in this case $p>0$.
[**The case $p=0,\sigma_1>0$:**]{} We will reduce ourselves to the previous case: We let $L_\mu^1$ the index set of $\mu$-tensor fields where the factor $T_1=S_{*}R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1$ contains a special free index (say the index ${}_k$ is the free index ${}_{i_{\beta+1}}$ wlog). We will prove our claim for the index set $L_\mu^1$; if we can prove this, then clearly our Lemma will follow by induction.
To prove this claim, we consider the first conformal variation of our hypothesis, $Image^1_Y[L_g]=0$, and we pick out the sublinear combination of terms with length $\sigma+u+\beta$, with the factor $\nabla^{(\nu)}S_{*}R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1$ has been replaced by a factor $\nabla^{(\nu+2)}Y$, and the factor $\nabla\phi_1$ now contracts against a factor $T_2=R_{ijkl}$. This sublinear combination vanishes separately, thus we derive a new local equation. To describe the resulting equation, we denote by\
$\hat{C}^{l,i_1\dots \hat{i}_{\beta+1}\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g
(Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}
\dots\nabla_{i_{\beta}}\phi_{u+\beta}$ the $(\mu-1)$-tensor field that arises from by formally replacing the factor by and also adding a derivative index $\nabla_{i_*}$ onto the factor $T_2=R_{ijkl}$ and then contracting that index against a factor $\nabla\phi_1$. Denote the $(u-1)$-simple character of the above (the one defined by $\nabla\phi_2,\dots,\nabla\phi_u$) by $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$. We then have an equation:
$$\label{papatsakalos}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{l\in L_\mu^1} a_l Xdiv_{i_{\beta+2}}\dots Xdiv_{i_{\beta+\mu}}
\hat{C}^{l,i_1\dots \hat{i}_{\beta+1}\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g(Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)\nabla_{i_1}\phi_{u+1}
\dots\nabla_{i_{\beta}}\phi_{u+\beta}
\\&+\sum_{h\in H} a_h Xdiv_{i_{\beta+1}}\dots Xdiv_{i_{\beta+\mu}}
C^{l,i_2\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g(Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)\nabla_{i_{1}}\phi_{u+1}
\dots\nabla_{i_{\beta+\mu}}\phi_{u+\beta}
\\&+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j,i_{\mu+1}\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g
(Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)\nabla_{i_{\mu+1}}\phi_{u+1}
\dots\nabla_{i_{\mu+\beta}}\phi_{u+\beta}.
\end{split}$$
The terms indexed in $H$ are acceptable, have a $(u-1)$-simple character $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$ and the factor $\nabla\phi_1$ contracts against the index ${}_i$ in the factor $T_2=R_{ijkl}$; writing that factor as $S_*R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1$, we denote the resulting $u$-simple factor by $\tilde{\kappa}_{simp}$. The terms indexed in $J$ are simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$. Now, applying the inductive assumption of Lemma \[additiongen\],[^30] we derive that:
$$\label{de3iwsh}
\sum_{h\in H} a_h
C^{l,i_2\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g(Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)\nabla_{i_{1}}\phi_{u+1}
\dots\nabla_{i_{\beta+1}}\phi_{u+\beta}\nabla_{i_{\beta+1}}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_{\beta+\mu}}\upsilon=0.$$
Thus, we may assume wlog that $H=\emptyset$ in (\[papatsakalos\]). Now, we again apply Lemma \[additiongen\] to (\[papatsakalos\]) (under that additional assumption), and we derive that:
$$\label{de3iwsh2}
\sum_{l\in L_\mu^1} a_l
\hat{C}^{l,i_1\dots \hat{i}_{\beta+1}\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g(Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)\nabla_{1}\phi_{u+1}
\dots\nabla_{i_{\beta+1}}\phi_{u+\beta}\nabla_{i_{\beta+2}}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_{\beta+\mu}}\upsilon=0.$$
Now, erasing the factor $\nabla\phi_1$ from the above, and then formally replacing the factor $\nabla^{(2)}_{ab}Y$ by $S_*R_{i(ab)l}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^l\upsilon$, we derive our claim.
[**The case $p=0,\sigma_1=0$:**]{} In this case $\sigma=\sigma_2$. In other words, all factors in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$ are simple factors in the form $S_{*}R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_h$. We recall that in this case all $\mu$-tensor fields in (\[alexandraoik\]) must have at most one free index in any factor $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$. In that case, we will prove our claim in a more convoluted manner, again reducing ourselves to the inductive assumption of Proposition 2.1 in [@alexakis4].
A key observation is the following: By the definition of the special cases, $\mu+\beta\le \sigma_2$. In the case of strict inequality, we see (by a counting argument) that at least one of the special indices in one of the factors $S_*R_{ijkl}$ must contract against a special index in another factor $S_{*}R_{abcd}$. In the case $\mu+\beta=\sigma_2$ this remains true, [*except*]{} for the terms for which the $\beta$ factors $\nabla\phi_{u+h}$ contract against special indices, say the indices ${}_k$, in $\beta$ factors $T_y=S_*R_{ikl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_y$, and moreover these factors must not contain a free index, and all other factors $S_*R_{ikl}$ contain exactly one free index, which must be special. In this subcase, we will prove our claim for all $\mu$-tensor fields [*excluding*]{} this particular “bad” sublinear combination; we will prove our claim for this sublinear combination in the end.
We will now proceed to [*normalize*]{} the different $(\mu+\beta)$-tensor fields in (\[alexandraoik\]). A [*normalized*]{} tensor field will be in the form (\[form2\]), with possibly certain pairs of indices in certain of the factors $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$ being symmetrized.
Let us first introduce some definitions: Given each $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$, we list out the factors $T_1,\dots T_{\sigma_2}$ in the form $S_*R_{ikl}$. Here $T_a$ is the factor for which the index ${}_i$ is contracting against the factor $\nabla\tilde{\phi}_a$. We say that factors $S_{*}R_{ikl}$ are type I if they contain no free index. We say they are of type II if they contain a special free index. We say they are of type III if they contain a non-special free index.
Given any tensor field $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ in the form (\[form2\]), pick out the pairs of factors, $T_\alpha,T_\beta$ in the form $S_*R_{ijkl}$ for which a special index in $T_\alpha$ contracts against a a special index in $T_\beta$. (Call such particular contractions “special-to-special” particular contractions). Now, in any $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ we define an ordering among all its factors $S_*R_{ijkl}$: The factor $T_a=S_*R_{ikl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_a$ is more important than $T_b=S_*R_{i'j'k'l'}\nabla^{i'}\tilde{\phi}_b$ if $a<b$.
Now, consider a tensor field $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ and list out all the pairs of factors $T_a,T_b$ with a special-to-special particular contraction. We say that $(T_a,T_b)$ is the [*most important*]{} pair of factors with a special-to-special particular contraction[^31] if any other such pair $(T_c,T_d)$,[^32] has either $T_c$ being less important than $T_a$ or $T_a=T_c$ and $T_d$ less important than $T_b$.
Now, consider a tensor field $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ and consider the most important pair of factors $(T_a,T_b)$ with a special-to-special particular contraction. Assume wlog that the index ${}_l$ in $T_a=S_{*}R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_a$ contracts against the index ${}_{l'}$ in $T_b=S_*R_{i'j'k'l'}\nabla^{i'}\tilde{\phi}_b$. We say that $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ is normalized if both factors $T_a, T_b$ are normalized. The factor $T_a=S_*R_{ikl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_a$ is normalized if: Either the index ${}_j$ contracts against a factor $T_c$ which is more important than $T_b$, [*or*]{} if the indices ${}_j,{}_k$ are symmetrized. If $T_a$ is of type II, then we require that the index ${}_j$ in $T_b=S_*R_{ij(free)l}$ [*must*]{} be contracting against a special index of some other factor $T_c$, and moreover $T_c$ must be more important than $T_b$. If $T_a$ is of type $III$, then it is automatically normalized. The same definition applies to $T_b$, where any reference to $T_b$ must be replaced by a reference to $T_a$.
Let us now prove that we may assume wlog that all $\mu$-tensor fields in (\[alexandraoik\]) are normalized: Consider a $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ in (\[alexandraoik\]) for which the most important pair of factors with a special-to-special particular contraction is the pair $(T_a,T_b)$. We will prove that we can write:
$$\label{grammos}C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g=\tilde{C}^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g+
\sum_{t\in T} a_t C^{t,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g;$$
here the term $\tilde{C}^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$ is normalized, the most important pair of factors with a special-to-special particular contraction is the pair $(T_a,T_b)$, and moreover its refined double character is the same as for $C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$. Each $C^{t,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$ has either the same, or a doubly subsequent refined double character to $C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$; moreover in the first case its most important pair of factors with a special-to-special particular contraction will be less important than the pair $(T_a,T_b)$. In the second case the most important pair will either be $(T_a,T_b)$ or a less important pair.
Clearly, if we can prove the above, then by iterative repetition we may assume wlog that all $(\mu+\beta)$-tensor fields in (\[alexandraoik\]) are normalized.
[*Proof of (\[grammos\]):*]{} Pick out the most important pair of factors with a special-to-special particular contraction is the pair $(T_a,T_b)$ in $C^{l,i_1 \dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$. Let us first normalize $T_a$. If $T_a$ is of type III, there is nothing to do. If it is of type II and already normalized, there is again nothing to do. If it is of type II and not normalized, then we [*interchange*]{} the indices ${}_j,{}_k$. The resulting factor [*is*]{} normalized. The correction term we obtain by virtue of the first Bianchi identity is also normalized (it is of type III). Moreover, the resulting tensor field is doubly subsequent to $C^{l,i_1 \dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$. Finally, if the factor $T_a$ is of type I, we inquire on the factor $T_c$ against which ${}_j$ in $T_a=S_*R_{ijkl}$ contracts: If it is more important than $T_b$, then we leave $T_a$ as it is; it is already normalized. If not, we symmetrize ${}_j,{}_k$. The resulting tensor field is normalized. The correction term we obtain by virtue of the first Bianchi identity will then have the same refined double character as $C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$, and moreover its most important pair of factors with a special-to-special particular contraction is less important than that pair $(T_a, T_b)$.
We now prove the claim of Lemma \[additiongen\] in this special case, under the additional assumption that all tensor fields in (\[alexandraoik\]) are normalized. We list out the most important pair of special-to-special particular contractions in each $C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$, and denote it by $(a,b)_l$. We let $(\alpha,\beta)$ stand for the lexicographicaly minimal pair among the list $(a,b)_l, l\in L_\mu$. We denote by $L_\mu^{(\alpha,\beta)}\subset L_\mu$ the index set of terms with a special-to-special particular contraction among the terms $T_\alpha,T_\beta$. We will prove that:
$$\label{sweden}
\sum_{l\in L_\mu^{(\alpha,\beta)}} a_l
C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon=0.$$
Clearly, the above will imply our claim, by iterative repetition.[^33]
[*Proof of (\[sweden\]):*]{} Consider $Image^2_{Y_1,Y_2}[L_g]=0$ and pick out the sublinear combination where the factors $T_\alpha,T_\beta$ are replaced by $\nabla^{(A)}Y_1\otimes g, \nabla^{(B)}Y_2\otimes g$, and the two factors $\nabla\tilde{\phi}_\alpha,\nabla\tilde{\phi}_\beta$ contract against each other. The resulting sublinear combination must vanish separately. We erase the expression $\nabla_t\tilde{\phi}_\alpha\nabla^t\tilde{\phi}_\beta$,[^34] and derive a new true eqation which will be in the form:
$$\label{write}
\sum_{l\in L_\mu^{(\alpha,\beta)}} a_l
Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_\mu}
\tilde{C}^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g(\Omega_1,Y_1,Y_2)
+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g(\Omega_1,Y_1,Y_2)=0;$$
here the tensor fields $\tilde{C}^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g(\Omega_1,Y_1,Y_2)$ arise from the tensor fields $C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$ by replacing the expression\
$\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_{\alpha}S_*R_{ijkl}
\otimes S_*{R_{i'jk}}^l\nabla^{i'}\tilde{\phi}_\beta$ by an expression $\nabla_{jk}Y_1\otimes \nabla_{j'k'}Y_2$ (notice we have lowered the weight in absolute value).
Now, applying the inductive assumption of Lemma \[additiongen\] to the above,[^35] we derive:
$$\label{write'}
\sum_{l\in L_\mu^{(\alpha,\beta)}} a_l
\tilde{C}^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g(\Omega_1,Y_1,Y_2)
\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon=0;$$
The proof of (\[sweden\]) is only one step away. Let us start with an important observation: For each given complete contraction above, examine the factor $\nabla^{(2)}_{zx}Y_1$; it either contracts against no factor $\nabla\upsilon$ or one factor $\nabla\upsilon$.[^36] In the first case, the factor $\nabla^{(2)}_{zx}Y_1$ must have arisen from a factor $S_*R_{ijkl}$ of type I. In fact, the indices ${}_z,{}_x$ correspond to the indices ${}_j,{}_k$ in the original factor, and we can even determine their position: Since the pair $(\alpha,\beta)$ is the most important pair in (\[alexandraoik\]), at most one of the indices ${}_z,{}_x$ can contract against a special index in a more important factor than $T_\beta$. If one of them does (say ${}_z$), then that index must have been the index ${}_j$ in $T_\alpha=S_*R_{ikl}$. If none of them does, then the two indices ${}_z,{}_x$ must be symmetrized over, since the two indices ${}_j,{}_k$ in $T_\alpha$ to which they correspond were symmetrized over. Now, these two separate sublinear combinations in (\[write’\]) must vanish separately (this can be proven using the eraser fro the Appendix in [@alexakis1]), and furthermore in the first case, we may assume that the index ${}_z$ (which contracts against a special index in a more important factor than $T_\beta$) occupies the leftmost position in $\nabla^{(2)}_{zx}Y_1$ and is [*not permuted*]{} in the formal permutations of indices that make (\[write’\]) hold [*formally*]{}).
On the other hand, consider the terms in (\[write’\]) with the factor $\nabla^{(2)}Y_1$ contracting against a factor $\nabla\upsilon$. By examining the index ${}_y$ in the factor $\nabla^{(2)}_{yt}Y_1\nabla^t\upsilon$, we can determine the [*type*]{} of factor in $C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$ from which the factor $\nabla^{(2)}Y_1$ arose: If the index ${}_y$ is contracting against a special index in a factor $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$ which is [*more important*]{} than $T_\beta$, then $\nabla^{(2)}Y_1$ can only have arisen from a factor of type II in $C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$. In fact, the index ${}_y$ in $\nabla^{(2)}Y_1$ must correspond to the index ${}_j$ in $S_* R_{ij(free)l}$ in $T_\alpha$. If the index ${}_y$ in $\nabla^{(2)}_{yt}Y_1\nabla^t\upsilon$ does not contract against a special index in a factor $T_c$ which is more important than $T_\beta$, then the factor $\nabla^{(2)}Y_1$ can only have arisen from a factor of type III in $C^{l,i_1\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$. In fact, the index ${}_y$ in $\nabla^{(2)}Y_1$ must correspond to the index ${}_k$ in $S_* R_{i(free)kl}$ in $T_\alpha$.
The same analysis can be repeated for the factor $\nabla^{(2)}Y_2$, with any reference to the factor $T_\beta$ now replaced by the factor $T_\alpha$.
In view of the above analysis, we can break the LHS of (\[write’\]) into four sublinear combinations which vanish separately (depending on whether $\nabla^{(2)}Y_1,\nabla^{(2)}Y_2$ contract against a factor $\nabla\upsilon$ or not). Then in each of the four sublinear combinations, we can arrange that in the formal permutations that make the LHS of (\[write’\]) formally zero, the two indices in the factors $\nabla^{(2)}Y_1,\nabla^{(2)}Y_2$ are [*not*]{} permuted (by virtue of the remarks above). In view of this and the analysis in the previous paragraph, we can then [*replace*]{} the two factors $\nabla^{(2)}_{zx}Y_1,\nabla^{(2)}_{qw}Y_2$ by an expression $\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_\alpha S_*R_{izxl}\otimes
S_*{R_{i'qw}}^l\nabla^{i'}\tilde{\phi}_\beta$, in such a way that the resulting linear combination [*vanishes formally without permuting the two indices ${}_q,{}_w,{}_{q'}, {}_{w'}$*]{}. This proves our claim, except for the subcase $\mu+\beta=\sigma_2$ where we only derive our claim for all terms except for the “bad sublinear combination”. We now prove our claim for that.
We then break up the LHS of (\[paragon\]) according to which factor $T_s$ the factor $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$ contracts–denote the index set of those terms by $L_\mu^K$. Denote the resulting sublinear combinations by $L^K_g, K=1,\dots ,\sigma_2$. Given any $K$, we consider the eqation $Image^1_Y[L_g]=0$, and we pick out the sublinear combination where the term $\nabla^{(B)}S_*R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_K$, is replaced by $\nabla^{(B+2)}Y$, and the factor $\nabla\phi_K$ now contracts against the factor $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$. This sublinear combination must vanish separately. We then again perform the “inverse integration by parts” to this true equation (deriving an integral equation), and then we consider the silly divergence formula for this integral equation, obtained by integrating by parts with respect to $\nabla^{(B)}Y$. We pick out the sublinear combination with $\sigma+u+\beta$ factors, $\mu$ internal contractions and $u+\beta$ factors $\nabla\phi_h$, and a expression $\nabla_s\phi_{u+1}\nabla^s\tilde{\phi}_K$ This gives us a new true local equation:
$$\label{marcus}
\sum_{l\in L_\mu^K} a_l X_*div_{j_1}X_*div_{j_2}\tilde{C}^{l,j_1j_2}_g+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g=0.$$
Here the tensor fields $\tilde{C}^{l,j_1j_2}_g$ arise from $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ by formally replacing all $\mu$ free indices by internal contractions, and also replacing the expression $\nabla_{x}\phi_{u+1}\otimes S_* {R_{i(jk)}}^x\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_K$ by $\nabla_x\phi_{u+1}\nabla^s\tilde{\phi}_K\otimes Y$, and then making the indices ${}^j,{}^k$ that contracted against ${}_j,{}_k$ into free indices ${}^{j_1},{}^{j_2}$. $X_{*}div_j$ stands for the sublinear combination in $Xdiv_j$ where $\nabla^j$ is not allowed to hit the factor $Y$. Now, applying the inductive assumption of Lemma \[additiongen\] to the above,[^37] we derive that:
$$\sum_{l\in L_\mu^K} a_l\tilde{C}^{l,_1j_2}_g\nabla_{j_1}\omega\nabla_{j_2}\omega=0.$$ Now, we replace the expression $\nabla^x\phi_K\nabla_x\phi_{u+1}\nabla_{j_1}\omega\nabla_{j_2}\omega Y$ by\
$\nabla^l\phi_{u+1}S_*R_{i(j_1j_2)l}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_K$ and then replacing all internal contractions by factors $\nabla\upsilon$ (applying the operation $Sub_\upsilon$ from the Appendix in [@alexakis1]). The resulting (true) equation is precisely our remaining claim for the “bad” sublinear combination. $\Box$
Proof of Lemmas 4.6, 4.8 in [@alexakis4]: The main part.
--------------------------------------------------------
We first write down the form of the complete and partial contractions that we are dealing with in Lemmas \[obote\] and \[vanderbi\]. In the setting of Lemma \[obote\] we recall that the tensor fields $C^{h,i_1\dots i_\alpha}$ indexed in $H_2$ (in the hypothesis of Lemma \[obote\]) are all partial contractions in the form:
$$\label{form2obote}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla^{(m_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots\otimes
\nabla^{(m_{\sigma_1})} R_{ijkl}\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_t)} R_{ijkl}\otimes
\\& \nabla^{(b_1)}\Omega_1\otimes\dots\otimes \nabla^{(b_p)}\Omega_p\otimes\nabla Y\otimes
\\& \nabla\phi_{z_1}\dots \otimes\nabla\phi_{z_f}\otimes\nabla
\phi'_{z_{f+1}}\otimes
\dots\otimes\nabla\phi'_{z_{f+d}}\otimes\dots
\otimes\nabla\tilde{\phi}_{z_{f+d+1}}\otimes\dots\otimes
\nabla\tilde{\phi}_{z_{f+d+y}}),
\end{split}$$
where we let $f+d+y=u'$. The main assumption here is that all tensor fields have the same $u'$-simple character (the one defined by $\nabla\phi_1,\dots,\nabla\phi_{u'}$), which we denote by $\vec{\kappa}^{+}_{simp}$. The other main assumption is that if we formally treat the factor $\nabla Y$ as a function $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$, then the hypothesis of Lemma \[obote\] falls under the inductive assumptions of Proposition \[giade\] (i.e. the weight, real length, $\Phi$ and $p$ are as in our inductive assumption of Proposition \[giade\]).
In the setting of Lemma \[vanderbi\] we recall that we are dealing with complete and partial contractions in the form:
$$\label{form2vanderbi}
\begin{split}
&contr(\nabla^{(m_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots\otimes
\nabla^{(m_{\sigma_1})} R_{ijkl}\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_t)} R_{ijkl}\otimes
\\& \nabla^{(b_1)}\Omega_1\otimes\dots\otimes \nabla^{(b_p)}\Omega_p\otimes
[\nabla\omega_1\otimes\nabla\omega_2]\otimes
\\& \nabla\phi_{z_1}\dots \otimes\nabla\phi_{z_f}
\otimes\nabla\phi'_{z_{f+1}}\otimes \dots\otimes\nabla
\phi'_{z_{f+d}}\otimes\dots\otimes\tilde{\phi}_{z_{f+d+1}}
\otimes\dots\otimes\tilde{\phi}_{z_{f+d+y}}),
\end{split}$$
where we let $f+d+y=u'$. The main assumption here is that all partial contractions have the same $u'$-simple character (the one defined by $\nabla\phi_1,\dots,\nabla\phi_{u'}$), which we denote by $\vec{\kappa}^{+}_{simp}$. The other main assumption is that if we formally treat the factors $\nabla \omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$ as factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\nabla\phi_{u+2}$, then the hypothesis of Lemma \[vanderbi\] falls under the inductive assumptions of Proposition \[giade\] (i.e. the weight, real length, $\Phi$ and $p$ are as in our inductive assumption of Proposition \[giade\]).
[*Note:*]{} From now on, we will be writing $u'=u$, for simplicity. We will also be writing $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}^{+}=\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$, for simplicity. We will also be labelling the indices ${}_{i_1},\dots ,{}_{i_\alpha}$ as ${}_{i_{\pi+1}},\dots ,{}_{i_{\alpha+1}}$.
[*New induction:*]{} We will now prove the two Lemmas \[obote\], \[vanderbi\] by a new induction on the weight of the complete contractions in the hypotheses of those Lemmas. We will assume that these two Lemmas are true when the weight of the complete contractions in their hypotheses is $-W$, for any $W<K\le n$. We will then show our Lemmas for weight $-K$.
[*Reduce Lemma \[obote\] to two Lemmas:*]{} In order to show Lemma \[obote\], we further break up $H_2$ into subsets: We say that $h\in H_2^a$ if and only if $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}$ has a free index ( say the free index ${}_{i_{\alpha +1}}$ wlog) belonging to the factor $\nabla Y$. On the other hand, we say that $h\in H^b_2$ if the index in the factor $\nabla Y$ is not free. Lemma \[obote\] will then follow from Lemmas \[firstclaim\], \[secondclaim\] below:
\[firstclaim\] There exists a linear combination of acceptable $(\alpha-\pi+1)$-tensor fields, ${\sum}_{v\in V} a_v
C^{v,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha +2}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
Y, \phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)$, where the index ${}_{i_{\alpha +1}}$ belongs to the factor $\nabla Y$, with a simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$, so that:
$$\label{episkepsh}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H_2^a} a_h C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha
+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p, Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_{\alpha+1}}\upsilon=
\\&{\sum}_{v\in V} a_v X_{*} div_{i_{\alpha +2}}
C^{v,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+2}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,
\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_{\alpha+1}}\upsilon+
\\&{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^{j,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p, Y,\phi_1,\dots,
\phi_u)\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_{\alpha+1}}
\upsilon.
\end{split}$$
Each $C^j$ is simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$.
We observe that if we can show our first claim, then we can assume, with no loss of generality, that $H_2^a=\emptyset$, since it immediately follows from the above that:
$$\label{stefania}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H_2^a} a_h X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha +1}}
C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha +1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)=
\\&{\sum}_{v\in V} a_v X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha +1}} X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha +2}} C^{v,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+2}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots , \Omega_p,Y,
\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\&+{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p, Y,\phi_1,\dots,
\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where each complete contraction $C^j$ is subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$. (Note that one of the free indices in the tensor fields $C^{v,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+2}}_{g}$ will belong to the factor $\nabla Y$).
Second claim, in the setting of Lemma \[obote\]:
\[secondclaim\] We assume $H^a_2=\emptyset$. We then claim that modulo complete contractions of length $\ge\sigma +u +1$:
$$\label{episkepsh4}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H_2} a_h C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha
+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p, Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_{\alpha+1}}\upsilon=
\\&{\sum}_{t\in T} a_t X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha +2}}
C^{t,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha +2}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_{\alpha+1}}\upsilon+
\\&{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p, Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where each $C^j$ is acceptable and subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$.
We observe that if we can show the above two Lemmas then Lemma \[obote\] will follow. (Notice that replacing by the RHS of (\[stefania\]) into the hypothesis of Lemma \[obote\], we do not introduce 1-forbidden terms).
We make two analogous claims for Lemma \[vanderbi\]:
[*Reduce Lemma \[vanderbi\] to two Lemmas:*]{} We say that $h\in H^a_2$ if and only if $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}$ has a free index belonging to one of the factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$. On the other hand, we say that $h\in H^b_2$ if in none of the factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$ in $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}$ contains a free index. (Observe that we may assume with no loss of generality that there are no tensor fields $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}$ with free indices in both factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$-this is by virtue of the anti-symmetry of the factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$). We make two claims. Firstly:
\[firstclaimb\] There is a linear combination of acceptable $(\alpha-\pi+1)$-tensor fields, ${\sum}_{v\in V} a_v
C^{v,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha +2}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2], \phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)$, in the form (\[form2obote\]) with a simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$, so that:
$$\label{episkepshb}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H^a_2} a_h X_{+}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
X_{+}div_{i_{\alpha+1}} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)=
\\&{\sum}_{v\in V} a_v X_{+}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
X_{+}div_{i_{\alpha+1}} X_{+}div_{i_{\alpha+2}}
C^{v,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+2}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\&+{\sum}_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
X_{+}div_{i_{\alpha +1}} C^{q,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\nabla_{+}[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots, \phi_u)
\\&+{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p, [\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u).
\end{split}$$
(Recall that by definition the complete contractions indexed in $Q$ have a factor $\nabla^{(2)}\omega_1$).
We observe that if we can show our first claim, then we can, with no loss of generality, assume that $H^a_2=\emptyset$.
Second claim:
\[secondclaimb\] We assume $H^a_2=\emptyset$, and that for some $k\ge 1$, we can write:
$$\label{episkepsh3b}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H^b_2} a_x X_{+}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
X_{+}div_{i_{\alpha+1}} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\&+{\sum}_{t\in T_k} a_t X_{+}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
X_{+}div_{i_{\alpha +k}} C^{t,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+k}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\& +{\sum}_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{\pi+1}\dots
X_{+}div_{i_{\alpha +1}} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha
+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\nabla_{+}[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\&+{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p, [\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where the last two linear combinations on the right hand side of the above are generic linear combinations in the form described in the claim of Lemma \[vanderbi\].[^38] On the other hand, ${\sum}_{t\in T_k} a_t C^{t,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+k}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p, [\omega_1,\omega_2],
\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)$ is a linear combination of acceptable $(\alpha-\pi+k)$-tensor fields in the form (\[form2vanderbi\]) with a simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$, and with two anti-symmetric factors $\nabla \omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$ which do not contain a free index. We then claim that modulo complete contractions of length $\ge\sigma +u +1$ we can write:
$$\label{episkepsh4'}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{t\in T_k} a_t X_{+}div_{i_{1}}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{a +k}}
C^{t,i_{1}\dots i_{a +k}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)=
\\&{\sum}_{t\in T_{k+1}} a_t X_{+}div_{i_{\pi +1}}\dots
X_{+}div_{i_{a +k+1}} C^{t,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{a+k+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\& +{\sum}_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_{1}}\dots
X_{+}div_{i_{a +1}} C^{q,i_{1}\dots i_{a+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p, \nabla_{+}[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots, \phi_u)
\\&+{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,
[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
with the same notational conventions as above.
We observe that if we can show the above two claims, then Lemma \[vanderbi\] will follow by iterative repetition of the second claim.
We will now show the four Lemmas above.
[*Proof of Lemmas \[secondclaim\] and \[secondclaimb\]:*]{} Lemma \[secondclaim\] is a direct consequence of Lemma 4.10 in [@alexakis4].[^39] Lemma \[secondclaimb\] can be proven in two steps: Firstly, by Lemma \[addition2\] we derive that there exists a linear combination of acceptable $(a+k+1)$-tensor fields (indexed in $X$ below) with a u-simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$ so that:
$$\label{episkepsh4''}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{t\in T_k} a_t C^{t,i_{1}\dots i_{a +k}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_{a+k}}\upsilon-
\\&{\sum}_{t\in T_{k+1}} a_t X_{*}div_{i_{a +k+1}} C^{t,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{a+k+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_{a+k}}\upsilon
\\&+{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,
[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,\upsilon^{a+k}),
\end{split}$$
where the complete contractions indexed in $J$ have length $\sigma+a+k+1$ and are simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$.
Then, making the factors $\nabla\upsilon$ in the above into $X_{+}div$s, we derive Lemma \[secondclaimb\]. $\Box$
[*Proof of Lemma \[firstclaim\]:*]{}
We have denoted by $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$ the simple character of our tensor fields. We distinguish two cases: In case A there is a factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$, and in case $B$ there is no such factor.
We denote $\alpha+1=\gamma$, for brevity.
Now we break the set $H^{b}_2$ into subsets: In case A we say that $h\in H_2^{b,+}$ if and only if $\nabla Y$ is contracting against an internal index of a factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$. In case B we say that $h\in H_2^{b,+}$ if and only if $\nabla Y$ is contracting against one of the indices ${}_k,{}_l$ in a factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$.
We define $H_2^{b,-}=H^{b}_2\setminus H^{b,+}_2$.
In each of the above cases and subcases we treat the function $\nabla Y$ as a function $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$ in our Lemma hypothesis. Then, by applying the first claim in Lemma 4.10 in [@alexakis4][^40] to our Lemma hypothesis and then making the $\nabla\upsilon$s into $X_{*}divs$, we derive that we can write:
$$\label{singer}
\begin{split}
& X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{*}div_{i_\gamma} {\sum}_{h\in
H^{b,+}_2} a_h C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha,i_\gamma}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u) =
\\& X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{*}div_{i_\gamma}
{\sum}_{h\in H^{b,*,-}_2} a_h C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_\alpha,i_\gamma}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots
,\phi_u) \\& + {\sum}_{j\in J} a_j
C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y, \phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where ${\sum}_{h\in H^{b,*,-}_2} a_h C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_\alpha,i_\gamma}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots
,\phi_u)$ stands for a [*generic*]{} linear combination as defined above (i.e. it is in the general form $\sum_{h\in H^{b}_2}\dots$ but the factor $\nabla Y$ is [*not*]{} contracting against a special index in any factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ or $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$.[^41] On the other hand, each $C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)$ is a complete contraction with a simple character that is subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$.
Thus, by virtue of (\[singer\]), we reduce ourselves to the case where $H^{b,+}_2=\emptyset$. We will then show Lemma \[firstclaim\] separately in cases A and B, under the assumption that $H^{b,+}_2=\emptyset$.
[*Proof of Lemma \[firstclaim\] in case A:*]{} We will define the C-crucial factor, for the purposes of this proof only: We denote by $Set$ the set of numbers $u$ for which $\nabla\phi_u$ is contracting against one of the factors $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$. If $Set\ne\emptyset$, we define $u_{+}$ to be the minimum element of $Set$, and we pick out the factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ in each $C^h$ against which $\nabla\phi_{u_{+}}$ contracts. We call that factor $\nabla^{(m)}
R_{ijkl}$ [*C-crucial*]{}. If $Set=\emptyset$, we will say [*the C-crucial factors*]{} and will mean [*any*]{} of the factors $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$.
Now, we pick out the subset $H^{b,*}_2\subset H^b_2$, which is defined by the rule: $h\in
H^{b,*}_2$ if and only if $\nabla Y$ is contracting against the (one of the) C-crucial factor(s).
Now, for each $h\in H^a_2$ we denote by $$Hitdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)$$ the sublinear combination in $X_{*}div_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,
\dots,\phi_u)$ that arises when $\nabla_{i_\gamma}$ hits the (one of the) C-crucial factor.[^42] It then follows that:
$$\label{hat}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H^a_2} a_h X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{*}div_{i_\alpha}
Hitdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\& + {\sum}_{h\in H^{b,*}_2} a_h X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
X_{*}div_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,
\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)+
\\&{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,
\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where each $C^j_{g}$ has the factor $\nabla Y$ contracting against the C-crucial factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ and is simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$.
We now denote the $(u+1)$-simple character (the one defined by $\nabla\phi_1$,$\dots$ ,$\nabla\phi_{u+1}=\nabla Y$) of the tensor fields $Hitdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_\alpha,i_\gamma}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots
,\phi_u)$ by $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$. (Observe that they all have the same $(u+1)$-simple character).
We observe that just applying Corollary 1 in [@alexakis4] to (\[hat\]) (all tensor fields are acceptable and have the same simple character $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$),[^43] we obtain an equation:
$$\label{ane3ignw}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H^a_2} a_h Hitdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_\alpha}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots \nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon+
\\&{\sum}_{u\in U} a_u Xdiv_{i_{\alpha+1}}
C^{u,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha,i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u) \nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon=
\\& {\sum}_{j \in J} a_j C^{j,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon =0,
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $U$ are acceptable (we are treating $\nabla Y$ as a factor $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$), have a simple character $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$ and each $C^j$ is simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$.
But then, our first claim follows almost immediately. We recall the operation $Erase_{\nabla Y}[\dots]$ from the Appendix in [@alexakis1] which acts on the complete contractions in the above by erasing the factor $\nabla Y$ and the (derivative) index that it contracts against. Then, since (\[ane3ignw\]) holds formally, we have that the tensor field required for Lemma \[firstclaim\] is:
$${\sum}_{u\in U} a_u
Erase_{\nabla Y}[C^{u,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha,i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)]\cdot
\nabla_{i_\gamma}Y.$$
[*Proof of Lemma \[firstclaim\] in case B:*]{} We again distinguish two subcases: In subcase $(i)$ there is some non-simple factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$ or a non-simple factor $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_x$ contracting against two factors $\nabla\phi'_h$ in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$. In subcase $(ii)$ there are no such factors.
In the subcase $(i)$, we arbitrarily pick out one factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ or $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_x$ with the properties described above and call it the $D$-crucial factor. In this first subcase we will show our claim for the whole sublinear combination $\sum_{h\in H^a_2}\dots$ in one piece.
In the subcase $(ii)$, we will introduce some notation: We will examine each factor $T=S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$, $T=\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_x$ in each tensor field $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_\alpha,i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}$ and define its “measure” as follows: If $T=S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ then its “measure” will stand for its total number of free indices [*plus $\frac{1}{2}$*]{}. If $T=\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_x$ then its “measure” will stand for its total number of free indices [*plus*]{} the number of factors $\nabla\phi_h$ against which it is contracting.
We divide the index set $H_2^a$ into subsets according to the measure of any given factor. We denote by $M$ the maximum measure among all factors among the tensor fields $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_\alpha,i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}$, $h\in H_2^a$. We denote by $H^{2,*}_a\subset H^a_2$ the index set of the tensor fields which contain a factor of maximum measure. We will show the claim of Lemma \[firstclaim\] for the sublinear combination $\sum_{h\in
H^{2,*}_a}\dots$. Clearly, if we can do this, then Lemma \[firstclaim\] will follow by induction.
We will prove Lemma \[firstclaim\] in the second subcase (which is the hardest). The proof in the first subcase follows by the same argument, only by disregarding any reference to $M$ free indices belonging to a given factor etc.
[*Proof of Lemma \[firstclaim\] in case B for the sublinear combination $\sum_{h\in H^{2,*}_a}\dots$:*]{}
We will further divide $H^{2,*}_a$ into subsets, $H^{2,*,k}_a,
k=1,\dots ,\sigma$, according to the factor of maximum measure: Firstly, we order the factors $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl},\dots$\
$\nabla^{(p)}\Omega_h$ in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$, and label them $T_1,\dots ,T_\sigma$ (observe each factor is well-defined in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$, because we are in case B). We then say that $h\in H^{a,*,1}_2$ if in $C^{u,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha}_{g}$ the factor $T_1$ has measure $M$. We say say that $h\in H^{a,*,2}_2$ if in $C^{u,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha}_{g}$ the factor $T_2$ has measure $M$ and $T_1$ has measure less than $M$, etc. We will then prove our claim for each of the index sets $h\in
H^{a,*,k}_2$:[^44] We arbitrarily pick a $k\le K$ and show our claim for $\sum_{h\in
H^{2,*,k}_a}\dots$.
For the purposes of this proof, we call the factor $T_k$ the $D$-crucial factor.
Now, we pick out the subset $H^{b,k}_2\subset H^b_2$, which is defined by the rule: $h\in
H^{b,k}_2$ if and only if $\nabla Y$ is contracting against the D-crucial factor $T_k$.
Now, for each $h\in H^a_2$ we denote by $$Hitdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)$$ the sublinear combination in $Xdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,
\dots,\phi_u)$ that arises when $\nabla_{i_\gamma}$ hits the D-crucial factor.[^45] It then follows that:
$$\label{hat'}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H^{a}_2} a_h Xdiv_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots Xdiv_{i_\alpha}
Hitdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\& + {\sum}_{h\in H^{b,k}_2} a_h Xdiv_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
Xdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,
\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)+
\\&{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,
\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where each $C^j_{g}$ has the factor $\nabla Y$ contracting against the D-crucial factor and is simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$.
We now denote the $(u+1)$-simple character (the one defined by $\nabla\phi_1,\dots $, $\nabla\phi_{u+1}=\nabla Y$) of the tensor fields $Hitdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_\alpha,i_\gamma}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots
,\phi_u)$ by $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$. (Observe that they all have the same $(u+1)$-simple character).
We apply Corollary 1 in [@alexakis4] to (\[hat’\]) (all tensor fields are acceptable and have the same simple character $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$) and then pick out the sublinear combination where there are $M$ factors $\nabla\upsilon$ or $\nabla\phi_h$ or $\nabla\phi'_h$ contracting against $T_k$, we obtain an equation:
$$\label{ane3ignw'}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H^{a,*,k}_2} a_h Hitdiv_{i_\gamma}
C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u) \nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon+
\\&{\sum}_{u\in U} a_u Xdiv_{i_{\alpha+1}}
C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha,i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u) \nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon=
\\& {\sum}_{j \in J} a_j C^{j,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon =0,
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $U$ are acceptable and have a simple character $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$ and each $C^j$ is simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$.
Now, observe that if $M\ge \frac{3}{2}$, we can apply the eraser to $\nabla Y$ (see the Appendix of [@alexakis1]) and the index it is contracting against in the $D$-crucial factor and derive our conclusion as in case A.
On the other hand, in the remaining cases[^46] the above argument cannot be directly applied. In those cases, we derive our claim as follows:
In the case $M=1$ the $D$-crucial factor is of the form $\nabla^{(p)}\Omega_h$, then we cannot directly derive our claim by the above argument, because if for some tensor fields in $U$ above we have $\nabla Y$ contracting according to the pattern $\nabla_iY\nabla^{ij}\Omega_h\nabla_j\psi$ (where $\psi=\upsilon$ or $\psi=\phi_h$), then we will not obtain acceptable tensor fields after we apply the eraser. Therefore, if $M=1$ and the $D$-crucial factor is of the form $\nabla^{(p)}\Omega_h$, we apply Lemma 4.6 in [@alexakis4] to (\[ane3ignw’\]) (treating the factors $\nabla\upsilon$ as factors $\nabla\phi$)[^47] to obtain a new equation in the form (\[ane3ignw’\]), where each tensor field in $U$ has the factor $\nabla Y$ is contracting against a factor $\nabla^{(l)}\Omega_h$, $l\ge 3$.[^48] Then, applying the eraser as explained, we derive our Lemma \[firstclaim\] in this case.
When $M=\frac{1}{2}$ or $M=0$, then we first apply the inductive assumptions of Corollaries 3,2 in [@alexakis4] (respectively) to (\[ane3ignw’\]),[^49] in order to assume with no loss of generality that for each tensor field indexed in $U$ there, the factor $\nabla Y$ is either contracting against a factor $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_h$, $B\ge 3$ or a factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$, $\nu\ge 1$. Then the eraser can be applied and produces acceptable tensor fields. Hence, applying $Erase_{\nabla Y}$ to (\[ane3ignw’\]) we derive our claim. $\Box$
[*Proof of Lemma \[firstclaimb\]:*]{}
We re-write the hypothesis of Lemma \[vanderbi\] (which is also the hypothesis of Lemma \[firstclaimb\]) in the following form:
$$\label{mayrh9b} \begin{split} &{\sum}_{h\in H_2} a_h
X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}
\{C^{h,i_{1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)-
\\&Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,
\phi_u)\}
\\&={\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,
\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u).
\end{split}$$
Here the operation $Switch$ interchanges the indices ${}_a$ and ${}_b$ in the two factors $\nabla_a\omega_1$, $\nabla_b\omega_2$.
[*Notational conventions:*]{} We have again denoted by $H^a_2\subset H_2$ the index set of those vector fields for which one of the free indices (say ${}_{i_{\alpha+1}}$) belongs to a factor $\nabla\omega_1$ or $\nabla\omega_2$. With no loss of generality we assume that for each $h\in H_2^a$ ${}_{i_{\alpha+1}}$ belongs to the factor $\nabla\omega_1$. We can clearly do this, due to the antisymmetry of the factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$.
We have defined $H^b_2=H_2\setminus H_2^a$. For each $h\in H^b_2$ we denote by $T_{\omega_1},T_{\omega_2}$ the factors against which $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$ are contracting. Also, for each $h\in H_2^a$ we will denote by $T_{\omega_2}$ the factor against which $\nabla\omega_2$ is contracting.[^50]
For each $h\in H_2$, we will call the factors $T_{\omega_1},T_{\omega_2}$ against which $\nabla\omega_1$ or $\nabla\omega_2$ are contracting “problematic” in the following cases: If $T_{\omega_1}$ or $T_{\omega_2}$ is of the form $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ and $\nabla\omega_1$ or $\nabla\omega_2$ is contracting against an internal index. Alternatively, if $T_{\omega_1}$ or $T_{\omega_2}$ is of the form $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)} R_{ijkl}$ and the factor $\nabla\omega_1$ or $\nabla\omega_2$ is contracting one of the indices ${}_k$ or ${}_l$.
We then define a few subsets of $H^a_2$, $H^b_2$:
\[subsets\] We define $H^b_{2,**}$ to stand for the index set of the tensor fields $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}$’s for which $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$ are contracting against different factors and both $T_{\omega_1},T_{\omega_2}$ are problematic.
We define $H^a_{2,*}\subset H^a_2$ to be the index set of the tensor fields $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}$’s for which $T_{\omega_2}$ is problematic.
We define $H^b_{2,*}$ to stand for the index set of the tensor fields $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}$’s for which either $T_{\omega_1}=T_{\omega_2}$ or $T_{\omega_1}\ne T_{\omega_2}$ and one of the factors $T_{\omega_1},T_{\omega_2}$ is problematic.
Abusing notation, we will be using the symbols ${\sum}_{h\in H^b_{2,*}}\dots$ etc to denote [*generic*]{} linear combinations as explained above, when these symbols appear in the right hand sides of the equations below.
We then state three preparatory claims:
Firstly, we claim that we can write:
$$\label{zekkos1}
\begin{split} &{\sum}_{h\in H^b_{2,**}} a_h
X_{+}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}
\{C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\&-Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,
\phi_u)\}=
\\&{\sum}_{h\in H^b_{2,*}} a_h
X_{+}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}
\{C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\&-Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,
\phi_u)\} \\&+{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,
\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where the linear combination $\sum_{h\in H^b_{2,*}}\dots$ on the RHS stands for a generic linear combination in the form described above. Observe that if we can show (\[zekkos1\]) then we may assume with no loss of generality that $H^b_{2,**}=\emptyset$ in our Lemma hypothesis.
Then, assuming that $H^b_{2,**}=\emptyset$ in our Lemma hypothesis we will show that there exists a linear combination of $(\alpha-\pi+1)$-tensor fields (indexed in $X$ below) which are in the form (\[form2”\]) with a simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$ so that:
$$\label{zekkos2}
\begin{split} &{\sum}_{h\in H^a_{2,*}} a_h
\{C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)-
\\&Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,
\phi_u)\}\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_{\alpha+1}}\upsilon-
\\&X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha+2}}{\sum}_{x\in X} a_x
\{C^{x,i_{1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}i_{\alpha+2}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p, \omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)-
\\&Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,
\phi_u)\}\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_{\alpha+1}}\upsilon
\\&+{\sum}_{h\in H^b_{2,*}} a_h
\{C^{h,i_{1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)-
\\&Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,
\phi_u)\}\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_{\alpha+1}}\upsilon \\& ={\sum}_{j\in J} a_j
C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,
\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,\upsilon^{\alpha-\pi}).
\end{split}$$
We observe that if we can show the above, we may then assume that $H^a_{2,*}=\emptyset$ (and $H^b_{2,**}=\emptyset$) in the hypothesis of Lemma \[firstclaimb\].
Finally, under the assumption that $H^b_{2,**}=H^a_{2,*}=\emptyset$ in our Lemma hypothesis, we will show that we can write:
$$\label{zekkos3}
\begin{split} &{\sum}_{h\in H^b_{2,*}} a_h
X_{+}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}
\{C^{h,i_{1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)-
\\&Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,
\phi_u)\}=
\\&{\sum}_{h\in H^b_{2,OK}} a_h
X_{+}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}
\{C^{h,i_{1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)-
\\&Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,
\phi_u)\} \\&+{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,
\Omega_p,[\omega_1,\omega_2],\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where the sublinear combination ${\sum}_{h\in H^b_{2,OK}}\dots$ on the right hand side stands for a generic linear combination of acceptable tensor fields in the form (\[form2”\]) with simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$, with no free indices in the factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$ and where the factors $T_{\omega_1},T_{\omega_2}$ are not problematic. Therefore, if we can show the above equations, we are reduced to showing Lemma \[firstclaimb\] under the additional assumptions that $H^2_{a,*}=H^2_{b,**}=H^2_{b,*}=\emptyset$.
[*(Sketch of the) Proof of (\[zekkos1\]), (\[zekkos2\]), (\[zekkos3\]):*]{} (\[zekkos1\]) follows by re-iterating the proof of the first claim of Lemma 4.10 in [@alexakis4].[^51] (\[zekkos2\]) follows by re-iterating the proof of the first claim of Lemma 4.10 in [@alexakis4], but rather than applying Corollary 1 [@alexakis4] in that proof, we now apply Lemma \[firstclaim\] (which we have shown).[^52] Finally, the claim of (\[zekkos3\]) [*for the sublinear combination in $H^b_{2,*}$ where $T_{\omega_1}\ne T_{\omega_2}$*]{} follows by applying Lemma \[addition2\].[^53] We can then show that the remaining sublinear combination in $\sum_{h\in H^b_{2,*}}\dots$ must vanish separately (modulo a linear combination $\sum_{j\in J} \dots$) by just picking out the sublinear combination in the hypothesis of Lemma \[secondclaimb\] where both factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$ are contracting against the same factor. $\Box$
Now, under these additional assumptions that $H^2_{a,*}=H^2_{b,**}=H^2_{b,*}=\emptyset$, we will show our claim by distinguishing two cases: In case A there is a factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$; in case $B$ there is no such factor. An important note: We may now [*use*]{} Lemma \[firstclaim\], which we have proven earlier in this section.
[*Proof of Lemma \[firstclaimb\] in case $A$.*]{}
We define the (set of) C-crucial factor(s) (which will necessarily be of the form $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$) as in the setting of Lemma \[firstclaim\]. Firstly a mini-claim which only applies to the case where the $C$-crucial factor is unique:
[*Mini-claim, when the $C$-crucial factor is unique:*]{} We then consider the tensor fields $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_g$, $h\in H_2^a$ for which $\nabla\omega_2$ is contracting against the C-crucial factor. Notice that by our hypothesis that $H^2_{a,*}=\emptyset$, we will have that $\nabla\omega_2$ is contracting against a derivative index in the C-crucial factor. Denote by $H^{a,+}_2\subset H^a_2$ the index set of these tensor fields.
We observe that for each $h\in H^{a,+}_2$ we can now construct a tensor field by erasing the index in the factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ that contracts against the factor $\nabla\omega_2$ and making the index in $\nabla\omega_2$ into a free index ${}_{i_\beta}$. We denote this tensor field by $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}i_\beta}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)$. By the analogous operation we obtain a tensor field $Switch[C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}i_\beta}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)]$.
It follows that in the case where the C-crucial factor is unique, for each $h\in H_2^{a,+}$:
$$\label{irineosgo}
\begin{split}
&X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}\{
C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)
\\& -Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p, \omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)\}=
\\& X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}X_{*}div_{i_\beta}\{
C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}i_\beta}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p, \omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)
\\& -Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}i_\beta}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)\}+
\\& {\sum}_{r\in R} a_r X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}\{ C^{r,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)
\\& -Switch[C]^{r,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}(\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p, \omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)\}+
\\& {\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where each tensor field $C^{r,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)$ has the factor $\nabla\omega_2$ contracting against some factor other than the C-crucial factor.
But we observe that: $$\label{seligaki}
\begin{split}
&X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}X_{*}div_{i_\beta}\{ C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}i_\beta}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)
\\& -Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}i_\beta}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)\}=0.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, in the case $Set\ne\emptyset$ or $Set=\emptyset$ and $\sigma_1=1$, we have now reduced Lemma \[firstclaimb\] to the case where $H^{a,+}_2=\emptyset$.
Now, (under the assumption that $H^{a,+}_2=\emptyset$ when the C-crucial factor is unique) we consider the sublinear combination $Special$ in the equation hypothesis of Lemma \[firstclaimb\] that consists of complete contractions with $\nabla\omega_1$ contracting against the $C$-crucial factor while the factor $\nabla\omega_2$ is contracting against some other factor. (If $Set=\emptyset$ and $\sigma_1>1$ $Special$ stands for the sublinear combination where $\nabla\omega_1$ is contracting against a generic $C$-crucial factor and $\nabla\omega_2$ is contracting against some other factor). In particular, for each $h\in
H^a_2$, since $H^{a,+}_2=\emptyset$ we see that the sublinear combination in $$\label{laikhsofia} \begin{split} &{\sum}_{h\in H^a_2} a_h
X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}
\{C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)
\\&-Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p, \omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)\}
\end{split}$$ that belongs to $Special$ is precisely:
$${\sum}_{h\in H^a_2} a_h X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha}}
Hitdiv_{i_{\alpha+1}}C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p, \omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots
,\phi_u);$$ (in the case $Set=\emptyset$ and $\sigma_1>1$ $Hitdiv_{i_{\alpha+1}}$ just means that $\nabla_{i_\gamma}$ can hit any factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ that is not contracting against $\nabla\omega_2$; recall that in the other cases it means that it must hit the unique C-crucial factor).
We also consider the tensor fields $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}$, $Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}$, $h\in H^b_2$ for which $\nabla\omega_1$ is contracting against the C-crucial factor and $\nabla\omega_2$ is not (or, if there are multiple C-crucial factors, where $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$ are contracting against different C-crucial factors). For this proof, we index all those tensor fields in $H^{b,\Psi}_2$ and we will denote them by $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_g$.
Thus we derive an equation:
$$\label{split}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H^a_2} a_h X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha}} Hitdiv_{i_{\alpha+1}}C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)
\\&+{\sum}_{h\in H^{b,\Psi}_2} a_h X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}
C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)=
\\&{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j
C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p, \omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots
,\phi_u).
\end{split}$$
We group up the vector fields on the left hand side according to their [*weak $(u+2)$-characters*]{}[^54] (defined by $\nabla\phi_1,\dots,\nabla\phi_u,\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$). (Recall that we started off with complete contractions with the same $u$-simple characters-so the only new information that we are taking into account is what [*type*]{} of factor is $\nabla\omega_2$ contracting against). We consider the set of weak simple characters that we have obtained. We denote the set by $\{\vec{\kappa}_1,\dots \vec{\kappa}_B\}$, and we respectively have the index sets $H^{a,\vec{\kappa}_f}_2$ and $H^{b,\vec{\kappa}_f}_2$.
We will show our Lemma \[firstclaimb\] by replacing the index set $H^a_2$ by any $H^{a,\vec{\kappa}_f}_2$, $f\le B$.
It follows that for each $f\le B$:
$$\label{papar}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H^{a,\vec{\kappa}_f}_2} a_h X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha}} Hitdiv_{i_{\alpha+1}}C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} \\&(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)+
\\&{\sum}_{h\in H^{b,\vec{\kappa}_f}_2} a_h X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}
C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)=
\\&{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j
C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p, \omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots
,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where the complete contractions $C^j_{g}$ have a $u$-simple character that is subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$. We will show our claim for each of the index sets $H^{b,\vec{\kappa}_f}_2$ separately.
Now, we treat the factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$ in the above as factors $\nabla\phi_{u+1},\nabla\phi_{u+2}$. We see that since $H^b_{2,**}=H^2_{b,*}=H^2_{a,*}=\emptyset$, all the tensor fields in the above have the same $(u+2)$-simple character.
Our claim (Lemma \[firstclaimb\]) for the index set $H^{a,\vec{\kappa}_f}_2$ then follows: Firstly, apply the operator $Erase_{\nabla\omega_1}[\dots]$ to (\[papar\]).[^55] We are then left with tensor fields (denote them by $$C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u),h\in H^{a,\vec{\kappa}_f}_2,$$ $$C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,
\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u), h\in H^{b,\vec{\kappa}_f}_2,$$ respectively) with the same $(u+1)$-simple character say $\vec{\kappa}_{simp,f}$. We can then apply Corollary 1 from [@alexakis4] (since we have weight $-n+2k$, $k>0$ by virtue of the eraser–notice that by weight considerations, since we started out with no “bad” tensor fields, there is no danger of falling under a “fobidden case”). to derive that there is a linear combination of acceptable $\alpha$-tensor fields indexed in $V$ below, with $(u+1)$-simple character $\vec{\kappa}_{simp,f}$ so that:
$$\label{shost}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H^{a,\vec{\kappa}_f}_2} a_h C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p, \omega_2,\phi_1,\dots
,\phi_u)\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_{\alpha}}\upsilon-
\\&{\sum}_{v\in V} a_v X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha+1}}C^{v,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p, \omega_2,\phi_1,\dots
,\phi_u)\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_{\alpha}}\upsilon=
\\& {\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^{j,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p, \omega_2,\phi_1,\dots
,\phi_u)\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_{\alpha}}\upsilon,
\end{split}$$
where each complete contraction indexed in $J$ is $(u+1)$-subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp,f}$. In this setting $X_{*}div_i$ just means that in addition to the restrictions imposed on $Xdiv_i$ we are not allowed to hit the factor $\nabla\omega_2$.
Then, if we multiply the above equation by an expression $\nabla_i\omega_1\nabla^i\upsilon$ and then anti-symmetrize the indices $a,b$ in the factors $\nabla_a\omega_1,\nabla_b\omega_2$ and finally make all $\nabla\upsilon$s into $X_{+}div$s, we derive our claim. $\Box$
[*Proof of Lemma \[firstclaimb\] in case B (when $\sigma_1=0$).*]{}
Our proof follows the same pattern as the proof of Lemma \[firstclaim\] in case B.
We again define the “measure” of each factor in each tensor field $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_g$ as in the proof of case B in Lemma \[firstclaim\]. Again, let $M$ stand for the maximum measure among all factors in all tensor fields $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_g$, $h\in H^a_2$. We denote by $H^{a,M}_2\subset H^a_2$ the index set of the tensor fields for which some factor has measure $M$.
We will further divide $H^{2,M}_a$ into subsets, $H^{2,M,k}_a,
k=1,\dots ,\sigma$, according to the factor which has measure $M$: Firstly, we order the factors $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl},\dots
\nabla^{(p)}\Omega_h$ in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$, and label them $T_1,\dots ,T_\sigma$ (observe each factor is well-defined in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$, because we are in case B). We then say that $h\in H^{a,M,1}_2$ if in $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha}_{g}$ $T_1$ has measure $M$. We say say that $h\in H^{a,M,2}_2$ if in $C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha}_{g}$ $T_2$ has measure $M$ and $T_1$ has measure less than $M$, etc. We will then prove our claim for each of the index sets $h\in H^{a,M,k}_2$.[^56] We arbitrarily pick a $k\le \sigma$ and show our claim for $\sum_{h\in H^{2,M,k}_a}\dots$.
For the purposes of this proof, we call the factor $T_k$ the $D$-crucial factor (in this setting the $D$-crucial factor is unique).
Now, we pick out the subset $H^{b,k,+}_2\subset H^b_2$, which is defined by the rule: $h\in
H^{b,k}_2$ if and only if $\nabla\omega_1$ is contracting against the D-crucial factor $T_k$. We also pick out the subset $H^{b,k,-}_2\subset H^b_2$, which is defined by the rule: $h\in
H^{b,k}_2$ if and only if $\nabla\omega_2$ is contracting against the D-crucial factor $T_k$. Finally, we define $H^{a,\tilde{}}_2\subset H^a_2$, $H^{a,-}_2\subset H^a_2$ to stand for the index set of tensor fields for which $\nabla\omega_2$ contracts against the D-crucial factor.
Now, for each $h\in H^a_2$ we denote by $$Hitdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)$$ the sublinear combination in $Xdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,
\dots,\phi_u)$ that arises when $\nabla_{i_\gamma}$ hits the D-crucial factor. It then follows that:
$$\label{hat''}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H^{a}_2} a_h X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
X_{*}div_{i_\alpha} Hitdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\&-{\sum}_{h\in H^{a,\tilde{}}_2} a_h X_{*}div_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
X_{*}div_{i_{\alpha+1}} Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\& + {\sum}_{h\in H^{b,k,+}_2} a_h Xdiv_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
Xdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,
\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\&-{\sum}_{h\in H^{b,k,-}_2} a_h Xdiv_{i_{\pi+1}}\dots
Xdiv_{i_\gamma} Switch[C]^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+1}}_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots ,
\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\&+{\sum}_{j\in J} a_j C^j_{g}(\Omega_1,
\dots ,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where each $C^j_{g}$ has the factor $\nabla \omega_1$ contracting against the D-crucial factor and is simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$.
We now denote the $(u+1)$-simple character (the one defined by $\nabla\phi_1,\dots ,\nabla\omega_{1}$) of the tensor fields $Hitdiv_{i_\gamma} C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha,i_\gamma}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)$ by $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$. (Observe that they all have the same $(u+1)$-simple character).
We observe that just applying Lemma \[obote\] to (\[hat”\]) (all tensor fields are acceptable and have the same simple character $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$–we treat $\nabla\omega_1$ as a factor $\nabla\phi_{u+1}$ and the factor $\nabla\omega_2$ as a factor $\nabla Y$) and we then pick out the sublinear combination where there are $M$ factors $\nabla\upsilon$ contracting against $T_k$, we obtain an equation:
$$\label{ane3ignw''}
\begin{split}
&{\sum}_{h\in H^{a,*,k}_2} a_h Hitdiv_{i_\gamma}
C^{h,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u) \nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon+
\\&{\sum}_{x\in X} a_x Xdiv_{i_{\alpha+1}}
C^{x,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha,i_{\alpha+1}}_{g} (\Omega_1,\dots
,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u) \nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots
\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon+
\\& {\sum}_{j \in J} a_j C^{j,i_{\pi+1}\dots i_\alpha}_{g}
(\Omega_1,\dots ,\Omega_p,\omega_1,\omega_2,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)
\nabla_{i_{\pi+1}}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\alpha}\upsilon =0,
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $X$ are acceptable and have a $(u+1)$-simple character $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$ and each $C^j$ is simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}'_{simp}$.
Now, observe that [*if*]{} $M\ge \frac{3}{2}$ then we can apply the Eraser (from the Appendix in [@alexakis1]) to $\nabla\omega_1$ and the index it is contracting against in the $D$-crucial factor and derive our conclusion as in case A.
The remaining cases are when $M=1,M=\frac{1}{2}$ and $M=0$. The first one is easier, so we proceed to show our claim in that case. The two subcases $M=\frac{1}{2},M=0$ will be discussed in the next subsection.
In the case $M=1$, i.e. the $D$-crucial factor is of the form $\nabla^{(p)}\Omega_h$, then we cannot derive our claim, because if for some tensor fields in $X$ above we have $\nabla \omega_1$ contracting according to the pattern: $\nabla_i\omega_1\nabla^{ij}\Omega_h\nabla_j\psi$, where $\psi=\upsilon$ or $\psi=\phi_h$. Therefore, in this setting, we first apply the eraser twice to remove the expression $\nabla^{(2)}_{ij}\Omega_h\nabla^i\psi\nabla^j\omega_1$ and then apply Corollary 2 from [@alexakis4][^57] to (\[ane3ignw”\]) (observe that (\[ane3ignw”\]) now falls under the inductive assumption of Lemma 4.6 in [@alexakis4] since we have lowered the weight[^58] to obtain a new equation in the form (\[ane3ignw”\]), where each tensor field in $X$ has the factor $\nabla \omega_1$ contracting against a factor $\nabla^{(l)}\Omega_h$, $l\ge 3$. Then, applying the eraser as explained, we derive our Lemma \[firstclaimb\] in this case.
[*The cases $M=\frac{1}{2}$, $M=0$:*]{} Notice that in this case we must have $\alpha=\pi$, by virtue of the the definition of maximal “measure” above. We will then prove our claim by proving a more general claim by induction, in the next subsection. $\Box$
The remaining cases of Lemma \[firstclaimb\].
---------------------------------------------
We prove our claim in this case by an induction. In order to give a detailed proof, we will re-state our Lemma hypothesis in this case (with a slight change of notation):
[*The hypothesis of the remaining cases of Lemma \[firstclaimb\]:*]{} We are assuming an equation:
$$\label{klm}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{x\in X_a} a_x X_{*}div_{i_1}C^{x,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,
\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,[\omega_1,\omega_2])+
\\&\sum_{x\in X_b} a_x X_{*}div_{i_1}C^{x,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,
\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,[\omega_1,\omega_2])+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)=0,
\end{split}$$
which holds modulo complete contractions of length $\ge\sigma+u+3$ ($\sigma\ge 3$–here $\sigma$ stands for $u+p$–see the next equation). We denote the weight of the complete contractions in the above by $-K$. The tensor fields in the above equation are each in the form:
$$\label{presevo}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_1)}R_{x_1jkl}\otimes\dots\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_u)}R_{x_zj'k'l'}\otimes
\\&\nabla^{(a_1)}\Omega_1\otimes\dots\nabla^{(a_p)}\Omega_p\otimes [\nabla\omega_1\otimes\nabla\omega_2]
\\&\otimes\nabla^{x_1}\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{x_u}\tilde{\phi}_z).
\end{split}$$
We recall that the $u$-simple character of the above has been denoted by $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$. Recall that we are now assuming that all the factors $\nabla^{(a_i)}\Omega_x$ in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$ are acceptable.[^59] The complete contractions indexed in $J$ in (\[klm\]) are simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$. We also recall that $X_{*}div_i$ stands for the sublinear combination in $Xdiv_i$ where $\nabla_i$ is not allowed to hit either of the factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$.
We recall that the tensor fields indexed in $X_a$ have the free index ${}_{i_1}$ belonging to the factor $\nabla\omega_1$. The tensor fields indexed in $X_b$ have the free index ${}_{i_1}$ [*not*]{} belonging to any of the factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$.
We recall the key assumption that for each of the tensor fields indexed in $X_a$, there is at least one removable index in each tensor field\
$C^{x,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,
\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,[\omega_1,\omega_2])$, $x\in X_a$.[^60]
In order to complete our proof of Lemma \[firstclaimb\], we will show that we can write:
$$\label{proarendt}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{x\in X_a} a_x C^{x,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,
\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,[\omega_1,\omega_2])\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon=
\\&\sum_{x\in X'} a_x X_{*}div_{i_2}\dots X_{*}div_{i_a}C^{x,i_1\dots i_a}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,
\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,[\omega_1,\omega_2])\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $X'$ are acceptable in the form (\[presevo\]), each with rank $a\ge 2$. Note that this will imply the remaining cases of Lemma \[firstclaimb\], completing the proof of Lemma \[vanderbi\].
We recall that we are proving this claim when the assumption (\[klm\]) formally falls under our inductive assumption of Proposition \[giade\] (if we formally treat $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$ as factors $\nabla\phi_{z+1},\nabla\phi_{z+2}$).
We will prove (\[proarendt\]) by inductively proving a more general statement. The more general statement is as follows:
[*The general statement:*]{}
[*Assumptions:*]{} We consider vector fields $C^{\zeta,i_1}_g
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)$,\
$C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)$ in the following forms, respectively:
$$\label{proherodium}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_1)}R_{x_1jkl}\otimes\dots\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_v)}R_{x_vj'k'l'}\otimes
\\&\nabla^{(a_1)}\Omega_1\otimes\dots\nabla^{(a_b)}
\Omega_b\otimes \nabla Y\otimes\nabla
\psi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla\psi_\tau
\\&\otimes\nabla^{x_1}\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{x_v}\tilde{\phi}_v),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{herodium}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_1)}R_{x_1jkl}\otimes\dots\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu_v)}R_{x_vj'k'l'}\otimes
\\&\nabla^{(a_1)}\Omega_1\otimes\dots\nabla^{(a_b)}
\Omega_b\otimes [\nabla\chi_1\otimes\nabla\chi_2]\otimes\nabla
\psi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla\psi_\tau
\\&\otimes\nabla^{x_1}\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{x_v}\tilde{\phi}_v),
\end{split}$$
for which the weight is $-W+1, W\le K$. We also assume $v+b\ge 2$. [*Note:*]{} the bracket $[\dots]$ stands for the anti-symmetrization of the indices ${}_a,{}_b$ in the expression $\nabla_a\omega_1\nabla_b\omega_2$.
We assume (respectively) the equations:
$$\label{procareless}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in \overline{Z}_a} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}\dots X_{*}div_{i_\gamma}
C^{\zeta,i_1\dots
i_\gamma}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=0,
\end{split}$$
$$\label{careless}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in \overline{Z}_a} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}\dots X_{*}div_{i_\gamma}
C^{\zeta,i_1\dots
i_\gamma}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=0,
\end{split}$$
which holds modulo complete contractions of length $\ge v+b+\tau+3$.
The tensor fields indexed in $Z_a$ are assumed to have a free index in one of the factors $\nabla
Y,\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$, or one of the factors $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2,\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$, respectively. The tensor fields indexed in $\overline{Z}_a$ have rank $\gamma\ge 2$ and all their free indices belong to the factors $\nabla
Y,\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$, or the factors $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2,\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$, respectively. The tensor fields indexed in $Z_b$ have the property that ${}_{i_1}$ does not belong to any of the factors $\nabla
Y,\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$, $\nabla\chi_1,
\nabla\chi_2,\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$, respectively. We furthermore assume that for the tensor fields indexed in $Z_a\bigcup Z_b\bigcup \overline{Z}_a$, none of the factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$ are contracting against a special index in any factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ and none of them are contracting against the rightmost index in each $\nabla^{(a_h)}\Omega_h$ (we will refer to this property as the $@$-property). We assume that $v+b\ge 2$, and furthermore if $v+b=2$ then for each $\zeta\in Z_a\bigcup Z_b$, the factor(s) $\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$) are also not contracting against a special index in any $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ and are not contracting against the rightmost index in any $\nabla^{(a_h)}\Omega_h$. Finally (and importantly) we assume that for the tensor fields indexed in $Z_a$, there is at least one removable index in each $C^{\zeta,i_1}$. (In this setting, for a tensor field indexed in $Z_a$, a “removable” index is either a non-special index in a factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$, with $\nu>0$ or an index in a factor $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_h$, $B\ge 3$).
[*Convention:*]{} In this subsection only, for tensor fields in the forms (\[procareless\]), (\[careless\]) we say then an index is [*special*]{} if it is one of the indices ${}_k,{}_l$ in a factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ (this is the usual convention), [*or*]{} if it is an index in a factor $\nabla^{(B)}_{r_1\dots r_B}\Omega_h$ [*for which all the other indices are contracting against factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$*]{}.
All tensor fields in (\[procareless\]), (\[careless\]) have a given $v$-simple character $\overline{\kappa}_{simp}$. The complete contractions indexed in $J$ are assumed to have a weak $v$-character $Weak(\overline{\kappa}_{simp})$ and to be simply subsequent to $\overline{\kappa}_{simp}$. Here $X_{*}div_i$ stands for the sublinear combination in $Xdiv_i$ where $\nabla_i$ is not allowed to hit any of the factors $\nabla Y,
\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$ or $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2,\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$, respectively.
[*The Claims of the general statement:*]{} We claim that under the assumption (\[careless\]), there exists a linear combination of acceptable 2-tensor fields in the form (\[proherodium\]), (\[herodium\]) respectively (indexed in $W$ below), for which the $@$-property is satisfied, so that (respectively):
$$\label{procareless2}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon-
\\&\sum_{w\in W} a_w X_{*}div_{i_2}
C^{w,i_1i_2}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon=0,
\end{split}$$
$$\label{careless2}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon+
\\&\sum_{w\in W} a_w X_{*}div_{i_2}
C^{w,i_1i_2}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon=0.
\end{split}$$
We observe that when $\tau=0$ and $v+b\ge 3$, (\[careless2\]) coincides with (\[proarendt\]).[^61] Therefore, if we can prove this general statement, we will have shown Lemma \[firstclaimb\] in full generality, thus also completing the proof of Lemma \[vanderbi\].
We also have a further claim, when we assume (\[procareless\]), (\[careless\]) with $v+b=2$.
In that case, we also claim that we can write:
$$\label{balladur}
\begin{split}
&X_{+}div_{i_1}\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a\bigcup Z_b\bigcup \overline{Z}_a} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{balladur'}
\begin{split}
&X_{+}div_{i_1}\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a\bigcup \overline{Z}_a\bigcup Z_b} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $Q$ are in the same form as (\[proherodium\]) or (\[herodium\]) respectively, but have a factor (expression) $\nabla^{(2)}Y$ or $\nabla^{(2)}_{a[i}\omega_1\nabla_{j]}\omega_2$, respectively, and satisfy all the other properties of the tensor fields in $Z_a$.
[*Consequence of (\[procareless2\]), (\[careless2\]) when $v+b\ge 3$:*]{} We here codify a conclusion one can derive from (\[procareless2\]), (\[careless2\]). This implication will be useful further down in this subsection. We see that by making the factors $\nabla\upsilon$ into $X_{*} div$’s in (\[procareless\]), (\[careless\]) and replacing into (\[procareless2\]), (\[careless2\]), we obtain new equations:
$$\label{batis1}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=0,
\end{split}$$
$$\label{batis2}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=0,
\end{split}$$
where here the tensor fields indexed in $Z'_a$ are like the tensor fields indexed in $Z_a$ in (\[procareless\]), (\[careless\]) but have the additional feature that no free index belongs to the factor $\nabla\psi_1$ (and all the other assumptions of equations (\[procareless\]), (\[careless\]) continue to hold).
We then claim that we can derive new equations:
$$\label{corbatis1}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{corbatis2}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
where here $X_{+}div_i$ stands for the sublinear combination in $Xdiv_i$ where $\nabla_i$ [*is*]{} allowed to hit the factor $\nabla Y$ or $\nabla\chi_1$ (respectively), but not the factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\phi_\tau,(\nabla\chi_2)$. Furthermore, the linear combinations indexed in $Q$ stand for generic linear combinations of vector fields in the form (\[proherodium\]) or (\[herodium\]), only with the expressions $\nabla Y$ or $\nabla_{[a}\omega_1\nabla_{b]}\omega_2$ replaced by expressions $\nabla^{(2)}Y$, $\nabla^{(2)}_{c[a}\omega_1\nabla_{b]}\omega_2$.
[*Proof that (\[corbatis1\]), (\[corbatis2\]) follow from (\[procareless2\]), (\[careless2\]):*]{} We prove the above by an induction. We will firstly subdivide $Z'_a,Z_b$ into subsets as follows: $\zeta\in Z'_{a,@}$ or $\zeta\in Z_{b,@}$ if the factor $\nabla Y$ (or one of the factors $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$) is contracting against a special index in the same factor against which $\nabla\psi_1$ is contracting.
Now, if $Z'_{a,@}\bigcup Z_{b,@}\ne \emptyset$ our inductive statement will be the following:
We inductively assume that we can write:
$$\label{olmert1}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_{a,@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots
X_{+}div_{i_\gamma} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots
i_\gamma}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{t\in T^k} a_t X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_k}
C^{t,i_1\dots i_k}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_{a,No@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots
X_{+}div_{i_\gamma} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots
i_\gamma}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
and
$$\label{olmert2}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_{a,@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{t\in T^k} a_t X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_k}
C^{t,i_1\dots i_k}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_{a,No@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots
X_{+}div_{i_\gamma} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots
i_\gamma}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $T^k$ have all the properties of the tensor fields indexed in $Z'_{a,@}$ (in particular the index in $\nabla\psi_1$ is not free) and in addition have rank $k$. The tensor fields indexed in $Z'_{a,No@}$ in the RHS have all the regular features of the terms indexed in $Z'_a$ (in particular rank $\gamma\ge
1$ and the factor $\nabla\psi_1$ does not contain a free index) and in addition none of the factors $\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$) are contracting against a special index.
Our inductive claim is that we can write:
$$\label{proolmert1'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{t\in T^{k+1}} a_t X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{k+1}}
C^{t,i_1\dots i_{k+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_{a,No@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots
X_{+}div_{i_\gamma} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots
i_\gamma}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{proolmert2'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{t\in T^{k+1}} a_t X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_k}
C^{t,i_1\dots
i_{k+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_{a,No@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots
X_{+}div_{i_\gamma} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots
i_\gamma}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)
\\&+\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=0.
\end{split}$$
We will derive (\[proolmert1’\]), (\[proolmert2’\]) momentarily. For now, we observe that by iterative repetition of the above inductive step we are reduced to showing (\[corbatis1\]), (\[corbatis2\]) under the additional assumption that $Z'_{a,@}=\emptyset$.
Under that assumption, we denote by $Z_{b,@}\subset Z_b$ the index set of vector fields for which the factor $\nabla Y$ (or one of the factors $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$) is contracting against a special index. We will then assume that we can write:
$$\label{proolmert1b'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{t\in V^{k}} a_t X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{k}}
C^{t,i_1\dots i_k}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,No@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1} C^{\zeta,i_1}_g
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{proolmertb2'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{t\in V^{k}} a_t X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{k}}
C^{t,i_1\dots i_k}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,No@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1} C^{\zeta,i_1}_g
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $V^k$ have all the features of the tensor fields indexed in $Z_{b,@}$ but in addition have all the $k$ free indices [*not*]{} belonging to factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$. The tensor fields indexed in $Z_{b,No@}$ have all the regular features of the tensor fields in $Z_b$ and in addition have the factor $\nabla Y$ (or the factors $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$) [*not*]{} contracting against special indices. The terms indexed in $Q$ are as required in the RHS of (\[corbatis1\]), (\[corbatis2\]) (which are the equations that we are proving).
We will then show that we can write:
$$\label{proolmert1c'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{t\in V^{k+1}} a_t X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{k+1}}
C^{t,i_1\dots
i_{k+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,No@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1} C^{\zeta,i_1}_g
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{proolmertc2'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{t\in V^{k+1}} a_t X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{k+1}}
C^{t,i_1\dots
i_{k+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)
\\&+\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,No@}} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1} C^{\zeta,i_1}_g
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau).\end{split}$$
(Here the tensor fields indexed in $V^{k+1}$ have all the features described above and moreover have rank $k+1$).
Thus, by iterative repetition of this step we are reduced to showing our claim under the additional assumption that $Z'_{a,@}=Z_{b,@}=\emptyset$.
We prove (\[proolmert1c’\]), (\[proolmertc2’\]) below. Now, we present the rest of our claims under the assumption that $Z'_{a,@}=Z_{b,@}=\emptyset$. For the rest of this proof we will be assuming that all tensor fields have the factor $\nabla Y$ (or the factors $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$) not contracting against special indices.
We then perform a new induction: We assume that we can write:
$$\label{olmert1}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{t\in T^k} a_t X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_k}
C^{t,i_1\dots i_k}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{olmert2}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{t\in T^k} a_t X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_k}
C^{t,i_1\dots i_k}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $T^k$ have all the properties of the tensor fields indexed in $Z'_a$ (in particular the index in $\nabla\psi_1$ is not free) and in addition have rank $k$. We then show that we can write:
$$\label{olmert1'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{t\in T^{k+1}} a_t X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{k+1}}
C^{t,i_1\dots i_k}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{olmert2'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{t\in T^{k+1}} a_t X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{k+1}}
C^{t,i_1\dots
i_{k+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)
\\&+\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}
C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau).
\end{split}$$
We will derive (\[olmert1’\]), (\[olmert2’\]) momentarily. For now, we observe that by iterative repetition of the above we are reduced to showing (\[corbatis1\]), (\[corbatis2\]) under the additional assumption that $Z'_a=\emptyset$. In that setting, we can just repeatedly apply the eraser (see the Appendix in [@alexakis4] for a definition of this notion) to as many factors $\nabla\psi_\tau$ as needed in order to reduce ourselves to a new true equation where each of the real factors is contracting against at most one of the factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau,\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$).[^62] Then, by invoking Corollary 1 from [@alexakis4][^63] and then re-introducing the factors we erased, we derive our claim.
[*Proof of (\[olmert1’\]), (\[olmert2’\]):*]{} Picking out the sublinear combination in (\[olmert1\]), (\[olmert2\]) with one derivative on $\nabla Y$ or $\nabla\chi_1$ and substituting into (\[batis1\]), (\[batis2\]) we derive a new equation:
$$\label{expected1}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{t\in T^k} a_t X_{*}div_{i_1}\dots X_{*}div_{i_k}
C^{t,i_1\dots i_k}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{expected2}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{t\in T^k} a_t X_{*}div_{i_1}\dots X_{*}div_{i_k}
C^{t,i_1\dots i_k}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau);
\end{split}$$
(the sublinear combination $\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b}\dots$ above is [*generic*]{}).
We now divide the index set $T^k$ according to which of the factors $\nabla\psi_2$,$\dots$,$\nabla\psi_\tau$,$\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau,\nabla \chi_1$) contain the $k$ free indices. Thus we write: $T^k=\bigcup_{\alpha\in A}
T^{k,\alpha}$ (each $\alpha\in A$ corresponds to a $k$-subset of the set of factors $\nabla\psi_1$,$\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$,$\nabla Y$ or $\nabla\psi_1$,$\dots$,$\nabla\psi_\tau$,$\nabla \chi_1$). We will then show that for each $\alpha\in A$ there exists a tensor field $\sum_{b\in B^\alpha} a_b C^{b,i_1\dots i_{k+1}}_g$ in the form (\[proherodium\]) or (\[herodium\]) with the first $k$ free indices belonging to the factors in the set $\alpha$, and the free index ${}_{i_{k+1}}$ [*not*]{} belonging to $\nabla\psi_1$, so that:
$$\label{goldfarm1}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{t\in T^{k,\alpha}} a_t C^{t,i_1\dots
i_k}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_k}\upsilon-
\\&X_{*}div_{i_{k+1}}\sum_{b\in B^\alpha} a_b
C^{b,i_1\dots
i_{k+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_k}\upsilon
\\&=\sum_{j\in J} a_jC^{j,i_1\dots
i_k}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_k}\upsilon,
\end{split}$$
$$\label{goldfarm2}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{t\in T^{k,\alpha}} a_t C^{t,i_1\dots
i_k}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_k}\upsilon-
\\&X_{*}div_{i_{k+1}}\sum_{b\in B^\alpha} a_b
C^{b,i_1\dots
i_{k+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_k}\upsilon
\\&=\sum_{j\in J} a_jC^{j,i_1\dots
i_k}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_k}\upsilon.
\end{split}$$
If we can show the above for every $\alpha\in A$, then replacing the factor $\nabla\upsilon$ by $X_{+}div$’s we can derive our claim (\[olmert1’\]), (\[olmert2’\]).
[*Proof of (\[goldfarm1\]), (\[goldfarm2\]):*]{} Refer to (\[expected1\]) and (\[expected2\]). Denote $Y$ or $\chi_1$ by $\psi_{\tau+1}$ for uniformity. We pick out any $\alpha\in A$; assume that $\alpha=\{\nabla\psi_{x_1},\dots ,\nabla\psi_{x_k}\}$.
Pick out the sublinear combination where the factors $\nabla\psi_{x_1},\dots ,\nabla\psi_{x_k}$ which belong to $\alpha$ are contracting against the same factor as $\nabla\psi_1$. This sublinear combination $Z_g$ vanishes separately (i.e. $Z_g=0$). We then apply the eraser to the factors $\nabla\psi_2,\dots,\nabla Y\in A$ (notice this is [*well-defined*]{}, since all the above factors [*and*]{} the factor $\nabla\psi_1$ are contracting against non-special indices). We obtain a new true equation, which we denote by $Erase[Z_g]=0$. It then follows that $Erase[Z_g]\cdot(\nabla_{i_1}\psi_{x_1}
\nabla^{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_k}\psi_{x_k}\nabla^{i_k}\upsilon)=0$ is our desired conclusion (\[goldfarm1\]), (\[goldfarm2\]). $\Box$
[*(Sketch of) Proof of (\[proolmert1’\]), (\[proolmert2’\]) (\[proolmert1c’\]), (\[proolmertc2’\]):*]{} These equations can be proven by only a slight modification of the idea above. We again subdivide the index sets $T^k,V^k$ according to the set of factors $\nabla\psi_2,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$ or $\nabla\psi_2,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau,\nabla\omega_1$ which contain the $k$ free indices (so we write $T^{k}=\bigcup_{\alpha\in A}
T^{k,\alpha}$ and $V^k=\bigcup_{\alpha\in A} V^{k,\alpha}$) and we prove the claims above separately for those sublinear combinations.
To prove this, we pick out the sublinear combination in our hypotheses with the factors $\nabla\psi_h$, $h\in \alpha$ contracting against the same factor against which $\nabla\psi_1$ and $\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\psi_1$ and $\nabla\omega_1$) are contracting. Say $\alpha=\{h_1,\dots,h_k\}$; we then formally replace the expressions $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}_{r_1\dots r_\mu l_1\dots
l_k}R_{ijkl}\nabla_{l_1}\psi_{h_1}\dots
\nabla^{l_k}\psi_{h_k}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^j\psi_1\nabla^kY$ or $\nabla^{(A)}_{r_1\dots r_\mu l_1\dots
l_kst}\Omega_1\nabla^{l_1}\psi_{h_1}\dots
\nabla^{l_k}\psi_{h_k}\nabla^s\psi_1\nabla^tY$ etc, by expressions\
$S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu-k)}_{r_1\dots
r_\mu}R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^j\psi_1\nabla^kY$, $\nabla^{(A-k)}_{r_1\dots r_\mu
st}\Omega_1\nabla^s\psi_1\nabla^tY$ and derive our claims (\[proolmert1’\]), (\[proolmert2’\]) (\[proolmert1c’\]), (\[proolmertc2’\]) as above. $\Box$
[*Proof of the claims of our general statement (i.e. (\[procareless2\]), (\[careless2\]) by induction):*]{} We will prove these claims by an induction. Our inductive assumptions are that (\[procareless2\]), (\[careless2\]) follow from (\[procareless\]), (\[careless\]) for any weight $-W'$, $W'<
K$ and when $W'=K$ they hold for any length $v+b\ge \gamma\ge 2$. We will then show the claim when the weight is $-K$, and $v+b=\gamma+1$. In the end, we will check our claims for the base case $v+b=2$.
[*Proof of the inductive step:*]{} Refer back to (\[procareless\]), (\[careless\]). We will prove this claim in four steps.
[*Step 1:*]{} Firstly, we will denote by $Z_a^{spec},\overline{Z}^{spec}_a, Z_b^{spec}$ the index sets of the tensor fields for which $\nabla Y$ or one of the factors $\nabla\chi_1$, $\nabla\chi_2$ (respectively) is contracting against a special index. Then [*using the inductive assumptions of our general claim*]{}, we will show that there exists a linear combination of 2-tensor fields (indexed in $W$ below) which satisfies all the requirements of (\[procareless\]), (\[procareless2\]) so that:
$$\label{yirgachef}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a^{spec}} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon-X_{*}div_{i_2}\sum_{w\in W}
a_w C^{w,i_1i_2}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon=
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a^{OK}} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon+ \sum_{j\in J} a_j
C^{j,i_1}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon,
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields n $Z_a^{OK}$ are [*generic*]{} linear combinations of tensor fields of the same general type as the ones indexed in $Z_a$ in (\[procareless\]), (\[procareless2\]) and where in addition none of the factors $\nabla Y$ or $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$ are contracting against a special index.
Thus, if we can show the above, by replacing $\nabla\upsilon$ by an $X_{*}div_i$, and substituting back into (\[procareless\]), (\[procareless2\]), we are reduced to showing (\[careless\]), (\[careless2\]) under the additional assumption that $Z_a^{spec}=\emptyset$.
[*Step 2:*]{} Then, under the assumption that $Z_a^{spec}=\emptyset$, we will show that we can write:
$$\label{yirgachef2}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b^{spec}} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}C^{\zeta,i_1}_g+
\sum_{\zeta\in \overline{Z}_a^{spec}} a_\zeta
X_{*}div_{i_1}\dots X_{*}div_{i_c}C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_c}_g=
\\&X_{*}div_{i_1}\dots X_{*}div_{i_b}\sum_{c\in C} a_c
C^{c,i_1\dots i_b}_g + \sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j,i_1}_g,
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields on the RHS are of the general form as the ones indexed in $Z_b,\overline{Z}_a$ in our hypothesis, and moreover the factor $\nabla Y$ (or the factors $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$) is (are) not contracting against special indices.
Notice that if we can show (\[yirgachef\]), (\[yirgachef2\]) then we are reduced to showing our claim under the additional assumption that for each $\zeta\in Z_a\bigcup \overline{Z}_a\bigcup Z_b$ the factor(s) $\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$) are not contracting against special indices. We will show (\[yirgachef\]), (\[yirgachef2\]) below.
[*Proof of (\[careless\]), (\[careless2\]) under the additional assumption that for each $\zeta\in Z_a\bigcup \overline{Z}_a\bigcup Z_b$ the factor $\nabla Y$ or ($\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$) is not contracting against special indices:*]{}
[*Step 3: Proof of (\[princecharles\]) below:*]{}
We note that for all the tensor fields in the rest of this proof will [*not*]{} have the factor $\nabla Y$ (or any of the factors $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$) contracting against a special index in any factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ or $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_h$. Now, we arbitrarily pick out one factor $T=S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ or $T=\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_x$ in $\overline{\kappa}_{simp}$ and call it the “chosen factor” for the rest of this subsection.
We will say that the factor $\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\omega_2$) is contracting against a good index in $T$, if it is contracting against a non-special index in $T$ when $T$ is of the form $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ with $\nu>0$; when $T$ is of the form $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_x$, then it is contracting against a good index provided $B\ge 3$.
We will say that the factor $\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\omega_2$) is contracting against a bad index if it is contracting against the index ${}_j$ in a factor $T=S_{*}R_{ijkl}$ or an index in a factor $T=\nabla^{(2)}\Omega_x$. We denote by $Z_a^{BAD}\subset Z_a$ the index set of tensor fields for which $\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\omega_2$) is contracting against a bad index. We also denote by $Z_b^{BAD}\subset Z_b$ the index set of the vector fields for which $\nabla Y$ is contracting against a bad index in $T$ and $T$ also contains a free index. We will show that we can write:
$$\label{princecharles}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a^{BAD}\bigcup Z_b^{BAD}} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon-
X_{*}div_{i_2}\sum_{h\in H} a_h C^{i_1i_2}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon=
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a'^{GOOD}\bigcup Z_b'^{GOOD}} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon+
\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g,
\end{split}$$
where all the tensor fields indexed in $Z_a'^{GOOD}\bigcup Z_b'^{GOOD}$ are [*generic*]{} vector fields of the forms indexed in $Z_a,Z_b$, only with the factors $\nabla Y$ or $\nabla \omega_2$ contracting against a [*good*]{} index in the factor $T$. The tensor fields indexed in $H$ are as required in the claim of our general statement (they correspond to the index set $W$ in our general statement).
[*Step 4: Proof that (\[princecharles\]) implies our claims (\[procareless2\]), (\[careless2\]).*]{}
We start by proving (\[princecharles\]) (i.e. we prove Step 3). Then, we will show how we can derive our claim from (\[princecharles\]) (i.e. we then prove Step 4).
[*Proof of Step 3: Proof of (\[princecharles\]):*]{} We can prove this equation by virtue of our inductive assumption on our general claim. First, we define $\overline{Z}_a^{BAD}\subset \overline{Z}_a$ to stand for the index set of tensor fields where the factor $\nabla
Y$ (or $\nabla\omega_2$) is contracting against a bad index in the chosen factor. We pick out the sublinear combination in our Lemma assumption where $\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla \omega_2$) are contracting against the chosen factor $T=S_{*}R_{ijkl}$ or $T=\nabla^{(2)}\Omega_x$). This sublinear combination must vanish separately, and we thus derive an equation:
$$\label{princecharles'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a^{BAD}\bigcup Z_b^{BAD}} a_\zeta
X_{**}div_{i_1} C^{\zeta,i_1}_g+\sum_{\zeta\in \overline{Z}_a^{BAD}}
a_\zeta X_{**}div_{i_1}\dots X_{**}div_{i_c} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_c}_g+
\\& \sum_{\zeta\in Z^{nvBAD}_b} a_f C^{f,i_1}_g=
\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g,
\end{split}$$
where $X_{**}div_{i_1}$ stands for the sublinear combination for which $\nabla_{i_1}$ is not allowed to hit the chosen factor $T$. $Z^{nvBAD}_b\subset Z_b$ stands for the index set of tensor fields indexed in $Z_b$ with the free index ${}_{i_1}$ [*not*]{} belonging to the chosen factor and also with the factor $\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\omega_2$) contracting against a bad index.
Now, define an operation $Op[\dots]$ which acts on the complete contractions above by formally replacing any expression $\nabla^{(2)}_{ij}\Omega_x\nabla^iY$ (or $\nabla^{(2)}_{ij}\Omega_x\nabla^i\chi_2$) by $\nabla_jD$ ($D$ is a scalar function), or any expression $S_{*}R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^j Y$ (or\
$S_{*}R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^j \chi_2$) by $\nabla_{[k}\theta_1\nabla_{l]}\theta_2$. (Denote by $\tilde{\kappa}_{simp}$ the simple character of these resulting vector fields). Acting on (\[princecharles’\]) by $Op[\dots]$ produces a true equation, which we may write out as:
$$\label{princecharles''}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a^{BAD}\bigcup Z_b^{BAD}} a_\zeta
X_{**}div_{i_1} Op[C]^{\zeta,i_1}_g+X_{**}div_{i_1}
\sum_{f\in F} a_f C^{f,i_1}_g
\\&+\sum_{\zeta\in \overline{Z}_a^{BAD}}
a_\zeta X_{**}div_{i_1}\dots X_{**}div_{i_c} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_c}_g=
\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g.
\end{split}$$
Here $X_{**}div_i$ stands for the sublinear combination in $div_i$ where $\nabla_i$ is not allowed to hit the factor to which $\nabla_i$ belongs, nor any of the factors $\nabla\phi_1,\dots,\nabla\phi_u$, $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$, nor any factors $\nabla
D,\nabla\theta_1,\nabla\theta_2$. The vector fields indexed in $F$ are generic vector fields with a simple character $\tilde{\kappa}_{simp}$, for which the free index ${}_{i_1}$ [*does not*]{} belong to any of the factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$ or any of the factors $\nabla
D,(\nabla\chi_1), \nabla\theta_1,\nabla\theta_2$.
Now, [*observe that the above equation falls under our inductive assumption of the general statement we are proving*]{}: We now either have factors $\nabla\psi_1$,$\dots$,$\nabla\psi_\tau$,$\nabla D$, or $\nabla\psi_1$,$\dots$,$\nabla\psi_\tau$,$\nabla\chi_1$,$\nabla D$ or $\nabla\psi_1,$…,$\nabla\psi_\tau$,$[\nabla
\theta_1,\nabla\theta_2]$ or $\nabla\psi_1$,$\dots$,$\nabla\psi_\tau$,$\nabla\chi_1$,$[\nabla
\theta_1,\nabla\theta_2]$. Notice that the tensor fields indexed in $H_a^{BAD},H_b^{BAD}$ are precisely the ones that contain a free index in one of these factors. Therefore, by our inductive assumption of the “general claim” we derive that there exists a linear combination of 2-tensor fields, $\sum_{v\in V}\dots$, (with factors $\nabla\psi_1$,$\dots$,$\nabla\psi_\tau$,$\nabla D$ etc, and which satisfy the $@$-property for the factors $\nabla\psi_1$,$\dots$,$\nabla\psi_\tau$) so that:
$$\label{princecharles'''}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a^{BAD}\bigcup Z_b^{BAD}} a_\zeta
Op[C]^{\zeta,i_1}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon-
X_{**}div_{i_2}\sum_{v\in V} a_v C^{v,i_1i_2}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon=
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j,i_1}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon.
\end{split}$$
Now, we define an operation $Op^{-1}[\dots]$, which acts on the complete contractions in the above equation by replacing the factor $\nabla_j D$ by an expression $\nabla_{ij}\Omega_x\nabla^jY$ (or $\nabla_{ij}\Omega_x\nabla^j\omega_2$) or the expression $\nabla_{[a}\theta_1\nabla_{b]}\theta_2$ by $S_{*}R_{ijab}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^jY$ (or $S_{*}R_{ijab}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^j\omega_2$). The operation $Op^{-1}$ clearly produces a true equation, which is our desired conclusion, (\[princecharles\]). $\Box$
[*Proof of Step 4:*]{} We derive our conclusions (\[procareless2\]), (\[careless2\]) in pieces. Firstly, we show these equations with the sublinear combinations $Z_a$ replaced by the index set $Z_{a,spec}$, which index the terms with the free index ${}_{i_1}$ belonging to the factor $\nabla Y$ or $\nabla\omega_1$ (this will be sub-step A). After proving this claim, we will show (\[procareless2\]), (\[careless2\]) under the additional assumption that $Z_{a,spec}=\emptyset$ (this will be sub-step B).
[*Proof of sub-step A:*]{} We make the $\nabla\upsilon$’s into $X_{*}div$’s in (\[princecharles\]) and replace the resulting equations into our Lemma hypothesis. We thus derive a new equation:
$$\label{tolook}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1} C^{\zeta,i_1}_g +
\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b^1} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1} C^{\zeta,i_1}_g+
\\& \sum_{\zeta\in Z_b^2} a_\zeta
X_{*}div_{i_1}\dots X_{*}div_{i_a} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_a}_g
+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g=0,
\end{split}$$
where we now have the tensor fields indexed in $Z_a$ have a free index among the factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau,\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau,\nabla
\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$), and furthermore the factor $\nabla Y$ (or the factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$) are not contracting against a bad index in the chosen factor $T$. The tensor fields indexed in $Z_b^1$ have a free index that [*does not*]{} belong to one of the factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau,\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau,\nabla
\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$), and furthermore [*if*]{} the factor $\nabla
Y$ (or one of the factors $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$) is contracting against a bad index in the chosen factor $T$, then $T$ does not contain the free index ${}_{i_1}$. Finally the tensor fields indexed in $Z_b^2$ each have rank $a\ge 2$ and all free indices belong to the factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau,\nabla Y$, $(\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2)$. We may then re-write our equation (\[tolook\]) in the form:
$$\label{tolook'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1} C^{\zeta,i_1}_g +
\sum_{\zeta\in Z_b^1} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1} C^{\zeta,i_1}_g+
\\& \sum_{\zeta\in {Z_b^2}'} a_\zeta
X_{*}div_{i_1}\dots X_{*}div_{i_a} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_a}_g
+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g=0,
\end{split}$$
where now for the tensor fields indexed in ${Z_b^2}'$, each $a\ge
1$ and the factor $\nabla\psi_1$ does not contain a free index for any of the tensor fields for which $\nabla Y$ (or one of $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$) is contracting against a bad index in the chosen factor.
We will denote by $Z_{b,\sharp}^1\subset Z_b^1$ and ${Z_{b,\sharp}^2}'\subset {Z_b^2}'$ the index sets of tensor fields where $\nabla Y$ (or one of $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$) is contracting against a bad index in the chosen factor $T$.
From (\[tolook’\]) we derive an equation:
$$\label{mizera}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,\sharp}^1} a_\zeta X_{**}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g+
\\& \sum_{\zeta\in {Z_{b,\sharp}^2}'} a_\zeta
X_{**}div_{i_1}\dots X_{**}div_{i_a} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_a}_g
+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g=0,
\end{split}$$
where $X_{**}div_i$ stands for the sublinear combination in $X_{*}div_i$ for which $\nabla_i$ is in addition no allowed to hit the chosen factor $T$.
Then, applying operation $Op$ as in Step 3 and the the inductive assumption of the general claim we are proving,[^64] and then using the operation $Op^{-1}[\dots]$ as in the proof of Step 3, we derive a new equation:
$$\label{mizeracor}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,\sharp}^1} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1}
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g+ \sum_{\zeta\in {Z_{b,\sharp}^2}'} a_\zeta
X_{*}div_{i_1}\dots X_{*}div_{i_a} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_a}_g=
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in {Z_{OK}}} a_\zeta
X_{*}div_{i_1}\dots X_{*}div_{i_a} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_a}_g
+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g=0,
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $Z_{OK}$ have rank $a\ge 1$ (all free indices [*not*]{} belonging to factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots ,\nabla Y$ or $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\chi_2$) and furthermore have the property that the one index in $\nabla Y$ or $\nabla\omega_1$ is not contracting against a bad index in the chosen factor (and it is also not free). Thus, replacing the above back into (\[tolook’\]), we derive:
$$\label{tolook''}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1} C^{\zeta,i_1}_g +
\sum_{\zeta\in {Z_b^1}'} a_\zeta X_{*}div_{i_1} C^{\zeta,i_1}_g+
\\& \sum_{\zeta\in {Z_b^2}''} a_\zeta
X_{*}div_{i_1}\dots X_{*}div_{i_a} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_a}_g
+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g=0,
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in ${Z_b^1}',{Z_b^2}''$ have the additional restriction that if the factor $\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$) is contracting against the chosen factor $T$ then it is not contracting against a bad index in $T$.
We are now in a position to derive sub-step A from the above: To see this claim, we just apply $Erase_{\nabla Y}$ or $Erase_{\nabla\omega_1}$ to (\[tolook”\]) and multiply the resulting equation by $\nabla_{i_1}Y\nabla^{i_1}\upsilon$.
[*Sub-step B:*]{} Now, we are reduced to showing our claim when $Z_{a,spec}=\emptyset$. In that setting, we denote by $Z_{a,s}\subset Z_a$ the index set of vector fields in $Z_a$ for which the free index ${}_{i_1}$ belongs to the factor $\nabla\psi_s$; we prove our claim separately for each of the sublinear combinations $\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{a,s}}\dots$. This claim is proven by picking out the sublinear combinations in (\[procareless\]), (\[careless\]) where the factors $\nabla\psi_s$ and $\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\chi_1$) are contracting against the same factor; we then apply the eraser to $\nabla\psi_s$ (this is well-defined and produces a true equation), and multiply by $\nabla_{i_1}\psi_s\nabla^{i_1}\upsilon$. The resulting equation is precisely our claim for the sublinear combination $\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{a,s}}\dots$.
[*(Sketch of the) Proof of Steps 1 and 2 (i.e. of (\[yirgachef\]) and (\[yirgachef2\])):*]{} We will sketch the proof of these claims for the sublinear combinations in\
$Z_a^{spec}\bigcup Z_b^{spec}\bigcup
\overline{Z}^a_{spec}$ where one of the special indices in $C^{\zeta,i_1}$ is an index ${}_k$ or ${}_l$ that belongs to a factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$. The remaining case (where the special indices belong to factors $\nabla^{(a)}\Omega_h$) can be seen by a similar (simpler) argument.[^65]
For each $\zeta\in Z_a^{spec}\bigcup Z_b^{spec}\bigcup
\overline{Z}^a_{spec}$ We denote by $\overline{C}^{\zeta,{i_1}}_g$, $\overline{C}^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_\gamma}_g$ the tensor fields that arise from $C^{\zeta,i_1}$ $C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_\gamma}_g$in (\[procareless\]), (\[procareless2\]) by replacing the expressions $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}_{r_1\dots r_\nu}R_{ijkl}
\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^k Y$, $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}_{r_1\dots
r_\nu}R_{ijkl} \nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^k \chi_2$ by a factor $\nabla^{(\nu+2)}_{r_1\dots r_\nu jl}\Omega_{b+1}$. We denote by $\tilde{\kappa}_{simp}$ the resulting simple character. We derive an equation:
$$\label{drivethere}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a^{spec}\bigcup Z_b^{spec}} a_\zeta
X_{*}div_{i_1} \overline{C}^{\zeta,i_1}_g +
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in \overline{Z}^{spec}_a} a_\zeta
X_{*}div_{i_1} \dots X_{*}div_{i_\gamma}\overline{C}^{\zeta,i_1}_g
+\sum_{j\in J} a_j
\overline{C}^j_g=0.
\end{split}$$
Now, again applying the inductive assumption of our general statement, we derive that there is a linear combination of tensor fields (indexed in $W$ below) with a free index ${}_{i_1}$ belonging to one of the factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$ or $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau, \nabla \chi_1$ so that:
$$\label{fifteenth}
\begin{split}
& \sum_{\zeta\in Z_a^{spec}} a_\zeta
\overline{C}^{\zeta,i_1}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon
-X_{*}div_{i_2} \sum_{w\in W}
a_w C^{w,i_1i_2}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon=\sum_{j\in J} a_j \overline{C}^j_g.
\end{split}$$
Now, applying an operation $Op^{*}$ to the above which formally replaces the factor $\nabla^{(A)}_{r_1\dots r_A}\Omega_x$ by a factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(A-2)}_{r_1\dots r_{A-2}}R_{ir_{A-1}kr_A}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^kY$ or\
$S_{*}\nabla^{(A-2)}_{r_1\dots r_{A-2}}R_{ir_{A-1}kr_A}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^k\chi_2$, we derive (\[yirgachef\]) (since we can repeat the permutations by which (\[fifteenth\]) is made to hold formally, modulo introducing correction terms that allowed in the RHS of (\[yirgachef\])).
We will now prove (\[yirgachef2\]) by repeating the induction performed in the “Consequence” we derived above (where we showed that inductively assuming (\[olmert1\]), (\[olmert2\]) we can derive (\[proolmert1’\]), (\[proolmert2’\])):
We will show the claim of Step 2 in pieces: First consider the tensor fields indexed in $\overline{Z}_{a,@}$ of minimum rank $2$ (denote the corresponding index set is $\overline{Z}_{a,@}^2$); we then show that we can write:
$$\label{synerghsw}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in \overline{Z}_{a,@}^2} a_\zeta Xdiv_{i_1}
Xdiv_{i_2} C^{\zeta,i_1 i_2}_g=
\\& \sum_{\zeta\in \overline{Z}_{a,@}^{3}} a_\zeta Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_{3}}
C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_{3}}_g+\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,@}} a_\zeta
Xdiv_{i_1} C^{\zeta,i_1}_g+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{OK}} a_\zeta Xdiv_{i_1}\dots
Xdiv_{i_a}C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_a}_g+
\sum_{j\in } a_j C^j.
\end{split}$$
The tensor fields indexed in $\overline{Z}_{a,@}^{3}, Z_{b,@}$ in the RHS are generic linear combinations in those forms (the first with rank $3$). The tensor fields indexed in $Z_{OK}$ are generic linear combinations as allowed in the RHS of our Step 2. Assuming we can prove (\[synerghsw\]), we are then reduced to showing our claim when the minimum rank among the tensor fields indexed in $Z_{a,@}$ is 3. We may then “forget” about any $Xdiv_{i_h}$ where ${}_{i_h}$ belongs to the factor $\nabla\psi_1$. Therefore, we are reduced to showing our claim when the minimum rank is 2 and the factor $\nabla\psi_1$ does not contain a free index. We then show our claim by an induction (for the rest of this derivation, all tensor fields will [*not*]{} have a free index in the factor $\nabla\psi_1$): Assume that the minimum rank of the tensor fields indexed in $\overline{Z}_{a,@}$ is $k$, and they are indexed in $\overline{Z}^k_{a,@}$. We then show that we can write:
$$\label{synerghsw'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in \overline{Z}_{a,@}^k} a_\zeta Xdiv_{i_1}\dots
Xdiv_{i_k} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_k}_g=
\\& \sum_{\zeta\in \overline{Z}_{a,@}^{k+1}} a_\zeta Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_{k+1}}
C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_{k+1}}_g+\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,@}} a_\zeta
Xdiv_{i_1} C^{\zeta,i_1}_g+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{OK}} a_\zeta Xdiv_{i_1}\dots
Xdiv_{i_a}C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_a}_g+
\sum_{j\in } a_j C^j.
\end{split}$$
The tensor fields indexed in $\overline{Z}_{a,@}^{3}, Z_{b,@}$ in the the RHS are generic linear combinations in those forms (the first with rank $k+1$). The tensor fields indexed in $Z_{OK}$ are generic linear combinations as allowed in the RHS of our Step 2.
Iteratively repeating this step we are reduced to showing our Step 2 when $Z_{a,@}=\emptyset$.
In that case we then assume that the tensor fields indexed in $Z_{b,@}$ have minimum rank $k$ (and the corresponding index set is $Z^k_{b,@}$) and we show that we can write:
$$\label{synerghsw2}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,@}^k} a_\zeta Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_k}
C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_k}_g=
\\& \sum_{\zeta\in Z_{b,@}^{k+1}} a_\zeta
Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_{k+1}}
C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_{k+1}}_g+
\\&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_{OK}} a_\zeta Xdiv_{i_1}\dots
Xdiv_{i_a}C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_a}_g+\sum_{j\in } a_j C^j,
\end{split}$$
(with the same conventions as in the above equation).
If we can prove (\[synerghsw\]) and (\[synerghsw2\]) we will have shown our step 2.
[*Proof of (\[synerghsw\]), (\[synerghsw’\]), (\[synerghsw2\]):*]{} We start with a small remark: If the chosen factor is of the form $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$, we replace our assumption by a more convenient equation: Consider the tensor fields $C^{\zeta,i_1\dots
i_a}_g$, $\zeta\in \overline{Z}_{a,@}\bigcup Z_{b,@}$; we denote by $\tilde{C}^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_a}_g$ the tensor fields that arise from $C^{\zeta,i_1\dots i_a}_g$ by replacing the expression $\nabla^{(\nu)}_{r_1\dots
r_\nu}R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^kY$ (or $\nabla^{(\nu)}_{r_1\dots
r_\nu}R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^k\chi_2$) by a factor $\nabla^{(\nu+2)}_{r_1\dots r_\nu jl}\Omega_{p+1}$. We then derive an equation:
$$\label{sfragis}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in \overline{Z}_a\bigcup Z_b} a_\zeta
X_{*}div_{i_1}\dots X_{*}div_{i_a} \tilde{C}^{\zeta,i_1\dots
i_a}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_{p+1},\phi_2,\dots
,\phi_u,(\chi_1),\psi_1,\dots ,\psi_\tau)
\\&+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_{p+1},\phi_2,\dots
,\phi_u,(\chi_1),\psi_1,\dots ,\psi_\tau).
\end{split}$$
Now we can derive our claims:
[*Proof of (\[synerghsw’\]):*]{} We divide the index set $Z_{\overline{Z}_{a,@}^2}$ according to the two factors which contain the two free indices and we show our claim for each of those tensor fields separately. The proof goes as follows: We pick out the sublinear combination in our hypothesis (or in (\[sfragis\])) where the factors $\nabla\psi_h,\nabla\psi_{h'}$ (or $\nabla\psi_h,\nabla\chi_2$) are contracting against the same factor. Clearly, this sublinear combination, $X_g$, vanishes separately. We then formally erase the factor $\nabla\psi_h$. Then, we may apply the inductive assumption of our general claim to the resulting equation (the minimum rank of the tensor fields will be 1), and (in case our assumption is (\[sfragis\]) we also apply an operation $Op^{-1}$ which replaces the factor $\nabla^{(y)}_{r_1\dots r_y}\Omega_{p+1}$ by $S_{*}\nabla^{(y-2)}_{r_1\dots
r_{y-2}}R_{ir_{y-1}kr_y}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\nabla^kY(\nabla^k\chi_1)$). This is our desired conclusion.
[*Proof of (\[synerghsw\]), (\[synerghsw2\]):*]{} Now, we show (\[synerghsw\]) for the subset $Z_{a,@}^{k,\alpha}$ (which indexes the $k$-tensor fields for which the free indices ${}_{i_1},\dots, {}_{i_k}$ belong to a chosen subset of the factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau, (\nabla\chi_1)$ (hence the label $\alpha$ designates the chosen subset). To prove this equation, we pick out the sublinear combination in the equation (\[sfragis\]) where the factors $\nabla\psi_2,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau,(\nabla\chi_1)$ (indexed in $\alpha$) are contracting against the same factor as $\nabla\psi_1$. Then we apply the eraser to these factors and the indices they contract against. This is our desired conclusion. To show (\[synerghsw2\]), we only have to treat the factors $\nabla\psi_h$ as factors $\nabla\phi_h$. The claim then follows by applying Corollary 1 in [@alexakis4] and making the factors $\nabla\upsilon$ into $Xdiv$’s.[^66] $\Box$
[*Proof of the base case ($v+b=2$) of the general claim:*]{} We firstly prove our claim when our hypothesis is (\[careless\]) (as opposed to (\[procareless\])).
[*Proof of the base case under the hypothesis (\[careless\]):*]{} We observe that the weight $-K$ in our assumption must satisfy $K\ge 2\tau +8$ if $v>0$ and $K\ge
2\tau+6$ if $v=0$.
First consider the case where we have the strict inequalities $K> 2\tau +8$ if $v>0$ and $K> 2\tau+6$ if $v=0$. In that case our first claim of the base case can be proven straightforwardly, by picking out a removable index in each $C^{\zeta,i_a}_g, \zeta\in
Z_a$ and treating it as an $X_{*}div$ (which can be done when we only have two real factors). Thus, in this setting we only have to show our second claims (\[balladur\]), (\[balladur’\]).
In this setting, by using the “manual” constructions as in [@alexakis3], we can construct explicit tensor fields which satisfy all the assumptions of our claim in the base case (each with rank $\ge 2$), so that:
$$\label{colgate}
\begin{split}
&X_{+}div_{i_1} \sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a\bigcup Z_b} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}C^{q,i_q}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{p\in P} a_p X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{c+1}} C^{p,i_1\dots
i_{c+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\\&\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)
+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g
\end{split}$$
Here the tensor field $C^{p,i_1\dots i_{c+1}}_g$ will be in one of three forms:
If $v=2$ then each $C^{p,i_1\dots i_{c+1}}_g$ will be in the form: $$\label{sadamhus}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(S_{*}{\nabla^{(\nu_1)}}^{f_{b_1}\dots f_{b_h}}_{i_1\dots
i_{c-1}} R_{x_1ji_cl}\otimes S_{*}{\nabla^{(\nu_2)}}^{f_{d_1}\dots
f_{d_y}}{{{R_{x_v}}^{j'}}_{i_{c+1}}}^l\otimes
\\&\otimes
[\nabla^j\chi_1\otimes\nabla_{j'}\chi_2]\otimes\nabla_{f_1}
\psi_1\dots\otimes\nabla_{f_\tau}\psi_\tau\otimes
\nabla^{x_1}\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla^{x_2}\tilde{\phi}_2),
\end{split}$$ where $\{b_1,\dots ,b_h,d_1,\dots ,d_y\}=\{1,\dots,\tau\}$.
If $v=1$ then $\sum_{p\in P}\dots=0$ (this can be arranged because of the two antisymmetric indices ${}_k,{}_l$ in the one factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$).
If $v=0$ then each $C^{p,i_1\dots i_{c+1}}_g$ will be in the form: $$\label{sadamhus2}
\begin{split}
&pcontr({\nabla^{(A_1)}}^{f_{b_1}\dots f_{b_h}}_{i_1\dots
i_{c-1}ji_c} \Omega_1\otimes {\nabla^{(A_2)}}^{f_{d_1}\dots
f_{d_y}j'i_{c+1}}\Omega_2
\\&\otimes
[\nabla^j\chi_1\otimes\nabla_{j'}\chi_2]\otimes\nabla_{f_1}
\psi_1\dots\otimes\nabla_{f_\tau}\psi_\tau\otimes
\nabla^{x_1}\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla^{x_2}\tilde{\phi}_2),
\end{split}$$ where $\{b_1,\dots ,b_h,d_1,\dots ,d_y\}=\{1,\dots,\tau\}$.
Then, picking out the sublinear combination in (\[sadamhus\]), (\[sadamhus2\]) with factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau,\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$ we derive that $\sum_{p\in P}\dots=0$. This is precisely our desired conclusion in this case.
Now, the case where we have the equalities in our Lemma hypothesis, $K= 2\tau +8$ if $v>0$ and $K= 2\tau+6$ if $v=0$. In this case we note that in our hypothesis $Z_b=\emptyset$ if $v\ne
1$, while $Z_a=\overline{Z}_a=\emptyset$ if $v=1$.
Then, if $v\ne 1$, by the “manual” constructions as in [@alexakis3], it follows that we can construct tensor fields (as required in the claim of our “general claim”), so that:
$$\label{fronhsh}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z_a} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon
\\&\-X_{*}div_{i_2} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1i_2}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon=
\\& a_{*}
C^{*,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon,
\end{split}$$
where the tensor field $C^{*,i_1}_g$ is in the form:
$$\label{invading}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(S_{*}{\nabla^{(\nu_1)}}^{f_1\dots f_{\tau-1}}
{{R_{x_1}}^{f_\tau}}_{kl}\otimes {{R_{x_2}}^{j'kl}}\otimes
\otimes\\&
[\nabla_{i_1}\chi_1\otimes\nabla_{j'}\chi_2]\otimes\nabla_{f_1}
\psi_1\dots\otimes\nabla_{f_\tau}\psi_\tau\otimes
\nabla^{x_1}\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla^{x_2}\tilde{\phi}_2),
\end{split}$$
if $v=2$, and in the form: $$\label{invading2}
\begin{split}
&pcontr({{\nabla^{(\tau+1)}}^{f_1\dots f_{\tau}}}_s\Omega_1
\otimes \nabla^{j's}\Omega_2
\otimes \\&[\nabla_{i_1}\chi_1\otimes\nabla_{j'}\chi_2]\otimes\nabla_{f_1}
\psi_1\dots\otimes\nabla_{f_\tau}\psi_\tau\otimes
\nabla^{x_1}\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla^{x_2}\tilde{\phi}_2),
\end{split}$$ if $v=0$.
Thus, we are reduced to the case where $Z_a$ only consists of the vector field (\[invading\]) or (\[invading2\]), and all other tensor fields in our Lemma hypothesis have rank $\ge 2$ (we have denoted their index set by $Z'_a$). We then show that we can write:
$$\label{colgate2}
\begin{split}
&X_{+}div_{i_1} \sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{p\in P} a_p X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{c+1}} C^{p,i_1\dots
i_{c+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)
\\&+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g,
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $P$ here each have rank $\ge 2$ and are all in the form:
$$\label{sadamhus'}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(S_{*}{\nabla^{(\nu_1)}}^{f_1\dots f_{\tau-1}}
{{R_{x_1}}^{f_\tau}}_{i_kl}\otimes
S_{*}{{R_{x_v}}^{j'kl}}\otimes
\\&[\nabla_{i_1}\chi_1\otimes\nabla_{j'}\chi_2]\otimes\nabla_{y_1}
\psi_1\dots\otimes\nabla_{y_\tau}\psi_\tau
\otimes\nabla^{x_1}\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla^{x_2}\tilde{\phi}_2),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{sadamhus''}
\begin{split}
&pcontr({{\nabla^{(\nu_1)}}^{f_1\dots f_{\tau}}}_s
\Omega_1\otimes
\nabla^{j's}\Omega_2\otimes
\\&[\nabla_{i_1}\chi_1\otimes\nabla_{j'}\chi_2]\otimes\nabla_{y_1}
\psi_1\dots\otimes\nabla_{y_\tau}\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
where each of the indices ${}^{f_h}$ is contracting against one of the indices ${}_{y_q}$. The indices ${}_{y_q}$ that are [*not*]{} contracting against an index ${}^{f_h}$ are free indices.
Then, replacing the above into our Lemma hypothesis (and making all the $\nabla\upsilon$’s ito $X_{+}div$’s), we derive that $a_p=0$ for every $p\in P$ and $a_{*}=0$. This concludes the proof of the base case when $v+b=2$, $v\ne 1$. In the case $v=1$ we show our claim by just observing that we can write:
$$\label{colgate3}
\begin{split}
&X_{+}div_{i_1} \sum_{\zeta\in Z_b} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}C^{q,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)
\\&+ \sum_{j\in J} a_j
C^j_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau);
\end{split}$$
this concludes the proof of the base case, when the tensor fields in our Lemma hypothesis are in the form (\[careless\]).
Now, we consider the setting where our hypothesis is (\[procareless\]). We again observe that if $v=0$ then the weight $-K$ in our hypothesis must satisfy $K\ge 2\tau+4$. If $v>0$ it must satisfy $K\ge 2\tau+6$. We then again first consider the case where we have the strict inequalities in the hypothesis of our general claim.
In this case (where we have the strict inequalities $K> 2\tau+4$ if $v=0$ and $K> 2\tau+6$ if $v\ne 0$) our first claim follows straightforwardly (as above, we just pick out one removable index in each $C^{\zeta,i_1}_g, \zeta\in Z_a$ and treat it as an $X_{*}div$). To show the second claim we proceed much as before:
We can “manually” construct tensor fields in order to write:
$$\label{colgate}
\begin{split}
&X_{+}div_{i_1} \sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a\bigcup Z_b} a_\zeta
C^{\zeta,i_1}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}C^{q,i_q}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{p\in P} a_p X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_{c+1}} C^{p,i_1\dots
i_{c+1}}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_b,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_v,
[\chi_1,\chi_2],\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)
\\&+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g.
\end{split}$$
Here the tensor field $C^{p,i_1\dots i_{c+1}}_g$ will be in one of three forms:
If $v=2$ then each $C^{p,i_1\dots i_{c+1}}_g$ will be: $$\label{sadamhus}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(S_{*}{\nabla^{(\nu_1)}}^{f_{b_1}\dots f_{b_h}}_{i_1\dots
i_{c-1}} {{R_{x_1}}^{f_{b_{h+1}}}}_{i_cl}\otimes
S_{*}{\nabla^{(\nu_2)}}^{f_{d_1}\dots f_{d_y}}
{{{R_{x_v}}^{f_{d_{y+1}}}}_{i_{c+1}}}^l\otimes
\\&\nabla_{f_{\tau+1}}Y\otimes\nabla_{f_1}
\psi_1\dots\otimes\nabla_{f_\tau}\psi_\tau\otimes
\nabla^{x_1}\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla^{x_2}\tilde{\phi}_2),
\end{split}$$ where $\{b_1,\dots ,b_{h+1},d_1,\dots ,d_{y+1}\}=\{1,\dots,\tau+1\}$.
If $v=1$ then $\sum_{p\in P}\dots=0$ (this is because of the two antisymmetric indices ${}_k,{}_l$ in the one factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$).
If $v=0$ then each $C^{p,i_1\dots i_{c+1}}_g$ will be in the form: $$\label{sadamhus2}
\begin{split}
&pcontr({\nabla^{(A_1)}}^{f_{b_1}\dots f_{b_{h}}}_{i_1\dots
i_{c-1}i_c}\Omega_1 \otimes {\nabla^{(A_2)}}^{f_{d_1}\dots
f_{d_{y}}i_{c+1}}\Omega_2
\\&\otimes\nabla_{f_{\tau+1}} Y\otimes\nabla_{f_1}
\psi_1\dots\otimes\nabla_{f_\tau}\psi_\tau),
\end{split}$$ where $\{b_1,\dots ,b_h,d_1,\dots ,d_y\}=\{1,\dots,\tau+1\}$.
Then, picking out the sublinear combination in (\[sadamhus\]), (\[sadamhus2\]) with factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau,\nabla Y$ we derive that $\sum_{p\in P}\dots=0$. This is precisely our desired conclusion in this case.
Finally, we prove our claim when we have the equalities $K= 2\tau+4$ if $v<2$ and $K= 2\tau+6$ if $v =2$) in the hypothesis of our general claim.
In this case by “manually” constructing $X_{+}div$’s so that we can write:
$$\label{sygkino}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{\zeta\in Z'_a\bigcup Z_b\bigcup \overline{Z}_a} a_\zeta
X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_a} C^{\zeta,i_1\dots
i_a}_g(\Omega_1,\dots \Omega_b,Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)=
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_a}
C^{q,i_1\dots i_a}_g(\Omega_1,\dots
\Omega_b,Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)+
\\&\sum_{p\in P} a_p X_{+}div_{i_1}\dots X_{+}div_{i_a}
C^{p,i_1\dots i_a}_g(\Omega_1,\dots
\Omega_b,Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau)
\\&+\sum_{j\in J} a_j
C^j_g(\Omega_1,\dots \Omega_b,Y,\psi_1,\dots,\psi_\tau).
\end{split}$$
Here the tensor fields indexed in $P$ are in the following form:
If $v=0$ then they will either be in the form:
$$\label{antestrateyeto1}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla_{i_{*}}Y\otimes {\nabla^{(A)}}^{f_{x_1}\dots f_{x_a}
s}\Omega_1 \otimes{\nabla^{(B)}}^{f_{x_{a+1}}\dots f_{x_\tau}}_s\Omega_2
\otimes\nabla_{f_1}\psi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla_{f_\tau}\phi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
(where $\{x_1,\dots ,x_\tau\}=\{1,\dots ,\tau\}$), or in the form:
$$\label{antestrateyeto2}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla_{q}Y\otimes
{\nabla^{(A)}}^{f_{x_1}\dots f_{x_a}}_{i_{*}}\Omega_1
\otimes{\nabla^{(B)}}^{f_{x_{a+1}}\dots f_{x_\tau} q}\Omega_2
\otimes\nabla_{f_1}\psi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla_{f_\tau}\phi_\tau),
\end{split}$$
(where $\{x_1,\dots ,x_\tau\}=\{1,\dots ,\tau\}$).
If $v=2$ they will be in the form:
$$\label{antestrateyeto3}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla_{i_{*}}Y\otimes {\nabla^{(A)}}^{f_{x_1}\dots
f_{x_{a-1}}} S_{*}R^{i f_{x_a} kl} \otimes {\nabla^{(B)}}^{f_{x_{a+1}}\dots f_{x_{\tau-1}}} {R^{i'f_{x_\tau} }}_{kl}
\\&\otimes\nabla_{f_1}\psi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla_{f_\tau}
\phi_\tau\nabla_i\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla_{i'}\tilde{\phi}_2),
\end{split}$$
(where $\{x_1,\dots ,x_\tau\}=\{1,\dots ,\tau\}$), or in the form:
$$\label{antestrateyeto4}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla_{q}Y\otimes {\nabla^{(A)}}^{f_{x_1}\dots
f_{x_{a-1}}}
S_{*}R^{i f_{x_a} ql} \otimes
{\nabla^{(B)}}^{f_{x_{a+1}}\dots f_{x_{\tau-1}}} {R^{i'f_{x_\tau}}}_{i_{*}l}
\\&\otimes\nabla_{y_1}\psi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla_{y_\tau}
\phi_\tau\nabla_i\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla_{i'}\tilde{\phi}_2).
\end{split}$$
If $v=1$ the equation (\[sygkino\]) will hold with $P=\emptyset$:
Then, picking out the sublinear combination in (\[sygkino\]) which consists of terms with a factor $\nabla Y$ and replacing into our hypothesis, we derive that the coefficient of each of the tensor fields indexed in $P$ must be zero. This completes the proof of our claim. $\Box$
Proof of Lemmas \[obote3\], \[vanderbi3\]:
------------------------------------------
[*Proof of Lemma \[obote3\]:*]{}
The first claim follows immediately, since each tensor field has a removable index (thus each tensor field separately can be written as an $X_{*}div$).
The proof of the second claim essentially follows the “manual” construction of divergences, as in [@alexakis3]. By “manually” constructing explicit divergences out of each $C^{h,i_1\dots
i_\alpha}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)$, $h\in H_2$, we derive that we can write:
$$\label{amerwom}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{h\in H_2} a_h Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_\alpha}C^{h,i_1\dots
i_\alpha}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)=
\\&(Const)_1 Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_\xi}C^{1,i_1\dots
i_\xi}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)+
\\&(Const)_2 Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_\zeta}C^{2,i_1\dots
i_\zeta}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_\alpha}C^{q,i_1\dots
i_\alpha}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $Q$ are as required by our Lemma hypothesis, while the tensor fields $C^1,C^2$ are explicit tensor fields which we will write out below (they depend on the values $p,\sigma_1,\sigma_2$).[^67]
We will then show that in (\[amerwom\]) we will have $(Const)_1=(Const)_2=0$. That will complete the proof of Lemma \[obote3\]. We distinguish cases based on the value of $p$: Either $p=2$ or $p=1$ or $p=0$.
[*The case $p=2$:*]{} With no loss of generality we assume that the factor $\nabla^{(A)}\Omega_1$ is contracting against the factors $\nabla\phi_1,\dots,\nabla\phi_x$ and $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_2$ is contracting against $\nabla\phi_{x+1},\dots ,\nabla\phi_{x+t}$; we may also assume wlog that $x\le t$. By manually constructing divergences, it follows that we can derive (\[amerwom\]), where each of the tensor fields $C^1,C^2$ will be in the forms, respectively:
$$\label{mitsakis} pcontr(\nabla_{i_{*}}Y\otimes
\nabla^{(A)}_{v_1\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}\Omega_1\otimes\nabla^{(B)}_{y_1\dots y_t
i_{\gamma+1}\dots i_{\gamma+\delta}}\Omega_2
\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u),$$
(where if $t\ge 2$ then $\delta=0$, otherwise $t+\delta=2$), or:
$$\label{mitsakis2} pcontr(\nabla_{q}Y\otimes
\nabla^q\nabla^{(A)}_{v_1\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}\Omega_1\otimes\nabla^{(B)}_{y_1\dots y_t
i_{\gamma+1}\dots i_{\gamma+\delta}}\Omega_2
\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u),$$
(where if $t\ge 2$ then $\delta=0$, otherwise $t+\delta=2$).
[*The case $p=1$:*]{} We “manually” construct divergences to derive (\[amerwom\]), where if $\sigma_1=1$ then there are no tensor fields $C^1,C^2$ (and hence (\[amerwom\]) is our desired conclusion); if $\sigma_1=0,\sigma_2=1$ then there is only the tensor field $C^1$ in (\[amerwom\]) and it is in the form:
$$\label{mitsakis3}\begin{split} &pcontr(\nabla^{q}Y\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}_{v_2\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}R_{ii_{\gamma+1}i_{\gamma+2}q}\otimes\nabla^{(B)}_{y_1\dots
y_t i_{\gamma+1}\dots i_{\gamma+\delta}}\Omega_2
\\&\otimes\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_2\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where if $t\ge 2$ then $\delta=0$, otherwise $\delta=2-t$.
[*The case $p=0$:*]{} We have three subcases: Firstly $\sigma_2=2$, secondly $(\sigma_2=1,\sigma_1=1)$, and thirdly $\sigma_1=2$.
In the case $\sigma_2=2$, the tensor fields $C^1,C^2$ must be in the forms, respectively:
$$\label{mitsakis3,5}
\begin{split} & pcontr(\nabla_{i_{*}}Y\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}_{v_2\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}R_{ii_{\gamma+1}i_{\gamma+2}l}\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(t-1)}_{y_1\dots
y_t}{R_{i'i_{\gamma+3}i_{\gamma+4}}}^l
\\&\otimes\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla^{i'}\tilde{\phi}_2
\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_3\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{mitsakis4}\begin{split} & pcontr(\nabla^{q}Y\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}_{qv_2\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}R_{ii_{\gamma+1}i_{\gamma+2}l}\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(t-1)}_{y_1\dots
y_t}{R_{i'i_{\gamma+3}i_{\gamma+4}}}^l
\\&\otimes\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla^{i'}\tilde{\phi}_2
\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_3\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
(if $x=t=0$ then the tensor field $C^1$ above will not be present).
In the case $\sigma_1=2$, the tensor fields $C^1,C^2$ must be in one of the two forms:
$$\label{mitsakis5} pcontr(\nabla_{i_{*}}Y\otimes
\nabla^{(m_1)}_{v_1\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}R_{ii_{\gamma+1}i_{\gamma+2}l}\otimes
\nabla^{(t-1)}_{y_1\dots y_t}{{R^i}_{i_{\gamma+3}i_{\gamma+4}}}^l
\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u),$$
$$\label{mitsakis6} \begin{split} &pcontr(\nabla_{q}Y\otimes
\nabla^q\nabla^{(m_1)}_{v_1\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}R_{ii_{\gamma+1}i_{\gamma+2}l}\otimes
\nabla^{(t-1)}_{y_1\dots y_t}{{R^i}_{i_{\gamma+3}i_{\gamma+4}}}^l
\\&\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u).
\end{split}$$
In the case $\sigma_1=1,\sigma_2=1$, there will be only one tensor field $C^1$, in the form:
$$\label{mitsakis7} \begin{split}&pcontr(\nabla^qY\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(m_1)}_{v_1\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}R_{ii_{\gamma+1}i_{\gamma+2}l}\otimes
\nabla^{(t-1)}_{y_1\dots y_t}{R_{qi_{\gamma+3}i_{\gamma+4}}}^l
\otimes\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\\&\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_2\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u).
\end{split}$$
We then derive that $(Const)_1=(Const)_2=0$ as in [@alexakis3] (by picking out the sublinear combination in (\[amerwom\]) that consists of complete contractions with a factor $\nabla Y$–differentiated only once).
[*Proof of Lemma \[vanderbi3\]:*]{}
We again “manually” construct explicit $Xdiv$’ to write:
$$\label{amerwom'}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{h\in H_2} a_h Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_\alpha}C^{h,i_1\dots
i_\alpha}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)=
\\&(Const)_1 Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_\xi}C^{1,i_1\dots
i_\xi}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)+
\\&(Const)_2 Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_\zeta}C^{2,i_1\dots
i_\zeta}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)+
\\&\sum_{q\in Q} a_q Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_\alpha}C^{q,i_1\dots
i_\alpha}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)+
\\&\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{j}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,Y,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where the tensor fields indexed in $Q$ are as required by our Lemma hypothesis, while the tensor fields $C^1,C^2$ are explicit tensor fields which we will write out below (they depend on the values $p,\sigma_1,\sigma_2$). In some cases there will be no tensor fields $C^1,C^2$ (in which case we will just say that in (\[amerwom\]) we have $(Const)_1=0$, $(Const)_2=0$).
[*The case $p=2$:*]{} With no loss of generality we assume that the factor $\nabla^{(A)}\Omega_1$ is contracting against the factors $\nabla\phi_1,\dots,\nabla\phi_x$ and $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_2$ is contracting against $\nabla\phi_{x+1},\dots ,\nabla_{\phi_{x+t}}$; we may also assume wlog that $x\le t$. By manual construction of divergences, it follows that we can derive (\[amerwom\]), where there is only the tensor field $C^1$ and it is in the form:
$$\label{bmitsakis}
pcontr(\nabla_{[i_{*}}\chi_1\otimes\nabla^{q]}\chi_2\otimes
\nabla^{(A)}_{v_1\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}\Omega_1\otimes\nabla^{(B)}_{qy_1\dots y_t
i_{\gamma+1}\dots i_{\gamma+\delta}}\Omega_2
\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u),$$
(where if $t\ge 1$ then $\delta=0$, otherwise $\delta=1$).
[*The case $p=1$:*]{} We “manually” construct divergences to derive (\[amerwom’\]), where: if $\sigma_1=1$ then there are no tensor fields $C^1,C^2$ in the RHS of (\[amerwom’\]) (and this is our desired conclusion); if $\sigma_1=0,\sigma_2=1$ then there is only the tensor field $C^1$ in the RHS of (\[amerwom’\]) and it is of the form:
$$\label{bmitsakis3}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla_{[i_{*}}\omega_1\otimes\nabla^{q]}\omega_2\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}_{v_2\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}R_{ii_{\gamma+1}i_{\gamma+2}q}\otimes\nabla^{(B)}_{y_1\dots
y_t i_{\gamma+1}\dots i_{\gamma+\delta}}\Omega_2
\otimes\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1
\\&\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_2\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
where if $t\ge 2$ then $\delta=0$, otherwise $\delta=2-t$.
[*The case $p=0$:*]{} We have three subcases: Firstly $\sigma_2=2$, secondly $(\sigma_2=1,\sigma_1=1)$, and thirdly $\sigma_1=2$.
In the case $\sigma_2=2$, the tensor fields $C^1,C^2$ in the RHS of (\[amerwom\]) will be in the two forms, respectively:
$$\label{bmitsakis4}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla_{[i_{*}}\omega_1\otimes\nabla^{q]}\omega_2\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}_{qv_2\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}R_{ii_{\gamma+1}i_{\gamma+2}l}\otimes
\\&S_{*}\nabla^{(t-1)}_{y_1\dots
y_t}{R_{i'i_{\gamma+3}i_{\gamma+4}}}^l
\otimes\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla^{i'}\tilde{\phi}_2
\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_3\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{bmitsakis5}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla_{[p}\omega_1\otimes\nabla^{q]}\omega_2\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}_{qv_2\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}R_{ii_{\gamma+1}i_{\gamma+2}p}\otimes
\\&S_{*}\nabla^{(t-1)}_{y_1\dots
y_t}{R_{i'i_{\gamma+3}i_{\gamma+4}q}}
\otimes\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla^{i'}\tilde{\phi}_2
\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_3\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u).
\end{split}$$
In the case $\sigma_1=2$, the tensor fields $C^1,C^2$ will be the forms, respectively:
$$\label{bmitsakis5}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla_{[i_{*}}\omega_1\otimes\nabla^{q]}\otimes
\nabla^{(m_1)}_{v_1\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}R_{ii_{\gamma+1}i_{\gamma+2}l}\otimes
\nabla^{(t-1)}_{qy_1\dots y_t}{{R^i}_{i_{\gamma+3}i_{\gamma+4}}}^l
\\&\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{bmitsakis6}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla_{[p}\omega_1\otimes\nabla^{q]}\omega_2\otimes
\nabla^{(m_1)}_{v_1\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}R_{ii_{\gamma+1}i_{\gamma+2}p}\otimes
\nabla^{(t-1)}_{y_1\dots y_t}{{R^i}_{i_{\gamma+3}i_{\gamma+4}q}}
\\&\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
(if at least one of the two factors $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ is contracting against a factor $\nabla\phi_h$. Otherwise, we can prove (\[amerwom’\]) with no tensor fields $C^1,C^2$ on the RHS).
In the case $\sigma_1=1,\sigma_2=1$, the tensor fields $C^1,C^2$ must be in the forms, respectively:
$$\label{bmitsakis7}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla_{[i_{*}}\omega_1\otimes\nabla^{q]}\omega_2\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}_{v_1\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}R_{ii_{\gamma+1}i_{\gamma+2}l}\otimes
\nabla^{(t-1)}_{y_1\dots y_t}{R_{qi_{\gamma+3}i_{\gamma+4}}}^l
\\&\otimes\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla^{v_1}\phi_2
\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{bmitsakis8}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla_{[p}\omega_1\otimes\nabla^{q]}\omega_2\otimes
S_{*}\nabla^{(m_1)}_{v_1\dots v_xi_1\dots
i_\gamma}R_{ii_{\gamma+1}i_{\gamma+2}l}\otimes
\nabla^{(t-1)}_{y_1\dots y_t}{R_{pqi_{\gamma+3}}}^l
\\&\otimes\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_1\otimes\nabla^{v_1}
\phi_2\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{y_t}\phi_u).
\end{split}$$
We then derive that $(Const)_1=(Const)_2=0$ by picking out the sublinear combination in (\[amerwom’\]) that consists of complete contractions with two factors $\nabla Y,\nabla\omega_2$–each factor differentiated only once). $\Box$
The proof of Proposition \[giade\] in the special cases: {#specialcases}
========================================================
The direct proof of Proposition \[giade\] (in case II) in the “special cases”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now prove Proposition \[giade\] directly in the special subcases of case II. We recall the setting of the special subcases of Proposition \[giade\] in case II are as follows: In subcase IIA for each $\mu$-tensor field of maximal refined double character, $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ there is a unique factor in the form $T=\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ for which two internal indices are free, and each derivative index is either free or contracting against a factor $\nabla\phi_h$. For subcase IIB there is a unique factor in the form $T=\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ for which one internal index is free, and each derivative index is either free or contracting against a factor $\nabla\phi_h$. In both sucases IIA, IIB there is at least one free derivative index in the factor $T$.
Moreover, both in subcases IIA, IIB, all [*other*]{} real factors in $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ are either in the form $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$ or $\nabla^{(2)}\Omega_h$, or they are in the form $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$, where all the $m$ derivative indices contract against factors $\nabla\phi_h$.[^68]
In order to prove Proposition \[giade\] directly in the special subcases of subcases IIA, IIB we will rely on a new Lemma:
Our new Lemma deals with two different settings, which we will label setting A and setting B below.
In setting A, we let $$\sum_{l\in \overline{L}} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)$$ stand for a linear combination of $\mu$-tensor fields with one factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ containing $\alpha\ge 2$ free indices, distributed according to the pattern\
$\nabla^{(m)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$, and all other other factors being all in one of the forms $R_{ijkl}$,$S_{*}R_{ijkl}$,$\nabla^{(2)}\Omega_h$. (I.e. they have no removable indices).
In setting B we let $$\sum_{l\in \overline{L}} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g
(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)$$ stand for a linear combination of $\mu$-tensor fields with one factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ containing $\alpha\ge 2$ free indices, distributed according to the pattern\
$\nabla^{(m)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$, and all [*but one*]{} of the other factors being in one of the forms $R_{ijkl}$,$S_{*}R_{ijkl}$, $\nabla^{(2)}\Omega_h$; one of the other factors (which we label $T'$) will be in the form $\nabla R_{ijkl}$,$S_{*}\nabla R_{ijkl}$, $\nabla^{(3)}\Omega_h$. We will call this other factor “the factor with the extra derivative”. Moreover, in setting B we impose the additional restriction that if both the indices ${}_j,{}_l$ in the factor $\nabla^{(m)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$ contract against the same other factor $T'$, then either $T'$ is [*not*]{} the factor with the extra derivative, or if it is, then $T'$ is in the form $\nabla_s R_{abcd}$, and furthermore the indices ${}_j,{}_l$ contract against the indices ${}_b,{}_c$ [*and*]{} we assume that the indices ${}_s,{}_a,{}_c$ are symmetrized over.[^69]
\[specialii\] Let $\sum_{l\in \overline{L}} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ be a linear combination of $\mu$-tensor fields as described above. We assume the following special case of (\[hypothese2\]):
$$\label{gates}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{l\in \overline{L}\bigcup L'} a_l Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_\mu}
C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)+
\\&\sum_{h\in H} a_h Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_{\beta}}
C^{h,i_1\dots i_\beta}_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u)
\\&+\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^j_g(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u);
\end{split}$$
here, in both cases A and B the terms indexed in $\overline{L}$ will be as described above; the $\mu$-tensor fields indexed in $L'$ will have fewer than $\alpha$ free indices in any given factor of the form $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$. The tensor felds indexed in $H$ each have rank $>\mu$ and also each of them has fewer than $\alpha$ free indices in any given factor of the form $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$. Finally, the terms indexed in $J$ are simply subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$. We claim that: $$\label{tasidera}
\sum_{l\in \overline{L}} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots \nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon=0.$$
We will prove this Lemma shortly. Let us now, however, note how the above Lemma directly implies Proposition \[giade\] in the special subcases IIA (directly) and IIB (after some manipulation).
[*Lemma \[specialii\] implies Proposition \[giade\] in the special subcases of case II:*]{}
We first start with subcase IIA: Consider the sublinear combination of $\mu$-tensor fields of maximal refined double character in (\[hypothese2\]). Denote their index set by $L_{Max}\subset L$. Recall that since we are considering the subcase where (\[hypothese2\]) falls under the special case of Proposition \[giade\] in case IIA, it follows that for each $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ there is a unique factor in the form $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ for which two internal indices are free, and each derivative index is either free or contracting against a factor $\nabla\phi_h$; denote by $M+2$ the number of free indices in that factor.[^70]
Now, by weight considerations (since we are in a special subcase of Proposition \[giade\] in case IIA), any tensor field of rank $>\mu$ in (\[hypothese2\]) must have strictly fewer than $M+2$ free indices in any given factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$. Therefore in subcase IA, (\[hypothese2\]) is of the form (\[gates\]), with $L_{Max}\subset \overline{L}$. Therefore, we apply Lemma \[specialii\] to (\[hypothese2\]) and pick out the sublinear combination of terms with a refined double character $Doub(\vec{L}^z), z\in Z'_{Max}$[^71] we thus obtain a [*new*]{} true equation, since (\[tasidera\]) holds formally, and the double character is invariant under the formal permutations of indices that make (\[tasidera\]) formally zero. This proves our claim in subcase IIA.
Now we deal with subcase IIB:
We consider the $\mu$-tensor fields of maximal refined double character in (\[hypothese2\]). By definition (since we now fall under a special case), they will each have a factor in the form $\nabla^{(m)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)jkl}$, with a total of $M+1>1$ free indices.[^72] Each of the other factors will be in the form $R_{ijkl}$ or be simple factors in the form $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$, or in the form $\nabla^{(2)}\Omega_h$.
We denote by $\overline{L}\subset L$ the index set of $\mu$-tensor fields with $M+1$ free indices in a factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$. It follows by weight considerations that the factor in question will be unique for each $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g, l\in \overline{L}$. We then start out with some explicit manipulation of the terms indexed in $\overline{L}$:
We will prove that there exists a linear combination of $\mu+1$-tensor fields, $\sum_{h\in H} a_h C^{h,i_1\dots i_{\mu+1}}_g$, as allowed in the statement of Proposition \[giade\], so that:
$$\label{injury}
\begin{split}
& \sum_{l\in \overline{L}} a_l
C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon=
\sum_{h\in H} a_h Xdiv_{i_{\mu+1}}
C^{h,i_1\dots i_{\mu+1}}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon
\\&+\sum_{l\in \overline{L}_{new}} a_l
C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon
\sum_{j\in J} a_j C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g\nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon.
\end{split}$$
Here the $\mu$-tensor fields indexed in $\overline{L}_{new}$ have a factor\
$T=\nabla^{(M-1)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$, and [*one other factor*]{} $T'$ has an extra derivative (meaning that $T'$ is either in the form $\nabla R_{ijkl}$ or $S_{*}\nabla R_{ijkl}$, or $\nabla^{(3)}\Omega_h$). Moreover if both indices ${}_j,{}_l$ in $T$ contract against indices ${}^j,{}^l$ in the same factor $T''$ and at least one of ${}^j,{}^l$ is removable, then $T'\ne T''$. Clearly, (\[injury\]) in conjunction with Lemma \[specialii\] implies Proposition \[giade\] in the “special cases” of case II. So, matters are reduced to showing (\[injury\]) (and then deriving Lemma \[specialii\]).
[*Proof of (\[injury\]):*]{} We first apply the second Bianchi identity to the factor $T$ to move one of the derivative free indices ito the position ${}_{kl}$ in the factor $\nabla^{(M-1)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$. Thus, we derive that modulo terms of length $\ge\sigma+u+1$:
$$C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g=-C^{l,1,i_1\dots ,i_\mu}_g +C^{l,2,i_1\dots ,i_\mu}_g,$$ where the partial contractions $C^{l,1,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g, C^{l,2,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ have the factor $T$ replaced by a factor in the form: $\nabla^{(m)}_{k(free)\dots (free)} R_{(free)j(free)l}$, $\nabla^{(m)}_{l(free)\dots (free)} R_{(free)jk(free)}$, respectively. We then erase the indices ${}_k,{}_l$ in these two factors (thus creating a new tensor field $C^{l,1,i_1\dots ,i_\mu i_{\mu+1}}_g, C^{l,2,i_1\dots ,i_\mu i_{\mu+1}}_g$) by creating a free index ${}_{i_{\mu+1}}$), and subtract the $Xdiv_{i_{\mu+1}}[\dots]$ of the corresponding $(\mu+1)$-tensor field. We then derive an equation:
$$\label{surgery}
C^{l,1,i_1\dots ,i_\mu}_g =Xdiv_{i_{\mu+1}}C^{l,1,i_1\dots i_{\mu+1}}_g+
\sum_{l\in L_{new}} C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g,$$
where all the tensor fields indexed in $L_{new}$ satisfy the required property of Lemma \[specialii\], except for the fact that one could have both indices ${}_j,{}_l$ in the factor $\nabla^{(M-1)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$ contracting against indices ${}^j,{}^l$ in a factor $T'$ which has an additionnal derivative index. If $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$, $l\in L_{new}$ is not in the form allowed in the claim of Lemma \[specialii\], then (after possibly applying the second Bianchi identity and possibly introducing simply subsequent complete contractions) we may arrange that one of the indices ${}^j,{}^l$ is a derivative index.
In that case we construct another $(\mu+1)$-tensor field by erasing the derivative index ${}^j$ or ${}^l$ and making the index ${}_j$ or ${}_l$ in a free index ${}_{i_{\mu+1}}$. Then, subtracting the corresponding $Xdiv_{i_{\mu+1}}$ of this new $(\mu+1)$-tensor field, we derive our claim. $\Box$
Therefore, matters are reduced to proving Lemma \[specialii\].
[*Proof of Lemma \[specialii\]:*]{}
Let us start with some notational conventions
Recall the first variation law of the curvature tensor under variations by a symmetric 2-tensor by $v_{ij}$: For any complete or partial contraction $T(g_{ij})$ (which is a function of the metric $g_{ij}$), we define: $Image^1_{v_{ij}}=\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}[T(g_{ij}+tv_{ij})]$. (We write $Image^1_{v_{ij}}[\dots]$ or $Image^1_{v_{ab}}[\dots]$ below to stress that we are varying by a 2-tensor, rather than just by a scalar).
We consider the equation $Image^1_{v_{ij}}[L_g]=0$ (which corresponds to the first [*metric*]{} variation of our Lemma hypothesis (i.e. of (\[hypothese2\])). This equation holds modulo complete contractions with at least $\sigma+u+1$ factors.
Thus, we derive a new local equation:
$$\label{elalam}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{l\in L_\mu} a_l Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_\mu}
Image^{1}_{v_{ab}}[C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g]\\&+\sum_{l\in L\setminus L_\mu} a_l
Xdiv_{i_1}\dots Xdiv_{i_a}Image^{1}_{v_{ab}}[C^{l,i_1\dots i_a}_g]
\\&=\sum_{j\in J} a_j Image^{1}_{v_{ab}}[C^j_g],
\end{split}$$
which holds modulo terms of length $\ge\sigma+u+1$.
Now, we wish to pass from the local equation above to an integral equation, and then to apply the [*silly divergence formula*]{} from [@a:dgciI] to that integral equation (thus deriving a [*new*]{} local equation).
In order to do this, we start by introducing some more notation: Let us write out: $$Image^{1}_{v_{ab}}[C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g]=\sum_{t\in T^l} a_t C^{t,i_1\dots i_a}_g$$ where each $C^{t,i_1\dots i_a}_g$ is in the form:
$$\begin{split}&pcontr(\nabla^{(A+2)}_{r_1\dots r_{A+2}}v_{ab}\otimes
\nabla^{(m_1)}R_{ijkl}\otimes\dots\otimes \nabla^{(m_{\sigma-1})}R\otimes \nabla^{(b_1)}\Omega_1
\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla^{(b_p)}\Omega_p\\&\otimes \nabla\phi_1\otimes\dots\otimes\nabla\phi_u).
\end{split}$$
For our next technical tool we introduce some notation: For each tensor field $C^{l,i_1\dots i_a}_{g}$ in the form above, we denote by $C^l_{g}$ the complete contraction that arises by hitting each factor $T_i$ ($i=1,2,3$) by $m$ derivative indices $\nabla^{u_1\dots u_m}$, where ${}_{u_1},\dots ,{}_{u_m}$ are the free indices that belong to $T_i$ in $C^{l,i_1\dots i_a}_g$ (thus we obtain a factor with $m$ internal contraction, each involving a derivative index). Notice there is a one-to-one correspondence between the tensor fields and the complete contractions we are constructing. We can then easily observe that there are two linear combinations $\Sigma_{r\in R_1} a_r C^r_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots
\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)$, $\Sigma_{r\in R_2} a_r
C^r_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots \Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots ,\phi_u)$ where each $C^r_g,r\in R_1$ has at least $\sigma+u+1$ factors, while each $C^r_g, r\in R_2$ has $\sigma +u$ factors but at least one factor $\nabla^{(p)}\phi_h\ne\Delta\phi_h$ with $p\ge 2$, so that for any compact orientable $(M,g)$:
$$\begin{split}
\label{tejada}
&\int_M\sum_{l\in L} a_l \sum_{t\in T^l} a_t C^{t,*}_g(v_{ab})+
\sum_{r\in R_1} a_r C^r_g(v_{ab})+\sum_{r\in R_2} a_r C^r_g(v_{ab})dV_g=0
\end{split}$$
(denote the integrand of the above by $Z_g(v_{ab})$). Here again each $C^j_{g}$ has $\sigma +u$ factors and all factors $\nabla\phi_h$ have only one derivative but its simple character is subsequent to $\vec{\kappa}$. We call this technique (of going from the local equation (\[elalam\]) to the integral equation (\[tejada\])) the “‘inverse integration by parts’’.
Now, we derive a “silly divergence formula” from the above by performing integrations by parts with respect to the factor $\nabla^{(B)}v_{ab}$ (until we are left with a factor $v_{ab}$–without derivatives). This produces a new local equation which we denote by $silly[Z_g(v_{ab})]=0$. We will be using this equation in our derivation of Lemma \[specialii\].
Now, for each $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$, $l\in \overline{L}$, we consider the factor\
$T=\nabla^{(M)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$ with the $M+2$ free indices. We define $T^j$ to be the factor in $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ that contracts against the index ${}_j$ in $T$ and by $T^l$ to be the factor in $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ that contracts against the index ${}_l$ in $T$. We define $\overline{L}_{same}\subset \overline{L}$ to be the index set of tensor fields for which $T^j=T^l$; we define $\overline{L}_{not.same}\subset \overline{L}$ to be the index set of tensor fields for which $T^j\ne T^l$. We will then prove (\[tasidera\]) separately for the two sublinear combinations indexed in $\overline{L}_{same},\overline{L}_{not.same}$.
[*Proof of (\[tasidera\]) for the index set $\overline{L}_{same}$:*]{}
We first prove our claim for $\sigma>3$ and then note how to prove it when $\sigma=3$.
Consider $silly[L_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,v_{ab})]=0$. Pick out the sublinear combination $silly_+[L_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,v_{ab})]=0$ with $\mu-M-2$ internal contractions, and with the indices in the factor $v_{ab}$ contracting against a factor $T'$ which either has [*no*]{} extra derivative indices, or if it does, then the contraction is according to the pattern $v^{ab}\otimes\nabla_sR_{ajbl}$; we also require that the two factors $T'',T'''$ with an extra $M+2$ extra derivatives each. This sublinear combination must vanish separately, hence we derive: $$\label{name}
silly_+[Z_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,v_{ab})]=0.$$ We also observe that this sublinear combination can only arise (in the process of passing from the equation $L_g=0$ to deriving $silly_+[Z_g(v_{ab})]=0$) by replacing the factor $\nabla^{(M)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$ by $\nabla^{(M)}_{(free)\dots (free)}v_{jl}$ and then (in the inverse integration by parts) replacing all $\mu$ free indices by internal contractions,[^73] and finally integrating by parts the $M+2$ pairs of derivative indices $(\nabla^a,\nabla_a)$ and forcing all upper indices hit a factor $T''\ne T'$ and the lower indices to hit a factor $T'''\ne T', T'''\ne T''$.[^74]
Thus, we can prove our claim by starting from the equation (\[name\]) and appling $Sub_\upsilon$ $\mu-M-2$ times,[^75] just applying the eraser to the extra $M+2$ pairs of contracting derivatives,[^76] and then replacing the factor $v_{ab}$ by\
$\nabla^{(M)}_{r_1\dots r_M}R_{iajb}\nabla^{r_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla^{r_M}\upsilon\nabla^a\upsilon\nabla^b\upsilon$. Finally we just divide by the combinatiorial constant ${\sigma-3}\choose{2}$.
Let us now consider the case $\sigma=3$: In those case the terms of maximal refined double character can only arise in the subcase IIA,[^77] and can only be in one of the forms: $\nabla^{(M)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}\otimes R^{ijkl}\otimes\nabla^{(2)}_{ik}\Omega_1)$, $\nabla^{(M)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}\otimes R^{ijkl}\otimes{{{R_{(free)}}^j}_{(free)}}^l)$. Thus, in that case we define $silly_+[Z_g(v_{ab})]$ to stand for the terms $(v_{jl}\otimes\nabla^{(M+2)}_{t_1\dots t_{M+2}} R^{ijkl}\otimes\nabla^{(M+4)}_{t_1\dots t_{M+4}ik}\Omega_1)$, $(v_{jl}\otimes \nabla^{(M+2)}_{t_1\dots t_{M+2}}R^{ijkl}
(\nabla^{(M+2)})^{t_1\dots t_{M+2}}\otimes{{{R_{(free)}}^j}_{(free)}}^l)$ respectively, and then repeat the argument above.
[*Proof of (\[tasidera\]) for the index set $\overline{L}_{not.same}$:*]{}
We prove our claim in steps: We first denote by $\overline{L}_{not.same}^{**}\subset \overline{L}_{not.same}$ the index set of tensor fields in $\overline{L}_{not.same}$ for which both indices ${}_j,{}_l$ in the factor $T=\nabla^{(M)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$ contract against special indices in factors $T^j,T^l$ of the form $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$. We will firstly prove that:
$$\label{thisplace}
\sum_{l\in \overline{L}_{not.same}^{**}} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g \nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon=
\sum_{l\in L'} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g \nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon.$$
Here the terms in the RHS have all the features of the terms in $\overline{L}_{not.same}$, but in addition at most one of the indices in the factor $T=\nabla^{(M)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$ contract against a special index in a factor of the form $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$. Thus, if we can prove (\[thisplace\]), we are reduced to proving our claim under the additional assumption that $\overline{L}_{not.same}^{**}=\emptyset$.
For our next claim, we denote by $\overline{L}_{not.same}^{*}\subset \overline{L}_{not.same}$ the index set of tensor ields in $\overline{L}_{not.same}$ for which one of the indices ${}_j,{}_l$ in the factor $T=\nabla^{(M)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$ contracts against a special index in factors $T^j,T^l$ of the form $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$.
We will then prove that:
$$\label{thisplace2}
\sum_{l\in \overline{L}_{not.same}^{*}} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g \nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon=
\sum_{l\in L''} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g \nabla_{i_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla_{i_\mu}\upsilon.$$
Here the terms in the RHS have all the features of the terms in $\overline{L}_{not.same}$, but in addition none of the indices in the factor $T=\nabla^{(M)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$ contracting against a special index in a factors of the form $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$. Thus, if we can prove (\[thisplace\]), we are reduced to proving our claim under the additionnal assumption that for eac $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$, $l\in \overline{L}$ the two indices ${}_j,{}_l$ in the factor $T=\nabla^{(M)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$ contract against two different factors and none of the indices ${}^j,{}^l$ are special indices in a factor of the form $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$.
In our third step, we prove (\[tasidera\]) under this additonnal assumption.
We now present our proof of the third step. We will indicate in the end how this proof can be easily modified to derive the first two steps.
For each $l\in \overline{L}_{not.same}$, let us denote by $link(l)$ the number of particular contractions betwen the factors $T^j,T^l$ in the tensor fields $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$. (Note that by weight considerations $0\le link(l)\le 3$). Let $B$ be the maximum value of $link(l), l\in \overline{L}_{not.same}$, and by $\overline{L}_{not.same}^B\subset \overline{L}_{not.same}$ the corresponding index set. We will then prove our claim for the tensor fields indexed in $\overline{L}_{not.same}^B$. By repeating this step at most four times, we will derive our third claim.
Consider $silly[L_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,v_{ab})]=0$. Pick out the sublinear combination $silly_*[L_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,v_{ab})]=0$ with $\mu-M-2$ internal contractions, and with an extra $M+2$ derivatives on the factors $T^j,T^l$ against which the two indices of the factor $v_{ab}$ contract, [*and*]{} with $M+2+B$ particual contractions betwen the factors $T^j,T^l$. This sublinear combination must vanish separately: $$silly_*[L_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,v_{ab})]=0.$$ Moreover, we observe by following the “inverse integration by parts” and the silly divergence formula obtained from $\int_{M^n} Z_g(v_{ab})dV_g=0$, that the LHS of the above can be desrcibed as follows:
For each $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g, l\in \overline{L}^B_{not.same}$, we denote by $\tilde{C}_g^l(v_{ab})$ the complete contraction that arises by replacing the factor $T=\nabla^{(M)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}$ by $\nabla^{(M+2)}_{(free)\dots (free)}v_{jl}$, and then replacing each free index that [*does not*]{} belong to the factor $T$ by an internal contraction. We then denote by $\hat{C}^l_g(v_{ab})$ the complete contraction that rises from $\tilde{C}_g^l(v_{ab})$ by hitting the factor $T^j$ (against which the index ${}_j$ in $v_{jl}$ contracts) by $(M+2)$ derivative indices $\nabla_{t_1},\dots ,\nabla_{t_{M+2}}$ and hitting the factor $T^l$ (against which the index ${}_l$ in $v_{jl}$ contracts) by derivatives $\nabla^{t_1},\dots ,\nabla^{t_{M+2}}$.[^78] It follows that:
$$(0=)silly_*[L_{g}(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_p,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u,v_{ab})]=
\sum_{ \overline{L}^B_{not.same}} a_l 2^{M+1}[\hat{C}^l_g(v_{ab})].$$ Now, to derive our claim, we introduce a formal operation $Op[\dots]$ which acts on the terms above by applying $Sub_\upsilon$ to each of the $\mu-M-2$ internal contractions,[^79] erasing $M+2$ particular contractions between the factors $T^j,T^l$ and then replacing the factor $v_{jl}$ by $\nabla^{(m)}_{r_1\dots r_M}R_{ijkl}\nabla^{r_1}\upsilon\dots\nabla^{r_M}\upsilon\nabla^i\upsilon\nabla^k\upsilon$. This operation produces a new true equation; after we divide this new true equation by $2^{M+1}$, we derive our claim.
[*Note on the derivation of (\[thisplace\]), (\[thisplace2\]):*]{} The equations can be derived by a straighttforward modification of the ideas above: The only extra feature we must add is that in the silly divergence formula we must pick out the terms for which (both/one of the) indices ${}_j,{}_l$ in $v_{jl}$ contract against a special index in a factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(M+2)}R_{abcd}\nabla^a\tilde{\phi}_h$. This linear combination will vanish, modulo terms where one/none of the indices ${}_j,{}_l$ in $v_{jl}$ contract against a special index in the factor $S_{*}R_{ijkl}$: This follows by the same argument that is used in [@alexakis4] to derive that Lemma 3.1 in [@alexakis4] implies Proposition \[giade\] in case I: We firstly replace the factor $v_{jl}$ by an expression $y_{(j}y_{l)}$. We then just replace both/one of the expressions $\nabla_i\tilde{\phi}_h, y_j$ by $g_{ij}$ and apply $Ricto\Omega$ twice/once.[^80] The only terms that survive this true equation are the ones indexed in $\overline{L}_{not.same}$, for which the expression(s) $S_*\nabla^{(\nu)}_{r_1\dots r_\nu}R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_h\nabla^ky$ are replaced by $\nabla^{(\nu+2)}_{r_1\dots r_\nu jl}Y_f$. We then proceed as above, deriving that the sublinear combination of terms indexed in $\overline{L}_{not.same}$ must vanish, [*after*]{} we replace two/one expressions $S_*\nabla^{(\nu)}_{r_1\dots r_\nu}R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_h\nabla^ky$ by $\nabla^{(\nu+2)}_{r_1\dots r_\nu jl}Y_f$. Then, repeating the permutations applied to any factors $\nabla^{(\nu+2)}_{r_1\dots r_\nu jl}Y_f$, to $S_*\nabla^{(\nu)}_{r_1\dots r_\nu}R_{ijkl}\nabla^i\tilde{\phi}_h\nabla^ky$ we derive our claim. $\Box$
The remaining cases of Proposition \[giade\] in case III:
---------------------------------------------------------
We recall that there are remaining cases only when $\sigma=3$. In that case we have the remaining cases when $p=3$ and $n-2u-2\mu\le 2$, or when $p=2,\sigma_2=1$ and $n=2u+2\mu$.
[*The case $p=3$:*]{} Let us start with the subcase $n-2u-2\mu=0$. In this case, all tensor fields in (\[hypothese2\]) will be in the form:
$$\label{thmbeki} \begin{split} &pcontr(\nabla^{(A)}_{i_1\dots
i_aj_1\dots j_b}\Omega_1\otimes \nabla^{(B)}_{i_{a+1}\dots
i_{a+a'}j_{b+1}\dots j_{b+b'}}\Omega_2\otimes
\\&\nabla^{(C)}_{i_{a+a'+1}\dots i_{a+a'+a''}j_{b+b'+1}\dots
j_{b+b'+b''}}\Omega_3
\otimes\nabla^{j_{x_1}}\phi_1\dots\otimes\nabla^{x_{j+j'+j''}}\phi_u)
\end{split}$$
where we are making the following conventions: Each of the indices ${}_{i_f}$ is free; also, each of the indices ${}_{j_f}$ is contracting against some factor $\nabla\phi_h$, and also $A,B,C\ge
2$.
Thus, we observe that is this subcase $\mu$ is also the [*maximum*]{} rank among the tensor fields appearing in (\[hypothese2\]). Now, assume that the $\mu$-tensor fields in (\[hypothese2\]) of [*maximal refined double character*]{} have $a=\alpha,a'=\alpha',a''=\alpha''$. With no loss of generality (only up to renaming the factors $\Omega_1,\Omega_2,\Omega_3,\phi_1,\dots,\phi_u$) we may assume that $\alpha\ge\alpha'\ge\alpha''$ and that only the functions $\nabla\phi_1,\dots,\nabla\phi_{u_1}$ contract against $\nabla^{(A)}\Omega_1$ in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$. We will then show that the coefficient $a_{\alpha,\alpha',\alpha''}$ of this tensor field must be zero. This will prove Proposition \[giade\] in this subcase.
We prove that $a_{\alpha,\alpha',\alpha''}=0$ by considering the global equation $\int Z_g dV_g=0$ and considering the silly divergence formula $silly[Z_g]=0$. We then consider the sublinear combination $silly_{+}[Z_g]$ consisting of terms with $\alpha',\alpha''$ internal contractions in the factors $\nabla^{(D)}\Omega_2,\nabla^{(E)}\Omega_3$, with $\alpha$ particular contractions between those factors and with all factors $\nabla\phi_h$ that contracted against $\nabla^{(A)}\Omega_1$ in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$ being replaced by $\Delta\phi_h$, while all factors $\nabla\phi_h$ that contracted against $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_2,\nabla^{(C)}\Omega_3$ still do so. We easily observe that $silly_{+}[Z_g]=0$, and furthermore $silly_{+}[Z_g]$ consists of the complete contraction:
$$\begin{split}
&contr(\Omega_1\otimes
{\nabla^{f_1\dots f_{\alpha}}}_{j_{b+1}\dots
j_{b+b'}}\Delta^{\alpha'}\Omega_2\otimes \nabla_{f_1\dots
f_{\alpha}j_{b+b'+1}\dots j_{b+b'+b''}}\Delta^{\alpha''}
\Omega_3\otimes\Delta\phi_1\\&\dots
\nabla^{j_{x_{b+b'+b''}}}\phi_u)
\end{split}$$
times the constant $(-1)^{u_1}2^{\alpha}a_{\alpha,\alpha',\alpha''}$. Thus, we derive that $a_{\alpha,\alpha',\alpha''}=0$.
[*The second subcase:*]{} We now consider the setting where $\sigma=p=3$, $n-2u-2\mu=2$. In this setting, the maximum rank of the tensor fields appearing in (\[hypothese2\]) is $\mu+1$. In this case, all $(\mu+1)$-tensor fields in (\[hypothese2\]) will be in the form (\[thmbeki\]) (with $\alpha+\alpha'+\alpha''=\mu+1$, while all the $\mu$-tensor fields will be in the form (\[thmbeki\]) but with $\alpha+\alpha'+\alpha''=\mu$, [*and*]{} with one particular contraction ${}_c,{}^c$ between two of the factors $\nabla^{(A)}\Omega_1,\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_2,\nabla^{(C)}\Omega_3$.
Now, if both the indices ${}_c,{}^c$ described above are removable, we can explicitly express $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ as an $Xdiv$ of an acceptable $(\mu+1)$-tensor field. Therefore, we are reduced to showing our claim in this setting where for each $\mu$-tensor field in (\[hypothese2\]) at least one of the indices ${}_c,{}^c$ is not removable. Now, let $z\in Z_{Max}$ stand for one of the index sets for which the sublinear combination $\sum_{l\in L^z} a_l C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ in (\[hypothese2\]) indexes tensor fields of maximal refined double character. We assume with no loss of generality that for each $l\in L^z$ the factors $\nabla^{(A)}\Omega_1$, $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_2$, $\nabla^{(C)}\Omega_3$ have $\alpha\ge\alpha'\ge\alpha''$ free indices respectively.[^81] Therefore, the tensor fields indexed in $L^z$ can be in one of the following two forms:
$$\label{thmberkia}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla^c\nabla^{(A)}_{i_1\dots i_\alpha j_1\dots
j_b}\Omega_1\otimes \nabla^{(B)}_{i_{\alpha+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+\alpha'}j_{b+1}\dots j_{b+b'}}\Omega_2\otimes
\\&\nabla^{(2)}_{ci_{\alpha+\alpha'+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+\alpha'+\alpha''}j_{b+b'+1}\dots j_{b+b'+b''}}
\Omega_3\otimes\nabla^{j_{x_1}}\phi_1\dots\otimes\nabla^{x_{j+j'+j''}}\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
$$\label{thmberkib}
\begin{split}
&pcontr(\nabla^{(A)}_{i_1\dots i_\alpha j_1\dots
j_b}\Omega_1\otimes \nabla^c\nabla^{(B)}_{i_{\alpha+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+\alpha'}j_{b+1}\dots j_{b+b'}}\Omega_2\otimes
\\&\nabla^{(2)}_{ci_{\alpha+\alpha'+1}\dots
i_{\alpha+\alpha'+\alpha''}j_{b+b'+1}\dots
j_{b+b'+b''}}\Omega_3
\otimes\nabla^{j_{x_1}}\phi_1\dots\otimes\nabla^{x_{j+j'+j''}}\phi_u),
\end{split}$$
(where $A,B\ge 3$).
Now, by “manually subtracting” $Xdiv$’s from these $\mu$-tensor fields, we can assume wlog that the tensor fields indexed in our chosen $L^z$ are in the from (\[thmberkib\]).
With that extra assumption, we can show that the coefficient of the tensor field (\[thmberkib\]) is zero. We see this by considering the (global) equation $\int_M Z_g dV_g=0$ and using the silly divergence formula $silly[Z_g]=0$ (which arises by integrations by parts w.r.t. to the factor $\nabla^{(A)}\Omega_1$). Picking out the sublinear combination $silly_{+}[Z_g]$ which consists of the complete contraction:
$$\begin{split}&contr(\Omega_1\otimes
\nabla^c\nabla^{f_1\dots f_{\alpha}}_{j_{b+1}\dots
j_{b+b'}}\Delta^{\alpha'}\Omega_2\otimes \nabla_c\nabla_{f_1\dots
f_{\alpha}j_{b+b'+1}\dots j_{b+b'+b''}}\Delta^{\alpha''}
\Omega_3\otimes\\&\Delta\phi_1\dots
\nabla^{j_{x_{b+b'+b''}}}\phi_u)
\end{split}$$
(notice that $silly_{+}[Z_g]=0$), we derive that the coefficient of (\[thmberkib\]) must vanish. Thus, we have shown our claim in this second subcase also. $\Box$
[*The case $p=2$, $\sigma_2=1$:*]{} Recall that in this case we fall under the special case when $n=2u+2\mu$. In this setting, we will have that in each index set $L^z,z\in Z'_{Max}$ (see the statement of Lemma 3.5 in [@alexakis4]) there is a [*unique*]{} $\mu$-tensor field of maximal refined double character in (\[hypothese2\]), where the two indices ${}_k,{}_l$ in the factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ will be contracting against one of the factors $\nabla^{(A)}\Omega_1,\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_2$ (wlog we may assume that they are contracting against [*different factors*]{}). But now, recall that since we are considering case $A$ of Lemma 3.5 in [@alexakis4], one of the factors $\nabla^{(A)}\Omega_1,\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_2$ will have at least two free indices. Hence, in at least one of the factors $\nabla^{(A)}\Omega_1,\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_2$, the index ${}^k,{}^l$ is removable (meaning that it can be erased, and we will be left with an acceptable tensor field). We denote by $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu i_{\mu+1}}_g$ the tensor field that arises from $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g$ by erasing the aforementioned ${}^k,{}^l$ and making ${}_k$ or ${}_l$ into a free index, we then observe that:
$$\label{kyriakos}
C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu}_g-Xdiv_{i_{\mu+1}}C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu i_{\mu+1}}_g=0$$
(modulo complete contractions of length $\ge\sigma+u+1$). This completes the proof of our claim. $\Box$
[12]{}
S. Alexakis *On the decomposition of Global Conformal Invariants I,* Ann. of Math.[**170**]{} (2009), no. 3, 1241–1306.
S. Alexakis *On the decomposition of Global Conformal Invariants II*, Adv. in Math. [**206**]{} (2006), 466-502.
S. Alexakis *The decomposition of Global Conformal Invariants: A Conjecture of Deser an Schwimmer I*, arXiv.
S. Alexakis *The decomposition of Global Conformal Invariants: A Conjecture of Deser an Schwimmer II*, arXiv.
S. Alexakis *The decomposition of Global Conformal Invariants: A Conjecture of Deser an Schwimmer III*, arXiv.
S. Alexakis *The decomposition of Global Conformal Invariants: A Conjecture of Deser an Schwimmer IV*, arXiv.
S. Alexakis *The decomposition of Global Conformal Invariants: A Conjecture of Deser an Schwimmer V*, arXiv.
S. Alexakis *The decomposition of Global Conformal Invariants: A Conjecture of Deser an Schwimmer VI*, arXiv.
M. Atiyah, R. Bott, V. K. Patodi, *On the heat equation and the index theorem* Invent. Math. [**19**]{} (1973), 279–330.
T. N. Bailey, M. G. Eastwood, A. R. Gover *Thomas’s structure bundle for conformal, projective and related structures* Rocky Mountain J. Math. [**24**]{} (1994), no. 4, 1191–1217.
T. N. Bailey, M. G. Eastwood, C. R. Graham *Invariant Theory for Conformal and CR Geometry* Ann. of Math. (2), [**139**]{} (1994), 491-552.
N. Berline, E. Getzler, M. Vergne *Heat kernels and Dirac operators* Grundlehren Text Editions. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
N. Boulager, J. Erdmenger *A Classification of Local Weyl Invariants in D=8*, Class. Quantum Gravity [**21**]{} (2004), 4305-4316.
T. Branson, P. Gilkey, J. Pohjanpelto *Invariants of locally conformally flat manifolds* Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**347**]{} (1995), no. 3, 939–953.
A. Ĉap, A.R. Gover *Tractor calculi for parabolic geometries* Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**354**]{} (2002), no. 4, 1511–1548.
A. Ĉap, A.R. Gover *Standard tractors and the conformal ambient metric construction* Ann. Global Anal. Geom. [**24**]{} (2003), no. 3, 231–259.
É. Cartan *Sur la réduction à sa forme canonique de la structure d’un groupe de transformations fini et continu*, Oeuvres Complètes [**1**]{}, Part 1, 293-355, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1952.
S. Deser, A. Schwimmer *Geometric classification of conformal anomalies in arbitrary dimensions*, Phys. Lett. B309 (1993) 279-284.
L.P. Eisenhart *Riemannian Geometry* Princeton University Press (1925)
C. Fefferman *Monge-Ampère equations, the Bergman kernel and geometry of pseudo-convex domains*, Ann. of Math. [**103**]{} (1976), 395-416; Erratum [**104**]{} (1976), 393-394.
C. Fefferman, C. R. Graham *Conformal Invariants* Élie Cartan et les mathematiques d’aujourd’hui, Astérisque numero hors serie, 1985, 95-116.
C. Fefferman, C. R. Graham *The ambient metric*, arXiv:0710.0919.
P. Gilkey *Local invariants of an embedded Riemannian manifold* Ann. of Math. (2) [**102**]{} (1975), no. 2, 187–203.
C. R. Graham, K. Hirachi *Inhomogeneous ambient metrics*, Symmetries and overdetermined systems of partial differential equations, 403–420, IMA Vol. Math. Appl., [**144**]{}, Springer, New York, 2008.
K. Hirachi *Construction of Boundary Invariants and the Logarithmic Singularity of the Bergman Kernel* Ann. of Math. (2) [**151**]{} (2000), no. 2 151-191.
K. Hirachi *Logarithmic singularity of the Szegö kernel and a global invariant of strictly pseudoconvex domains* Ann. of Math. (2) [**163**]{} (2006), no. 2, 499–515.
T. Y. Thomas *The differential invariants of generalized spaces,* Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1934.
H. Weyl *The classical groups*, Princeton University press.
S. Zelditch *Szegö kernels and a theorem of Tian*, Internat. Math. Res. Notices 1998, no. 6, 317–331.
[^1]: University of Toronto, [email protected]. This work has absorbed the best part of the author’s energy over many years. This research was partially conducted during the period the author served as a Clay Research Fellow, an MSRI postdoctoral fellow, a Clay Liftoff fellow and a Procter Fellow. The author is immensely indebted to Charles Fefferman for devoting twelve long months to the meticulous proof-reading of the present paper. He also wishes to express his gratitude to the Mathematics Department of Princeton University for its support during his work on this project.
[^2]: See the introduction of [@alexakis1] for a detailed discussion of the Deser-Schwimmer conjecture, and for background on scalar Riemannian invariants.
[^3]: These “main algebraic propositions” are discussed in brief below. A [*generalization*]{} of these Propositions is the Proposition \[giade\] below.
[^4]: By this we mean [*without*]{} recourse to the Lemmas 3.1, 3.2, 3.5 in [@alexakis4].
[^5]: In particular it is a tensor of rank $m+4$; if we write out its free indices it would be in the form $\nabla^{(m)}_{r_1\dots r_m}R_{ijkl}$.
[^6]: This means that each function $\Omega_h$ is differentiated at least twice.
[^7]: See [@alexakis1] for a precise definition of weight.
[^8]: Recall that given a partial contraction $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g$ in the form (\[gen.form1\]) with $\sigma$ factors, $div_{i_s}C^{l,i_1\dots i_\alpha}_g$ is a sum of $\sigma$ partial contractions of rank $\alpha-1$. The first summand arises by adding a derivative $\nabla^{i_s}$ onto the first factor $T_1$ and then contracting the upper index ${}^{i_s}$ against the free index ${}_{i_s}$; the second summand arises by adding a derivative $\nabla^{i_s}$ onto the second factor $T_2$ and then contracting the upper index ${}^{i_s}$ against the free index ${}_{i_s}$ etc.
[^9]: In other words, we are requiring each function $\Omega_i$ is differentiated at least twice.
[^10]: Of course if $Def(\vec{\kappa}_{simp})=\emptyset$ then by definition ${\sum}_{j\in J} \dots=0$.
[^11]: Note that in any set $S$ of $\mu$-refined double characters with the same simple character there is going to be a subset $S'$ consisting of the maximal refined double characters.
[^12]: Recall that “simply subsequent” means that the simple character of $C^{t,i_1\dots i_\mu}_{g}$ is subsequent to $Simp(\vec{L}^z)$.
[^13]: The partial contractions in (\[hypothese2\]) are assumed to all have the same simple character–this implies that they all have the same number of factors $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}, S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}, \nabla^{(A)}\Omega_h$ respectively.
[^14]: Similarly, the “Main algebraic Propositions” 3.1, 3.2 in [@alexakis2] [*coincide*]{} with Proposition \[giade\] above when $\Phi=1$.
[^15]: “Acceptable” in the sense that each factor $\Omega_i$ is differentiated at least twice).
[^16]: Thus, the tensor field should consist of factors $S_*R_{ijkl},\nabla^{(2)}\Omega_h$, and factors $\nabla^{(m)}_{r_1\dots r_m}R_{ijkl}$ with all the indices ${}_{r_1},\dots ,{}_{r_m}$ contracting against factors $\nabla\phi_h$.
[^17]: I.e. $\alpha=1$ in (\[guillemin3\]).
[^18]: Recall from [@alexakis4] that $H_2^{\alpha,*}$ is the index set of tensor fields of rank $\alpha$ in (\[guillemin3\]) with a free index in the factor $\nabla Y$.
[^19]: Recall that in the definition of “real length” in this setting, we count each factor $\nabla^{(m)}R,\S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R, \nabla^{(B)}\Omega_x$ once, the two factors $\omega_1,\omega_2$ for one, and the factors $\nabla\phi,\nabla\phi',\nabla\tilde{\phi}$ nor nothing.
[^20]: Its proof was also deferred to the present paper.
[^21]: Recall from the introduction in [@alexakis4] that the non-generic factors in $\vec{\kappa}_{simp}$ are all the factors in the form $\nabla^{(A)}\Omega_h, S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$, and also all the factors $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ that contract against at least one factor $\nabla\phi_s$.
[^22]: There is no danger of falling under a “forbidden case”, since we started with tensor fields which were not forbidden.
[^23]: This can be derived by repeating the [*proof*]{} of (\[bestdays\]), (\[bestdays2\]).
[^24]: See the relevant Lemma in the Appendix of [@alexakis1].
[^25]: Since the factor $\nabla\phi_{u+2}$ survives this operation, and since we started out with terms that were not “forbidden”, there is no danger of falling under a “forbidden case” of Corollary 1 from [@alexakis1].
[^26]: Notice that there is no danger of falling under a “forbidden case” of that Lemma, since there will be a non-simple factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$, by virtue of the factor $\nabla\phi_{u+2}$.
[^27]: Notice that by weight considerations, if this property holds for one of the terms $C^{l,i_1\dots i_\mu,i_{\mu+1}\dots i_{\mu+\beta}}_g$, then it will hold for all of them.
[^28]: We recall that to “make a free index ${}_{i_y}$ into an internal contraction” means that we add a derivative $\nabla_{i_y}$ onto the factor $T_{i_y}$ to which the free index ${}_{i_y}$ belongs. The new derivative index $\nabla^{i_y}$ is then contracted against the index ${}_{i_y}$ in $T_{i_y}$.
[^29]: This can be proven by using the operation $Erase[\dots]$, see the Appendix in [@alexakis4].
[^30]: The terms indexed in $L_\mu^1$ are now simply subsequent to $\tilde{\kappa}_{simp}$.
[^31]: Asume wlog that $T_a$ is more important than $T_b$
[^32]: Again assume wlog that $T_c$ is more important than $T_d$.
[^33]: In the subcase ${\mu+\beta}=\sigma_2$ it will only imply it for the “excluded” sublinear combination defined above.
[^34]: Denote the resulting $(u-2)$-simple character by $\vec{\kappa}'''_{simp}$.
[^35]: We have lowered the weight in absolute value.
[^36]: The two corresponding sublinear combinations vanish separately, of course.
[^37]: We have lowered the weight in absolute value.
[^38]: In Lemma \[vanderbi\], $Q$ is called $V$.
[^39]: Observe that our hypotheses on the tensor fields in the equation in Lemma \[obote\] not being “bad” ensure that we do not fall under the “forbidden” cases of Lemma 4.10 in [@alexakis4].
[^40]: By weight considerations, since we started out with no “bad terms” in Lemma \[obote\], we will not encounter no “forbidden tensor fields” for Lemma 4.10 in [@alexakis4].
[^41]: Recall that a special index in a factor $\nabla^{(m)}R_{ijkl}$ is an internal index, while a special index in a factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ is an index ${}_k,{}_l$.
[^42]: Recall that ${}_{i_\gamma}$ is the free index that belongs to $\nabla Y$.
[^43]: Notice that by weight considerations, since we started out with no “bad” terms in the hypothesis of Lemma \[obote\], there is no danger of falling under a “forbidden case” of that Corollary.
[^44]: Again we observe that if we can prove this then Lemma \[firstclaim\] in case B will follow by induction.
[^45]: Recall that ${}_{i_\gamma}={}_{i_{\alpha+1}}$ belongs to $\nabla Y$ by hypothesis.
[^46]: Observe that the remaining cases are when $M=0$, $M=\frac{1}{2}$, $M=1$.
[^47]: Furthermore, we can observe that we do not fall under a “forbidden case” of Lemma 4.1 in [@alexakis4], by weight considerations, and since the tensor fields in our Lemma assumption are not “bad”.
[^48]: Note that the weight becomes less negative, hence Lemma 4.10 in [@alexakis4] applies.
[^49]: By our assumptions there will be a removable index in these cases. Hence our extra requirements of those Lemmas are fulfilled.
[^50]: Note that the definition of $T_{\omega_1},T_{\omega_2}$ depends on $h$; however, to simplify notation we suppress the index $h$ that should appear in $T_{\omega_1},T_{\omega_2}$.
[^51]: By the additional restrictions imposed on the assumption of Lemma \[vanderbi\] there is no danger of falling under a “forbidden case” of Corollary 1 in [@alexakis4].
[^52]: Observe that the assumption that Lemma \[vanderbi\] does not include “forbidden cases” ensures that we will not need to apply Lemma \[firstclaim\] in a “forbidden case”.
[^53]: In this case there will be a factor $\nabla\omega_1$ or $\nabla\omega_2$ contracting against a non-special index; therefore there is no danger of falling under a “forbidden” case of Lemma \[firstclaim\].
[^54]: See [@alexakis4] for a definition of this notion.
[^55]: See the relevant Lemma in the Appendix of [@alexakis1].
[^56]: Again we observe that if we can prove this then Lemma \[firstclaimb\] in case B will follow by induction.
[^57]: Recall that we showed in [@alexakis4] that this is a Corollary of Lemma 4.6 in [@alexakis4], which we have now shown.
[^58]: There is no danger of falling under a “forbidden case” of Lemma \[obote\] by weight considerations since we are assuming that none of the tensor fields of minimum rank in the assumption of Lemma \[vanderbi\] are “bad”.
[^59]: meaning that each $a_i\ge 2$.
[^60]: Recall the definition of a “removable” index from Definition \[proextremovable\].
[^61]: Also, the assumption of existence of a non-removable index coincides with the corresponding assumption of Lemma \[vanderbi\].
[^62]: All remaining factors $\nabla\psi_1,\dots,\nabla\psi_\tau$ and also the factor(s) $\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\chi_1,\nabla\chi_2$) are treated as factors $\nabla\phi_h$
[^63]: Notice that there will necessarily be at least one non-simple factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ or $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_h$, by virtue of the factor(s) $\nabla Y$ (or $\nabla\omega_1,\nabla\omega_2$), therefore that Corollary can be applied.
[^64]: The resulting equation falls under the inductive assumption, as in Step 3.
[^65]: The only extra feature in this setting is that one must prove the claim by a separate induction on the [*number*]{} of factors $\nabla\psi_z$ that are contracting against $\nabla^{(a)}\Omega_h$.
[^66]: Observe that by virtue of the factor $\nabla\psi_1$, we must have at least one non-simple factor $S_{*}\nabla^{(\nu)}R_{ijkl}$ or $\nabla^{(B)}\Omega_h$ in (\[sfragis\])–hence (\[sfragis\]) does not fall under any of the “forbidden cases” of Corollary 1 in [@alexakis4], by inspection.
[^67]: In some cases there will be no tensor fields $C^1,C^2$ (in which case we will just say that in (\[amerwom\]) we have $(Const)_1=0$, $(Const)_2=0$).
[^68]: For the rest of this subsection, we will slightly abuse notation and [*not*]{} write out the derivative indices that contract against factors $\nabla\phi_h$–we will thus refer to factors $R_{ijkl}$, setting $m=0$.
[^69]: In other words, in that case the factors $T,T'$ contract according to the pattern: $\nabla^{(m)}_{(free)\dots (free)}R_{(free)j(free)l}\nabla_{(s}{{R_a}^{jk}}_{d)}$, where the indices ${}_s,{}_a,{}_d$ are symmetrized over.
[^70]: So we set $\alpha=M+2$.
[^71]: Recall that $\vec{L}^z$, $z\in Z'_{Max}$ is the collection of maximal refined double characters that Proposition \[giade\] deals with.
[^72]: So, we set $\alpha=M+1$.
[^73]: (Thus the factor $\nabla^{(M)}_{(free)\dots (free)}v_{jl}$ gets replaced by $\Delta^{M+2}v_{ij}$).
[^74]: The fact that $\sigma>3$ ensures the existence of two such factors.
[^75]: See the Appendix in [@alexakis1] and just set $\omega=\upsilon$.
[^76]: This can be done by just repeating the proof of the “Eraser” Lemma in the Appendix of [@alexakis1].
[^77]: This follows by virtue of the symmetry of the indices ${}_s,{}_a,{}_d$ in any factor $\nabla_sR_{abcd}$ as discussed above.
[^78]: These derivatives contract against the indices $\nabla_{t_1},\dots ,\nabla_{t_{M+2}}$ that have hit $T^j$.
[^79]: See the Appendix of [@alexakis1] for the definition of this operation.
[^80]: Recall that this operation has been defined in the Appendix of [@alexakis1] and produces a true equation.
[^81]: Recall that by our hypothesis $\alpha'\ge 2$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Stefano Nardulli
bibliography:
- 'these.bib'
title: The Isoperimetric Profile of a Noncompact Riemannian Manifold for Small Volumes
---
Introduction
============
Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional Riemannian manifold. We deal, mainly, with the problem of finding a relatively compact domain $D\subset\subset M$ that minimizes $Area(\partial D)$ among domains of the same volume, for sufficiently small values of volume. We reformulate the problem in the context of currents, of geometric measure theory. Given $0<v<Vol(M)$, consider all integral currents $T$ in $M$ with volume $v$, and denote the mass of the boundary as $Area(\partial T)$. From now on we think to the problem of finding minimizing currents with a fixed volume constraint. This problem is referred as the **isoperimetric problem**, throughout the paper.
When we speak about area and volume, respectively $Area(\cdot)$ and $Vol(\cdot)$, we do not mention the metric when this is clear from the context, but some time it will be necessary to specify the metric for the sake of clarity and according to this convention we can write $Area_g$ and $Vol_g$ where $g$ will be the involved metric.
The principal achievements of this paper concern the link between the theory of pseudo-bubbles and the isoperimetric problem for small volumes, in a complete Riemannian manifold with some kind of boundedness at infinity, on the metric and its fourth derivatives. This task was carried out by the same author in the context of manifolds for which there is existence of minimizers in all volumes, in particular for manifolds with cocompact isometry group or manifolds with finite volume, compare with [@RRosales] . In this paper, we deal with the same questions, but the technics employed to encompass the difficulties arisen from the lack of existence of minimizers, are completely new. Namely, we embed isometrically the manifold $M$ into a metric space composed of the disjoint union of pieces $(M_{\infty},p_{\infty},g_{\infty})$ that are limit manifolds of sequences $(M,p_j,g)_j$, with $p_j\in M$, in some suitable pointed $C^{k,\alpha}$ topology. The arguments presented here are useful because they permit to show nontrivial propositions for $M$ complete, noncompact, possibly without existence of minimizers, only provided that sufficiently many sequences $(M,p_j,g)$ have a limit in a $C^{k,\alpha}$ toplogy. For the convenience of the reader we repeat the relevant material from [@NarAnn],[@BM], [@Pet], [@PXu] and [@NarGD] without proofs, thus making our exposition self-contained.\
In first we recall the definition of a pseudo-bubble. Let $Q=id-P$, where $P$ is orthogonal projection of $L^2 (T^1 _p M)$ on the first eigenspace of the Laplacian $T^1 _p M$ is the fiber over $p$ of the unit tangent bundle of the Riemannian manifold $M$.
[@NarAnn] A **pseudo-bubble** is an hypersurface $\mathcal{N}$ embedded in $M$ such that there exists a point $p\in M$ and a function $u$ belonging to $C^{2,\alpha}(T^1_p M\backsimeq\mathbb{S}^{n-1},\mathbb{R})$, such that $\mathcal{N}$ is the graph of $u$ in normal polar coordinates centered at $p$, i.e. $\mathcal{N}=\left\lbrace exp_p (u(\theta )\theta ),\:\theta\in T^1_p M \right\rbrace$ and $Q(H(u))$ is a real constant, where $H$ is the mean curvature operator.
To state a uniqueness theorem for pseudo-bubbles we need the notion of *center of mass*.
Let $(\Omega ,\mu )$ be a probability space and $f:\Omega\rightarrow M$ a measurable function. We consider the following function $\mathcal{E}:M\rightarrow [0,+\infty[$: $$\mathcal{E}(x):=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega } d^2 (x,f(y))d\mu (y).$$ The **center of mass** of $f$ with respect to the measure $\mu$ is the minimum of $\mathcal{E}$ on $M$, provided that it exists and is unique.
In particular, we can speak about the center of mass of a hypersurface of small diameter (we apply this definition to the $(n-1)$-dimensional measure of the boundary). The main result on pseudo-bubbles is the following theorem.
\[TT1\] Let $M$ be a complete Riemannian manifold. Denote $\mathcal{F}^{k,\alpha}$ be the fiber bundle on $M$ where the fiber over $p$ is the space of $C^{k,\alpha}$ functions on the unit tangent sphere $T^1_p M$. There exists a $C^{\infty}$ map, $\beta:M\times ]0,Vol(M)[\rightarrow\mathcal{F}^{2,\alpha}$ such that for all $p\in M$, and all sufficiently small $v>0$, the hypersurface $exp_p (\beta(p,v)(\theta )\theta) $ is the unique pseudo-bubble with center of mass $p$ enclosing a volume $v$.
#### Remark:
If $g$ is an isometry of $M$, $g$ sends pseudo-bubbles to pseudo-bubbles and $g\circ\beta =\beta\circ g$ ($g$ acts only on the first factor $M$).\
Main Results
------------
According to [@MJ], small solutions of the isoperimetric problem in compact Riemannian manifolds, or noncompact manifolds with cocompact isometry group, are close to geodesic balls. In fact they are graphs, in normal coordinates, of $C^{2,\alpha}$ small functions. This holds as well also for noncompact manifolds under a $C^4$ bounded geometry assumption, as will be proven in section $3$. In any case, it follows that these small isoperimetric domains are pseudo-bubbles.
#### Remark:
$C^4$ boundedness is due only to the technical limits of the methods employed for proving theorem \[Regthm\]. A slight change in the proof actually shows that, this assumption can be relaxed.\
The main result of this paper is theorem \[1\], which provides a criterion for existence of minimizers having sufficiently small volume. Now, let us recall the basic definitions from the theory of convergence of manifolds, as exposed in [@Pet], to state correctly theorem \[1\].
\[Petersen [@Pet]\] A sequence of pointed complete Riemannian manifolds is said to converge in the pointed $C^{m,\alpha}$ topology $(M_i, p_i, g_i)\rightarrow (M,p,g)$ if for every $R > 0$ we can find a domain $\Omega_R$ with $B(p,R)\subseteq\Omega\subseteq M$, a natural number $\nu_R\in\mathbb{N}$, and embeddings $F_{i,R}:\Omega_R\rightarrow M_i$ for large $i\geq\nu_R$ such that $B(p_i,R)\subseteq F_{i,R} (\Omega_R)$ and $F_{i,R}^*(g)\rightarrow g$ on $\Omega_R$ in the $C^{m,\alpha}$ topology.
It is easy to see that this type of convergence implies pointed Gromov-Hausdorff convergence. When all manifolds in question are closed, then the maps $F_i$ are diffeomorphisms. So for closed manifolds we can speak about unpointed convergence. In this case, convergence can therefore only happen if all the manifolds in the tail end of the sequence are diffeomorphic. In particular, classes of closed Riemannian manifolds that are precompact in some $C^{m,\alpha}$ topology contain at most finitely many diffeomorphism types. For the precise definition of $C^{m,\alpha}$ bounded geometry, see the definition below.
\[Petersen [@Pet]\] Suppose $A$ is a subset of a Riemannian $n$-manifold $(M,g)$. We say that the $C^{m,\alpha}$-norm on the scale of $r$ of $A\subseteq(M,g)$: $||A||_{C^{m,\alpha},r}\leq Q$, if we can find charts $\psi_s :\mathbb{R}^n\supseteq B(0,r)\rightarrow U_s\subseteq M$ such that
1. For all $p\in A$ there exists $U_s$ such that $B(p,\frac{1}{10}e^{-Q}r)\subseteq U_s$.
2. $|D\psi_s|\leq e^Q$ on $B(0,r)$ and $|D\psi_s^{-1}|\leq e^Q$ on $U_s$.
3. $r^{|j|+\alpha}||D^j_{g_s}||_{\alpha}\leq Q$ for all multi indices j with $0\leq |j|\leq m$.
4. Here $g_s$ is the matrix of functions of metric coefficients in the $\psi_s$ coordinates regarded as a matrix on $B(0,r)$.
For given $Q>0$, $n\geq 2$, $m\geq 0$, $\alpha\in ]0,1]$, and $r>0$ define $\mathcal{M}^{m,\alpha}(n, Q, r)$ as the class of complete, pointed Riemannian $n$-manifolds $(M,p,g)$ with $||(M,g)||_{C^{m,\alpha},r}\leq Q$.
In the sequel, $n\geq 2$, $r,Q>0$, $m\geq 4$, $\alpha\in [0,1]$.
\[1\] There exists $0<v^*=v^*(n,r,Q,m,\alpha)$ such that for all $M\in\mathcal{M}^{m,\alpha}(n, Q, r)$, for every $v$ such that $0<v<v^*$ then
1. \[Main0-\] The two following statements are equivalent,
1. \[MainI\] the function $p\mapsto f_M(p,v)$ attains its minimum,
2. \[MainII\] there exists solutions of the isoperimetric problem at volume $v$,
2. \[Main0\] $I_M(v)=Min\{f_{M_{\infty}}(p_{\infty},v)|\:(M,p_j, g)\rightarrow (M_{\infty},p_{\infty},g)\: for\: some\: (p_j)\}$.
Here $p_j\in M$ and the function $p\mapsto f_M(p,v)$ gives the area of pseudo-bubbles contained in a given manifold $M$, with center of mass $p\in M$ and enclosed volume $v$. Moreover, every solution $D$ of the isoperimetric problem is of the form $\beta(p_0,v)$ where $p_0$ is a minimum of $p\mapsto f_M(p,v)$ and conversely. With $\beta$ obtained in theorem \[TT1\]. $f_M$ is invariant and $\beta$ equivariant under the group of isometries of $M$.
The proof of theorem \[1\] will be achieved at the end of section \[s3\].\
**Remark:** The interest in theorem \[1\] is the reduction of minimizer’s existence problem, with fixed volume, for the area functional, from the original infinite dimensional minimum problem to a finite dimensional one, say to find the minima of a smooth function defined on the manifold $M$.\
Let us mention one important consequence (theorem \[Cor1\]) for the isoperimetric profile defined below.
Let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold of dimension $n$ (possibly with infinite volume). Denote by $\tau_{M}$ the set of relatively compact open subsets of $M$ with smooth boundary. The function $I:[0,Vol(M)[\rightarrow [0,+\infty [$ such that $I(0)=0$ is called the **isoperimetric profile function** (or shortly the **isoperimetric profile**) of the manifold $M$.
In this respect, we need to compute an asymptotic expansion of the function $v\mapsto f(p,v)$. We use results of [@PXu]. For completeness’sake, the statement of the following theorem is included. Furthermore, we agree that any term denoted $\mathcal{O} ({r^k})$ is a smooth function on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ that might depend on $p$ but which is bounded by a constant independent of $p$ times $r^k$ in the $C^2 $ topology.
We denote by $c_n := \frac{Area(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})}{[Vol (\mathbb{B}^{n})]^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}$ the constant in the Euclidean isoperimetric profile.
\[PXvol\] \[AeApb\] Asymptotic expansion of the area of pseudo-bubbles as a function of the enclosed volume. $$\label{Ipexp}
f(p,v)=c_n v^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\left\lbrace 1+a_p \left(\frac{v}{\omega_n} \right) ^{\frac{2}{n}} +\mathcal{O} (v^{\frac{4}{n}}) \right\rbrace,$$ with $a_p:=-\frac{1}{2n(n+2)}Sc(p)$.
\[Cor1\] For all $M\in\mathcal{M}^{m,\alpha}(n, Q, r)$, let $$S=Sup_{p\in M}\{ Sc(p)\}.$$ Then the isoperimetric profile $I_{M}(v) $ has the following asymptotic expansion in a neighborhood of the origin $$\label{fasymex}
I_{M}(v)=c_n v^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\left( 1-\frac{S}{2n(n+2)}\left( \frac{v}{\omega_n}\right) ^{\frac{2}{n}} +o(v^{\frac{2}{n}})\right).$$
In theorem \[Cor1\] and lemma \[AeApb\], $\mathcal{O}(t^{\alpha})$ and $o(t^{\alpha})$ are functions that depend only on $t$. The asymptotic expansion of the volume of pseudo-bubbles and the volume of their boundary can be computed with theorem \[PXvol\], this yields an expansion for the profile.
Plan of the article
-------------------
1. Section $2$ describes why and in what sense approximate solutions of the isoperimetric problem, in the case of small volumes, are close to Euclidean balls, providing a decomposition theorem for domains belonging to an almost minimizing sequences in small volumes.
2. In section $3$ we prove theorem \[1\], generalizing to the case of $C^4$-bounded geometry manifolds some results of [@NarAnn], in particular corollary \[Kleiner1\] that constitutes the only known proof at my knowledge of the fact that for small volumes minimizers are invariant under the action of the groups of isometries of $M$ that fix their barycenters.
3. In section $4$ the results of preceding sections and those of [@NarGD], [@MJ], [@PXu] are applied to obtain the first two nonzero coefficients of the asymptotic expansion of the isoperimetric profile in the noncompact case under $C^4$-bounded geometry assumption on $M$.
Acknowledgements
----------------
I would to thank my former Ph.D. advisor Pierre Pansu for actracting my attention on the matter in which this paper is involved, his comments, suggestions and encouragements helped to shape this article. I am also indebted to Frank Morgan and Manuel Ritoré for their useful comments and remarks. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Renata Grimaldi for numerous mathematical discussions.
Partitions of domains
=====================
Introduction
------------
In this section it is assumed that
1. $M$ has bounded geometry ($|\mathcal{K}|\leq\Lambda$ and $inj_{M}\geq\varepsilon >0$) where $inj_{M}$ is the injectivity radius of $M$ ,
2. the domains $D_j \in\tau_{M}$ are **approximate solutions** i.e. $\frac{Area(\partial D_j)}{I(Vol (D_j ))}\rightarrow 1$ for $j\rightarrow +\infty$.
We prove in this section the following theorem.
\[tprec1\] Let $(M,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold with bounded geometry, $D_j $ a sequence of approximate solutions of the isoperimetric problem such that $Vol_g (D_j )\rightarrow 0$. Then there exist $p_j\in M$, and radii $R_j\rightarrow 0$ such that $$\lim_{j\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{Vol(D_j \Delta B(p_j , R_j ))}{Vol(D_j )}\rightarrow 0.$$
The proof of theorem \[tprec1\] occupies the rest of this section.
Euclidean version of theorem \[tprec1\]
---------------------------------------
Roughly speaking, we have that in $\mathbb{R}^n$ approximate solutions of the isoperimetric problem are close to balls in the mass norm, as stated in the following theorem. A good reference for the following theorem is [@LeoRigot].
\[JT4\] Let $\left\{ T_j \right\}\subset \mathbb{I}_n (\mathbb{R}^n )$ be a sequence of integral currents, satisfying $$\lim_{j\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{\mathbf{M}(\partial T_j )}{\mathbf{M}(T_j )^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}=c_n .$$ Then there exist balls $W_j$ such that $$\frac{\mathbf{M}(T_j -W_j)}{\mathbf{M}(T_j )}\rightarrow 0.$$
We use here the $BV$ function theory and that of finite perimeter sets as stated in [@Giu] because for all polyhedral chain $P$, $||\chi_{Spt||P||}||_{BV(\mathbb{R}^n )}<+\infty$. In what follows we translate our problem in the language of $BV$ functions.\
Let $|\cdot |$ be the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^n$. Now we give an argument for minimizing sequences that will be useful in the sequel. Let $(E_k)_{k\geq 1}$ be a minimizing sequence of domains for the functional $\mathcal{H}^{n-1}(\partial (\cdot ))$ such that $|E_k|=1$.\
\
1. A compactness theorem stated in [@Giu]\[page 17\] ensures that there exists a set $E$ such that a subsequence $$\chi_{E_k}\rightarrow \chi_{E}$$ in $L^1 _{loc}(\mathbb{R}^n )$.\
2. By lower semicontinuity of Lebesgue measure and of perimeter it follows $|E|\leq \liminf_{k\rightarrow +\infty} |E_k |\leq 1$, $P(E,\mathbb{R}^n )\leq \liminf_{k\rightarrow +\infty} P(E_k ,\mathbb{R}^n )\leq c_n$.\
\
Now if we show that $|E|=1$ then we finish the proof because Euclidean isoperimetric domains are round balls, so $E$ is the Euclidean ball of volume $1$. This and $L^1 (B(0,2))$ convergence together ensure that the mass outside this Euclidean ball goes to zero and that the volume of the set-theoretic symmetric difference $|E\Delta E_k|$ goes to zero.\
To prove that $|E|=1$ is done clearly for Carnot-Caratheodory groups in [@LeoRigot] and for this reason I will not repeat it here. It divides into two steps:
- first to show that there exist translates of $E_k$ having an intersection with the ball of radius $1$ of mass not less than a constant $m_0 >0$ (Lemma $4.1$ of [@LeoRigot]),
- we cannot find a nonnegligible subset of $E_k$ far away from this radius $1$ ball because $E_k$ is almost perimeter minimizing among all sets of measure $1$ (Lemma $4.2$, [@LeoRigot]).
To prove the theorem it is sufficient to apply the preceding argument to sets $E_j$ obtained by $supp ||T_j ||$ by a dilatation of a factor $\frac{1}{\mathbf{M}(T_j )^{\frac{1}{n}}}$ and setting $W_j$ equal to $\mathbf{M}(T_j )^{\frac{1}{n}}E$ .
#### Remark:
We observe incidentally that the arguments used here don’t make use of the monotonicity formula (see next section) but only of the Euclidean isoperimetric inequality.\
I want to thank Frank Morgan for suggesting to me a more general and in some respect simpler proof of this result for bubbles clusters in the fourth 2008 edition of his book [@MorGMT], pages 129-131. This can help in the understanding of earlier work of Almgren [@Alm].
Lebesgue numbers
----------------
Let $(M,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold with bounded geometry. We can construct a good covering of $M$ by balls having the same radius.
\[lebesgue\] Let $(M,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold with bounded geometry. There exist an integer $N$, some constants $C$, $\epsilon>0$ and a covering $\mathcal{U}$ of $M$ by balls having the same radius $3\epsilon$ and having also the following properties.
1. $\epsilon$ is a Lebesgue number for $\mathcal{U}$, i.e. every ball of radius $\epsilon$ is entirely contained in at least one element of $\mathcal{U}$ and meets at most $N$ elements of $\mathcal{U}$.
2. For every ball $B$ of this covering, there exists a $C$ bi-Lipschitz diffeomorphism on an Euclidean ball of the same radius.
Let $\epsilon=\frac{inj_{M}}{2}$. Let $\mathcal{B}=\{ B(p,\epsilon) \}$ be a maximal family of balls of $M$ of radius $\epsilon$ that have the property that any pair of distinct members of $\mathcal{B} $ have empty intersection. Then the family $2\mathcal{B}:=\{ B(p,2\epsilon) \}$ is a covering of $M$. Furthermore, for all $y\in M$, there exist $B(p,\varepsilon )\subset\mathcal{B}$ such that $y\in B(y,2\epsilon)$ and thus $B(y,\varepsilon )\subseteq B(p,3\epsilon)$. Hence $\epsilon$ is a Lebesgue number for the covering $3\mathcal{B}$. Let $B(p,3\epsilon)$ and $B(p',3\epsilon)$ be two balls of $3\mathcal{B}$ having nonempty intersection. Then $d(p,p')<6\epsilon$, hence $B(p',\epsilon)\subseteq B(p,7\epsilon)$. The ratios $Vol(B(p,7\epsilon))/Vol(B(p,\epsilon))$ are uniformly bounded because the Ricci curvature of $M$ is bounded from below, and hence the Bishop-Gromov inequality applies. The number of disjoints balls of radius $\epsilon$, contained in $B(p,7\epsilon)$, is bounded and does not depend on $p$. Thus the number of balls of $3\mathcal{B}$ that intersect one of these balls is uniformly bounded by an integer $N$. We conclude the proof by taking $\mathcal{U}:=3\mathcal{B}$. In fact by Rauch’s comparison theorem, for every ball $B(p,\epsilon)$, the exponential map is $C$ bi-Lipschitz with a constant $C$ that depends only on $\epsilon$ and on upper bounds for the sectional curvature $\mathcal{K}$.
Partition domains in small diameter subdomains
----------------------------------------------
This section is inspired by the article of Bérard and Meyer [@BM] lemma II.15 and the theorem of appendix C, page 531.
Let $I$ be the isoperimetric profile of $M$. Then $$\limsup_{a\rightarrow 0}\frac{I(a)}{a^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\leq c_n .$$
Fix a point $p\in M$. $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{a\rightarrow 0}\frac{I(a)}{a^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\leq \limsup_{a\rightarrow 0}
\frac{Area(\partial B(p,r(a)))}{Vol(B(p,r(a)))^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}
\end{aligned}$$ with $r(a)$ such that $Vol(B(p,r(a)))=a$. Changing variables in the limits, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{a\rightarrow 0}\frac{Area(\partial B(p,r(a)))}{Vol(B(p,r(a)))^{\frac{n-1}{n}}} & = & \limsup_{r\rightarrow 0}\frac{Area(\partial B(p,r))}{Vol(B(p,r))^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\\
\limsup_{r\rightarrow 0}\frac{r^{n-1}Area(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})+\cdots }{[r^{n}Vol(\mathbb{B}^{n})+\cdots ]^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}& = & c_n .
\end{aligned}$$
Let $r>0$. We define the *unit grid* of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $G_1$, as the set of points which have at least one integer coordinate. We call $G$ a *grid of mesh* $r$ if $G$ is of the form $v+rG_1$ where $v\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$. We denote by $\mathcal{G}_r:=([0,r]^n , \mathcal{L}^n ) $ the set of all grids of mesh $r$, endowed with its natural Lebesgue measure.
\[l5\] Let $D$ be an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$. $$\frac{1}{r^n}\int_{\mathcal{G}_r} Area(D\cap G) \mathcal{L}^n (dG)=\frac{n}{r}Vol (D).$$
We observe that every grid $G$ decomposes as a union of $n$ sets $G^{(i)}$ of the type $v+tG_1^{(i)}$ where $G_1^{(i)}$ is the set of points with integer $i-$th coordinate.\
Moreover $G^{(i)}\cap G^{(j)}$ has $(n-1)$-dimensional Hausdorff measure equal to zero. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{r^n}\int_{\mathcal{G}_r} Area(D\cap G) \mathcal{L}^n (dG) & = & \frac{1}{r^n}\sum_{i=1} ^n \int_{[0,r]^n }Area(D\cap G^{(i)}) \mathcal{L}^n (dG)\\
&=& \frac{1}{r^n}\sum_{i=1} ^n \int_{0}^r r^{n-1} Area(D\cap G^{(i)}) \mathcal{L}^n (dG)\\
& = & \frac{n}{r}Vol (D).
\end{aligned}$$
Let $r>0$. Let $D$ be an open set of $\mathbb{R}^n$. There exists a grid $G$ of mesh $r$ such that $$Area(D\cap G)\leq \frac{n}{r}Vol (D).$$
\[l1\] We denote $D_{G,k}$ the connected components of $D\setminus G$. Then $$\frac{\sum_k Area(\partial D_{G,k})-Area(\partial D)}{Vol(D)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\rightarrow 0$$ as $\displaystyle
\frac{Vol(D)^{\frac{1}{n}}}{r}\rightarrow 0.$
For every grid $G$, $$\sum_k Area(\partial D_{G,k})-Area(\partial D)=2Area(D\cap G).$$ By corollary \[l5\], there exists a grid $G$ such that $Area(D\cap G)\leq \frac{n}{r}Vol (D)$. We deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq\frac{\sum_k Area(\partial D_{G,k})-Area(\partial D)}{Vol(D)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\leq\frac{\frac{2n}{r}Vol (D)}
{Vol(D)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}=\frac{2nVol (D) ^{\frac{1}{n}}}{r}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus if $r$ is very large with respect to $Vol(D)^{\frac{1}{n}}$ then $$\frac{\sum_k Area(\partial D_{G,k})-Area(\partial D)}{Vol(D)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}$$ is close to $0$.
\[l2\] Let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold with bounded geometry. Let $D_j$ be a sequence of domains of $M$ so that
1. $Vol (D_j )\rightarrow 0$.
2. $\limsup_{j\rightarrow +\infty} \frac{Area(\partial D_j )}{Vol(D_j )^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\leq c_n$.
For any sequence $( r_j )$ of positive real numbers that tends to zero ($r_j \rightarrow 0$ ) and $\frac{Vol(D_j )^{\frac{1}{n}}}{r_j }\rightarrow 0$, there exists a partition $D_j =\bigcup_k D_{j,k}$ of $D_j$ in domains $D_{j,k}$ with $Diam(D_{j,k})\leq const_{M}\cdot r_j$ such that $$\limsup_{j\rightarrow +\infty} \frac{\sum_k Area(\partial D_{j,k})}{(\sum_k Vol(D_{j,k} ))^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\leq c_n .$$
We apply lemma \[lebesgue\] and we take a covering $\{ \mathcal{U}\}$ of $M$ by balls of radius $3\epsilon$, of multiplicity $N$ and Lebesgue number $\epsilon>0$. For every ball $B(p,3\epsilon)$ of this family, we fix a diffeomorphism $\phi_p :B(p,3\epsilon)\to B_{\mathbb{R}^n}(0,3\epsilon)$ of Lipschitz constant $C$. For every $j$ we fix also a radius $r_j >>Vol(D_j)^{\frac{1}{n}}$ and we map the grids of mesh $r_j$ of $\mathbb{R}^n$ in $B(p,3\epsilon)$ via $\phi_p$, i.e. for $G\in\mathcal{G}_{r_{j}}$, we have $$G_p =\phi_{p}^{-1}(G).$$ Let us denote by $D_{j,k}$ the connected components of $D_j \setminus (\cup_p G_p )$. We are looking for an estimate of the supplementary boundary volume introduced by the partition in this $D_{j,k}$, $$\sum_k Area(\partial D_{j,k})-Area(\partial D_j )=2Area(D_j \cap (\cup_l G_l )).$$ First estimate the average $m= \frac{1}{r_j ^n }\int_{\mathcal{G}_{r_j}}Area(D_j\cap (\cup_l G_l ))\mathcal{L}^n(dG)$ of this volume over all possible choices of the grids $G\in\mathcal{G}_{r_{j}}$. $$\begin{aligned}
m & \leq &
\frac{1}{r_j ^n }\sum_p \int_{\mathcal{G}_{r_j}}Area(D_j\cap G_p )\mathcal{L}^n (dG) \\
& \leq & \frac{1}{r_j ^n }\sum_p \int_{\mathcal{G}_{r_j}}{Area}_{(\mathbb{R}^n , {\phi_p ^{-1}}^{*} (g))}(\phi_p (D_j )\cap G)\mathcal{L}^n(dG)\\
& \leq &
\frac{C}{r_j ^n }\sum_p \int_{\mathcal{G}_{r_j}}{Area}_{(\mathbb{R}^n , can)}(\phi_p (D_j\cap\mathcal{U}_p )\cap G)\mathcal{L}^n(dG)\\
& \leq & C\frac{n}{r_j }\sum_p Vol (\phi_p (D_j \cap B(p,3\epsilon)))\\
& \leq & C^2\frac{n}{r_j }\sum_p Vol (D_j \cap B(p,3\epsilon))\\
& \leq & C^2 \frac{n}{r_j}NVol(D_j ).\end{aligned}$$ This is true because every point of $M$ is contained in at most $N$ balls $B(p,3\epsilon)$. Then there exists $G $ in $\mathcal{G}_{r_j}$ such that $$Area(D_j \cap (\cup_p G_p ))\leq C^2 \frac{n}{r_j}NVol(D_j ),$$ and so $$0\leq\frac{\sum_k Area(\partial D_{j,k})-Area(\partial D_j )}{Vol(D_j )^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\leq 2 C^2 \frac{n}{r_j}NVol(D_j )^{\frac{1}{n}}.$$ From the last inequality we obtain $$\limsup_{j\rightarrow +\infty} \frac{\sum_k Area^{M}(\partial D_{j,k})}{(\sum_k Vol ^{M}(D_{j,k} ))^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}=
\limsup_{j\rightarrow 0} \frac{Area^{M}(\partial D_j )}{Vol ^{M}(D_j )^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\leq c_n .$$ Now, fix $x\in D_j$. By construction, $\epsilon$ is a Lebesgue number of the covering $\{ \mathcal{U}\}$, and there exists a ball $B(p,3\epsilon)$ that contains $B_{M}(x,\epsilon)$. Let $D_{j,k}$ denote each connected component of $D\setminus (\cup_p G_p )$ that contains $x$, and $D'_{j,k}$ each connected component of $\phi_p (B(p,\epsilon))\setminus G$ that contains $\phi_p (x)$. We observe that $D'_{j,k}$ is a cube of edge $r_j$; if $j$ is large enough so that $r_j \leq \epsilon/C\sqrt{n}$, then $D'_{j,k}$ is contained in $\phi_p (B(p,\epsilon))$, hence $D_{j,k}$ is contained in $\phi_{p}^{-1}D'_{j,k}$, which has diameter at most $C\,r_j$.
Selecting a large subdomain
---------------------------
We first show that an almost Euclidean isoperimetric inequality can be applied to small domains.
\[lem1\]Let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold with bounded geometry. Then $$\frac{Area(\partial D)}{Vol(D)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\geq c_n (1-\eta (diam(D)))$$ with $\eta\rightarrow 0$ as $diam(D)\rightarrow 0$.
In a ball of radius $r<inj(M)$, we reduce to the Euclidian isoperimetric inequality via the exponential map, that is a $C$ bi-Lipschitz diffeomorphism with $C=1+\mathcal{O}(r^2 )$. This implies for all domains of diameter $<r$, $$\frac{Area(\partial D)}{Vol(D)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\geq c_n C^{-2n+2}=c_n (1-\mathcal{O}(r^2 )).$$
Second, we have a combinatorial lemma that tells that in a partition the largest domain contains almost all the volume.
\[l3\] Let $f_{j,k}\in [0,1]$ be numbers such that for all $j $, $\sum_k f_{j,k} =1$. Then $$\limsup_{j\rightarrow + \infty} \sum_k f_{j,k}^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\leq 1$$ implies that $$\lim_{j\rightarrow +\infty } \max_k f_{j,k}=1.$$
We argue by contradiction. Suppose there exists $\varepsilon >0$ for which there exists $j_{\varepsilon}\in \mathbb{N}$ so that for all $j\geq j_{\varepsilon}$, we have $\max_k \{f_{j,k}\}\leq 1-\varepsilon $. Then for all $j\geq j_{\varepsilon}$, we have $f_{j,k}\leq 1-\varepsilon $. From this inequality, $$\sum_k f_{j,k}^{\frac{n-1}{n}}=\sum_k f_{j,k}f_{j,k}^{\frac{-1}{n}}\geq \frac{\sum_k f_{j,k}}{(1-\varepsilon )^{\frac{1}{n}}}
\geq \frac{1}{(1-\varepsilon)^{\frac{1}{n}}},$$ hence $$\limsup_{j\rightarrow + \infty} \sum_k f_{j,k}^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\geq \frac{1}{(1-\varepsilon)^{\frac{1}{n}}}> 1,$$ which is a contradiction.
\[l4\] Let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold with bounded geometry. Let $D_j$ be a sequence of approximate solutions in $M$ with volumes that tend to zero. Let $r_j$ be a sequence of positive real numbers such that $r_j \rightarrow 0$ and $\frac{Vol(D_j )^{\frac{1}{n}}}{r_j }\rightarrow 0$. There exist $p_j \in M$ and $\varepsilon_j \leq const_{M}r_j$ and subdomains $D'_j\subset D_j$ such that
1. $D'_j \subseteq B(p_j ,\varepsilon_j )$
2. $\frac{Area(\partial D'_j)}{Vol(D'_j)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\rightarrow 0$
3. $\lim_{j\rightarrow +\infty } \frac{{Vol }^{M}(D'_j )}{{Vol }^{M}(D_j )}=1.$
Apply proposition \[l2\]. By the definition of isoperimetric profile and lemma \[lem1\] we have\
$$Area(\partial D_{j,k})\geq I(Vol(D_{j,k} ))\geq c_n
Vol(D_{j,k})^{\frac{n-1}{n}}(1-\eta_j )$$ where $\eta_j \rightarrow 0$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{j\rightarrow +\infty }\frac{\sum_k c_n
Vol(D_{j,k})^{\frac{n-1}{n}}(1-\eta_j )}{Vol(D_j )^{\frac{n-1}{n}}} \leq
\limsup_{j\rightarrow +\infty }\frac{\sum_k Area(\partial
D_{j,k})}{Vol(D_j )^{\frac{n-1}{n}}} \leq c_n ,\\
\end{aligned}$$ $$\limsup_{j\rightarrow +\infty }\frac{\sum_k
Vol(D_{j,k})^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}{Vol(D_j )^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\leq \limsup_{j\rightarrow +\infty }
\frac{1}{1-\eta_j }=1.$$ Now, set $f_{j,k}=\frac{Vol(D_{j,k})}{Vol(D_j)}$. We can suppose that $f_{j,1}=max_k \{f_{j,k}\}$. We apply lemma \[l3\] and we deduce that $$\frac{Vol(D_{j,1})}{Vol(D_j )}\rightarrow 1.$$ But by construction $D_{j,1}\subset B_{M}(p_j ,
const_{M}r_j )$ for some sequence of points $p_j$ in $M$. Finally, proposition \[l2\] gives $$\limsup \frac{Area(\partial D_j,1 )}{Vol(D_j )^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\leq\limsup\frac{}{}\leq c_n .$$ Thus one can take $D'_j =D_{j,1}$.
End of the proof of theorem \[tprec1\]
--------------------------------------
In this subsection we terminate the proof of theorem \[tprec1\].\
Let $D_j$ be a sequence of approximate solutions with $Vol(D_j )\rightarrow 0$. According to proposition \[l4\] there exist subdomains $D'_j \subseteq D_j$, points $p_j \in M$ and radii $\varepsilon_j \rightarrow 0$ such that
1. $D'_j \subseteq B(p_j ,\varepsilon_j )$.
2. $\frac{Vol(D'_j )}{Vol( D_j )}\rightarrow 1$.
3. $\frac{Area(\partial D'_j)}{Vol(D_j)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\rightarrow 0$.
We identify all tangent spaces $T_{p_j }M$ with a fixed Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^n$ and consider the domains $D''_j = exp^{-1}(D'_j )$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Since the pulled back metrics $\tilde{g}_j=exp_{p_j}^{*}(g_{M})$ converge to the Euclidean metric, $$\frac{Area(\partial D''_j)}{Vol(D''_j)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}\rightarrow c_n.$$ According to theorem \[JT4\], there exist Euclidean balls $W_j =B_{eucl.}(\tilde{q}_j , R_j)$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $$\frac{Vol_{eucl.}(D''_j\Delta W_j)}{Vol_{eucl.}(D''_j)}\rightarrow 0.$$ Note that $\tilde {g}_j $-balls are close to Euclidean balls, $$\frac{Vol_{eucl.}(D''_j\Delta W_j)}{Vol_{eucl.}(W_j)}\rightarrow 0.$$ Thus $$\frac{Vol_{eucl.}(D''_j \Delta B^{\tilde{g}_j}(\tilde{q}_j ,R_j))}{Vol_{eucl.}(D''_j)}\rightarrow 0,$$ and then, for $q_j =exp_{p_j}(\tilde{q}_j)$, $$\frac{Vol_{eucl.}(D'_j \Delta B^{g}(\tilde{q}_j ,R_j))}{Vol_{eucl.}(D'_j)}=\frac{Vol_{eucl.}(D''_j \Delta B^{\tilde{g}_j}(\tilde{q}_j ,R_j))}{Vol_{\tilde{g}}(W_j)}\rightarrow 0.$$ Finally, since $\frac{Vol(D_j \Delta D'_j)}{Vol(D_j)}\rightarrow 0$, $\frac{Vol_{g}(D_j\Delta B(q_j , R_j))}{Vol_{g}(D_j)}\rightarrow 0.$\
This completes the proof of theorem \[tprec1\].
Case of exact solutions
-----------------------
#### Remark:
When we consider the *solutions* of the isoperimetric problem (this is the case treated in [@MJ]), and not *approximate solutions*, the conclusion is stronger. In fact we can prove directly by the monotonicity formula that $D_j$ is of small diameter and this simplifies a lot the arguments showing that $D_j$ are close in flat norm to a round ball.
Assume $D_j$ is a sequence of solution of the isoperimetric problem. The dilated domains $D'''_j :=\frac{exp_{p_j}^{-1}(D_j )}{Vol_g (D_j)^{\frac{1}{n}}}$ are of bounded diameter and hence we can find a positive constant $R>0$ in the proof of the preceding theorem so that for all $j\in \mathbb{N}$ we have $$D'''_j \subseteq B(0,R).$$
For the domains $D'''_j$, the mean curvature of the boundary in $(\mathbb{R}^n,eucl)$ $h_j^{eucl}\leq M=const.$ for all $j$ (apply the Lévy-Gromov isoperimetric inequality [@Gr1], [@Gr2]) and hence the monotonicity formula of [@All]\[5.1 (3)\] page 446 gives for a fixed $r_0$ and all $j$ $$||\partial D'''_j ||(B(a_j , r_0))\geq e^{-M r_0}\Theta^{n-1}(||\partial D'''_j||, a_j)\omega_{n-1}r_0^{n-1}$$ $a_j\in spt||\partial D'''_j ||$, $r_0$ for a fixed $r_0$ and all $j$. We argue $$const\geq Area_{g_{can}} (\partial D'''_j )\geq \left[ \frac{Diam_{g_{can}}(D'''_j )}{2r_0}\right]\omega_{n-1}r_0 ^{n-1}$$ and we can conclude that $Diam_{g_{can}}(D'''_j )$ is uniformly bounded.
Existence for small volumes. {#s3}
============================
For compact manifolds, the regularity theorem of [@MJ] applies, and there is no need to use the more general theorem \[Regthm\]. For noncompact manifolds the situation is quite involved.
Minimizers are pseudo-bubbles. {#321}
------------------------------
When $M$ is noncompact, the regularity theorem of [@MJ] has to be replaced by a more general statement, for the following reasons.
1. Solutions of the isoperimetric problem need not exist in $M$.
2. Minimizing sequences may escape to infinity, therefore varying ambient metrics cannot be avoided.
Now, let us recall the basic result from the theory of convergence of manifolds, as exposed in [@Pet].
\[Fthmct\]
$\mathcal{M}^{m,\alpha}(n, Q, r)$ is compact in the pointed $C^{m,\beta}$ topology for all $\beta <\alpha$.
In subsequent arguments will be needed a regularity theorem, in a variable metrics context.
\[Regthm\][@NarGD] \[T4\] Let $M^n$ be a compact Riemannian manifold, $g_j$ a sequence of Riemannian metrics of class $C^{\infty}$ that converges to a fixed metric $g_{\infty}$ in the $C^4$ topology. Assume that $B$ is a domain of $M$ with smooth boundary $\partial B$, and $T_j$ is a sequence of currents minimizing area under volume contraints in $(M^n , g_j )$ satisfying $$(*): Vol_{g_{\infty}} (B\Delta T_j)\rightarrow 0.$$ Then $\partial T_j$ is the graph in normal exponential coordinates of a function $u_j$ on $\partial B$. Furthermore, for all $\alpha\in ]0,1[$, $u_j \in C^{2,\alpha}(\partial B)$ and $||u_j||_{C^{2,\alpha}(\partial B)}\rightarrow 0$ as $j\rightarrow +\infty$.
**Remark:** Roughly speaking, theorem \[Regthm\] says that if an integral rectifiable current $T$ is minimizing and sufficiently close in flat norm to a smooth current then $T$ is smooth too. In [@NarGD] there is a precise computation of the constants coming from an effective proof of the theorem.\
**Remark:** Theorems \[Fthmct\] and \[Regthm\] are the main reason for assuming to work under $C^4$ bounded geometry assumptions in this paper.\
In the sequel we use often the following classical isoperimetric inequality due to Pierre Berard and Daniel Meyer.
\[BerMeyer\]([@BM] Appendix C\]). Let $M^{n+1}$ be a smooth, complete Riemannian manifold, possibly with boundary, of bounded geometry (bounded sectional curvature and positive injectivity radius). Then, given $0<\delta<1$, (the interesting case is when $\delta$ is close to $1$) there exists $v_0>0$ such that any open set $U$ of volume $0<v<v_0$ satisfies $$Area(\partial U)\geq\delta c_n v^{\dfrac{n-1}{n}}.$$
**Remark:** The preceding theorem implies in particular that for a complete Riemannian manifold with bounded sectional curvature and strictly positive injectivity radius holds $I_M(v)\sim c_n v^{\frac{n-1}{n}}$ as $v\rightarrow 0$.
\[tpreec\] Let $M\in\mathcal{M}^{m,\alpha}(n, Q, r)$, and $(D_j)$ a sequence of solutions of the isoperimetric problem with $Vol_g (D_j )\rightarrow 0$. Then possibly extracting a subsequence, there exist points $p_j\in M$ such that the domains $D_j $ are graphs in polar normal coordinates of functions $u_j$ of class $C^{2,\alpha}$ on the unit sphere of $T_{p_j} M$ of the form $u_j=r_j(1+v_j )$ with $||v_j||_{C^{2,\alpha }(\partial B_{T_p M}(0, 1))}\rightarrow 0$ and radii $r_j\rightarrow 0$.
We consider tangent spaces $T_{p_j} M$ in this situation we identify them with a fixed copy of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and in this fixed space we carry almost the same analysis as already done in [@NarAnn]. In fact we take domains $T_j$ to be $exp_{p_j}^{-1}(D_j)$ rescaled by $\frac{1}{r_j}$ in the same fixed copy of $\mathbb{R}^n$ then $T_j$ is a solution of the isoperimetric problem for the rescaled pulled-back metric $g_j=\frac{1}{r_j ^2}exp_p^* (g)$ which converges volumewise to a unit ball. Since the sequence $g_j$ converges at least $C^4$ to a Euclidean metric, because of the $C^4$ bounded geometry assumption on $g$ the same arguments as in the preceding lemma applies.
\[lm1\] For all $n,r,Q,m\geq 4,\alpha$, there exists $0<v_1=v_1(n,r,Q,m,\alpha)$ such that for all $M\in\mathcal{M}^{m,\alpha}(n, Q, r)$, for every domain $D$ solution of the isoperimetric problem with $0<Vol(D)\leq v_1$, there exists a point $p_{D}\in M$ (depending on $D$) such that $D$ is the normal graph of a function $u_D \in C^{2,\alpha}(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})$ with $u_{D}=r_{D}(1+v_{D})$ and $||v_{D}||_{C^{2,\alpha }(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})}\rightarrow 0$ as $ Vol(D)\rightarrow 0$.
Otherwise there exists a sequence $D_j $ of solutions of the isoperimetric problem with volumes $Vol(D_j)\rightarrow 0$ for which $\partial D_j$ is not the graph on the sphere $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ of $T_p M$ of a function $u_j =r_j (1+v_j )$ where $||v_j ||_{C^{2,\alpha}}$ goes to $0$. This contradicts lemma \[tpreec\].
\[pblm1\] For all $n,r,Q,m,\alpha$ there exists $0<v_2=v_2(n,r,Q,m,\alpha)$ such that for all $M\in\mathcal{M}^{m,\alpha}(n,Q,r)$, $0<v<v_2$, if $D\subseteq M$ has volume $v$ and $I_M(v)=Area(\partial D)$ then $\partial D$ is a pseudo-bubble.
An analysis of the proof of theorem $1$ of [@NarAnn] shows how this application of the implicit function theorem gives a constant, say $C_0$ depending on $n,r,Q,m,\alpha$ such that the normal graph of a function $u$ on the unit tangent sphere centered at $p\in M$ with $||u||_{C^{2,\alpha}}\leq C_0$, solution of the pseudo-bubbles equation is of the form $\beta(p,r)$, $r<r_0$ then the argument given in theorem 3.1 of [@NarAnn] applies.
\[Kleiner1\] Let $0<v<v_2$, then for all $M\in\mathcal{M}^{m,\alpha}(n, Q, r)$, suppose that there exist a minimizing current $T$ for the isoperimetric problem with small enclosed volume $v$, $p\in M$ being its center of mass, and $St_p \leq Isom(M)$ being the stabilizer of $p$ for the canonical action of the group of isometries $Isom(M)$ of $M$. Then for all $k\in St_p$, we have $k(T)=T$.
Following theorem \[TT1\], $\partial T$ is the pseudo-bubble $\beta(p,r)$ where $\omega_n \rho^n =Vol(T)$. If $k\in St_p$, then, $k(\beta(p,r))=\beta(k(p),r*)$ for some small $r*$. For small volumes parameter $r$ is in one to one correspondence with parameter $v$, but $v$ is the enclosed volume and this does not change under the action of an isometry so by uniqueness of pseudo-bubbles we have that $r*=r$ hence $\beta(k(p),r)=\beta(p,r)$ and $k(T)=T$.
Proof of theorem \[1\].
-----------------------
For what follows it will be useful to give the definitions below.
Let $(D_j)_j\subseteq\tau_M$ we say that $(D_j)_j$ is an **almost minimizing sequence in volume $v>0$** if
1. $Vol(D_j)\rightarrow v$,
2. $Area(\partial D_j)\rightarrow I_M(v)$.
Given $\phi:M\rightarrow N$ be a diffeomorphism between two Riemannian manifolds and $\varepsilon>0$. We say that $\phi$ is a **$(1+\varepsilon)$-isometry** if for every $x,y\in M$ holds $\frac{1}{1+\varepsilon}d_M(x,y)\leq d_N(\phi(x),\phi(y))\leq (1+\varepsilon)d_M(x,y)$.
For the convenience of the reader we have divided the proof into a sequence of lemmas. To this aim we start with a very general question about the continuity of the isoperimetric profile function. The following lemma will be useful in many places in the sequel.
\[continuity\] Let $M$ be a complete Riemannian manifold with $|K_M|\leq K$, $inj_M>0$. Then $I_M:[0, Vol(M)[\rightarrow [0,+\infty[$ is continuous.
Fix $\varepsilon >0$ and take a domain $D$ with smooth boundary $\varepsilon$-almost minimizer in volume $0<v'<Vol(M)$ i.e.: $$Vol(D)=v',$$ and $$\label{cont0}
I_M(v')\leq Area(\partial D)\leq I_M(v')+\varepsilon.$$ Consider a small volume $w'>0$ and take the domain $D\cup B(p,r)$ with $Vol(B(p,r))=w'$ and $B(p,r)\cap D=\emptyset$. This yields to $$\begin{array}{lll}
I_M(v'+w') & \leq & Area(\partial (D\cup B(p,r)))\\
& = & Area(\partial D)+c_n w'^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\\
& \leq & I_M(v')+\varepsilon +c_n w'^{\frac{n-1}{n}}.
\end{array}$$ The reason for involve in the preceding formula the constant $c_n$ is a consequence of the asymptotic expansion of area of a geodesic balls as a function of volume enclosed. Let $f(r)=\sup_{p\in M}\left\{Vol(D\cap B(p,r))\right\}$, hence we get the existence a positive function $\phi$, with $$f(r)\geq\phi(v',r)>0.$$ It is easy to see that for every $0<w'<\phi(v',r)$ there exists a point $p$ with $Vol(B(p,r)\cap D)=w'$. Now, we want to consider domains $D-B(p,r)$ and evaluate their boundary area to obtain $$\begin{array}{lll}
I_M(v'-w') & \leq & Area(\partial (D-B(p,r)))\\
& \leq & Area(\partial D)+Cr(w')^{n-1}\\
& \leq & I_M(v')+\varepsilon +Cr(w')^{n-1},
\end{array}$$ where $r(w')=inf\{\rho|\phi(v',\rho)>w'\}\rightarrow 0$, as $w'\rightarrow 0$, since $r\mapsto\phi(v',r)$ is a strictly increasing positive function and $r(w')$ is its inverse function. Letting $\varepsilon$ tend to zero the following two inequalities hold $$\label{cont1}
\begin{array}{lll}
I_M(v'+w') & \leq & Area(\partial (D\cup B(p,r)))\\
& = & Area(\partial D)+c_n w'^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\\
& \leq & I_M(v')+c_n w'^{\frac{n-1}{n}},
\end{array}$$ $$\label{cont2}
\begin{array}{lll}
I_M(v'-w') & \leq & Area(\partial (D-B(p,r)))\\
& \leq & Area(\partial D)+Cr(w')^{n-1}\\
& \leq & I_M(v') +Cr(w')^{n-1}.
\end{array}$$ From (\[cont1\]) applied to $v'=v$, $w'=w$, and once more applied to $v'=v-w$, $w'=w$, we obtain $$\label{cont3}
I_M(v)-c_n w^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\leq I_M(v+w)\leq I_M (v)+c_n w^{\frac{n-1}{n}},$$ which gives $$\label{cont4}
I_M(v)=\lim_{w\rightarrow 0^+}I_M(v+w).$$ Applying (\[cont2\]) in first to $v'=v$, $w'=w$, and in second to $v'=v-w$, $w'=w$ we get $$\label{cont5}
I_M(v)-Cr(w)^{n-1}\leq I_M(v-w)\leq I_M(v)+Cr(w)^{n-1},$$ which implies $$\label{cont6}
I_M(v)=\lim_{w\rightarrow 0^-}I_M(v+w).$$
Combining (\[cont4\]) with (\[cont6\]) we conclude that $$I_M(v)=\lim_{w\rightarrow 0}I_M(v+w).$$ Which is our claim.
### Existence of a minimizer in a $C^{m,\alpha}$ limit manifold
\[Isopcomparisoninfinity\] Let $M$ be with bounded sectional curvature and positive injectivity radius. $(M, p_j)\rightarrow (M_{\infty},p_{\infty})$ in $C^{m,\alpha}$ topology, $m\geq 1$. Then $$\label{Isopcomparisoninfinity1}I_{M_{\infty}}\geq I_M.$$
Fix $0<v<Vol(M)$. Let $D_{\infty}\subseteq M_{\infty}$ an arbitrary domain of volume $v$. Put $r:=d_H(D_{\infty},p_{\infty})$, where $d_H$ denotes the Hausdorff distance. Consider the sequence $\varphi_j:B(p_{\infty},r)\rightarrow M$, of $(1+\varepsilon_j)$-isometry given by the convergence of pointed manifolds, for some sequence $\varepsilon_j\searrow 0$. Set $D_j:=\varphi_{j}(D_{\infty})$ and $v_j:=Vol(D_j)$ it is easy to see that
1. $v_j\rightarrow v$,
2. $Area_g(\partial D_j)\rightarrow Area_{g_{\infty}}(\partial D_{\infty})$.
(i)-(ii) are true because $\varphi_j$ are $1+\varepsilon_j$ isometries. After this very general preliminary construction that doesn’t requires any bounded geometry assumptions on $M$, we proceed to the proof of (\[Isopcomparisoninfinity1\]) by contradiction. In this respect suppose that there exist a volume $0<v<Vol(M)$ satisfying $$\label{Isopcomparisoninfinity2}
I_{M_{\infty}}(v)< I_M(v).$$ Then there is a domain $D_{\infty}\subseteq M_{\infty}$ such that $$I_{M_{\infty}}(v)\leq Area_{g_{\infty}}(\partial D_{\infty})< I_M(v).$$ As above we can find domains $(D_j)$ satisfying (i)-(ii). But by definition $I_M(v_j)\leq Area_g(\partial D_j)$ hence passing to the limit we get $$\label{Isopcomparisoninfinity3}
I_M(v)=\lim_{j\rightarrow +\infty} I_M(v_j)\leq\lim_{j\rightarrow +\infty} Area_g(\partial D_j)=Area_{g_{\infty}}(\partial D_{\infty})< I_M(v).$$ (\[Isopcomparisoninfinity3\]) shows that (\[Isopcomparisoninfinity2\]) is incompatible with the assumption of the theorem.
The next lemma is simply a restatement of theorem \[tprec1\].
\[restatementtprec1\] For all $n,r,Q,m,\alpha$, and $\varepsilon>0$ there exists\
$0<v_3=v_3(n,r,Q,m,\alpha,\varepsilon)$ such that for all $M\in\mathcal{M}^{m,\alpha}(n, Q, r)$, there is a positive number $\eta=\eta(\varepsilon ,M)>0$ with the following properties\
if $0<v=Vol(D)<v_3$, $\frac{Area(\partial D)}{I_M(Vol(D))}<1+\eta$ it follows that there exists $p=p_D\in M$, $R=C(n,r,Q,m,\alpha)v^{\frac{1}{n}}$ satisfying $$\frac{Vol(D\Delta B(p,R))}{Vol(D)}\leq\varepsilon.$$
As it is easy to check this lemma is a restatement of theorem \[tprec1\] in an $\varepsilon$-$\delta$ language with a little extra effort about uniformity in the class $\mathcal{M}^{m,\alpha}(n, Q, r)$, after having observed that the constant $C$ used in the proof of lemma \[l2\] depends only on $n,r,Q,m,\alpha$.
Let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold. $0<v<Vol(M)$ we say that $I_{M}(v)$ is **achieved** if there exists an integral current $D\subseteq M$ such that $Vol(D)=v$ and $Area(\partial D)=I_M(v)$.
\[pbestimate\] For all $n,r,Q,m,\alpha$ there exist $0<v_4=v_4(n,r,Q,m,\alpha)$, $C_1=C_1(n,r,Q,m,\alpha)>0$ such that for all $M\in\mathcal{M}^{m,\alpha}(n,Q,r)$, $0<v<v_4$, with $I_M(v)$ achieved then $$I_M(v+h)\leq I_M(v)+C_1h v^{-\frac{1}{n}},$$ provided that $v+h<v_4$.
Let us define, $v_4=Min\{1, v_0, v_1, v_2\}$. Put $\psi_{M,p}(\tilde{v})=Area(\beta)^{\frac{n}{n-1}}$ where $\beta$ is the pseudo-bubble of $M$, centered at $p$ and enclosing volume $\tilde{v}$. Then $\tilde{v}\mapsto\psi_{M,p}(\tilde{v})$ is $C^1$ and $||\psi_{M,p}||_{C^1([0,v_4])}\leq C$ uniformly with respect to $M$ and $p$, i.e., $C=C(n,r,Q, m,\alpha)$, this is a nontrivial consequence of the proof of the existence of pseudo-bubbles that could be found in [@NarAnn]. When $v+h<v_4$, $$\psi_{M,p}(v+h)\leq\psi_{M,p}(v)+Ch.$$ $$\begin{array}{lll}
I_M(v+h) & \leq & \psi_{M,p}(v+h)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\\
& \leq & \psi_{M,p}(v)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\left(1+\frac{Ch}{\psi_{M,p}(v)}\right)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\\
& \leq & \psi_{M,p}(v)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\left(1+\frac{n-1}{n}C'h\right)\\
& \leq & \psi_{M,p}(v)^{\frac{n-1}{n}}+C_1h v^{-\frac{1}{n}}\\
& \leq & I_M(v)+C_1h v^{-\frac{1}{n}}.
\end{array}$$
Now we want to apply the theory of convergence of manifolds suitably mixed with geometric measure theory to the isoperimetric problem for small volumes. Some parts of the proof are inspired from [@RRosales]
\[elmpv\] For all $n,r,Q,m,\alpha$, there exists $0<v_6=v_6(n,r,Q,m,\alpha)$ such that for all $M\in\mathcal{M}^{m,\alpha}(n,Q,r)$, and for all $v$, with $0<v<v_6$ there is a sequence of points $p_j$, a limit manifold $(M_{\infty}, p_{\infty},g_{\infty})\in\mathcal{M}^{m,\alpha}(n,Q,r)$ such that
1. \[elmpvI\] $(M,p_j,g)\rightarrow (M_{\infty}, p_{\infty},g_{\infty})$ in $C^{m,\beta}$ topology for $\beta<\alpha$,
2. \[elmpvIII\]$I_{M_{\infty}}(v)$ is achieved,
3. \[elmpvIV\] $D_{\infty}$ is a pseudo-bubble,
4. \[elmpvII\] $I_M(v)=I_{M_{\infty}}(v)$.
Fix $1>\delta>0$, and $\varepsilon>0$ such that $$\label{elmpv1bis}
\frac{1}{2}\delta\frac{c_n}{C_1}>\gamma(\varepsilon)^{\frac{1}{n}}>0,$$ with $\gamma=\gamma(\varepsilon)=\frac{\varepsilon}{1-\varepsilon}$. Observe that this is possible because $\gamma(\varepsilon)\rightarrow 0$ as $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$. Set $v_6=Min\{v_0,v_2,v_3,v_4\}$ as obtained respectively in lemma \[BerMeyer\], \[restatementtprec1\], \[pbestimate\] and theorem \[pblm1\]. Let $0<v<v_6$. Let $D_j$ be a minimizing sequence in volume $v$ i.e. $Vol(D_j)=v$ and $Area(\partial D_j)\rightarrow I_M(v)$. Take now $j$ large enough to have $\frac{Vol(\partial D_j)}{I_M(v)}<1+\eta_{\varepsilon}$ with $\eta_{\varepsilon}>0$ as in theorem \[restatementtprec1\]. There exist $p_j$, $R$ s.t. $$\frac{Vol(D_j\Delta B(p_j,R))}{Vol(D_j)}\leq\varepsilon.$$ By theorem \[Fthmct\] applied to the sequence of pointed manifolds $(M, p_j, g)_j\subset M^{m,\alpha}(n, Q, r)$ we obtain the existence of a pointed manifold $(M_{\infty}, p_{\infty}, g_{\infty})$ s.t. $(M, p_j)\rightarrow (M_{\infty}, p_{\infty}, g_{\infty})$ in $C^{4,\beta}$ topology.
What we want to do in the sequel is to define domains $\tilde{D}_j^c\subseteq M_{\infty}$ (passing to a subsequence if necessary), that are images via the diffeomorphisms $F_j$ of $C^{4,\beta}$ convergence of a suitable truncation $D'_j$ of $D_j$ with balls whose radii $t_j$ are given by the coarea formula (because it is needed to control the amount of area added in the truncation procedure), to obtain an integral current $D_{\infty}\subseteq M_{\infty}$ s.t. $\tilde{D}_j^c\rightarrow D_{\infty}$ in $\mathcal{F}_{loc}(M_{\infty})$ topology. This goal will be achieved by taking an exhaustion of $M_{\infty}$ by geodesic balls, applying a standard compactness argument of geometric measure theory in each of these balls and using a diagonal process.
Take a sequence of scales $(r_i)$, $i\geq 0$ satisfying $r_0\geq R$ and $r_{i+1}\geq r_i+2i$, consider an exhaustion of $M_{\infty}$ by balls of center $p_{\infty}$ and radius $r_i$, i.e. $M_{\infty}=\bigcup_i B(p_{\infty}, r_i)$. Then for every $i$ the convergence in $C^{4,\beta}$ topology gives existence of $\nu_{r_i}>0$ and diffeomorphisms $F_{j,r_i}:B(p_{\infty},r_i)\rightarrow B(p_j,r_i)$ for all $j\geq\nu_{r_i}$, that are $(1+\varepsilon_j)$-isometries for some sequence $0\leq\varepsilon_j\rightarrow 0$.
At this stage we start the diagonal process, determining a suitable double sequence of cutting radii $t_{i,j}>0$ with $i\geq 1$ and $j\in S_i\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ for some sequence of infinite sets $S_1\supseteq ...\supseteq S_{i-1}\supseteq S_i\supseteq S_{i+1}\supseteq ...$, defined inductively. Before to proceed we recall the argument of coarea used in this proof repeatedly. For every domain $D\subseteq M$, every point $p\in M$, and interval $J\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ there exists $t\in J$ such that $$Area(D\cap(\partial B(p, t)))=\frac{1}{|J|}\int_J Area((\partial B(p, s))\cap D)ds\leq\frac{Vol(D)}{|J|}.$$ We proceed as follow, cut by coarea with radii $t_{1,j}\in ]r_1, r_{1}+j[$ for $j\geq\nu_{r_2}$ we get domains $D'_{1,j}=D_j\cap B(p_j,t_{1,j})$, $D''_{1,j}=D_j-D'_{1,j}$ for $j$ large enough (i.e., $j\geq\nu_{r_1}$), satisfying $$\label{elmpv1}
\left|Area(\partial D'_{1,j})+Area(\partial D''_{1,j})-Area(\partial D_j)\right|\leq\frac{v}{1}.$$ Consider the sequence of domains $\left(\tilde{D}_{1,j}=F_{j,r_2}^{-1}(D'_{1,j})\right)_j$ for $j\geq\nu_{r_2}$, it is true that
1. $Area(\partial D'_{1,j})\leq Area(\partial D_j)+2\frac{v}{1}\leq I_M(v)+2\frac{v}{1}$,
2. $Vol(D'_{1,j})\leq v$,
so we have volume and boundary area, of the sequence of domains, bounded by a constant. A standard argument of geometric measure theory allows us to extract a subsequence $D'_{1,j}$ with $j\in S_1\subseteq\mathbb{N}$, converging on $B(p_{\infty},r_2)$ to a domain $D_{\infty,1}$ in $\mathcal{F}_{B(p_{\infty},r_2)}$. Now we look at the subsequence $D_j$ with $j\in S_1$ and repeat the preceding argument to obtain radii $t_{2,j}\in]r_2, r_3[$ and a subsequence $D'_{2,j}=D_{j}\cap B(p_j,t_{2,j})$ for $j\in S_1$ and $j\geq\nu_{r_3}$ such that $$\label{elmpv2}
\left|Area(\partial D'_{2,j})+Area(\partial D''_{2,j})-Area(\partial D_{j})\right|\leq\frac{v}{2}.$$ Analogously, the sequence $\left(\tilde{D}_{2,j}=F_{j,r_3}^{-1}(D'_{2,j})\right)_j$ for $j$ running in $S_1$ has bounded volume and bounded boundary area, so there is a convergent subsequence $\left(\tilde{D}_{2,j}\right)$ defined on some subset $S_2\subseteq S_1$ that is convergent on $B(p_{\infty},r_3)$ to a domain $D_{\infty,2}$ in $\mathcal{F}_{B(p_{\infty},r_3)}$. Continuing in this way, we obtain the existence of $S_1\supseteq ...\supseteq S_{i-1}\supseteq S_i$, radii $t_{k,j}\in ]r_k, r_k+k[$, domains $D'_{i,j}=D_{j}\cap B(p_{j}, t_{i,j})$, $D''_{i,j}=D_{j}-D'_{i,j}$ satisfying $$\label{elmpv3}
\left|Area(\partial D'_{kj})+Area(\partial D''_{kj})-Area(\partial D_j)\right|\leq\frac{v}{k},$$ for all $1\leq k\leq i$ and $j\in S_k$ and for all $i\geq 1$. Moreover, putting $\tilde{D}_{k,j}=F_{j,r_{k+1}}^{-1}(D'_{k,j})$ for all $1\leq k\leq i$ and $j\in S_k$ we have convergence of $(\tilde{D}_{k,j})_{j\in S_k}$ on $B(p_{\infty},r_{k+1})$ to a domain $D_{\infty,k}$ in $\mathcal{F}_{B(p_{\infty},r_{k+1})}$ for all $i\geq 1$ and $k\leq i$. Let $j_i$ be chosen inductively so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{elmpv4bis}
j_i<j_{i+1}\\
Vol(\tilde{D}_{i,\sigma_{i}(j_i)}\Delta D_{\infty,i})\leq\frac{1}{i}, \end{aligned}$$ define $\sigma(i)=\sigma_{i}(j_i)$, then the sequence $\tilde{D}_i^c:=F_{\sigma(i),r_{i+1}}^{-1}(D'_{i,\sigma(i)})$ converges to $D_{\infty}=\bigcup_i D_{\infty,i}$ in $\mathcal{F}_{loc}(M_{\infty})$ topology. Observe, here that $|t_{i+1}-t_i|>i$. From now on, we restrict our attention to the sequences $\bar{D}_i=D_{\sigma_i}$, $\bar{D}'_i=D'_{\sigma_i}$, $\bar{D}''_i=D''_{\sigma_i}$, then we will call always $D_i$, $D'_i$, and $D''_i$, by abuse of notation. Put, also $F_i=F_{\sigma(i),r_{i+1}}$. Rename $i$ by $j$. From this construction we argue that passing possibly to a subsequence one can build a minimizing sequence $D_j$ with the following properties
1. \[elmpv4\] $\left|Area(\partial D'_j)+Area(\partial D''_j)-Area(\partial D_j)\right|\leq\frac{v}{j}$, for all $j$,
2. \[elmpv5\] $\lim_{j\rightarrow +\infty} Area_g(\partial D'_j)=\lim_{j\rightarrow +\infty} Area_{g_{\infty}}(\partial \tilde{D}^c_j)$,
3. \[elmpv6\] $Vol(\tilde{D}^c_j)\rightarrow Vol(D_{\infty})=v_{\infty}$,
4. \[elmpv7\] $Area(\partial D_{\infty})\leq\liminf Area(\partial\tilde{D}^c_{j})$,
5. \[elmpv8\] $v\geq v_{\infty}\geq (1-\varepsilon)v>0$,
6. \[elmpv9\] $\frac{w_{\infty}}{v_{\infty}}\leq\gamma$ with $w_{\infty}=v-v_{\infty}$,
7. \[elmpv10\] $I_{M_{\infty}}(v_{\infty})=Area(\partial D_{\infty})$,
8. \[elmpv10bis\] $Area(\partial D_{\infty})=\liminf Area(\partial\tilde{D}^c_{j})$.
(\[elmpv4\]) follows directly by the construction of the sequences $(D'_j)$. (\[elmpv5\]) is an easy consequences of the fact that the diffeomorphisms given by $C^{4,\beta}$ convergence are $(1+\varepsilon_j)$-isometry for some sequence $0\leq\varepsilon_j\rightarrow 0$. To prove (\[elmpv6\]) observe $$\begin{aligned}
|Vol(\tilde{D}_j^c)-Vol(D_{\infty})| & \leq & |Vol(\tilde{D}_j^c)-Vol(D_{\infty}\cap B_{r_{j+1}})| + Vol(D_{\infty}-B_{r_{j+1}})\\
& \leq & Vol((\tilde{D}_j^c\Delta D_{\infty})\cap B_{r_{j+1}}) + Vol(D_{\infty}-B_{r_{j+1}}),\end{aligned}$$ and so $\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty} Vol(\tilde{D}_j^c)=Vol(D_{\infty})$ by (\[elmpv4bis\]). On the other hand, the definition of the sets $\tilde{D}_j^c$ gives us $\{ D_j^c \}\rightarrow D$ in $\mathcal{F}_{loc}(M)$. Hence $Area(\partial D)\leq \liminf_{j\rightarrow\infty}Area(\partial\tilde{D}_j^c)$ by the lower semicontinuity of boundary area with respect to flat norm in $\mathcal{F}_{loc}(M)$ which actually proves (\[elmpv7\]). In (\[elmpv8\]) the first inequality is true because every $D_{\infty,i}$ is a limit in flat norm of a sequence of currents having volume less than $v$, the second beacuse the radii $r_i$ are greater than $R$ so $Vol(D_{\infty,i})\geq (1-\varepsilon)v$. (\[elmpv9\]) follows easily by (\[elmpv8\]). To show (\[elmpv10\]) we proceed by contradiction. Suppose that there exists a domain $\tilde{E}\in\tau_{M_{\infty}}$ having $Vol(\tilde{E})=v_{\infty}$, $Area(\partial\tilde{E})<Area(\partial D_{\infty})$. Take the sequence of radii $s_j\in ]t_j, t_{j+1}[$ and cut $\tilde{E}$ by coarea obtaining $\tilde{E}_j:=\tilde{E}\cap B(p_{\infty}, s_j)$ in such a manner that $$Area_{g_{\infty}}(\tilde{E}_j\cap\partial B(p_{\infty}, s_j))\leq\frac{v_{\infty}}{j},$$ Of course, $Vol_{g_{\infty}}(\tilde{E}_j)\rightarrow v_{\infty}$, since $s_j\nearrow+\infty$. Now, fix a point $x_0\in\partial\tilde{E}$ and a small neighborhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $x_0$. For $j$ large enough $\mathcal{U}\subseteq B(p_{\infty}, r_j)$. Push forward $\tilde{E}_j$ in $M$ getting $E_{j}:=F_{j}(\tilde{E}_j)\subseteq B(p_j, r_{j+1})$ so readjusting volumes by modifying slightly $E_i$ in $F_i(\mathcal{U})$ contained in $B(p_j, t_{j+1})$, we obtain domains $E'_j\subseteq B(p_j, r_{j+1})$ with the properties $$E'_j\cap D''_j=\emptyset,$$ $$Vol_g(E'_j\cup D''_j)=v,$$ $$Area(\partial E'_j)\leq Area(\partial E_j)+c\Delta v_j,$$ with $\Delta v_j=Vol_g(E'_j)-Vol_g(E_j)$, satisfying $\Delta v_j\rightarrow 0$ as $j\rightarrow +\infty$, by virtue of $Vol(\tilde{E}_j)\rightarrow v_{\infty}$ (i.e. $Vol(D'_j)\rightarrow v_{\infty}$) and $Vol(D''_j)\rightarrow v-v_{\infty}$. Note that $c=c(n,Q)$ is a constant independent of $j$. Define $D^*_j:=E'_j\cup D''_j$. $$\begin{aligned}
Area(\partial D^*_j) & \leq & Area(\partial E'_j)+Area(D''_j)\\
& \leq & (1+\varepsilon_j)^{n-1}Area(\partial\tilde{E}_j)+c\Delta v_j+Area(\partial D''_j)\\
& \leq & (1+\varepsilon_j)^{n-1}(Area(\partial\tilde{E})+\frac{v_{\infty}}{j})+c\Delta v_j+Area(\partial D''_j),\end{aligned}$$ hence we get $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{j\rightarrow +\infty} Area(\partial D^*_j) & \leq & Area(\partial\tilde{E})+\liminf_{j\rightarrow +\infty} Area(\partial D''_j)\\
& < & Area(D_{\infty})+\liminf_{j\rightarrow +\infty} Area(\partial D''_j )\\
& \leq & \liminf_{j\rightarrow +\infty} Area(\partial D'_j)+\liminf_{j\rightarrow +\infty} Area(\partial D''_j)\\
& \leq & I_M(v). \end{aligned}$$ This means that the sequence of domains $D^*_j$ do better than the minimizing sequence $D_j$, which is a contradiction that proves (\[elmpv10\]). The proof of (\[elmpv10bis\]) is similar; in fact we only have to work with $D_{\infty}$ instead of $\tilde{E}$. We must remark that this can be done since the set of regular points in $\partial D_{\infty}\cap M_{\infty}$ is open.
Letting $i\rightarrow +\infty$ in (\[elmpv4\]), taking into account (\[elmpv5\]), (\[elmpv7\]) and (\[elmpv10\]), and Berard-Meyer inequality yields $$\label{elmpv11}
I_{M_{\infty}}(v_{\infty})+\delta c_nw_{\infty}^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\leq I_M(v).$$ It remains to prove that $v_{\infty}$ cannot be strictly less than $v$, by contradiction. We know that $v\leq v_4\leq v_2$ then $D_{\infty}$ is a pseudo-bubble as it is easy to check by corollary \[pblm1\]. This allow one to have as a direct consequence of lemma \[pbestimate\], the following estimate $$\label{elmpv12}
I_{M_{\infty}}(v)=I_{M_{\infty}}(v_{\infty}+w_{\infty})\leq I_{M_{\infty}}(v_{\infty})+C_1v_{\infty}^{-\frac{1}{n}}w_{\infty}.$$ Assume $w_{\infty}>0$. From (\[elmpv11\]), (\[elmpv12\]) and lemma \[Isopcomparisoninfinity\] one deduce $$\label{elmpv13}
I_{M_{\infty}}(v_{\infty})+\delta c_nw_{\infty}^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\leq I_M(v)\leq I_{M_{\infty}}(v)\leq I_{M_{\infty}}(v_{\infty})+C_1v_{\infty}^{-\frac{1}{n}}w_{\infty}.$$ $$\label{elmpv14}
\delta c_nw_{\infty}^{\frac{n-1}{n}}\leq C_1v_{\infty}^{-\frac{1}{n}}w_{\infty}.$$ Dividing the above inequalities by $w_{\infty}^{\frac{n-1}{n}}$ and combining with (\[elmpv9\]) we obtain $$\gamma(\varepsilon)^{\frac{1}{n}}\geq\delta\frac{c_n}{C_1},$$ which by our choice of $\varepsilon>0$ contradicts (\[elmpv1bis\]). So $w_{\infty}=0$, which means $v_{\infty}=v$ and clearly $I_{M_{\infty}}(v)=I_{M_{\infty}}(v_{\infty})$ which proves (\[elmpvIII\]) and (\[elmpvIV\]). To finish the proof, we need of a last argument that give us (\[elmpvII\]). In fact $$\begin{aligned}
I_M(v) & = & \liminf Area(\partial D'_j)+\liminf Area(\partial D''_j)\\
& = & I_{M_{\infty}}(v_{\infty})+\liminf Area(\partial D''_j)\\
& = & I_{M_{\infty}}(v)+\liminf Area(\partial D''_j)\\
& \geq & I_{M_{\infty}}(v).\end{aligned}$$ Which combined with $I_M(v)\leq I_{M_{\infty}}(v)$ gives $I_M(v)=I_{M_{\infty}}(v)$ that is exactly (\[elmpvII\]).\
**Remark:** It is easy to check that $\liminf Area(\partial D''_j)=0$.
#### End of the proof of theorem \[1\].
\
Take $v*\leq v_6$. Suppose $0<v<v^*$.
In first we show (\[MainI\]) implies (\[MainII\]). Let $p_0$ be a point where $p\mapsto f(p,v)$ attains its minimum. We show by contradiction that $\beta(p_0,v)$ is a solution of the isoperimetric problem. Assume that there is no isoperimetric domain having volume $v$. Let $D_j$ be a minimizing sequence, $Vol(D_j)=v$, $$\label{Main1}
Area(\partial D_j)\rightarrow I_M(v) <f_{M}(p_0,v)$$ and the isoperimetric profile is not achieved. The choice of $v^*$ ensures the existence of a pseudo-bubble $D_{\infty}\subseteq M_{\infty}$, and points $p_j$ satisfying (I)-(IV) of lemma \[elmpv\]. Hence $I_M(v)=I_{M_{\infty}}(v)=Area(\partial D_{\infty})=f_{M_{\infty}}(p_{\infty}, v)$. A continuity argument with respect to $C^{4,\beta}$ convergence applies, giving $f_{M_{\infty}}(p_{\infty}, v)=\lim f_{M}(p_j, v)$. Furthermore, since $p_0$ is a minimum point implies that $\forall j\:\: f_{M}(p_j,v)\geq f_{M} (p_0,v)$ from this one can argue finally that $f_{M_{\infty}}(p_{\infty}, v)\geq f_{M} (p_0,v)$ which contradicts (\[Main1\]).\
In second we show (\[MainII\]) implies (\[MainI\]). Let $D$ be an isoperimetric domain of sufficiently small volume, it follows from theorem \[pblm1\] that $D=\beta(p_0,v)$ for some point $p$ and small real $v$. This suffices to ensure that $p\mapsto f(p,v)$ attains its minimum at $p_0$.
Finally, (\[Main0\]) is a straightforward consequence of lemma \[elmpv\], noticing that for small volumes $I_M(v)=I_{M_{\infty}}(v)$ for some limit manifold $(M,\tilde{p}_{\infty},g_{\infty})$ obtained as the limit of the sequence $(M,\tilde{p}_j, g)$ for some sequence of points $\tilde{p}_j$. Furthermore, $I_{M_{\infty}}(v)=f_{M_{\infty}}(p_{\infty}, v)$ for some point $p_{\infty}$ possibly different from $\tilde{p}_{\infty}$. Now adjust the sequence of points $\tilde{p}_j$ to get a sequence of points $p_{j}\in M$ such that $(M,p_j, g)\rightarrow (M_{\infty},p_{\infty},g_{\infty})$ with the same $M_{\infty}$ as above. This goal could be achieved by taking as $p_j$ the points $p_j=F_j(p_{\infty})=F_{B_{M_{\infty}}(\tilde{p}_{\infty},R),j}(p_{\infty})$ for large $j$, where $R=d_{M_{\infty}}(\tilde{p}_{\infty},p_{\infty})+1$ and the $F_j$’s are the diffeomorphisms given by the $C^{m,\alpha}$ convergence.
Asymptotic expansion of the isoperimetric profile {#32}
=================================================
We prove, now, theorem \[Cor1\] stated in the introduction.
Let us just recall here the definition of $S=Sup_{p\in M}\{ Sc(p)\}$. Let $(p_j)_j$ such that $Sc(p_j)\nearrow S$, take the sequence $(M,p_j,g)$ and apply theorem \[Fthmct\] then we get the existence of $(M'_{\infty},p'_{\infty},g)$ such that passing to a subsequence, if needed, $(M,p_j,g)\rightarrow (M'_{\infty},p'_{\infty},g)$ in $C^{m,\beta}$ topology for $0<\beta<\alpha$. It is easy to check by a continuity argument that $$\label{Cor11}
Sc_{M_{\infty}}(p'_{\infty})=S.$$ From the definition of isoperimetric profile and lemma \[Isopcomparisoninfinity\] follows $$\label{Cor12}
f_{M'_{\infty}}(p'_{\infty}, v)\geq I_{M_{\infty}}(v)\geq I_M(v).$$ Consider an arbitrary sequence of volumes $v_k\rightarrow 0$ and look at the corresponding $D_{v_k}$ we conclude that $$I_M(v_k)=I_{M_{\infty,k}}(v_k)=f_{M_{\infty, k}}(p_{\infty,k},v_k).$$ The sequence $(M_{\infty,k})$ belongs again to $\mathcal{M}^{4,\alpha}(n, Q, r)$ and an application of the fundamental theorem of convergence of manifolds to this sequence of manifolds produces a subsequence noted always with $v_k$, a limit manifold $(M_{\infty}, p_{\infty})$ with $(M_{\infty,k},p_{\infty,k})\rightarrow (M_{\infty},p_{\infty})$ in $C^{4,\beta}$ topology for every $0<\beta<\alpha$. From the latter construction it follows that $$\label{Cor13}
I_M(v_k)\sim f_{M_{\infty}}(p_{\infty},v_k), k\rightarrow +\infty.$$ Combining (\[Cor11\]), (\[Cor12\]), (\[Cor13\]), (\[Ipexp\]) yields $$\frac{f_{M'_{\infty}}(p'_{\infty}, v_k)-c_nv_k^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}{v_k^{\frac{n+1}{n}}}\leq\frac{I_M(v_k)-c_nv_k^{\frac{n-1}{n}}}{v_k^{\frac{n+1}{n}}}$$ From the asymptotic relation (\[Cor13\]) letting $k\rightarrow +\infty$ we conclude that $$-Sc_{M'_{\infty}}(p'_{\infty})\geq -Sc_{M_{\infty}}(p_{\infty}),$$ that immediately gives $$\label{Cor14}
S\leq Sc_{M_{\infty}}(p_{\infty}).$$ Since the construction of $M_{\infty}$ permits us to have a sequence of points $p''_j\in M$ with $Sc_M(p''_j)\rightarrow Sc_{M_{\infty}}(p_{\infty})$ we obtain $$\label{Cor15}
Sc_{M_{\infty}}(p_{\infty})\leq S.$$ (\[Cor14\]), (\[Cor15\]), and the arbitrarity of the sequence $v_k$, finally, give (\[fasymex\]).
*Stefano Nardulli\
Dipartimento di Metodi e Modelli Matematici\
Viale delle Scienze Edificio 8 - 90128 Palermo\
email: [email protected]*
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the paper we study the discrete spectrum of a pair of quantum two-dimensional waveguides having common boundary in which a window of finite length is cut out. We study the phenomenon of new eigenvalues emerging from the threshold of the essential spectrum when the length of window passes through critical values. We construct the asymptotics expansions for the emerging eigenvalues with respect to small parameter which is the difference between current length of the window and the nearest critical value. We also study the behaviour of the spectrum when the length of the window increases unboundedly and construct asymptotics expansions with respect to great parameter which is a length of the window.'
---
**Discrete spectrum of a pair of nonsymmetric waveguides coupled by a window**
[D.I. Borisov]{}
> *Bashkir State Pedagogical University, October rev. st., 3a,\
> Ufa, Russia, 450000. E-mail:* `[email protected]`\
> *URL:* `http://borisovdi.narod.ru/`
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
In last years much attention was paid to the study of spectral properties of the elliptic operators in unbounded domains with various perturbations. First of all this is due various applications of such problem in quantum mechanics and acoustics. Moreover, these problems possess various features interesting from mathematical point of view. One of such examples is a problem on bound states of two quantum waveguides coupled by a window. Mathematically this corresponds to an eigenvalue problem for the Dirichlet Laplacian in a domain formed by two parallel strips having common boundary in which a window of finite length is cut out (cf. figure). Such model was suggested in the paper [@ESTV]; physical aspects of this problem were discussed there as well (see also [@HTW]). Besides, in [@ESTV] the authors obtained two-sided estimates for the eigenvalues and proved that the presence of the window leads to a non-empty discrete spectrum, the number of isolated eigenvalues increases when the length of the window does, eigenvalues appear when the length of the window passes through some critical values. A number of numerical results was obtained as well. The existence of at least one isolated eigenvalue in the case of the same widths of the strips was proved independently in [@BGRS]. For a sufficiently small window this system has exactly one isolated eigenvalue. In the case of symmetric strips a two-sided estimate was obtained for this eigenvalue in [@EV1]. In [@EV2] similar result was established for several windows and non-symmetric strips as well as for two parallel layers coupled by a window. The case of small window was also considered in [@P], where the asymptotics expansion for the aforementioned eigenvalue was formally constructed. The rigorous proof of the asymptotics expansions in the case of small window was adduced recently in [@G]. In [@BEG] the case of the strips of the same width and finite window was treated. The phenomenon of new eigenvalues emerging was studied. For the emerging eigenvalues the asymptotics expansions were obtained as the lengths of the window close to critical ones. The behaviour of the associated eigenfunction was described as well. Scattering for the system of two waveguides was considered in [@ESTV], [@Ku]. The case in which the Neumann condition is imposed on the boundary instead of the Dirichlet one, was studied in [@DK]. The existence of at least one isolated eigenvalue was proven. In the paper [@BEK] the system of two symmetric waveguides put in a magnetic field was considered. It was shown that a magnetic field can eliminate the influence of the window presence, namely, for sufficiently small window the system has no bound states. At the same time, the system has a bound state if the window is large enough.
{width="13" height="6"}
Figure.
In the present paper we consider a pair of nonsymmetric waveguides coupled by a finite window. The first part of the work is devoted to the studying of the eigenvalue appearing under the length of the window increasing. As it was mentioned, the eigenvalues emerge when the length of the window passes through some critical values. In the paper we give the criterion of the ”criticality” for a given value of the length. We also obtain the asymptotics expansions for the emerging eigenvalues and describe the behaviour of the associated eigenfunctions. Moreover, we improve the two-sided estimates obtained in [@ESTV].
In the second part of the work we study the behaviour of the discrete spectrum as the window widens. We obtain the asymptotics expansions for the eigenvalues in this case. Under the window widening the shift of the essential spectrum occurs in the limits. We describe how this happens.
Statement of the problem and formulation of the results
=======================================================
Let $x=(x_1, x_2)$ be Cartesian coordinates, $\Pi^+:=\{x:
0<x_2<\pi\}$, $\Pi^-:=\{x: -d<x_2<0\}$. The width $d$ of the strip $\Pi^-$ is assumed to be not exceeding the width of the strip $\Pi^+$. In the axis $x_2=0$ we select an interval $\gamma_l$ of length $2l$ centered at zero which will be called window in what follows. The union of the strips $\Pi^-$ and $\Pi^+$ and the interval $\gamma_l$ is denoted by $\Pi$, i.e., the set $\Pi$ are strips $\Pi^+$ and $\Pi^-$ coupled by the window $\gamma_l$. The boundary of the domain $\Pi$ is indicated as $\Gamma_l$ (cf. figure).
The main object of our study is the spectrum of the operator ${H}_l:=-\Delta^\mathcal{(D)}_l$ in $L_2(\Pi)$, where $\Delta^\mathcal{(D)}_l$ is the Friedrich’s extension of the Laplace operator from the set $C^\infty_0(\Pi)$. The essential spectrum of the operator ${H}_l$ coincides with the real semi-axis $[1,+\infty)$. For $l=0$ (i.e., in the case $\gamma_l=\emptyset$, $\Pi=\Pi^+\cup\Pi^-$) it is obvious, while the essential spectrum of the operators ${H}_0$ and ${H}_l$, $l>0$, are same. The proof of this fact reproduces word for word the proof of Theorem 2.1 in [@BEK] and based on the ideas of the work [@B]. One just needs to take into account that the domain $\Pi$ possesses the cone property (see definition in [@Ad Item 4.3, Ch. IV]), thus by Rellich-Kondrashov theorem [@Ad Theorem 6.2, Ch. VI] the embedding $W_2^1(Q\cap\Pi)\to
L_2(Q\cap\Pi)$ is compact for any bounded subdomain $Q\subset\Pi$ with smooth boundary.
As it has been mentioned in Introduction, the presence of the window ($l>0$) gives rise to a non-empty discrete part of the spectrum of the operator ${H}_l$, i.e., to the existence of the isolated eigenvalues $\lambda_m(l)$, $m\geqslant1$. We take these eigenvalues in ascending order with the multiplicity taken into account.
In [@ESTV] the following statement was proved.
\[lm1.1\] For any $l>0$ the operator ${H}_l$ has a non-empty discrete spectrum consisting of finitely many eigenvalues. There exists an infinite set of critical values $0=l_1<l_2<\ldots<l_n<\ldots$ of length of the window $\gamma_l$, such that as $l\in(l_n,l_{n+1}]$ the operator ${H}_l$ has exactly $n$ isolated eigenvalues. These eigenvalues are non-increasing functions on $l$ and satisfy two-sided estimates: $$\label{1.1}
\Lambda_{m-1}(l)
\leqslant\lambda_m(l)\leqslant\Lambda_{m}(l),\quad m\geqslant
1,\quad l>l_m,$$ where $$\Lambda_m(l):=\frac{\pi^2}{(\pi+d)^2}+\frac{\pi^2 m^2}{4l^2}.$$ The number of eigenvalues $\lambda_m(l)$ meets the inequalities $$\left[\frac{2l}{\pi}\sqrt{1-\frac{\pi^2}{(\pi+d)^2}}\right]\leqslant
\mathrm{card}\,(\sigma_{disc}({H}_l))\leqslant
\left[\frac{2l}{\pi}\sqrt{1-\frac{\pi^2}{(\pi+d)^2}}\right]+1,$$ where $[\cdot]$ indicates an integer part.
Throughout the work by $W_2^1(\Omega,\gamma)$ we indicate the completion in the norm of $W_2^1(\Omega)$ of the set of functions from $C^\infty(\overline{\Omega})$ having compact support and vanishing in a neighbourhood of the set $\gamma$. We also set $\Pi_a:=\{x: |x_1|<a\}\cap\Pi$, $\Gamma_l^a:=\Gamma_l\cap\partial\Pi_a$. By $\Xi$ we denote the set of all bounded subdomains $Q\subset\Pi$ with smooth boundary separated from the edges of the window $\gamma_l$ by a positive distance. The case $\partial Q\cap\partial\Pi\not=\emptyset$ is not excluded.
Let us formulate the main results of the present work.
\[th1.1\] The statements are valid:
1. \[th1.1.it1\] The eigenvalues $\lambda_m(l)$ of the operator ${H}_l$ are continuous on $l$, simple and satisfy the estimates $$\label{1.10}
\Lambda_{m-1}(l)
<\lambda_m(l)<\Lambda_{m}(l),\quad
m\geqslant 1, \quad l>l_m.$$ The associated eigenfunctions are even on $x_1$ for odd $m$, and odd on $x_1$ for even $m$.
2. \[th1.1.it3\] The length $l=l_n$ is critical, if and only if a boundary value problem $$\label{1.2}
-\Delta\phi_n=\phi_n,\quad x\in\Pi,\qquad \phi_n=0,\quad
x\in\Gamma_l,$$ has a bounded solution belonging to $W_2^1(\Pi_a,\Gamma_l^a)$ for any $a>0$ and being even on $x_2$ in the case $d=\pi$, and obeying an asymptotics representation $$\label{1.3}
\phi_n(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\sin x_2+\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{
e}^{-\sqrt{3}x_1}),\qquad x_1\to+\infty,\quad x_2\in(0,\pi).$$ In the case such solution exists, it is unique and even on $x_1$ for odd $n$ and odd on $x_1$ for even $n$.
3. \[th1.1.it4\] The asymptotics expansion of the eigenvalue $\lambda_n(l)$, $n\geqslant2$, as $l\to l_n+0$ is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&\lambda_n(l)=1-\mu_n^2(l-l_n)^2+\mathcal{O}\left((l-l_n)^3\right),
\label{1.4b}
\\
&\mu_n=\frac{1}{l_n}\int\limits_\Pi\left|\frac{\partial\phi_n}{\partial
x_1 }\right|^2\,dx\hphantom{2}\quad \text{as} \quad
d<\pi,\label{1.4}
\\
&
\mu_n=\frac{1}{2l_n}\int\limits_\Pi\left|\frac{\partial\phi_n}{\partial
x_1 }\right|^2\,dx\quad \text{as} \quad d=\pi.\label{1.4a}\end{aligned}$$ The associated eigenfunction can be chosen such that it meets the asymptotics representation $$\label{1.5}
\psi_n(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}
\mathrm{e}^{-\sqrt{1-\lambda_n(l)}|x_1|}\sin
x_2+\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{e}^{-\sqrt{3-\lambda_n(l)}x_1}),\quad
x_1\to+\infty,\quad x_2\in(0,\pi).$$ At the same time for any $R>0$ the equality $$\label{1.6}
\psi_n(x)=\phi_n(x)+\mathcal{O}\left((l-l_n)^{1/2}\right) \quad
\text{in norm}\quad W_2^1(\Pi_R),$$ holds true.
\[rm1.1\] In Item \[th1.1.it3\] of Theorem \[th1.1\] a solution to the boundary value problem \[1.2\] is regarded in a generalized sense. Namely, a solution is a function belonging to the space $W_2^1(\Pi_a,\Gamma_l^a)$ for each $a>0$, and solving an integral equation: $$\label{1.11}
\left(\nabla_x\phi_n,\nabla_x
\zeta\right)_{L_2(\Pi)}=(f,\zeta)_{L_2(\Pi)}$$ for each function $\zeta\in C^\infty_0(\Pi)$. In accordance with the theorems on improving smoothness of solutions to elliptic problems [@Ld Ch. 4, §2], the function $\phi_n$ belongs to $C^\infty(\overline{Q})$ for each $Q\in\Xi$. This is why the asymptotics (\[1.3\]) should be understood in the usual sense. In what follows all the boundary value problems are treated in the sense of an integral equation similar to (\[1.11\]). Moreover, due to the theorems on improving smoothness solutions to all boundary value problems posed in unbounded domains are infinitely differentiable functions as the absolute value of $x_1$ is large enough. This allows us to understand all the statements on behaviour of these solutions at infinity in the usual sense.
\[rm1.2\] The function $\phi_n$ in Item \[th1.1.it3\] of Theorem \[th1.1\] is supposed to be even on $x_2$ as $d=\pi$. Such a restriction is needed to exclude from consideration the function $\sqrt{2/\pi}\sin x_2$ which is a bounded solution to the problem (\[1.2\]) and satisfy the asymptotics representation (\[1.3\]) for all $l\geqslant 0$ in the case $d=\pi$. In the case $d<\pi$ a solution similar to $\sqrt{2/\pi}\sin x_2$ is absent and the requirement of being even on $x_2$ is not introduced.
\[rm1.3\] It should be noted that Item \[th1.1.it4\] of Theorem \[th1.1\] was proved in [@BEG] for the case of symmetric strips ($d=\pi$).
\[th1.2\] The following statements are valid:
1. \[th1.2.it1\] The eigenvalues $\lambda_m(l)$ have the following asymptotics expansion as $l\to+\infty$: $$\label{1.7}
\lambda_m(l)=\frac{\pi^2}{(\pi+d)^2}+\frac{\pi^2
m^2}{4l^2}+\mathcal{O}(l^{-3}).$$
2. \[th1.2.it2\] Each point of semi-interval $\left[\frac{\pi^2}{(\pi+d)^2},1\right)$ is the accumulation point for the eigenvalues $\lambda_m(l)$ as $l\to+\infty$, namely, for each point $\xi\in\left[\frac{\pi^2}{(\pi+d)^2},1\right)$ there exists a sequence of indexes $m=m(l,\xi)$ tending to infinity as $l\to+\infty$, such that the convergence $$\lambda_{m(l,\xi)}\to\xi \quad\text{as}\quad l\to+\infty$$ holds true.
Let us discuss the results of the work. Theorem \[th1.1\] is devoted mostly to phenomenon of new eigenvalues of the operator $H_l$ emerging as the window $\gamma_l$ widens. The first item of the theorem improves the estimate (\[1.1\]), the second one provides the criterion determining the critical values of the window $\gamma_l$. As it follows from the third item of Theorem \[th1.1\], new eigenvalues emerge from the threshold of the essential spectrum of the operator ${H}_l$ and have the asymptotics expansion (\[1.4b\])–(\[1.4a\]). The leading term of this expansion is nonzero. This fact follows easily from the formula for $\mu_n$ and the boundary value problem for $\phi_n$. Formulas (\[1.4\]) and (\[1.4a\]) imply that the coefficient $\mu_n$ is discontinuous as $d\to\pi$. Earlier similar phenomenon for the eigenvalue $\lambda_1(l)$ as $l$ is small enough was found formally in [@P].
The second part of the results given in Theorem \[th1.2\] describe the behaviour of the spectrum of the operator ${H}_l$ as the length of the window increases. As it follows from the first item of Theorem \[th1.2\], all the eigenvalues $\lambda_m(l)$ tend to the threshold of the essential spectrum of the ”limiting” operator, coinciding up to a quantity of order $\mathcal{O}(l^{-3})$ with the right end-points of the intervals from Item \[th1.1.it1\] of Theorem \[th1.1\]. We stress that the estimate for the error term in (\[1.7\]) is not uniform on $m$. We also note that the leading term in the asymptotics expansion (\[1.7\]) is independent on $d$ in contrast to the formula (\[1.4\]) where this parameter plays a crucial role.
As the length of the window increases, it is appropriate to compare the spectra of the original operator $H_l$ and a ”limiting” operator $H_*:=-\Delta^{(\mathcal{D})}_*$, where $\Delta^{(\mathcal{D})}_*$ is the Friedrich’s extension of the Laplace operator from a set $C^\infty_0(\Pi^*)$, $\Pi^*:=\{x:
-d<x_2<\pi\}\setminus\{x: x_1\geqslant0, x_2=0\}$. This ”limiting” operator appears if in the original problem one makes a shift $x_1 \mapsto x_1-l$ and pass formally to the limit as $l\to+\infty$. The spectrum of the operator $H_*$ consists of its essential part only and coincides with the semi-axis $\left[\frac{\pi^2}{(\pi+d)^2},+\infty\right)$. In order to prove this fact one just needs to estimate the threshold of the essential spectrum of the operator $H_*$ both from above and below by bracketing [@RS Ch. 13, §15], introducing in the domain $\Pi^*$ an additional boundary $\{x: x_1=0, -d<x_2<\pi\}$ and imposing Dirichlet or Neumann condition on it.
The second item of Theorem \[th1.2\] describes how the shift of the essential spectrum occurs as $l\to+\infty$: each point of the semi-interval which is the shift of the essential spectrum in the limit is an accumulation point as $l\to+\infty$ for the eigenvalues $\lambda_m(l)$ whose indexes increases unboundedly together with $l$.
Let us describe briefly the structure of the present work. In the next section we prove Item \[th1.1.it1\] of Theorem \[th1.1\] as well as the convergence of the eigenvalues to the threshold of the essential spectrum as the length of the window tends to a critical size. The third section is devoted to the studying behaviour of the resolvent as the spectral parameter tends to the threshold of the essential spectrum. Basing on the results of the third section, in the fourth one we prove Items \[th1.1.it3\] and \[th1.1.it4\] of Theorem \[th1.1\]. The proof of Theorem \[th1.2\] is adduced in the last section.
Estimates, continuity and convergence of [eigenvalues]{}
========================================================
The present section is devoted to the proof of Item \[th1.1.it1\] of Theorem \[th1.1\]. We will also prove the convergence of the eigenvalues $\lambda_n(l)$ to the threshold of the essential spectrum as $l\to l_n+0$.
\[lm2.1\] The eigenvalues $\lambda_m(l)$ are continuous on $l$. As $l\to
l_n+0$ the convergence $\lambda_n\to1-0$ holds true.
According to Lemma \[lm1.1\], the operator ${H}_l$ is lower semibounded and its lower bound is $\frac{\pi^2}{(\pi+d)^2}$. Therefore, for each value of $l$ there exists a bounded inverse operator ${H}_l^{-1}: L_2(\Pi)\to L_2(\Pi)$. The functions $\lambda_m^{-1}(l)$ are isolated eigenvalues of the operator ${H}_l^{-1}$. Let us prove that they are continuous on $l$. Let $l_*$ be a given length of the window $\gamma_l$ and $\lambda_m(l_*)$ is an isolated eigenvalue of the operator ${H}_{l_*}$. The eigenvalue $\lambda_m(l)$ is obviously to be an eigenvalue of the boundary value problem $$\label{2.2}
-\Delta\psi=\lambda\psi,\quad x\in\Pi, \qquad \psi=0,\quad
x\in\Gamma_l.$$ We remind that a solution to this boundary value problem is regarded in the generalized sense (see Remark \[rm1.1\]). Due to Theorem 4.6.8 from [@BEH] it guarantees the belonging of a generalized solution to the domain of the operator ${H}_l$, if its solution is an element of $L_2(\Pi)$.
Let $\chi_1(x_1)$ be an infinitely differentiable cut-off odd function which equals minus one as $x_1\in[-l_*-\varepsilon_0,-l_*+\varepsilon_0]$, is one as $x_1\in[l_*-\varepsilon_0,l_*+\varepsilon_0]$, and vanishes as $x_1\in(-\infty,-l_*-2\varepsilon_0]\cup[-l_*+2\varepsilon_0,
l_*-2\varepsilon_0]\cup [l_*+2\varepsilon_0,+\infty)$, where $\varepsilon_0$ is a small fixed number. In the problem (\[2.2\]) we make a change of variables $$\label{2.0}
y_1=x_1-\varepsilon\chi_1(x_1),\quad y_2=x_2,\quad
\varepsilon=l-l_*,\quad
\varepsilon\in[-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0].$$ Such change, as it can be checked easily, leads us to a new boundary value problem: $$\label{2.1}
\begin{aligned}
-&(\Delta_y+\varepsilon L_\varepsilon)\psi=\lambda\psi,\quad
y\in\Pi,\qquad \psi=0,\quad y\in\Gamma_{l_*},
\\
&L_\varepsilon=A_{11}(y_1,\varepsilon)\frac{\partial^2}{\partial
y_1^2}+A_1(y_1,\varepsilon)\frac{\partial}{\partial y_1},
\\
&A_{11}(y_1,\varepsilon)=-2\chi'_1\big(x_1(y_1,\varepsilon)\big)+
\varepsilon\left(\chi'_1\big(x_1(y_1,\varepsilon)\big)\right)^2,
\\
&A_1(y_1,\varepsilon)=-\chi''_1\big(x_1(y_1,\varepsilon)\big).
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the function $\lambda_m^{-1}(l)$ is an eigenvalue of the operator $({H}_{l_*}+\varepsilon L_\varepsilon)^{-1}:
L_2(\Pi)\to L_2(\Pi)$. This operator is well-defined and bounded. Indeed, the operator ${H}_{l_*}^{-1}$ is a bounded operator from $L_2(\Pi)$ into $W_2^1(\Pi)$ and $W_2^2(Q)$ for each $Q\in\Xi$. The boundedness of the operator ${H}_{l_*}^{-1}:
L_2(\Pi)\to W_2^1(\Pi)$ is obvious while the boundedness of the operator ${H}_{l_*}^{-1}: L_2(\Pi)\to W_2^2(Q)$ follows from theorems on improving smoothness of solutions to elliptic boundary value problems [@Ld Ch. 4, §2]. Taking into account these facts as well as boundedness and compactness of supports of the coefficients of the operator $L_\varepsilon$, we conclude that the operator ${H}_{l_*}^{-1}L_\varepsilon$ is bounded uniformly on $\varepsilon$ as an operator from $L_2(\Pi)$ into $L_2(\Pi)$. Thus, the operator $({H}_{l_*}+\varepsilon L_\varepsilon)^{-1}: L_2(\Pi)\to
L_2(\Pi)$ is well-defined for sufficiently small $\e$. It is easy to check that it is determined by the formula $({H}_{l_*}+\varepsilon L_\varepsilon)^{-1}=(I+\varepsilon
{H}_{l_*}^{-1}L_\varepsilon)^{-1}{H}_{l_*}^{-1}$. The last representation proves also the convergence of the operator $({H}_{l_*}+\varepsilon L_\varepsilon)^{-1}$ to ${H}_{l_*}^{-1}$ in the operator norm as $\varepsilon\to0$. From [@K Ch. 4, §2.6, Theorem 2.23] it follows that the operator $(H_{l_*}+\varepsilon L_\varepsilon)^{-1}$ converge to $H_{l_*}^{-1}$ in a generalize sense as well. In its turn, due to [@K Ch. 4, §3.5] it implies the convergence $\lambda_m^{-1}(l)\to\lambda_m^{-1}(l_*)$ as $l\to l_*$, what proves the needed continuity of the eigenvalues of the operator ${H}_l$.
Let us prove the convergence of the eigenvalues $\lambda_n(l)$ to the threshold of the essential spectrum as $l\to l_n-0$. The convergence $\lambda_1(l)\xrightarrow[l\to+0]{}1$ follows from [@EV2 Theorem 2.1]. The eigenvalues $\lambda_n(l)$ are monotonically nondecreasing functions on $l$ bounded from above by one. This yields the existence of the limits $c_n=\lim\limits_{l\to l_n+0}\lambda_n(l)$. Suppose that one of these limits is strictly less than one. Then the number $c_n$ is an eigenvalue of the operator ${H}_l$ as $l=l_n$ (see the proof of the continuity of the eigenvalues on $l$ adduced above). Hence, as $l=l_n$ the operator $H_l$ has $n$ isolated eigenvalues what contradicts to Lemma \[lm1.1\].
\[lm2.2\] The Item \[th1.1.it1\] of Theorem \[th1.1\] is valid.
The continuity of the eigenvalues was proved in the previous lemma. The simplicity of the eigenvalues $\lambda_m$ is surely to be an implication of the estimates \[1.10\]. Let us prove the latter. According to minimax principle the eigenvalues of the operator ${H}_l$ are given by the formulas $$\label{2.3}
\lambda_m(l):=\inf\limits_{\genfrac{}{}{0 pt}{}{u\in
W_2^1(\Pi,\partial\Pi), u\not=0,} { \genfrac{}{}{0
pt}{}{(u,\psi_j)_{L_2(\Pi)}=0,}{j=1,\ldots,m-1} } }
\frac{\|\nabla u \|^2_{L_2(\Pi)}}{\|u\|^2_{L_2(\Pi)}},$$ where, we remind, $\psi_j$ are the eigenfunctions associated with $\lambda_j(l)$. We introduce the functions $$u_j(x)=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&{\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\pi+d}}}\sin\frac{\pi}{\pi+d}(x_2-\pi)
\sin\frac{\pi j}{2l}(x_1+l),\quad&& x\in\Pi_l,
\\
&\hphantom{\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi+d}}\sin\frac{\pi}{\pi+d}} 0,
&&x\not\in\Pi_l.
\end{aligned} \right.$$ Clear, the functions $u_j$ belong to the space $W_2^1(\Pi,\partial\Pi)$. Let us prove the right-hand side of the estimates (\[1.10\]). Suppose the opposite, namely, let for some $l$ and $m$ the equality $\lambda_m(l)=\Lambda_m(l)$ is true. The functions $u_j$ are linear independent, this is why in the linear space spanned on the functions $u_j$, $j=1,\ldots,m$, there exists a nonzero function $u=\sum_{j=1}^m\alpha_j u_j$ being orthogonal in $L_2(\Pi)$ to each function $\psi_i$, $i=1,\ldots,m-1$. By (\[2.3\]) we have $$\label{2.5}
\lambda_m(l)\leqslant\frac{\|\nabla
u\|^2_{L_2(\Pi)}}{\|u\|^2_{L_2(\Pi)}}=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^m
\alpha_j^2\Lambda_j}{\sum_{j=1}^m \alpha_j^2}.$$ The fraction in the right-hand side of this relation does not exceed $\Lambda_m(l)$. The equality $$\frac{\sum_{j=1}^m \alpha_j^2\Lambda_j}{\sum_{j=1}^m
\alpha_j^2}=\Lambda_m(l)$$ is possible only in the case $\alpha_m\not=0$, $\alpha_j=0$, $j=1,\ldots,m-1$. In this case the function $u_m$ is an eigenfunction of the operator ${H}_l$ associated with the eigenvalue $\lambda_m(l)$. This contradicts to the fact that all the eigenfunctions of the operators ${H}_l$ belong to $C^\infty(\Pi)$. Thus, at least one of numbers $\alpha_j$, $j=1,\ldots,m-1$, is nonzero, what by (\[2.5\]) yields the estimate for $\lambda_m(l)$: $$\lambda_m(l)\leqslant\frac{\|\nabla
u\|^2_{L_2(\Pi)}}{\|u\|^2_{L_2(\Pi)}}=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^m
\alpha_j^2\Lambda_j}{\sum_{j=1}^m \alpha_j^2}<\Lambda_m(l).$$ This contradicts to the original assumption that $\lambda_m(l)=\Lambda_m(l)$.
We proceed to the proof of the left-hand side of the estimates (\[1.10\]). Let the operator ${H}_l$ has $n$ eigenvalues, what due to Lemma \[lm2.1\] implies that $\Lambda_j(l)<1$, $j=0,\ldots,n-1$. Let $\delta>0$ be some small number. Through the points $(-l+\delta,0)$ and $(l-\delta,0)$ we pass the segments being parallel to the axis $x_1=0$ and dissecting $\Pi$ into three disjoint parts. Isolated eigenvalues of the Laplacian in $\Pi$ subject to Dirichlet condition on $\Gamma_l$ and Neumann condition on the segments introduced estimate the eigenvalues $\lambda_m(l)$ from below. The essential spectrum of such operator coincides with real semi-axis $[1,+\infty)$, what can be established in same way as the equality $\sigma_{ess}\,({{H}_l})=[1,+\infty)$. The discrete spectrum of this operator is a union $\sigma_1\cup\sigma_2$, where $\sigma_1$ is a set of the eigenvalues of the operator $S_1$ that are less than one. Here the operator $S_1$ is the Laplacian in an rectangle $\{x: |x_1|<l-\delta, -d<x_2<\pi\}$ subject to Neumann condition on the lateral sides and to Dirichlet one on the upper and lower sides. The set $\sigma_2$ is the discrete spectrum of the Laplacian in the semi-strip $\Pi\cap\{x:
x_1>l-\delta\}$ subject to Neumann condition on $\{x:
x_1=l-\delta, -d<x_2<\pi\}$ and to Dirichlet condition on the remaining part of the boundary. We denote this operator by $S_2$. For sufficiently small $\delta$ the eigenvalues forming $\sigma_1$ are the functions $\Lambda_j(l-\delta)$, $j=0,\ldots,n-1$. Each eigenfunction of the operator $S_2$ can be continued through the boundary $\{x: x_1=l-\delta,
-d<x_2<\pi\}$ in the odd way on $x_1$. The function obtained in this way is the eigenfunction of the operator ${H}_{\delta}$ (up to the change $x_1\mapsto x_1-l+\delta$). Therefore, $\sigma_2\subseteq\sigma_{disc}({H}_\delta)$. In accordance with Lemma \[lm1.1\], for sufficiently small $\delta$ the discrete spectrum of the operator ${H}_\delta$ consists of the only eigenvalue converging to one as $\delta\to0$. We choose $\delta>0$ such that this eigenvalue is greater than each of the functions $\Lambda_j(l-\delta)$, $j=0,\ldots,n-1$. Therefore, due to bracketing [@RS Ch. 13, §15] we can write $\Lambda_{j-1}(l)<\Lambda_{j-1}(l-\delta)\leqslant\lambda_j(l)$, $j=1,\ldots,n$, what completes the proof of the needed estimates.
In conclusion let us prove the parity of the eigenfunctions of the operator ${H}_l$. The set $\Pi$ being symmetric on $x_1$, all the eigenfunctions of the operator ${H}_l$ can be chosen as being odd or even on $x_1$. The simplicity of the eigenvalues $\lambda_m(l)$ means that the eigenfunction of a certain parity is associated with each of these eigenvalues. The even eigenfunctions satisfy the Neumann condition as $x_1=0$, while the odd ones meet the Dirichlet condition. Moreover, the operator ${H}_l$ is an orthogonal sum of the operators ${H}_l^+$ and ${H}_l^-$ those are, respectively, restrictions of ${H}_l$ on even and odd on $x_1$ functions from the domain of the operator ${H}_l$. Completely by analogy with how in [@ESTV §2] the estimates (\[1.1\]) were obtained, one can easily show that the isolated eigenvalues of the operator ${H}_l^+$ satisfy the estimates (\[1.1\]) for odd $m$, while the ones of the operator $H_l^-$ meet the estimates (\[1.1\]) with even $m$. This proves the needed parity of the eigenfunctions of the operator ${H}_l$, if one takes into account that $\sigma_{disc}({H}_l)=\sigma_{disc}({H}_l^+)\cup
\sigma_{disc}({H}_l^-)$.
The behaviour of the resolvent of the operator ${H}_l$ in a vicinity of the threshold of the essential spectrum
===============================================================================================================
This section is devoted to the studying the behaviour of the operator $({H}_l-\lambda)^{-1}$ as $\lambda$ close to one. The results of this section is the basis for the proof of Items \[th1.1.it3\], \[th1.1.it4\] of Theorem \[th1.1\].
In studying the operator $({H}_l-\lambda)^{-1}$ we employ the same approach as that used in [@BEG], [@BE] for the case of symmetric strips $d=\pi$. We study the dependence on $k$ of a solution to the boundary value problem $$\label{3.1}
-\Delta u=(1-k^2)u+f,\quad x\in\Pi,\qquad u=0,\quad
x\in\partial\Pi,$$ which behaves as follows $$\label{3.2}
\begin{aligned}
&u(x,k)=c_{\pm}(k)\mathrm{e}^{-k|x_1|}\sin
x_2+\mathcal{O}\left(\mathrm{e}^{-\sqrt{3+k^2}|x_1|}\right),&&
x_2\in(0,\pi),
\\
&u(x,k)=\widetilde
c_{\pm}(k)\mathrm{e}^{-\sqrt{1-\frac{\pi^2}{d^2}+k^2}|x_1|}\sin
x_2+\mathcal{O}\left(\mathrm{
e}^{-\sqrt{4-\frac{\pi^2}{d^2}+k^2}|x_1|}\right), &&
x_2\in(-d,0),
\end{aligned}$$ as $x_1\to\pm\infty$. Here the function $f$ is an element of $L_2(\Pi)$ whose support lies inside $\Pi_a$, $a>l$, $c_\pm(k)$, $\widetilde c_\pm(k)$ are some constants. In the case $d=\pi$ in the latter of the asymptotics representations (\[3.2\]) we set $\sqrt{1-\frac{\pi^2}{d^2}+k^2}=k$. The parameter $k$ is supposed to belong to a small neighbourhood of the zero in the complex plane. We denote this neighbourhood by ${B}$. We note that a solution to the boundary value problem (\[3.1\]), (\[3.2\]) decays exponentially as $\mathrm{Re}\,k>0$, and, therefore, is an element of $L_2(\Pi)$ in this case. In view of Remark \[rm1.1\] and [@BEH Theorem 4.6.8] it implies the belonging of this solution to the domain of the operator ${H}_l$, i.e., the function $u$ coincide with $(H_l-1+k^2)^{-1}f$ (of course, if the operator $(H_l-1+k^2)$ is invertible). This is why the linear mapping $f\mapsto u$ defined by the boundary value problem (\[3.1\]), (\[3.2\]) can be regarded as an extension of the operator $(H_l-1+k^2)^{-1}$ on $k$ in the domain $\mathrm{Re}\, k\leqslant0$. Such extension is surely to widen the range of the operator $(H_l-1+k^2)^{-1}$ and the range of the extension is not a subset of the space $L_2(\Pi)$. At the same time we will show that in a certain sense this extension is analytic on $k$ and the operator $(H_l-1+k^2)^{-1}$ after extension is happened to be meromorphic on $k$.
Let us introduce the notations. If $X$ and $Y$ are Banach spaces, the symbol $\mathcal{L}(X,Y)$ indicate the set of all linear bounded operator from $X$ into $Y$. The set of all holomorphic (meromorphic) on $k\in{B}$ function whose values are elements of $X$ is denoted by $\mathcal{H}(X)$ ($\mathcal{M}(X)$). We also set $\mathcal{H}(X,Y):=\mathcal{H}(\mathcal{L}(X,Y))$, $\mathcal{M}(X,Y):=\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{L}(X,Y))$.
In order to study the boundary value problem (\[3.1\]) we employ the scheme borrowed from [@SP Ch. 16, §4]. Let $g$ be some function from $L_2(\Pi_a)$ continued by zero in $\Pi\setminus\overline{\Pi}_a$. We consider the boundary value problems: $$\label{3.3}
-\Delta v_i=(1-k^2)v_i+g,\quad x\in\Omega_i, \qquad v_i=0,\quad
x\in\partial\Omega_i,\quad i=1,\ldots,4,$$ where $\Omega_1:=\Pi^+\cap\{x: x_1>0\}$, $\Omega_2:=\Pi^-\cap\{x: x_1>0\}$, $\Omega_3:=\Pi^+\cap\{x:
x_1<0\}$, $\Omega_4:=\Pi^-\cap\{x: x_1<0\}$. The problems (\[3.3\]) are easily solved by separation of variables: $$\begin{aligned}
&v_i(x,k)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^\infty\int\limits_{\Omega_i}
G^i_{\!j}(x,t,k)g(t)\,dt,\label{3.4}
\\
&G_j^1(x,t,k):=\frac{1}{\pi s_j^+}\left(\mathrm{
e}^{-s_j^+|x_1-t_1|}- \mathrm{e}^{-s_j^+(x_1+t_1)}\right)\sin j
x_2\sin j t_2,\nonumber
\\
&G_j^2(x,t,k):=\frac{1}{s_j^- d}\left(\mathrm{
e}^{-s_j^-|x_1-t_1|}- \mathrm{e}^{-s_j^-(x_1+t_1)}\right)\sin
\frac{\pi j}{d} x_2\sin \frac{\pi j}{d} t_2,\nonumber
\\
&G_j^3(x,t,k):=\frac{1}{\pi s_j^+}\left(\mathrm{
e}^{-s_j^+|x_1-t_1|}- \mathrm{e}^{s_j^+(x_1+t_1)}\right)\sin j
x_2\sin j t_2, \nonumber
\\
&G_j^4(x,t,k):=\frac{1}{s_j^-
d}\left(\mathrm{e}^{-s_j^-|x_1-t_1|}- \mathrm{
e}^{s_j^-(x_1+t_1)}\right)\sin \frac{\pi j}{d} x_2\sin \frac{\pi
j}{d} t_2,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $s_1^+=k$, $s_j^+=\sqrt{j^2-1+k^2}$, $j\geqslant 2$, $s_1^-=\sqrt{\frac{\pi^2}{d^2}-1+k^2}$ as $d<\pi$, $s_1^-=k$ as $d=\pi$, $s_j^-=\sqrt{\frac{\pi^2j^2}{d^2}-1+k^2}$, $j\geqslant
2$. The functions $G_1^1$, $G_3^1$ at $k=0$ are defined by continuity: $$\begin{aligned}
&G_1^1(x,t,0):=\frac{1}{\pi}(x_1+t_1-|x_1-t_1|)\sin x_2\sin t_2,
\\
&G_1^3(x,t,0):=-\frac{1}{\pi}(x_1+t_1+|x_1-t_1|)\sin x_2\sin
t_2,\end{aligned}$$ In the case $d=\pi$ the functions $G_1^2(x,t,0)$ and $G_1^4(x,t,0)$ are defined in the same way. We denote $\Omega_i^b:=\Omega_i\cap\Pi_b$.
\[lm3.6\] Let $b>0$. The series (\[3.4\]) converge in the norm of $W_2^2(\Omega^b_i)$. The functions $v_i(x)$ meet the asymptotics formulas (\[3.2\]). Linear operators $T_i(k)$ defined by a rule $T_i(k)g:=v_i$ are elements of $\mathcal{L}(L_2(\Pi_a),W_2^2(\Omega_i^b))$. The belonging $T_i(\cdot)\in \mathcal{H}(L_2(\Pi_a),W_2^2(\Omega_i^b))$ takes place.
In proof of this lemma we will employ an auxiliary statement.
\[lm3.7\] In the norm of $L_2(\Omega_i^a)$ the equality $$\begin{aligned}
&g(x):=\sum\limits_{j=1}^\infty g_j(x_1)\sin j x_2, \quad
g_j(x_1):=\frac{2}{\pi}\int\limits_{0}^\pi g(x)\sin j x_2\,
dx_2,\qquad i=1,3,
\\
&g(x):=\sum\limits_{j=1}^\infty g_j(x_1)\sin j x_2, \quad
g_j(x_1):=\frac{2}{d}\int\limits_{-d}^0 g(x)\sin \frac{\pi j}{d}
x_2\, dx_2,\qquad i=2,4,\end{aligned}$$ holds true.
We will give the proof for $\Omega_1^a$ only, in the other cases the arguments are same. Since $g\in L_2(\Omega_i^a)$, by Fubini theorem for almost each $x_1\in (0,a)$ we have $g(x_1,\cdot)\in
L_2(0,\pi)$. Therefore, the functions $g_j(x_1)$ are well-defined for almost each $x_1\in (0,a)$ and belong to $L_2(0,a)$ due to an estimate: $$\|g_j\|_{L_2(0,a)}\leqslant \|g\|_{L_2(\Pi)}.$$ We introduce the functions $$\mathcal{E}_N(x_1)=\int\limits_0^\pi
\left|g(x)-\sum\limits_{j=1}^N g_j(x_1)\sin j x_2\right|^2\,
dx_2.$$ The functions $\{\sin j x_2\}_{j=0}^\infty$ form basis in $L_2(0,\pi)$, this is why the convergence $\mathcal{E}_N(x_1)\xrightarrow[N\to\infty]{}0$ is valid for almost each $x_1\in (0,a)$. Using the definition of the functions $\mathcal{E}_N$, one can check easily that $$0\leqslant \mathcal{E}_N(x_1)=\int\limits_0^\pi
|g(x)|^2\,dx_1-\frac{\pi}{2}\sum\limits_{j=1}^N|g_j(x_1)|^2\leqslant
\int\limits_0^\pi |g(x)|^2\,dx_1.$$ Therefore, nonnegative functions $\mathcal{E}_N$ are bounded from above by an integrable over $[0,a]$ function uniformly on $N$. Bearing in mind this fact as well as the convergence of the functions $\mathcal{E}_N$ to zero almost everywhere, in view of Lebesgue bounded convergence theorem we conclude that $$\left\|g(x)-\sum\limits_{j=1}^N g_j(x_1)\sin j
x_2\right\|^2_{L_2(\Pi_a)}=\int\limits_{0}^a
\mathcal{E}_N(x_1)\,dx_1\xrightarrow[N\to\infty]{}0.$$ This completes the proof.
We will give the proof for $\Omega_1^a$ only, the other cases are proved in the same way. We define the functions $g_j$ in accordance with Lemma \[lm3.7\]. We indicate the terms of the series (\[3.4\]) as $V_j(x,k)$. By the definition of these functions the estimates $$\left\| \sum\limits_{j=N}^M
V_j\right\|^2_{W_2^1(\Omega_1^b)}\leqslant C \sum\limits_{j=N}^M
\|g_j\|^2_{L_2(0,b)}$$ hold true for all $b>0$ with constant $C$ independent on $g$, $M$ and $N$. The right-hand side in this inequality tends to zero as $M,N\to\infty$ due to Lemma \[lm3.7\]. Thus, for all $b>0$ the series (\[3.4\]) converges in the norm of $W_2^1(\Omega_1^b)$ to some function $v_1(x,k)$, which meets the estimate $$\label{3.24}
\|v_1\|_{W_2^1(\Omega_1^b)}\leqslant C\|g\|_{L_2(\Pi_a)},$$ where the constant $C$ is independent on $g$. The function $v_1$, as one can check easily, is a generalized solution to the boundary value problem (\[3.3\]). Therefore, by theorems on improving smoothness and the estimate (\[3.24\]) the function $v_1$ is an element of $W_2^2(\Omega_1^b)$ and an estimate $$\|v_1\|_{W_2^2(\Omega_1^b)}\leqslant C\|g\|_{L_2(\Pi_a)},$$ is valid, where the constant $C$ is independent on $g$. It follows the belonging $T_1(k)\in
\mathcal{L}(L_2(\Pi_a),W_2^2(\Omega_1^b))$ for all $b>0$ and each $k\in {B}$. By analogy with how the latter estimate for $v_1$ has been obtained, one can deduce that $$\label{3.23}
\|V^N\|_{W_2^2(\Omega_1^b)}\leqslant C\|g^N\|_{L_2(\Pi_a)},$$ where the constant is independent on $g^N$ and $N$, $$V^N(x,k):=v_1(x,k)-\sum\limits_{j=1}^N V_j(x,k),\quad
g^N(x):=g(x)-\sum\limits_{j=1}^N g_j(x_1)\sin jx_2.$$ The estimate (\[3.23\]) and Lemma \[lm3.7\] yield the convergence of the series (\[3.4\]) in $W_2^2(\Omega_1^b)$.
For $x_1>a$ the functions $V_j$ are of the form $$V_j(x,k)=-\sum\limits_{j=1}^\infty \frac{2}{s_j^+\pi}\mathrm{
e}^{-s_j^+ x_1}\sin j x_2\int\limits_{\Omega_1^a}g(x)\sh s_j^+
x_1 \sin j x_2\,dx.$$ Thus, for $x_1>a$ the estimate $$|V_j(x,k)|\leqslant
C\mathrm{e}^{-s_j^+(x_1-a)}\|g\|_{L_2(\Pi_a)}$$ hold true, where $C$ is a some constant independent on $j$ and $x_1$. In view of this inequality as $x_1\geqslant 2a$ the function $(v_1-V_1)$ can be estimated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
|v_1(x,k)-V_1(x,k)|&\leqslant
C\|g\|_{L_2(\Pi_a)}\sum\limits_{j=2}^{\infty}\mathrm{e}^{-s_j^+(x_1-a)}
\leqslant
\\
&\leqslant C\|g\|_{L_2(\Pi_a)}\mathrm{e}^{-s_2^+(x_1-a)}
\sum\limits_{j=2}^{\infty}\mathrm{e}^{-(s_j^+-s_2^+)(x_1-a)}\leqslant
\\
&\leqslant C\|g\|_{L_2(\Pi_a)}\mathrm{e}^{-s_2^+(x_1-a)}
\sum\limits_{j=2}^{\infty}\mathrm{e}^{-(s_j^+-s_2^+)a}\leqslant
\widetilde C\|g\|_{L_2(\Pi_a)}\mathrm{e}^{-s_2^+x_1},\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $\widetilde C$ is independent on $x_1$. The estimate obtained yields that as $x_1\geqslant 2a$, $x_2\in[0,\pi]$ the series (\[3.4\]) is a continuous on $x$ function and the asymptotics formula (\[3.2\]) takes place for the function $v_1$ as $x_1\to+\infty$, $x_2\in(0,\pi)$.
Clear, for each function $g$ we have $V_j(x,\cdot)\in
\mathcal{H}(W_2^2(\Omega_1^b))$. Since the series (\[3.4\]) converges in $W_2^2(\Omega_1^b)$, by Weiestrass theorem the sum of the series is holomorphic on $k$ in the norm of $W_2^2(\Omega_1^b)$, i.e., for each function $g\in L_2(\Pi_a)$ and any $b>0$ we have $T_1(\cdot)g\in
\mathcal{H}(W_2^2(\Omega_1^b))$. Since the notions of being holomorphic for bounded operator-valued functions in the sense of weak, strong and uniform convergences are same (see, for instance, [@K Ch. 7, §1.1]), we conclude that $T_1(\cdot)\in \mathcal{H}(L_2(\Pi_a),W_2^2(\Omega_1^b))$ for all $b>0$.
\[rm3.1\] The functions $v_i$ being elements of the spaces $W_2^2(\Omega_i^b)$, the equations (\[3.3\]) take place not only in the sense of the corresponding integral equality (see remark \[rm1.1\]), but also as the equality of two functions from $L_2(\Omega_i^b)$.
We denote $v(x,k):=v_i(x,k)$, $x\in\Omega_i$. Let us consider one more boundary value problem: $$\label{3.5}
\Delta w=\Delta v,\quad x\in\Pi_a, \qquad w=v,\quad
x\in\partial\Pi_a.$$ The first derivatives of the function $v$ have discontinuities on the boundaries of the sets $\Omega_i$, this is we should explain what we mean by $\Delta v$. This function is defined by the equality $\Delta v:=\Delta v_i$, $x\in\Omega_i$. It is obvious that the function $\Delta v$ defined in such way is an element of $L_2(\Pi_a)$. The set $\Pi_a$ possesses a cone property, this is why an embedding $W_2^1(\Pi_a)\subset
L_2(\Pi_a)$ is compact due to Rellich-Kondrashov theorem [@Ad Theorem 6.2, Ch. VI]. The right hand side in the boundary condition (\[3.5\]) is a trace of a function belonging to $W_2^1(\Pi_a)$. This function can be chosen as $v(x)\chi_{2}(x_1)$, where $\chi_{2}(x_1)$ is an infinitely differentiable cut-off function being equal to one as $|x_1|>(2a+l)/3$ and vanishing as $|x_1|<(a+2l)/3$. Due to Lemma \[lm3.6\] the functions $v_i$ being elements of the spaces $W_2^2(\Omega_i^a)$, it yields that $v\chi_3\in
W_2^1(\Pi_a,\Gamma^a_l)$. The equality $v(x)\chi_3(x_1)=v(x)$, $x\in\partial\Pi_a$ follows from the definition of the function $\chi_3$ and the relation $v(x)=0$, $x\in\Gamma_l$. Employing the aforementioned facts, and following the idea of the proof of Theorem 10 in [@Ld Ch. IV,§1.8], one can check easily that the boundary value problem (\[3.5\]) is uniquely solvable in the space $W_2^1(\Pi_a,\Gamma_l^a)$.
The problem (\[3.5\]) is uniquely solvable in the space $W_2^1(\Pi_a,\Gamma_l^a)$ (see, for instance, [@Ld]). Moreover, $w$ is an element of the space $W_2^2(Q)$ for each $Q\in\Xi$ due to theorems on improving the smoothness of solutions to elliptic boundary value problems. In particular, it means that in addition to the integral equality corresponding to the problem (\[3.5\]) (see Remark \[rm1.1\]) the equation in (\[3.5\]) holds also as the equality of two functions from $L_2(Q)$ for each $Q\in\Xi$. Therefore, $\Delta w\in L_2(\Pi_a)$ and the equation in (\[3.5\]) holds also as the equality of two functions from $L_2(\Pi_a)$. The function $w$ can be also considered as a value of linear bounded operator $T_5:
\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^4
W_2^2(\Omega_i^a,\partial\Omega_i^a\cap\partial\Omega_i)\to
W_2^1(\Pi_a,\Gamma_l^a)$, $T_5 v:=w$. It is clear that $T_5$ is also a linear bounded operator from $\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^4
W_2^2(\Omega_i^a,\partial\Omega_i^a\cap\partial\Omega_i)$ into $W_2^2(Q)$ for each $Q\in\Xi$.
Let $\chi_3(x_1)$ be an infinitely differentiable cut-off even function which equals minus one as $|x_1|<(a+2l)/3$ and vanishes as $|x_1|>(2a+l)/3$. We construct the function $u$ by the rule: $$\label{3.6}
u(x,k):=w(x,k)\chi_3(x_1)+v(x,k)(1-\chi_3(x_1)).$$ The function $u$ can also be regarded as $u=T_6(k)g$ where $T_6(k)$ is a linear bounded operator from $L_2(\Pi_a)$ into $W_2^1(\Pi_b,\Gamma_l^b)$ and $W_2^2(Q)$ for any $b>0$ and each $Q\in\Xi$. Moreover, $T_6(\cdot)\in
\mathcal{H}(L_2(\Pi_a),W_2^1(\Pi_b,\Gamma_l^b))$ and $T_6(\cdot)\in \mathcal{H}(L_2(\Pi_a),W_2^2(Q))$.
Let us apply the operator $-(\Delta+1-k^2)$ to $u$ and take into account the equations for $v$ and $w$ (see (\[3.3\]), (\[3.5\])). As a result we get: $$\label{3.7}
-(\Delta+1-k^2)u=g+(v-w)(\Delta+1-k^2)\chi_3+
2\left(\nabla\chi_3,\nabla
(v-w)\right)_{\mathbb{R}^2}=g+T_7(k)g.$$ The function $u$ defined by (\[3.6\]) satisfies the homogeneous Dirichlet condition on $\partial\Pi$ and asymptotics formulas (\[3.2\]). Therefore, this function is a solution to the boundary value problem (\[3.1\]), (\[3.2\]) if and only if it meets the equation from (\[3.1\]). Due to (\[3.7\]) this leads us to the equation for the function $g$: $$\label{3.8}
g+T_7(k)g=f.$$ Completely by analogy with Propositions 3.1 and 3.2 from [@BEG] one can prove the following lemma.
\[lm3.1\] The operator $T_7(k)$ is a linear compact operator from $L_2(\Pi_a)$ into $L_2(\Pi_a)$ for each $k\in{B}$ and $T_7(\cdot)\in\mathcal{H}(L_2(\Pi_a),L_2(\Pi_a))$. For each $k\in{B}$ the equation (\[3.8\]) is equivalent to the boundary value problem (\[3.1\]), (\[3.2\]). Namely, for each solution $g$ of the equation (\[3.8\]) there exists a solution to the boundary value problem (\[3.1\]), (\[3.2\]) given by the formula $u=T_6(k)g$. For each solution $u$ to the boundary value problem (\[3.1\]), (\[3.2\]) there exists a unique solution of the equation (\[3.8\]) associated with $u$ by the equality $u=T_6(k)g$.
The operator $T_7$ being compact, Fredholm alternatives can be applied to the equation (\[3.8\]). Due to Lemma \[lm3.1\] this solves the solvability questions for the boundary value problem (\[3.1\]), (\[3.2\]). It should be also noted that in the case of unique solvability of the equation (\[3.8\]) the solution $u$ to the problem (\[3.1\]), (\[3.2\]) generated by the rule $u=T_6(k)(I+T_7(k))^{-1}f$ from the solution of the equation (\[3.8\]), coincides with the function $({H}_l-1+k^2)^{-1}f$ as $\mathrm{Re}\, k>0$ (see the asymptotics formulas (\[3.2\])). This is why the operator $T_6(k)(I+T_7(k))^{-1}$ can be interpreted as an analytic continuation of the operator $({H}_l-1+k^2)^{-1}f$. At the same time it should be stressed that as $\mathrm{Re}\, k\leqslant0$ the function $u=T_6(k)(I+T_7(k))^{-1}f$, generally speaking, is not an element of the space $L_2(\Pi)$.
\[lm3.2\] There exists a point $k_*\in{B}$ such that the operator $(I+T_7(k_*))$ has a bounded inverse.
It is clear that it is sufficient to find the point $k_*\in{B}$ for which the equation (\[3.8\]) is uniquely solvable. The unique solvability of the latter is equivalent to that of the boundary value problem (\[3.1\]), (\[3.2\]). We choose a point $k_*$ as $k_*=\delta(1+\mathrm{i})$, $\delta>0$. For such $k_*$ the problem (\[3.1\]) with $f=0$ has no nontrivial solution meeting the asymptotics formulas (\[3.2\]), since otherwise this function would be an element $L_2(\Pi)$, and $\lambda_*=1-k_*^2$ would be a complex-valued eigenvalue of the operator ${H}_l$. This contradicts to the reality of the spectrum of the operator ${H}_l$.
The proven lemma, compactness and holomorphy of the operator $T_7(k)$ allow us to apply Theorem 7.1 from [@SP Ch. 15, §7] to the operator $(I+T_7(k))^{-1}$, what leads us to the following statement.
\[lm3.3\] The belonging $(I+T_7(\cdot))^{-1}\in
\mathcal{M}(L_2(\Pi_a),L_2(\Pi_a))$ takes place.
Due to this lemma the only possible singularities of the operator $(I+T_7(k))^{-1}$ are isolated poles. We are interesting only on presence and absence of the pole at the point $k=0$. This is why we suppose that the neighbourhood ${B}$ of zero contains no poles except possible pole at zero. The presence of pole at zero implies the existence of a nontrivial solution of the equation (\[3.8\]) with $k=0$, $f=0$, what is equivalent to the existence of the bounded nontrivial solution of the problem (\[3.1\]) (see asymptotics (\[3.2\])) with $k=0$, $f=0$. The next lemma describes possible options of such solutions to exist.
\[lm3.4\] Let $k=0$, $f=0$. Then
1. \[it1lm3.4\] The boundary value problem (\[3.1\]) has at most one nontrivial solution meeting the asymptotics formulas (\[3.2\]) and being even on $x_2$ in the case $d=\pi$. This solution has a definite parity on $x_1$.
2. \[it2lm3.4\] If $d=\pi$, then the boundary value problem (\[3.1\]) has a unique nontrivial solution which is odd on $x_2$ and meets the asymptotics formulas (\[3.2\]), where $c_+(0)=1$. This solution is $\sin x_2$.
As $k=0$ the boundary value problem (\[3.1\]) being equivalent to the equation (\[3.8\]), owing to compactness of the operator $T_7(0)$ the problem (\[3.1\]) can have only finitely many bounded linear independent solutions. Boundedness in this case is an implication of the asymptotics (\[3.2\]). We denote these solutions by $u_j$, $j=1,\ldots,q$. The change of variables $x_1\mapsto -x_1$ maps a solution to the problem (\[3.1\]) into a solution, this is why without loss of generality we can assume that each of solutions $u_j$ has a definite parity on $x_1$. In the case $d=\pi$ we also assume that each of these solutions is even on $x_2$. Moreover, all the functions $u_j$ can be supposed to be real. We also observe that due to theorems on improving smoothness we have $u_j\in
C^\infty(\overline{Q})$ for each $Q\in\Xi$.
First we prove that the coefficients $c_\pm(0)$ are always non-zero. Suppose the opposite, namely, let there exists a nontrivial solution $u=u_j $ whose coefficients $c_\pm(0)$ are zero. In view of asymptotics (\[3.2\]) it means that the function $u$ decays exponentially as $|x_1|\to\infty$, $x_2\in(-d,\pi)$. Let the function $u$ be even on $x_1$. We introduce the function $$\label{3.9}
U(x):=x_1\int\limits_{0}^{x_1}u(t,x_2)\,dt.$$ The function $U$ is surely to be infinitely differentiable at all interior points of $\Pi$. Moreover, it is an element of the space $W_2^1(\Pi_a,\Gamma_l^a)$ for any $a>0$. Since the function $u$ is even on $x_1$, it follows that its derivative on $x_1$ vanishes as $x_1=0$. Taking into account this fact and the equation for $u$, it is not difficult to check that the function $U$ is a solution to the equation $$(\Delta+1)U=2u,\quad x\in\Pi.$$ Moreover, the function $U$ satisfies the homogeneous Dirichlet condition on the lines $x_2=-d$ and $x_2=\pi$. We are going to prove that it vanishes on $\Gamma_l$ as well. In order to do it, due to evenness of $u$ on $x_1$, it is sufficient to establish the equality: $$\int\limits_{\gamma_l} u\,dx_1=0.$$ This equality can be proved easily by integration by parts: $$\label{3.12}
0=\int\limits_{\Pi^+} \sin
x_2(\Delta+1)u\,dx=\int\limits_{\gamma_l}u\,dx_1.$$ Here we have also used the boundary condition for the function $u$ and its exponential decaying at infinity. The function $U$ behaves like $\mathcal{O}(x_1)$ as $x_1\to\pm\infty$, what follows from the exponential decaying of $u$ at infinity.
Bearing in mind the properties of the functions $u$ and $U$, we can integrate by parts: $$0=\int\limits_{\Pi}U(\Delta+1)u\,dx=
2\int\limits_{\Pi}|u|^2\,dx,$$ what implies $u=0$. The same equality can be also proved in the case the function $u$ being odd on $x_1$. Here the function $U$ should be defined as $$U(x):=\int\limits_{0}^{x_1}t u(t,x_2)\,dt.$$ This function possesses the same properties as the function $U$ in (\[3.9\]). The only difference in the proof of these properties is a modification of (\[3.12\]), in this case the integral $0=\int\limits_{\Pi^+} x_1\sin x_2(\Delta+1)u\,dx$ should be taken as a source integral for integration by parts. It should be also noted that the function $U$ in this case is bounded as $x_1\to+\infty$.
Thus, each of the functions $u_j$ has nonzero coefficients $c_\pm(0)$ in the asymptotic formulas (\[3.2\]). It means that the number of the functions $u_j$ does not exceed two. Indeed, otherwise it would be possible to change a linear combination of the functions $u_j$ whose coefficients $c_\pm(0)$ would be zero. It would mean that this combination is identically zero, and, as a result, that the functions $u_j$ are linear dependent. It also obvious that in the case two functions $u_j$ are present, they have different parity on $x_1$. Let us stress that for $d=\pi$ the assumed parity of $u_j$ on $x_2$ is essential in these arguments otherwise the possible number of the functions $u_j$ increases up to four.
Let the number of the functions $u_j$ be two and let $u_1$ be even on $x_1$ and $u_2$ be odd. Without loss of generality we assume that the coefficients $c_\pm(0)$ of the functions $u_1$ and $u_2$ are respectively of the form $c_\pm(0)=\sqrt{2/\pi}$, $c_\pm(0)=\pm \sqrt{2/\pi}$. We set $$U_1(x):=\int\limits_0^{x_1} u_1(t,x_2)\,dt.$$ By analogy with how the properties of the function $U$ in (\[3.9\]) have been found, one can show easily that $U_1$ is a solution to the boundary value problem (\[3.1\]) meets the asymptotics representation $$U_1(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}(x_1\pm c)\sin
x_2+\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{e}^{-\sqrt{3}|x_1|}),\quad
x_1\to\pm\infty,\quad x_2\in(0,\pi),$$ where $c$ is some constant. In the case $d=\pi$ the function $U_1$ has exactly the same asymptotics as $x_2\in(-\pi,0)$. If $d<\pi$, then the function $U_1$ decays exponentially as $x_1\to\pm\infty$, $x_2\in(-d,0)$, what follows from the boundary value problem for $U_1$ and boundedness of $U_1$ as $x_1\to\pm\infty$, $x_2\in(-d,0)$. Taking into account the properties of the functions $U_1$ and $u_2$, integrating by parts in an integral $\int\limits_{\Pi_R} U_1(\Delta+1)u_2\,dx$ and passing after that to limit as $R\to+\infty$, we get: $$0=\int\limits_{\Pi} U_1(\Delta+1)u_2\,dx=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&-2,&&d<\pi,
\\
&-4,&&d=\pi,
\end{aligned} \right.$$ a contradiction. Thus, the number of the functions $u_j$ is at most one and if exists, this function is unique and has a definite parity on $x_1$. Item \[it1lm3.4\] is proven.
Statement of Item \[it2lm3.4\] is obvious if one takes into account that odd on $x_2$ solution vanishes as $x_2=0$.
Let us introduce auxiliary notations. In the case the nontrivial solution to the problem (\[3.1\]) described in Item \[it1lm3.4\] of Lemma \[lm3.4\] exists, we denote this solution by $\phi(x)$. The associated solution of the equation (\[3.8\]) is indicated as $\Phi(x)$, $\phi(x)=(T_6(0)\Phi)(x)$. If such solution does not exists, we set $\phi=0$, $\Phi=0$. In the case $d=\pi$ the solution of the equation (\[3.8\]) associated with $\sin x_2$ is denoted by $\widetilde\Phi(x)$, $\sin x_2=(T_6(0)\widetilde\Phi)(x)$.
The next lemma describes the structure of the operator $(I+T_7(k))^{-1}$ for small $k$.
\[lm3.5\] The operator $(I+T_7(k))^{-1}$ can be represented as: $$\begin{aligned}
&(I+T_7(k))^{-1}=\frac{1}{k}T_8+T_9(k),
\\
&T_8f:=\frac{1}{2}\Phi\int\limits_{\Pi}f(x)\phi(x)\,dx,&&\text{as
$d<\pi$},
\\
&T_8f:=\frac{1}{4}\Phi\int\limits_{\Pi}f(x)\phi(x)\,dx+
\frac{1}{2\pi} \widetilde\Phi\int\limits_\Pi {f(x)\sin x_2}\,dx,
&&\text{as $d=\pi$},\end{aligned}$$ where $T_9(\cdot)\in
\mathcal{H}\left(L_2(\Pi_a),L_2(\Pi_a)\right)$.
The proof of this lemma is analogous to that of Theorem 3.4 in [@BEG].
Asymptotics expansions of emerging eigenvalues
==============================================
In the present section we will prove Items \[th1.1.it3\], \[th1.1.it4\] of Theorem \[th1.1\] finishing by this the proof of this theorem. For calculating the asymptotics expansions we will employ the scheme which is analogous to that employed in [@BEG] in the case $d=\pi$. The main ideas of this scheme are borrowed from the works [@G1], [@G2]. Let $l_*$ be some value of the length of the window $\gamma_l$. We give an increment $\varepsilon\in(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)$ to this length. Here $\varepsilon_0$ is from (\[2.0\]). As it was shown in the proof of Lemma \[lm2.1\], the eigenvalues of the operator $H_{l_*+\varepsilon}$ are those of the boundary value problem (\[2.1\]). We denote $\lambda=1-k^2$, then in accordance with the results of the previous section the boundary value problem (\[2.1\]) is equivalent to an operator equation in $L_2(\Pi_a)$: $$\label{4.1}
(I+T_7(k)-\varepsilon L_\varepsilon T_6(k))g=0.$$ Here the parameter $a$ should be chosen great enough and independent on $\varepsilon$ so that the supports of the coefficients of the operator $L_\varepsilon$ lie inside $\Pi_a$ for all $\varepsilon$ small enough.
Since $T_6(\cdot)\in \mathcal{H}(L_2(\Pi_a),W_2^2(Q))$ for each $Q\in\Xi$, in view of the form of the coefficients of the operator $L_\varepsilon$ (see (\[2.1\])) we conclude that $L_\varepsilon T_6(\cdot)\in
\mathcal{H}(L_2(\Pi_a),L_2(\Pi_a))$. Moreover, the operator $L_\varepsilon T_6(k)$ is bounded uniformly on $\varepsilon$.
The question on existence of the eigenvalues of the operator ${H}_l$ emerging from the threshold of the essential spectrum is surely to be equivalent to the question on existence of the function $k=k_\varepsilon\xrightarrow[\varepsilon\to0]{}0$ so that the equation (\[4.1\]) have a nontrivial solution $g_\varepsilon$ such that $T_6(k_\varepsilon)g_\varepsilon\in
L_2(\Pi)$. This is why it is sufficient to study the question on existence of such function $k_\varepsilon$.
\[lm4.1\] Let for $l=l_*$ there exist no solution $\phi$ described in Item \[th1.1.it3\] of Theorem \[th1.1\]. Then there exist $\varepsilon_0>0$ and $\delta>0$ such that as $|l-l_*|<\varepsilon_0$ the operator $H_l$ has no eigenvalues in an interval $(1-\delta,1+\delta)$.
We begin with the case $d<\pi$. In accordance with this assumption and Lemma \[lm3.5\] the operator $(I+T_7(k))$ is invertible for each $k\in {B}$. Since the operator $L_\varepsilon T_6(k)$ is bounded uniformly on $\varepsilon$ and $k\in {B}$, for sufficiently small $\varepsilon$ the operator in (\[4.1\]) is also invertible for each $k\in{B}$. Therefore, the equation (\[4.1\]) has no nontrivial solutions.
In the case $d=\pi$ the proof is analogous. The set $\Pi$ being symmetric w.r.t. the axis $x_2=0$, all the eigenfunctions of the operator $H_{l}$ are even on $x_2$, since odd eigenfunctions would satisfy Dirichlet condition on $x_2=0$ and would be the eigenfunctions of the operator $H_0$. At the same time, the discrete spectrum of the latter is empty. Taking into account the parity of the eigenfunctions on $x_2$, it is sufficient to consider the equation (\[4.1\]) on even on $x_2$ functions $g$ only (clear, the operator $T_6(k)$ preserves the parity on $x_2$). We denote by $\mathcal{V}$ the subspace of $L_2(\Pi_a)$ consisting of even on $x_2$ functions. Then the operator $(I+T_7(k))^{-1}L_\varepsilon T_6(k)$ $: \mathcal{V}\to
L_2(\Pi_a)$ is bounded uniformly on $\varepsilon$ (see Lemma \[lm3.5\]). Using this fact, one can easily deduce the absence of nontrivial even on $x_2$ solution of the equation (\[4.1\]).
Now we are going to prove that the existence of nontrivial solution $\phi$ from Lemma \[lm3.5\] for $l=l_*$ implies the existence of the function $k=k_\varepsilon\xrightarrow[\varepsilon\to0]{}0$ so that the equation (\[4.1\]) have a nontrivial solution. We are also going to show that the function $k_\varepsilon$ meets the equality $$\label{4.2}
k_\varepsilon=\varepsilon\mu+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^2),$$ where $\mu$ is defined by the formulas (\[1.4\]), (\[1.4a\]) with $l_n$ and $\phi_n$ replaced by $l_*$, $\phi$, respectively. We adduce the proof in the case $d<\pi$ only; the case $d=\pi$ was proven in [@BEG].
In the equation (\[4.1\]) we invert the operator $(I+T_7(k))$ taking into account Lemma \[lm3.5\]: $$g-\frac{\varepsilon}{2k}\Phi\int\limits_{\Pi}\phi L_\varepsilon
T_6(k)g\,dy+\varepsilon T_9(k)L_\varepsilon T_6(k)g=0.$$ The operator $T_9(k)L_\varepsilon T_6(k)$ is bounded uniformly on $\varepsilon$, this is why for sufficiently small $\varepsilon$ there exists a bounded inverse $T_{10}(k,\varepsilon):=(I+\varepsilon T_9(k) L_\varepsilon
T_6(k))^{-1}$. Applying this operator to the latter equation, we obtain: $$\label{4.4}
g-\frac{\varepsilon}{2k}\left(\int\limits_\Pi\phi L_\varepsilon
T_6(k)g\,dy\right) T_{10}(k,\varepsilon)\Phi=0.$$ If the integral in the right-hand side is zero, it immediately leads us to the trivial solution $g=0$. Therefore, on a nontrivial solution this integral is nonzero. Bearing in mind this fact, we apply the operator $L_\varepsilon T_6(k)$ to the equation (\[4.4\]), multiply then by $2k\phi$ and integrate over $\Pi$. This results in the following equation: $$\label{4.5}
2k-\varepsilon\int\limits_\Pi \phi L_\varepsilon T_6(k)
T_{10}(k,\varepsilon)\Phi\,dy=0.$$ In fact, this is an equation for the function $k=k_\varepsilon$. Due to (\[4.4\]) the corresponding nontrivial solution of the equation (\[4.1\]) is given by the formula: $$\label{4.6}
g_\varepsilon=C T_{10}(k_\varepsilon,\varepsilon)\Phi,$$ where $C$ is an arbitrary constant. The function $$(k,\varepsilon)\mapsto \varepsilon\int\limits_\Pi \phi
L_\varepsilon T_6(k) T_{11}(k,\varepsilon)\Phi\,dy$$ is holomorphic on $k$ and tends to zero as $\varepsilon\to0$ uniformly on $k$. Therefore, on the boundary of the domain ${B}$ it will be less by absolute value than $2|k|$ if $\varepsilon$ is small enough. By Rouche theorem it follows that for sufficiently small $\varepsilon$ the equation (\[4.5\]) has the same number of roots in ${B}$ as the number of zeros for the function $k \mapsto 2k$, i.e., the unique root. We denote this root by $k_\varepsilon$. Clear, the convergence $T_{10}(k,\varepsilon)\xrightarrow[\varepsilon\to0]{} I$ holds true in the operator norm uniformly on $k\in {B}$. In view of the equality $\phi=T_6(0)\Phi$ and (\[2.1\]) it allows to the rewrite the equation (\[4.5\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&k_\varepsilon=\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\int\limits_\Pi\phi
L_0\phi\,dy+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon
|k_\varepsilon|+\varepsilon^2),
\\
&L_0:=-2\chi'_1(y_1)\frac{\partial^2}{\partial
y_1^2}-\chi''_1(y_1)\frac{\partial}{\partial y_1}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we have also taken into account the form of the coefficients of the operator $L_\varepsilon$. Since $k_\varepsilon\to0$, the equalities obtained imply that $k_\varepsilon=\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$. Hence, $$\label{4.6a}
k_\varepsilon=\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\int\limits_\Pi\phi
L_0\phi\,dy+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^2).$$
\[lm4.2\] In a vicinity of the right edge of the window $\gamma_l$ the function $\phi(x)$ behaves as: $$\label{4.15}
\phi(y)=\alpha r^{1/2}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}+\mathcal{O}(r),\quad
\frac{\partial}{\partial y_i}\phi(y)=\alpha
\frac{\partial}{\partial
y_i}r^{1/2}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}+\mathcal{O}(1),\quad r\to0,$$ where $(r,\theta)$ are polar coordinates centered at the right edge of the window $\gamma_l$, $\alpha$ is a some constant.
Let $\chi_4=\chi_4(r)$ be an infinitely differentiable cut-off function which equals one as $r\leqslant\delta$ and vanishes as $r\geqslant 2\delta$. We denote $\Theta:=\{y: r<2\delta,
0<\theta<2\pi\}$. We choose the number $\delta$ so that the circle $\overline{\Theta}$ not to intersect the left edge of the window $\gamma_l$ and lie inside $\Pi$. As it was mentioned in Remark \[rm1.1\], $\phi\in C^\infty(\Pi)$. Taking into account this fact, one can easily check that the function $\widetilde\phi(y)=\chi_4(r)\phi(y)\in
W_2^1(\Theta,\partial\Theta)$ is a solution to the boundary value problem: $$-\Delta\widetilde\phi=\lambda\widetilde\phi+\widetilde f,\quad
y\in\Theta, \qquad \widetilde\phi=0,\quad y\in\partial\Theta,$$ where $\widetilde f\in C^\infty(\overline{\Theta})$, $\widetilde{f}\equiv0$ as $r\leqslant \delta$. Changing variables in this problem $\widetilde r=r^{1/2}$, $\widetilde\theta=\theta/2$, we arrive at the following boundary value problem: $$-\Delta_{\widetilde y}\widetilde\phi=4\lambda{\widetilde
r}^2\widetilde\phi+4{\widetilde r}^2\widetilde f,\quad
\widetilde y\in\widetilde\Theta, \qquad \widetilde\phi=0,\quad
\widetilde y\in\partial\widetilde\Theta,$$ where $\widetilde y$ are Cartesian coordinates associated with $(\widetilde r,\widetilde\theta)$, $\widetilde\Theta:=\{\widetilde y: \widetilde r<\sqrt{2\delta},
\widetilde\theta\in(0,\pi)\}$. Since $\widetilde\phi\in
W_2^1(\Theta )$, $$\int\limits_{\widetilde\Theta}|\nabla_{\widetilde
y}\widetilde\phi|^2\,\mathrm{d} \widetilde
y=\int\limits_{\Theta}|\nabla_{y}\widetilde\phi|^2\,\mathrm{d}
y<\infty$$ and the function $\widetilde\phi$ vanishes at the boundary of the domain $\widetilde\Theta$, the belonging $\widetilde\phi\in
W_2^1(\widetilde\Theta,\partial\widetilde\Theta)$ holds true. We continue the functions $\widetilde{f}$ and $\widetilde{\phi}$ into the domain $\{y:
\widetilde{r}<2\delta,\pi<\widetilde{\theta}<2\pi\}$ as follows: $\widetilde{\phi}(\widetilde{y}_1,\widetilde{y}_2)=
-\widetilde{\phi}(-\widetilde{y}_1,\widetilde{y}_2)$, $\widetilde{f}(\widetilde{y}_1,\widetilde{y}_2)=
-\widetilde{f}(-\widetilde{y}_1,\widetilde{y}_2)$, $\widetilde{y}_2<0$. We preserve former notations $\widetilde{\phi}$ and $\widetilde{f}$. for the functions continued. We denote $\widehat{\Omega}:=\{\widetilde{y}:
r<\sqrt{2\delta}\}$. It is clear that $\widetilde{f}\in
L_2(\widehat{\Omega})$, $\widetilde{f}\equiv0$ as $r\leqslant\sqrt{\delta}$, and the function $\widetilde{\phi}\in
W_2^1(\widehat{\Omega},\partial\widehat{\Omega})$ is a solution to the boundary value problem: $$-\Delta\widetilde{\phi}=4r^2\widetilde{\phi}+\widetilde{f},\quad
\widetilde{y}\in\widehat{\Omega},\qquad \widetilde{\phi}=0,\quad
\widetilde{y}\in\partial\widehat{\Omega}.$$ Due to the theorems on improving smoothness of solutions to elliptic boundary value problems (see [@Ld Ch. 4, §2]) the function $\widetilde\phi$ is infinitely differentiable at zero. Moreover, in view of the boundary value problem for $\widetilde\phi$ we have: $$\widetilde\phi(\widetilde y)=\alpha\widetilde
y_2+\mathcal{O}(\widetilde r^2),\quad
\frac{\partial}{\partial\widetilde
y_i}\widetilde\phi(y)=\alpha\frac{\partial\widetilde
y_2}{\partial\widetilde y_i}+\mathcal{O}(\widetilde r),\quad
\widetilde r\to0.$$ Returning now to the variables $y$ and taking into account the definition of the function $\chi_4$, we arrive at the statement of the lemma.
\[rm4.1\] The idea of the proof of Lemma \[lm4.2\] is borrowed from the proof of Lemma 3.1 in [@Il Ch. III, §2].
The function $\phi$ has a definite parity on $x_1$, this is why the formulas similar to (\[4.15\]) are also valid for the left edge of the window $\gamma_l$. Taking into account the behaviour of the function $\phi(x)$ in the vicinities of the edges of the window $\gamma_l$ and the boundary value problem for $\phi$, we can evaluate the integral in (\[4.6a\]) by integrating by parts twice: $$\label{4.9}
\int\limits_\Pi\phi
L_0\phi\,dy=-\int\limits_\Pi\phi\left(\Delta+1\right)
\left(\chi(y_1)\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial
y_1}\right)\,dy=\pi\alpha^2.$$ In the same way we check that $$\label{4.8a}
0=\int\limits_\Pi y_1\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial
y_1}\left(\Delta+1\right)\phi \,dy=\pi
l_*\alpha^2+2\int\limits_{\Pi}\phi\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial
y_1}\,dy=\pi
l_*\alpha^2-2\int\limits_\Pi\left|\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial
y_1 }\right|^2\,dy,$$ what together with (\[4.9\]) imply the equality: $$\label{4.9a}
\int\limits_\Pi\phi L_0\phi\,dy=\frac{2}{l_*}
\int\limits_{\Pi}\phi\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial y_1}\,dy
=2\mu,$$ where $\mu$ is defined by the formula (\[1.4\]) with $l_n$ and $\phi_n$ replaced by $l_*$ and $\phi$. Substituting the relations (\[4.9a\]) into (\[4.6a\]), we arrive at the asymptotics (\[4.2\]).
We put $C=1$ in (\[4.6\]), then in view of the form of the operator $T_{10}(k,\varepsilon)$ the obtained solution of the equation (\[4.1\]) satisfies an asymptotic formula: $$\label{4.10}
g_\varepsilon=\Phi+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)\quad \text{in the
norm of $L_2(\Pi_a)$}.$$ Due to Lemma \[lm3.1\] and relation $\Phi\not\equiv0$ this equality implies that the function $\psi^\varepsilon(y)=(T_6(k_\varepsilon)g_\varepsilon)(y)$ is not identically zero. Therefore, it is an eigenfunction of the boundary value problem (\[2.1\]). Due to the asymptotics representations (\[3.2\]), (\[4.2\]) and (\[4.9a\]) the inequality $\mathrm{Re}\,k_\varepsilon>0$ holds true only as $\varepsilon>0$. Hence, the function $\psi^\varepsilon$ is an element of $L_2(\Pi)$ only as $\varepsilon>0$. Passing to the variables $x$ (see (\[2.0\])), we conclude that a quantity $\lambda^\varepsilon:=1-k_\varepsilon^2$ is an eigenvalue of the operator ${H}_{l_*+\varepsilon}$ only as $\varepsilon>0$, and $\psi^\varepsilon(y(x,\varepsilon))$ is the associated eigenfunction in this case. As $\varepsilon\leqslant 0$ the operator $H_{l_*+\varepsilon}$ has no eigenvalues close to the threshold of the essential spectrum, i.e., the eigenvalue $\lambda^\varepsilon$ disappears as $\varepsilon\leqslant0$. Therefore, $l_*$ is a critical value of the length of the window $\gamma_l$, and the corresponding eigenvalue emerging as $l>l_*$ has the asymptotics (\[1.4b\]), (\[1.4\]), what follows from (\[4.2\]) and (\[4.9a\]). We assume that $l_*=l_n$, then $\lambda_n=\lambda^\varepsilon$, $\psi_n(x)=c_\varepsilon\psi^\varepsilon(y(x,\varepsilon))$, where $c_\varepsilon$ is a some constant.
To finish the proof we need just to establish the relationships (\[1.5\]), (\[1.6\]). The functions $\psi_n$ and $\phi_n$ having the same parity on $x_1$ follows from (\[1.6\]) and Item \[th1.1.it1\] of Theorem \[th1.1\].
The function $\psi_n(x)$ introduced above meets the asymptotics formulas (\[3.2\]), where $c_+(k_\varepsilon)=c_\varepsilon\left(\sqrt{2/\pi}
+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)\right)$. This equality is implied by (\[4.10\]), the definition of the operator $T_6(k)$ and the functions $\phi$ and $\Phi$, the asymptotics for $k_\varepsilon$ established above, and the equality $y_1(x_1,\varepsilon)\equiv
x_1$ as $x_1$ large enough. Thus, the constant $c_\varepsilon$ can be chosen such that the function $\psi_n$ to satisfy the asymptotics expansion (\[1.5\]). Moreover, in this case we have $c_\varepsilon=1+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$. This equality and (\[4.10\]) yield: $$\psi_n(x)=\phi_n(y(x,\varepsilon))+\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$$ in the norm of $W_2^1(\Pi_R)$ for each $R>0$ (the norm here is treated in the sense of the variables $x$). Thus, in order to prove the assertions (\[1.5\]) it is sufficient to check that $$\label{4.11}
\|\phi_n(x)-\phi_n(y(x,\varepsilon))\|_{W_2^1(\Pi_R)}=
\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{1/2})$$ for each $R>0$. Clear, it is sufficient to check this equality only as $R>l$. In the domain $\Pi_R$ we select two rectangles $P_\pm:=\{x: \pm x_1\in(l-2\varepsilon_0,l+2\varepsilon_0),
-d<x_2<\pi\}$, where $\varepsilon_0$ is from (\[2.0\]). We choose $\varepsilon_0$ small enough so that the minimal eigenvalue of Dirichlet Laplacian in the rectangles be greater than one. We denote this eigenvalue by $\tau$. We set $\varphi(x):=\phi_n(x)-\phi_n(y(x,\varepsilon))$. The function $\varphi$ is an element of $W_2^1( P_\pm,\partial P_\pm)$, what implies the estimate: $$\label{4.12}
\tau\|\varphi\|^2_{L_2(P_\pm)}\leqslant
\|\nabla\varphi\|^2_{L_2(P_\pm)}.$$ Integrating by parts in the equality $$\int\limits_{P_+}\varphi(x)\left((\Delta_x+1)\varphi(x)+\varepsilon
L_\varepsilon\phi_n(y)\right)\,dx=0,$$ in view of properties of $\phi_n$ we obtain $$\label{4.13}
\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla\varphi&\|^2_{L_2(P_+)}=\|\varphi\|^2_{L_2(P_+)}+
\varepsilon\int\limits_{P_+}\varphi L_\varepsilon\phi_n(y)\,dx+
\\
&+\int\limits_{l_*-\varepsilon}^{l_*}\phi_n(x_1,0)
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial
x_2}\phi_n(y_1(x_1,\varepsilon),-0)-\frac{\partial}{\partial
x_2}\phi_n(y_1(x_1,\varepsilon),+0)\right)\,dx_1.
\end{aligned}$$ The latter term in the right-hand side of this equality can be estimated taking into account (\[4.15\]): $$\left|\int\limits_{l_*-\varepsilon}^{l_*}\phi_n(x_1,0)
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial
x_2}\phi_n(y_1(x_1,\varepsilon),-0)-\frac{\partial}{\partial
x_2}\phi_n(y_1(x_1,\varepsilon),+0)\right)\,dx_1\right|\leqslant
C_1\varepsilon,$$ where $C_1$ is a some constant independent on $\varepsilon$. The second term in the right-hand side of (\[4.13\]) is estimated as follows: $$\left|\int\limits_{P_+}\varphi
L_\varepsilon\psi_n(y)\,dx\right|\leqslant C_2,$$ where $C_2$ is a some constant independent on $\varepsilon$. In order to establish the latter estimate one just needs to take into account the smoothness of the function $\phi_n(y(x,\varepsilon))$ as well as the coefficients of the operator $L_\varepsilon$ being separated from the window $\gamma_{l_*}$ by a positive distance uniformly on $\varepsilon$. Substituting two last estimates into (\[4.13\]), we get $$\label{4.14}
\|\nabla\varphi\|^2_{L_2(P_+)}\leqslant
C_1\varepsilon+C_2\varepsilon\|\varphi\|_{L_2(P_+)}+
\|\varphi\|^2_{L_2(P_+)}.$$ Similar estimate is valid for $P_-$ as well.
Bearing in mind the obtained estimates for $\|\nabla\varphi\|^2_{L_2(P_\pm)}$, by (\[4.12\]) we deduce: $$(\tau-1)\|\varphi\|^2_{L_2(P_\pm)}-
C_2\varepsilon\|\varphi\|_{L_2(P_\pm)}-C_1\varepsilon\leqslant
0.$$ Solving this square inequality with the relations $\tau>1$ and (\[4.14\]) taken into account, we get: $$\|\varphi\|_{L_2(P_\pm)}=\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{1/2}),\quad
\|\nabla\varphi\|_{L_2(P_\pm)}=\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{1/2}).$$ To finish the proof of (\[4.11\]) it is sufficient now to note that the estimate $$\|\varphi\|_{W_2^1\left(\Pi_R\setminus(P_+\cup
P_-)\right)}=\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon)$$ holds true due to the definition of the function $\varphi$ and the function $\phi_n$ being infinitely differentiable on the set $\overline{\Pi_R\setminus(P_+\cup P_-)}$. The proof of Theorem \[th1.1\] is complete.
Asymptotics expansions of the eigenvalues as $l\to+\infty$
==========================================================
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[th1.2\]. We begin with the proof of Item \[th1.2.it1\].
In accordance with Theorem \[th1.1\] all the eigenfunction of the operator $H_l$ have a certain parity on $x_1$. Thus, we may bisect the set $\Pi$ by a segment $\{0\}\times[-d,\pi]$ and impose on it Dirichlet or Neumann condition subject to the parity of an eigenfunction studied. Hence, we just to need to deal with the eigenvalue problem for the Laplacian in the right half of $\Pi$. In this problem we make the change of the variables by the rule $x_1\mapsto x_1-l$ what leads us to the problem on the spectrum of the Laplacian in a domain $\Pi^{*,l}:=\Pi\cap\{x: x_1>-l\}$ subject to appropriate boundary conditions. Below it will be shown that as $l\to+\infty$ such problem can be treated as a problem on perturbation of the operator $H_*$ defined in the first section. It will allow us to get the needed asymptotics expansions (\[1.7\]).
First we study the behaviour of the operator $(H_*-\lambda)^{-1}$ as $\lambda$ close to $\varkappa:=\frac{\pi}{\pi+d}$. In order to do it we will employ the same approach as that used in the third section.
We set $\Pi^*_a:=\Pi^*\cap\{x: |x_1|<a\}$, $\lambda=\varkappa^2+k^2$. For small complex $k\in {B}$ we consider the boundary value problem $$\begin{aligned}
&-\Delta u=(\varkappa^2+k^2)u+f,\quad x\in\Pi^*,\qquad u=0,\quad
x\in\partial\Pi^*,\label{5.1}
\\
&
\begin{aligned}
u(x,k)&=c(k)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} k x_1}\sin
\varkappa(x_2-\pi)+\mathcal{O}(
-\mathrm{e}^{-\sqrt{3\varkappa^2-k^2}x_1}),\quad x_1\to-\infty,
\\
u(x,k)&=\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{
e}^{-\sqrt{1-\varkappa^2-k^2}x_1}),\quad\hphantom{^2.}
x_1\to+\infty,\quad x_2\in(0,\pi),
\\
u(x,k)&=\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{
e}^{-\sqrt{\frac{\pi^2}{d^2}-\varkappa^2-k^2}x_1}),\quad
x_1\to+\infty,\quad x_2\in(-d,0).
\end{aligned}\label{5.2}\end{aligned}$$ Here $f\in L_2(\Pi^*)$ is a function whose supports lies in $\Pi_a^*$, $a>0$ is a some fixed number, $c(k)$ is a some constant. Let $g$ be a function from $L_2(\Pi_a^*)$ continued by zero in $\Pi^*\setminus\overline{\Pi^*_a}$. We denote $\Omega_0:=\Pi^*\cap\{x: x_1<0\}$. The boundary value problems $$\label{5.3}
-\Delta v_i=(\varkappa^2+k^2)v_i+g,\quad x\in\Omega_i, \qquad
v_i=0,\quad x\in\partial\Omega_i,\quad i=0,1,2,$$ are solved by separation of variables: $$\begin{aligned}
&v_i(x,k)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^\infty \int\limits_{\Omega_i}
G^i_{\!j}(x,t,k)g(t)\,dt,\label{5.4}
\\
&G_j^0(x,t,k):=\frac{1}{(\pi+d)s_j^0}\left(\mathrm{
e}^{-s_j^0|x_1-t_1|}- \mathrm{e}^{s_j^0(x_1+t_1)}\right)\sin j
\varkappa (x_2-\pi)\sin j \varkappa (t_2-\pi),\nonumber
\\
&G_j^1(x,t,k):=\frac{1}{\pi s_j^1}\left(\mathrm{
e}^{-s_j^1|x_1-t_1|}- \mathrm{e}^{-s_j^1(x_1+t_1)}\right)\sin j
x_2\sin j t_2,\nonumber
\\
&G_j^2(x,t,k):=\frac{1}{s_j^2
d}\left(\mathrm{e}^{-s_j^2|x_1-t_1|}-
\mathrm{e}^{-s_j^2(x_1+t_1)}\right)\sin \frac{\pi j}{d} x_2\sin
\frac{\pi j}{d} t_2,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $s_1^0=\mathrm{i}k$, $s_j^0=\sqrt{\varkappa^2
j^2-\varkappa^2-k^2}$, $j\geqslant 2$, $s_j^1=\sqrt{j^2-\varkappa^2-k^2}$, $s_j^2=\sqrt{\frac{\pi^2
j^2}{d^2}-\varkappa^2-k^2}$. As $k=0$ the function $G_1^0$ is defined by continuity: $$G_1^0(x,t,0):=-\frac{1}{(\pi+d)s_1^0}(|x_1-t_1|+x_1+t_1)\sin
\varkappa (x_2-\pi)\sin \varkappa (t_2-\pi).$$ We set $\Omega_0^b:=\Omega_0\cap\Pi_b$. An analogue of Lemma \[lm3.6\] holds true.
\[lm5.1\] Let $b>0$. The series (\[5.4\]) converge in the norm of $W_2^2(\Omega^b_i)$. The functions $v_i(x)$ meet the asymptotics formulas (\[5.2\]). The mapping $g\mapsto v_i$ are linear bounded operators from $L_2(\Pi_a^*)$ into $W_2^2(\Omega_i^b))$ as functions on $k$ belonging to $\mathcal{H}(L_2(\Pi_a^*),W_2^2(\Omega_i^b))$.
Let $v(x,k):=v_i(x,k)$, $x\in\Omega_i$. We introduce the function $w(x,k)$ as a solution to a boundary value problem $$\label{5.5}
\Delta w=\Delta v,\quad x\in\Pi_a^*, \qquad w=v,\quad
x\in\partial\Pi_a^*.$$ Here $\Delta v$ is treated in the same sense as in (\[3.5\]). We denote $\Gamma^*_a:=\partial\Pi^*\cap\{x: |x_1|<a\}$. The function $w$ can be regarded as $w=T_{11}v$, where $T_{11}:
\bigoplus\limits_{i=0}^2
W_2^2(\Omega_i^a,\partial\Omega_i^a\cap\partial\Omega_i)\to
W_2^1(\Pi_a^*,\Gamma^*_a)$ is a linear bounded operator. Moreover, the operator $T_{11}$ is bounded as an operator from $\bigoplus\limits_{i=0}^2
W_2^2(\Omega_i^a,\partial\Omega_i^a\cap\partial\Omega_i)$ into $W_2^2(Q)$ for each $Q\in\Xi^*$, where $\Xi^*$ is a subset of all bounded subdomains of $\Pi_*$ having smooth boundary and separated from zero by a positive distance. Let $\chi_5(x_1)$ be an infinitely differentiable cut-off function which equals one as $|x_1|<a/3$ and vanishes as $|x_1|>2a/3$. We define the function $u(x,k)$ by a rule: $$\label{5.6}
u(x,k):=w(x,k)\chi_5(x_1)+v(x,k)(1-\chi_5(x_1)).$$ The function $u$ is treated as a value of a linear operator $T_{12}(k)g$ defined by a rule $T_{12}(k)g:=u$. The operator $T_{12}: L_2(\Pi_a^*)\to W_2^1(\Pi_b^*,\Gamma_b^*)$, $T_{12}:
L_2(\Pi_a^*)\to W_2^2(Q)$ is bounded for all $b>0$ and each $Q\in\Xi^*$. Moreover, $T_{12}(\cdot)\in
\mathcal{H}\left(L_2(\Pi_a^*), W_2^1(\Pi_b^*,\Gamma_b^*)\right)$ and $T_{12}(\cdot)\in \mathcal{H}(L_2(\Pi_a^*),W_2^2(Q))$ for all $b>0$ and each $Q\in\Xi^*$.
By analogy with the deriving the equation (\[3.8\]) it can be shown that the function $u$ from (\[5.6\]) is a solution to the boundary value problem (\[5.1\]), (\[5.2\]), if $u$ is a solution to the equation $$\label{5.7}
g+T_{13}(k)g=f,$$ where $$T_{13}(k)g:=(v-w)\left(\Delta+\varkappa^2+k^2\right)\chi_5(x_1)+
2\left(\nabla_x \chi_5, \nabla_x(v-w)\right)_{\mathbb{R}^2}.$$ By analogy with Lemmas \[lm3.1\]-\[lm3.3\] one can establish the following statement.
\[lm5.2\] The operator $T_{13}(k)$ is a linear compact operator from $L_2(\Pi^*_a)$ into $L_2(\Pi^*_a)$ for all $k\in{B}$ and $T_{13}(\cdot)\in\mathcal{H}(L_2(\Pi^*_a),L_2(\Pi^*_a))$. For each $k\in {B}$ the equation (\[5.7\]) is equivalent to the boundary value problem (\[5.1\]), (\[5.2\]). Namely, for each solution of the equation (\[5.7\]) the function $u=T_{12}(k)g$ is a solution to the boundary value problem (\[5.1\]), (\[5.2\]), and for each solution $u$ to the boundary value problem (\[5.1\]), (\[5.2\]) there exists the unique solution $g$ of the equation (\[5.7\]) related with $u$ by the equality $u=T_{12}(k)g$. The belonging $(I+T_{13}(\cdot))^{-1}\in \mathcal{M}(L_2(\Pi_a^*),
L_2(\Pi_a^*))$ holds true.
As in the third section, we are interesting in the behaviour of the operator $(I+T_{13}(k))^{-1}$ for small $k$, namely, we are interested in the presence of the pole at the point $k=0$. As the next statement shows, in distinction to Lemma \[lm3.5\], here the answer is always negative.
\[lm5.3\] If the vicinity ${B}$ of the zero is small enough, then $(I+T_{13}(\cdot))^{-1}\in \mathcal{H}(L_2(\Pi_a^*),
L_2(\Pi_a^*))$.
Clear, it is sufficient to prove the absence of the pole of the operator $(I+T_{13}(k))^{-1}$. The presence of pole is equivalent to the existence of a nontrivial solution of the equation (\[5.7\]) as $k=0$, $f=0$. The latter is equivalent to the presence of nontrivial solution to the boundary value problem (\[5.1\]) meeting the asymptotics formulas (\[5.2\]). Suppose that there exists such solution to the boundary value problem (\[5.1\]) and denote it by $U(x)$. The function $U$ can be chosen being real-valued. Moreover, at the point $x=0$ the function $U$ possess the following asymptotic behaviour $$U(x)=\alpha r^{1/2}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}+\mathcal{O}(r),\quad
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}U(x)=\alpha
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}
r^{1/2}\sin\frac{\theta}{2}+\mathcal{O}(r),\quad r\to0,$$ where $(r,\theta)$ are polar coordinates associated with $x$. These asymptotics representations can be proven in analogy with Lemma \[lm4.2\]. Integrating by parts and taking into account these asymptotics and (\[5.2\]), we obtain $$0=\int\limits_{\Pi^*} x_1 U(\Delta+\varkappa^2)\frac{\partial
U}{\partial x_1}\,dx= 2\int\limits_{\Pi^*}\left|\frac{\partial
U}{\partial x_1}\right|^2\,dx.$$ This implies that the function $U$ is independent on $x_1$, what in view of the asymptotics representations (\[5.2\]) taken as $x_1\to+\infty$ leads us to the equality $U=0$. The proof is complete.
As it was mentioned in the beginning of the section, the eigenvalues of the operator $H_l$ coincides with those of a pair of boundary value problems $$\label{5.8}
-\Delta \Psi=\lambda\Psi,\quad x\in\Pi^{*,l},\qquad \Psi=0,\quad
x\in\partial\Pi^{*,l}\setminus K_l,\qquad pu=0,\quad x\in K_l,$$ where $K_l:=\{x: x_1=-l, x_2\in(-d,0)\}$, $p$ is a boundary operator which is $pu=u$ or $pu=\frac{\partial u}{\partial
x_1}$. As $x_1\to\pm\infty$ a function $\Psi$ is assumed to meet the asymptotics representations (\[5.2\]) with $k=\sqrt{\lambda-\varkappa^2}$. The eigenfunctions of the operator $H_l$ are related with those of the boundary value problem (\[5.8\]) by the equalities $\Psi_m(x)=\psi_m(x_1+l,x_2)$, $x_1>-l$, this is why the boundary operator $p$ gives the Dirichlet condition in the case of odd on $x_1$ functions $\psi_m(x)$ and Neumann condition in the case of even on $x_1$ functions $\psi_m(x)$.
Our main aim at this stage is to reduce the boundary value problem (\[5.8\]) to an operator equation similar to (\[5.7\]). In order to do it we again employ the approach which allowed us to get the equation (\[5.7\]). We start with the case $pu=u$. Suppose that $l>a$. We define the function $v_0^l$ as a solution to the boundary value problem $$\begin{gathered}
-\Delta v_0^l=(\varkappa^2+k^2)v_0^l,\quad x\in\Omega_0^l,
\\
v_0^l=0,\quad x\in\partial\Omega_0^l\setminus K_l,\qquad
v_0^l=-v_0,\quad x\in K_l.\end{gathered}$$ A solution of such problem in view of the formula (\[5.4\]) is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
&v_0^l(x,k)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^\infty \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-s_j^0
l}}{\sh s_j^0 l} \beta_j(k)[g]\sh s_j^0 x_1 \sin \varkappa
j(x_2-\pi),\label{5.10}
\\
&\beta_j(k)[g]=-\frac{2}{(\pi+d) s_j^0} \int\limits_{\Omega_0^a}
g(x)\sh s_j^0 x_1 \sin j\varkappa(x_2-\pi)\,dx.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The first term of this series contains the function $\sh
s_j^0l=\mathrm{i}\sin kl$ in the denominator. This function vanishes as $kl=\pi q$, $q\in \mathbb{Z}$. At the same time, in accordance with Item \[th1.1.it1\] of Theorem \[th1.1\] the values $k$ corresponding to the eigenvalues of the operator $H_l$ lie strictly inside the intervals $(\frac{\pi (m-1)}{2l},
\frac{\pi m}{2l})$. This is why the values $k=\frac{\pi m}{2l}$ are excluded from the consideration what allows us to avoid indefiniteness in (\[5.10\]).
By analogy with Lemma \[lm3.6\] one can prove that the series (\[5.10\]) converge in the norm of $W_2^2(\Omega_0^l)$. We set $v^l(x,k):=v^l_0(x,k)$, $-l<x_1<0$, $v^l(x,k):=0$, $x_1>0$. We define the function $w^l$ as the solution to the boundary value problem (\[5.5\]) with the function $v^l$ in the right-hand side, i.e., $w^l=T_{11}v^l$. A solution to the boundary value problem (\[5.8\]) is sought as $$\label{5.13}
\Psi(x):=\left(w(x)+w^l(x)\right)\chi_5(x_1)+\left(1-\chi_5(x_1)\right)
\left(v(x)+v^l(x)\right),$$ where $v(x)$, $w(x)$ are from (\[5.3\]), (\[5.5\]). The function $\Psi(x)$ satisfies the boundary conditions (\[5.8\]), meets the asymptotics formulas (\[5.2\]) as $x_1\to+\infty$ and is a solution of the equation in (\[5.8\]), if the operator equation $$\label{5.11}
g+T_{13}(k)g+T_{14}(k,l)g=0,$$ holds true, where the operator $T_{14}(k,l)$ is defined by a rule: $$T_{14}(k,l)g:=(v^l-w^l)\left(\Delta+\varkappa^2+k^2\right)\chi_5(x_1)+
2\left(\nabla \chi_5, \nabla (v^l-w^l)\right)_{\mathbb{R}^2}.$$ The equation (\[5.11\]) is equivalent to the boundary value problem (\[5.8\]), what can be proved by analogy with Lemma \[lm3.6\].
Let $k=k(l)$ correspond to an eigenvalue $\lambda_m(l)$ of the operator $H_l$ by the rule $\lambda_m(l)=\varkappa^2+k^2(l)$, and a corresponding solution $g$ of the equation (\[5.11\]) generates an eigenfunction $\Psi_m$ in accordance with (\[5.13\]). It follows from Lemma \[lm1.1\] that each eigenvalue of the operator $H_l$ tends to $\varkappa$ as $l\to+\infty$, i.e., $k(l)\xrightarrow[l\to+\infty]{}0$. Therefore, choosing $l$ great enough, we can always make $k(l)$ to belong ${B}$ for $l$ great enough. In what follows the value $l$ is assumed to chosen in such a way.
We denote $\widehat v(x,k):=\sin kx_1\sin \varkappa(x_2-\pi)$, $x_1<0$, $\widehat v(x,k):=0$, $x_1>0$, $\widehat w:=T_{11}
\widehat v$, $$\widehat F:=(\widehat v-\widehat
w)\left(\Delta+\varkappa^2+k^2\right)\chi_5+ 2\left(\nabla
\chi_5, \nabla (\widehat v-\widehat w)\right)_{\mathbb{R}^2}.$$
\[lm5.4\] As $k$ small enough the operator $T_{14}$ can be represented as: $$T_{14}(k,l)=T_{15}(k,l)+T_{16}(k,l),\qquad
T_{15}(k,l)g=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}kl}}{\sin
kl}\beta_0(k)[g]\widehat F,$$ where the operator $T_{16}(k,l)\in
\mathcal{L}(L_2(\Pi_a^*),L_2(\Pi_a^*))$ obeys an estimate: $$\|T_{16}\|\leqslant C\mathrm{e}^{-(2\sqrt{3}\varkappa-\delta)l}.$$ Here $C$, $\delta$ are some constants independent on $l$, $0<\delta<2\sqrt{3}\varkappa$.
The statement of this lemma follows easily from the definition of the function $v_0^l$ (see (\[5.10\])) and the definition of the operator $T_{14}$.
In view of Lemma \[lm5.4\] the equation (\[5.11\]) can be rewritten as: $$\label{5.30}
g+T_{13}(k)g+T_{15}(k,l)g+T_{16}(k,l)g=0.$$ The operator $(I+T_{13}(k))$ has the bounded inverse due to Lemma \[lm5.3\], and the operator $T_{16}(k,l)$ is exponentially small as $l\to+\infty$ in view of Lemma \[lm5.4\]. Therefore, the operator $(I+T_{13}(k)+T_{16}(k,l))^{-1}$ has also the bounded inverse for $l$ large enough. We apply this operator to (\[5.30\]), what results in: $$g+\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}kl}}{\sin
kl}\beta_0(k)[g](I+T_{13}(k)+T_{16}(k,l))^{-1}\widehat
F=0.\label{5.14}$$ It is clear that $\beta_0(k)[g]\not=0$, since otherwise it would follow from the equation obtained that $g=0$, while $g$ corresponds to the eigenfunction $\Psi_m$. Applying now the functional $\beta_0(k)[g]$ to (\[5.14\]), we arrive at the equation $$\label{5.15}
1+\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}kl}}{\sin
kl}\beta_0(k)\left[(I+T_{13}(k)+T_{16}(k,l))^{-1} \widehat
F\right]=0.$$ Directly from the definition of the function $\widehat F$ and Lemmas \[lm5.3\], \[lm5.4\] it follows the equality $$\beta_0(k)\left[(I+T_{13}(k)+T_{16}(k,l))^{-1} \widehat
F\right]=
ck+O\left(k^2+\mathrm{e}^{-(2\sqrt{3}\varkappa-\delta)l}\right),\label{5.17}$$ where $c$ is a some constant, $\delta$ is the same as in Lemma \[lm5.4\]. Since $k=k(l)$ corresponds to the eigenvalue $\lambda_m$, from Lemma \[lm1.1\] it follows that $k(l)=\mathcal{O}(l^{-1})$ as $l\to+\infty$. Taking into account this equality and the realness of $k$, we substitute (\[5.17\]) into (\[5.15\]): $$\label{5.26}
\sin kl=\mathcal{O}(l^{-1}),$$ what implies $$\label{5.27}
kl=\pi q+\mathcal{O}(l^{-1}),\quad q\in \mathbb{Z}.$$ In view of Item \[th1.1.it1\] of Theorem \[th1.1\] the index $m$ of the eigenvalue $\lambda_m$ must be even and a two-sided estimate $$\frac{\pi(m-1)}{2}\leqslant\pi q\leqslant\frac{\pi m}{2}$$ should take place. The index $m$ being even, it follows that $q=m/2$, what by (\[5.27\]) and the equality $\lambda_m(l)=\varkappa^2+k^2(l)$ proves the asymptotics expansions (\[1.7\]).
The case of even on $x_1$ function $\psi_m$ can be proved in the same way. The function $v_0^l$ should be chosen as a solution to the boundary value problem $$\begin{gathered}
-\Delta v_0^l=(\varkappa^2+k^2)v_0^l,\quad x\in\Omega_0^l,
\\
v_0^l=0,\quad x\in\partial\Omega_0^l\setminus K_l,\qquad
\frac{\partial v_0^l}{\partial x_1}=-\frac{\partial
v_0}{\partial x_1},\quad x\in\partial\Omega_0^l,\end{gathered}$$ which is solved by separation of variables $$v_0^l(x,k)=-\sum\limits_{j=1}^\infty \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-s_j^0
l}}{\ch s_j^0 l} \beta_j(k)[g]\sh s_j^0 x_1 \sin \varkappa
j(x_2-\pi),$$ where $\beta_j(k)$ are same as in (\[5.10\]). The other arguments are valid till Lemma \[lm5.4\], if by $v_l^0$ we mean the function just defined. The statement of Lemma \[lm5.4\] is valid as well, if by $T_{15}$ we mean the operator $$T_{15}(k,l)g=-\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}kl}}{\cos
kl}\beta_0(k)[g]\widehat F.$$ The deduction of the analogue of equation (\[5.15\]) needs no changes. In this case it is of the form: $$1-\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i}kl}}{\cos
kl}\beta_0(k)\left[(I+T_{13}(k)+T_{16}(k,l))^{-1} \widehat
F\right]=0.$$ Using this equation, one can easily obtain an analogue of the equation (\[5.26\]): $$\cos kl=\mathcal{O}(l^{-1}),$$ what gives the equality $$kl=\frac{\pi}{2}+\pi q+\mathcal{O}(l^{-1}),\quad q\in\mathbb{Z}.$$ Again due to Item \[th1.1.it1\] of Theorem \[th1.1\] the index $m$ of the eigenvalue $\lambda_m$ should be odd and inequalities $$\frac{\pi (m-1)}{2}\leqslant\frac{\pi}{2}+\pi q\leqslant
\frac{\pi m}{2}$$ should take place. This implies that $q=(m-1)/2$. It proves the asymptotics expansions in the case of even on $x_1$ eigenfunction $\psi_m$. The proof of Item \[th1.2.it1\] of Theorem \[th1.2\] is complete.
We proceed to the proof of Item \[th1.2.it2\] of Theorem \[th1.2\]. Let $\xi$ be an arbitrary point of the segment $[\varkappa,1)$. For each value $l$ we choose the number $m=m(l,\xi)$ so that the belonging $\xi\in[\Lambda_{m-1},\Lambda_m)$ be valid. Then by Item \[th1.1.it1\] of Theorem \[th1.1\] the estimate $$|\lambda_{m(l,\xi)}(l)-\xi|\leqslant
\Lambda_m-\Lambda_{m-1}=\frac{\pi^2(2m-1)}{4l^2}$$ takes place. Since $\Lambda_{m-1}\leqslant\xi<1$, it follows that $$m\leqslant 1+\frac{2l\sqrt{1-\varkappa^2}}{\pi}.$$ Two last estimates yield: $$|\lambda_{m(l,\xi)}(l)-\xi|\leqslant
\frac{\pi^2}{4l^2}\left(1+\frac{4l\sqrt{1-\varkappa^2}}{\pi}\right),$$ what implies that $\lambda_{m(l,\xi)}\to\xi$ as $l\to+\infty$. The proof of Theorem \[th1.2\] is complete.
The author thanks R. Gadyl’shin, P. Exner and T. Weidl for discussion of the work and useful remarks.
[99]{}
P. Exner, P. Šeba, M. Tater, D. Vaněk. Bound states and scattering in quantum waveguides coupled laterally through a boundary window // J. Math. Phys. 1996. V. 37. No. 10. P. 4867-4887.
Y. Hirayama, Y. Tokura, A.D. Wieck, S. Koch, R.J. Haug, K. von Klitzing, K. Ploog. Transport characteristics of a window-coupled in-plane-gated wire system // Physical Review B. 1993. V. 48. No. 11. P. 7991-7998.
W. Bulla, F. Gesztesy, W. Renger, B. Simon. Weakly coupled bound states in quantum waveguides // Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 1997. V. 125. No. 5. P. 1487-1495.
P. Exner and S. Vugalter. Asymptotics estimates for bound states in quantum waveguides coupled laterally through a narrow window // Ann. Inst. H. Poincare. 1996. V. 65. No. 1. P. 109-123.
P. Exner and S. Vugalter. Bound-state asymptotic estimate for window-coupled Dirichlet strips and layers // J. Phys. A. 1997. V. 30. No. 22. P. 7863-7878.
I.Yu. Popov. Asymptotics of bound states for laterally coupled waveguides // Reports on Mathematical Physics. 1999. V. 43. No. 3. P. 427-437.
R. Gadyl’shin. On regular and singular perturbation of acoustic and quantum waveguides // Comptes Rendus Mechanique. 2004. V. 332. No. 8. P. 647-652.
D. Borisov, P. Exner and R. Gadyl’shin. Geometric coupling thresholds in a two-dimensional strip // J. Math. Phys. 2002. V. 43. No. 12. P. 6265-6278.
Ch. Kunze. Leaky and mutually coupled wires // Physical Review B. 1993. V. 48. No. 19. P. 14338-14346.
J. Dittrich and J. Kříž. Bound states in straight quantum waveguide with combined boundary condition // J. Math. Phys. 2002. V. 43. No. 8. P. 3892-3915.
D. Borisov, T. Ekholm and H. Kovařík. Spectrum of the magnetic Schrödinger operator in a waveguide with combined boundary conditions // Ann. H. Poincare. 2005. V. 6. No. 2. P. 327-342.
M.S. Birman. Perturbation of the continuous spectrum of a singular elliptic operator under a change of the boundary and the boundary condition // Vestnik Leningradskogo universiteta. 1962. V. 17. No. 1. P. 22-55.
R.A. Adams. Sobolev Spaces. N.Y.: Academic Press. 1975.
V.P. Mikhajlov. Partial differential equations. Moscow: Mir Publishers, 1978.
J. Blank, P. Exner and M. Havliček. Hilbert Space Operators in Quantum Physics. N.Y.: AIP Press, 1994.
T. Kato. Perturbation theory for linear operators. N.Y.: Springer-Verlag, 1966.
M. Reed, B. Simon. Methods of modern mathematical physics. IV: Analysis of operators. N.Y.: Academic Press, 1978.
D. Borisov and P. Exner. Exponential splitting of bound states in a waveguide with a pair of distant windows // J. Phys. A. 2004. V. 37. No. 10. P. 3411-3428.
E. Sanchez-Palencia. Homogenization Techniques for Composite Media. Berlin-New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987.
Gadyl’shin R.R. Local Perturbations of the Schrödinger Operator on the Axis // Theor. Math. Phys. 2002. V. 132. No. 1. P. 976-982.
R.R. Gadyl’shin. On local perturbations of the Schroedinger operator on the plane // Theor. Math. Phys. 2004. V. 138. No. 1. P. 33-44.
A.M. Il’in. Matching of Asymptotic Expansions of Solutions of Boundary Value Problems. Amer. Mat. Soc., Providence, RI, 1992.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Revised Version of 11 September 2011
[**Brou[é]{}’s abelian defect group conjecture holds\
for the sporadic simple Conway group [Co]{}$_3$**]{}
[$^{\text a,*}$, [**J[ü]{}rgen M[ü]{}ller**]{}$^{\text b}$, [**Felix Noeske**]{}$^{\text c}$ ]{}
[*${^{\mathrm{a}}}$Department of Mathematics, Graduate School of Science,\
Chiba University, Chiba, 263-8522, Japan\
${^{\mathrm{b, \, c}}}$Lehrstuhl D f[ü]{}r Mathematik, RWTH Aachen University, 52062, Aachen, Germany*]{}
[^1]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction and notation {#intro}
=========================
In the representation theory of finite groups, one of the most important and interesting problems is to give an affirmative answer to a conjecture which was introduced by Brou[é]{} around 1988 [@Broue1990], and is nowadays called [*Brou[é]{}’s Abelian Defect Group Conjecture*]{}. He actually conjectures the following:
\[Strong version of Broué’s Abelian Defect Group Conjecture [@Broue1990], [@KoenigZimmermann]\] \[ADGC\] Let $p$ be a prime, and let $(\mathcal K, \mathcal O, k)$ be a splitting $p$-modular system for all subgroups of a finite group $G$. Assume that $A$ is a block algebra of $\mathcal OG$ with a defect group $P$ and that $A_N$ is a block algebra of $\mathcal ON_G(P)$ such that $A_N$ is the Brauer correspondent of $A$, where $N_G(P)$ is the normaliser of $P$ in $G$. Then $A$ and $A_N$ should be derived equivalent (Rickard equivalent) provided $P$ is abelian.
In fact, a stronger conclusion than [**\[ADGC\]**]{} is expected, namely that $A$ and $A_N$ are [*splendidly Rickard equivalent*]{} in the sense of Linckelmann ([@Linckelmann1998], [@Linckelmann2001]), which he calls [*splendidly derived equivalent*]{}, see [**\[equiv\]**]{}. Note that for principal block algebras, this notion coincides with the splendid equivalence given by Rickard in [@Rickard1996].
\[Rickard [@Rickard1996], [@Rickard1998]\] \[RickardConjecture\] Keeping the notation, we suppose that $P$ is abelian as in [**\[ADGC\]**]{}. Then there should be a splendid Rickard equivalence between the block algebras $A$ of $\mathcal OG$ and $A_N$ of $\mathcal ON_G(P)$.
There are several cases where the conjectures [**\[ADGC\]**]{} and [**\[RickardConjecture\]**]{} of Brou[é]{} and Rickard, respectively, have been verified, albeit the general conjecture is widely open; for an overview, containing suitable references, see [@ChuangRickard]. As for general results concerning blocks with a fixed defect group, by [@Linckelmann1991], [@Rickard1989], [@Rouquier1995], and [@Rouquier1998] the conjectures are proved for blocks with cyclic defect groups in arbitrary characteristic; in characteristic $2$, by [@Linckelmann1994a], [@Linckelmann1994b], [@Rickard1996], and [@Rouquier2001] they are known to hold for blocks with elementary abelian defect groups of order $4$, but already the case of elementary abelian defect groups of order $8$ is open in general. At least for [*principal*]{} blocks in characteristic $2$ it has been already known (at least for experts) that [**\[ADGC\]**]{} and [**\[RickardConjecture\]**]{} hold by using a lifting method [@Marcus 9.1.(3)], and recently a new lifting method was found [@CraRou Theorem 4.33].
In the present paper we look at the case where a non-principal block $A$ has an elementary abelian defect group $P$ of order $8$, namely, $P = C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2$. The numbers of irreducible ordinary characters $k(A)$ and of irreducible Brauer characters $\ell(A)$, respectively, are important in block theory. For the principal $2$-blocks they have been known for some time, see [@Koshitani1980] and [@Landrock1981], for instance. However, only recently, the numbers of irreducible ordinary characters $k(A)$ and of irreducible Brauer characters $\ell(A)$ for non-principal $2$-blocks have been determined in general, see [@KessarKoshitaniLinckelmann2010]. In [@KessarKoshitaniLinckelmann2010] it is proved with the help of the classification of finite simple groups, that Alperin’s weight conjecture and also the [*weak*]{} version ([*character theoretic*]{} version) of Brou[é]{}’s abelian defect group conjecture for arbitrary $2$-blocks with defect group $C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2$ are both true. The [*strong*]{} version of Brou[é]{}’s abelian defect group conjecture, namely, the existence of Rickard splendid equivalences between blocks corresponding via the Brauer correspondence for arbitrary $2$-blocks with defect group $C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2$, is still open. There are four cases for the inertial index $e$ of $A$ with the defect group $P = C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2$. Namely, $e = 1, 3, 7$ or $21$, since ${\mathrm{Aut}}(P) \cong {\operatorname{GL}}_3(2)$ has a unique maximal $2'$-subgroup, up to conjugacy, which is isomorphic to the Frobenius group $F_{21} = C_7 \rtimes C_3$ of order $21$. For the cases where $e = 1$ everything is known because the blocks are nilpotent, see Brou[é]{}-Puig [@BrouePuig1980-Inv]. For the case $e = 3$, there are results of Landrock [@Landrock1981] and Watanabe [@Watanabe].
Our objective in this paper now is to investigate a non-principal $2$-block with elementary abelian defect group $P$ of order $8$, which has inertial index $21$. An interesting candidate for this endeavour is the non-principal $2$-block of Conway’s third group ${\sf Co}_3$, for which we investigate whether the [*strong*]{} version of Brou[é]{}’s abelian defect group conjecture holds; for previous results on $\mathsf{Co}_3$, its defect groups, and $2$-modular characters confer [@Fendel p.193 Table 6], [@Landrock1978 §7 p.1879], [@Landrock1981 Theorems 3.10 and 3.11], and [@SuleimanWilson], for example. We remark that, as far as the quasi-simple groups related to the sporadic simple groups are concerned, this is the only $2$-block for which Brou[é]{}’s abelian defect group conjecture is not yet known to hold, since within this class of groups all other abelian $2$-blocks are either cyclic or of Klein four defect, see [@Noeske].
Our main theorem of this paper is the following:
\[MainTheorem\] Let $G$ be the sporadic simple Conway group ${\sf Co}_3$, and let $(\mathcal K, \mathcal O, k)$ be a splitting $2$-modular system for all subgroups of $G$, see [**\[notation\]**]{}. Suppose that $A$ is a non-principal block algebra of $\mathcal OG$ with a defect group $P$ which is an elementary abelian group of order $8$, and that $A_N$ is a block algebra of $\mathcal ON_G(P)$ such that $A_N$ is the Brauer correspondent of $A$. Then $A$ and $A_N$ are splendidly Rickard equivalent, and hence the conjectures [**\[ADGC\]**]{} and [**\[RickardConjecture\]**]{} of Brou[é]{} and Rickard both hold.
Actually, [**\[MainTheorem\]**]{} is the last tile in the mosaic proving both Broué’s abelian defect group conjecture and Rickard’s conjecture for $\mathsf{Co}_3$ in arbitrary characteristic. Since $|G|
= 2^{10}{\cdot}3^7{\cdot}5^3{\cdot}7{\cdot}11{\cdot}23$, see [@Atlas p.134], as the conjectures are proved for blocks with cyclic defect groups, it is sufficient to consider the primes $p \in
\{ 2, 3, 5 \}$. For odd $p$ the only block with defect at least 2 is the principal block, whose defect groups are not abelian. For $p = 2$ there is precisely a unique block with a non-cyclic abelian defect group. Its defect group is isomorphic to $C_2\times C_2\times C_2$ (see [@ModularAtlasProject $\mathsf{Co}_3$], [@Landrock1978 p.1879] and [@SuleimanWilson p.494 §2]). Therefore we may state the following immediate consequence of [**\[MainTheorem\]**]{}:
\[ADGC-Co3\] The strong version of Broué’s abelian defect group conjecture [**\[ADGC\]**]{} and even Rickard’s splendid equivalence conjecture [**\[RickardConjecture\]**]{} are true for all primes $p$ and for all block algebras of $\mathcal OG$ if $G = {\sf Co}_3$.
As a matter of fact, the main result [**\[MainTheorem\]**]{} is obtained by proving the following:
\[2ndMainTheorem\] We keep the notation and the assumption as in [**\[MainTheorem\]**]{}. Let $H$ be a maximal subgroup of $G$ with $H = R(3) \times \mathfrak S_3 \geqslant N_G(P)$, where $R(3) = {^2}{G_2(3)} \cong {\mathrm{SL}}_2(8) \rtimes C_3$ is the smallest Ree group, $\mathfrak S_3$ is the symmetric group on $3$ letters, and $C_3$ is the cyclic group of order $3$. Let $B$ be a block algebra of $\mathcal OH$ such that $B$ is the Brauer correspondent of $A$, see [@NagaoTsushima Chap.5 Theorem 3.8]. In addition, let $\mathfrak f$ denote the Green correspondence with respect to $(G \times G, \Delta P, G \times H)$, and let $M = \mathfrak f(A)$. Then $M$ induces a Morita equivalence between $A$ and $B$, and hence it is a Puig equivalence.
The following result is used to get [**\[corollary-R(q)\]**]{} from our main result [**\[2ndMainTheorem\]**]{}.
\[Landrock-Michler [@LandrockMichler1980] and Okuyama [@Okuyama1997]\] \[LandrockMichlerOkuyama\] Let $p = 2$, and let $R(q) = {^2}{G_2}(q)$ be a Ree group, where $q = 3^{2n+1}$ for some $n = 0, 1, 2, \cdots$. Let $(\mathcal K, \mathcal O, k)$ be a splitting $2$-modular system for all subgroups of $R(q)$, for all $q$ at the same time, see [@Willems Theorem 3.6], and let $B_0(\mathcal O R(q))$ be the principal block algebra of the group algebra $\mathcal OR(q)$. Then the block algebras $B_0(\mathcal O R(3))$ and $B_0(\mathcal O R(q))$ are Puig equivalent. In particular, Brou[é]{}’s abelian defect group conjecture [**\[ADGC\]**]{} and Rickard’s conjecture [**\[RickardConjecture\]**]{} hold for the principal block algebras of $R(q)$ for any $q$.
This follows from [@LandrockMichler1980 Theorem 5.3] and [@Okuyama1997 Example 3.3 and Remark 3.4].
\[corollary-R(q)\] We keep the notation and the assumption as in [**\[MainTheorem\]**]{}. Let $R(q) = {^2}{G_2}(q)$ be a Ree group, where $q = 3^{2n+1}$ for some $n = 0, 1, 2, \cdots$. We may assume that $(\mathcal K, \mathcal O, k)$ also is a splitting $2$-modular system for all subgroups of $R(q)$, for all $q$ at the same time. Let $B_0(\mathcal OR(q))$ be the principal block algebra of the group algebra $\mathcal OR(q)$. Then $A$ and $B_0(\mathcal O R(q))$ are Puig equivalent.
Our starting point for this work is the observation that the $2$-decomposition matrix for the non-principal block $A$ of ${\sf Co}_3$ with an elementary abelian defect group of order $8$, see [@SuleimanWilson], is exactly the same as that for the principal $2$-block $B$ of $R(3) \cong {\operatorname{SL}}_2(8) \rtimes C_3$, see [@LandrockMichler1980]. Therefore it is natural to ask whether these two $2$-block algebras are Morita equivalent not only over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic $2$ but also over a complete discrete valuation ring $\mathcal O$ whose residue field is $k$. Furthermore, one might even expect that they are [*Puig equivalent*]{}, see [**\[equiv\]**]{}. If this is the case, since the two conjectures of Broué and Rickard [**\[ADGC\]**]{} and [**\[RickardConjecture\]**]{} respectively have been shown to hold for the principal $2$-block of $R(3)$ in a paper of Okuyama [@Okuyama1997], it follows that these conjectures also hold for the non-principal $2$-block of ${\sf Co}_3$ with the same defect group $P = C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2$.
The verification that $A$ and $B$ are indeed Morita equivalent relies on theorems by Linckelmann, Brou[é]{}, Rickard and Rouquier. Linckelmann has shown in [@Linckelmann1996MathZ] that a stable equivalence of Morita type between $A$ and $B$ which maps simple modules to simple modules is in fact a Morita equivalence, see [**[\[StableIndecomposableMorita\]]{}**]{}. To obtain an appropriate stable equivalence, we employ a variant of a “gluing” theorem, which is due to (originally Brou[é]{} [@Broue1994 6.3.Theorem]), Rickard [@Rickard1996 Theorem 4.1], Rouquier [@Rouquier2001 Theorems 5.6 and 6.3, Remark 6.4], and Linckelmann, see [@Linckelmann1998], [@Linckelmann2009] and [**[\[gluing\]]{}**]{}: A stable equivalence between two blocks $A$ and $B$ may be deduced from Morita equivalences between unique blocks of the centralisers of non-trivial subgroups of $P$ in ${\sf Co}_3$ and $R(3)$. Once we have obtained a stable equivalence of Morita type between $A$ and $B$, it remains to show that it preserves simplicity of modules as stated above. Usually this may be a very hard task.
The paper is structured as follows: In Section \[pre\], we give the fundamental lemmas which are used to prove our main results. Furthermore, we establish some properties of the stable equivalences we consider, and collect some further results on Morita equivalences and Green correspondence for ease of reference. In Section \[Non-principal2-blocks\] we investigate non-principal $2$-blocks of the symmetric group $\mathfrak S_5$ and the Mathieu group $\sf{M}_{12}$ whose structure will be used later on in order to get our main theorems. In Section \[co3\] the main objective is to construct the stable equivalence of Morita type between the blocks $A$ and $B$ as outlined above. In order to apply gluing theorems of Rouquier and Linckelmann **\[gluing\]**, we begin by analysing the 2-local structure of $\mathsf{Co}_3$ to identify the groups. Then, we combine this knowledge and what we get already in Section \[Non-principal2-blocks\] to give a stable equivalence $F$ as saught. Section \[blocks\] prepares the proof that $F$ maps simple $A$-modules to simple $B$-modules. In order to prove this fact, we collect information on simple and indecomposable modules in the three blocks $A$, $B$, and $A_N$. In Section \[img\] we determine the $F$-images of the simple $A$-modules, thus showing that they are indeed all simple. Finally, in Section \[proof\] we combine the previous results to give complete proofs of our main theorems [**\[MainTheorem\]**]{}, [**\[ADGC-Co3\]**]{}, [**\[2ndMainTheorem\]**]{} and [**\[corollary-R(q)\]**]{}. At the end of the paper, we have collected several useful properties of the stable equivalences obtained through [**\[gluing\]**]{}.
A few words on computer calculations are in order. To find our results, next to theoretical reasoning we have to rely fairly heavily on computations. Of course, many of the data contained in explicit libraries and databases are of computational nature, and quite a few traces of further computer calculations are still left in the present exposition. But we would like to point out that we have found many of our intermediate results by explicit computations first, which have subsequently been replaced by more theoretical arguments.
As tools, we use the computer algebra system [GAP]{} [@GAP], to calculate with permutation groups and tables of marks, as well as with ordinary and Brauer characters. We also make use of the data library [@CTblLib], in particular allowing for easy access to the data compiled in [@Atlas], [@ModularAtlas] and [@ModularAtlasProject], and of the interface [@AtlasRepresentation] to the data library [@ModularAtlasRepresentation]. Moreover, we use the computer algebra system [MeatAxe]{} [@MA] to handle matrix representations over finite fields, as well as its extensions to compute submodule lattices [@LuxMueRin], radical and socle series [@LuxWie], homomorphism spaces and endomorphism rings [@LuxSzoke], and direct sum decompositions [@LuxSzokeII]. We give more comments later on where necessary.
\[notation\] Throughout this paper, we use the standard notation and terminology as is used in [@NagaoTsushima], [@Thevenaz] and [@Atlas].
Let $k$ be a field and assume that $A$ and $B$ are finite dimensional $k$-algebras. We denote by $\mathrm{mod}{\text -}A$, $A{\text -}\mathrm{mod}$ and $A{\text -}\mathrm{mod}{\text -}B$ the categories of finitely generated right $A$-modules, left $A$-modules and $(A,B)$-bimodules, respectively. We write $M_A$, $_AM$ and $_AM_B$ when $M$ is a right $A$-module, a left $A$-module and an $(A,B)$-bimodule. In this note, a module always refers to a finitely generated right module, unless stated otherwise. We let $M^\vee =\Hom_A(M_A, A_A)$ be the $A$-dual of $M$, so that $M^\vee$ becomes a left $A$-module via $(a\phi)(m) = a{\cdot}\phi(m)$ for $a \in A$, $\phi \in M^\vee$ and $m \in M$, and we let $M^\circledast =\Hom_k(M, k)$ be the $k$-dual of $M$, so that $M^\circledast$ becomes a left $A$-module as well via $(a\phi)(m) = \phi(ma)$ for $a \in A$, $\phi \in M^\circledast$ and $m \in M$. For $A$-modules $M$ and $N$ we write $[M,N]^A$ for $\mathrm{dim}_k[\mathrm{Hom}_{A}(M,N)]$. We fix for a while an $A$-module $M$. Then, for a projective cover $P(S)$ of a simple $A$-module $S$, we write $[P(S) \mid M]^A$ for the multiplicity of direct summands of $M$ which are isomorphic to $P(S)$. We denote by ${\mathrm{soc}}(M)$ and ${\mathrm{rad}}(M)$ the socle and the radical of $M$, respectively, and hence ${\mathrm{rad}}(M) = M{\cdot}{\mathrm{rad}}(A)$. For simple $A$-modules $S_1, \cdots, S_n$, and positive integers $a_1, \cdots, a_n$, we write that “$M = a_1 \times S_1 + \cdots + a_n \times S_n$, as composition factors” when the set of all composition factors are $a_1$ times $S_1$, $\cdots$, $a_n$ times $S_n$. In order to avoid being ambiguous, we sometimes use convention such as $M = a_1 \times [S_1] + \cdots + a_n \times [S_n]$. For another $A$-module $L$, we write $M | L$ when $M$ is isomorphic to a direct summand of $L$ as an $A$-module. If $A$ is self-injective, the stable module category $\underline{\mathrm{mod}}{\text -}A$, is the quotient category of $\mathrm{mod}{\text -}A$ with respect to the projective $A$-homomorphisms, that is those factoring through a projective module.
In this paper, $G$ is always a finite group and we fix a prime number $p$. Assume that $(\mathcal K, \mathcal O, k)$ is a splitting $p$-modular system for all subgroups of $G$, that is to say, $\mathcal O$ is a complete discrete valuation ring of rank one such that its quotient field is $\mathcal K$ which is of characteristic zero, and its residue field $\mathcal O/\mathrm{rad}(\mathcal O)$ is $k$, which is of characteristic $p$, and that $\mathcal K$ and $k$ are splitting fields for all subgroups of $G$. By an $\mathcal OG$-lattice we mean a finitely generated right $\mathcal OG$-module which is a free $\mathcal O$-module. We denote by $k_G$ the trivial $kG$-module, and similarly by $\mathcal{O}_G$ the trivial $\mathcal{O}G$-lattice. If $X$ is a $kG$-module, then we write $X^* =\mathrm{Hom}_k(X,k)$ for the [*contragredient*]{} of $X$, namely, $X^*$ is again a right $kG$-module via $(\varphi g) (x) = \varphi(xg^{-1})$ for $x \in X$, $\varphi \in X^*$ and $g \in G$; if no confusion may arise we also call this the [*dual*]{} of $X$. Let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$, and let $M$ and $N$ be an $\mathcal OG$-lattice and an $\mathcal OH$-lattice, respectively. Then let ${M}{\downarrow}^G_H = {M}{\downarrow}_H$ be the restriction of $M$ to $H$, and let ${N}{\uparrow}_H^G = {N}{\uparrow}^G =
(N \otimes_{\mathcal OH}\mathcal OG)_{\mathcal OG}$ be the induction (induced module) of $N$ to $G$. A similar definition holds for $kG$- and $kH$-modules. For a subgroup $Q$ of $G$ we write Scott$(G,Q)$ for the (Alperin-)Scott module with respect to $Q$ in $G$, see [@NagaoTsushima Chap.4 p.297].
We denote by $\mathrm{Irr}(G)$ and $\mathrm{IBr}(G)$ the sets of all irreducible ordinary and Brauer characters of $G$, respectively. Since the character field $\Q(\chi):=\Q(\chi(g)\:;\:g\in G)\subseteq\mathcal K$ of any character $\chi\in\mathrm{Irr}(G)$ is contained in a cyclotomic field, we may identify $\Q(\chi)$ with a subfield of the complex number field $\C$, hence we may think of characters having values in $\C$. In particular, we write $\chi^{*}$ for the complex conjugate of $\chi$, where of course $\chi^{*}$ is the character of the $\mathcal K G$-module contragredient to the $\mathcal K G$-module affording $\chi$. For $\chi,\psi\in\mathrm{Irr}(G)$ we denote by $(\chi, \psi)^G$ the usual inner product. If $A$ is a block algebra ($p$-block) of $\mathcal OG$, then we write $\mathrm{Irr}(A)$ and $\mathrm{IBr}(A)$ for the sets of all characters in $\mathrm{Irr}(G)$ and $\mathrm{IBr}(G)$ which belong to $A$, respectively. We denote by $B_0(kG)$ the principal block algebra of $kG$, we write $1_G$ for the trivial character of $G$.
Let $G'$ be another finite group, and let $V$ be an $(\mathcal OG, \mathcal OG')$-bimodule. Then we can regard $V$ as a right $\mathcal O[G \times G']$-module. A similar definition holds for $(kG, kG')$-bimodules. We denote by $\Delta G= \{ (g,g) \in G \times G \, | \, g \in G \}$ the diagonal copy of $G$ in $G \times G$. For an $(\mathcal OG, \mathcal OG')$-bimodule $V$ and a common subgroup $Q$ of $G$ and $G'$, we set $V^{\Delta Q}
= \{ v \in V \ | \ qv = vq \text{ for all } q \in Q \}$. If $Q$ is a $p$-group, the Brauer construction is defined to be the quotient $V(\Delta Q) = V^{\Delta Q}/ [\sum_{R \lneqq Q}
{\mathrm{Tr}}{\uparrow}_{R}^{Q}(V^{\Delta R})
+ {\mathrm{rad}}{\mathcal O}{\cdot}V^{\Delta Q}]$, where ${\mathrm{Tr}}{\uparrow}_{R}^{Q}$ is the usual trace map. The Brauer homomorphism ${\mathrm{Br}}_{\Delta Q}: (\mathcal OG)^{\Delta Q}
\rightarrow kC_G(Q)$ is obtained from composing the canonical epimorphism $(\mathcal OG)^{\Delta Q} \twoheadrightarrow
(\mathcal OG)(\Delta Q)$ and the canonical isomorphism $(\mathcal OG)(\Delta Q)
\overset{\approx}{\rightarrow} kC_G(Q)$.
Let $n$ be a positive integer. Then, $\mathfrak A_n$ and $\mathfrak S_n$ denote the alternating and the symmetric groups on $n$ letters. Also, $C_n$ and $D_{2n}$ denote the cyclic group of order $n$ and the dihedral group of order $2n$, respectively. Moreover, for $i \in \{ 10, 11, 12, 22, 23, 24\}$, $\mathsf{M}_i$ denotes the Mathieu group of degree $i$. We denote by $Z(G)$ the centre of $G$, and by $S^g$ a set $g^{-1}Sg$ for $g \in G$ and a subset $S$ of $G$.
\[equiv\] Let $A$ and $A'$ be block algebras of $\mathcal OG$ and $\mathcal OG'$, respectively. Then we say that $A$ and $A'$ are [*Puig equivalent*]{} if $A$ and $A'$ have a common defect group $P$, and if there is a Morita equivalence between $A$ and $A'$ which is induced by an $(A,A')$-bimodule $\mathfrak M$ such that, as a right $\mathcal O[G \times G']$-module, $\mathfrak M$ is a trivial source module and $\Delta P$-projective. A similar definition holds for blocks of $kG$ and $kG'$. Due to a result of Puig (and independently of Scott), see [@Puig1999 Remark 7.5], this is equivalent to a condition that $A$ and $A'$ have source algebras which are isomorphic as interior $P$-algebras, see [@Linckelmann2001 Theorem 4.1].
We say that $A$ and $A'$ are [*stably equivalent of Morita type*]{} if there exists an $(A, A')$-bimodule $\mathfrak M$ such that ${_A}\mathfrak M$ is projective as a left $A$-module, $\mathfrak M_{A'}$ is projective as a right $A'$-module, $_A(\mathfrak M \otimes_{A'} \mathfrak M^\vee)_A
\cong {_A}{A}{_A} \oplus
({\mathrm{proj}} \ (A,A){\text{-}}{\mathrm{bimod}})$ and $_{A'} (\mathfrak M^\vee \otimes_A \mathfrak M)_{A'}
\cong {_{A'}}{A'}{_{A'}} \oplus
({\mathrm{proj}} \ (A' ,A'){\text{-}}{\mathrm{bimod}})$.
We say that $A$ and $A'$ are [*splendidly stably equivalent of Morita type*]{} if $A$ and $A'$ have a common defect group $P$ and the stable equivalence of Morita type is induced by an $(A,A')$-bimodule $\mathfrak M$ which is a trivial source $\mathcal O[G \times G']$-module and is $\Delta P$-projective, see [@Linckelmann2001 Theorem 3.1].
We say that $A$ and $A'$ are [*derived equivalent (or Rickard equivalent)*]{} if ${\mathrm{D}}^b({\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A)$ and ${\mathrm{D}}^b({\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A')$ are equivalent as triangulated categories, where ${\mathrm{D}}^b({\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A)$ is the bounded derived category of ${\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A$. In that case, there even is a [*Rickard complex*]{} $M^{\bullet} \in
{\mathrm{C}}^b (A{\text{-}}{\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A')$, where the latter is the category of bounded complexes of finitely generated $(A,A')$-bimodules, all of whose terms are projective both as left $A$-modules and as right $A'$-modules, such that $M^{\bullet}\otimes_{A'}(M^{\bullet})^{\vee}\cong A$ in $K^b(A{\text{-}}{\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A)$ and $(M^{\bullet})^{\vee}\otimes_A M^{\bullet}\cong A'$ in $K^b(A'{\text{-}}{\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A')$, where $K^b(A{\text{-}}{\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A)$ is the homotopy category associated with ${\mathrm{C}}^b (A{\text{-}}{\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A)$. In other words, in that case we even have $K^b({\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A) \cong
K^b({\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A')$.
We say that $A$ and $A'$ are [*splendidly Rickard equivalent*]{} if $K^b({\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A)$ and $K^b({\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A')$ are equivalent via a Rickard complex $M^{\bullet}\in
{\mathrm{C}}^b (A{\text{-}}{\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A')$ as above, such that additionally each of its terms is a direct sum of $\Delta P$-projective trivial source modules as an $\mathcal O[G \times G']$-module.
Preliminaries {#pre}
=============
In this section we give several theorems crucial to the later sections of this paper. We state these results in a more general context; in particular, $G$ is an arbitrary finite group and $(K,\mathcal{O},k)$ is a $p$-modular splitting system for $G$. As we draw upon these lemmas frequently in the sequel, we state these explicitly for the convenience of the reader and ease of reference.
As stated in the introduction, our approach centres around **\[StableIndecomposableMorita\]** which allows us to verify that a stable equivalence of Morita type is in fact a Morita equivalence. The stable equivalences investigated are obtained with the help of **\[gluing\]**, and are realised by tensoring with a bimodule given through Green correspondence. We proceed to study several properties of these stable equivalences, and give some further results needed in the upcoming parts of this paper. We refer the reader also to the appendix for a more detailed discussion of further properties of stable equivalences obtained through [**\[gluing\]**]{}.
\[Linckelmann [@Linckelmann1996MathZ]\] \[StableIndecomposableMorita\] Let $A$ and $B$ be finite-dimensional $k$-algebras such that $A$ and $B$ are both self-injective and indecomposable as algebras, but not simple. Suppose that there is an $(A,B)$-bimodule $M$ such that $M$ induces a stable equivalence between the algebras $A$ and $B$.
1. If $M$ is indecomposable then for any simple $A$-module $S$, the $B$-module $(S \otimes_A M)_B$ is non-projective and indecomposable.
2. If for all simple $A$-module $S$ the $B$-module $S \otimes_A M$ is simple then $M$ induces a Morita equivalence between $A$ and $B$.
3. If $(M, M^\vee)$ induces a stable equivalence of Morita type between $A$ and $B$ then there is a unique (up to isomorphism) non-projective indecomposable $(A,B)$-bimodule $M'$ such that $M' \mid M$, and $(M', {M'}^\vee)$ induces a stable equivalence of Morita type between the algebras $A$ and $B$.
\(i) and (ii) respectively are given in [@Linckelmann1996MathZ Theorem 2.1(ii) and (iii)]. Part (iii) follows by [@Linckelmann1996MathZ Theorem 2.1(i) and Remark 2.7].
We obtain a suitable stable equivalence to apply **\[StableIndecomposableMorita\]** through a “gluing theorem” as given in **\[gluing\]**.
\[KoshitaniLinckelmann\] Let $A$ be a block algebra of $kG$ with defect group $P$, and let $(P,e)$ be a maximal $A$-Brauer pair such that $H=N_G(P,e) = N_G(P)$. Let $B$ be a block algebra of $kH$ such that $B$ is the Brauer correspondent of $A$. Let $\mathfrak f$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(G \times G, \Delta P, G \times H)$, and set $M = \mathfrak f(A)$, in particular $M$ is an indecomposable $(A,B)$-bimodule with vertex $\Delta P$.
Take any subgroup $Q$ of $Z(P)$, and set $G_Q = C_G(Q)$ and $H_Q = C_H(Q)$. Let $e_Q$ and $f_Q$ be block idempotents of $kG_Q$ and $kH_Q$ satisfying $(Q,e_Q) \subseteq (P,e)$ and $(Q,f_Q) \subseteq (P,e)$, respectively, see [@Thevenaz (40.9) Corollary]. Let $\mathfrak f_Q$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(G_Q \times G_Q, \Delta P, G_Q \times H_Q)$. Then we have $$e_Q M(\Delta Q) f_Q =
\mathfrak f_Q (e_Q kG_Q)$$ and this is a unique (up to isomorphism) indecomposable direct summand of $(e_Q kG_Q){\downarrow}_{G_Q \times H_Q}$ with vertex $\Delta P$.
We know $M = \mathfrak f(A) \mid {A}{\downarrow}^{G \times G}_{G \times
H} \mid {_{kG}}{kG}_{kH}$. Hence, $M(\Delta Q) \mid (kG)(\Delta Q) =
kC_G(Q) = kG_Q$. Thus, $$e_Q M(\Delta Q) f_Q \,\big|\,
e_Q kG_Q f_Q \,\big| \,
{(e_Q kG_Q)}{\downarrow}^{G_Q \times G_Q}_{G_Q \times H_Q}.$$ By [@KoshitaniLinckelmann2005 Theorem], $e_Q M(\Delta Q) f_Q$ is an indecomposable $k[G_Q \times H_Q]$-module with vertex $\Delta P$. Thus Green correspondence yields $e_Q M(\Delta Q) f_Q = \mathfrak f_Q (e_Q kG_Q)$.
\[gluing\] Let $A$ be a block algebra of $\mathcal OG$ with a defect group $P$, and let $(P,e)$ be a maximal $A$-Brauer pair in $G$. Set $H = N_G(P,e)$, Assume that
1. $P$ is abelian,
2. for each $Q$ with $1 \, \not= \, Q \, \leqslant P$, $kC_G(Q)$ has a unique block algebra $A_Q$ with the defect group $P$,
3. for each $Q$ with $1 \, \not= \, Q \, \leqslant P$, $kC_H(Q)$ has a unique block algebra $B_Q$ with the defect group $P$.
Let $B$ a block algebra of $\mathcal OH$ which is the Brauer correspondent of $A$. For each subgroup $Q$ of $P$, let $e_Q$ and $f_Q$ be the block idempotents of $A_Q$ and $B_Q$, respectively, and hence $A_Q = kC_G(Q)e_Q$ and $B_Q = kC_H(Q)f_Q$. Note that $e_P = e = f_P$ and $A_P = B_P$. Let $\mathfrak f$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(G \times G, \Delta P, G \times H)$, and set ${_A}M_B = \mathfrak
f(A)$, see [**\[Green-GxG\]**]{}. Moreover, let ${\mathfrak f}_Q$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(C_G(Q) \times C_G(Q), \Delta P,
C_G(Q) \times C_H(Q))$. Now, assume further that
1. for each non-trivial proper subgroup $Q$ of $P$, the $(A_Q, B_Q)$-bimodule $\mathfrak f_Q(A_Q)$ induces a Morita equivalence between $A_Q$ and $B_Q$.
Then the $(A,B)$-bimodule $M$ induces a stable equivalence of Morita type between $A$ and $B$.
First, note $H = N_G(P)$. Secondly, it follows from [**\[KoshitaniLinckelmann\]**]{} that $e_Q{\cdot}M(\Delta Q){\cdot}f_Q = \mathfrak f_Q(A_Q)$ for each $Q \leqslant P$ since $P$ is abelian by (1). Then since $A_P = B_P$ and since $A_P = \mathfrak f_P(A_P) = e{\cdot}M(\Delta P){\cdot}e$, the $(A_P, B_P)$-bimodule $e_P{\cdot}M(\Delta P){\cdot}e_P$ induces a Morita equivalence between $A_P$ and $B_P$.
Now, for each $Q \leqslant P$, it follows from the uniqueness of $e_Q$ and $f_Q$ that $$(Q,e_Q) \subseteq (P,e) \qquad {\text{and}} \qquad (Q,f_Q) \subseteq
(P,e).$$
Next, we want to claim $$E_G\Big( (Q, e_Q), (R, e_R)\Big) = E_H\Big( (Q, f_Q), (R, f_R)\Big)
\qquad {\text{for}} \ \ Q, \, R \leqslant P,$$ where $E_G\Big( (Q, e_Q), (R, e_R)\Big)$ is the set $\{ \varphi : Q
\rightarrow R \ | \ {\text{there}} \ {\text{is}} \ g \in G \
{\text{with}} \ \varphi (u) = u^g, \text{ for all } u \in Q, \ \
{\text{and}} \ (Q, e_Q)^g \subseteq (R, e_R) \}$, see [@Linckelmann2001 p.821]. This is known by using [@AlperinBroue Proposition 4.21 and Theorem 3.4] and [@BrouePuig1980 Theorem 1.8(1)] since $P$ is abelian, see [@KoshitaniKunugiWaki2004 The proof of 1.15. Lemma] for details. Therefore we can apply Linckelmann’s result [@Linckelmann2001 Theorem 3.1].
We remark that in [@Linckelmann2001 Theorem 3.1] and [@Linckelmann2009 Theorem A.1], Linckelmann proves more general theorems than [**\[gluing\]**]{}. However, we formulate with [**\[gluing\]**]{} a version which is specifically tailored to our practical purposes, and use this ad hoc version in the sequel.
In the notation of **\[gluing\]**, we have that the bimodule $M$ realising a stable equivalence between $A$ and $B$ is a Green correspondent of $A$. In fact it is a direct summand of $1_A\cdot kG\cdot 1_B$ as the next lemma shows.
\[Green-GxG\] Let $A$ be a block algebra of $kG$ with defect group $P$. Assume that $(P, e)$ is a maximal $A$-Brauer pair such that $H=N_G(P,e)= N_G(P)$. Let $B$ be a block algebra of $kH$ such that $B$ is the Brauer correspondent of $A$. Let $\mathfrak f$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(G \times G, \Delta P, G \times H)$. Then we have $\mathfrak f(A) \mid 1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_B$.
It follows from [@AlperinLinckelmannRouquier Theorem 5(i)] that $({A}{\downarrow^{G
\times G}_{G \times H}}){\cdot}1_B = 1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_B$ has a unique (up to isomorphism) indecomposable direct summand with vertex $\Delta P$. Clearly, $1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_B \mid ({A}{\downarrow^{G
\times G}_{G \times H}})$, hence by Green correspondence we have $\mathfrak f(A) \mid 1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_B$.
We remark that a stable equivalence of Morita type induced by the Green correspondent $\mathfrak{f}(A)$ in the context of [**\[Green-GxG\]**]{} preserves vertices and sources, and takes indecomposable modules to their Green correspondents, see (i) and (iii) in [**\[SourceVertex\]**]{}.
\[twoStableEquivalences\] Let $G$, $H$, and $L$ be finite groups, all of which have a common non-trivial $p$-subgroup $P$, and assume that $H \leqslant G$. Let $A$, $B$, and $C$ be block algebras of $kG$, $kH$, and $kL$, respectively, all of which have $P$ as their defect group. In addition, suppose that a pair $({_A}\mathfrak{M}_B, {_B}{\mathfrak{M}'}_A)$ induces a stable equivalence between $A$ and $B$ such that ${_A}\mathfrak{M}_B \mid k_{\Delta P}{\uparrow}^{G \times H}$, ${_B}{\mathfrak{M}'}_A \mid k_{\Delta P}{\uparrow}^{H \times G}$ [[(]{}]{}and hence $\mathfrak{M}$ and $\mathfrak{M}'$ preserve vertices and sources, see [[(i)]{}]{} and [[(iii)]{}]{} of [**\[SourceVertex\]**]{}[[)]{}]{}. Similarly, suppose that a pair $({_B}\mathfrak{N}_C,{_C}{\mathfrak{N}'}_B)$ induces a stable equivalence between $B$ and $C$ such that ${_B}\mathfrak{N}_C \mid k_{\Delta P}{\uparrow}^{H \times L}$, ${_C}{\mathfrak{N}'}_B \mid k_{\Delta P}{\uparrow}^{L \times H}$ [[(]{}]{}and hence $\mathfrak{N}$ and $\mathfrak{N}'$ preserve vertices and sources, see [[(i)]{}]{} and [[(iii)]{}]{} of [**\[SourceVertex\]**]{}[[)]{}]{}. Then we have $(A,C)$- and $(C,A)$-bimodules $M$ and $M'$, respectively, which satisfy the following:
1. ${_A}(\mathfrak{M} \otimes_B \mathfrak{N})_C
= {_A}M_C
\oplus ({\mathrm{proj}} \ (A,C){\text{-}}{\mathrm{bimodule}})$ and ${_C}(\mathfrak{N}' \otimes_B{\mathfrak{M}'})_A = {_C}M'_A
\oplus ({\mathrm{proj}} \ (C,A){\text{-}}{\mathrm{bimodule}})$.
2. ${_A}M_C$ and ${_C}M'_A$ are both non-projective indecomposable.
3. The pair $(M, M')$ induces a stable equivalence between $A$ and $C$.
4. The functors $$- \otimes_A M: {\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A
\longrightarrow {\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}C$$ and $$- \otimes_C M': {\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}C
\longrightarrow {\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A$$ preserve vertices and sources of indecomposable modules. That is, for non-projective indecomposable $A{\text{-}}$ and $C{\text{-}}$modules $X$ and $Y$ corresponding via $X \otimes_A M = Y \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}})$ and $Y \otimes_C M' = X \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}})$, respectively, there is a non-trivial $p$-subgroup $Q$ and an indecomposable $kQ$-module $S$ such that $Q$ is a common vertex of $X$ and $Y$ and that $S$ is a common source of $X$ and $Y$.
5. $_A M_C \mid {k_{\Delta P}}{\uparrow}^{G \times L}$ and $_C {M'}_A \mid {k_{\Delta P}}{\uparrow}^{L \times G}$.
6. In particular, if a pair $(\mathfrak{M}, \mathfrak{M}^\vee)$ induces a stable equivalence of Morita type between $A$ and $B$, and if a pair $(\mathfrak{N}, \mathfrak{N}^\vee)$ induces a stable equivalence of Morita type between $B$ and $C$, then we can replace $M'$ above by $M^\vee$ and we have that the pair $(M, M^\vee)$ induces a stable equivalence of Morita type between $A$ and $C$.
Obviously, the pair $({_A}(\mathfrak{M} \otimes_B \mathfrak{N})_C,
{_C}(\mathfrak{N}'\otimes_B \mathfrak{M}')_A)$ induces a stable equivalence between $A$ and $C$. Clearly, ${_A}(\mathfrak{M}\otimes_B \mathfrak{N})$, $(\mathfrak{M}\otimes_B \mathfrak{N})_C$, ${_C}(\mathfrak{N}'\otimes_B \mathfrak{M}')$, and $(\mathfrak{N}'\otimes_B \mathfrak{M}')_A$ are all projective. Since $A$ and $C$ are symmetric algebras, it follows from [**\[StableIndecomposableMorita\]**]{}(iii) that there are $(A,C)$- and $(C,A)$-bimodules $M$ and $M'$ which satisfy the conditions (1)–(4).
Next we want to show (5). It follows from [@NagaoTsushima Chap.5 Lemma 10.9(iii)] that $$\begin{aligned}
M \,
&{\Big|} \, \mathfrak{M} \otimes_B \mathfrak{N} \, {\Big|} \,
(k_{\Delta P}{\uparrow}^{G \times H}) \otimes_{kH}
(k_{\Delta P}{\uparrow}^{H \times L})
\\
&\cong (kG \otimes_{kP}kH)\otimes_{kH}(kH \otimes_{kP}kL)
\cong
kG \otimes_{kP}[(kH){\downarrow}^{H\times H}_{P\times P}]
\otimes_{kP} kL
\\
&\cong kG \otimes_{kP}
\Big( \bigoplus _{h \in [P \backslash H/P]} k[PhP] \Big)\otimes_{kP}kL
\cong \bigoplus _{h \in [P \backslash H/P]}
k[PhP]{\uparrow}^{G\times L}_{P\times P}.\end{aligned}$$ Since ${_A}M_C$ is indecomposable, there is an element $h \in H$ such that $M \mid k[PhP]{\uparrow}^{G\times L}_{P\times P}$. Set $(P\times P)_h =
\{ (u, h^{-1}uh) \in P \times P \mid
u \in P \cap hPh^{-1} \}$. Then $$(P\times P)_h
=
\{ (huh^{-1}, u) \in P \times P \mid
u \in P \cap h^{-1}Ph \}
= (h,1){\cdot}\Delta[P\cap P^h]{\cdot}(h^{-1}, 1).$$ We get by [@NagaoTsushima Chap.5 Lemma 10.9(iii)] that $k[PhP] \cong k_{(h,1)\Delta[P \cap P^h](h^{-1},1)}
{\uparrow}^{P\times P}$, and hence $M \mid
k_{(h,1)\Delta[P \cap P^h](h^{-1},1)}{\uparrow}^{G\times L}$. Now, since $(h^{-1}, 1) \in H \times L \leqslant G \times L$, we have that $$M \mid k_{\Delta[P \cap P^h]}{\uparrow}^{G\times L}
\cong kG \otimes_{kQ} kL$$ where $Q = P \cap P^h$. Then for any $X$ in ${\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A$ the module $X\otimes_A M$ has a vertex contained in $Q$. If $Q$ is a proper subgroup of $P$ then, since $(M, M')$ induces a stable equivalence between $A$ and $C$, any module in ${\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}C$ has a vertex properly contained in $P$, a contradiction since $P$ is a defect group of $C$. Hence $Q = P$, so that $h \in N_H(P) \subseteq N_G(P)$. Therefore $M \mid k_{\Delta P}{\uparrow}^{G \times L}$. An analogous argument gives the claim for $M'$.
\(6) Follows from (1)–(5) and [**\[StableIndecomposableMorita\]**]{}(iii).
Next, we give some results on Morita equivalences and tensor products, which will be useful in Section \[co3\].
\[TensorMorita\] The following hold:
1. Let $A$, $B$, $C$ and $D$ be finite dimensional $k$-algebras. Assume that an $(A,B)$-bimodule $M$ realises a Morita equivalence between $A$ and $B$, and so does a $(C,D)$-bimodule $N$ between $C$ and $D$. Then the $(A \otimes C, B \otimes D)$-bimodule $M \otimes N$ induces a Morita equivalence between $A \otimes C$ and $B \otimes D$.
2. Keep the notation as in [[(i)]{}]{}. Assume that $P$ is a common $p$-subgroup of finite groups $G$ and $H$, and that $Q$ is a subgroup of $P$. Suppose moreover that $A$ and $B$ respectively are block algebras of $kG$ and $kH$, $C = D = kQ$ and $N = {_{kQ}}kQ_{kQ}$. If a $(kG, kH)$-bimodule $M$ satisfies that $M
\mid {k_{\Delta P}}{\uparrow}^{G \times H}$, then $(M \otimes N)\mid
{k_{\Delta [P \times Q]}}{\uparrow}^{(G\times Q) \times (H \times
Q)}$.
The proof of (i) is straightforward. For (ii) observe that $k_{\Delta
P}{\uparrow^{(G\times Q)\times(H\times Q)}}$ is isomorphic to $k[G\times
Q] \otimes_{k[P\times Q]} k[H \times Q]$, and hence to $(kG \otimes_{kP}
kH) \otimes kQ$ as $k[G \times Q] \otimes k[H\times Q]$-bimodules. The latter is isomorphic to $k_{\Delta P}{\uparrow^{G\times H}} \otimes
{_{kQ}}kQ_{kQ}$.
Note that we cannot replace the *Morita* equivalence in [**\[TensorMorita\]**]{} by a *stable* equivalence in general, see [@Rickard1998ICRA Question 3.8].
\[TensorPuigEquivalence\] Let $G$ and $H$ be finite groups, let $A$ and $B$, respectively, be block algebras of $kG$ and $kH$. Let $X$ be an indecomposable $kG$-module in $A$, and let $Y$ be an indecomposable $kH$-module in $B$. Then the following hold:
1. If $B$ is of defect zero, then a block algebra $A \otimes B$ of $k[G \times H]$ is Puig equivalent to $A$.
2. Set $Z = X \otimes Y$. Then $Z$ is an indecomposable $k[G \times H]$-module in $A \otimes B$. If $X$ and $Y$ are are trivial source modules, then $Z$ is a trivial source module as well.
3. If $Y$ is projective, and $Q$ is a vertex of $X$, then $Q \times \langle 1 \rangle$ is a vertex of $Z$, and $Z$ is a trivial source module if and only if $X$ is.
\(i) By [@Thevenaz p.341 line $-9$], $k$ is a source algebra of $B$. Hence the assertion follows from Lemma [**\[TensorMorita\]**]{}(i).
(ii)–(iii) These follow from [@Kuelshammer1993 Proposition 1.2].
Finally, we collect a few facts about Green correspondence, its compatability with Brauer correspondence, and its transitivity (see [@NagaoTsushima Chap.4, §4], for example).
\[GreenCorrespondence\] \[BrauerGreen\] Let $P$ be a $p$-subgroup of a finite group $G$, and let $N$ and $H$ be subgroups of $G$ with $N_G(P) \leqslant N \leqslant H \leqslant G$. Furthermore, assume that $f$, $f_1$ and $f_2$ are the Green correspondences with respect to $(G, P, H)$, $(H, P, N)$ and $(G,P,N)$, respectively. Then from the definition and properties of Green correspondence and the Krull-Schmidt Theorem we get the following:
1. We have $\mathfrak A(G,P,N) \subseteq \mathfrak A(G,P,H)
\cap \mathfrak A(H,P,N)$, where $\mathfrak A(G,P,N)$ and the others are defined as in [@NagaoTsushima Chap.4, §4].
2. For any indecomposable $kG$-module $X$ with vertex in $\mathfrak A(G,P,N)$, the isomorphism $f_1\Big(f(X)\Big) \cong f_2(X)$ holds.
3. Let $N=N_G(P)$, and let $A$, $B$, and $A_N$ be block algebras of $kG$, $kH$, and $kN$, respectively, such that they are Brauer correspondents with respect to $P$. Then any indecomposable $kG$-module $X$ belonging to $A$ such that a vertex of $X$ is in $\mathfrak A(G,P,N)$ has its Green correspondent $f(X)$ belong to $B$.
\(i) and (ii) are clear.
\(iii) It follows from Green’s result [@NagaoTsushima Chap.5 Corollary 3.11] and Brauer’s first main theorem that $f_2 (X)$ belongs to $A_N$. The Green correspondent $f(X)$ has a vertex in $\mathfrak A(G,P,N)$, and hence in $\mathfrak A(H,P,N)$. By (ii), $f_2 = f_1 \circ f$. Hence $f_2(X)
= f_1\circ f(X)$ lies in the Brauer correspondent of $A$ which is $A_N$. Therefore, by the above, the block of $f(X)$ corresponds to $A_N$, namely, it is $B$.
Non-principal $2$-blocks of $\mathfrak S_5$ and $_{12}$ {#Non-principal2-blocks}
=======================================================
By the “gluing” theorem given in **\[gluing\]**, we want to obtain a stable equivalence of Morita type between the non-principal $2$-block of $\mathsf{Co}_3$ with a defect group $P = C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2$ and its Brauer correspondent in the normaliser $N_{\mathsf{Co}_3}(P)$. To this end, we need to consider non-trivial subgroups of $P$ and establish Morita equivalences between unique blocks of the associated centralisers in $\mathsf{Co}_3$ and $N_{\mathsf{Co}_3}(P)$. The objective of this section is to show the existence of various Morita equivalences which will be required to apply **\[gluing\]**. The relevance of the groups related to $\mathfrak S_5$ and $\mathsf{M}_{12}$, respectively, will be revealed in in [**[\[2-local-Co3\]]{}**]{} in the next section.
For the remainder of this paper, we let the characteristic $p$ of $k$ be 2.
\[S5\] Set $G = \mathfrak S_5$.
1. There exists a unique block algebra $A$ of $kG$ with defect one. In fact, a defect group $T$ of $A$ is generated by a transposition.
2. Set $H = N_G(T)$. Then $H = C_G(T)
\cong T \times \mathfrak S_3 \cong D_{12}$.
3. $A$ is a nilpotent block algebra, $k(A) = 2$, $\ell(A) = 1$, and we can write ${\mathrm{Irr}}(A) = \{
\chi_4, \chi'_4 \}$ and ${\mathrm{IBr}}(A) =
\{ 4_{kG} \}$, where the number $4$ denotes the degree (dimension).
4. The unique simple $kG$-module $4_{kG}$ is a trivial source module.
5. Let $B$ be a block algebra of $kH$ such that $B$ is the Brauer correspondent of $A$. Then $k(B) = 2$, $\ell(B) = 1$, and we can write ${\mathrm{Irr}}(B)
= \{ \theta_2, \theta'_2 \}$ and ${\mathrm{IBr}}(B) = \{ 2_{kH} \}$, where the number $2$ again gives the degree (dimension).
6. Let $\mathfrak{f}$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(G \times G, \Delta T, G \times H)$, and set $M = \mathfrak{f}(A)$. Then ${_A}M_B =
1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_B$ and $M$ induces a Puig equivalence between $A$ and $B$.
(i)–(iii) and (v) are immediate by [@Atlas p.2], and [@ModularAtlas $A_5.2$ (mod 2)] or [@ModularAtlasProject $A_5.2$ (mod 2)].
\(iv) It follows from [@Atlas p.2] that ${1_H}{\uparrow^G} = 1_G + \chi_4 + \chi_5$, where $\chi_i \in {\mathrm{Irr}}(G)$ and $\chi_i(1) = i$ for $i = 4, 5$. Thus, by (ii), ${1_H}{\uparrow^G}{\cdot}1_A = \chi_4$, and hence ${k_H}{\uparrow^G}{\cdot}1_A = 4_{kG}$.
\(vi) We first show that $1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_B$ induces a Morita equivalence between $A$ and $B$. To this end let $1_{\widehat{A}}{\cdot}\mathcal OG{\cdot} 1_{\widehat{B}}$ be its lift to $\mathcal O$, which is projective both as a left $\mathcal O G$-module and as a right $\mathcal O H$-module. Moreover, it follows from (iii), (v), and [@Atlas p.2] that $$\chi_4{\downarrow}_H{\cdot}1_B = \theta_2,
\quad
\chi'_4{\downarrow}_H{\cdot}1_B = \theta'_2$$ by interchanging $\theta_2$ and $\theta'_2$ if necessary. Therefore $$\chi_4 \otimes_{\mathcal KA}
(1_{\widehat{A}}{\cdot}\mathcal KG{\cdot}
1_{\widehat{B}})
= \theta_2,
\qquad
\chi'_4 \otimes_{\mathcal KA}
(1_{\widehat{A}}{\cdot}
\mathcal KG{\cdot}1_{\widehat{B}})
= \theta'_2.$$ Hence by [@Broue1990 0.2 Th[é]{}or[è]{}me] , we get that $1_{\widehat{A}}{\cdot}\mathcal OG{\cdot}1_{\widehat{B}}$ induces a Morita equivalence between $\widehat{A}$ and $\widehat{B}$, and so does $1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_B$ between $A$ and $B$. As $1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_B$ is a trivial source $k[G \times H]$-module with vertex $\Delta P$, we infer that this even is a Puig equivalence.
Finally, let $(T,e)$ be a maximal $A$-Brauer pair. Then we know $N_G(T,e) = H$ by (ii). Hence [**\[Green-GxG\]**]{} implies that $M | {1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_B}$. But it follows from Morita’s Theorem, see [@CR Sect. 3D Theorem (3.54)] that $1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_B$ already is indecomposable as an $(A,B)$-bimodule, implying that $M = 1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_B$.
\[abelian2xS5\] Let $R$ be any finite $2$-group. Consider a finite group $G = R \times \mathfrak S_5$, and let $T$ be as in [**[\[S5\]]{}**]{}. Set $Q = R \times T$ and $H = N_G(Q)$. Let $A$ be a unique non-principal block algebra of $kG$ with defect group $Q$, and let $B$ be a block algebra of $kH$ such that $B$ is the Brauer correspondent of $A$. Then we get the following:
1. $H = C_G(Q) = Q \times \mathfrak S_3$.
2. Let $\mathfrak{f}$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(G \times G, \Delta Q, G \times H)$, and set $M = \mathfrak{f}(A)$. Then $M \cong 1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_B$, and $M$ induces a Puig equivalence between $A$ and $B$.
This follows from [**\[S5\]**]{}(vi) and [**\[TensorMorita\]**]{}.
We next turn to the Mathieu group $\mathsf{M}_{12}$.
\[M12\] Let $G = \mathsf{M}_{12}$.
1. There exists a unique block algebra $A$ of $kG$ with defect group $Q = C_2 \times C_2$.
2. We can write ${\mathrm{IBr}}(A) = \{ 16, 16^*, 144 \}$, where the numbers $16$ and $144$ denote dimensions (degrees). Moreover, all the simple $kG$-modules in $A$ are trivial source modules.
3. Let $H = N_G(Q)$. Then $H \cong {\mathfrak A}_4 \times \mathfrak S_3
\cong (Q \rtimes C_3) \times \mathfrak S_3$.
4. Let $B$ be a block algebra of $kH$ such that $B$ is the Brauer correspondent of $A$. Let $\mathfrak{f}$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(G \times G, \Delta Q, G \times H)$, and set $M = \mathfrak{f}(A)$. Then $M$ induces a Puig equivalence between $A$ and $B$.
(i)–(iii) except the last part of (ii) are easy by [@Atlas p.33], and [@ModularAtlas $\mathsf{M}_{12}$ (mod 2)] or [@ModularAtlasProject $\mathsf{M}_{12}$ (mod 2)]. Actually, using the character table of $G$, it turns out that the conjugacy class [[3B]{}]{} of $G$ is a defect class of $A$. Hence $Q$ is a Sylow $2$-subgroup of the centraliser $C_G(3B)={\mathfrak A}_4 \times C_3$, while the normaliser $N_G(3B)={\mathfrak A}_4 \times \mathfrak S_3$ is a maximal subgroup of $G$, containing $Q$ as normal subgroup.
It remains to show the last statement in (ii). By [@Atlas p.33], $G$ has a maximal subgroup $L \cong \mathrm{PSL}_2(11)$. Then again [@Atlas p.33] yields that $1_L{\uparrow}^G{\cdot}1_A = \chi_{16} + \chi_{16}^*$, where $\chi_{16}(1) = \chi_{16}^*(1) = 16$. Set $X_{kG}
= k_L{\uparrow}^G{\cdot}1_A$. Then $X = 16 + 16^*$ as composition factors. Since $\chi_{16} \:\, {\not=} \:\, \chi_{16}^*$, we get by [@NagaoTsushima Chap.4 Theorem 8.9(i)] that $[X, X]^G = 2$. Therefore $X = 16 \oplus 16^*$. Hence $16$ and $16^*$ are both trivial source $kG$-modules. Finally, we know that $k_W{\uparrow}^G{\cdot}1_A = 144$, where $W$ is a maximal subgroup of $G$ with $W = 2_{+}^{1+4}.\mathfrak S_3$. This shows that $144$ is also a trivial source $kG$-module.
\(iv) All elements of $Q - \{ 1 \}$ are conjugate in $H$, hence the character table of $G$ [@Atlas p.33] shows that they all belong to the conjugacy class [[2A]{}]{} of $G$. Take any element $t \in Q - \{ 1 \}$, and set $R = \langle t \rangle$. Thus we have $$C_G(R) \cong R \times \mathfrak S_5
\qquad {\text{and}} \qquad C_H(R) \cong Q
\times \mathfrak S_3 \cong R \times (C_2 \times \mathfrak S_3).$$ The algebra $kC_G(R)$ has a unique block algebra $A_R$ with the defect group $Q$ since $k\mathfrak S_5$ has a unique block algebra with defect group $C_2$, and similarly $kC_H(R)$ has a unique block algebra $B_R$ with the defect group $Q$ since $k\mathfrak S_3$ has a unique block algebra of defect zero. Moreover, we know by [**\[abelian2xS5\]**]{} that $\mathfrak f_R(A_R)$ induces a Morita equivalence between $A_R$ and $B_R$, where $\mathfrak f_R$ is the Green correspondence with respect to $(C_G(R) \times C_G(R), \Delta Q, C_G(R) \times C_H(R))$. Thus it follows from [**\[gluing\]**]{} that $M$ induces a stable equivalence of Morita type between $A$ and $B$.
Now, let $f$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(G, Q, H)$. Take any simple $kG$-module $S$ in $A$. It follows from (ii), [@Knoerr 3.7.Corollary], and [@Okuyama1981 Lemma 2.2] that $f(S)$ is a simple $kH$-module. Hence from [**\[SourceVertex\]**]{}(v) and [**\[StableIndecomposableMorita\]**]{}(i) we obtain that $S
\otimes_A M$ is a simple $kH$-module in $B$. We then finally know that $M$ realises a Morita equivalence between $A$ and $B$ by [**\[StableIndecomposableMorita\](ii)**]{}.
\[C2xM12\] Set $R = C_2$, and let $G = R \times \mathsf{M}_{12}$.
1. There exists a unique block algebra $A$ of $kG$ with defect group $P = R \times C_2 \times C_2$.
2. We can write ${\mathrm{IBr}}(A) = \{ 16, 16^*, 144 \}$, where the numbers $16$ and $144$ give the dimensions (degrees). Moreover, all the simple $kG$-modules $16$, $16^*$, $144$ in $A$ are trivial source modules.
3. Let $H = N_G(P)$. Then $H = R \times \mathfrak A_4 \times \mathfrak S_3
\cong (P \rtimes C_3)
\times \mathfrak S_3$. Note that $P \rtimes C_3 \cong R \times (Q \rtimes C_3)$ and $Q \rtimes C_3 \cong \mathfrak A_4$, where $Q = C_2 \times C_2$.
4. Let $B$ be a block algebra of $kH$ such that $B$ is the Brauer correspondent of $A$. Let $\mathfrak f$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(G \times G, \Delta P, G \times H)$. Then $\mathfrak f(A)$ induces a Puig equivalence between $A$ and $B$.
This follows from [**\[M12\]**]{}(iv) and [**\[TensorMorita\]**]{}.
Obtaining stable equivalences {#co3}
=============================
In this section, by using the lemmas in §§2–3 we shall obtain a stable equivalence of Morita type between the principal $2$-block of the smallest Ree group $R(3)$ and the non-principal $2$-block of $\mathsf{Co}_3$ with defect group $C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2$ under consideration. The following hypothesis determines our standard setting which we fix here for future reference.
\[hyp:Co3\] Let $G$ be the sporadic group $\mathsf{Co}_3$, and let $A$ be the block algebra of $kG$ with defect group $P = C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2$, see [@ModularAtlasProject $\mathsf{Co}_3$], [@Landrock1978 p.1879] and [@SuleimanWilson p.494 §2]. Set $N = N_G(P)$, and let $A_N$ be the Brauer correspondent of $A$ in $kN$. Furthermore, let $(P,e)$ be a maximal $A$-Brauer pair in $G$.
Let $Q$ be a subgroup of $P$ isomorphic to $C_2 \times C_2$, and $R$ one which is cyclic of order 2. Let $e_Q$ and $f_Q$ be block idempotents of the block algebras of $kC_G(Q)$ and $kC_H(Q)$, respectively, such that $(Q, e_Q) \subseteq (P, e)$ and $(Q, f_Q) \subseteq (P, e)$, see [@Thevenaz §10 p.346]. Similarly define $e_R$ and $f_R$ by replacing $Q$ with $R$. We denote by $F_{21}$ the Frobenius group of order $21$, namely, $F_{21} \cong C_7 \rtimes C_3$, which is a maximal subgroup of ${\operatorname{GL}}_3(2)$. Also, let $R(3) \cong {\operatorname{SL}}_2(8) \rtimes C_3$ be the smallest Ree group, see [@Atlas p.6].
We first collect information on the subgroups of $\mathsf{Co}_3$ to consider.
\[2-local-Co3\] Assume [**\[hyp:Co3\]**]{}. Then the following hold:
1. $N \cong (P \rtimes F_{21}) \times \mathfrak S_3
\cong \Big((P \rtimes C_7) \rtimes C_3 \Big) \times \mathfrak S_3$.
2. There is a maximal subgroup $H$ of $G$ such that $N \leqslant H \cong ({\operatorname{SL}}_2(8) \rtimes C_3) \times \mathfrak S_3$, and $P \rtimes C_7$ is isomorphic to a Borel subgroup of ${\operatorname{SL}}_2(8)$.
3. $C_G(P) = C_H(P) = C_N(P) \cong P \times \mathfrak S_3$.
4. There exists a unique block algebra $\beta$ of $k\mathfrak S_3$ such that $\beta$ has defect zero, $\beta \cong {\mathrm{Mat}}_2(k)$ as $k$-algebras, and $e kC_G(P) \cong kP \otimes \beta$.
5. $N_G(P,e)=N$.
6. The inertial quotient $N_G(P,e)/C_G(P)$ is isomorphic to $F_{21}$.
7. All elements of $P - \{1\}$ are conjugate in $N$. That is, any subgroup of $P$ of order $2$ is conjugate to $R$ in $N$.
8. $C_G(R) \cong R \times \mathsf{M}_{12}$ and $C_H(R) = C_N(R) \cong R \times \mathfrak A_4 \times \mathfrak S_3
\cong (P \rtimes C_3) \times \mathfrak S_3$.
9. All subgroups of $P$ of order $4$ are conjugate in $N$. That is, any subgroup of $P$ of order $4$ is conjugate to $Q$ in $N$.
10. $C_G(Q) \cong Q \times \mathfrak S_5$ and $C_H(Q) = C_N(Q) = C_H(P) \cong P \times \mathfrak S_3$.
11. Let $B = B_0(kR(3)) \otimes \beta$, see [[(iv)]{}]{} for $\beta$. Then $B$ is a block algebra of $kH$ with the defect group $P$, the block $B$ is the Brauer correspondent of $A$ and of $A_N$ in $H$, and we furthermore know that $B$ and $B_0(kR(3))$ are Puig equivalent.
This is verified easily using [@GAP], with the help of the smallest faithful permutation representation of $G$ on $276$ points, available in [@AtlasRepresentation] in terms of so-called standard generators [@Wilson]. Since in [@AtlasRepresentation] also representatives of the conjugacy classes of elements, as well as of the maximal subgroups of $G$ are provided, all above-mentioned subgroups of $G$ can be constructed explicitly.
To begin with, using the character table of $G$ [@Atlas p.135], it turns out that the conjugacy class [[3C]{}]{} of $G$ is a defect class of $A$. Hence $P$ is a Sylow $2$-subgroup of the centraliser $C_G(3C)$, where by [@Atlas p.135] again we have $C_G(3C)\cong({\operatorname{SL}}_2(8) \rtimes C_3) \times C_3$, while the normaliser $H = N_G(3C)\cong ({\operatorname{SL}}_2(8) \rtimes C_3) \times \mathfrak S_3$ is a maximal subgroup of $G$.
Using the data on subgroup fusions available in [@CTblLib], it follows that the elements of $P - \{1\}$ belong to the $2B$ conjugacy class of $G$, hence [@Atlas p.134] shows that $C_G(R)\cong R \times \mathsf{M}_{12}$, which is another maximal subgroup of $G$. Moreover, it follows that $C_G(Q)\cong C_2 \times C_{\mathsf{M}_{12}}(2A)
\cong C_2 \times (C_2 \times \mathfrak S_5)$, where by [@Atlas p.33] $C_2 \times \mathfrak S_5$ is a maximal subgroup of $\mathsf{M}_{12}$. Finally, the structure of $C_H(P)$, $C_H(R)$, and $C_H(Q)$ follows from a consideration of the action of $F_{21}\leqslant {\operatorname{GL}}_3(2)$ on the defect group $P$.
\(xi) This follows by [**\[TensorPuigEquivalence\]**]{}.
\[H\] We use the notation $H$, $\beta$ and $B$ as in [**\[2-local-Co3\]**]{}(ii), (iv) and (xi), respectively. We denote the unique simple $k\mathfrak S_3$-module in $\beta$ by $2_{\mathfrak S_3}$.
It is now time to harvest what we have sown in our analysis of the 2-local structure of $G$. In **\[stableEquivalence-A-AN\]**, we use our previous results to obtain a stable equivalence of Morita type between the blocks $A$ and $A_N$ via **\[gluing\]**. Similarly in **\[R(3)xS3\]**, we derive a stable equivalence between the blocks $B$ and $A_N$, which together with the first yields the stable equivalence sought between $A$ and $B$ in **\[stableEquivalence-A-B\]**.
\[R(3)xS3\] Let $\mathfrak f_1$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(H \times H, \Delta P, H \times N)$, and set $\mathfrak N = \mathfrak f_1(B)$. Then $\mathfrak N$ induces a stable equivalence of Morita type between $B$ and $A_N$.
By [**\[Green-GxG\]**]{}, $\mathfrak N | {1_B{\cdot}kH{\cdot}1_{A_N}}$. We know by [**\[2-local-Co3\]**]{}(viii) and [**\[2-local-Co3\]**]{}(x) that $$C_H(Q) = C_N(Q) = P \times \mathfrak S_3
\quad {\text{and}} \quad
C_H(R)= C_N(R) = (P \rtimes C_3 ) \times \mathfrak S_3.$$ Let $\mathbb A_Q$, $\mathbb A_R$, $\mathbb B_Q$ and $\mathbb B_R$ be the block algebras of $kC_H(Q)$, $kC_H(R)$, $kC_N(Q)$ and $kC_N(R)$, respectively, such that they have $P$ as a defect group. Then $$\mathbb A_Q = \mathbb B_Q
= kP \otimes k{\mathfrak S_3}{\cdot}\beta
\cong {\mathrm{Mat}}_2(kP)
\quad {\text{and}} \quad
\mathbb A_R = \mathbb B_R
= k[P\rtimes C_3] \otimes k{\mathfrak S_3}{\cdot}\beta,$$ where the isomorphism is of $k$-algebras. Thus we obviously know that $$\mathfrak f_Q(\mathbb A_Q) = \mathbb A_Q
\quad {\text{and}} \quad
\mathfrak f_R(\mathbb A_R) = \mathbb A_R,$$ where $\mathfrak f_Q$ and $\mathfrak f_R$ are the Green correspondences with respect to $$(C_H(Q) \times C_H(Q), \ \Delta P, \ C_H(Q) \times C_N(Q))
\qquad
{\text{and}}
\quad
(C_H(R) \times C_H(R), \ \Delta P, \ C_H(R) \times C_N(R)),$$ respectively. Thus $\mathfrak f_Q(\mathbb A_Q)$ induces a Morita equivalence between $\mathbb A_Q$ and $\mathbb B_Q$, and $\mathfrak f_R(\mathbb A_R)$ induces a Morita equivalence between $\mathbb A_R$ and $\mathbb B_R$. Therefore we get the assertion by [**\[gluing\]**]{}.
\[stableEquivalence-A-AN\] Let $\mathfrak f_2$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(G \times G, \Delta P, G \times N)$, and set $\mathfrak M = \mathfrak f_2(A)$. Then we get
1. $\mathfrak M \mid 1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_{A_N}$.
2. The bimodule $e_R \mathfrak M(\Delta R) f_R$ induces a Morita equivalence between the block algebras $kC_G(R)e_R$ and $kC_N(R)f_R$.
3. The bimodule $e_Q \mathfrak M(\Delta Q) f_Q$ induces a Morita equivalence between the block algebras $kC_G(Q)e_Q$ and $kC_N(Q)f_Q$.
4. $\mathfrak M$ induces a stable equivalence of Morita type between $A$ and $A_N$.
\(i) This follows from [**\[2-local-Co3\]**]{}(v) and [**\[Green-GxG\]**]{}.
\(ii) Let $\mathfrak f_R$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(C_G(R) \times C_G(R), \Delta P, C_G(R) \times C_N(R))$. We get from (i) and [**\[KoshitaniLinckelmann\]**]{} that $\mathfrak f_R \Big(e_R kC_G(R) \Big)
= e_R \mathfrak M(\Delta R) f_R$. Hence we obtain the assertion by [**\[C2xM12\]**]{}.
\(iii) Analogous to the proof of (ii) if we use [**\[abelian2xS5\]**]{} instead of [**\[C2xM12\]**]{}.
\(iv) This follows by [**\[C2xM12\]**]{} and [**\[abelian2xS5\]**]{}, (i)–(iii) and [**\[gluing\]**]{}.
\[stableEquivalence-A-B\] There is an $(A, B)$-bimodule $M$ which satisfies the following:
1. ${_A}M_B$ is indecomposable,
2. $({_A}M_B, {_B}{M^\vee}{_A})$ induces a stable equivalence of Morita type between $A$ and $B$,
3. ${_A}M_B \mid k_{\Delta P}\uparrow^{G \times H}$ and ${_B}{M^\vee}_A \mid k_{\Delta P}\uparrow^{H \times G}$,
4. the stable equivalence of Morita type induced by ${_A}M_B$ preserves vertices and sources,
5. for any indecomposable $X \in {\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A$ with vertex in $\mathfrak A(G,P,N)$, it holds $(X\otimes_A M)_B = f(X) \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}})$, where $f$ is the Green correspondence with respect to $(G, P, H)$ [[(]{}]{}recall that $\mathfrak A(G,P,N) \subseteq
\mathfrak A(G,P,H) \cap \mathfrak A(H,P,N)$ by [**\[GreenCorrespondence\]**]{}[[**(i)**]{}]{}[[)]{}]{}.
Let $\mathfrak f_2$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(G \times G, \Delta P, G \times N)$, and set $\mathfrak M = \mathfrak f_2(A)$. Let $f_2$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(G, P, N)$. Moreover, let $\mathfrak f_1$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(H \times H, \Delta P, H \times N)$, and set $\mathfrak N = \mathfrak f_1(B)$. Let $f_1$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(H, P, N)$. Then by [**\[R(3)xS3\]**]{} and [**\[stableEquivalence-A-AN\]**]{} the bimodules $\mathfrak{N}$ and $\mathfrak{M}$ induce stable equivalences, so by [**\[SourceVertex\]**]{}(ii), and [**\[twoStableEquivalences\]**]{} there is a bimodule ${_A}M_B$ such that $$\label{eq:stableEquivalence-A-B}\tag{$*$}
{_A}(\mathfrak M \otimes_{A_N}\mathfrak N^{\vee})_B
=
{_A}M_B \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}} \ (A,B){\text{-}}{\mathrm{bimodule}})$$ and (1)–(4) hold.
It remains to show (5). Take any indecomposable $X \in {\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A$ with a vertex which is in $\mathfrak A(G,P,N)$. Then it follows from that $$X \otimes_A(\mathfrak M \otimes_{A_N}\mathfrak N^{\vee})
\ = \
X \otimes_A(M \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}} \
(A,B){\text{-}}{\mathrm{bimodule}})).$$ On the other hand, by [**\[GreenCorrespondence\]**]{}[(ii)]{} we get $$\begin{aligned}
(X \otimes_A \mathfrak M)\otimes_{A_N}\mathfrak N^{\vee}
&=
[f_2 (X) \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}} \ A_N{\text{-}}{\mathrm{module}})]
\otimes_{A_N} \mathfrak N^{\vee}
\\
&=
( f_2 (X) \otimes_{A_N}\mathfrak N^{\vee})_B
\oplus
(({\mathrm{proj}} \ A_N{\text{-}}{\mathrm{module}})
\otimes_{A_N} \mathfrak N^{\vee})_B
\\
&=
( f_2 (X) \otimes_{A_N}\mathfrak N^{\vee})_B
\oplus ({\mathrm{proj}} \ B{\text{-}}{\mathrm{module}})
\\
&=
({f_1}^{-1}(f_2 (X)))_B \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}} \ B{\text{-}}{\mathrm{module}})
\\
&= f(X) \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}} \ B{\text{-}}{\mathrm{module}})\end{aligned}$$
Modules in $A$, $B$ and $A_N$ {#blocks}
=============================
In the previous section, we have shown that there is a stable equivalence of Morita type between the blocks $A$ and $B$. As outlined in the introduction, our aim now is to verify that this equivalence is in fact a Morita equivalence with the help of **\[StableIndecomposableMorita\]**. In other words, we need to show that the associated tensor functor takes simple modules to simple modules. Therefore in this intermediate section we collect all the necessary information on the simple modules and some indecomposable modules lying in the three blocks we consider.
In addition to the notation of our standard hypothesis [**\[hyp:Co3\]**]{}, we fix the following:
\[2-decompositionCo3\] The $2$-decomposition matrix of $A$ is given in Table [[\[tab:Co3mod2\]]{}]{}, where $S_1, \cdots , S_5$ are non-isomorphic simple $kG$-modules in $A$ whose degrees are $73600$, $896$, $896$, $19712$, $131584$, respectively. The two simple modules $S_2$ and $S_3$ are dual to each other, while the remaining are self-dual. There are two pairs $(\chi_6,\chi_7)$ and $(\chi_{18},\chi_{19})$ of complex conjugate characters. All other $\chi$’s are real-valued.
[[degree]{}]{} [@Atlas p.135] $S_1$ $S_2$ $S_3 = S_2^*$ $S_4$ $S_5$
---------------- ---------------------------- ------- ------- --------------- ------- -------
$73\,600$ $\chi_{29}$ $1$ $.$ $.$ $.$ $.$
$896$ $\chi_{6}$ $.$ $1$ $.$ $.$ $.$
$896$ $\chi_7 = \chi_{6}^*$ $.$ $.$ $1$ $.$ $.$
$93\,312$ $\chi_{32}$ $1$ $.$ $.$ $1$ $.$
$20\,608$ $\chi_{18}$ $.$ $1$ $.$ $1$ $.$
$20\,608$ $\chi_{19} = \chi_{18}^*$ $.$ $.$ $1$ $1$ $.$
$226\,688$ $\chi_{38}$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$
$246\,400$ $\chi_{39}$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $2$ $1$
: The $2$-modular decomposition matrix of $\mathsf{Co}_3$.[]{data-label="tab:Co3mod2"}
See [@SuleimanWilson §6].
The $2$-blocks of ${\sf Co}_3$ have been studied before by several other people, see [@Fendel p.193 Table 6], [@Landrock1978 §7 p.1879] and [@Landrock1981 Theorems 3.10 and 3.11].
\[chi-Si\] We use the notation $\chi_{29}, \chi_6, \chi_7, \chi_{32},
\chi_{18}, \chi_{19}, \chi_{38}, \chi_{39}$, and $S_1, \cdots , S_5$ as in .
\[Knoerr\] All simple kG-modules $S_1, \cdots , S_5$ in $A$ have $P$ as a vertex.
See [@Knoerr 3.7.Corollary].
\[simples-A-N\] We get the following:
1. $A_N = k[P \rtimes F_{21}] \otimes \beta
\cong {\mathrm{Mat}}_2 ( k[P \rtimes F_{21}])$, as $k$-algebras.
2. We can write ${\mathrm{Irr}}(F_{21}) = \{ k, 1, 1^*, 3, 3^* \}$.
3. We can write $$\begin{split}
\mathrm{IBr}(A_N) =
\{ &\widetilde 2_0 = k_{P \rtimes F{_{21}}} \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}, \:
\widetilde 2 = 1 \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}, \\
&\widetilde 2^* = 1^* \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}, \:
\widetilde 6 = 3 \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}, \:
\widetilde 6^* = 3^* \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}
\}.
\end{split}$$ Note that there exists a unique simple $\widetilde 2_0$ which is self-dual.
4. The trivial source $A_N$-modules with vertex $P$ are precisely the simple $A_N$-modules.
(i)–(iii) are easy by [**\[2-local-Co3\]**]{} and the definition of $A_N$.
\(iv) This follows from (iii) and the Green correspondence [@NagaoTsushima Chap.4 Problem 10].
\[BrauerChar-B\] Set $\mathfrak R = R(3) \cong {\operatorname{SL}}_2(8) \rtimes C_3$. We get the following:
1. For the principal block of $k\mathfrak{R}$ we have $${\mathrm{Irr}}(B_0(k\mathfrak R))=
\{ 1_{\mathfrak R}, \chi_1, \chi_1^*,
\chi_{7a}, \chi_{7b}, \chi_{7c}, \chi_{21}, \chi_{27} \},$$ and $${\mathrm{IBr}}(B_0(k\mathfrak R)) = \{ k_{\mathfrak R}, 1, 1^*, 6, 12 \},$$ where the indices give the degrees (dimensions). The simples $k_{\mathfrak R}, 6, 12$ are self-dual, and the simples $k_{\mathfrak R}, 1, 1^*$ are trivial source $k\mathfrak R$-modules.
2. For the block $B$ we have $${\mathrm{Irr}}(B) =
\{ \chi_{2a}, \chi_2, \chi_2^*, \chi_{14a}, \chi_{14b}, \chi_{14c},
\chi_{42}, \chi_{54} \},$$ and $$\begin{split}
{\mathrm{IBr}}(B) =
\{ &2_0 = k_{\mathfrak R} \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}, \:
2 = 1 \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}, \\
&2^* = 1^* \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}, \:
12 = 6 \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}, \:
24 = 12\otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3} \},
\end{split}$$ where the indices give the degrees (dimensions). The simple $kH$-modules $2_0, 2, 2^*$ in $B$ are trivial source modules, the simple $kH$-modules $2_0$, $12$, $24$ are self-dual, and all the simples in $B$ have $P$ as their vertices.
\(i) It follows from [@Atlas p.6], and [@ModularAtlas $L_2(8).3$ (mod 2)] or [@ModularAtlasProject $L_2(8).3$ (mod 2)], see [**\[2-local-Co3\]**]{}(xi). Clearly, $k_{\mathfrak R}, 1, 1^*$ are trivial source $k\mathfrak R$-modules.
\(ii) $2_{\mathfrak S_3}$ is a trivial source $k\mathfrak S_3$-module. Therefore the simples $2_0, 2, 2^*$ are trivial source $kH$-modules, by (i) and [**\[2-local-Co3\]**]{}(xi). Finally, use [@Knoerr 3.7.Corollary].
\[simples-A\_N-B\] We use the notation $\mathfrak R$, $\chi_{2a}, \chi_2, \chi_2^*, \chi_{14a}, \chi_{14b}, \chi_{14c},
\chi_{42}, \chi_{54}$, $\widetilde 2_0, \widetilde 2, \widetilde 2^*,
\widetilde 6, \widetilde 6^*$ and $2_0, 2, 2^*, 12, 24$ as in [**\[simples-A-N\]**]{} and [**\[BrauerChar-B\]**]{}.
\[B-PIM\] The radical and socle series of projective indecomposable $kH$-modules in $B$ are the following: $$\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
2_0 \\
12 \\
2_0 \ 2 \ 2^* \ 24 \\
12 \ 12 \\
2_0 \ 2 \ 2^* \ 24 \\
12 \\
2_0
\end{matrix}
},
\ \ \
\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
2 \\
12 \\
2_0 \ 2 \ 2^* \ 24 \\
12 \ 12 \\
2_0 \ 2 \ 2^* \ 24 \\
12 \\
2
\end{matrix}
}
\ \ \
\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
2^* \\
12 \\
2_0 \ 2 \ 2^* \ 24 \\
12 \ 12 \\
2_0 \ 2 \ 2^* \ 24 \\
12 \\
2^*
\end{matrix}
}
\ \ \
\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
12 \\
2_0 \ 2 \ 2^* \ 24 \\
12 \ 12 \ 12 \\
2_0 \ 2_0 \ 2 \ 2 \ 2^* \ 2^* \ 24 \ 24 \\
12 \ 12 \ 12 \\
2_0 \ 2 \ 2^* \ 24 \\
12
\end{matrix}
}
\ \ \
\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
24 \\
12 \\
2_0 \ 2 \ 2^*\\
12 \\
2_0 \ 2 \ 2^* \\
12 \\
24
\end{matrix}
}$$
This follows from [@LandrockMichler1980 Theorem 3.9, Theorem 4.1] and [**\[BrauerChar-B\]**]{}.
\[tsmR(3)C2\] Recall that $R$ is a subgroup of $P$ with $R \cong C_2$, see [**\[hyp:Co3\]**]{}.
1. The Scott module ${\mathrm{Scott}}(\mathfrak R, R)$ has the radical and socle series $$\boxed
{
\begin{matrix}
k \\ 6 \\ 1 \ 1^* \ 12 \\ 6 \\ k
\end{matrix}
}
\leftrightarrow
1_{\mathfrak R} + \chi_{27}.$$
2. A $kH$-module ${\mathrm{Scott}}(\mathfrak R, R) \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}$ has the radical and socle series $$\boxed
{
\begin{matrix}
2_0 \\ 12 \\ 2 \ 2^* \ 24 \\ 12 \\ 2_0
\end{matrix}
}
\leftrightarrow
\chi_{2a} + \chi_{54}.$$
By [**\[BrauerChar-B\]**]{}(ii), it suffices to prove (i). [@Atlas p.6] says that $\mathfrak R$ has a maximal subgroup $M$ such that $M = C_9 \rtimes C_6$, $|\mathfrak R: M| = 28$ and $1_M{\uparrow}^{\mathfrak R} = 1_{\mathfrak R} + \chi_{27}$. Set $X = k_M{\uparrow}^{\mathfrak R}$. Then $X = 2 \times [k] + [1] + [1^*] + 2 \times [6] + [12]$, as composition factors by [@ModularAtlas $L_3(8).3$ (mod 2)] and [@ModularAtlasProject $L_3(8).3$ (mod 2)]. It holds by [@NagaoTsushima 4 Thm.8.9(i)] that $[X, X]^{\mathfrak R} = 2$, $[X, k]^{\mathfrak R} = [k, X]^{\mathfrak R} = 1$ Thus, $X / \rad(X) \cong \soc(X) \cong k_{\mathfrak R}$. Now, it follows from [@LandrockMichler1980 Theorem 4.1] that $P(k_{\mathfrak R})$ has the following radical and socle series: $$P(k_{\mathfrak R}) \ = \
\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
k \\
6 \\
k \ 1 \ 1^* \ 12 \\
6 \ 6 \\
k \ 1 \ 1^* \ 12 \\
6 \\
k
\end{matrix}
}.$$ Since there is an epimorphism $P(k_{\mathfrak R}) \twoheadrightarrow X$, we infer $\soc(X) \varsubsetneqq
\soc^2(X) \varsubsetneqq
\rad^2(X) \varsubsetneqq \rad(X)$ and $\rad(X)/\rad^2(X)\cong \soc^2(X)/\soc(X)\cong 6$. Thus $X$ has the radical and socle series as asserted. By the definition of $X$, it holds that $X = {\mathrm{Scott}}(\mathfrak R, C_2)$, see [@NagaoTsushima Chap.4 Theorem 8.4 and Corollary 8.5].
\[tsmR(3)C2C2\] Recall that $Q$ is a subgroup of $P$ with $Q \cong C_2 \times C_2$, see [**\[hyp:Co3\]**]{}. Set $U = {\mathrm{Scott}}(\mathfrak R, Q)$.
1. We have $U \leftrightarrow 1_{\mathfrak R} + \chi_{7a} + 2 \times \chi_{27}$, and $ U= 4 \times [k_{\mathfrak R}] + 2 \times [1] + 2 \times [1^*]
+ 5 \times [6] + 2 \times [12]$ as composition factors.
2. Set $V = U \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}$. Then $V$ is a trivial source $kH$-module in $B$ with vertex $Q$, $V \leftrightarrow \chi_{2a} + \chi_{14a} + 2 \times \chi_{54}$, and $V = 4 \times [2_0] + 2 \times [2] + 2 \times [2^*]
+ 5 \times [12] + 2 \times [24]$, as composition factors.
\(i) We know that $\mathfrak R$ has a subgroup $\mathfrak A_4$, see [@Atlas p.6]. Clearly, ${\mathrm{Irr}}(\mathfrak A_4) =
\{ 1_{\mathfrak A_4}, \psi_1, \psi_2 = \psi_1^*, \psi_3 \}$ where $\psi_3$ has degree $3$. It follows from computations with [GAP]{} [@GAP] that $$\label{eq:1tsmR(3)C2C2}
1_{\mathfrak A_4}{\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}} \cdot 1_{B_0(k\mathfrak R)}
=
1_{\mathfrak R} + \chi_{7a} + \chi_{21} + 3 \times \chi_{27},$$ $$\label{eq:2tsmR(3)C2C2}
\psi_1{\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}}\cdot 1_{B_0(k\mathfrak R)}
=
\chi_1 + \chi_{7b} + \chi_{21} + 3 \times \chi_{27},$$ $$\label{eq:3tsmR(3)C2C2}
\psi_{1^* }{\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}}\cdot 1_{B_0(k\mathfrak R)}
=
\chi_{1^*} + \chi_{7c} + \chi_{21} + 3 \times \chi_{27}.$$ Let $X = k_{\mathfrak A_4}{\uparrow^\mathfrak R} \cdot 1_{B_0(k\mathfrak R)}$. First, we want to claim that $P(12) \mid X$, where $P(12)$ is the projective cover $12$.
Set $S = {\operatorname{SL}}_2(8)$. By Clifford theory, we have $12 \downarrow_S \, = \, 4_1 \oplus 4_2 \oplus 4_3$, where $4_1$, $4_2$, $4_3$ are non-isomorphic simple $kS$-modules in $B_0(kS)$ of dimension $4$, see [@ModularAtlas $L_2(8)$ (mod $2$)] and [@ModularAtlasProject $L_2(8)$ (mod $2$)]. Let $V_1$ be the tautological $kS$-module, which is simple of dimension $2$, and let $V_2$ and $V_3$ be its images under the action of the Frobenius automorphism of $\mathbb F_8$. Then the $V_i$ are pairwise non-isomorphic, and by [@Alperin1979 p.220] we may assume that $$4_1 = V_1 \otimes V_2, \ \ 4_2 = V_2 \otimes V_3, \ \ 4_3 = V_3 \otimes V_1.$$
Set $g_a=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & a \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}\in S$ for all $a \in \mathbb F_8$. We may assume that $P = \{ g_a \mid a \in \mathbb F_8
\} \leq S$, namely, $P$ is a Sylow $2$-subgroup of $S$ with $P \cong C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2$, and that $Q=\{ g_0, g_1, g_\alpha, g_{1+\alpha} \}$, where $\alpha\in \mathbb F_8^\ast$ is a fixed primitive root, hence $Q \cong C_2 \times C_2$. Now the action of $g_0+ g_1+ g_\alpha+ g_{1+\alpha}
=(1+g_1)(1+g_\alpha) \in kQ$ is easily described in terms of Kronecker products of matrices, and it turns out that this element does not annihilate any of the $kQ$-modules $4_i$. Therefore $4_i {\downarrow_Q}$ has a projective indecomposable summand, and thus we infer that $4_i {\downarrow_Q}=P(k_Q)$.
We conclude $12{\downarrow_Q} = 12{\downarrow_S}{\downarrow_Q}
= (4_1 \oplus 4_2 \oplus 4_3){\downarrow_Q} \cong 3 \times P(k_Q)$, and it follows from [@Robinson1989 Theorem 3] that $$\begin{aligned}
3
&= [P(k_Q) \mid
12{\downarrow_Q}]^Q
= [P(12) \mid {k_Q}{\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}}]^{\mathfrak R}
= [P(12) \mid
k_Q{\uparrow^{\mathfrak A_4}}{\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}}]^{\mathfrak R}
\\
&= [P(12) \mid
(k_{\mathfrak A_4} \oplus 1_{\mathfrak A_4}
\oplus 1_{\mathfrak A_4}^*){\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}}]
^{\mathfrak R}
= [P(12) \mid ({k_{\mathfrak A_4}} {\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}}
\oplus {1_{\mathfrak A_4}} {\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}}
\oplus {1_{\mathfrak A_4}^*}{\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}})]^{\mathfrak R}.\end{aligned}$$
Suppose that $P(12) \nmid
k_{\mathfrak A_4}{\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}}$. Then $3 \times P(12) \mid
({1_{\mathfrak A_4}}{\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}}
\oplus {1_{\mathfrak A_4}^*}{\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}})$. Since $P(12) \leftrightarrow \chi_{21} + \chi_{27}$ by [@ModularAtlas $L_2(8).3$ (mod $2$)] and [@ModularAtlasProject $L_2(8).3$ (mod 2)], we know by and that $3 \times \chi_{21} + 3 \times \chi_{27}$ is contained in $(\chi_1 + \chi_{7b} + \chi_{21} + 3 \times \chi_{27}) +
(\chi_1^* + \chi_{7c} + \chi_{21} + 3 \times \chi_{27})$, which contradicts the multiplicity of $\chi_{21}$.
Therefore $P(12) \mid k_{\mathfrak A_4}{\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}}$. Since $P(12) \leftrightarrow \chi_{21} + \chi_{27}$ as seen above, it follows from that $$k_{\mathfrak A_4}{\uparrow^{\mathfrak R}}
{\cdot} 1_{B_0(k\mathfrak R )}
\ = \ X \oplus P(12)$$ for a $k\mathfrak R$-module $X$ such that $$X \leftrightarrow 1_{\mathfrak R} + \chi_{7a} + 2 \times \chi_{27}.$$ Now, let $U = {\mathrm{Scott}}(\mathfrak R, Q)$, and hence ${U}{\mid}{X}$ since $Q$ is a Sylow $2$-subgroup of $\mathfrak A_4$, see [@NagaoTsushima Chap.4 Corollary 8.5]. By the definition of Scott modules and [@NagaoTsushima 4 Thm.8.9(i)], we know $(\chi_{\widehat U}, 1_{\mathfrak R})^\mathfrak R = 1$. Clearly, $\chi_{\widehat U} \, {\not=} \, 1_{\mathfrak R}$ since $Q \lneqq P$. Since $P$ is a Sylow $2$-subgroup of $\mathfrak R$, it follows from [@NagaoTsushima Chap.4, Theorem 7.5] that $\dim_k(U)$ is even. This means that $\chi_{\widehat U} \, {\not=} \, 1_{\mathfrak R} + 2 \times \chi_{27}$ and that $\chi_{\widehat U} \, {\not=} \, 1_{\mathfrak R} + \chi_{7a} + \chi_{27}$. If $\chi_{\widehat U} = 1_{\mathfrak R} + \chi_{7a}$ then $\chi_{\widehat U}(2A) = 1 + (-1)= 0$ by [@Atlas p.6], contradicting [@Landrock1983 II Lemma 12.6] since $2A \in Q$. Suppose that $\chi_{\widehat U} = 1_{\mathfrak R} + \chi_{27}$. Then since $U$ is a trivial source $k\mathfrak R$-module, we get that $U$ has the same radical and socle series of ${\mathrm{Scott}}(\mathfrak R, R)$ just by the same method as in [**\[tsmR(3)C2\]**]{}. Since $ [U, {\mathrm{Scott}}(\mathfrak R, R)]^{\mathfrak R} = 2$ by [@NagaoTsushima 4 Thm.8.9(i)], we have $U \cong {\mathrm{Scott}}(\mathfrak R, R)$, and hence $Q \cong R$ by [@NagaoTsushima Chap.4, Corollary 8.5], again a contradiction.
Therefore we know that $\chi_{\widehat U} =
1_{\mathfrak R} + \chi_{7a} + 2 \times \chi_{27}$ and $U = X$, so that $ U= 4 \times [k_{\mathfrak R}] + 2 \times [1] + 2 \times [1^*]
+ 5 \times [6] + 2 \times [12]$, as composition factors.
\(ii) This follows from (i) and [**\[2-local-Co3\]**]{}(xi).
We will not need the precise structure of $U = {\mathrm{Scott}}(\mathfrak R, Q)$. Still we would like to remark that using the table of marks library of [GAP]{} [@GAP], and the facilities available in the [MeatAxe]{} [@MA] and its extensions, $U$ can actually be constructed and analysed explicitly. In particular, it turns out that $U$ has Loewy length $5$, but its radical and socle series do not coincide; they are $$\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
k \ 6 \\ k \ 1 \ 1^\ast \ 12 \\ 6 \ 6 \ 6 \\ k \ k \ 1 \ 1^\ast \ 12 \\ 6 \\
\end{matrix}
}
\quad\quad\quad\text{and}\quad\quad\quad
\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
6 \\ k \ k \ 1 \ 1^\ast \ 12 \\ 6 \ 6 \ 6 \\ k \ 1 \ 1^\ast \ 12 \\ k \ 6 \\
\end{matrix}
},$$ respectively.
Images of simples in $A$ via Green correspondence {#img}
=================================================
In this section we prove that the crucial hypothesis of **\[StableIndecomposableMorita\]** is fulfilled for the stable equivalence of Morita type we have established in **\[stableEquivalence-A-B\]**. Namely, we show that simple modules in $A$ are taken to simple modules in $B$. For the first four simples this is almost immediate, as this amounts to determining the Green correspondents with respect to $(G,P,H)$, and these are easily determined theoretically and computationally. The image of the last simple $A$-module however, is more difficult to determine, and we make use of our knowledge on the modules of the blocks $A$ and $B$ we have gained in Section \[blocks\].
\[functor-F\] We use the notation ${_A}M_B$, $f$, $f_1$ and $f_2$ as in [**\[stableEquivalence-A-B\]**]{}. Let $F: {\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A
\rightarrow {\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}B$ denote the functor giving the stable equivalence of Morita type of **\[stableEquivalence-A-B\]**, namely, in the notation of [**\[stableEquivalence-A-B\]**]{} we have $F(X) = X
\otimes_A M$ for each $X \in {\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A$.
\[trivial-source-in-A\] The following hold:
1. $S_4 = 22 \otimes S_2$, where $22$ is a simple $kG$-module in $B_0(kG)$.
2. We have $${22}{\downarrow}_H = (6\otimes k_{\mathfrak S_3}) \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}}),
\quad
{S_2}{\downarrow}_H
= 2 \oplus 110 \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}})
\quad {\mathrm{and}} \quad
(6\otimes k_{\mathfrak S_3}) \otimes 2 = 12,$$ where $6\otimes k_{\mathfrak S_3}$ is a simple $kH$-module in $B_0(kH)=B_0(kR(3))\otimes B_0(k\mathfrak S_3)$, and $110$ is an indecomposable $kH$-module in $B_0(kH)$, hence ${S_2}{\downarrow}_H{\cdot}1_B = 2$ and ${S_2^*}{\downarrow}_H{\cdot}1_B = 2^*$.
3. $12 \mid S_4{\downarrow}_H$.
\(i) This is obtained by [@SuleimanWilson p.502], see [@ModularAtlasProject $\mathsf{Co}_3$ (mod 2)], and a direct computation with Brauer characters in [GAP]{} [@GAP].
\(ii) By [@ModularAtlas $L_3(8).3$ (mod 2)] or [@ModularAtlasProject $L_3(8).3$ (mod 2)], except for the principal $2$-block $B_0(k[R(3)])$ of $kR(3)=k[{\operatorname{SL}}_2(8)\rtimes C_3]$ there are only three $2$-blocks of defect zero, consisting of the extensions of the Steinberg character of ${\operatorname{SL}}_2(8)$ to $R(3)$. Hence it is easy to write down the block idempotents of $kR(3)$, and similarly those of $k\mathfrak S_3$. Thus, $H$ being a small group of order $9\,072$, using [GAP]{} [@GAP] the block idempotents of $kH$ can be explicitly evaluated in a given representation. This yields the block components, which are then further analysed using the [MeatAxe]{} [@MA] and its extensions.
\(iii) It follows from (i) and (ii) that $$\begin{aligned}
S_4{\downarrow}_H
&= (22 \otimes S_2){\downarrow}_H
= 22{\downarrow}_H \otimes S_2{\downarrow}_H
\\
&= \Big( (6\otimes k_{\mathfrak S_3}) \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}}) \Big) \otimes
\Big(2 \oplus 110 \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}}) \Big)
\\
&= ((6\otimes k_{\mathfrak S_3}) \otimes 2) \oplus ({\mathrm{other}})
= 12 \oplus ({\mathrm{other}}).\end{aligned}$$
\[GreenCorrespondent-S2-S3-S4\] We have $ f(S_2) = 2$, $ f(S_2^*) = 2^*$, $ f(S_4) = 12$, and hence that $F(S_2) = 2$, $F(S_2^*) = 2^*$ and $F(S_4) = 12$.
By [**\[trivial-source-in-A\]**]{}(ii) the Green correspondents of $S_2$ and $S_2^*$ are immediate. By [**\[Knoerr\]**]{} all simple $A$-modules have vertex $P \in \mathfrak{A}(G,P,H)$, and by **\[trivial-source-in-A\]**(ii) the direct summands of $(6 \otimes k_{\mathfrak{S}_3}) \otimes 110$ lie in the principal block. Therefore by [**\[trivial-source-in-A\]**]{}(iii) and [**\[BrauerChar-B\]**]{}(ii) the simple module $12$ is the unique summand of $S_4{\downarrow_H}$ in $B$ with vertex $P$. Hence $f(S_4)=12$. By [**\[stableEquivalence-A-B\]**]{}(5) and [**\[StableIndecomposableMorita\]**]{}(i) the functor $F$ maps any simple $A$-module to its Green correspondent in $B$, and so the claim follows.
\[trivial-source-S2-S3\] The simples $S_2$ and $S_2^*$ are trivial source $kG$-modules with $S_2 \leftrightarrow \chi_6$ and $S_2^* \leftrightarrow \chi_6^*$.
We know by [**\[BrauerChar-B\]**]{}(ii) that $2$ and $2^*$ are trivial source $kH$-modules. Hence, by the definition of Green correspondence, [**\[GreenCorrespondent-S2-S3-S4\]**]{} and [**\[2-decompositionCo3\]**]{}, we get the assertion.
\[trivial-source-S1\] The simple $kG$-module $S_1$ in $A$ is a trivial source module with $S_1 \leftrightarrow \chi_{29}$.
It follows from [@Atlas p.143] that $G$ has a maximal subgroup $L$ with $L = 2^{.}S_6(2)$. Then using [@GAP], we know that ${1_L}{\uparrow}^G{\cdot}1_A = \chi_{29}$. Hence the assertion follows by [**\[2-decompositionCo3\]**]{}.
\[GreenCorrespondent-S1\] We have $f(S_1) = 2_0$, and hence $F(S_1) = 2_0$.
First, let $f'_1$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(R(3), P, P \rtimes F_{21})$. Clearly, $f'_1(k_{R(3)}) = k_{P \rtimes F_{21}}$. Since $ f_1$ is the Green correspondence with respect to $(H, P, N)=
(R(3) \times \mathfrak S_3,P, (P \rtimes F_{21})\times \mathfrak S_3)$, we know that $ f_1(k_{R(3)} \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3})
= k_{P \rtimes F_{21}} \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}$, namely, $ f_1(2_0) = \widetilde 2_0$.
By [**\[GreenCorrespondence\]**]{}(ii), $ f_1 \circ f = f_2$. Thus it follows from [**\[Knoerr\]**]{}, [**\[trivial-source-S1\]**]{} and [**\[BrauerGreen\]**]{}(iii) that $ f_1 \circ f (S_1)$ is a trivial source $kN$-module in $A_N$ with vertex $P$. Hence [**\[simples-A-N\]**]{}(iv) implies that $$f_1 \circ f (S_1) \: \in \:
\{ \widetilde 2_0, \: \widetilde 2, \:
\widetilde 2^*, \: \widetilde 6, \: \widetilde 6^* \}.$$ Then since $S_1$ is self-dual by [**\[2-decompositionCo3\]**]{}, we know that $ f_1 \circ f (S_1)$ is also self-dual. Therefore $ f_1 \circ f (S_1) = \widetilde 2_0$, giving $ f_1 \circ f (S_1) = f_1(2_0)$. This implies that $f(S_1) = 2_0$. Hence we get the assertion from [**\[stableEquivalence-A-B\]**]{}(5) and [**\[StableIndecomposableMorita\]**]{}(i).
\[Ext\] The following hold:
1. $\Ext_A^1(S_1, S_2) = \Ext_A^1(S_1, S_2^*)
= \Ext_A^1(S_2, S_1) = \Ext_A^1(S_2^*, S_1) = 0$.
2. $\Ext_A^1(S_2, S_2^*) = \Ext_A^1(S_2^*, S_2) = 0$.
3. $\dim_k[\Ext_A^1(S_1, S_4)] =\dim_k[\Ext_A^1(S_4, S_1)] = 1$.
By **\[GreenCorrespondent-S1\]** and **\[GreenCorrespondent-S2-S3-S4\]** we know the simple images of the simple modules given under the stable equivalence $F$ of **\[functor-F\]**. Hence the results are immediate by looking at the $B$-PIMs in **\[B-PIM\]**, see [@AuslanderReitenSmalo X.2 Proposition 1.12] or [@CarlsonETH §5] for instance.
\[TopOfF(S5)\] All composition factors of $F(S_5)/\rad(F(S_5))$ and $\soc(F(S_5))$ are isomorphic to the simple module $24$.
Take any simple $kH$-module $T$ in $B$ such that $T \, {\not\cong} \, 24$. Then we know by [**\[BrauerChar-B\]**]{}, [**\[GreenCorrespondent-S2-S3-S4\]**]{} and [**\[GreenCorrespondent-S1\]**]{} that $T = F(S_i)$ for $i \in \{ 1, 2, 3, 4 \}$, where $S_3 = S_2^*$. It then follows from [@Landrock1983 II Lemma 2.7 and Corollary 2.8] and [**\[functor-F\]**]{} that $ \Hom_B(F(S_5), T) = {\underline{\Hom}}_B(F(S_5), T)
= {\underline{\Hom}}_B(F(S_5), F(S_i))
\cong {\underline{\Hom}}_A(S_5, S_i)
= \Hom_A(S_5, S_i) = 0$. Thus we get the assertion for the head of $F(S_5)$. The assertion for the socle follows by the same argument and considering $\Hom_B(T,F(S_5))$ instead.
We can now finally prove that also the image of the last remaining simple $A$–module $S_5$ under $F$ is a simple $B$-module.
\[F(S5)\] We have $F(S_5) = 24$.
By [@Atlas p.134], $G$ has a maximal subgroup $\mathfrak U = {\mathrm{U}}_3(5) \rtimes \mathfrak S_3$. Set $X = k_{\mathfrak U}{\uparrow^G}{\cdot}1_A$. By calculations in [GAP]{} [@GAP] we know that $1_{\mathfrak U}{\uparrow^G}{\cdot}1_A = \chi_{29} + \chi_{39}$, so that $$\label{eq:4F(S5)}
X \ \leftrightarrow \ \chi_{29} + \chi_{39}.$$ Hence, by [**\[2-decompositionCo3\]**]{} $$\label{eq:5F(S5)}
X = 2 \times S_1 + S_2 + S_2^* + 2 \times S_4 + S_5, \
\text{ as composition factors}.$$ Since $S_1$, $S_2$ and $S_2^*$ are trivial source $kG$-modules by [**\[trivial-source-S1\]**]{} and [**\[trivial-source-S2-S3\]**]{}, it follows from , [**\[2-decompositionCo3\]**]{} and [@NagaoTsushima 4 Thm.8.9(i)] that $$[S_1, X]^G = [X, S_1]^G = 1, \qquad
[S_2, X]^G = [X, S_2]^G = [S_2^*, X]^G = [X, S_2^*]^G = 0.$$
If $[S_5,X]^G \not= 0$ or $[X,S_5]^G \not= 0$, then the self-duality of $X$ and $S_5$ implies that $S_5 \mid X$, and hence $S_5$ is a trivial source $kG$-module, so that $S_5$ is liftable to $\mathcal O$ by [@NagaoTsushima 4 Thm.8.9(iii)], which contradicts to [**\[2-decompositionCo3\]**]{}. Hence $$[S_5,X]^G = [X, S_5]^G = 0.$$ Assume $[S_4,X]^G \not= 0$ or $[X, S_4]^G \not= 0$. Then again the self-dualities of $X$ and $S_4$ in [**\[2-decompositionCo3\]**]{} say that both are non-zero. Thus we have endomorphisms $\psi_1$, $\psi_2$ and $\psi_3$ of $X$ such that $\psi_1 = id_X$, $\Im (\psi_2) \cong S_1$ and $\Im (\psi_3) \cong S_4$. This means $[X,X]^G \geqslant 3$. But [@NagaoTsushima 4 Thm.8.9(i)] and yield that $[X,X]^G = 2$, a contradiction. Thus $[S_4, X]^G = [X, S_4]^G = 0$. These imply that $$\label{eq:6F(S5)}
X/\rad(X) \cong \soc(X) \cong S_1.$$ Hence $X$ is indecomposable. Set $X_0 = \rad(X)/\soc(X)$, the heart of $X$. Thus implies $$\label{eq:7F(S5)}
X_0 = S_2 + S_2^* + 2 \times S_4 + S_5,
\text{ as composition factors}.$$ By [**\[Ext\]**]{}(i), it holds $$[X_0, S_2]^G = [X_0, S_2^*]^G
= [S_2, X_0]^G = [S_2^*, X_0]^G = 0.$$ Moreover, [**\[Ext\]**]{}(iii) yields that $X_0/\rad(X_0) \mid (S_4 \oplus S_5)$. These imply that the radical and socle series of $X$ is one of the following: $$\label{eq:8F(S5)}
X \ = \ \
\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
S_1 \\
S_4 \\
S_2 \ S_2^* \ S_5 \\
S_4 \\
S_1
\end{matrix}
},
\qquad\quad
\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
\ & S_1 & \
\\
\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
S_4 \\
S_2 \ S_2^* \\
S_4
\end{matrix}
}
& \oplus & S_5
\\
\ & S_1 & \
\end{matrix}
},
\qquad\quad
\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
S_1 \ \\
S_4 \ \\
S_2 \ \\
S_5 \ \\
S_2^* \: \\
S_4 \ \\
S_1 \
\end{matrix}
}
\qquad
{\text{or}}
\qquad
\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
S_1 \ \\
S_4 \ \\
S_2^* \:\\
S_5 \ \\
S_2 \ \\
S_4 \ \\
S_1 \
\end{matrix}
}.$$
Now, it follows from [**\[functor-F\]**]{}, [@Landrock1983 II Lemma 2.7 and Corollary 2.8], [**\[GreenCorrespondent-S2-S3-S4\]**]{} and that $$\begin{aligned}
\Hom_B(F(X),2) &= {\underline{\Hom}}_B(F(X),2)
= {\underline{\Hom}}_B(F(X),F(S_2))
\\
&\cong {\underline{\Hom}}_A(X, S_2) = \Hom_A(X, S_2) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $[F(X),2)]^B = 0$. Similarly we obtain $[F(X),2^*]^B = 0$ and $[F(X), 12]^B = 0$ and $[F(X), 2_0]^B = 1$. Similar for $\soc(F(X))$, too. Thus, by [**\[BrauerChar-B\]**]{}, we know that $$F(X)/ \rad(F(X)) \cong 2_0 \oplus (r \times 24) \text{ and }
\soc(F(X)) \cong 2_0 \oplus (r' \times 24)$$ for some $r, r' \geqslant 0$. By [**\[functor-F\]**]{}, we have $$F(X) = Y \oplus ({\text{proj}} \ B{\text{-module}})$$ for a non-projective indecomposable $kH$-module $Y$ in $B$. Thus, by [**\[GreenCorrespondent-S1\]**]{} and [**\[OmegaCommutesWithFStable\]**]{}(i)-(ii) we have $$\label{eq:11F(S5)}
2_0 {\Big|} Y/\rad(Y) \ \ \text{ and } \ \ 2_0 {\Big|} \soc(Y).$$ Recall that $2_0 = k_{\mathfrak R} \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}$ in [**\[BrauerChar-B\]**]{}(ii). Since $B$ and $B_0(k\mathfrak R)$ are Puig equivalent by [**\[2-local-Co3\]**]{}(xi), and $Y$ is a trivial source module by [**\[stableEquivalence-A-B\]**]{}, it follows that $Y \cong {\mathrm{Scott}}(\mathfrak R, S) \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}$ for a subgroup $S$ of $P$. Clearly $S \not= 1$ since $Y$ is non-projective indecomposable. If $S = P$ then yields $Y = 2_0$, so that $F(X) = 2_0 \oplus ({\text{proj}})$ and $F(S_1) = 2_0$ by [**\[GreenCorrespondent-S1\]**]{}. This is a contradiction since $X$ is non-projective indecomposable and non-simple. Thus $S \cong Q$ or $S \cong R$.
Suppose that $S \cong Q$, namely $Y \cong \mathrm{Scott}(\mathfrak R, Q) \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}$. Then it follows by [**\[tsmR(3)C2C2\]**]{}(ii) that $$Y \leftrightarrow \chi_{2a} + \chi_{14a} + 2 \times \chi_{54},$$ and we have $$\label{eq:12F(S5)}
Y = 4 \times [2_0] + 2 \times [2] + 2 \times [2^*]
+ 5 \times [12] + 2 \times [24],
\text{ as composition factors}.$$ We know by [**\[GreenCorrespondent-S1\]**]{} and [**\[GreenCorrespondent-S2-S3-S4\]**]{} that $$F(S_1) = 2_0, \ F(S_4) = 12, \ F(S_2) = 2, \ F(S_2^*) = 2^*.$$ Thus it follows by , and [**\[OmegaCommutesWithFStable\]**]{}(i)-(ii) that we can [*strip off*]{} $2 \times S_1$, $ 2 \times S_4$, $S_2$, and $S_2^*$ from the top of $X$ and from the bottom of $X$, and also $2 \times [2_0]$, $ 2 \times [12]$, $[2]$, and $[2^*]$ from the top of $Y$ and from the bottom of $Y$ sequentially, by looking at and . Consequently by [**\[StableIndecomposableMorita\]**]{}(i), we have $F(S_5) = Z$ for an indecomposable $kH$-module $Z$ in $B$ such that $Z = 2 \times [2_0] + [2] + [2^*] + 3 \times [12] + 2 \times [24]$, as composition factors. Then [**\[TopOfF(S5)\]**]{} yields $Z/\rad(Z) \cong \soc(Z) \cong 24$ and $\rad(Z)/\soc(Z) = [2_0] + [2] + [2^*] + 3 \times [12]$ as composition factors, which contradicts [**\[B-PIM\]**]{}.
Therefore $S \cong R$ and $Y \cong {\mathrm{Scott}}(\mathfrak R, R) \otimes 2_{\mathfrak S_3}$. Hence we get by [**\[tsmR(3)C2\]**]{}(ii) that $$\label{eq:13F(S5)}
F(X) \ = \ Y\oplus ({\text{proj}}), \qquad
Y \ = \
\boxed{
\begin{matrix}
2_0 \\
12 \\
2 \ 2^* \ 24 \\
12 \\
2_0
\end{matrix}
}.$$ Thus by the same [*stripping-off*]{} method [**\[OmegaCommutesWithFStable\]**]{}(i)-(ii) taken above, we can subsequently strip off $2 \times S_1$, $ 2 \times S_4$, $S_2$, and $S_2^*$ from the top of $X$ and the bottom of $X$, and also $2 \times [2_0]$, $2 \times [12]$, $[2]$, and $[2^*]$ from the top of $Y$ and the bottom of $Y$, by looking at and . Hence we arrive at $F(S_5) = 24 \oplus ({\text{proj}})$, so that [**\[StableIndecomposableMorita\]**]{} yields $F(S_5) = 24$.
We know by [**\[corollary-R(q)\]**]{} that the block $A$ of $G$ and the principal $2$-block $B_0(kR(3))$ of $R(3)$ are Puig equivalent. Let $X$ be the same as in the proof of [**\[F(S5)\]**]{}. Thus it follows from [**\[tsmR(3)C2\]**]{}(i)-(ii) and the proof of [**\[F(S5)\]**]{} that the radical and socle series of $X$ is actually the first one in in the proof of [**\[F(S5)\]**]{}, and that $X$ is a trivial source $kG$-module in $A$ with vertex $C_2$.
Proof of the main results {#proof}
=========================
[**Proof of [**\[2ndMainTheorem\]**]{}.**]{} First of all, consider the blocks $A$ and $B$ over $k$, namely, $A$ and $B$ are block algebras of $kG$ and $kH$, respectively. Hence $M$ is a $(kG, kH)$-bimodule. We know by [**\[stableEquivalence-A-B\]**]{}(ii) and [**\[functor-F\]**]{} that the functor $F$ defined by $M$ realises a stable equivalence of Morita type between $A$ and $B$. It follows from [**\[2-decompositionCo3\]**]{}, [**\[GreenCorrespondent-S2-S3-S4\]**]{}, [**\[GreenCorrespondent-S1\]**]{} and [**\[F(S5)\]**]{} that, for any simple $kG$-module $S$ in $A$, $F(S)$ is a simple $kH$-module in $B$. Hence, [**\[StableIndecomposableMorita\]**]{}(ii) yields that ${_A}{M}_B$ realises a Morita equivalence between $A$ and $B$. Since $M$ is a $\Delta P$-projective trivial source $k[G \times H]$-module, the Morita equivalence is a Puig equivalence by [@Puig1999 Remark 7.5] or [@Linckelmann2001 Theorem 4.1] (note that this was independently observed by L. Scott). Moreover, by [@NagaoTsushima 4 Thm.8.9(i)], the Morita equivalence lifts from $k$ to $\mathcal O$; see also [@Thevenaz (38.8)Proposition] or [@Puig1988Inv 7.8.Lemma]. $\Box$
[**Proof of Corollary [**\[corollary-R(q)\]**]{}.**]{} This follows by [**\[2ndMainTheorem\]**]{}, [**\[LandrockMichlerOkuyama\]**]{} and [**\[TensorPuigEquivalence\]**]{}. $\Box$
[**Proof of Theorem [**\[MainTheorem\]**]{}.**]{} This follows from [**\[corollary-R(q)\]**]{}, [**\[TensorPuigEquivalence\]**]{} and [**\[2-local-Co3\]**]{} (i). $\Box$
\[sec:app\]
Properties of the stable equivalences considered
================================================
In this appendix we collect some fundamental properties of the stable equivalences which are found throughout this paper, and in particular of the stable equivalence $F$ of [**\[functor-F\]**]{}. For the large part, these properties are used at several steps in this paper, but they are also of independent interest, as a referenceable collection with proofs is desirable. Also, in this section, we aim to supply more general hypotheses for clarity.
The first fundamental property we collect is the the following “stripping off”-method, which enables us to reduce the problem of determining the image of a module under a stable equivalence to determining the images of its head and socle components; the proof of [**\[F(S5)\]**]{} bears testimony of the utility of this lemma. See also [@KoshitaniKunugiWaki2004] in which [**\[OmegaCommutesWithFStable\]**]{} is firstly conceived and applied.
\[OmegaCommutesWithFStable\] Let $A$ and $B$ be finite dimensional $k$-algebras for a field $k$ such that $A$ and $B$ are both self-injective. Let $F$ be a covariant functor such that
1. $F$ is exact.
2. If $X$ is a projective $A$-module, then $F(X)$ is a projective $B$-module,
3. $F$ induces a stable equivalence from $\mod{\text{-}}A$ to $\mod{\text{-}}B$.
Then the following holds:
1. [(Stripping-off method, case of socle)]{} Let $X$ be a projective-free $A$-module, and write $F(X) = Y \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}})$ for a projective-free $B$-module $Y$. Let $S$ be a simple $A$-submodule of $X$, and set $T = F(S)$. Now, if $T$ is a simple $B$-module, then we may assume that $Y$ contains $T$ and that $$F(X/S)= Y/T \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}}) .$$
2. [(Stripping-off method, case of radical)]{} Similarly, let $X$ be a projective-free $A$-module, and write $F(X) = Y \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}})$ for a projective-free $B$-module $Y$. Let $X'$ be an $A$-submodule of $X$ such that $X/X'$ is simple, and set $T = F(X/X')$. Now, if $T$ is a simple $B$-module, then we may assume that $T$ is an epimorphic image of $Y$ and that $${\mathrm{Ker}}(F(X) \twoheadrightarrow T) ={\mathrm{Ker}}(Y
\twoheadrightarrow T) \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}}) .$$
(i)-(ii) The assertions are got from [@Landrock1983 II Lemma 2.7 and Corollary 2.8] and [@KoshitaniKunugiWaki2004 1.11.Lemma], just as in [@KoshitaniKunugiWaki2004 3.25.Lemma and 3.26.Lemma].
Next, we want to show that the stable equivalence of Morita type also commutes with taking the contragredient module if $A$ and $B$ are blocks of group algebras. This is made precise in [**\[k-dual-functor\]**]{}(iv), but first we place ourselves into a more general context.
\[k-dual-functor\] Let $A$ and $B$ be finite dimensional $k$-algebras for a field $k$.
1. Assume that $X \in {\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A$, and $M \in A{\text{-}}{\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}B$, and that $_A M$ is projective. Then the correspondence $$\Phi : {_B}(M^\vee \otimes_A X^\circledast)
\, \overset{\rightarrow}
\, _B[ (X \otimes_A M)^\circledast]$$ defined by $$\Big[ \Phi(\psi\otimes_A \theta)\Big](x \otimes_A m)
= \theta \Big(x {\cdot}\psi(m)\Big)$$ for $\psi \in M^\vee$, $\theta \in X^\circledast$ and $m \in M$, is an [isomorphism]{} of left $B$-modules.
2. Assume that $Y \in A{\text{-}}{\mathrm{mod}}$, and $N \in B{\text{-}}{\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A$, and that $N_A$ is projective. Then the correspondence $$\Theta : (Y^\circledast \otimes_A N^\vee)_B
\, \overset{\rightarrow}
\, [(N \otimes_A Y)^\circledast]_B$$ defined by $$\Big[ \Theta(\theta\otimes_A \psi)\Big](n \otimes_A y)
= \theta \Big( \psi(n)\cdot y \Big)$$ for $\psi \in N^\vee$, $\theta \in Y^\circledast$ and $n \in N$, is an [isomorphism]{} of right $B$-modules.
3. If $A$ moreover is a symmetric algebra, with symmetrising form $t \in \Hom_k(A,k)$, then as $(B,A)$-bimodules we have $${_B}(M^\vee)_A \cong {_B}(M^\circledast)_A
\quad\text{via the correspondence }\quad
t_\ast : f \mapsto t \circ f .$$ Thus we have an isomorphism of left $B$-modules $$\Psi : {_B}(M^\circledast \otimes_A X^\circledast)
\, {\overset{\approx}{\longrightarrow}}
\, _B(M^\vee \otimes_A X^\circledast)
\, {\overset{{\Phi}}{\longrightarrow}}
\, _B(X \otimes_A M)^\circledast$$ given by $$t_\ast(\psi)\otimes_A \theta \mapsto \psi\otimes_A\theta
\mapsto \Phi(\psi\otimes_A \theta).$$
4. If finally $A$ and $B$ are block algebras of finite groups, and $M$ is self-dual, namely, $M^* \cong M$ as $(A,B)$-bimodules, then as right $B$-modules we have $$(X^* \otimes_A M)_B \ \cong \ [(X \otimes_A M)^*]_B.$$
\(i) Assume first that $B = k$. The map $\Phi$ is $k$-linear and an isomorphism if $M = A$ as a left $A$-module. Clearly $\Phi$ is compatible with direct sums and direct summands. Thus, since $M$ is finitely generated projective as a left $A$-module, we know that $\Phi$ is an isomorphism of $k$-spaces. It is easy to see by the definition of $\Phi$ that $\Phi$ is a homomorphism of left $B$-modules, too. A similar argument works works for (ii).
\(iii) It is easy to see that $t_\ast$ is a homomorphism of $(B,A)$-bimodules, and that $t_\ast$ is injective. Hence the first assertion follows from [@Broue2009 Proposition 2.7]. The second assertion now follows from this together with (i). Now (iv) follows easily from (iii).
Finally, a fundamental property of the stable equivalences obtained through **\[gluing\]** (see also [**\[Green-GxG\]**]{}) is that it preserves vertices and sources, and takes indecomposable modules to their Green correspondents.
\[SourceVertex\] Let $H$ be a proper subgroup of $G$, and let $A$ and $B$ be block algebras of $kG$ and $kH$, respectively. Now, let $M$ and $M'$ be finitely generated $(A,B)$- and $(B,A)$-bimodules, respectively, which satisfy the following:
1. ${_A}M_B \mid 1_A{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_B$ and ${_B}{M'}_A \mid 1_B{\cdot}kG{\cdot}1_A$.
2. The pair $(M, M')$ induces a stable equivalence between ${\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}A$ and ${\mathrm{mod}}{\text{-}}B$.
Then we get the following:
1. Assume that $X$ is a non-projective indecomposable $kG$-module in $A$ with vertex $Q$. Then there exists a non-projective indecomposable $kH$-module $Y$ in $B$, unique up to isomorphism, such that $(X \otimes_A M)_B = Y \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}})$, and $Q^g$ is a vertex of $Y$ for some element $g \in G$ [[(]{}]{}and hence $Q^g \subseteq H$[[)]{}]{}. Since $Q^g$ is also a vertex of $X$, this means that $X$ and $Y$ have at least one vertex in common.
2. Assume that $Y$ is a non-projective indecomposable $kH$-module in $B$ with vertex $Q$. Then there exists a non-projective indecomposable $kG$-module $X$ in $A$, unique up to isomorphism, such that $(Y \otimes_B {M'})_A = X \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}})$, and $Q$ is a vertex of $X$.
3. Let $X, Y$ and $Q \leqslant H$ be the as in [[(i)]{}]{}. Then there is an indecomposable $kQ$-module $L$ such that $L$ is a source of both $X$ and $Y$. This means that $X$ and $Y$ have at least one source in common.
4. Let $X, Y$ and $Q \leqslant H$ be the same as in [[(ii)]{}]{}. Then there is an indecomposable $kQ$-module $L$ such that $L$ is a source of both $X$ and $Y$. This means that $X$ and $Y$ have at least one source in common.
5. Let $X, Y$, $Q$ and $L$ be the same as in [[(iii)]{}]{}. In addition, suppose that $A$ and $B$ have a common defect group $P$ [[(]{}]{}and hence $P \subseteq H$[[)]{}]{} and that $H \geqslant N_G(P)$. Let $f$ be the Green correspondence with respect to $(G, P, H)$. If $ Q \in
\mathfrak A = {\mathfrak A}(G, P, H)$, then we have $(X \otimes_A
M)_B = f(X) \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}})$.
6. Let $X$, $Y$, $Q$ and $L$ be the same as in [[(ii)]{}]{}. Furthermore, as in [[(v)]{}]{}, assume that $P$ is a common defect group of $A$ and $B$, and that $H \geqslant N_G(P)$, and let $f$ and $\mathfrak A$ be the same as in [[(v)]{}]{}. Now, if $Q \in
\mathfrak A$, then we have $(Y \otimes_B M')_A = f^{-1}(Y) \oplus
({\mathrm{proj}})$.
\(i) Clearly, $X \mid {X}{\downarrow_Q\uparrow^G}$. By (2) there exists a non-projective indecomposable $kH$-module $Y$ in $B$, unique up to isomorphism, such that $(X \otimes_A M)_B = Y \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}})$. Hence, $$Y \mid X {\otimes_A}M = X {\otimes_{kG}}M \mid
X {\otimes_{kG}}kG_{kH} = {X}{\downarrow_H} \mid
{X}{\downarrow_Q\uparrow^G\downarrow_H} = \bigoplus_{g \in [Q \backslash
G / H]} ({X}{\downarrow_Q})^g{\downarrow}_{Q^g \cap H}{\uparrow^H} .$$ The last equality follows from Mackey Decomposition. Since $Y_{kH}$ is indecomposable, the Krull-Schmidt Theorem yields $Y \mid
({{X}{\downarrow_Q})^g}{\downarrow}_{Q^g \cap H}{\uparrow^H}$ for some $g \in G$. That is, $Y$ is $(Q^g \cap H)$-projective, so that there is a vertex $R$ of $Y$ such that $R \leqslant Q^g \cap H$. Since $Y \mid
{Y{\downarrow}{_R}}{\uparrow}{^H}$, it holds as above that $$X \mid Y{\otimes_B}{M'} = Y {\otimes_{kH}}{M'}
\mid Y{\otimes_{kH}}{kG_{kG}} = {Y{\uparrow}{^G}}
\mid ({Y}{\downarrow}{_R}{\uparrow^H}){\uparrow^G} =
{{Y}{\downarrow}}{_R}{\uparrow}{^G}.$$ Hence, $X$ is $R$-projective, so that there is a vertex $S$ of $X$ with $S \subseteq R$. Since $Q$ is also a vertex of $X$, we have $S =
Q^{g'}$ for some $g' \in G$. Namely, $Q^{g'} \subseteq R$. This implies that $Q^{g'} = S \subseteq R \subseteq Q^g \cap H \subseteq Q^g$, and hence $Q^{g'} =R = Q^g \cap H = Q^g$. This yields that $Q^g \subseteq
H$.
\(ii) Similar to (i).
\(iii) By the assumption, $Q$ is a common vertex of $X$ and $Y$. Let $L_{kQ}$ be a source of $Y_{kH}$. Then by the proof of (i), $X \mid Y{\uparrow}{^G} \mid {L}{\uparrow}{^H}{\uparrow}{^G} =
{L}{\uparrow}{^G}$. Hence, $X \mid {{L}{\uparrow}}{^G}$. Since $X$ has vertex $Q$ and $L$ is an indecomposable $kQ$-module, it follows that $L$ is a source of $X$, too.
\(iv) This follows from (iii).
\(v) Let $\mathfrak X$, $\mathfrak Y$ and $\mathfrak A$ be those with respect to $(G, P, H)$ as in [@NagaoTsushima Chap.4 §4]. Now, let $X$ be an indecomposable $kG$-module in $A$ such that a vertex of $X$ is in $\mathfrak A$. Thus, we can assume that $Q \in \mathfrak A$. If $X$ is projective then $Q$ is trivial, so that the trivial group is not contained in $\mathfrak X$ by the definition of $\mathfrak A$, a contradiction, since $H \, \not= G$.
Hence, $X$ is non-projective. Thus, we get by (i) and (ii) that there is a non-projective indecomposable $kH$-module $Y$ in $B$ such that $X
\otimes_A M = Y \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}} \ B{\text{-}}{\mathrm{mod}})$ and that $Y$ also has $Q$ as its vertex. On the other hand, we know $(X \otimes_A M) \mid X_{kH} = f(X) \oplus ({\mathfrak
Y}{\text{-}}{\mathrm{proj}} \ B{\text{-}}{\mathrm{mod}})$. This implies that $f(X) \oplus ({\mathfrak Y}{\text{-}}{\mathrm{proj}}
\ B{\text{-}}{\mathrm{mod}}) = Y \oplus ({\mathrm{proj}} \
B{\text{-}}{\mathrm{mod}}) \oplus V$ for a $kH$-module $V$.
Assume that $Y$ is $\mathfrak Y$-projective. Since $Q$ is a vertex of $Y$, we have $Q \in_H \mathfrak Y$. Hence, we get by [@NagaoTsushima Chap.4 Lemma 4.1(ii)] that $Q \in \mathfrak X$. Then we have $Q
\not\in \mathfrak A$, a contradiction. Therefore, by the Krull-Schmidt Theorem, we have $Y \cong f(X)$.
\(vi) We get this exactly as in (iii) just by replacing $X$, $M$, and $f$ by $Y$, $M'$, and $f^{-1}$, respectively.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
[99]{}
J.L. Alperin, Projective modules for $SL(2, 2^n)$, J. Pure Appl. Algebra [**15**]{} (1979), 219–234.
J.L. Alperin, M. Brou[é]{}, Local methods in block theory, Ann. of Math. [**110**]{} (1979), 143–157.
J.L. Alperin, M. Linckelmann, R. Rouquier, Source algebras and source modules, J. Algebra [**239**]{} (2001), 262–271.
M. Auslander, I. Reiten, S.O. Smal[ø]{}, Representation theory of Artin algebras, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997.
T. Breuer, GAP package CTblLib — The GAP Character Table Library, Version 1.1.3, http://www.gap-system.org/Packages/ctbllib.html.
M. Brou[é]{}, Isom[é]{}tries parfaites, types de blocs, cat[é]{}gories d[é]{}riv[é]{}es, Astérisque [**181–182**]{} (1990), 61–92.
M. Brou[é]{}, Equivalences of blocks of group algebras, In: Finite Dimensional Algebras and Related Topics, Dlab, V., Scott, L.L. (eds.) pp.1–26 Kluwer Acad. Pub., Dordrecht, 1994.
M. Brou[é]{}, Higman’s criterion revisited, Michigan Math. J. [**58**]{} (2009), 125–179.
M. Brou[é]{}, L. Puig, Characters and local structure in $G$-algebras, J. Algebra [**73**]{} (1980), 306–371.
M. Broué, L. Puig, A Frobenius theorem for blocks, Invent. Math. [**56**]{} (1980), 117–128.
J.F. Carlson, Modules and Group Algebras, Lectures in Mathematics ETH Z[ü]{}rich, Birkh[ä]{}user, Basel, 1996.
J. Chuang, J. Rickard, Representations of finite groups and tilting, Handbook of tilting theory, 359–391, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. [**332**]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007.
J.H. Conway, R.T. Curtis, S.P. Norton, R.A. Parker, R.A. Wilson, Atlas of Finite Groups, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1985.
D. Craven, R. Rouquier, Perverse equivalences and Broué’s conjecture, Preprint (2010), arXiv:1010.1378v1 \[math.RT\].
C.W. Curtis, I. Reiner, Methods of Representation Theory with Applications to Finite Groups and Orders, Vol.1, Wiley, New York, 1981.
D. Fendel, A characterization of Conway’s group [.3]{}, J. Algebra [**24**]{} (1973), 159–196.
The GAP Group, GAP — Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, Version 4.4.12, http://www.gap-system.org.
C. Jansen, K. Lux, R. Parker, R. Wilson, An Atlas of Brauer Characters, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995.
R. Kessar, S. Koshitani, M. Linckelmann, Alperin’s weight conjecture for $2$-blocks with elementary abelian defect groups of order $8$, to appear in J. reine angew. Math. (2011), 46 pages.
R. Kn[ö]{}rr, On the vertices of irreducible modules, Ann. of Math. [**110**]{} (1979), 487–499.
S. K[ö]{}nig, A. Zimmermann, Derived Equivalences for Group Rings, Lecture Notes in Math., Vol.[**1685**]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1998.
S. Koshitani, The principal $2$-block of finite groups with abelian Sylow $2$-subgroups, Tsukuba J. Math. [**4**]{} (1980), 21–66.
S. Koshitani, N. Kunugi, K. Waki, Brou[é]{}’s abelian defect group conjecture for the Held group and the sporadic Suzuki group, J. Algebra [**279**]{} (2004), 638–666.
S. Koshitani, M. Linckelmann, The indecomposability of a certain bimodule given by the Brauer construction, J. Algebra [**285**]{} (2005), 726–729.
B. K[ü]{}lshammer, Some indecomposable modules and their vertices, J. Pure Appl. Algebra [**86**]{} (1993), 65–73.
P. Landrock, The non-principal 2-blocks of sporadic simple groups, Commun. Algebra [**6**]{} (1978), 1865–1891.
P. Landrock, On the number of irreducible characters in a $2$-block, J. Algebra [**68**]{} (1981), 426–442.
P. Landrock, Finite Group Algebras and Their Modules, London Math. Society Lecture Note Series, Vol.[**84**]{}, London Math. Soc., Cambridge, 1983.
P. Landrock, G.O. Michler, Principal 2-blocks of the simple groups of Ree type, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**260**]{} (1980), 83–111.
M. Linckelmann, Derived equivalence for cyclic blocks over a $P$-adic ring. Math. Z. [**207**]{} (1991), no. 2, 293–304.
M. Linckelmann, A derived equivalence for blocks with dihedral defect groups, J. Algebra [**164**]{} (1994), no. 1, 244–255.
M. Linckelmann, The source algebras of blocks with a Klein four defect group, J. Algebra [**167**]{} (1994), no. 3, 821–854.
M. Linckelmann, Stable equivalences of Morita type for self-injective algebras and $p$-groups, Math. Z. [**223**]{} (1996), 87–100.
M. Linckelmann, On derived equivalences and local structure of blocks of finite groups, Turkish J. Math. [**22**]{} (1998), 93–107.
M. Linckelmann, On splendid derived and stable equivalences between blocks of finite groups, J. Algebra [**242**]{} (2001), 819–843.
M. Linckelmann, Trivial source bimodule rings for blocks and $p$-permutation equivalences, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**361**]{} (2009), 1279–1316.
K. Lux, J. Müller, M. Ringe, Peakword condensation and submodule lattices: an application of the MeatAxe, J. Symb. Comput. [**17**]{} (1994), 529–544.
K. Lux and M. Szőke, Computing decompositions of modules over finite-dimensional algebras, Experiment. Math. [**16**]{} (2007), 1–6.
K. Lux, M. Szőke, Computing homomorphism spaces between modules over finite dimensional algebras, Experiment. Math. [**12**]{} (2003), 91–98.
K. Lux, M. Wiegelmann, Determination of socle series using the condensation method, in: Computational algebra and number theory, Milwaukee, 1996, J. Symb. Comput. [**31**]{} (2001), 163–178.
A. Marcus, Derived equivalences and the abelian defect group conjecture, Proc. of the International Conference on Modules and Representation Theory, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, 2008; pp.111–131.
F. Noeske, ADGC for Sporadic Groups, http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/$^{\sim}$Felix.Noeske/tabular.pdf.
H. Nagao, Y. Tsushima, Representations of Finite Groups, Academic Press, New York, 1988.
T. Okuyama, Module correspondence in finite groups, Hokkaido Math. J. [**10**]{} (1981), 299–318.
T. Okuyama, Some examples of derived equivalent blocks of finite groups, preprint (1997).
L. Puig, Nilpotent blocks and their source algebras, Invent. Math. [**93**]{} (1988), 77–116.
L. Puig, On the Local Structure of Morita and Rickard Equivalences between Brauer Blocks, Birkh[ä]{}user Verlag, Basel, 1999.
J. Rickard, Derived categories and stable equivalence, J. Pure Appl. Algebra [**61 (3)**]{} (1989), 303–317.
J. Rickard, Splendid equivalences: derived categories and permutation modules, Proc. London Math. Soc. [**(3) 72**]{} (1996), 331–358.
J. Rickard, Triangulated categories in the modular representation theory of finite groups, in: Derived Equivalences for Group Rings, edited by S. K[ö]{}nig and A. Zimmermann, Lecture Notes in Math., Vol.[**1685**]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1998, pp.177–198.
J. Rickard, Some recent advances in modular representation theory, in: Algebras and Modules, edited by I. Reiten, S.O. Smal[ø]{} and Ø. Solberg, Canadian Math. Soc. Conference Proc. [**23**]{} (1998), pp.157–178.
M. Ringe, The C-MeatAxe — Computing with Modular Representations, Version 2.4.13, http://www. math.rwth-aachen.de/homes/MTX, 2009.
G.R. Robinson, On projective summands of induced modules, J. Algebra [**122**]{} (1989), 106–111.
R. Rouquier, From stable equivalences to Rickard equivalences for blocks with cyclic defect, in: Groups ’93 Galway/St Andrews Vol.2, edited by C.M. Campbell et al., London Math. Society Lecture Note Series, Vol.[**212**]{} (1995), pp.512–523, London Math. Soc., Cambridge.
R. Rouquier, The derived category of blocks with cyclic defect groups, in: Derived Equivalences for Group Rings, edited by S. K[ö]{}nig and A. Zimmermann, Lecture Notes in Math., Vol.[**1685**]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1998, pp.199–220
R. Rouquier, Block theory via stable and Rickard equivalences. in Modular representation theory of finite groups, edited by M.J. Collins et al., Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2001, pp.101–146.
I.A.I. Suleiman, R.A. Wilson, The $2$-modular characters of Conway’s third group $Co_3$, J. Symbolic Computation [**24**]{} (1997), 493–506.
J. Th[é]{}venaz, $G$-Algebras and Modular Representation Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995.
A. Watanabe, Notes on $p$-blocks of characters of finite groups, J. Algebra [**136**]{} (1991), 109–116.
W. Willems, A note on Brauer’s induction theorem, J. Algebra [**58**]{} (1979), 523–526.
R. Wilson, Standard generators for sporadic simple groups, J. Algebra [**184**]{} (1996), 505–515.
R. Wilson, R. Parker, S. Nickerson, J. Bray and T. Breuer, GAP package AtlasRep — A GAP Interface to the Atlas of Group Representations, Version 1.4.0, http://www.gap-system.org/Packages/atlasrep.html.
R. Wilson, J. Thackray, R. Parker, F. Noeske, J. M[ü]{}ller, F. L[ü]{}beck, C. Jansen, G. Hiss, T. Breuer, The Modular Atlas Project, http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/$^{\sim}$MOC.
R. Wilson, P. Walsh, J. Tripp, I. Suleiman, R. Parker, S. Norton, S. Nickerson, S. Linton, J. Bray, R. Abbott, Atlas of Finite Group Representations, http://brauer.maths.qmul.ac.uk/Atlas/v3.
[^1]: $^*$ Corresponding author.\
[email protected] (S.Koshitani),\
[email protected] (J.M[ü]{}ller), [email protected] (F.Noeske).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Verifying if two audio segments belong to the same speaker has been recently put forward as a flexible way to carry out speaker identification, since it does not require to be re-trained when new speakers appear on the auditory scene. However, many of the current techniques employ a considerably high amount of memory, and require a specific minimum audio segment length to obtain good performances. This limits the applicability in areas such as service robots, internet of things and virtual assistants. In this work we propose a BLSTM-based model that reaches a level of performance comparable to the current state of the art when using short input audio segments, while requiring a considerably less amount of memory. Further, as far as we know, a complete speaker identification system has not been reported using this verification paradigm. Thus, we present a complete online speaker identifier, based on a simple voting system that shows that the proposed BLSTM-based model and the current state of the art are similarly accurate at identifying speakers online.'
address: ' Instituto de Investigaciones en Matemáticas Aplicadas y en Sistemas (IIMAS), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Circuito Escolar 3000, 04510, Mexico '
author:
- Ivette Vélez
- Caleb Rascon
- 'Gibrán Fuentes-Pineda'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: Lightweight Speaker Verification for Online Identification of New Speakers with Short Segments
---
speaker identification ,generic verification ,low resources
Introduction {#sect:intro}
============
It is of great interest that computer systems interact with humans in a similar manner as a human would. Thus, there is a growing need to correctly identify the speaker by their voice alone [@Youssef2010], and there has been recent important progress in terms of performance in the wild [@NAGRANI2020101027]. This progress has been largely based on the use of deep neural networks [@irum2019speaker], which tend to occupy a considerable amount of computational resources, since the number of parameters used to obtain such a high performance is usually relatively high [@NAGRANI2020101027]. Additionally, several of these techniques tend to require a sizeable segment of time with which to identify the user to obtain these high performances [@Hajavi2019]. These two requirements limit the application scenarios in which these high-performing speaker identification techniques can be used, such as service robots [@Grondin2012], internet of things [@7224867], and virtual assistants [@tiwari2018virtual]. In these scenarios, users speak in small spurts of time [@5453181], requiring that the identification is carried out only using short segments of audio. Additionally, other processes are usually carried out in parallel (such as natural language processing, face recognition, action planning, etc.) and it is of interest that all functionalities are run on-site (in case of network outages). This limits the amount of memory and computational resources that can be used for speaker identification.
Although there has been an increasing amount of speaker identification techniques based on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Bi-directional Long Short-Term Memory networks (BLSTM) have rarely been used for this purpose, while they have provided good results in other audio applications, such as voice conversion [@8695725], sound source separation [@wang2018alternative] and speech recognition [@sym11050644]. An important aspect of BLSTM is their re-use of weights in there inner processes for modeling temporal data, which results in a small amount of parameters. Additionally, because of their recurrent nature, as well as their use of memory, they are well suited for finding temporal patterns. Both of these features in conjunction make them a viable candidate to explore for carrying out lightweight speaker verification.
In typical human-human interaction, new users are often introduced in the environment, such as when a new customer enters a restaurant or when a new house guest uses a device. Classical identification techniques rely either on a classification model, that has an output for every known speaker, or on a series of verification models, each trained to identify a known speaker [@campbell1997]. Recently, there has been a shift away from this approach [@chung2019voxsrc] towards what we will refer to “generic verification”, where a model is trained to compare two text-independent audio segments to establish if they are from the user or not. This generality makes the solution space much more complex, but provides the benefit that, with an additional selection scheme, the two-input verification model can be used for speaker identification. It is important to state that, although the ultimate aim for generic verification is to carry out speaker identification, as far as we know there has not been reported a complete speaker identification system based on this paradigm.
In this work, we propose a BLSTM-based model to carry out generic speaker verification that requires a relatively small amount of parameters and short segments of audio. It is important to state that our proposal does not aim to outperform the current state of the art of speaker verification. It aims to offer a reasonable trade-off between performance and portability. Meaning, we believe that the differential of the computational and segment-length requirements between the proposed model and the current state-of-the-art heavily outweighs their performance differential. Additionally, we propose to use this model alongside a simple voting system, to provide a complete online speaker identifier that does not requires to be re-trained when new speakers are encountered.
To facilitate the adoption of our proposal, the source code and trained weights of the complete system can be freely downloaded from:
<https://github.com/julik43/blstm_speaker_id>
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: a summary of works related to ours is presented in Section \[sect:related\_work\]; in Section \[sect:prop\_system\] the proposed BLSTM-based model is described; in Section \[sect:results\], the proposed BLSTM-model is evaluated and compared against the state of the art in terms of performance and memory usage; in Section \[sect:classif\] a complete online speaker identifier is summarized, and is evaluated using the proposed BLSTM-based model and the state of the art; and, we conclude our work in Section \[sect:conclusions\].
Related Work {#sect:related_work}
============
Speaker identification for a considerable amount of time has long been carried out by either classification or verification [@campbell1997]. However, recently there has been an important shift towards techniques that transform the input signal to a “speaker domain”, where the speaker is represented by an embedding vector calculated from the input signal, and then compared against the embeddings of other known speakers. A popular approach is based on i-vectors [@5545402], but more recently the use of deep learning techniques have been more prominent for embedding calculation [@Snyder2017]. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) have been the more popular choice, since they have been well tested for feature extraction in computer vision. They have been used to generate new types of features which are then fed into different statistical methods [@Snyder2017; @Snyder2016; @Variani2014; @Bhattacharya2017; @Heigold2016]. Moreover, CNNs have also been used with raw audio [@Muckenhirn2017] to extract the relevant information to be used with an ad-hoc verifier generated for every speaker. They have also been extensively employed in a Siamese-fashion for biometric-based human identification for several years, e.g. in signature verification [@NIPS1993_769], fingerprint recognition [@Baldi1993NeuralNF], face verification (in conjunction with a similarity metric) [@Chopra05learninga], and gait recognition [@zhangsnn2016]. These applications are compatible with Siamese networks since they can be used to verify if two input signals are from the same source (in these cases, from the same user).
To this effect, speaker identification is now being approached by ways of what we in this work refer to “generic verification”: where a model is trained that establishes if two audio segments belong to the same speaker or not. In fact, the recent 2019 VoxCeleb Speaker Recognition Challenge (VoxSRC) [@chung2019voxsrc] established the goal of the contestants for this specific task. An example of this approach is that of [@Daqrouq2011; @DAQROUQ2015231], where speaker identification is carried out by comparing a measure of similarity between the audio of a speaker and patterns previously generated for known speakers.
Another representative example of this type of approach is the work of Nagrani et. al. [@nagrani17], where the authors describe the VoxCeleb1 database and trained a Siamese CNN for generic verification of speakers. They use the cosine distance between two signals as a measure of similarity. For the identification process they report an accuracy of 80.5% and 92.1% for top-1 and top-5 respectively. Although the authors also report an identification, they did not use the generic verification paradigm to carry this out; they used a traditional classification approach. This work was extended to use a “thin” ResNet, with a NetVLAD-based time feature agreggator, that is able to estimate such embeddings from input segments with a variable length [@8683120].
Interestingly, the vast majority of these works are based on the use of CNNs for embedding calculation. A rare exception is [@Mobiny2018], where speaker verification is carried out by using a Siamese model of two Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, and a contrastive loss function used for verification. However, this approach involves the training of a verification model for each speaker, which is more akin to the classical verification approach. The authors reported an Equal Error Rate (EER) of 22.9% and 22.1% in their tests. As mentioned previously, since BLSTMs re-use weights in there inner processes for temporal modeling, they tend to employ a small amount of parameters.
Furthermore, even though the vast majority of the recent embedding-based techniques report impressive verification performances, they do not aim for “lightweightedness”. Meaning, the amount of parameters they employ are usually quite high, limiting their applicability in scenarios such as service robotics, internet of things and virtual assistants. As for the length of audio segments, several seconds of information are required to obtain these high performances. A notable exception to this is the work of [@Hajavi2019], where sub-1-second segments were tested with an EER below 7% and memory usage was of 268 MB.
It is then of interest to have a speaker verification system that provides a trade-off between performance and computational and segment-length requirements.
It is important to note that, even though the aim of embedding-based verification is to be ultimately used for speaker identification, as far as we know, there has not been a report of a full speaker identification system based on this approach. To this effect, the work of [@Koch2015SiameseNN] approaches the task of classification of written characters by using embedding-based verification in conjunction with a simple voting-based selection scheme, and obtained good results. The same can be employed for speaker identification; and, as such, this approach is also explored in this work.
Proposed BLSTM-Based Model {#sect:prop_system}
==========================
As described earlier, a recently popular approach for speaker identification is to train a system that establishes if two audio segments belong to the same speaker or not. This is carried out by calculating the embedding of the audio segments (to transform them into the “speaker domain”) and then measuring their similarity. To calculate these embeddings, we propose a model based on a Bi-directional Long Short-Term Memory network (BLSTM), because of the relatively few amount of parameters that are employed to find temporal patterns. The aim is then to obtain a relatively good performance, using a relatively small amount of parameters and small input lengths.
To train this model, we first establish a simple classification scenario, in which all but the last layer of the trained model is used for embedding calculation, as shown in Figure \[fig:archtraining\].
![Proposed architecture for embedding calculation.[]{data-label="fig:archtraining"}](BLSTM_Embedding.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
The last layer is a fully connected layer that carries out the classification from the embedding. This layer is then removed, and the rest of the network is then used for embedding calculation of incoming input segments. The resulting network architecture is comprised of the three BLSTM layers with 256 units, and outputs an embedding of size 512, twice the number of units.
The Frobenius Inner Product is then used to calculate the similarity between the normalized embeddings, as described in Equation \[eq:frobenius\].
$$\label{eq:frobenius}
d_{[f_1,f_2]} = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \left(\frac{f_1[i]}{\|f_1\|_2}*\frac{f_2[i]}{\|f_2\|_2}\right)$$
where $f_1$ and $f_2$ are the calculated embeddings of the two input segments; $N$ is the embedding vector length; $i$ is the vector index; $\|\cdot\|_2$ the L2 norm operator; and $d_{[f_1,f_2]}$ is the Frobenius Inner Product between $f_1$ and $f_2$. Because of the normalization of the embeddings, the possible values of $d$ range between $[-1,1]$, with values close to 1 representing high similarity. It is important to point out that the L2-normalization is actually carried out in the last layer of the proposed embedding-calculation architecture (shown in Figure \[fig:archtraining\]). This means that the calculated embeddings are already L2-normalized, and, thus, during testing the Frobenius distance is calculated by just summing up the point-to-point multiplication of $f_1$ and $f_2$. It is only included in Equation \[eq:frobenius\] for completeness sake.
For pre-processing, we employed the Voice Activity Detection technique based on [@vad], which employs a 20 dB threshold to discriminate between silent and active windows. In terms of the input segment length, the model was trained with segments of 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 seconds.
In terms of employed features, we propose to explore different types of spectrograms, such that the input of the model is a matrix in which one dimension is time. In the other dimension, we extracted the following features to explore:
- Spectral magnitude in a linear scale. Referred here as *SpecMag*.
- Spectral magnitude in a decibel scale. The result is a type of frequency selector, since it tends to amplify frequency bins with high energy, while reducing ones with low energy. Referred here as *SpecdB*.
- Spectral density, estimated by the square of the linearly-scaled magnitude. The result provides an estimate of the energy distribution throughout the spectral range. Referred here as *Spec*.
- Spectral magnitude in a linear scale after filtering the input audio with a simple pre-emphasis filter, which avoids distortion in high frequencies while reducing variability in the extracted spectra [@526613]. Referred here as *EmphSpec*.
- The previous feature, but in a decibel scale. Referred here as *EmphSpecdB*.
- The Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficient (MFCC) spectrum, built with 40 logarithmically spaced triangular filters. Referred here as *MFCC*.
The time dimension of all the employed spectrograms were calculated by using either a Hamming window (for Spec, EmphSpec, EmphSpecdB and MFCC) or a Hann window (for SpecMag and SpecdB) of 32 ms, with an overlap of 16 ms. Given that the recordings used for training and validation (described in the following section) are sampled at 16 kHz, the length of the window is of 512 samples. An interesting note here is that, regardless of the input segment length, the embedding dimension will ultimately be of 512, which could be argued provides consistency in the embedding-domain search space during training.
Training, Validation, and Testing Methodology {#subsec:train}
---------------------------------------------
The VoxCeleb2 database [@voxceleb2] was used for training the classification network, from which the speaker embedding is calculated. For each training epoch, $1000000$ randomly-selected recordings from the 5000 speakers of the “dev” subset of the corpus were used for training. Each model was trained for 30 epochs using the Adam optimizer [@kingma2014adam], a cross-entropy loss function, a learning rate of $0.0001$ and a batch size of $100$. After each training epoch, a validation stage was carried out with $8000$ randomly-selected entries to determine its classification performance during training. The amount of epochs was determined by previous tests that showed that the resulting embeddings provided the same or worse verification performance.
As mentioned before, a VAD system (which is based on [@vad]) is used to extract time segments of vocal activity from the corpus audio files.
For testing the trained model for generic verification, the trained network was evaluated with the VoxCeleb1 verification test list, released by the VGG group[^1], composed of 37720 balanced data pairs of the VoxCeleb1 dataset. In this stage, for each audio in the test list, an embedding was generated using the trained model, then the Frobenius Inner product was calculated between the pairs listed determining if both were from the same speaker or not. This was carried out by using a threshold in the mid-point of $[-1,1]$ range of possible values of the Frobenius Inner product.
Results {#sect:results}
=======
In Table \[table:verification\_results\], the number of employed parameters, memory usage (in MB) and the equal error rate (EER) of the verification of each of the models trained with every possible combination of segment lengths (0.25, 0.5, 1.5 and 2 s) and of explored input features (SpecdB, Spec, SpecMag, EmphSpec, EmphSpecdB and MFCC).
Input Feat. Length (s) EER (%) Memory Usage (MB)
------------- ------------ --------- ------------------- --
*SpecdB* *2.00* *13.61* *16.80*
Spec 2.00 18.84 16.80
SpecMag 2.00 14.22 16.80
EmphSpec 2.00 14.11 16.80
EmphSpecdB 2.00 13.53 16.80
MFCC 2.00 13.63 15.03
*SpecdB* *1.50* *14.81* *16.80*
Spec 1.50 20.79 16.80
SpecMag 1.50 16.09 16.80
EmphSpec 1.50 16.36 16.80
EmphSpecdB 1.50 15.43 16.80
MFCC 1.50 15.62 15.03
*SpecdB* *1.00* *17.54* *16.80*
Spec 1.00 22.90 16.80
SpecMag 1.00 19.09 16.80
EmphSpec 1.00 19.03 16.80
EmphSpecdB 1.00 18.61 16.80
MFCC 1.00 18.07 15.03
*SpecdB* *0.50* *24.84* *16.80*
Spec 0.50 29.41 16.80
SpecMag 0.50 25.76 16.80
EmphSpec 0.50 26.20 16.80
EmphSpecdB 0.50 25.07 16.80
MFCC 0.50 24.88 15.03
*SpecdB* *0.25* *29.92* *16.80*
Spec 0.25 33.31 16.80
SpecMag 0.25 30.96 16.80
EmphSpec 0.25 31.64 16.80
EmphSpecdB 0.25 30.00 16.80
MFCC 0.25 29.79 15.03
: Results of the evaluation of all trained models.[]{data-label="table:verification_results"}
As it can be seen, the SpecdB feature (a spectrogram with spectral magnitude in a decibel scale) consistently outperformed the other features in each possible segment length. Because of this reason, all of the following comparisons were carried out using this feature as part of the proposed BLSTM-based model.
To fully evaluate our system we compare the BLSTM-based model to relevant state of the art models with varying degrees of input segment lengths, as well as memory usage.
EER vs Input Segment Length
---------------------------
In terms of what other embedding-based verification techniques with which to compare our system, i-vectors [@5545402], x-vectors [@120006705553] and ResNet50-based [@he2015resnet], as far as we know, have not been evaluated with small input segment lengths and are not publicly available. Thus, a direct comparison cannot be made. Thus, we chose the aforementioned work of [@8683120], where the authors employed a “thin” ResNet with a NetVLAD-based aggregator to calculate embeddings, here referred to *VGG*. It was chosen given that the model was publicly available, and is directly compatible with the comparison, since it supports input segments with variable time lengths without requiring to be re-trained. Additionally, it has shown good results with input lengths of 2 seconds and above. Its architecture is shown in Figure \[fig:vgg\].
![The network architecture presented in [@8683120], referred here as *VGG*.[]{data-label="fig:vgg"}](nagrani){width="95.00000%"}
The VoxCeleb1 corpus [@nagrani17] was used for evaluation, and the input pairs were selected in the same manner as described in [@8683120]. To ensure that our evaluation process does not deviate from previously reported results, we re-created the evaluation procedure used in [@8683120] and re-evaluated VGG, and confirmed it reported the same results. Then, both VGG and the BLSTM-based model were evaluated using segments with lengths of 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2 s, the results of which are shown in Figure \[fig:comparison\_results\_voxceleb1\].
![EER vs input time length using VoxCeleb1, with VGG and the BLSTM-based model.[]{data-label="fig:comparison_results_voxceleb1"}](compare_vox1){width="75.00000%"}
It is clear that VGG provides lower EER than our system when using longer input segment lengths ($\geq 1$ s). However, both systems perform comparably with shorter segments.
It is also of interest to evaluate the consistency of the evaluated systems across different data sets. To this effect, the VoxCeleb2 corpus [@voxceleb2] was used to evaluate them both, using the same number of pairs (37720) of input segments, randomly selected from the “test” subset. These results are shown in Figure \[fig:comparison\_results\_voxceleb2\], along with the results from Figure \[fig:comparison\_results\_voxceleb1\] for comparison (as dashed lines).
![EER vs input time length using VoxCeleb2, with VGG and the BLSTM-based model, with the evaluation with VoxCeleb1 as comparison (dashed lines).[]{data-label="fig:comparison_results_voxceleb2"}](compare_both){width="75.00000%"}
As it can be seen, when tested with VoxCeleb2, our system also performs comparably to VGG with segments that are 1 s long. Additionally, while VGG performs differently when tested with VoxCeleb1 and with shorter input segments ($\leq 0.5$ s), our system performs more consistently when being tested with both datasets across all evaluated segment lengths.
EER vs Memory Usage
-------------------
It is also of interest to inspect the amount of memory used by the BLSTM-based model, and see if the loss in performance is a reasonable trade-off for lighter computational requirements and shorter input segment lengths. This comparison is shown in Figure \[fig:comparison\_results\_memory\], where for simplicity, the EER reported is the one obtained when using an input length 0.5 s, when being evaluated with the VoxCeleb1 corpus. This input length was chosen because it has been found that in cases of interaction that have a high grade of back-and-forth between the human and the automatic conversational system, shorter utterances (between 0.5 and 1 s) are spoken more frequently by the human [@5453181].
![EER (input length of 0.5 s) vs memory usage with VGG and the BLSTM-based model.[]{data-label="fig:comparison_results_memory"}](mem_vgg){width="75.00000%"}
As it can be seen, even though the EER performance differential is less than 3 percentile points, the BLSTM-based model only uses nearly half the memory employed by VGG.
For completeness sake, it is important to mention the work of UtterIdNet [@Hajavi2019], which has achieved very low EER with input segments of 0.5 s length, as shown in Table \[table:comparison\_results\_memory\]. However, as it can also be seen, the amount of memory required to run UtterIdNet is substantial, with it being an order of magnitude greater to the one required by the proposed BLSTM-model. To this effect, we believe that in applications such as service robots [@Grondin2012], internet of things [@7224867], and virtual assistants [@tiwari2018virtual], the memory differential heavily outweighs the EER differential with shorter segments.
Input Feat. Length (s) EER (%) Memory Usage (MB)
-------------------------- ------------ --------- -------------------
*SpecdB* *0.5* *24.84* *16.8*
VGG 0.5 22.01 31.1
UtterIdNet [@Hajavi2019] 0.5 6.46 268
: Comparison between the BLSTM-based model (SpecdB), VGG and UtterIdNet (as reported in [@Hajavi2019]) for an input segment lenght of 0.5 s.[]{data-label="table:comparison_results_memory"}
Online Classification via a Voting System {#sect:classif}
=========================================
To further compare the BLSTM-based model to current state of the art, we propose a complete online speaker identifier, based on a simple voting system. It is important to note that this proposal mainly serves as the basis of comparison between the two systems, and that more sophisticated voting systems may be applicable. However, we believe that it is important to report the results of an online speaker identifier (albeit a naive one) based on generic verification, so as to provide an initial baseline to the speaker identification community.
The voting system is a selection scheme based on verifying the current audio input with each of the audio entries of an external database, each belonging to a known speaker, and storing it. The speaker that has uttered the audio input is then selected from the stored verification results. A diagram of the whole identification process is shown in Figure \[fig:identification\_diagram\].
![Diagram summarizing the complete online speaker identifier.[]{data-label="fig:identification_diagram"}](identification_diagram){width="50.00000%"}
To select the speaker to whom the audio input belongs to, the following steps are carried out:
1. Let $r_c$ be the average of the verification results of all the audio entries belonging to the known speaker (or “class”) with index $c$.
2. Calculate the $r_c$ of all known speakers $[1,C]$, where $C$ is the number of known speakers, and store them in $\mathbf{R}$.
3. Apply (\[eq:1\]) to select the known speaker:
$$\label{eq:1}
o=\left\{\begin{matrix}
unknown, & if \quad \forall \quad r_{c}<0 \\
argmax(\mathbf{R}), & otherwise,
\end{matrix}\right.$$
Since the value of a verification result ranges between $[-1,1]$, the threshold of $0$ in Equation \[eq:1\] is the mid-point of that range and, thus, provides a reasonable threshold to discern if the audio input belongs to a known user or not. If the maximum value of $R$ does not surpass this threshold, the user that uttered the audio input is deemed unknown. If this is the case, a simple speech/keyboard interaction can be carried out to ask for the speaker’s name, and subsequently add the embedding calculated from the audio input as an entry to the external database for their new class. If the speaker is deemed known, the embedding is added to the external database as an additional entry for their class.
It is then of interest to evaluate this simple online speaker identifier when using the BLSTM-based model as well as VGG as its generic verifier. To this effect, an accuracy heatmap was created for each, where each cell in the heatmap represents a test configuration between a specific number of known speakers and a specific number of audio entries per speaker in the external database. Figure \[fig:heatmaps\] shows both accuracy heatmaps.
[0.49]{} ![Accuracy heatmaps of the online speaker identifier using VGG and the BLSTM-based model as the generic verifier.[]{data-label="fig:heatmaps"}](heatmap_vgg "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.49]{} ![Accuracy heatmaps of the online speaker identifier using VGG and the BLSTM-based model as the generic verifier.[]{data-label="fig:heatmaps"}](heatmap_proposed "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
As it can be seen, there is very little difference between both heatmaps, and the difference that does show relates to the BLSTM-based model slightly outperforming VGG.
Conclusions {#sect:conclusions}
===========
There has recently been a shift towards embedding-based generic speaker verification, with which online speaker identification can be carried out without requiring re-training when new speakers appear in the auditory scene. Impressive performances have been achieved by using CNN-based models, but they usually work well with large input segment lengths ($\geq$ 2 s.) and have considerably high computational requirements.
In this work, we proposed the use of a BLSTM-based model to calculate the embedding of the inputs, which provided performances comparable to the state of the art with shorter input segments, while requiring considerably less memory to achieve them.
Further, a complete online speaker identifier is presented, based on a simple voting scheme that uses generic verification to carry out speaker identification without requiring to be re-trained with new speakers. The identifier was evaluated with the BLSTM-based model and the state of the art, and different testing configurations were carried with both, in which different amounts of known speakers were tested with different amounts of entries per known speaker. The accuracy was very similar throughout all of the different testing configurations when using a short input segments (0.5 s), while only using half of the memory that the state of the art employs.
For future work, more sophisticated voting systems will be employed to increase the accuracy of the online speaker identification system and stricter rules will be tested for database management to increase robustness while maintaining low response times.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by CONACYT grant \[251319\], and PAPIIT grants \[IA100129\] and \[IA104016\]. The authors would also like to thank Alejandro Maldonado for his support in code reviewing.
Competing interests {#competing-interests .unnumbered}
===================
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Availability of data and materials {#availability-of-data-and-materials .unnumbered}
==================================
The code of the complete system, as well as the trained weights, can be found in <https://github.com/julik43/blstm_speaker_id>.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: Obtained from its GitHub repository in (<https://github.com/WeidiXie/VGG-Speaker-Recognition>)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Coulomb interaction between electrons on *p*-orbitals of oxygen atom in strongly correlated compounds is not negligible, since its value ($U_p$) has comparable order of magnitude with the value of Coulomb interaction on *d*-orbitals of transition metal atom ($U_d$). We investigate the effect of taking into account Coulomb correlations in oxygen *p*-shell in addition to the correlations in the transition metal *d*-shell in frame of the LDA+U method. Our calculations for NiO, MnO and La$_2$CuO$_4$ show that this additional correction in general improves the agreement with experimental data for the spectral (energy gap values, relative position of the main peaks in X-ray photoemission spectroscopy (XPS) and Bremsstrahlung isohromate spectroscopy (BIS)) and magnetic properties (magnetic moment values and intersite exchange interaction parameters values).'
address: |
Institute of Metal Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences-Ural Division,\
620219 Yekaterinburg GSP-170, Russia
author:
- 'I.A. Nekrasov, M.A. Korotin, V.I. Anisimov'
title: 'Coulomb interaction in oxygen *p*-shell in LDA+U method and its influence on calculated spectral and magnetic properties of transition metal oxides.'
---
Introduction
============
During last several decades the electronic structure calculations from first principles became an important part of the solid state theory. The solution of such essentially many-particle problem as calculation of band structure of real materials is impossible without rather severe approximations. The most famous and commonly used approximation in *ab initio* electronic structure calculations is density functional theory (DFT) [@kohn65] within the local spin density approximation (LSDA). But, as an approximation based on the homogeneous electron gas theory [@hedin], the LSDA is valid only for compounds with slow varying through the crystal charge density. In other words, the LSDA must describe well only the delocalized electronic states (broad bands). Nevertheless the LSDA is sometimes able to give correct ground state properties for the systems with rather narrow bands (see for example [@Oguchi]).
The most unusual physical properties were found in the systems with strong electron-electron Coulomb correlations (such as Mott insulators, high-$T_c$ superconductors, *etc.*). These systems have been intensively investigated during last 20 years both by experimentalist and theoretician communities. All intriguing features of these systems come from the existence of nearly localized electronic states (narrow bands) such as *d* or *f* states of transition metals ions or rare-earth metals ions, respectively. To mark out the localized state one can apply the following criteria: kinetic energy of localized states is of the same or even smaller order of magnitude as the energy of Coulomb interactions. It is known that for strongly-correlated systems the LSDA often fails (high-$T_c$ related compound La$_2$CuO$_4$; insulating, antiferromagnetic transition metal oxides). However constrained LSDA calculations [@diderichcs] give Coulomb interaction parameter values in surprisingly good agreement with the experimental estimations [@diderichcs; @norman; @McMahan; @Hybertsen; @Gunnarsson1; @Gunnarsson2; @ucalc; @Solovyev].
Several approaches were built on the LSDA basis repairing its deficiency in describing Coulomb interaction between localized states. The most popular methods are the self-interaction correction method (SIC) [@Perdew; @sic] and the LDA+U method [@ldau1].
The basic problem of the LSDA is the orbital-independent potential which does not allow to reproduce Coulomb interaction derived energy splitting between occupied and empty subbands. The SIC method solves this problem by introducing the orbital-dependent potential correction which explicitly substracts the self-interaction present in the LSDA. This method restores correct electronic properties of the transition metal oxides where the LSDA fails. However the self-interaction correction for the *d* states is so strong, that when one implements SIC potential only to the *d*-orbitals of transition metal then the oxygen *p*-orbitals do not shift from the LSDA obtained positions and the occupied *d*-band lies much lower in energy than oxygen valence band, which does not agree with the spectroscopy data. However the values of energy gaps and the spin magnetic moments are in rather good agreement with experiment [@sic]. To improve this situation one can treat all valence states (namely the transition metal ions *d*-orbitals and oxygen *p*-orbitals) as localized and apply SIC potential to all of them [@Fujiwara]. In this case structure of occupied bands is well reproduced, but the value of energy gaps will be overestimated [@sicproblem].
Another way to overcome the well known disadvantages of the LSDA is the LDA+U method, which gives better agreement with experimental spectra [@ldau1]. The LDA+U method corresponds to the static limit of recently developed new many-body approach — the dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) [@vollha93]. In its standard form the LDA+U takes into account only Coulomb interaction between *d* (or *f*) electrons of transition metal ions. In the present paper we investigate the problem of Coulomb interaction between oxygen *p* electrons and show that the inclusion of the corresponding term in LDA+U equations leads to significant improvement of agreement between calculated and experimental spectral and magnetic properties.
Method of calculation
=====================
The main idea of the LDA+U method is to add to the LSDA functional the term $E^U$ corresponding to the mean-field approximation of the Coulomb interaction in multiband Hubbard model. $$\label{U1}
E^{LDA+U}[\rho ^\sigma ({\bf r}),\{n^\sigma \}]=E^{LSDA}[\rho ^\sigma ({\bf %
r)}]+E^U[\{n^\sigma \}]-E_{dc}[\{n^\sigma \}],$$ where $\rho ^\sigma ({\bf r})$ is the charge density for spin-$\sigma $ electrons and $E^{LSDA}[\rho ^\sigma ({\bf r})]$ is the standard LSDA (Local Spin-Density Approximation) functional. Eq. (\[U1\]) asserts that the LSDA is sufficient in the absence of orbital polarizations, while the latter are driven by, $$\label{upart}
\begin{array}{c}
E^U[\{n^\sigma\}]=\frac 12\sum_{\{m\},\sigma }\{\langle m,m^{\prime \prime }\mid
V_{ee}\mid m^{\prime },m^{\prime \prime \prime }\rangle n_{mm^{\prime
}}^\sigma n_{m^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime \prime }}^{-\sigma }+ \\
\\
(\langle m,m^{\prime \prime }\mid V_{ee}\mid m^{\prime },m^{\prime \prime
\prime }\rangle -\langle m,m^{\prime \prime }\mid V_{ee}\mid m^{\prime
\prime \prime },m^{\prime }\rangle )n_{mm^{\prime }}^\sigma n_{m^{\prime
\prime }m^{\prime \prime \prime }}^\sigma \},
\end{array}$$ where $V_{ee}$ are the screened Coulomb interactions among the *d* electrons. Finally, the last term in Eq. (\[U1\]) corrects for double counting (in the absence of orbital polarizations, Eq. (\[U1\]) should reduce to $E^{LSDA}$) and is given by
$$\label{U3}
E_{dc}[\{n^\sigma \}]=\frac 12UN(N-1)-\frac 12J[N^{\uparrow }(N^{\uparrow
}-1)+N^{\downarrow }(N^{\downarrow }-1)],$$
were $N^\sigma =Tr(n_{mm^{\prime }}^\sigma )$ and $N=N^{\uparrow
}+N^{\downarrow }$. $U$ and $J$ are screened Coulomb and exchange parameters [@Gunnarsson1; @ucalc].
In addition to the usual LSDA potential, an effective single-particle potential to be used in the effective single-particle Hamiltonian has the form:
$$\label{hamilt}
\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_{LSDA}+\sum_{mm^{\prime }}\mid inlm\sigma \rangle
V_{mm^{\prime }}^\sigma \langle inlm^{\prime }\sigma \mid$$
$$\label{Pot}
\begin{array}{c}
V_{mm^{\prime }}^\sigma =\sum_{m^{\prime \prime}m^{\prime \prime \prime}}
\{\langle m,m^{\prime \prime }\mid
V_{ee}\mid m^{\prime },m^{\prime \prime \prime }\rangle n_{m^{\prime \prime
}m^{\prime \prime \prime }}^{-\sigma }+ \\
\\
(\langle m,m^{\prime \prime }\mid V_{ee}\mid m^{\prime },m^{\prime \prime
\prime }\rangle -\langle m,m^{\prime \prime }\mid V_{ee}\mid m^{\prime
\prime \prime },m^{\prime }\rangle )n_{m^{\prime \prime }m^{\prime \prime
\prime }}^\sigma \}- \\
\\
U(N-\frac 12)+J(N^{\sigma}-\frac 12).
\end{array}$$
The matrix elements of Coulomb interaction can be expressed in terms of complex spherical harmonics and effective Slater integrals $F^k$ [@JUDD] as $$\label{slater}
\langle m,m^{\prime \prime }\mid V_{ee}\mid m^{\prime },m^{\prime \prime
\prime }\rangle =\sum_ka_k(m,m^{\prime },m^{\prime \prime },m^{\prime \prime
\prime })F^k,$$ where $0\leq k\leq 2l$ and
$$a_k(m,m^{\prime },m^{\prime \prime },m^{\prime \prime \prime })=\frac{4\pi }{%
2k+1}\sum_{q=-k}^k\langle lm\mid Y_{kq}\mid lm^{\prime }\rangle \langle
lm^{\prime \prime }\mid Y_{kq}^{*}\mid lm^{\prime \prime \prime }\rangle$$ For *d* electrons one needs $F^0,F^2$ and $F^4$ and these can be linked to the Coulomb- and Stoner parameters $U$ and $J$ obtained from the LSDA-supercell procedures via $U=F^0$ and $J=(F^2+F^4)/14$, while the ratio $F^2/F^4$ is to a good accuracy a constant $\sim 0.625$ for the 3*d* elements [@deGroot; @ANISOL]. (For *f* electrons the corresponding expression is $J=(286F^2+195F^4+250F^6)/6435$). The Coulomb parameter $U$ is calculated as a second derivative of the total energy (or the first derivative of the corresponding eigenvalue) in respect to the occupancy of localized orbitals of the central atom in a supercell with fixed occupancies on all other atoms [@Gunnarsson1].
If one neglects the exchange and non-sphericity of the Coulomb interaction (which is exact in the case of the fully occupied or empty band) the potential correction will have the more simple form: $$\label{vlda}
V_i=U(\frac 12-n_i)\;$$ where $n_i$ is the occupancy of $i$-orbital. Then for fully occupied state LDA+U potential correction would be the shift to the lower energies on $U/2$, while for empty states it gives an upward shift on the same value. So the LDA+U gives correct splitting between occupied and empty subbands equal to the Coulomb interaction parameter $U$.
In the LDA+U approach the Coulomb interactions are taken into account conventionally only on *d*-orbitals of transition metals. However it is known that Coulomb interactions between electrons on *p*-orbitals of oxygen have comparable order of magnitude [@McMahan; @Hybertsen] with the corresponding $d-d$ Coulomb interactions and so must be taken into consideration on the same footing as for *d*-orbitals. The usual justification for omitting of $U$ on oxygen *p*-shell is that the oxygen shell is fully occupied and the correlation effects between electrons (or rather holes) in it can be neglected due to the small number of holes in ground state. However the LDA+U equations (\[vlda\]) will give nonzero correction for the fully occupied oxygen band: $$V_p=-U_p/2$$ This potential correction must be applied to the orbitals forming oxygen band, however corresponding Wannier functions (in contrast to *d* states) are far from being of pure O(2*p*) character because they have very strong admixture of *s* and *p* states of transition metal ions and other extended orbitals. Since the main influence on the electronic structure is the change of the energy separation between the oxygen *p*-band and the transition metal *d*-band, the upward shift in energy of the transition metal *d*-band on $U_p/2$ will be equivalent to the shifting down of the oxygen *p*-band on the same value. Thus in our calculations we added $U_p/2$ term to the diagonal matrix elements of the LDA+U potential correction (\[Pot\]). We call this extension of the LDA+U method in the paper as the LDA+U$^{(d+p)}$.
Recently the modified LDA+U$^{(d+p)}$ method was used by Korotin *et al.* for investigation of charge and orbital ordering effects in La$_{7/8}$Sr$_{1/8}$MnO$_3$ compound [@Korotin]. The inclusion of Coulomb interactions in the oxygen *p*-shell was found to be crucial in that calculation, since it controls the value of charge transfer energy between Mn(3*d*) and O(2*p*) valence states and significantly enhances the tendency of localization in this system.
In the present paper we report the results with the use of the modified LDA+U$^{(d+p)}$ method for the typical strongly correlated transition metal oxides NiO, MnO and La$_2$CuO$_4$. We show that inclusion of the correlations in oxygen *p*-shell leads to the better agreement with the experimental data for the main peaks position in X-ray photoemission spectroscopy (XPS) and Bremsstrahlung isohromate spectroscopy (BIS) spectra in comparison with conventional LDA+U calculated spectra. Not only spectral properties, but both spin magnetic moments and intersite exchange interaction parameters $J_{ex}$ for NiO, MnO and La$_2$CuO$_4$ are in better agreement with the corresponding experimental data.
Results and discussion
======================
The important part of the LDA+U calculation scheme is the determination of Coulomb interaction parameters $U$ and $J$ in equations (\[Pot\]): Coulomb parameter $U_p$ for *p*-orbitals of oxygen, $U_d$ for transition metals ion and Hund’s parameter $J$ for *d*-orbitals of transition metals. To get $U_d$ and $J$ one can use the supercell procedure [@ucalc; @Solovyev] or the constrained LSDA method [@Gunnarsson1], which are based on calculation of the variation of the total energy as a function of the local occupation of the *d*-shell. We took the values of $U_d$ and $J$ parameters listed in Table I previously calculated in [@ldau1]. The problem is how to determine the Coulomb parameter $U_p$.
Due to more extended nature of the O(2*p*) Wannier states in comparison with transition metal *d* states, the constrained occupation calculations can not be implemented as easy as for the *d*-shell of transition metals. Nevertheless several independent and different techniques were used for this purpose previously by different authors. McMahan *et al.* estimated the value of $U_p$ in high-$T_c$ related compound La$_2$CuO$_4$ using the constrained LDA calculation where only atomic-like O(2*p*)-orbitals within oxygen atomic spheres were considered instead of the more extended Wannier functions. The corresponding value of Coulomb interaction parameter $U_p$ was obtained as $7.3~eV$. This value can be considered as the upper limit of the exact $U_p$. The LDA calculations gave the estimation that only 75% of Wannier function density lies in the oxygen atomic sphere so that renormalized value of Coulomb interaction parameter for oxygen Wannier functions is $U_p=(7.3) \times (0.75)^2=4.1~eV$ [@McMahan].
Later Hybertsen *et al.* suggested the scheme to calculate $U_p$, which consists of two steps: (i) via constrained-density-functional approach one can obtain the energy surface $E(N_d,N_p)$ as a function of local charge states and (ii) simultaneously extended Hubbard model was solved in mean-field approximation as a function of local charge states $N_d$ and $N_p$. Corresponding Coulomb interaction parameters were extracted as those which give the energy surface matching the microscopic density-functional calculations results [@Hybertsen]. The obtained values for $U_p$ are $3 \div 8~eV$ depending on the parameters of calculations.
Another way to estimate $U_p$ is to use Auger spectroscopy data, where two holes in O(2*p*)-shell are created in the excitation process. Such fitting to the experimental spectra gave the value of $U_p=5.9~eV$ [@Knotek]. In our LDA+U$^{(d+p)}$ calculations we used $U_p=6~eV$.
To solve the LDA+U hamiltonian we implemented the self-consistent tight-binding (TB) linear muffin-tin orbitals method (LMTO) in the atomic sphere approximation (ASA) [@Andersen1; @Andersen2; @calcfit]. For the calculations we choose the classical strongly correlated transition metal oxides NiO, MnO and La$_2$CuO$_4$, which were well investigated by experimental and theoretical methods.
Comparison between the LDA+U (left column) and the LDA+U$^{(d+p)}$ (right column) calculated density of states (DOS) of NiO, MnO and La$_2$CuO$_4$ is presented in figures 1, 2 and 3. For all compounds one can see that the main difference between the LDA+U$^{(d+p)}$ and the LDA+U calculated densities of states is the increased energy separation between the oxygen 2*p* and transition metal 3*d* bands. The larger value of “charge transfer” energy (O(2*p*)-Me(3*d*)) (Me=Ni,Mn,Cu) leads to the enhanced ionicity and decreased covalency nature of the electronic structure: the unoccupied bands have more pronounced 3*d* character and the admixture of oxygen states to those bands becomes weaker.
The ground state is correctly described both by LDA+U and LDA+U$^{(d+p)}$ calculations as antiferromagnetic insulator for all compounds. The values of energy gaps [@gap] and spin magnetic moments are presented in tables II and III. One can see that the values obtained in the LDA+U$^{(d+p)}$ calculations are in general in better agreement with experiment than the LDA+U calculated values. While the increasing of the energy gap values with applying $U_p$ correction was obviously expected with the increasing of “charge transfer” energy in the compounds belonging to the class of “charge transfer” insulators [@zsa], the increasing of the magnetic moments values is more complicated self-consistency effect due to the increased ionicity in the LDA+U$^{(d+p)}$ calculations comparing with the LDA+U results.
In Fig. 4 the DOS obtained by LDA+U$^{(d+p)}$ and LDA+U calculations for MnO and NiO compounds are compared with the superimposed XPS and BIS spectra corresponding to the removal of an electron (the occupied bands) and addition of an electron (the empty bands), respectively. The better agreement with the experimental data of position of the main peaks of unoccupied band relative to the occupied one is the direct confirmation of the importance of taking into account Coulomb interactions in oxygen 2*p*-shell.
The values of the intersite exchange interaction parameters $J_{ex}$ depend on the parameters of the electronic structure in a rather indirect implicit way. The developing of the good calculating scheme for exchange parameters is very important because the *ab-initio* calculation is often the only way to describe the magnetic properties of complicated compounds such as for example “spin-gap” systems [@spin-gap]. Recently Solovyev *et al.* [@sol] did very through analysis of the exchange interaction parameters for MnO calculated using different methods of electronic structure calculations. They used the positions of the Mn(3*d*)-spin-up and Mn(3*d*)-spin-down bands relative to the oxygen 2*p* states as adjustable parameters to fit the values of exchange interaction for the nearest and second Mn-Mn neighbors. Their results gave nearly the same splitting between Mn(3*d*)-spin-up and Mn(3*d*)-spin-down states as in standard LDA+U calculations ($10.6~eV$) but the position of those states relative to the oxygen band was shifted approximately on $3~eV$ up relative to the LDA+U case. It is practically the same as we have in our LDA+U$^{(d+p)}$ calculations, because with $U_p=6~eV$ the shift of the position Me(3*d*)-band relative to the oxygen O(2*p*)-band is equal to $U_p/2=3~eV$.
Comparison between LDA+U and LDA+U$^{(d+p)}$ calculated $J_{ex}$ parameters and experimental data is presented in table IV. $J_{ex}$ were calculated from Greens function method as second derivatives of the ground state energy with respect to the magnetic moment rotation angle [@Lichtenstein; @obmeny]. Again one can see that in general the LDA+U$^{(d+p)}$ gives better results than the LDA+U, especially for MnO compound.
Conclusion
==========
The method for inclusion of Coulomb interactions between oxygen *p* electrons in the calculation scheme of the LDA+U method was proposed. The main effect was found to be the increasing of “charge transfer” energy parameter (the separation of O(2*p*) and Me(3*d*) states). As the result, the spectral and magnetic properties of the typical strongly correlated transition metal oxides NiO, MnO and La$_2$CuO$_4$ were found in better agreement with experimental data than in the conventional LDA+U method where only correlations between Me(3*d*) state are taken into account.
We are greatful to T. Fujiwara for the helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFFI-98-02-17275).
[99]{}
W. Kohn, L.J. Sham, Phys. Rev. A - Gen.Phys. **140**, 1133 (1965); L.J. Sham, W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. **145 N 2**, 561 (1966);
L. Hedin and B. Lundqvist J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. **4**, 2064 (1971); U. von Barth and L. Hedin J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. **5**, 1629 (1972);
K. Terakura, T. Oguchi, A.R. Williams, and J. Kübler, Phys. Rev. B **30**, 4734 (1984).
P.H. Diderchs, S. Blügel, R. Zeller, and H. Akai, Phys. Rev. Lett. **53**, 2512 (1984).
M.R. Norman and A.J. Freeman, Phys. Rev. B **33**, 8896 (1986).
A.K. McMahan, R.M. Martin, and S. Satpathy, Phys. Rev. B **38**, 6650 (1988).
M.S. Hybertsen, M. Schlüter, and N.E. Christensen, Phys. Rev. B **39**, 9028 (1989).
O. Gunnarsson, O. K. Andersen, O. Jepsen, and J. Zaanen, Phys. Rev. B **39**, 1708 (1989).
O. Gunnarsson, A.V. Postnikov, and O.K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B **40**, 10407 (1989).
V.I. Anisimov, and O. Gunnarsson, Phys. Rev. B **43**, 7570 (1991).
I.V. Solovyev, P.H. Dederichs, and V.I. Anisimov, Phys. Rev. B **50**, 16861 (1994).
J.P. Perdew and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B **23**, 5048 (1981).
A. Svane and O. Gunnarsson, Phys. Rev. Lett **65**, 1148 (1990).
V.I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O.K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B **44**, 943 (1991).
V.I. Anisimov, F. Aryasetiawan, and A.I. Lichtenstein, J. Phys.: Condens Matter **9**, 767 (1997).
M. Arai and T. Fujiwara, Phys. Rev. B **51**, 1477 (1995).
T. Fujiwara, M. Arai, and Y. Ishii in [*Strong coulomb correlations in electronic structure calculations: Beyond the local density approximation*]{}, **Volume 1**, edited by V.I. Anisimov, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Singapore, 2000, p. 167.
D. Vollhardt in [*Correlated Electron Systems*]{}, edited by V.J. Emery, World Scientific, Singapore, 1993, p. 57; Th. Pruschke, M. Jarrell, and J.K. Freericks, Adv. in Phys. [**44**]{}, 187 (1995); A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M.J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 13 (1996).
B.R. Judd, ’Operator techniques in atomic spectroscopy’, McGrow-Hill, New York, 1963.
F.M.F. de Groot, J.C. Fuggle, B.T. Thole, G.A. Sawatzky, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 5459 (1990).
V.I. Anisimov, I.V. Solovyev, M.A. Korotin, M.T. Czyzyk, and G.A.Sawatzky, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 16929 (1993).
M. Korotin, T. Fujiwara, and V. Anisimov, Phys. Rev. B **62**, 5696 (2000).
M.L. Knotek and P.J. Feibelman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **40**, 964 (1978).
O.K. Andersen, Z. Pawlowska, and O. Jepsen, Phys. Rev. B **34**, 5253 (1986).
O.K. Andersen, C. Arccangeli, R.W. Tank, T. Saha-Dasgupta, G. Krier, O.Jepsen, and I. Dasgupta, cond-mat/9804166.
All calculations were done without downfolding, within the orbital basis of Me(4*s*,4*p*,3*d*) (Me=Ni,Mn,Cu) and O(3*s*,2*p*,3*d*). Logarithmic derivatives of O(3*s*), O(3*d*) and Me(3*p*) bands were fixed to make $E_\nu$ and $c$ parameters of the LMTO method to be equal.
One should say that we look at the energy gap between the highest edge of occupied and the lowest edge of empty part of Me(3*d*)-band (Me=Ni,Mn,Cu), because in total DOS the value of energy gap is $\sim~1~eV$ due to very low intensive O(3*s*)-band.
J. Zaanen, G.A. Sawatzky, J.W. Allen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**55**]{}, 418 (1985).
M.A. Korotin, I.S. Elfimov, V.I. Anisimov, M. Troyer, and D.I. Khpmskii, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1387 (1999).
I.V. Solovyev, K. Terakura, Phys. Rev. B **58**, 15496 (1998).
A.I. Lichtenstein, M.I. Katsnelson, V.P. Antropov, and V.A. Gubanov, J. Magn. Magn. Matter **67**, 65 (1987).
To calculate $J_{ex}$ in MnO and NiO we used the 8-fold enlarged supercell in order to get the exchange parameters between nearest and second order neighbors. For La$_2$CuO$_4$ the 2-fold enlarged supercell was used.
\[lacuofig\]
\[mnofig\]
\[niofig\]
\[mnonio\]
Spectroscopic data:\
MnO: G.A. Sawatzky and J.W. Allen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **53**, 2339 (1984).\
NiO: J. van Elp, R. H. Potze, H. Eskes, R. Berger, and G. A. Sawatzky, Phys.Rev.B **44**, 1530 (1991).
\[parameters\]
-- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- --
: Coulomb parameters $U_d$ and Hund’s parameters $J$ ($eV$) used in calculations.
\[gap\]
-- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- --
: Calculated and experimental values of energy gaps ($eV$).
$^a$S. Uchida, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 7942 (1991).\
$^b$L. Messick, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**6**]{}, 3941 (1972).\
$^c$G.A. Sawatzki and J.V. Allen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**53**]{}, 2329 (1984).\
$^d$S. Hüfner, [*et al.*]{}, Solid State Commun. [**52**]{}, 793 (1984).\
\[moments\]
-- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- --
: Calculated and experimental values of spin magnetic moments ($\mu_B$).
$^a$Y. Endoh, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 7443 (1988).\
$^b$F.P. Koffyber and F.A. Benko, J. Appl. Phys. [**53**]{}, 1173 (1982).\
$^c$J.B. Forsith, [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. [**21**]{}, 2917 (1988).\
$^d$O.K. Andersen and O. Jepsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**53**]{}, 2571 (1984).\
$^e$H.A. Alperin, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. Suppl. B [**17**]{}, 12 (1962).\
$^f$A.K. Cheetham and D.A.O. Hope, Phys. Rev. B [**27**]{}, 6964 (1983).\
\[exchange\]
-- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- --
: Calculated and experimental values of intersite exchange interaction parameters $J_{ex}$ ($meV$).
$^1$Cu-Cu exchange parameter between nearest Cu atoms in plane.\
$^2$Me-Me exchange parameters between nearest and second neighbors.\
$^a$G. Aeppli, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 2052 (1989).\
$^b$M. Kohgi, [*et al.*]{}, Solid State Commun. [**11**]{}, 391 (1972).\
$^c$M.E. Lines and E.D. Jones, Phys. Rev. [**139**]{}, A1313 (1965).\
$^d$M.I. Hutchings and S.J. Samuelson, Solid State Commun. [**9**]{}, 1011 (1971).\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'I review the results from lattice gauge theory for the properties of the light $1^{-+}$ exotic state and $0^{++}$ glueball.'
address: 'Dept. of Math Sci., University of Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK.'
author:
- Craig McNeile
title: ' Lattice Predictions for Hybrids and Glueballs. '
---
Introduction
============
QCD is a simple elegant theory, but it is hard to solve it using anything other than perturbation theory. Quantities, such as masses, depend on the coupling ($g$) like $M \sim
e^{-1/g^2}$ [@Montvay:1994cy], hence perturbation theory can’t be used to compute the masses of hadrons such as the proton. Our inability to solve QCD non-perturbatively makes it hard to determine basic parameters of the quark sector of the standard model. For example, the allowed range on the strange quark mass in the particle data table [@Groom:2000in] is 75 to 170 MeV; a range of almost 100%.
A particularly good test of our understanding of the non-perturbative aspects of QCD is to study particles where the gauge field is excited somehow, and hence playing a more important dynamic role than in “standard” hadrons. Examples of such particles are glueballs (particles made out of the gauge fields) and hybrid mesons ($\overline{q}q$ and excited glue). A very good overview of the interesting issues in hadronic physics, that contrasts the hadron spectroscopy approach to the study of confinement with the results from DIS type studies, is the white paper by Capstick et al. [@Capstick:2000dk]. The only technique that offers any prospect of computing masses and matrix elements non-perturbatively, from first principles, is lattice QCD.
I review the results from the lattice for the lightest $0^{++}$ glueball and $1^{-+}$ exotic, as these states are the closest to being experimentally confirmed. Other recent reviews [@Michael:2001qz; @Morningstar:2001nu; @Bali:2001nc] of lattice results for hybrids and glueballs focus on different aspects of the subject.
Lattice QCD calculations
========================
Many bound state properties of QCD can be determined from the path integral $$c(t) \sim \int dU \int d\psi \int d\overline{\psi}
\;
\sum_{\underline{x}} O(\underline{0},0)
O(\underline{x},t)^{\dagger}
e^{-S_F - S_G }
\label{eq:reallyQCD}$$ where $S_F$ is the fermion action (some lattice version of the continuum Dirac action) and $S_G$ is the pure gauge action. The path integral in eq. \[eq:reallyQCD\] is put on the computer using a clever finite difference formalism [@Montvay:1994cy], due to Wilson, that maintains gauge invariance. The path integral in eq. \[eq:reallyQCD\] is evaluated using algorithms that are generalisations of the Monte Carlo methods used to compute low dimensional integrals. The physical picture for eq. \[eq:reallyQCD\] is that a hadron is created at time 0, from where it propagates to the time t, where it is destroyed. The physics from the calculation is extracted using a fit model [@Montvay:1994cy]: $$c(t) = a_0 exp( -m_0 t ) + a_1 exp( -m_1 t ) + \cdots
\label{eq:fitmodel}$$ where $m_0$ ($m_1$) is the ground (first excited) state mass and the dots represent higher excitations. Although in principle excited state masses can be extracted from a multiple exponential fit, in practice this is a numerically non-trivial task, because of the noise in the data from the calculation. Any gauge invariant combination of quark fields and gauge links can be used as interpolating operators ($O(\underline{x},t)$) in eq. \[eq:reallyQCD\].
The fermion integration can be done exactly in eq. \[eq:reallyQCD\] to produce the fermion determinant. The determinant describes the dynamics of the sea quarks. In quenched QCD calculations, the determinant is set to a constant. Quenched calculations are roughly 1000 times cheaper computationally than the calculations that include the dynamics of the sea quarks. Quenched QCD gives quite a reasonable description of experiment. For example, the most accurate quenched calculation of the hadron spectrum, to date, has been completed by the CP-PACS collaboration [@Kanaya:1998sd]. From the masses of 11 light hadrons, they conclude that the quenched approximation disagrees with experiment by at most 11%.
In an individual lattice calculation there are errors from the finite size of the lattice spacing and the finite lattice volume. State of the art lattice calculations in the quenched theory, run at a number of different lattice spacings and physical volumes and extrapolate the results to the continuum and infinite volume [@Kanaya:1998sd] limit. The increased computational costs of unquenched calculations means that most calculations are currently done at fixed lattice spacings. One of the most interesting unquenched calculations is being performed by the MILC collaboration [@Bernard:2001av]. MILC’s calculations include 2+1 flavours of sea quarks with a lattice spacing of 0.13 fm, box size of 2.6 fm, and the lightest ratio of the pseudoscalar to vector mass is 0.4.
Results for glueballs in quenched QCD
=====================================
Interpolating operators for glueballs are constructed for eq. \[eq:reallyQCD\] from closed loops of gauge links with the required $J^{PC}$ quantum numbers Some highlights of the results are that the lightest glueball is the $0^{++}$ state with a mass of 1.64(4) GeV [@Teper:1998kw]. The next lightest glueball is $2^{++}$. The ratio of the tensor to scalar glueball mass is $M_{2^{++}}/M_{0^{++}}$ = 1.42(6) [@Teper:1998kw]. The spectrum of glueball states for other $J^{PC}$ quantum numbers with masses under 4 GeV has been comprehensively mapped out by Morningstar and Peardon [@Morningstar:1999rf].
In the real world glueballs will decay to two mesons, hence they will have a decay width. Lattice QCD calculations are performed in Euclidean space, for convergence of the path integral in eq. \[eq:reallyQCD\]. The Euclidean nature of lattice calculations makes the computation of inherently complex quantities such as decay widths more involved [@Michael:1989mf].
The GF11 lattice group computed the decay widths for the decay of the $0^{++}$ glueball to two pseudoscalars [@Sexton:1995kd] to be 108(28) MeV. Although the error bar is only statistical, it is encouraging that the width was small relative to the mass, so the $0^{++}$ glueball may exist as a well defined state. The decay widths for individual meson pairs [@Burakovsky:1998zg] did not agree with the predictions from the “flavour democratic” assumption.
The experimental situation [@Groom:2000in] for light $0^{++}$ scalars is very interesting, because there are too many states to put into SU(3) nonets, as other particles with different $J^{PC}$ quantum numbers, such as the pseudoscalars, can be. The hadrons: $f_0(1370)$ ,$f_0(1500)$ , and $f_0(1710)$, have masses close to the mass of the quenched scalar $0^{++}$ glueball.
In full QCD interpolating operators with $0^{++}$ can be constructed from quarks and ante-quarks, such as $\overline{\psi}\psi$. In full QCD, the pure glue $0^{++}$ operators will mix with the fermionic $0^{++}$ operators. If the mixing is very strong, then the final $0^{++}$ masses will have little to do with the quenched glueball masses.
Weingarten and Lee [@Lee:1999kv] studied the effect of mixing between the glueball and $\overline{\psi}\psi$ states in quenched QCD. They measured the correlation between the $0^{++}$ glueball states and $\overline{\psi}\psi$ states in eq. \[eq:reallyQCD\]. The results were expressed as a mixing matrix $$\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
m_g & E(s) \\
E(s) & m_{\sigma}(s) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\label{eq:mixing}$$ where $m_g$ is the glueball mass, $m_{\sigma}(s)$ is the mass of the non-singlet $0^{++}$ state at strange, and $ E(s)$ is the mixing energy. Weingarten and Lee measured: $m_g$ = 1648(58) MeV, $m_{\sigma}(s)$ = 1322(42) MeV, and $E(s)$ = 61(58) MeV. The qualitative picture that emerges is that the $f_0(1710)$ is “mostly” $0^{++}$ glueball, and the $f_0(1500)$ is “mostly” $ \overline{s} s$. It is not clear whether $f_0(1500)$ being $\overline{s} s$ is consistent with its decay width [@Close:2001ga].
The mixing energy $E(s)$ has large lattice spacing errors. For example at a lattice spacing of $a^{-1} \sim$ 1.2 GeV, the Weingarten and Lee [@Lee:1999kv] result is $E(s) \sim$ 0.36 GeV. This has been checked by another group’s result [@McNeile:2000xx] of $E(s) \sim$ 0.44 GeV.
The analysis of Weingarten and Lee [@Lee:1999kv] depends on the $0^{++}$ states being well defined in quenched QCD. Eichten [@Bardeen:2001jm] et al. have shown that there is a problem with the non-singlet $0^{++}$ correlator in quenched QCD. The problem can be understood using quenched chiral perturbation theory. The non-singlet $0^{++}$ propagator contains an intermediate state of $\eta'-\pi$. The removal of fermion loops in quenched QCD has a big effect on the $\eta'$ propagator. The result is that a ghost state contributes to the scalar correlator, that makes the expression in eq. \[eq:fitmodel\] inappropriate to extract masses from the calculation. Eichten et al. [@Bardeen:2001jm] predict that the ghost state will make the $a_0$ mass increase as the quark mass is reduced below a certain point. This behaviour was observed by Weingarten and Lee [@Lee:1999kv] for small box sizes (L $\le$ 1.6 fm) for quark masses below strange. It is not clear how the problem with the non-singlet $0^{++}$ correlator in the quenched approximation effects the results of Weingarten and Lee [@Lee:1999kv], however their most important results come from masses above the strange quark mass where the ghost diagram will make a smaller contribution that may be negligible
Results for glueball masses in two flavour QCD
==============================================
The Weingarten and Lee [@Lee:1999kv] analysis predicted that the mixing of the $0^{++}$ glueball and $\overline{\psi} \psi $ states is small. Parts of their calculation have been criticised in [@McNeile:2000xx], however, the problems with the non-singlet $0^{++}$ correlator [@Bardeen:2001jm] in the quenched QCD will make further progress in mixing in the quenched QCD difficult.
A lattice QCD calculation that included the dynamics of the sea quarks should just reproduce the physical spectrum of $0^{++}$ states. Some insight into the composition of individual $0^{++}$ states, such as whether a physical particle couples to $\overline{\psi}\psi$ or pure glue operators, could be studied by looking at the effect of decreasing the sea quark mass. For very heavy sea quark masses the theory is more like quenched QCD, where glueballs are distinct from $\overline{\psi}\psi$ operators.
Hart and Teper [@Hart:2001fp] found that the ratio of the $0^{++}$ glueball mass in $n_f = 2$ QCD to the quenched QCD result was: $M_{n_f=2}^{0^{++}}/ M_{quenched}^{0^{++}}$ = $0.84 \pm 0.03$ at a fixed lattice spacing of 0.1 fm. The $n_f$ = 2 results [@Hart:2001fp] for the mass of the $2^{++}$ were consistent with the quenched value. As the lattice spacing dependence of the mass of the singlet $0^{++}$ state in two flavour QCD and quenched QCD could be different, a definitive result will only come after a continuum extrapolation of the unquenched masses. In quenched QCD [@Teper:1998kw], the difference between the continuum extrapolated mass of $0^{++}$ glueball mass and the mass at 0.1 fm is of the order of 200 MeV. This is the same magnitude of the mass splittings between the masses of the experimentally observed particles $f_0(1500)$ and $f_0(1710)$. Although the current results for singlet $0^{++}$ states are starting to be interesting, the lattice spacing used in unquenched calculations must be reduced before direct contact can be made to phenomenology.
The mass of the $0^{++}$ glueball on the UKQCD data set are just degenerate with the mass of two pions [@Hart:2001fp]. As the mass of the sea quarks is reduced, two pion states may effect the physics of singlet $0^{++}$ states.
Results for light $1^{-+}$ exotic mesons
========================================
The quark model predicts the charge conjugation (C = $(-1)^{L+S}$ ) and parity (P= $(-1)^{L+1}$ ) of a meson with spin $S$ and orbital angular momentum $L$. States with quantum numbers not predicted by the quark model, such as: $J_{exotic}^{PC}$ = $1^{-+}$, $0^{+-}$, $2^{+-}$, $0^{--}$ are known as exotics [@Burnett:1990aw]. Exotic states are allowed by QCD. Morningstar and Peardon [@Morningstar:1999rf] claim that there are no glueballs with exotic quantum numbers with masses less than 4 GeV.
There are a number of different possibilities for the structure of an exotic state. An exotic signal could be: a hybrid meson, that is a quark and anti-quark with excited glue, or bound state of two quarks and two anti-quarks ($\overline{\psi}\overline{\psi}\psi\psi$).
One possible interpolating operator [@Bernard:1997ib], that can be used in eq. \[eq:reallyQCD\], for a hybrid $1^{-+}$ particle is $$O_{1^{-+}} (\underline{x} , t ) = \overline{\psi}(\underline{x},t)
\gamma_j F_{ij} (\underline{x},t)
\psi (\underline{x},t)
\label{eq:interponemp}$$ where $F$ is the QCD field strength tensor. If $F$ is removed from eq. \[eq:interponemp\], the operator creates the $\rho$ particle. In this formalism a gauge invariant interpolating operator, for any possible exotic hybrid particle or four particle state can be constructed. The dynamics then determines whether the resulting state has a narrow decay width, hence it can be detected experimentally. In the large $N_c$ (number of colours) limit [@Burnett:1990aw; @Cohen:1998jb] both exotic hybrid mesons and non-exotic mesons have widths that are small compared to their masses.
There have not been many new calculations of the mass of the light $1^{-+}$ hybrid recently. All the results from the various lattice QCD calculations, by UKQCD [@Lacock:1997ny; @Lacock:1996vy], MILC [@Bernard:1997ib; @McNeile:1998cp] and SESAM [@Lacock:1998be] are essentially consistent with the mass of the $1^{-+}$ state around $1.9(2)$ GeV [@Michael:2001qz]. The interpolating operators used to create the exotic meson states in the MILC calculations [@Bernard:1997ib] are different to those used in the UKQCD [@Lacock:1997ny] and SESAM simulations [@Lacock:1998be], hence giving confidence that the systematic errors are under control. The results for the hybrid masses reported by Lacock and Schilling [@Lacock:1998be], include some effects from dynamical sea quarks. The recent results for the $1^{-+}$ mass from calculations that used an asymmetric [@Mei:2002ip] lattice in time are consistent with the older results.
There are a number of experimental candidates for light $1^{-+}$ states [@Groom:2000in]. The E852 collaboration have reported [@Adams:1998ff] a signal for $1^{-+}$ state around $1.6$ GeV. There is also an experimental signal for a $1^{-+}$ state at $1.4$ GeV [@Groom:2000in]. There has been some recent work [@Thomas:2001gu] on the quark mass dependence of the $1^{-+}$ states. The lattice calculations are usually done at large quark masses and the results extrapolated to the physical quark masses. The conclusion of [@Thomas:2001gu] was that the inclusion of the decay of the hybrid in the quark mass dependence of the exotic mass could reduce the final answer by 100 MeV. The predictions in [@Thomas:2001gu] will be tested as the quark masses used in lattice calculations are reduced. The $1^{-+}$ state at 1.4 GeV seems low relative to the lattice results.
It is possible that the states seen experimentally are really $\overline{\psi}\overline{\psi}\psi\psi$ states, in which case the operators used in the lattice simulations (eq. \[eq:interponemp\]) might not couple strongly to them. Alford and Jaffe [@Alford:2000mm] studied $\overline{\psi}\overline{\psi}\psi\psi$ operators with $J^{PC}$ = $0^{++}$ in a recent lattice calculation. The motivation was to gain insight into states such as the $f_0(980)$ that some people believe is not a $\overline{\psi}\psi$ meson, but a $\overline{\psi}\overline{\psi}\psi\psi$ state. A similar lattice calculation could in principle be done for the $J^{PC}$ = $1^{-+}$ exotic.
To definitely identify a particle requires both the calculation of the mass as well as the decay widths. There has been very little work on strong decays on the lattice. The most obvious hadronic process to study using lattice gauge theory is the $\rho \rightarrow \pi\pi$ decay, however there have only been a few attempts to calculate the $g_{\rho \pi \pi}$ coupling [@Gottlieb:1984rh; @Loft:1989sy]. Michael discusses the problems with the formalism for hadronic decays on the lattice [@Michael:1989mf].
In the static quark limit the exotic states on the lattice are described by adiabatic potentials. The ground state of the static potential ($A_{1g}$) is the familiar Coulomb plus linear potential. The excited potential ($E_u$) is a very flat potential, that can be used with Schrödinger’s equation to predict the spectrum of heavy-heavy hybrids [@Michael:2001qz]. UKQCD [@McNeile:2002az] have investigated the de-excitation of the $E_u$ potential to the $A_{1g}$ potential by the emission of a light quark loop. In the real world, the decays would correspond to $1^{-+} \rightarrow \chi_b \eta$ and $1^{-+}
\rightarrow \chi_b S$ with $S$ a scalar and $\eta$ a pseudoscalar. The decay width of $1^{-+}
\rightarrow \chi_b \eta$ and $1^{-+} \rightarrow \chi_b S$ transitions were less than 1 MeV and around 80 MeV respectively. The various approximations in the static limit mean that these widths have no direct relevance to experiment.
The MILC collaboration [@Bernard:1997ib] have investigated the mixing between the operator in eq. \[eq:interponemp\] and the operator ($\pi \otimes a_1$) eq. \[eq:QQQQ\]. $$\overline{\psi}^a \gamma_5 \psi^{a}
\overline{\psi}^b \gamma_5 \gamma_i \psi^{b}
\label{eq:QQQQ}
\label{eq:fourquark}$$ that has the quantum numbers $1^{-+}$. This type of correlator is part of the calculation required to compute the decay width of the $1^{-+}$ state to $\rho$, and $a_1$. The more complicated part is to use eq. \[eq:fourquark\] in eq. \[eq:reallyQCD\] requires some clever numerical work.
Conclusions
===========
The glueball spectrum from quenched QCD is essentially complete. The key issues now are to quantify the mixing of the glueball states with $\overline{\psi}\psi$ operators and to determine decay widths.
[10]{}
I. Montvay and G. Munster, Quantum fields on a lattice, Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr. (1994) 491 p. (Cambridge monographs on mathematical physics).
Particle Data Group, D.E. Groom et al., Eur. Phys. J. C15 (2000) 1, S. Capstick et al., Key issues in hadronic physics, 2000, hep-ph/0012238.
C. Michael, Glueballs, hybrid and exotic mesons, 2001, hep-ph/0101287.
C. Morningstar, 2001, nucl-th/0110074.
G.S. Bali, 2001, hep-ph/0110254.
K. Kanaya et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 73 (1999) 189, hep-lat/9809146, C.W. Bernard et al., Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 054506, hep-lat/0104002, M.J. Teper, Glueball masses and other physical properties of su(n) gauge theories in d = 3+1: A review of lattice results for theorists, 1998, hep-th/9812187.
C.J. Morningstar and M.J. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 034509, hep-lat/9901004, C. Michael, Nucl. Phys. B327 (1989) 515.
J. Sexton, A. Vaccarino and D. Weingarten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 4563, hep-lat/9510022.
L. Burakovsky and P.R. Page, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 014022, hep-ph/9807400, W.J. Lee and D. Weingarten, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 014015, hep-lat/9910008, F.E. Close and A. Kirk, Eur. Phys. J. C21 (2001) 531, hep-ph/0103173, C. McNeile and C. Michael, Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 114503, hep-lat/0010019, W. Bardeen et al., Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 014509, hep-lat/0106008, A. Hart and M. Teper, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 034502, hep-lat/0108022, T.H. Burnett and S.R. Sharpe, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 40 (1990) 327.
MILC, C. Bernard et al., Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 7039, hep-lat/9707008.
T.D. Cohen, Phys. Lett. B427 (1998) 348, hep-ph/9801316.
P. Lacock et al., Phys. Lett. B401 (1997) 308, hep-lat/9611011.
P. Lacock et al., Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 6997, hep-lat/9605025.
C. McNeile et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 73 (1999) 264, hep-lat/9809087, P. Lacock and K. Schilling, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 73 (1999) 261, hep-lat/9809022, Z.H. Mei and X.Q. Luo, 2002, hep-lat/0206012.
G.S. Adams et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 5760, A.W. Thomas and A.P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Lett. B526 (2002) 72, hep-ph/0106080, M.G. Alford and R.L. Jaffe, Nucl. Phys. B578 (2000) 367, hep-lat/0001023, S. Gottlieb et al., Phys. Lett. 134B (1984) 346, R.D. Loft and T.A. DeGrand, Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 2692, C. McNeile, C. Michael and P. Pennanen, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 094505, hep-lat/0201006,
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report the effect of hydrostatic pressure on the magnetic and structural properties of the shape-memory Heusler alloy Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{35}$In$_{15}$. Magnetization and x-ray diffraction experiments were performed at hydrostatic pressures up to 5 GPa using diamond anvil cells. Pressure stabilizes the martensitic phase, shifting the martensitic transition to higher temperatures and suppresses the ferromagnetic austenitic phase. Above $\sim3$ GPa, where the martensitic-transition temperature approaches the Curie temperature in the austenite, the magnetization shows no indication of ferromagnetic ordering anymore. We further find an extremely large temperature region with a mixture of martensite and austenite phases, which directly relates to the magnetic properties.'
author:
- 'C. Salazar Mejía'
- 'K. Mydeen'
- 'P. Naumov'
- 'S. A. Medvedev'
- 'C. Wang'
- 'M. Hanfland'
- 'A. K. Nayak'
- 'U. Schwarz'
- 'C. Felser'
- 'M. Nicklas'
title: 'Suppression of the ferromagnetic order in the Heusler alloy Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{35}$In$_{15}$ by hydrostatic pressure'
---
Heusler alloys which exhibit a martensitic structural transformation in proximity to a ferromagnetic (FM) phase have attracted much attention due to the multiple functional properties connected to the coupling of the structural transition to magnetic degrees of freedom, such as shape memory [@Kainuma2006; @Planes_JOPM_2009; @Krenke_PRB_2007], magnetocaloric [@Liu2012; @GhorbaniZavareh2014], and barocaloric effects [@Manosa2010]. In the austenitic phase in NiMn-based alloys the Mn moments order ferromagnetically, which arises mainly due to the RKKY-exchange interaction [@Buchelnikov2008; @Sasioglu2008; @RamaRao2014]. In the martensitic state, which can form in a simple tetragonal, a complex monoclinic, or an orthorhombic layered structure, a strong competition between FM and antiferromagnetic interactions exists, leading to a high sensitivity of the physical properties on the interatomic distances. The application of pressure is, therefore, an important tool to study the relationship of magnetism and crystal structure, without altering the intrinsic properties unintentionally, or introducing additional disorder in the structure, like in the case of element substitution. In Ni-Mn-$Z$ ($Z={\rm In}$, Sb, Sn), application of a small pressure $p\lesssim1$ GPa stabilizes the martensitic phase and, therefore, the martensitic transition temperature increases strongly upon increasing pressure, while the effect on the Curie temperature in the austenitic phase, $T_C^A$, is rather small [@Aksoy2007; @Manosa2008; @Nayak2009; @Sharma2011]. In closely related compounds, it has been reported that low pressures can improve the magnetocaloric effect [@Sharma2011] or lead to a large barocaloric effect [@Manosa2010].
At ambient pressure, the shape-memory Heusler alloy Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{35}$In$_{15}$ undergoes on cooling a paramagnetic to FM transition at $T_C^A\approx313$ K, followed by a first-order martensitic structural transformation from a cubic high-temperature to a low-temperature modulated structure [@Yan2015] at $T_M\approx248$ K [@Nayak2014; @GhorbaniZavareh2014]. On heating the reverse martensitic transition takes place at $T_A\approx261$ K. The magnetostructural transition drives the material from the FM state to a state with a small remaining magnetization. Upon further cooling ferrimagnetic order develops in the martensitic phase below $T_C^M\approx200$ K [@Nayak2014; @GhorbaniZavareh2014].
In this Letter, we study the effect of hydrostatic pressure on the magnetic and structural properties of the Heusler alloy Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{35}$In$_{15}$. While the FM transition in the austenite at $T_C^A$ displays only a weak pressure dependence, the martensitic transition temperature $T_{A,M}$ increases strongly upon increasing pressure. This leads to a suppression of the FM phase. Our structural investigation indicates a large mixed-phase region of austenite and martensite phases extending to temperatures far away from the martensitic transformation. This result is consistent with the FM ordering being restricted to the austenitic phase and evidences the strong interrelation of structural and magnetic properties in Ni-Mn-In shape-memory Heusler alloys.
Polycrystalline ingots of Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{35}$In$_{15}$ were prepared as previously reported [@Nayak2014]. A part of the sample was crushed in small pieces for magnetization measurements. For the x-ray diffraction (XRD) experiments powder was prepared by milling some material down to a grain size smaller than 20 $\mu$m. To reduce the residual mechanical stresses in the grains, the powder was annealed at 800$^\circ$C for 4 h under argon atmosphere. The temperature dependence of the magnetization was recorded at pressures up to 4.6 GPa using a miniature diamond anvil cell (DAC) in a magnetic property measurement system (Quantum Design). In this experiments glycerin served as pressure-transmitting medium. Powder XRD at ambient pressure was performed at the National Synchrotron Radiation Research Center (NSRRC, Taiwan) and under applied pressure at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF, France) at the beamline ID09 up to a maximum pressure of 5 GPa using a DAC with neon as a pressure-transmitting medium. For thermalizing the sample a liquid helium cooled cryostat and an external resistive heating device were used. The pressure inside the DACs was determined by a standard ruby fluorescence method.
Figure \[MvsT4\] shows selected magnetization curves as function of temperature for different pressures. For each measurement, the desired pressure was applied at room temperature (RT). Afterwards, the sample was heated up to 350 K where a magnetic field of 1000 Oe was applied and the magnetization was recorded upon cooling down to 10 K followed by a heating cycle up to 350 K again. We carried out two pressure experiments with maximum pressures of 3.08 and 4.6 GPa, respectively. We note that we cannot provide absolute values of the magnetization due to the large uncertainty in the determination of the sample mass. However, the relative changes between different pressures in one pressure experiment are not affected by this and reflect, therefore, pressure-induced changes in the sample magnetization.
The magnetization curves recorded at the lowest pressure of 0.5 GPa (see Fig. \[MvsT4\]) display the same characteristics than the data previously reported at ambient pressure taken on a sample from the same batch [@Nayak2014; @GhorbaniZavareh2014; @supp], i.e., upon cooling, the FM phase transition in the austenite at $T_C^A$, the martensitic transition at $T_M$ from a FM cubic austenite to a martensite displaying a strongly reduced magnetization and at lower temperatures the ferrimagnetic transition at $T_C^M$. The transition temperatures are defined by the corresponding inflection points in the $M(T)$ curves. Increasing pressure causes only a weak increase in $T_C^A(p)$ consistent with reports in literature for other Ni-Mn based Heusler alloys [@Kanomata1987]. The more pronounced effect is observed on $T_{A,M}$, indicated by the drop in magnetization toward lower temperatures at $T_M$ (at $T_A$ upon increasing temperature), which increases strongly upon increasing pressure. Thus, the application of pressure stabilizes the martensitic phase. The effect of pressure on $T_C^A$ is much weaker than that on $T_{A,M}$. Thus, upon increasing pressure $T_{A,M}(p)$ approaches $T_C^A(p)$ as exemplified in the $T-p$ phase diagram depicted in the inset of Fig. \[MvsT4\]. The distance between the two transitions $T_C^A-T_{M}$ decreases until the $T_{A,M}(p)$ phase line crosses the $T_C^A(p)$ phase line and no indication of a magnetic phase transition remains in the magnetization data. The suppression of the FM order is accompanied by a strong reduction of the magnetization in the FM phase upon increasing pressure.
![Susceptibility data for selected hydrostatic pressures recorded on cooling (solid symbols) and heating (open symbols). The transition temperatures are marked only for $p=0.5$ GPa. The inset displays the evolution of $T_C^A$, $T_M$, and $T_A$ with pressure.[]{data-label="MvsT4"}](Fig1){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Now we turn to the thermal hysteresis observed in the magnetization curves. Hysteretic effects are not only restricted to the immediate vicinity of the first-order martensitic phase transition, but extend to much higher and also lower temperatures. At low pressures, the data for 0.5 GPa are shown in Fig. \[MvsT4\]b, the hysteresis opens already below $T_C^A$ and closes just before $T_C^M$. This hints at a large coexistence region of austenite and martensite phases, as will be shown below. We further observe a finite magnetization between $T_C^M$ and $T_{A,M}$. We propose that this magnetization is not reflecting any ordering in the martensitic phase, but is instead caused by weakly coupled ferromagnetically ordered austenitic regions still present in a non-magnetic martensitic background. Upon further increasing pressure $T_{A,M}(p)$ increases, but $T_C^M(p)$ remains almost unchanged. Therefore, the distance between the two transitions increases and we observe a closing of the hysteresis in $M(T)$ well above $T_C^M$. We note that we do not observe any substantial magnetization in the region between $T_{A,M}$ and $T_C^M$ once the hysteresis is closed. We take this finding as evidence that the FM ordering is restricted to the austenitic phase. We cannot exclude antiferromagnetic or spin-glass type of order in the martensitic phase from our data. Moreover, the maximum value of $M(T)$ reached in the FM phase differs strongly between cooling and heating cycles. While there is almost no difference at ambient pressure [@Nayak2014; @GhorbaniZavareh2014; @supp], the difference grows with increasing pressure. At 3.08 GPa, we only observe a small kink in the cooling curve, but almost no anomaly related to the FM transition on heating is visible anymore (see Fig. \[MvsT4\]b). Above this pressure it is difficult to detect any signature of the transition in either cooling or heating curves. At 4.6 GPa, the highest pressure in our experiment, no apparent transition anomaly is visible anymore (not shown).
The $T-p$ phase diagram of Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{35}$In$_{15}$ determined from the magnetization data is depicted in the inset of Fig. \[MvsT4\]. The pressure evolution of $T_{A,M}$ can be divided in two regions, one at low pressure $p\lesssim1.9$ GPa with $dT_{A(M)}(p)/dp\approx33$ K/GPa (36 K/GPa) and one for $p\gtrsim1.9$ GPa with $dT_{A(M)}(p)/dp\approx12$ K/GPa (14 K/GPa). $T_C^A(p)$ exhibits only a weak almost linear pressure dependence with a slope of $dT_C^A(p)/dp\approx 2.3$ K/GPa. We note that the thermal hysteresis between $T_M$ and $T_A$ also decreases above $\sim1.9$ GPa.
In order to relate the pressure evolution of the magnetic properties of Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{35}$In$_{15}$ with the structural changes XRD experiments were carried out. We note that the grinding process, required for producing the powder needed for the experiments, induced stresses in the grains which could not be completely removed by a second heat treatment. As a result $T_{A,M}$ is shifted by approximately 24 K toward higher temperatures at ambient pressure in the powdered material compared with the bulk sample (see the Supplemental Material for details [@supp]). However, the residual stresses in the powder do not affect the general characteristics of the material.
Ambient pressure XRD data confirm a cubic austenitic phase with lattice parameter $a=6.00509(7)$ Å at high temperatures, while the low-temperature martensitic phase is a complex modulated structure [@supp; @Yan2015]. The XRD experiments under pressure were performed between 1.5 and 5 GPa. The pressure was always changed at RT and diffractograms were taken during cooling and heating cycles. The end temperatures were chosen in order to obtain a single phase material. Figure \[p5all\] displays selected diffractograms recorded at 5 GPa during heating from RT up to 462 K and during cooling down to RT again in the range $10.75 ^\circ\leq2\theta \leq12 ^\circ$. In this window only the (220) peak of the cubic austenitic phase is observed, but five peaks corresponding to the martensitic phase. Due to the complexity of the modulated structure we refrain our analysis to the temperature evolution of the martensitic transformation.
![Diffraction patterns collected with $\lambda=0.415024$ [Å]{} at different temperatures taken during (a) heating and during (b) cooling at 5 GPa. The austenitic phase is labeled by the letter A (blue), the mixed martensitic and austenitic phases by MA (green), and the martensitic phase by M (black).[]{data-label="p5all"}](Fig2){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
We first focus on the diffractograms obtained on the heating cycle depicted in Fig. \[p5all\]a for 5 GPa. At RT and 343 K only the peaks corresponding to the martensitic phase are present indicating a single phase. Upon increasing temperature, the (220) peak of the cubic austenite structure appears at 358 K. The martensitic and the austenitic phase coexist for a large temperature range from 358 K up to 394 K. Above $\sim400$ K, Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{35}$In$_{15}$ transforms completely to the austenitic phase and only the cubic (220) peak is visible. Upon cooling, displayed in Fig. \[p5all\]b, we observe a thermal hysteresis.
The unit-cell volume of the austenitic phase decreases linearly with pressure from $V=216.96$ Å$^3$ at ambient pressure to $V=208.80$ Å$^3$ at 5 GPa. The lattice parameters of the cubic phase were determined from the diffractograms at 420 K, in order to have a single phase material (see the Supplemental Material for details [@supp]).
Our results on the phase diagram of Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{35}$In$_{15}$ are summarized in Fig. \[PhaseDiagramLett3\], in the upper panel for the heating and in the lower panel for the cooling cycle. We note that at ambient pressure no XRD data were recorded on cooling. Due to the large coexistence region of the austenite and martensite it is not possible to infer a martensitic transition temperature from the structural data. The extent of the mixed-phase region does not change upon increasing pressure, but shifts to higher temperatures at about the same rate as $T_{A,M}$ determined from the magnetization data. This evidences the expected strong coupling between structural and magnetic properties at the martensitic transformation. On the other hand, the FM transition temperature exhibits almost no temperature dependence and is independent of the pressure evolution of the mixed-phase region. Consequently, the FM phase disappears once the fraction of the austenitic phase gets too small, i.e., $T_{A,M}\gtrsim T_C^A$, and no long-range order can develop anymore. This strongly suggests that the FM order is bound to the austenitic phase.
![$T-p$ phase diagram of Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{35}$In$_{15}$ determined on (a) heating and (b) cooling cycles by XRD and magnetization experiments. The austenitic phase is labeled by the letter A (blue), the mixed martensitic and austenitic phases by MA (green), and the martensitic phase by M (black).[]{data-label="PhaseDiagramLett3"}](Fig3){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The magnetic and structural data confirm that $T_{A,M}(p)$ increases strongly with pressure (see Fig. \[PhaseDiagramLett3\]). This can be understood from thermodynamics considering that pressure stabilizes the phase with smaller unit-cell volume, i.e., the martensitic phase [@Manosa2008; @Li2009]. According to the Clausius-Clayperon equation, the shift of a first-order phase transition with pressure is given by $dT/dp=\Delta V_M/\Delta S$, where $\Delta V_M$ and $\Delta S$ are the changes in the molar volume and in entropy at the transition, respectively. For Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{35}$In$_{15}$ a relative volume change of $\Delta V/V\approx0.3$% [@Manosa2008] and an entropy change of $\Delta S=10.3$ Jkg$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$ have been reported [@SalazarMejia]. Considering $V_M\approx1.30\times 10^{-4}$m$^3$kg$^{-1}$ in the austenite, we obtain $dT/dp \approx38$ K/GPa, which is in good agreement with our experimental result for pressures below 1.9 GPa, $dT/dp \approx36$ K/GPa. For $p\gtrsim1.9$ GPa $dT/dp$ is considerably smaller. This is most likely caused by an increase of the entropy change at the martensitic transition, due to a reduction of the magnetic contribution to the Gibbs free energy, since the distance between $T_C^A$ and $T_{A,M}$ decreases [@SalazarMejia; @Ito2007]. The magnetic entropy change related with the change in magnetization at the martensitic transition has an opposite sign compared to that of the entropy change related with the structural transition. Therefore, upon increasing pressure the net entropy change at the transition increases since the structural contribution is supposed to be pressure independent. At 3 GPa, the molar volume of the austenitic phase is $V_M\approx1.27\times 10^{-4}$m$^3$kg$^{-1}$ ($a=5.9588(3)$Å). Assuming a constant relative volume change at the transition and considering the experimental value $dT_M/d_p\approx 14$ K/GPa, the entropy change at the martensitic transition increases to $\Delta S\approx27$ Jkg$^{-1}$K$^{-1}$.
With increasing pressure $T_{A,M}(p)$ moves closer to the Curie temperature $T_C^A$ and the change in magnetization at the FM transition decreases. This can be understood in the following way (see Fig. \[PhaseDiagramLett3\]b): at ambient pressure around 330 K the sample is in the fully austenitic state. Upon lowering the temperature the whole sample orders ferromagnetically at $T_C^A$ reaching a magnetization value corresponding to the full sample volume. Upon further cooling the martensitic transition takes place and the magnetization drops, due to the different magnetic properties of the austenitic and the martensitic phase. At applied pressure, for instance at $2$ GPa, at 330 K the sample consists of a mixture of martensitic and austenitic parts. Upon cooling only the moments in the austenitic phase order ferromagnetically. Accordingly, the measured magnetization is reduced corresponding to the fraction of the austenitic phase in the sample. As a consequence the magnetization change at $T_M$ decreases too. At $3$ GPa almost all of the sample has already transformed to the martensitic phase at $T_C^A$. Thus, only the remaining austenitic phase orders ferromagnetically at $T_C^A$ leading to a tiny change in the magnetization as can be seen in Fig. \[MvsT4\]. Once $T_M(p)$ becomes larger than $T_C^A(p)$ no long range FM ordering is observed anymore.
The mixed-phase region of austenite and martensite phases is not restricted to the immediate vicinity of the thermal hysteresis region of the martensitic transition as determined by the magnetization data. We find that the mixed-phase region shifts linearly to higher temperature upon increasing pressure. This leads, assuming a constant temperature, to a growing fraction of the martensitic phase and a declining contribution of the austenitic phase upon increasing pressure. Since $T_C^A$ is almost pressure independent the fraction of the austenitic phase in the ferromagnetically ordered region decreases. At the same time, we observe a reduction in the size of the magnetization in the FM phase. Therefore, we conclude that the FM order is bound to the austenitic phase and the decrease in the magnetization reflects the decrease in the fraction of the austenitic phase. Following the same arguments we can understand the observation of a relatively large magnetization between $T_C^M$ and $T_{A,M}$ in the predominantly martensitic phase at low pressures. In this regime, we still find a small fraction of the FM austenite present. Upon increasing pressure the mixed-phase region moves to higher temperatures and the fraction of FM austenite decreases further and only the martensitic phase remains. The large mixed-phase region is a critical issue for applications since it has a strong influence on the magnetic properties in a wide temperature region and not only around the martensitic phase transformation.
Finally, we compare the effect of hydrostatic pressure in Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{35}$In$_{15}$ with chemical substitution. Substitution of Mn by In in the series Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{25+x}$In$_{25-x}$ shows a similar result as the application of external pressure: the martensitic transition shifts to higher temperatures and at lower In concentration no FM austenitic phase is present [@Krenke2006; @Kanomata2009; @Yan2013]. Like the application of hydrostatic pressure, a decrease in the In content leads to a reduction in the unit-cell volume, which is attributed to the difference in the ionic radii of the Mn and In atoms [@Kanomata2009]. Furthermore, the entropy change at the martensitic transition increases with decreasing In content. In particular, $\Delta S$ is larger for the samples where the martensitic transition takes place between two non-magnetic phases [@Krenke2006; @Yan2013; @Stern-Taulats2015], in agreement with our results.
In summary, in Ni$_{50}$Mn$_{35}$In$_{15}$ application of hydrostatic pressure suppresses the FM ordering. While $T_C^A$ only shows a weak pressure dependence, $T_{A,M}$ shifts strongly to higher temperatures upon increasing pressure. The latter confirms the expected strong coupling of the magnetic and structural properties at the martensitic transition. The pressure evolution of the magnetic properties can be understood considering the extremely large martensite/austenite mixed-phase region. Our findings show that in Heusler shape-memory alloys even the second order FM phase transition in the austenitic phase can be influenced by the martensitic transformation and the related hysteretic behavior.
This work was financially supported by the ERC Advanced Grant (291472) “Idea Heusler”. The XRD experiments at ambient pressure were performed at the National Synchrotron Radiation Research Center (NSRRC, Taiwan) and the experiments under pressure were performed at the ID09A beamline at the European Synchrotron-Radiation Facility under proposal HC-1342.
[100]{}
R. Kainuma, Y. Imano, W. Ito, Y. Sutou, H. Morito, S. Okamoto, O. Kitakami, K. Oikawa, A. Fujita, T. Kanomata, and K. Ishida, Nature **439**, 957 (2006).
A. Planes, L. Mañosa, and M. Acet, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **21**, 233201 (2009).
T. Krenke, E. Duman, M. Acet, E. F. Wassermann, X. Moya, L. Mañosa, A. Planes, E. Suard, and B. Ouladdiaf, Phys. Rev. B **75**, 104414 (2007).
J. Liu, T. Gottschall, K. P. Skokov, J. D. Moore, and O. Gutfleisch, Nat. Mater. **11**, 620 (2012).
M. Ghorbani Zavareh, C. Salazar Mejía, A. K. Nayak, Y. Skourski, J. Wosnitza, C. Felser, and M. Nicklas, Appl. Phys. Lett. **106**, 071904 (2015).
L. Mañosa, D. Gonzalez-Alonso, A. Planes, E. Bonnot, M. Barrio, J.-L. Tamarit, S. Aksoy, and M. Acet, Nat. Mater. **9**, 478 (2010).
V. D. Buchelnikov, P. Entel, S. V. Taskaev, V. V. Sokolovsky, A. Hucht, M. Ogura, H. Akai, M. E. Gruner and S. K. Nayak, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 184427 (2008).
E. Sasioglu, L. M. Sandratskii and P. Bruno, Phys. Rev. B **77**, 064417 (2008).
N. V. Rama Rao, M. Manivel Raja, S. Esakki Muthu, S. Arumugam and S. Pandian, J. Appl. Phys. **116**, 223904 (2014).
S. Aksoy, T. Krenke, M. Acet, E. F. Wassermann, X. Moya, L. Mañosa and A. Planes, Appl. Phys. Lett. **91**, 251915 (2007).
L. Mañosa, X. Moya, A. Planes, O. Gutfleisch, J. Lyubina, M. Barrio, J. L. Tamarit, S. Aksoy, T. Krenke and M. Acet, Appl. Phys. Lett. **92**, 012515 (2008).
A. K. Nayak, K. G. Suresh, A. K. Nigam, A. A. Coelho and S. Gama, J. Appl. Phys. **106**, 053901 (2009).
V. K. Sharma, M. K. Chattopadhyay and S. B. Roy, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **23**, 366001 (2011).
H. Yan, Y. Zhang, N. Xu, A. Senyshyn, H. G. Brokmeier, C. Esling, X. Zhao and L. Zuo, Acta Mater. **88**, 375 (2015) and references therein.
A. K. Nayak, C. S. Mejia, S. W. DSouza, S. Chadov, Y. Skourski, C. Felser, and M. Nicklas, Phys. Rev. B. **90**, 220408(R) (2014).
See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/ 00.0000/PhysRevLett.000.000000
T. Kanomata, K. Shirakawa and T. Kaneko, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. **65**, 76 (1987).
B. Li, W. J. Ren, Q. Zhang, X. K. Lv, X. G. Liu, H. Meng, J. Li, D. Li and Z. D. Zhang, Appl. Phys. Lett. **95**, 172506 (2009).
C. Salazar Mejía, M. Ghorbani Zavareh, A. K. Nayak, Y. Skourski, J. Wosnitza, C. Felser, and M. Nicklas, J. Appl. Phys. **117**, 17E710 (2015).
W. Ito, Y. Imano, R. Kainuma, Y. Sutou, K. Oikawa, and K. Ishida, Metall. Mater. Trans. A **38**,759 (2007).
T. Krenke, M. Acet, E. F. Wassermann, X. Moya, L. Mañosa and A. Planes, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 174413 (2006).
T. Kanomata, T. Yasuda, S. Sasaki, H. Nishihara, R. Kainuma, W. Ito, K. Oikawa, K. Ishida, K. U. Neumann and K. Ziebeck, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. **321**, 773 (2009).
H. Yan, Z. Li, C. Zhang, Y. Zhang, C. Esling, X. Zhao and L. Zuo, Adv. Mat. Res. **712-715**, 54 (2013).
E. Stern-Taulats, A. Planes, P. Lloveras, M. Barrio, J. L. Tamarit, S. Pramanick, S. Majumdar, S. Yuce, B. Emre, C. Frontera and L. Mañosa, Acta Mater. **96**, 324 (2015).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A surface model with skeletons is investigated by using the canonical Monte Carlo simulations. The skeleton is composed of linear chains, which are joined to each other at the rigid junctions. A one-dimensional bending energy is defined on the linear chains, and no two-dimensional curvature energy is assumed on the surface. The model undergoes a first-order transition between the smooth phase and the crumpled phase. We conclude that the first-order transition of the surface model with skeletons is independent of whether the junctions are elastic or rigid.'
address: 'Department of Mechanical and Systems Engineering, Ibaraki National College of Technology, Nakane 866, Hitachinaka, Ibaraki 312-8508, Japan'
author:
- 'T. Endo'
- 'M. Egashira'
- 'S. Obata'
- 'H. Koibuchi'
title: Phase transition of triangulated spherical surfaces supported by elastic chains with rigid junctions
---
,
,
,
Phase Transition ,Extrinsic Curvature ,Elastic Membranes 64.60.-i ,68.60.-p ,87.16.Dg
Introduction {#intro}
============
A well-known surface model is the one of Helfrich, Polyakov and Kleinert (HPK) [@HELFRICH-1973; @POLYAKOV-NPB1986; @KLEINERT-PLB1986]. The phase structure of HPK model is connected to string models and membranes [@WHEATER-JP1994; @NELSON-SMMS2004; @David-TDQGRS-1989; @David-SMMS2004; @Wiese-PTCP2000; @Bowick-PREP2001; @Gompper-Schick-PTC-1994] and therefore has long been investigated theoretically [@Peliti-Leibler-PRL1985; @DavidGuitter-EPL1988; @PKN-PRL1988; @BKS-PLA2000; @BK-PRB2001] and numerically [@KANTOR-NELSON-PRA1987; @KANTOR-SMMS2004; @WHEATER-NPB1996; @BCFTA-JP96-NPB9697; @KD-PRE2002; @KOIB-PRE-2004-1; @KOIB-PRE-2005-1; @KOIB-NPB-2006; @CATTERALL-NPBSUP1991; @AMBJORN-NPB1993; @ABGFHHM-PLB1993; @BCHHM-NPB9393; @KOIB-PLA20023; @KOIB-PLA-2004; @KOIB-EPJB-2005; @KOIB-EPJB-2006].
Membranes are considered to be two-dimensional surfaces in the conventional HPK model, and hence homogeneity is assumed in the model. However, membranes are not always homogeneous; cell membranes are known to be supported by skeletons. Hop diffusion of membrane proteins or lipids was experimentally observed recently [@Kusumi-BioJ-2004]. The free diffusion of molecules is prohibited, and the diffusion is localized in some domains on the cell membranes. The origin of this is considered to be due to the cytoskeletons. Artificial membranes are considered to have skeletons because they are partly polymerized [@CNE-PRL-2006].
The phase structure of skeleton models should therefore be studied as a statistical mechanical problem. Skeleton models for the cytoskeleton were already investigated in [@BBD-BioPJ-1998]. A hard-wall and hard-core potential was assumed on the polymer chains with junctions, and the responses to some external stress and the compression modulus were obtained [@BBD-BioPJ-1998]. Giant fluid vesicles coated with skeletons was experimentally investigated, and the mechanical properties were reported [@HHBRMC-PRL-2001], where the actin filaments introduce an inhomogeneous structure in homogeneous artificial membranes. A compartmentalized surface model was reported to undergo a first-order transition [@KOIB-PLA-2006-2], where the compartment boundary prevents the vertices from the free diffusion. In [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1], the phase structure of a surface model with skeleton was investigated, and it was reported that the model has a first-order transition between the smooth phase and the crumpled phase. The interaction of the model in [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1] is described by one-dimensional bending energy for linear chains (or bonds) and two-dimensional bending energy for junctions. The two-dimensional Gaussian bond potential is also assumed in the Hamiltonian. Thus, the interaction of the model in [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1] seems a little bit more complicated than that of HPK model. One of the reasons of this is because the two-dimensional elasticity is assumed at the junctions.
Therefore, it is interesting to see whether the transition of [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1] occurs in more simplified skeleton models. One possible model is obtained from the model of [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1] by replacing the elastic junction with a rigid junction.
In this Letter, we study the rigid junction model by using the canonical Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and see how the transition of [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1] occurs in such a simplified model. We must note that the rigid junction model is not included in the elastic junction models. In fact, there are two types of elasticity at the elastic junctions; one is the out-of-plane elasticity and the other is the in-plane elasticity. The former elasticity can be rigid in the elastic junction model of [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1] in the limit of infinite bending rigidity $b_J\!\to\! \infty$, however, the latter one can not be controlled in the elastic junction model. Therefore, the rigid junction model in this Letter and the elastic junction model in [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1] are considered to be two different models.
Triangulated surfaces {#surfaces}
=====================
The model is defined on the triangulated surfaces, which are characterized by $N$ the total number of vertices including the junctions, $N_S$ the total number of vertices on the chains, $N_J$ the total number of junctions, and $L$ the length of chains between junctions. The junctions are assumed as rigid plates; twelve of them are pentagon and the others are hexagon. It should be noted again that $N_J$ is included in $N$; a junction is counted as a vertex. Figures \[fig-1\](a) and \[fig-1\](b) show surfaces of size $(N,N_S,N_J,L)\!=\!(2322,600,42,6)$ and $(N,N_S,N_J,L)\!=\!(6522,1482,42,11)$, respectively. Thick lines denote the chains terminated at the junctions, and the chains together with junctions form the compartment boundary. All the vertices can fluctuate only locally on the chains as well as inside the compartments, and they are prohibited from the diffusion because of the fixed connectivity nature of the lattice.
0.1in
( 0,0)( 10,10) (18,8.5)[(0,0)[(a) $(2322,600,42,6)$ ]{}]{}(39,8.5)[(0,0)[(b) $(6522,1482,42,11)$ ]{}]{}
![Starting configurations of surfaces for MC of size (a) $(N,N_S,N_J,L)\!=\!(2322,600,42,6)$ and (b) $(N,N_S,N_J,L)\!=\!(6522,1482,42,11)$, where $N$ is the total number of vertices including the total number of junctions, $N_S$ is the total number of vertices on the chains, $N_J$ is the total number of junctions, and $L$ is the length of chains between junctions. Thick lines denote the chains, which terminate at the junctions. []{data-label="fig-1"}](fig-1.eps){width="10.5cm"}
The lattice of $(N,N_S,N_J,L)\!=\!(2322,600,42,6)$ in Fig.\[fig-1\](a) corresponds to that of $(N,N_S,N_J,L)\!=\!(2562,600,42,6)$ in Fig.\[fig-1\](a) of [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1]. The reason why $N\!=\!2322$ of the surface in Fig.\[fig-1\](a) is smaller than $N\!=\!2562$ of the one in [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1] is because the junctions are rigid objects in this Letter while they are elastic ones in [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1]. One hexagonal junction reduces $N$ by $6$, and one pentagonal junction also reduces $N$ by $5$ if they were assumed as rigid objects. Thus, we can check that $2562\!=\! 2322\!+\!6\times 30 \!+\!5\times 12$, where $30$ and $12$ are the total number of pentagonal junction and that of hexagonal junctions, respectively.
The triangulated surfaces such as the ones shown in Figs. \[fig-1\](a) and \[fig-1\](b) are constructed as follows: Firstly, we process the icosahedron by dividing every edge into $\ell$-pieces of uniform length, and obtain a triangulated surface of size $N\!=\!10\ell^2\!+\!2$ (= the total number of vertices), where $\ell$ is the number of division of an edge in the icosahedron. The obtained surfaces are thus characterized by $N_5\!=\!12$ and $N_6\!=\!N\!-\!12$, where $N_q$ is the total number of vertices with co-ordination number $q$. Those $N_5(\!=\!12)$-vertices and $N_6(\!=\!N\!-\!12)$-vertices respectively form pentagonal junctions and hexagonal junctions together with their nearest neighbor vertices, in the next stage. Secondly, compartmentalized structures are obtained by dividing $\ell$ further into $m$-pieces ($m\!=\!1,2,\cdots$), and we have uniform chains of length $L\!=\!(\ell /m) \!-\!2$. Those chains terminate at the above-described pentagonal or hexagonal junctions. These junctions include $6$ (or $7$) vertices and $10$ (or $12$) bonds according to whether they are pentagonal or hexagonal, and hence each junction has many degrees of freedom at this stage. Thirdly, the junctions are assumed as rigid objects on the triangulated surfaces: the pentagonal (hexagonal) junction is identified with a regular pentagonal (regular hexagonal) plate. As a consequence, the $6$ (or $7$) vertices together with the $10$ (or $12$) bonds are identified with a pentagon (or a hexagon). Thus, we have compartmentalized surfaces with rigid junctions as those shown in Figs. \[fig-1\](a) and \[fig-1\](b).
On the surfaces shown in Figs. \[fig-1\](a) and \[fig-1\](b), we have $L\!=\!6$, $\ell\!=\!16$ and $L\!=\!11$, $\ell\!=\!26$, respectively. We also note that the compartmentalized structures shown in Figs. \[fig-1\](a) and \[fig-1\](b) are identical to those of the model in [@KOIB-PLA-2006-2] except the fact that the junctions are rigid. The total number $N_C$ of the compartments depends on the surface size $N$. Consequently, $N_C$ is increased with increasing $N$ just as in the surfaces in [@KOIB-PLA-2006-2]. We choose the chain length $L$ between the junctions as constant so that it is independent of $N$ in the model. We fix the chain length $L$ such that $$\label{number-inside}
L=6,\quad L=11,$$ which respectively correspond to the values $n\!=\!21$, $n\!=\!66$, the total number of vertices inside a compartment [@KOIB-PLA-2006-2]. The reason why we fix $n$ is because the size of compartment is considered to be finite in the cell membranes, and also because it is expected that total number of lipids in the compartment remains finite in the cell membranes.
Model
=====
The Hamiltonian of the model is given by a linear combination of the two-dimensional Gaussian bond potential $S_1$, the one-dimensional bending energy $S_2$, which are defined by $$\label{Disc-Eneg}
S_1=\sum_{(ij)} \left(X_i-X_j\right)^2,\quad S_2=\sum_{(ij)} (1-\cos \theta_{(ij)}).$$ In these expressions, $\sum_{(ij)}$ in $S_1$ denotes the sum over all the bonds $(ij)$ connecting the vertices $i$ and $j$, and $\sum_{(ij)}$ in $S_2$ denotes the sum over bonds $i$ and $j$, which contain not only bonds in the chains but also [*virtual bonds*]{} that connect the center of a rigid junction and the neighboring vertices on the chains. The symbol $\theta_{(ij)}$ in $S_2$ is the angle between the bonds $i$ and $j$, which include the virtual bonds described just above. The Gaussian potential $S_1$ is defined not only on the chains but also on all other bonds. As a consequence, the model is considered to be a surface model, although the mechanical strength is maintained by one-dimensional elastic skeletons joined to each other at the rigid junctions.
Figure \[fig-2\] shows a hexagonal rigid junction connected to chains, where the angle $\theta_{(ij)}$ is defined not only at the vertices on the chains but also at the corners (=[*virtual vertices*]{}) of the junction. The triangular lattices attached to the chains were eliminated from the schematic drawing in Fig. \[fig-2\] for simplicity.
![A hexagonal junction connected to chains. The angle $\theta_{(ij)}$ in $S_2$ is defined not only at the vertices on the chains but also at the corners (=virtual vertices) of the junction. The triangular lattices attached to the chains were eliminated from the schematic drawing for simplicity. []{data-label="fig-2"}](fig-2.eps){width="10.5cm"}
We must comment on the size of the junctions. The junctions are two-dimensional objects and therefore have their own size to be fixed. The size of junction can be specified by the edge length $R$; the perimeter length of the pentagonal (hexagonal) junction is therefore expressed by $5R$ ($6R$). In this Letter, we fix the size of the junctions such that $$\label{junctionsize}
R=0.1.$$ The value $R\!=\!0.1$ is quite smaller than that of the elastic junctions in [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1], where the edge length squared is $R^2\simeq 0.5$ because of the relation $S_1/N\!=\!1.5$ satisfied in the model of [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1]. Since the junctions are two-dimensional rigid objects, it is expected that large-sized junctions influence equilibrium properties of the surface. Therefore, in order to reduce such unclear size-effects we choose the size $R$ relatively small such as in Eq.(\[junctionsize\]).
We must note that the junctions in the snapshots of Figs. \[fig-1\](a),(b) were drawn larger than that expected from Eq.(\[junctionsize\]); the junction size in the snapshots is fixed according to $S_1/N\!\simeq\!1.5$. In the following section, we discuss how do we fix the size $R$ to the assumed value in Eq.(\[junctionsize\]) in the MC simulations.
The partition function $Z$ of the model is defined by $$\label{Part-Func}
Z = \int^\prime \prod _{i=1}^{N} d X_i \exp\left[-S(X)\right],\quad
S(X)=S_1 + b S_2,$$ where $b$ is the bending rigidity corresponding to the one-dimensional bending energy, and $\int^\prime$ denotes that the center of the surface is fixed. The integration $\prod _{i=1}^{N} d X_i$ is a product of the integration over vertices and that of junctions such that $$\label{integration}
\prod _{i=1}^{N} d X_i = \prod _{{\rm vertices}\; i} d X_i \prod _{{\rm junctions}\; i} d X_i,$$ where $\prod _{{\rm junctions}\; i} d X_i$ is the integration over the degrees of freedom for three-dimensional translations and rotations.
The bending rigidity $b$ has unit of $kT$, where $k$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $T$ is the temperature. The surface tension coefficient $a$ of $S_1$ is fixed to $a\!=\!1$; this is always possible because of the scale invariant property of the model. In fact, in the expression $aS_1 \!+\! b S_2 $ we immediately understand that $a\!=\!1$ is possible, because the factor $a$ of $S_1$ can be eliminated due to the scale invariance of the partition function. Since the unit of $a$ is $(1/{\rm length})^2$, the length unit of the model is given by $\sqrt{1/a}$. We use the unit of length provided by $\sqrt{1/a}\!=\!1$ in this Letter, although $a$ is arbitrarily chosen to be fixed.
It must also be noted on the relation of the size $R$ in Eq.(\[junctionsize\]) to the thermodynamic limit $N\!\to\! \infty$. As discussed in the last part of the previous section, the limit $N\!\to\! \infty$ is taken in our model so that the compartment size remains constant as in the model of [@KOIB-PLA-2006-2]. As a consequence, $R$ is also remained constant in the limit $N\!\to\! \infty$.
Monte Carlo technique {#MC-Techniques}
=====================
The integration $\prod _{i=1}^{N} d X_i$ in the partition function is done by the canonical Metropolis technique. The update of $X$ in MC can be divided into two steps, which are corresponding to the integrations $\prod _{{\rm junctions}\; i} d X_i$ and $\prod _{{\rm vertices}\; i} d X_i$ in Eq.(\[integration\]). The first is the update of $X$ for the vertices including those on the chains: $X$ are shifted so that $X^\prime \!=\! X\!+\!\delta X$, where $\delta X$ is randomly chosen in a small sphere. The new position $X^\prime$ is accepted with the probability ${\rm Min}[1,\exp(-\Delta S)]$, where $\Delta S\!=\! S({\rm new})\!-\!S({\rm old})$. The second is the update of the position of the junctions as three-dimensional rigid objects. This can be further divided into two processes: the first is a random three-dimensional translation, and the second is a random three-dimensional rotation. All of these MC processes are independently performed under about $50\%$ acceptance rate, which is controlled by small numbers fixed at the beginning of the simulations. We introduce the lower bound $1\times 10^{-8}$ for the area of triangles. No lower bound is imposed on the bond length.
The junction size $R$ is fixed to $R\!=\!0.1$ in Eq.(\[junctionsize\]) during the thermalization MCS. The initial value of $R$ is given by $R\!\simeq\! 0.7$ on the surfaces such as those shown in Figs. \[fig-1\](a) and \[fig-1\](b). Thus, we reduce $R$ from $R\!=\! 0.7$ to $R\!=\!0.1$ by $6\!\times\! 10^{-5}$ at every $25$ MCS in the first $2.5\times 10^6$ MCS. Because of this forced reduction of the junction size, the equilibrium statistical mechanical condition seems to be violated in the first $2.5\times 10^6$ MCS. Therefore, relatively many thermalization ($1.75\times 10^7$ or more) MCS is performed after the reduction. Further thermalization MCS should be performed, if necessary.
We use surfaces of size $(N,N_S,N_J,L)\!=\!(5222,1350,92,6)$, $(9282,2400,162,6)$, $(14502,3750,252,6)$, and $(20882,5400,362,6)$ for the length $L\!=\!6$, and $(N,N_S,N_J,L)\!=\!(6522,1200,42,11)$, $(14672,2700,92,11)$, and $(26082,4800,162,11)$ for the length $L\!=\!11$. A random number sequence called Mersenne Twister [@Matsumoto-Nishimura-1998] is used in the simulations.
Results {#Results}
=======
Snapshots of surfaces are shown in Figs.\[fig-3\](a)–\[fig-3\](d). Figure \[fig-3\](a) is a surface of size $(N,N_S,N_J,L)\!=\!(26082,4800,162,11)$ obtained in the crumpled phase at $b\!=\!12.3$, and Fig.\[fig-3\](b) is the one obtained in the smooth phase at $b\!=\!12.4$. The surface sections of Figs. \[fig-3\](a) and \[fig-3\](b) are shown in Figs. \[fig-3\](c) and \[fig-3\](d), respectively. These figures are drawn in the same scale. We immediately see the surface in the smooth phase is actually swollen, while the surface is collapsed in the crumpled phase.
0.1in
( 0,0)( 10,10) (19.5,47.5)[(0,0)[(a) Collapsed surface at $b\!=\!12.3$ ]{}]{}(43,47.5)[(0,0)[(b) Smooth surface at $b\!=\!12.4$ ]{}]{}(17.2,8.5)[(0,0)[(c) The surface section ]{}]{}(40,8.5)[(0,0)[(d) The surface section]{}]{}
![Snapshot of the surface of size $(N,N_S,N_J,L)\!=\!(26082,4800,162,11)$ obtained in the crumpled phase at (a) $b\!=\!12.3$ and in the smooth phase at (b) $b\!=\!12.4$, both of which are close to the transition point. The figures are drawn in the same scale.[]{data-label="fig-3"}](fig-3.eps){width="10.5cm"}
![The Gaussian bond potential $S_1/N$ vs. $b$ obtained on the surfaces of (a) $L\!=\!6$ and (b) $L\!=\!11$. $S_1/N$ slightly deviates from $S_1/N\!\simeq\!1.5$. The curves are drawn by the multihistogram reweighting technique.[]{data-label="fig-4"}](fig-4.eps){width="10.5cm"}
The Gaussian bond potential $S_1/N$ is shown against $b$ in Figs. \[fig-4\](a) and \[fig-4\](b), which correspond to the conditions $L\!=\!6$ and $L\!=\!11$, respectively. The solid curves are drawn by the multihistogram reweighting technique [@Janke-histogram-2002]. The values of $S_1/N$ in the figures slightly deviate from $S_1/N\!=\!1.5$, which is satisfied on the surface without the rigid junctions or with rigid junctions of negligible size. The reason of this discrepancy is because the surface includes the rigid junctions of finite size. A vertex is the zero-dimensional point, while the rigid junction is the two-dimensional plate and hence shares some area on the surface. We find a gap or a jump in $S_1/N$ of the $(N,N_S,N_J,L)\!=\!(26082,4800,162,11)$ surface in Fig.\[fig-4\](b), which can be viewed as a sign of a discontinuous transition.
![The mean square size $X^2$ against $b$ obtained on the surfaces of (a) $L\!=\!6$ and (b) $L\!=\!11$. The curves are drawn by the multihistogram reweighting technique.[]{data-label="fig-5"}](fig-5.eps){width="10.5cm"}
The mean square size is defined by $$\label{X2}
X^2={1\over N} \sum_i \left(X_i-\bar X\right)^2, \quad \bar X={1\over N} \sum_i X_i,$$ where $\bar X$ is the center of the surface. The crumpling transition is conventionally understood as the one of surface fluctuations accompanied by surface collapsing phenomena, which can be seen in our surface model; we have seen a collapsed surface and a swollen surface in Figs.\[fig-3\](a)–\[fig-3\](d). Therefore, we expect that $X^2$ reflects the crumpling transition on spherical surfaces. Figures \[fig-5\](a) and \[fig-5\](b) are plots of $X^2$ against $b$ obtained under $L\!=\!6$ and $L\!=\!11$. We find that the variation of $X^2$ becomes sharp against $b$ as $N$ increases. Thus, it is expected that the variation of $X^2$ has a jump at intermediate value of $b$ in either case of $L$.
The crumpling transition is originally understood as the one for surface fluctuation phenomena. Therefore, the bending energy $S_2/N_S^\prime$ is expected to reflect the transition, where $N_S^\prime$ is given by $$\label{bendingenegryvertices}
N_S^\prime = N_S + 6N_J-12.$$ $S_2/N_S^\prime$ is the bending energy per vertex, because $N_S^\prime$ is the total number of vertices where $S_2$ is defined. $N_S^\prime$ includes virtual vertices which are the corners of the junctions (see also Fig.\[fig-2\]). Those virtual vertices are not counted as the vertices and hence are not included in $N_S$. Total number of virtual vertices are $6N_J-12$, because the hexagonal junction includes 6-virtual vertices, and the total number of pentagonal junction is $12$. Thus, we have Eq.(\[bendingenegryvertices\]) for $N_S^\prime$, and therefore we have $N_S^\prime\!=\!1890$, $N_S^\prime\!=\!3360$, $N_S^\prime\!=\!5250$, and $N_S^\prime\!=\!7560$ for the surfaces of length $L\!=\!6$ and size $(N,N_S,N_J,L)\!=\!(5222,1350,92,6)$, $(9282,2400,162,6)$, $(14502,3750,252,6)$, and $(20882,5400,362,6)$; and $N_S^\prime\!=\!1440$, $N_S^\prime\!=\!3240$, and $N_S^\prime\!=\!5760$ for the surfaces of length $L\!=\!11$ and size $(N,N_S,N_J,L)\!=\!(6522,1200,42,11)$, $(14672,2700,92,11)$, and $(26082,4800,162,11)$.
Figures \[fig-6\](a) and \[fig-6\](b) are plots of $S_2/N_S^\prime$ against $b$ obtained under $L\!=\!6$ and $L\!=\!11$. We find the expected behavior in $S_2/N_S^\prime$ under both conditions $L\!=\!6$ and $L\!=\!11$; $S_2/N_S^\prime$ has a gap (or a jump) at intermediate $b$. This clearly shows that the crumpling transition is of first order.
![The one-dimensional bending energy $S_2/N_S^\prime$ vs. $b$ obtained on the surfaces of (a) $L\!=\!6$ and (b) $L\!=\!11$. []{data-label="fig-6"}](fig-6.eps){width="10.5cm"}
![The two-dimensional bending energy $S_2^{(2)}/N_B$ against $b$ obtained on the surfaces of (a) $L\!=\!6$ and (b) $L\!=\!11$. $S_2^{(2)}$ is defined by Eq.(\[two-dim-bending-energy\]) and is not included in the Hamiltonian. $N_B$ is the total number of bonds where $S_2^{(2)}$ is defined.[]{data-label="fig-7"}](fig-7.eps){width="10.5cm"}
The transition can also be reflected in the two-dimensional extrinsic curvature, which is defined by $$\label{two-dim-bending-energy}
S_2^{(2)}\!=\!\sum_{\langle ij \rangle}(1-{\bf n}_i \cdot {\bf n}_j),$$ where ${\bf n}_i$ is the unit normal vector of the triangle $i$. In $S_2^{(2)}$, $\sum_{\langle ij \rangle}$ denotes the summation over all nearest neighbor triangles $i$ and $j$ that have the common bond $\langle ij \rangle$, which includes bonds belonging to the skeleton chains. We denote the total number of bonds, where $S_2^{(2)}$ is defined, by $N_B$, which is given by $N_B\!=\! \sum_{\langle ij \rangle} 1$. Note that $N_B$ includes [*virtual edges*]{}, which are the one-dimensional edges of the rigid junctions. In fact, we define $S_2^{(2)}$ on the virtual edges, because it is reasonable to define extrinsic curvature on those edges. It is also noted that $S_2^{(2)}$ is not included in the Hamiltonian, and therefore $S_2^{(2)}$ gives no mechanical strength to the surface.
The two-dimensional extrinsic curvature $S_2^{(2)}/N_B$ is plotted in Figs. \[fig-7\](a) and \[fig-7\](b) against $b$, which are corresponding to the conditions $L\!=\!6$ and $L\!=\!11$. $N_B$ is the total number of bonds described above. We find that the dependence of $S_2^{(2)}/N_B$ on $b$ shown in Fig.\[fig-7\] is almost identical to that of $S_2/N_S^\prime$ in Fig.\[fig-6\]. The gap (or jump) seen in $S_2^{(2)}/N_B$ also supports that the transition is of first order.
The specific heat corresponding to the one-dimensional bending energy $S_2$ is defined by $$\label{specific-heat-1}
C_{S_2} \!=\! {b^2\over N_S^\prime} \langle \; \left( S_2 \!-\! \langle S_2 \rangle\right)^2\rangle,$$ which can also reflects phase transitions if it has an anomalous behavior. Figures \[fig-8\](a) and \[fig-8\](b) show $C_{S_2}$ against $b$ obtained under $L\!=\!6$ and $L\!=\!11$. Solid curves drawn in the figures were obtained by the multihistogram reweighting technique, and those curves clearly show an expected anomalous behavior indicating that $C_{S_2}$ is divergent when $N_S^\prime\to\infty$ (or equivalently $N\to\infty$).
![The specific heat $C_{S_2}$ for $S_2$ against $b$ obtained on the surfaces of (a) $L\!=\!6$ and (b) $L\!=\!11$. $C_{S_2}$ is defined by Eq.(\[specific-heat-1\]). The error bars on the symbols are the statistical error, which is obtained by the binning analysis.[]{data-label="fig-8"}](fig-8.eps){width="10.5cm"}
![The specific heat $C_{S_2^{(2)}}$ for $S_2^{(2)}$ against $b$ obtained on the surfaces of (a) $L\!=\!6$ and (b) $L\!=\!11$. $C_{S_2^{(2)}}$ is defined by Eq.(\[specific-heat-2\]). The error bars on the symbols are the statistical error, which is obtained also by the binning analysis.[]{data-label="fig-9"}](fig-9.eps){width="10.5cm"}
The specific heat corresponding to the extrinsic curvature $S_2^{(2)}$ in Eq.(\[two-dim-bending-energy\]) can also be defined by $$\label{specific-heat-2}
C_{S_2^{(2)}} \!=\! {1 \over N} \langle \; ( S_2^{(2)} \!-\! \langle S_2^{(2)} \rangle)^2 \rangle,$$ which reflects the transition as $C_{S_2}$ does. Curvature coefficient for $C_{S_2^{(2)}}$ was assumed to be $1$, because $S_2^{(2)}$ is not included in the Hamiltonian and therefore the curvature coefficient is not. Figures \[fig-9\](a) and \[fig-9\](b) show $C_{S_2^{(2)}}$ against $b$ obtained under $L\!=\!6$ and $L\!=\!11$. We can see in $C_{S_2^{(2)}}$ the same anomalous behavior as in $C_{S_2}$.
![ Log-log plots of (a) $C_{S_2}^{\rm max}$ against $N_S^\prime$ and (b) $C_{S_2^{(2)}}^{\rm max}$ against $N^\prime$ obtained on the surfaces of $L\!=\!6$ and $L\!=\!8$. The straight lines are drawn by fitting the largest three data of $C_{S_2}^{\rm max}$ and $C_{S_2^{(2)}}^{\rm max}$ to Eq.(\[scaling-exponents\]). The peak values and the statistical errors for the fittings were obtained by multihistogram reweighting.[]{data-label="fig-10"}](fig-10.eps){width="10.5cm"}
In order to see the anomalous behaviors in $C_{S_2}$ and $C_{S_2^{(2)}}$ in more detail, we plot the peak values of them in Figs. \[fig-10\](a) and \[fig-10\](b) in log-log scales against $N_S^\prime$ and $N$, respectively. The straight lines were drawn by fitting the data to $$\label{scaling-exponents}
C_{S_2}^{\rm max} \propto \left( N_S^{\prime}\right)^{\sigma_1}, \quad C_{S_2^{(2)}}^{\rm max} \propto \left( N \right)^{\sigma_2}, \quad$$ where $\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$ are critical exponents. Largest three data were used in the fitting in the case $L\!=\!6$. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exponents-values}
\sigma_1=0.911\pm 0.118, \quad \sigma_2=0.608\pm 0.076, \quad (L=6), \nonumber \\
\sigma_1=1.51\pm 0.08, \quad \sigma_2=0.948\pm 0.262, \quad (L=11). \end{aligned}$$ $\sigma_2\!=\!0.608(76)$ for $L\!=\!6$ is inconsistent with the fact that the transition is of first-order, however, $\sigma_1\!=\!0.911(118)$ is consistent with that. $\sigma_1\!=\!1.51(8)$ and $\sigma_2\!=\!0.948(262)$ under $L\!=\!11$ support the discontinuous transition.
Summary and Conclusion {#Conclusion}
======================
A surface model with skeletons has been investigated by the canonical Monte Carlo simulations. The skeletons are composed of one-dimensional linear chains and rigid junctions, whose size is chosen sufficiently small compared to the mean chain-length. The surface is a triangulated sphere and divided into a lot of compartmentalized domains, whose boundary corresponds to the skeletons. The mechanical strength of the surface is given by the skeletons. There is no two-dimensional curvature energy in the Hamiltonian, while one-dimensional bending energy is defined on the chains connected to each other at the junctions. The two-dimensional Gaussian bond potential is included in the Hamiltonian just as in the standard surface model of Helfrich, Polyakov and Kleinert. The surface model in this Letter is considered to be different from the one with elastic junctions, because the rigid junctions cannot be identified with the elastic junctions due to the property on the in-plane elasticity.
The surface is characterized by $(N,N_S,N_J,L)$, which are respectively the total number of vertices including the junctions, the total number of vertices on the chains, the total number of junctions, and the length of chains between junctions. The length of chains was fixed to $L\!=\!6$ and $L\!=\!11$, which correspond to $n\!=\!21$ and $n\!=\!66$ the total number of vertices in a compartment.
We found that the surface undergoes a first-order crumpling transition between the smooth phase and the crumpled phase. The one-dimensional bending energy $S_2$ has a gap (or a jump) at intermediate bending rigidity $b$, and the two-dimensional extrinsic curvature $S_2^{(2)}$also has a gap at that point. These imply that the surface fluctuations are considered to be a first-order transition. Moreover, it is found that the mean square size $X^2$ also has a gap at the transition point. This implies that the surface-collapsing phenomenon can be viewed as a first-order transition.
The results in this Letter together with those in [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1] show that the first-order crumpling transition can be seen in the spherical surface model even when the mechanical strength is maintained only by skeletons, which are composed of linear chains joined to each other at the junctions. Moreover, the order of transition is independent of whether the junction is elastic or rigid.
It has been reported in [@KOIB-PLA-2006-2] that the transition can be seen in a compartmentalized surface model, whose mechanical strength is maintained by the two-dimensional curvature of the surface in contrast to the model in this Letter and that in [@KOIB-JSTP-2006-1]. Therefore, we can also conclude that the first-order transition occurs in the compartmentalized surface model independently whether the surface is mechanically supported by the skeleton (= the compartment boundary) or by the surface.
Fluidity of lateral diffusion of vertices can be considered by using dynamically triangulated MC technique as in [@KOIB-PLA-2006-2]. Vertices freely diffuse inside each compartment on the fluid surfaces supported by the skeletons. It is interesting to see how fluidity influences the transition of the skeleton-supported model. Many interesting problems remain to be studied on the surface model with skeletons.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid of Scientific Research, No. 15560160 and No. 18560185.
[00]{}
W. Helfrich, Z. Naturforsch, 28c (1973) 693.
A.M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 406.
H. Kleinert, Phys. Lett. B 174 (1986) 335.
J.F. Wheater, J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 27, (1994) 3323.
D. Nelson, in [Statistical Mechanics of Membranes and Surfaces, Second Edition]{}, edited by D. Nelson, T.Piran, and S.Weinberg, (World Scientific, 2004), p.1.
F. David, in [Two dimensional quantum gravity and random surfaces, Vol.8]{}, edited by D. Nelson, T. Piran, and S. Weinberg, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989), p.81.
D. Nelson, in [Statistical Mechanics of Membranes and Surfaces, Second Edition]{}, edited by D. Nelson, T.Piran, and S.Weinberg, (World Scientific, 2004), p.149.
K. Wiese, in: C.Domb, J.Lebowitz (Eds.), Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, Vol. 19, (Academic Press, London, 2000), p.253.
M. Bowick and A. Travesset, Phys. Rep. 344 (2001) 255.
G. Gompper and M. Schick, *Self-assembling amphiphilic systems*, In *Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena 16*, C. Domb and J.L. Lebowitz, Eds. (Academic Press, 1994) p.1.
L. Peliti and S. Leibler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (15) (1985) 1690.
F. David and E. Guitter, Europhys. Lett, 5 (8) (1988) 709.
M. Paczuski, M. Kardar, and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, (1988) 2638.
M.E.S. Borelli, H. Kleinert, and Adriaan M.J. Schakel, Phys. Lett. A 267 (2000) 201.
M.E.S. Borelli and H. Kleinert, Phys. Rev. B 63, (2001) 205414.
Y. Kantor and D.R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. A 36 (1987) 4020.
Y. Kantor, in [Statistical Mechanics of Membranes and Surfaces, Second Edition]{}, edited by D. Nelson, T.Piran, and S.Weinberg, (World Scientific, 2004), p.111.
J.F. Wheater, Nucl. Phys. B 458 (1996) 671.
M. Bowick, S. Catterall, M. Falcioni, G. Thorleifsson, and K. Anagnostopoulos, J. Phys. I France 6 (1996) 1321;\
M. Bowick, S. Catterall, M. Falcioni, G. Thorleifsson, and K. Anagnostopoulos, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 47 (1996) 838;\
M. Bowick, S. Catterall, M. Falcioni, G. Thorleifsson, and K. Anagnostopoulos, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 53 (1997) 746.
J-P. Kownacki and H. T. Diep, Phys. Rev. E [**66**]{} (2002) 066105.
H. Koibuchi, N. Kusano, A. Nidaira, K. Suzuki, and M. Yamada, Phys. Rev. E [**69**]{} (2004) 066139.
H. Koibuchi and T. Kuwahata, Phys. Rev. E [**72**]{} (2005) 026124.
I. Endo and H. Koibuchi, Nucl. Phys. B [**732**]{} \[FS\] (2006) 426.
S.M. Catterall, J.B. Kogut, and R.L. Renken, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. B **25** (1991) 69.
J. Ambjorn, A. Irback, J. Jurkiewicz, and B. Petersson, Nucl. Phys. B 393, (1993) 571.
K. Anagnostopoulos, M. Bowick, P. Gottington, M. Falcioni, L. Han, G. Harris, and E. Marinari, Phys. Lett. B 317 (1993) 102.
M. Bowick, P. Coddington, L. Han, G. Harris, and E. Marinari, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 30 (1993) 795;\
M. Bowick, P. Coddington, L. Han, G. Harris, and E. Marinari, Nucl. Phys. B 394 (1993) 791.
H. Koibuchi, Phys. Lett. A 300 (2002) 582;\
H. Koibuchi, N. Kusano, A. Nidaira, K. Suzuki, and M.Yamada, Phys. Lett. A 319 (2003) 44.
H. Koibuchi, N. Kusano, A. Nidaira, and K. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. A 332 (2004) 141.
H. Koibuchi, Eur. Phys. J. B **45** (2005) 377.
H. Koibuchi, Eur. Phys. J. B **52** (2006) 265, cond-mat/0606678.
K. Murase, T. Fujiwara, Y. Umehara, K. Suzuki, R. Iino, H. Yamashita, M. Saito, H. Murakoshi, K. Ritohie, and A. Kusumi, Biol. J. **86** (2004) 4075.
Sahraoui Chaieb, Vinay K. Natrajan, and Ahmed Abd El-rahman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 078101 (2006).
Seng K. Boey, David H. Boal, and Dennis E. Disher, Biophys. J. **75** (1998) 1573;\
Dennis E. Disher, David H. Boal, and Seng K. Boey, Biophys. J. **75** (1998) 1584.
E. Helfer, S. Harlepp, L. Bourdieu, J. Robert, F.C. MacKintosh, and D. Chatenay, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87** (2001) 088103.
H. Koibuchi, *First-order transition of a compartmentalized surface model for fluid membranes*, cond-mat/0607224.
H. Koibuchi, *Phase transition of triangulated spherical surfaces with elastic skeletons*, cond-mat/0607225.
M. Matsumoto and T. Nishimura, “Mersenne Twister: A 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudorandom number generator”, ACM Trans. on Modeling and Computer Simulation Vol. 8, No. 1, January (1998) pp.3 - 30.
Wolfhard Janke, [*Histograms and All That*]{}, in: Computer Simulations of Surfaces and Interfaces, NATO Science Series, II. Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry - Vol. 114, Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute, Albena, Bulgaria, 9 - 20 September 2002, edited by B. Dunweg, D.P. Landau, and A.I. Milchev (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2003), pp. 137 - 157.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the paper [@KLMR] the $L^p$-realization $L_p$ of the matrix Schrödinger operator $\mathcal{L}u=div(Q\nabla u)+Vu$ was studied. The generation of a semigroup in $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ and characterization of the domain $D(L_p)$ has been established. In this paper we perturb the operator $L_p$ of by a scalar potential belonging to a class including all polynomials and show that still we have a strongly continuous semigroup on $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ with domain embedded in $W^{2,p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$. We also study the analyticity, compactness, positivity and ultracontractivity of the semigroup and prove Gaussian kernel estimates. Further kernel estimates and asymptotic behaviour of eigenvalues of the matrix Schrödinger operator are investigated.'
address:
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica, Università degli Studi di Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II 132, I-84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy'
- 'Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione, Ingegneria Elettrica e Matematica Applicata, Università degli Studi di Salerno, Via Ponte Don Melillo 1, 84084 Fisciano (Sa), Italy'
author:
- 'A. Maichine'
- 'A. Rhandi'
title: 'On a polynomial scalar perturbation of a Schrödinger system in $L^p$-spaces'
---
Introduction
============
While the scalar theory of second-order elliptic operators with unbounded coefficients is by now well developed (cf. [@lorenzi17] and the references therein), there is still few research works, at least in the framework of semigroup theory, for systems of parabolic equations with unbounded coefficients. To our knowledge one of the first papers dealing with such kind of systems is [@hetal09]. Subsequently, there were some other publications [@aalt; @alp16; @dlll]. Here the strategy in these references is quite different from that in [@hetal09]. Namely, in [@aalt; @alp16; @dlll] solutions to the parabolic equation are at first constructed in the space of bounded and continuous functions. Afterwards the semigroup is extrapolated to the $L^p$-scale. This approach cannot give precise information about the domain of the generator of the semigroup.
Recently in [@KLMR] a noncommutative Dore–Venni theorem due to S. Monniaux and J. Prüss [@mp97] was used to obtain generation of $C_0$-semigroups for matrix Schrödinger operators of type $\mathcal{L}=div(Q\nabla\cdot)+V$ in $L^p$-spaces, where $V$ is a matrix potential whose entries can grow like $|x|^r$ for some $r\in [1,2)$. This approach permits to obtain the maximal inequality $$\label{MIn}
\|div(Q\nabla u)\|_{L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)}+\|Vu\|_{L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)}\le C\|div(Q\nabla u)+Vu\|_{L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)}$$ for all $u\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ and some positive constant $C$ independent of $u$.
An other approach is to use form methods and Beurling-Denny criterion to prove generation of $C_0$-semigroup in $L^p$-spaces. This approach works for Symmetric matrix Schrödinger operators, but no information about the domain of the generator can be obtained, see the recent paper [@Maichine].
On the other hand, as we will see in Example \[exa-complexe\], there is a relationship between scalar Schrödinger operators with complex potentials and matrix Schrödinger operators with real matrix potentials. So, our results can be applied to a large class of scalar Schrödinger operators with complex potentials.
In this paper we obtain the same generation and regularity results as in [@KLMR] for a more general class of potentials whose diagonal entries are polynomials of type $|x|^\alpha$ or even $e^{|x|}$ as well as $|x|^r\log(1+|x|)$, $\alpha,\,r\ge 1$. Our techniques consist in perturbing the above operator $\mathcal{L}$ by a scalar potential $v\in W^{1,\infty}_{loc}({\mathds{R}}^d)$ satisfying $|\nabla v|\lesssim v$, and applying a perturbation theorem due to Okazawa [@Okazawa84]. This approach permits us to prove the maximal inequality for such potentials. Furthermore, we obtain sufficient conditions for analyticity of the semigroup and compactness of the resolvent.\
Motivated by the kernel estimates existing in literature for scalar Schrödinger operators, see for instance [@Meta-Spina; @Ouha-Rha; @Sikora97; @MPR06; @LorRha; @KLR1; @KLR2], we prove Gaussian and other kernel estimates of the obtained semigroups. As a consequence we study in the symmetric case the asymptotic distribution of the eigenvalues. The paper is organized as follow. In section 2 we state our assumptions, explain our strategy and give some preliminary results. Section 3 is devoted to the main result, that is the generation of a semigroup of the considered operator by applying Okazawa’s theorem. In section 4 we study the analyticity, positivity of the semigroup and the compactness of the resolvent. In the fifth section we establish the ultracontractivity property and obtain Gaussian upper estimates for the entries of the matrix kernel. Further kernel estimates are discussed. Section 6 deals with the asymptotic distribution of the eigenvalues of symmetric matrix Schrödinger operators.
**Notation** Let $d,m\geq 1$. By $|.|$ we denote the Euclidean norm on ${\mathds{C}}^j$, $j=d,m$ and $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ the Euclidean inner-product. The set $B(r)=\{x\in{\mathds{R}}^d : |x|\leq r \}$ denotes the Euclidean ball of radius $r>0$ and center $0$. For $1\leq p<\infty$, $L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ is the standard Lebesgue space endowed with the norm $$\|f\|_p=\left(\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d} |f(x)|^p dx \right)^\frac{1}{p}=\left(\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d} (\sum_{j=1}^{m}|f_j|^2)^{\frac{p}{2}} dx \right)^\frac{1}{p}, \quad f\in
L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m).$$ If $1<p<\infty$, $p'$ denotes its conjugate : $1/p+1/p'=1$. Recall that $L^{p'}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ is the dual space of $L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ and the duality pairing $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_{p,p'}$ is given by $$\langle f,g\rangle_{p,p'}=\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle f(x),g(x)\rangle dx,\qquad (f,g)\in L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)\times L^{p'}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m).$$ By $C_c^k({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$, $k\in{\mathds{N}}\cup\{\infty\}$, we denote the space of functions $f:{\mathds{R}}^d\rightarrow{\mathds{C}}^m$ which are differentiable up to the order k and have compact support. The space $W^{k,p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ denotes the classical Sobolev space of order $k$, that is the space of all functions $f\in L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ such that the distributional derivative $\partial^\alpha f\in L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ for all $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_d)\in{\mathds{N}}^d$ with $|\alpha|=\sum_{j=1}^{d}\alpha_j\leq k$. The set $W_{loc}^{k,p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ denotes the space of functions $f\in L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ such that $\chi_{B(r)}f\in W^{k,p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ for all $r>0$, where $\chi_{B(r)}$ is the indicator function of the Euclidean ball $B(r)$.\
A closed operator $L:D(L)\subset X\to X$ in a Banach space is said to be sectorial if there exists $\theta\in(0,\pi)$ such that $\sigma(L)\subset\Sigma_\theta$ and $$\sup\{\|\lambda(\lambda-L)^{-1}\|:\lambda\in{\mathds{C}}\backslash\Sigma_\theta
\}<\infty ,$$ where $\Sigma_\theta=\{\lambda\in{\mathds{C}}: |\arg(\lambda)|<\theta\}$ and $\sigma(L)$ denotes the spectrum of $L$.
We recall that an operator $L$ on $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$, $1<p<\infty$, is said to be accretive if, and only if, ${{\rm Re}\,}\langle Lu, F(u)\rangle_{p,p'}\geq 0$, where $$F(u)=\begin{cases}
\qquad 0,\qquad\qquad\qquad \hbox{\ if}\qquad u=0\quad a.e.\\
\|u\|_{p}^{2-p} |u|^{p-2}\overline{u},\qquad \hbox{\ else}.
\end{cases}.$$ Moreover, if $(\lambda+L)D(L)=L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$, for some $\lambda>0$, we say that $L$ is m-accretive. If $L$ is m-accretive and there exists $M_L\geq 0$ such that $$\label{sectoriality carac}
{{\rm Re}\,}\langle Lu,F(u) \rangle_{p,p'}\geq M_L |{{\rm Im}\,}\langle Lu,F(u) \rangle|$$ for all $u\in D(L)$, then $L$ is sectorial of angle less than $\pi/2$ and thus $-L$ generates an analytic semigroup.
Hypotheses, notation and preliminaries
======================================
We still use the notation of [@KLMR]. In particular, $L_p$ denotes the realization in $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ of $\mathcal{L}$, where $\mathcal{L}u=(div(Q\nabla u_j))_{1\le j\le m}+Vu$, for $u=(u_1,\dots,u_m)$ smooth enough. Throughout the paper we assume that the matrices $Q$ and $V$ satisfy the hypotheses of [@KLMR]. Namely:
\[Hyp. of KLMR\]
- $Q:{\mathds{R}}^d\longrightarrow{\mathds{R}}^{d\times d}$ is a Lipschitz function such that $Q(x)=[q_{ij}(x)],\,x\in {\mathds{R}}^d,$ is a symmetric matrix, and there exist $\eta_1,\eta_2>0$ with $$\label{ell}
\eta_1 |\xi|^2\leq \langle Q(x)\xi,\xi\rangle \leq \eta_2 |\xi|^2, \qquad x,\xi\in {\mathds{R}}^d;$$
- $V=[v_{ij}]:{\mathds{R}}^d\longrightarrow{\mathds{R}}^{m\times m}$ is a measurable matrix-valued function such that there exists a constant $\beta<0$ with $$\label{diss of V}
{{\rm Re}\,}\langle V(x)\xi,\xi\rangle\leq \beta |\xi|^{2},\qquad x \in {\mathds{R}}^d, \xi\in{\mathds{C}}^m.$$ Moreover, assume that $v_{ij}\in W^{1,\infty}_{loc}({\mathds{R}}^d)$ and there exists $\gamma\in[0,\frac{1}{2})$ such that $$\label{Cond. on V}
\sup_{x\in{\mathds{R}}^d}|\partial_j V(x)(-V(x))^{-\gamma}|<\infty$$ for all $j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$.
\[V-dissip\] Assuming $\beta<0$ in is not a restriction, since by shifting the potential one can, without loss of generality, assume that such condition is satisfied.
The condition allows Lipschitz entries for $V$ or at most, as Example 2.4 of [@KLMR] shows, potentials like $$V(x)=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1+|x|^r\\
-(1+|x|^r) & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ with $r\in[1,2).$ We want to establish now the same results as in [@KLMR] for potentials of type $$\tilde{V}(x)=\begin{pmatrix}
-|x|^\delta & 1+|x|^r\\
-(1+|x|^r) & -|x|^\delta
\end{pmatrix}, \hbox{\ and }\begin{pmatrix}
-|x|^\delta & |x|\\
|x| & -|x|^\delta
\end{pmatrix}$$ for $\delta\ge 1$. To do so we split such a potential into $\tilde{V}=V-vI_m$, where $I_m$ the matrix identity of ${\mathds{R}}^m$ and $V$ is a potential satisfying Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] and $v$ is a scalar potential satisfying $|\nabla v|\lesssim v$. Such condition allows all polynomials and potentials like $|x|^r\log(1+|x|)$. Define the operator $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}u=(div(Q\nabla u_j))_{1\le j\le m}+\tilde{V}u$ for $u$ smooth enough. Then $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ can be rewritten as $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}u=\mathcal{L}u-vu$, $u\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$. If we denote by $\tilde{L}_p$ the realization on $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ of $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ with domain $D(\tilde{L}_p)=D(L_p)\cap D(v)$, then we show that $\tilde{L}_p$ generates a contractive strongly continuous semigroup by using the following Okazawa’s perturbation theorem, see [@Okazawa Theorem 1.6].
\[Okazawa-1\] Let $A$ and $B$ be linear m-accretive operators on $X$ such that its dual $X^*$ is uniformly convex. Let $D$ be a core for $A$. Assume that there are nonnegative constants $c$, $a$ and $b$ such that for all $u\in D$ and $\varepsilon>0$, $$\label{Oka-con}
{{\rm Re}\,}\langle Au,F(B_\varepsilon u)\rangle \geq -c\|u\|^2-a\|B_\varepsilon u\|\|u\|-b\|B_\varepsilon u\|^2 ,$$ where $B_\varepsilon :=B(I+\varepsilon B)^{-1}$ denotes the Yosida approximation of $B$. If $t>b$ then $A+tB$ with domain $D(A)\cap D(B)$ is m-accretive and $D(A)\cap D(B)$ is a core for $A$. Furthermore, $A+bB$ is essentially m-accretive on $D(A)\cap D(B)$.
Let us introduce some notations which will be used from now on. Since, for each $x\in{\mathds{R}}^d$, $Q(x)$ is a symmetric positive nondegenerate matrix, we introduce the $Q(x)$-norm on ${\mathds{R}}^d$ and its associated inner-product, given by $$<y,z>_{Q(x)}:=\langle Q(x)y,z\rangle$$ and the corresponding norm is $$|y|_{Q(x)}=\langle Q(x)y,y\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
Before starting applying Okazawa’s theorem we need to show that $C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ is a core for $L_p$, for all $1<p<\infty$.\
We first state a lemma which gives a generalisation of the Stampacchia theorem concerning the weak derivative of the absolute value function, see [@Gilbarg Lemma 7.6].
\[1st lemma of sec 3\] Let $1<p<\infty$ and $u=(u_1(\cdot),\dots,u_m(\cdot))\in W^{1,p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$. Then, $|u|\in W^{1,p}({\mathds{R}}^d)$ and $$\label{gradient of |.|=}
\nabla|u|=\frac{1}{|u|}\sum_{j=1}^{m}{{\rm Re}\,}(\bar{u}_j\nabla u_j)\chi_{\{u\ne 0\}}.$$ Moreover, $$\label{gradient |.| <...}
|\nabla |u||_Q^2 \leq\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{d}|\nabla u_j|_Q^2.$$
\(i) Let $\varepsilon>0$ and define $a_\varepsilon(u)=(\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{m}u_j^2+\varepsilon^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}-\varepsilon$. Then, $a_\varepsilon(u)\in W^{1,p}({\mathds{R}}^d)$ and $$\nabla a_\varepsilon(u)=\dfrac{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{m}{{\rm Re}\,}(\bar{u}_i\nabla u_j)}{(\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{m}u_j^2+\varepsilon^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$ We have the following pointwise convergence: $a_\varepsilon(u)\underset{\varepsilon\to 0}{\longrightarrow} |u|$ and $$\nabla a_\varepsilon(u)\underset{\varepsilon\to 0}{\longrightarrow} \frac{1}{|u|}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{m}{{\rm Re}\,}(\bar{u}_j\nabla u_j) \chi_{\{u\neq 0\}}.$$ Now, since $a_\varepsilon(u)=\dfrac{|u|^2}{(\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{m}u_j^2+\varepsilon^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}+\varepsilon}\le |u|$ and by Young inequality $|\nabla a_\varepsilon(u)|\le |\nabla u|$, thus the dominated convergence theorem yields $|u|\in W^{1,p}({\mathds{R}}^d)$ and .\
(ii) One knows that $${{\rm Re}\,}(\bar{u}_j\nabla u_j)=\frac{1}{2}\nabla |u_j|^2\,\hbox{ and, by }\eqref{gradient of |.|=},\,|u|\nabla|u|=\frac{1}{2}\nabla|u|^2=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{m}\nabla|u_j|^2 .$$ Hence, by the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
|u||\nabla|u||_Q &= \frac{1}{2}\left|\sum_{j=1}^{m}\nabla|u_j|^2\right|_Q \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{m}|\nabla|u_j|^2|_Q \\
&\leq \sum_{j=1}^{m}|{{\rm Re}\,}(u_j \nabla u_j)|_Q \\
&\leq \sum_{j=1}^{m}| u_j \nabla u_j|_Q \\
&\leq |u|\left(\sum_{j=1}^{m}|\nabla u_j|_Q^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $|\nabla |u||_Q^2 \leq\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{d}|\nabla u_j|_Q^2$.
\[adjoint-lp\] We note that the adjoint $V^\ast$ also satisfies Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\], except for the fact that instead of the boundedness of $\partial_j V^\ast (-V^\ast)^{-\gamma}$, we have the boundedness of $(-V^\ast)^{-\gamma} \partial_jV^\ast$. However, an inspection of the proofs in [@KLMR Theorem 3.2 and Corollary 3.3] shows that they remain valid also under this assumption, whence we obtain the same results for $L_p^\ast$, the adjoint of $L_p$ with $p\in (1,+\infty)$.
Using the above remark we prove now that $C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ is a core for $L_p$.
\[Coincidence of domains\] Let us assume Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\]. Then for any $1<p<\infty$ $$D(L_p)=\{u\in L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)\cap W^{2,p}_{loc}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m) : \mathcal{L}u\in L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)\}=: D_{p,max}(\mathcal{L}),$$ and $C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ is a core for $L_p$.
From [@KLMR Corollary 3.3] we know that $$D(L_p)=\{u\in W^{2,p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m): Vu\in L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)\}.$$ So, it is obvious that $D(L_p)\subseteq D_{max}(\mathcal{L})$. In order to prove the other inclusion it suffices to show that $\lambda-\mathcal{L}$ is injective on $D_{max}(\mathcal{L})$, for some $\lambda>0$. To this purpose let $u\in D_{max}(\mathcal{L})$ such that $(\lambda-\mathcal{L})u=0$. Since the coefficients of the operator $\mathcal{L}$ are real, one can assume that $u$ is real valued function. Consider $\zeta\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d)$ satisfying $\chi_{B(1)}\leq\zeta\leq\chi_{B(2)}$ and define $\zeta_n(\cdot)=\zeta(\cdot/n)$ for all $n\in{\mathds{N}}$. Assume first that $p\geq 2$. Multiplying $(\lambda-\mathcal{L})u$ by $\zeta_n^2 |u|^{p-2}u$ and integrating over ${\mathds{R}}^d$ one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
0&=&\lambda\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\zeta_n^2(x)|u(x)|^p dx+\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\sum_{j=1}^{m}\langle Q\nabla u_j,\nabla(|u|^{p-2}u_j\zeta_n^2)\rangle dx\\
&-&\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle V(x)u(x),u(x)\rangle |u(x)|^{p-2}\zeta_n^2(x)dx\\
&\geq & \lambda\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\zeta_n^2(x)|u(x)|^p dx+\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|u(x)|^{p-2}\zeta_n^2(x)\sum_{j=1}^{m}\langle Q(x)\nabla u_j(x),\nabla u_j(x)\rangle dx\\
&+& 2\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\sum_{j=1}^{m}|u(x)|^{p-2}u_j(x)\zeta_n(x)\langle Q(x)\nabla u_j(x),\nabla \zeta_n(x)\rangle dx\\
&+&(p-2)\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|u(x)|^{p-2}\zeta_n^2(x)\langle Q(x)\nabla |u|(x),\nabla |u|(x)\rangle dx\\
&\geq &\lambda\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\zeta_n^2(x)|u(x)|^p dx+\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|u(x)|^{p-2}\zeta_n^2(x)\sum_{j=1}^{m}\langle Q(x)\nabla u_j(x),\nabla u_j(x)\rangle dx\\
&+& 2\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|u(x)|^{p-2}\zeta_n(x)\sum_{j=1}^{m}u_j(x)\langle Q(x)\nabla u_j(x),\nabla \zeta_n(x)\rangle dx\\
&\geq & \lambda\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\zeta_n^2(x)|u(x)|^p dx-\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|u(x)|^{p-2}\sum_{j=1}^{m}\langle Q(x)\nabla \zeta_n (x),\nabla \zeta_n (x)\rangle u_j^2(x)\\
&\geq & \lambda\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\zeta_n^2(x)|u(x)|^p dx-\frac{\eta_2\|\nabla\zeta\|_\infty^2}{n^2}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|u(x)|^p dx.
\end{aligned}$$ Letting $n$ goes to $\infty$ one obtains $0\geq \lambda\|u\|^p$, and hence $u=0$. For the case $p<2$, one can multiply by $\zeta_n(|u|^2+\varepsilon)^{\frac{p-2}{2}}u$, $\varepsilon>0$, instead of $\zeta_n|u|^{p-2}u$ and repeat the same calculus to obtain the result by tending $\varepsilon$ to $0$.\
In order to prove that $C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ is a core for $L_p$ it suffices to show that $(\lambda-L_p)C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ is dense in $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ for some $\lambda>0$. For this purpose let $f\in L^{p'}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ such that $\langle (\lambda-L_p)\varphi, f\rangle=0$ for all $\varphi\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$. Hence, $$\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle\varphi(x),(\lambda+V^*(x)f(x)\rangle dx=\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle div(Q\nabla\varphi)(x),f(x)\rangle dx,\qquad\forall\varphi\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m).$$ Standard elliptic regularity yields that $f\in W^{2,p'}_{loc}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ and $$\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle\varphi(x),(\lambda+V^*(x)f(x)\rangle dx=\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle \varphi(x),div(Q\nabla f)(x)\rangle dx,\qquad\forall\varphi\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m).$$ Then, $(\lambda+V^*)f=div(Q\nabla f)$ a.e. Hence, by Remark \[adjoint-lp\] and the above characterization of the domain, it follows that $f\in D(L_p^*),$ $(\lambda-L_p^*)f=0$ and thus $f=0$. This ends the proof.
Generation of semigroup
=======================
In this section we assume that Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] are satisfied.
Consider $0\le v\in W^{1,\infty}_{loc}({\mathds{R}}^d)$ and define on $L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ the multiplication operator with its maximal domain $$\label{scalar-mult-oper}
B_p u=vu,\,\,u\in D(B_p)=\{u\in L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m) : vu\in L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m) \}.$$ It is easy to see that $B_p$ is m-accretive on $L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$. Define, for $\varepsilon>0$ and $u\in L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$, the function $v_\varepsilon :=v(1+\varepsilon v)^{-1}$ and $B_{p,\varepsilon}u :=v_\varepsilon u$. The operator $B_{p,\varepsilon}$ is the Hille-Yosida approximation of $B_p$.\
Fix $1<p<\infty$, $\varepsilon>0$ and $u\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$, and set $R :=v_\varepsilon ^{p-1}$.\
We propose now to prove for the operators $-L_p$ and $B_p$. We start by approximating the left hand side of as follow $$\label{approximation of dual product}
{{\rm Re}\,}\langle-L_p u,|B_{p,\varepsilon}u|^{p-2}B_{p,\varepsilon}u\rangle_{p,p'}=\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0}P_\delta,$$ where $$P_\delta:= {{\rm Re}\,}\langle-L_p u,Ru_{\delta}^{p-2}u\rangle_{p,p'} ,$$ and $$u_\delta=\begin{cases}
(|u|^2+\delta)^{\frac{1}{2}},\qquad \hbox{\ if}\quad 1<p<2,\\
\quad |u|, \qquad\qquad \hbox{\ if}\quad p\geq 2.
\end{cases} .$$ Noting that $u_\delta ^{p-2}u\longrightarrow |u|^{p-2}u$, as $\delta\rightarrow 0$, in $L^{p'}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$. So, the convergence in follows easily.\
The following lemma yields a lower estimate for $P_\delta$.
\[enonce-lm\] Let $\delta>0$. One has, for $p\geq 2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lm p>2}
P_\delta &\geq & (p-1)\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|\nabla|u(x)||_{Q(x)}^2 u_\delta ^{p-2}(x)R(x)dx \nonumber \\
& +& \frac{1}{2}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle \nabla|u|^2 (x),\nabla R(x) \rangle_{Q(x)} u_\delta ^{p-2}(x)dx,\end{aligned}$$ and for $1<p<2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lm p<2}
P_\delta &\geq & (p-1)\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\sum_{j=1}^{m}|\nabla u_j (x)|_{Q(x)}^2 u_\delta ^{p-2}(x)R(x)dx\nonumber \\
& +& \frac{1}{2}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle \nabla|u|^2 (x),\nabla R(x) \rangle_{Q(x)} u_\delta ^{p-2}(x)dx.\end{aligned}$$
Applying integration by part formula and taking into account one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
P_\delta &= -{{\rm Re}\,}\langle L_p u,Ru_{\delta}^{p-2}u\rangle_{p,p'}\\
&= -{{\rm Re}\,}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}{\langle}div(Q\nabla u)(x),R(x)u_\delta ^{p-2}(x)u(x){\rangle}dx-\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}{{\rm Re}\,}{\langle}V(x)u(x),u(x){\rangle}R(x)u_\delta ^{p-2}(x)dx\\
&\ge -\sum_{j=1}^{m}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}{{\rm Re}\,}\left(div(Q\nabla u_j)(x)\bar{u}_j (x)R(x)u_\delta ^{p-2}(x)\right)dx\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^{m}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}{{\rm Re}\,}\langle \nabla u_j(x),\nabla(Ru_\delta ^{p-2}u_j)(x)\rangle_{Q(x)}dx\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^{m}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d} |\nabla u_j(x)|_{Q(x)}^{2} R(x)u_{\delta}^{p-2}(x)dx + \sum_{j=1}^{m}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}{{\rm Re}\,}\langle\nabla u_j (x),\nabla R(x)\rangle_{Q(x)}\bar{u}_j (x)u_{\delta}^{p-2}(x)dx\\
&+ \frac{p-2}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{m}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}{{\rm Re}\,}\langle\nabla u_j (x),\nabla |u|^2 (x) \rangle_{Q(x)}\bar{u}_j(x)R(x)u_{\delta}^{p-4}(x)dx\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^{m}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d} |\nabla u_j(x)|_{Q(x)}^{2} R(x)u_{\delta}^{p-2}(x)dx + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{m}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle\nabla |u_j|^2 (x),\nabla R(x)\rangle_{Q(x)}u_{\delta}^{p-2}(x)dx\\
&+ \frac{p-2}{4}\sum_{j=1}^{m}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle\nabla |u_j|^2 (x),\nabla |u|^2 (x) \rangle_{Q(x)}R(x)u_{\delta}^{p-4}(x)dx\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^{m}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d} |\nabla u_j(x)|_{Q(x)}^{2} R(x)u_{\delta}^{p-2}(x)dx + \frac{1}{2}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle\nabla |u|^2 (x),\nabla R(x)\rangle_{Q(x)}u_{\delta}^{p-2}(x)dx\\
&+ \frac{p-2}{4}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle\nabla |u|^2 (x),\nabla |u|^2 (x) \rangle_{Q(x)}R(x)u_{\delta}^{p-4}(x)dx\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^{m}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d} |\nabla u_j(x)|_{Q(x)}^{2} R(x)u_{\delta}^{p-2}(x)dx+(p-2)\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|\nabla |u|(x)|^2_{Q(x)}|u(x)|^2 R(x)u_{\delta}^{p-4}(x)dx\\
&+ \frac{1}{2}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle\nabla |u|^2 (x),\nabla R(x)\rangle_{Q(x)}u_{\delta}^{p-2}(x)dx.\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account and that $u_\delta=|u|$ when $p\geq 2$, and $u_\delta\ge |u|$ and $p-2<0$ when $1<p<2$, one obtains and .
The second step is a consequence of Lemma \[enonce-lm\] and a modification of [@Okazawa Proposition 3.2].
Let $\delta>0$. One has $$\label{est-P-delta}
P_\delta\geq-\dfrac{1}{4(p-1)}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}u_\delta^{p-2}(x)|u(x)|^2\dfrac{|\nabla R(x)|_{Q(x)}^2}{R(x)}dx,$$ and hence $$\label{est-dual product}
{{\rm Re}\,}\langle -L_p u,|B_{p,\varepsilon}u|^{p-2}B_{p,\varepsilon}u\rangle_{p,p'}\geq -\dfrac{1}{4(p-1)}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|u(x)|^p\dfrac{|\nabla R(x)|_{Q(x)}^2}{R(x)}dx.$$
Let $c=\frac{1}{2(p-1)}$. One can use, for $p\geq 2$, the inequality $$\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}u_\delta^{p-2}(x)\left|\sqrt{R(x)}\nabla|u|(x)+\frac{c}{\sqrt{R(x)}}|u(x)|\nabla R(x)\right|_{Q(x)}^2 dx\geq 0$$ which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
0 &\leq &\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}u_\delta^{p-2}(x)R(x)|\nabla|u|(x)|_{Q(x)}^2 dx +c\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}u_\delta^{p-2}(x)\langle\nabla|u|^2(x),\nabla R(x) \rangle_{Q(x)}\\
& &\quad + c^2\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}u_\delta^{p-2}(x)|u(x)|^2\dfrac{|\nabla R(x)|_{Q(x)}^2}{R}dx.\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying by $p-1$ and using one obtains . On the other hand, for $1<p<2$, one can use the inequality $$\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}u_\delta^{p-2}(x)\sum_{j=1}^{m}\left|\sqrt{R(x)}\nabla u_j(x) +\frac{cu_j(x)}{\sqrt{R(x)}}\nabla R(x) \right|_{Q(x)}^2 dx\geq 0,$$ arguing similarly as above and using one obtains . Estimate follows now by letting $\delta\to 0$ in .
We prove now the main theorem of this section,
\[thm. gen. of. s.g.\] Assume that Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] hold and there exist nonnegative constants $a$ and $b$ such that $$\label{estimate grad v_eps}
|\nabla v_\varepsilon (x)|_{Q(x)}^2\leq a(v_\varepsilon (x))^2+b(v_\varepsilon (x))^3$$ for all $\varepsilon>0$ and $x\in{\mathds{R}}^d$. Then ${L}_p-sB_p$ with domain $D(L_p)\cap D(B_p)$ generates a contractive $C_0$-semigroup in $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ for each $s>\dfrac{(p-1)b}{4}$.
We will show the following inequality $$\label{est-to-prouve}
{{\rm Re}\,}\langle-L_p u,\|B_{p,\varepsilon}u\|^{2-p}|B_{p,\varepsilon}u|^{p-2}B_{p,\varepsilon}u \rangle_{p,p'} \geq -\frac{p-1}{4}a\|B_{p,\varepsilon}u\|\|u\|-\frac{p-1}{4}b\|B_{p,\varepsilon}u\|^2,$$ for every $u\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$. Since from Proposition \[Hyp. of KLMR\] we know that $C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ is a core for $L_p$ and $-L_p$ is m-accretive, see [@KLMR Corollary 3.3], we conclude by Theorem $\ref{Okazawa-1}$. According to and , one has $$\begin{aligned}
& & {{\rm Re}\,}\langle-L_p u,\|B_{p,\varepsilon}u\|^{2-p}|B_{p,\varepsilon}u|^{p-2}B_{p,\varepsilon}u\rangle_{p,p'} \\
&\ge & -\dfrac{1}{4(p-1)}\|B_{p,\varepsilon}u\|^{2-p}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|u(x)|^p\dfrac{|\nabla R(x)|_{Q(x)}^2}{R(x)}dx\\
&\ge &-\dfrac{p-1}{4}\|B_{p,\varepsilon}u\|^{2-p}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|u(x)|^p (v_\varepsilon(x))^{p-3}|\nabla v_\varepsilon(x)|_{Q(x)}^2 dx\\
&\ge & -\dfrac{p-1}{4}a\|B_{p,\varepsilon}u\|^{2-p}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|u(x)|^p |v_\varepsilon(x)|^{p-1}dx\\
& &-\dfrac{p-1}{4}b\|B_{p,\varepsilon}u\|^{2-p}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|u(x)|^p |v_\varepsilon(x)|^{p}dx.\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account that $|B_{p,\varepsilon}(x)u|=|v_\varepsilon(x)||u(x)|$ and using Hölder’s inequality, one obtains . By Theorem \[Okazawa-1\], one conclude that $-(L_p-s B_p)$ is m-accretive for $s>\dfrac{(p-1)b}{4}$.
\[coro gen. of s.g.\] Assume that there exists $c>0$ such that $$\label{grad v< v}
|\nabla v(x)|\le c\, v(x)$$ for a.e. $x\in{\mathds{R}}^d$, and Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] are satisfied. Then, $\tilde{L}_p=L_p+ B_p$ with domain $D(L_p)\cap D(B_p)$ generates a contractive $C_0$-semigroup on $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$.
One has $\nabla v_\varepsilon=\nabla(v(1+\varepsilon v)^{-1})=(1+\varepsilon v)^{-2}\nabla v$, which implies $|\nabla v_\varepsilon|\le c v_\varepsilon$. Thus is verified with $a=c^2$ and $b=0$. Thus $L_p-sB_p$ with domain $D(L_p)\cap D(B_p)$ is m-accretive for all $s>0$. In particular, $\tilde{L}_p$ generates a contractive $C_0$-semigroup on $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{R}}^m)$.
Further properties of the semigroup
===================================
Let $Q$, $V$ satisfy Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] and $0\le v\in W^{1,\infty}_{loc}({\mathds{R}}^d)$ such that holds. Consider $\tilde{V}=V-v I_m$ and denote by $\{S_p(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ and $\{\tilde{S}_p(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ the contractive $C_0$-semigroups generated respectively by $L_p$ and $\tilde{L}_p$.\
We first prove consistency and characterize positivity of the semigroup $\{\tilde{S}_p(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$.
\[prop. positivity+consistence\]
- The semigroups $\{\tilde{S}_p(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$, $1<p<\infty$, are consistent.\
- $\{\tilde{S}_p(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ is positive if, and only if, the off-diagonal entries of $\tilde{V}$ are nonnegative, i.e. $v_{ij}\ge 0$ for all $i\neq j$.
<!-- -->
- The first assertion follows from the consistency of $\{S_p(t)\}$ and $\{e^{-tv}\}$ and by the Trotter-Kato product formula $$\label{Trotter Kato}
\tilde{S}(t)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(e^{-tv/n}S_p(t/n)\right)^n.$$
- Since the off-diagonal entries of $V$ and $\tilde{V}$ are equal, it follows that, if they are nonnegative, then $\{S_p(t)\}$ is positive, see [@KLMR Proposition 4.1]. Now, applying the positivity of $\{\tilde{S}_p(t)\}$ follows. Conversely, assume that $\{\tilde{S}_p(t)\}$ is positive. By the minimum principle for positive semigroups, see [@Yellow; @book C-II Proposition 1.7], one obtains that $\langle\tilde{L}_p(\varphi e_j),\varphi e_i\rangle\ge 0$ for all $i\neq j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$ and $0\le\varphi\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d)$, where $e_j$ denotes the vector of the canonical orthonormal basis of ${\mathds{R}}^m$. This implies that $$\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}v_{ij}(x)\varphi^2(x) dx\ge 0$$ for every $\varphi\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d)$. Thus, $v_{ij}\ge 0$ almost everywhere.
Compactness and spectrum
------------------------
The aim of this paragraph is to give conditions under which the resolvent operator of $\tilde{L}_p$ is compact. As a consequence one deduces that the spectrum of $\tilde{L}_p$ consists only on eigenvalues and is discrete. To this purpose we first state a similar result as Proposition \[Coincidence of domains\], which yields the coincidence between the natural and maximal domains of $\tilde{L}_p$. We omit the proof, since it is the same as the one of Proposition \[Coincidence of domains\] where one has to substitute $V$ with $\tilde{V}$.
Let $1<p<\infty$. Assume that Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] and are satisfied. Then $$D(\tilde{L}_p)=\{u\in W^{2,p}_{loc}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m) : \tilde{L}u=div(Q\nabla u)+\tilde{V}u\in L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)\}=:D_{p,max}(\tilde{\mathcal{L}}).$$
\[rmk equiv. of norms\] An important consequence of the above proposition is the equivalence between the graph norm of $\tilde{L}_p$ and the norms $u\mapsto |||u|||_1:=\|L_p u\|_p+\|vu\|_p$ and $u\mapsto |||u|||_2:=\|u\|_{2,p}+\|\tilde{V}u\|_p$. This information will be very useful for the proof of compactness.
\[Prop Compactness\] Let $1<p<\infty$. Assume that Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] and are satisfied. Assume further that one of the following assertions holds true:
- there exists $\rho:{\mathds{R}}^d\to{\mathds{R}}^+$ measurable such that $\lim_{|x|\to\infty}\rho(x)=\infty$ and $$\label{comp. cond.}
|V(x)\xi|\ge \rho(x)|\xi|,\qquad \forall x\in{\mathds{R}}^d, \xi\in{\mathds{C}}^m;$$
- $\lim_{|x|\to\infty}v(x)=\infty$.
Then, $\tilde{L}_p$ has a compact resolvent in $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$. Therefore its spectrum is independent of $p \in (1,\infty)$ and consists of eigenvalues only.
Let us define $\tilde{\rho}=\rho$ if (i) is satisfied and $\tilde{\rho}=v$ if (ii) is satisfied (and $\tilde{\rho}=\min(\rho,v)$ if both (i) and (ii) are satisfied). Then $|\tilde{V}(x)\xi|\ge \tilde{\rho}(x)|\xi|$ for all $x\in{\mathds{R}}^d$ and $\xi\in{\mathds{C}}^m$. Indeed, fix $x\in{\mathds{R}}^d$ and $\xi\in{\mathds{C}}^m$. Then, by , $$|\tilde{V}(x)\xi|^2=|V(x)\xi|^2-2v(x){{\rm Re}\,}\langle V(x)\xi,\xi\rangle+v(x)^2|\xi|^2\ge |V(x)\xi|^2+v(x)^2|\xi|^2.$$ Thus in both two cases $|\tilde{V}(x)\xi|\ge \tilde{\rho}(x)|\xi|$, and of course in both cases $\lim_{|x|\to\infty}\tilde{\rho}(x)=\infty$. Thus, $$\|\tilde{V}_pu\|_p^p \geq \int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\tilde{\rho} (x)^p|u(x)|^p\, dx
\label{freccia}$$ for every $u\in D(\tilde{L}_p)$. Let us now prove that the closed unit ball of $D(\tilde{L}_p)$ is compact in $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d;{\mathds{C}}^m)$. To do so, let $u\in D(\tilde{L}_p)$ such that $\|u\|_{D(\tilde{L}_p)}\le 1$. Then, by Remark \[rmk equiv. of norms\], $\|\tilde{V}_pu\|_p\le |||u|||_2\le C$, for some constant $C\ge 1$. Let $\varepsilon>0$ and $R>0$ sufficiently large so that $\varepsilon\tilde{\rho}(x)\ge C$ for all $x\in {\mathds{R}}^d\setminus B(R)$. Then, from , we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d\setminus B(R)}|u(x)|^p\, dx\le &\frac{\varepsilon^p}{C^p}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d\setminus B(R)}\tilde{\rho}(x)^p|u(x)|^p\,dx\\
\le &\frac{\varepsilon^p}{C^p}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\tilde{\rho}(x)^p|u(x)|^p\,dx
\le \frac{\varepsilon^p}{C^p}\|V_pu\|_p^p\le \varepsilon^p.\end{aligned}$$ Since $D(\tilde{L}_p)$ is locally continuously embedded in $W^{2,p}(B(R);{\mathds{C}}^m)$, which is compactly embedded into $L^p(B(R); {\mathds{C}}^m)$, by the Rellich-Kondarov theorem, one can get a finite sequence of functions $g_1,\ldots,g_k\in L^p(B(R);{\mathds{C}}^m)$ such that, for every $u$ in the unit ball of $D(\tilde{L}_p)$, there exists $j\in \{1,\ldots, k\}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{B(R)}|u(x)-g_j(x)|^p\,dx\le\varepsilon^p.\end{aligned}$$ Denoting the trivial extension of $g_j$ to ${\mathds{R}}^d$ by $\bar g_j$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|u(x)-\bar g_j(x)|^p\,dx=\int_{B(R)}|f(x)-g_j(x)|^p\,dx
+\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d\setminus B(R)}|u(x)|^p\,dx\le 2\varepsilon^p.\end{aligned}$$ This shows that the unit ball of $D(\tilde{L}_p)$ is covered by the balls in $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d;{\mathds{C}}^m)$ centered at $\overline g_j$ of radius $2^{\frac{1}{p}}\varepsilon$. As $\varepsilon >0$ was arbitrary, it follows that the unit ball of $D(\tilde{L}_p)$ is totally bounded in $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d;{\mathds{C}}^m)$. Therefore $D(\tilde{L}_p)$ is compactly embedded in $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d;{\mathds{C}}^m)$ and hence $\tilde{L}_p$ has compact resolvent.
The spectral mapping theorem for the resolvent (cf. [@Nag Theorem VI.1.13]) and spectral properties of compact operators show that the spectrum $\sigma(\tilde{L}_p)$ of $\tilde{L}_p$ consists only of eigenvalues. Finally the $p$-independence of $\sigma(\tilde{L}_p)$ follows from [@Davies Corollary 1.6.2], since the resolvent operators $(\lambda -\tilde{L}_p)^{-1}$ are consistent (see Proposition \[prop. positivity+consistence\].(1)) and compact.
Analyticity
-----------
As it have been proved in [@KLMR Example 3.5], Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] do not lead, in general, to the generation of an analytic semigroup. The following result yields a sufficient condition.
Let $1<p<\infty$. Assume that Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] and are satisfied and there exists $M>0$ such that $$\label{cond. sectoriality}
{{\rm Re}\,}\langle -\tilde{V}(x)\xi,\xi \rangle\ge M\,|{{\rm Im}\,}\langle \tilde{V}(x)\xi,\xi \rangle|$$ for all $x\in{\mathds{R}}^d$ and $\xi\in{\mathds{C}}^m$. Then, $\tilde{L}_p$ generates an analytic semigroup on $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$.
Let $u\in D(\tilde{L}_p)\subseteq W^{2,p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$. According to [@Ouhabaz Theorem 3.9], one has $${{\rm Re}\,}\langle-D_p u,|u|^{p-2}u\rangle_{p,p'}\ge c_p|{{\rm Im}\,}\langle-D_p u,|u|^{p-2}u\rangle_{p,p'}|,$$ where $D_p u=div(Q\nabla u)$ and $c_p=\frac{2\sqrt{p-1}}{|p-2|}$ if $p\neq 2$ and any positive constant if $p=2$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm Re}\,}\langle-\tilde{L}_p u,|u|^{p-2}u\rangle_{p,p'}&={{\rm Re}\,}\langle-D_p u,|u|^{p-2}u\rangle_{p,p'}+Re\langle-\tilde{V}_p u,|u|^{p-2}u\rangle_{p,p'}\\
&\ge c_p|{{\rm Im}\,}\langle-D_p u,|u|^{p-2}u\rangle_{p,p'}|+\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}{{\rm Re}\,}\langle-\tilde{V}(x)u(x),u(x)\rangle|u(x)|^{p-2}dx\\
&\ge c_p|{{\rm Im}\,}\langle-D_p u,|u|^{p-2}u\rangle_{p,p'}|+M\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|{{\rm Im}\,}\langle-\tilde{V}(x)u(x),u(x)\rangle||u(x)|^{p-2}dx\\
& \ge M_p |{{\rm Im}\,}\langle (D_p+V_p) u,|u|^{p-2}u\rangle_{p,p'}|=M_p |{{\rm Im}\,}\langle \tilde{L}_p u,|u|^{p-2}u\rangle_{p,p'}|,
\end{aligned}$$ where $M_p=\inf(c_p,M)$. This implies that $-\tilde{L}_p$ is sectorial of angle less than $\pi/2$ and then $\tilde{L}_p$ generates an analytic semigroup on $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$.
The condition is satisfied for symmetric potential matrices but never for antisymmetric ones. Moreover, it has been proved in [@KLMR Example 4.5] that the semigroup generated by $L_p$ with the antisymmetric potential $V(x)=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -x\\
x & 0
\end{pmatrix}$ is not analytic. However, we recover analyticity when perturbing $V$ by $(1+|x|^r)I_m$, for some $r\ge 1$. Indeed, consider $\tilde{V}:{\mathds{R}}\to{\mathds{R}}^{2\times 2}$ given by $$\tilde{V}(x)=\begin{pmatrix}
-(1+|x|^r) & -x\\
x & -(1+|x|^r)
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -x\\
x & 0
\end{pmatrix}-(1+|x|^r)I_2,$$ where $r\ge 1$. Let us show that $\tilde{V}$ verify . For $\xi=\begin{pmatrix}
\xi_1\\
\xi_2
\end{pmatrix}\in {\mathds{C}}^2$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\tilde{V}(x)\xi,\xi\rangle=-(1+|x|^r)(\xi_1^2+\xi_2^2)+x(\xi_1\bar{\xi}_2-\bar{\xi}_1\xi_2).
\end{aligned}$$ Then, $${{\rm Re}\,}\langle\tilde{V}(x)\xi,\xi\rangle=-(1+|x|^r)(\xi_1^2+\xi_2^2)$$ and $${{\rm Im}\,}\langle\tilde{V}(x)\xi,\xi\rangle=x(\xi_1\bar{\xi}_2-\bar{\xi}_1\xi_2).$$ Moreover, one has $$\left|{{\rm Im}\,}\langle\tilde{V}(x)\xi,\xi\rangle\right|\le 2|x||\xi_1\xi_2|\le (1+|x|^r)(\xi_1^2+\xi_2^2)={{\rm Re}\,}\langle-\tilde{V}(x)\xi,\xi\rangle.$$ Hence holds for $\tilde{V}$.
Kernel estimates
================
We use the same notation and assume the same hypotheses of Section 4. We start by giving a generation result on $L^{1}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ for a suitable realisation of $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}$ and an $L^p-L^q$-estimate for $\{\tilde{S}(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$. For the proof of the following two proposition one can see [@KLMR Theorem 3.7] and [@KLMR Section 4.2].
\[L\_1 result\] The restriction of $\{\tilde{S}_2(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$ to $L^{2}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)\cap L^{1}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ can be extended to a contractive $C_0$-semigroup $\{\tilde{S}_1(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$ on $L^{1}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$. Moreover, $\{\tilde{S}_1(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$ is consistent with $\{\tilde{S}_p(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$, $1<p<\infty$, and the generator $\tilde{L}_1$ of $\{\tilde{S}_1(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$ coincides with all $\tilde{L}_p$’s, $1<p<\infty$, on $C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$.
As a consequence of the consistency of the semigroups $\{\tilde{S}_p(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$, $1<p<\infty$, we drop the index $p$ and use $\{\tilde{S}(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$ to indicate our semigroup on $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$.
\[Prop Lp-Lq estimate\] Let $1\leq p<q\leq\infty$. Then, for all $t>0$, $\tilde{S}(t)$ maps $L^{p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ into $L^{q}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ and there exists a positive constant $\tilde{M}$ such that $$\|\tilde{S}(t)f\|_{L^q({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)}\leq \tilde{M}t^{-\frac{d}{2}(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q})}\|f\|_{L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)},\qquad t>0, \; f\in L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m).$$ In particular, $\{\tilde{S}(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$ is ultracontractive, i.e. $$\label{ultracontractivity ineq.}
\|\tilde{S}(t)f\|_{\infty}\leq \tilde{M} t^{-\frac{d}{2}}\|f\|_{L^1({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)}$$ for every $t>0$ and $f\in L^1({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$.
Gaussian estimates
------------------
The immediate consequence of $(\ref{ultracontractivity ineq.})$ is that $\{\tilde{S}(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$ is given by a matrix kernel.
\[exist of kernel\] For all $t>0$ there exists $\tilde{K}(t,\cdot ,\cdot)=(\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y))_{1\leq i,j\leq m}\in L^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d\times{\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{R}}^{m\times m})$ such that, for all $1<p<\infty$, $$\label{kernel representation}
\tilde{S}(t)f(x)=\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\tilde{K}(t,x,y) f(y)dy,\quad f\in L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m).$$ Moreover, $$\label{boundedness of kernel}
|\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)|\leq \tilde{M}t^{-\frac{d}{2}},\qquad t>0,\, x,y\in{\mathds{R}}^d,\,1\leq i,j\leq m ,$$ and, for any $t>0$, $\tilde{S}(t)$ is positive if, and only if, $\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)\geq 0$ for almost every $x,y\in{\mathds{R}}^d$ and all $t>0$.
The existence of the kernel $\tilde{K}$ and are consequences of .\
On the other hand, it is obvious that the positivity of all entries of the kernel matrix $\tilde{K}$ is a sufficient condition for positivity. Conversely, let $t>0$, $i,j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$ and $B$ any bounded measurable set of ${\mathds{R}}^d$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{S}(t)\geq 0 &\Longrightarrow \langle \tilde{S}(t)(\chi_B e_i),e_j\rangle \geq 0\\
&\Longrightarrow \int_B \tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)dy \geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ As $B$ is arbitrary chosen, one gets $\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)\ge 0$ for a.e. $x,y\in{\mathds{R}}^d$ and all $t>0$.
We give now a Gaussian upper bound estimate for $\{\tilde{S}(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$. For the proof, we follow the strategy of [@Ouhabaz Chapter 6]
\[Thm Gauss ker est\] Assume that Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] and $0\le v\in W^{1,\infty}_{loc}({\mathds{R}}^d)$ satisfying . Then there exist positive constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ such that $$\label{Gauss. ker. estimate}
|\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)|\leq C_1 t^{-\frac{d}{2}}\exp\{-C_2\dfrac{|x-y|^2}{4t}\}$$ for all $i,j\in\{1,\dots,m\},\,t>0$ and $ x,y\in{\mathds{R}}^d$.
Let $\lambda\in{\mathds{R}}$ and $\varphi\in E:=\{\psi\in C_b^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d) : \|\nabla\psi\|_\infty\leq 1\}$. Define the semigroup $\{\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$ by $$\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f=e^{-\lambda\varphi}\tilde{S}(t)(e^{\lambda\varphi}f)$$ for all $f\in L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ with $1\leq p<\infty$. One has $$\label{kernel of twisted semgpe}
\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f=\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}e^{-\lambda(\varphi(x)-\varphi(y))}\tilde{K}(t,x,y) f(y)dy.$$ Denote by $\tilde{L}_{\lambda,\varphi}$ the generator of $\{\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)\}_{t\geq 0}$ on $L^2({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ and let $f\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{R}}^m)$. A straightforward calculation yields $$\tilde{L}_{\lambda,\varphi} f=div(Q\nabla f)+2\lambda\langle Q\nabla\varphi,\nabla f\rangle+(\tilde{V}+\lambda div(Q\nabla\varphi)+\lambda^2 |\nabla\varphi|_Q^2)f.$$ Moreover, $$\langle-\tilde{L}_{\lambda,\varphi}f,f\rangle=-\langle(\tilde{L}_{\lambda,\varphi}-\tilde{V})f,f\rangle-\langle \tilde{V} f,f\rangle\geq -\langle(\tilde{L}_{\lambda,\varphi}-\tilde{V})f,f\rangle.$$ Integrating by parts, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
-\langle(\tilde{L}_{\lambda,\varphi}-\tilde{V})f,f\rangle&= \sum_{i=1}^m\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle Q(x)\nabla f_i(x),\nabla f_i(x)\rangle dx-2\lambda\sum_{i=1}^{m}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle Q(x)\nabla \varphi(x),\nabla f_i(x)\rangle f_i(x) dx\\
&\quad -\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\{\lambda div(Q\nabla\varphi)(x)+\lambda^2|\nabla\varphi(x)|_{Q(x)}^2 \} |f(x)|^2 dx\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^m\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle Q(x)\nabla f_i(x),\nabla f_i(x)\rangle dx-\lambda^2\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle Q(x)\nabla \varphi(x),\nabla \varphi(x)\rangle |f(x)|^2 dx\\
&\geq \eta_1 \|\nabla f\|_2^2 -\eta_2 \lambda^2 \|f\|_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ If we set $\omega=\eta_2 \lambda^2$, then $$-\langle(\tilde{L}_{\lambda,\varphi}-\omega)f,f\rangle\geq \eta_1 \|\nabla f\|_2^2.$$ Consider now the function $\gamma(t)=\|e^{-\omega t}\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f\|_2^{-\frac{4}{d}}$ for all $t\geq 0$. So, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma'(t)&= \frac{d}{dt}(\|e^{-\omega t}\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f\|_2^2)^{-\frac{2}{d}}\\
&=-\frac{4}{d}\|e^{-\omega t}\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f\|_2^{-\frac{4}{d}-2}\langle(\tilde{L}_{\lambda,\varphi}-\omega)e^{-\omega t}\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f,e^{-\omega t}\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f\rangle\\
&\geq \frac{4\eta_1}{d}\|e^{-\omega t}\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f\|_2^{-\frac{4}{d}-2}\|\nabla(e^{-\omega t}\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f)\|_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ By Nash’s inequality, cf. [@Davies Theorem 2.4.6], one obtains $$\gamma'(t)\geq \frac{4\eta_1}{d\,C}\|e^{-\omega t}\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f\|_1^{-\frac{4}{d}}.$$ for some $C>0$. Since $A_{\lambda,\varphi}:=\tilde{L}_{\lambda,\varphi}-\omega-\tilde{V}$ is an elliptic operator with bounded coefficients and its associated form in $L^2({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ is accretive then $A_{\lambda,\varphi}$ generates a contractive semigroup in $L^1({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$. Applying the Trotter-Kato product formula one obtains $\|e^{-\omega t}\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f\|_1\leq \|f\|_1$. So, it follows that $$\gamma(t)\geq \int_{0}^{t}\gamma'(s)ds\geq \frac{2\eta_1}{d\,C} t\|f\|_1^{-\frac{4}{d}}.$$ Hence, $$\label{L^1-L^2 estimate}
\|\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f\|_2\leq \left(\frac{4\eta_1}{d\,C}\right)^{-\frac{d}{4}}e^{\omega t} t^{-\frac{d}{4}}\|f\|_1.$$ Since $V^*$ verifies the same hypotheses as $V$ (taking in consideration Remark \[adjoint-lp\]), one obtains, by similar arguments as above, $$\|\tilde{S}^*_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f\|_2\leq \left(\frac{4\eta_1}{d\, C}\right)^{-\frac{d}{4}}e^{\omega t} t^{-\frac{d}{4}}\|f\|_1.$$ Now, let $g\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$. One has $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\langle\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f(x),g(x)\rangle dx\right| &=\left|\langle \tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f,g\rangle_{L^2}\right| \\
&=\left|\langle f,\tilde{S}^*_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)g\rangle_{L^2}\right| \\
&\le\|\tilde{S}^*_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)g\|_2 \|f\|_2 \\
&\le \left(\frac{4\eta_1}{d\, C}\right)^{-\frac{d}{4}}e^{\omega t} t^{-\frac{d}{4}}\|f\|_2\|g\|_1.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f\in L^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ and $$\label{L2-L8 estimate}
\|\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f\|_\infty\leq \left(\frac{4\eta_1}{d\, C}\right)^{-\frac{d}{4}}e^{\omega t} t^{-\frac{d}{4}}\|f\|_2.$$ Combining $(\ref{L^1-L^2 estimate})$ and $(\ref{L2-L8 estimate})$ one obtains $\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f\in L^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ for every $f\in L^1({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^m)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t)f\|_\infty =\|\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t/2)\tilde{S}_{\lambda,\varphi}(t/2)f\|_\infty&\le
\left(\frac{4\eta_1}{d\, C}\right)^{-\frac{d}{4}}e^{\omega t/2} (t/2)^{-\frac{d}{4}}\|S_{\lambda,\varphi}(t/2)f\|_2\\
&\le C_1 e^{\omega t} t^{-\frac{d}{2}}\|f\|_1,
\end{aligned}$$ with $C_1=2^{d/2}\left(\frac{4\eta_1}{d\, C}\right)^{-\frac{d}{2}} $.\
Arguing similarly as in Corollary $\ref{exist of kernel}$ and taking into account one gets $$|\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)|\leq C_1 t^{-\frac{d}{2}}\exp\{\eta_2\lambda^2 t+\lambda(\varphi(x)-\varphi(y))\},\quad t>0,\,x,y\in {\mathds{R}}^d.$$ Thanks to the arbitrariness of $\lambda$ one can choose $\lambda=\dfrac{\varphi(y)-\varphi(x)}{2\eta_2 t}$ and obtains $$|\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)|\leq C_1 t^{-\frac{d}{2}}\exp\{-\dfrac{|\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)|^2}{4\eta_2 t}\}.$$ Note that the distance $\delta$ on ${\mathds{R}}^d$ defined by $$\delta(x,y)=sup\{\psi(x)-\psi(y) : \psi\in E\},\qquad x,y\in{\mathds{R}}^d,$$ is equivalent to the euclidian distance in ${\mathds{R}}^d$. Therefore, there exists $C_2>0$ such that $$|\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)|\leq C_1 t^{-\frac{d}{2}}\exp\{-C_2\dfrac{|x-y|^2}{4t}\}.$$
The following example shows how scalar Schrödinger operators can be seen as Schrödinger systems with real matrix potentials.
\[exa-complexe\] Let us consider the matrix potential $$\tilde{V}(x):=\begin{pmatrix}
-v(x) & -w(x)\\
w(x) & -v(x)
\end{pmatrix}=w(x)\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1\\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}-v(x)\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $w(x)=1+|x|^r$ and $v(x)=1+|x|^\alpha,\,x\in {\mathds{R}}^d$, with $r\in [1,2)$ and $\alpha \ge 1$. Taking into account Remark \[V-dissip\] we deduce, by Corollary \[coro gen. of s.g.\], that the operator $$\tilde{L}_p=\begin{pmatrix}
\Delta & 0\\
0 & \Delta
\end{pmatrix}+\tilde{V}\quad \hbox{\ with domain }W^{2,p}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^2)\cap D(|x|^r)\cap D(|x|^\alpha)$$ generates a $C_0$-semigroup on $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{C}}^2)$. Applying Corollary \[exist of kernel\] and Theorem \[Thm Gauss ker est\] we know that this semigroup is a given by a kernel satisfying Gaussian estimates.\
Now, we diagonalize the matrix $\begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1\\
1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}$ and so we obtain that $\tilde{L}_p$ is similar to the operator $$P^{-1}\tilde{L}_pP=\begin{pmatrix}
\Delta & 0\\
0 & \Delta
\end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix}
i(1+|x|^r)-(1+|x|^\alpha) & 0\\
0 & -i(1+|x|^r)-(1+|x|^\alpha)
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $P=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1\\
-i & i
\end{pmatrix}$. Thus the following Schrödinger operators with complex potentials $\Delta \pm i(1+|x|^r)-(1+|x|^\alpha)$ with domain $W^{2,p}({\mathds{R}}^d)\cap D(|x|^\alpha+i|x|^r)$ generates $C_0$-semigroups on $L^p({\mathds{R}}^d)$ and satisfy Gaussian estimates.
Further kernel estimates
------------------------
In this subsection we compare the off-diagonal entries $\tilde{k}_{ij},\,i\neq j$, with $\tilde{k}_{ii}$ for all $i,j\in \{1,\ldots m\}$, and deduce more precise kernel estimates with respect to space variables in the symmetric case.
Here, in addition to Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\], we assume the following
\[Hyp. of OURH\] $V$ is symmetric and $v(x)=1+|x|^\alpha,\,x\in {\mathds{R}}^d$, with $\alpha \ge 1$.
Let us start with the following comparison result.
The kernel $\tilde{K}$ of $\{\tilde{S}(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$ satisfies $$\label{dia-nondia}
|\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)+\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,y,x)|\le 2\left(\tilde{k}_{ii}(t,x,y)\tilde{k}_{jj}(t,x,y)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ for all $i,j\in \{1,\ldots ,m\},\,t>0$ and a.e. $x,y\in {\mathds{R}}^d$.
Similar to the proof of the positivity of the kernels $\tilde{k}_{ij}$, one can deduce, using the symmetry of $\{\tilde{S}(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$, that $\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)=\tilde{k}_{ji}(t,y,x)$ for all $i,j\in \{1,\ldots ,m\}$ and $$\langle \tilde{K}(t,x,y)\xi,\xi \rangle \ge 0$$ for all $t>0,\,\xi \in {\mathds{R}}^m$ and a.e. $x,y\in {\mathds{R}}^d$. On the other hand, it can be seen that every positive matrix $M:=(m_{ij})$ in ${\mathds{R}}^m$ satisfies $$|m_{ij}+m_{ji}|\le 2\sqrt{m_{ii}m_{jj}},\quad \forall i,j\in \{1,\ldots ,m\}.$$ Thus, follows.
Let us denote by $k_v$ the heat kernel of the semigroup generated by the scalar Schrödinger operator $L_v:=div(Q\nabla \cdot)-v$.\
We can now deduce upper bounds for the kernels $\tilde{k}_{ij}$ from the ones of $k_v$.
Assume Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] and \[Hyp. of OURH\] with $\alpha >2$. Then for $\theta >0$ such that $\theta \eta_2<1$ we have $$\label{Ouha-Rha ker-est}
|\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)+\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,y,x)|\le Ce^{-\mu_0 t}e^{ct^{-b}}\frac{1}{(|x||y|)^\beta}e^{-\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}|x|^\gamma}e^{-\frac{\sqrt{\theta}}{\gamma}|y|^\gamma}$$ for $|x|,\,|y|\ge 1,\,t>0$ and $i,j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$. Here $c,\,C>0,\,b>\frac{\alpha+2}{\alpha-2},\,\beta=\frac{\alpha}{4}+\frac{d-1}{2},\,\gamma=1+\frac{\alpha}{2}$ and $\mu_0$ is the first eigenvalue of $L_v$.
One has to note first that $\tilde{k}_{ii}$ is the heat kernel of the semigroup generated by the scalar operator $\tilde{L}_v:= div(Q\nabla \cdot)-(v-v_{ii})$ and, by , the potential $v-v_{ii}\ge v$. So, the assertion follows from and [@Ouha-Rha Theorem 2.7].
A lower kernel estimate holds for entries of the matrix kernel $\tilde{K}(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ in the case where the semigroup $\{\tilde{S}(t)\}_{t\ge0}$ is positive.
\[lower-dom\] Assume Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] and \[Hyp. of OURH\]. If $0\le-v_{ii}\le v$ and $v_{hl}\ge 0$, for all $h\neq l\in\{1,\dots,m\}$, then $$\label{eq. S(t)> S_2v(t)}
0\le S_{2v}(t)f\le \langle\tilde{S}(t)(fe_i),e_j\rangle$$ for every $t>0$, $0\le f\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d)$ and $i,j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$. Here $\{S_{2v}(t)\}_{t\ge0}$ is the $C_0$-semigroup generated by the scalar Schrödinger operator $L_{2v}:=div(Q\nabla\cdot)-2v$ in $L^2({\mathds{R}}^d)$. In particular, $$\label{eq. k_ij > k_2v}
0\le k_{2v}(t,x,y)\le \tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)$$ for every $i,j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$, $t>0$ and $x,y\in{\mathds{R}}^d$.
Fix $0\le f\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d)$, $i,j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$ and $t>0$. Consider $\varphi(s,\cdot)=S_{2v}(s)f$ and $\psi(s,\cdot)=\langle\tilde{S}(t-s)(\varphi(s,\cdot)e_i),e_j\rangle$ for $s\in[0,t]$. Since $f\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d)\subset D(L_{2v})$, it follows that $\varphi(s,\cdot)=S_{2v}(s)f\in D(L_{2v})=W^{2,2}({\mathds{R}}^d)\cap D(2v)$ for all $s\in[0,t]$. Then, $\varphi(s,\cdot)e_i\in W^{2,2}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{R}}^m)$. Let us now show that $\varphi(s,\cdot)e_i\in D(\tilde{V})$. This follows from the fact that $v_{ki}\le\sqrt{-v_{kk}}\sqrt{-v_{ii}}\le v,\,i\neq k$, which implies that $v_{ki}\varphi(s,\cdot)\in L^2({\mathds{R}}^d)$, for every $k\in\{1,\dots,m\}$. Hence $\varphi(s,\cdot)e_i\in D(\tilde{L})=W^{2,2}({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{R}}^m)\cap D(\tilde{V})$. Differentiating the function $\psi$ with respect to $s\in [0,t]$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\psi'(s,\cdot)&=\langle -\tilde{S}(t-s)\tilde{L}(\varphi(s,\cdot)e_i)+\tilde{S}(t-s)(\varphi'(s,\cdot)e_i),e_j\rangle\\
&= \langle\tilde{S}(t-s)\left(\varphi'(s,\cdot)e_i-\tilde{L}(\varphi(s,\cdot) e_i)\right),e_j\rangle.
\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi'(s,\cdot)e_i-\tilde{L}(\varphi(s,\cdot) e_i) &= \left(div(Q\nabla\varphi(s,\cdot))-2v\varphi(s,\cdot)\right)e_i\\ &-\left(div(Q\nabla\varphi(s,\cdot))e_i-v\varphi(s,\cdot)e_i+\varphi(s,\cdot)\sum_{l=1}^{m}v_{il}e_l\right)\\
&=-(v+v_{ii})\varphi(s,\cdot) e_i-\varphi(s,\cdot)\sum_{l\neq k}v_{il}e_l\\
&\le 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Since, by assumptions, the semigroup $\{\tilde{S}(t)\}_{t\ge0}$ is positive, it follows that $\psi '(s,\cdot)\le 0$ for all $s\in [0,t]$. Hence $\psi(t,\cdot)\le\psi(0,\cdot)$ and thus follows\
Now, follows by taking into account that $\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,\cdot,\cdot)$ is the kernel associated to $\langle\tilde{S}(t)(\cdot e_i),e_j\rangle$, for every $t>0$.
As a consequence we obtain by applying [@davies-simon84 Theorem 6.3 and Theorem 3.2] the following lower estimates.
Assume the same assumptions as in Proposition \[lower-dom\]. Moroever, assume that $\alpha>2$ and $Q=I_d$. Then we have $$\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)\ge c_t\frac{1}{(|x||y|)^\beta}e^{-\frac{|x|^\gamma}{\gamma}}e^{-\frac{|y|^\gamma}{\gamma}}$$ for $|x|,\,|y|\ge 1,\,t>0$ and $i,j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$, where $c_t$ is a positive constant, $b>\frac{\alpha+2}{\alpha-2},\,\beta=\frac{\alpha}{4}+\frac{d-1}{2}$ and $\gamma=1+\frac{\alpha}{2}$.
Asymptotic distribution of the eigenvalues of $-\tilde{L}$
==========================================================
In this section we assume that Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] and \[Hyp. of OURH\] are satisfied and consider matrix potentials $V$ with polynomial entries, or more precisely positive powers of $|x|$. On the other hand, the assumption applied for potentials of the form $|x|^\beta V_0$, with $V_0$ a suitable constant matrix, implies $\beta<2$. For this reason, we will assume that $$\label{eq-lei}
v_{ii}=o(|x|^\alpha), \hbox{\ as }|x|\to \infty ,\quad \forall i\in\{1,\dots,m\}.$$ Since $v(x)=1+|x|^\alpha$, it follows from Proposition \[Prop Compactness\] that $\sigma(-\tilde{L})=\{\lambda_n: n\in{\mathds{N}}\}$ consists of eigenvalues only, and the set of corresponding eigenvectors $\{\Psi_n: n\in{\mathds{N}}\}$ forms an orthonormal basis of $L^2({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{R}}^m)$. In the following proposition we compute the trace of $\{\tilde{S}(t)\}_{t\ge 0}$.
For all $i,j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$, one has $$\label{kernel=sum eigenvectors}
\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)=\sum_{n\in{\mathds{N}}}e^{-\lambda_n t}\Psi_n^{(i)}(x)\Psi_n^{(j)}(y)$$ for all $x,y\in{\mathds{R}}^d$ and $t>0$. Here $\Psi_n^{(i)}(x)$ is the *i*-th component of the vector $\Psi_n(x)$. In particular, $$\label{trace of semigroup}
\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\sum_{i=1}^{m}\tilde{k}_{ii}(t,x,x)dx=\sum_{n\in{\mathds{N}}}e^{-\lambda_n t},\qquad\forall t>0.$$
Let $f\in L^2({\mathds{R}}^d,{\mathds{R}}^m)$. So, $f=\displaystyle\sum_{n\in{\mathds{N}}}\langle f,\Psi_n\rangle_{L^2}\Psi_n$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{S}(t)f=\sum_{n\in{\mathds{N}}}\langle f,\Psi_n\rangle_{L^2}\tilde{S}(t)\Psi_n=\sum_{n\in{\mathds{N}}}\langle f,\Psi_n\rangle_{L^2} e^{-\lambda_n t}\Psi_n.\end{aligned}$$ for every $t>0$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\tilde{S}(t)f(x),e_i\rangle&= \sum_{n\in{\mathds{N}}}e^{-\lambda_n t}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\sum_{j=1}^{m}f_j(y)\Psi_n^{(j)}(y) \Psi_n^{(i)}(x)\, dy\end{aligned}$$ for each $i\in\{1,\dots,m\}$. Therefore, for every $\varphi\in C_c^\infty({\mathds{R}}^d)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\tilde{k}_{ij}(t,x,y)\varphi(y)dy&=\langle\tilde{S}(t)(\varphi e_j)(x),e_i\rangle\\
&=\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\sum_{n\in{\mathds{N}}}e^{-\lambda_n t}\Psi_n^{(j)}(y)\Psi_n^{(i)}(x)\varphi(y)\, dy,\end{aligned}$$ for all $t>0$, $x\in{\mathds{R}}^d$ and $i,j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$. From which we deduce . Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{m}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\tilde{k}_{ii}(t,x,x)\,dx &=\sum_{i=1}^m\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\sum_{n\in{\mathds{N}}}e^{-\lambda_n t}\Psi_n^{(i)}(x)^2\, dx\\
&=\sum_{n\in{\mathds{N}}}e^{-\lambda_n t}\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}|\Psi(x)|^2\, dx\\
&=\sum_{n\in{\mathds{N}}}e^{-\lambda_n t}.\end{aligned}$$
Let us now introduce the measure $\mu$ defined over ${\mathds{R}}^+$ by $\mu(X)=|\{n: \lambda_n\in X\}|$. Define, for $\lambda>0$, $\mathcal{N}(\lambda)=\mu[0,\lambda]$ the number of $\lambda_n$ which are less or equal than $\lambda$. Let us denote by $\hat{\mu}$ the Laplace transform of $\mu$, $\hat{\mu}(t):=\int_{\mathds{R}}e^{-tx}d\mu(x)$, for all $t>0$. According to , one has $$\hat{\mu}(t)=\sum_{n\in{\mathds{N}}}e^{-\lambda_n t}=\int_{{\mathds{R}}^d}\sum_{i=1}^{m}\tilde{k}_{ii}(t,x,x)dx .$$ We are looking for the asymptotic behaviour of $\mathcal{N}(\lambda)$ when $\lambda\to\infty$. This is related to the behaviour near $0$ of $\hat{\mu}$ by the famous Tauberian theorem due to Karamata, cf. [@Simon Theorem 10.3], [@Meta-Spina Theorem 7.1]. For the proof of the following theorem we use the same approach as in [@Meta-Spina Section 4].
Assume that $Q=I_d$, , Hypotheses \[Hyp. of KLMR\] and \[Hyp. of OURH\] are satisfied. Then, $$\label{asymtotic distribution of eigenvalues}
\lim_{\lambda\to\infty}\dfrac{\mathcal{N}(\lambda)}{\lambda^{d(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{\alpha})}}=
\frac{1}{\alpha}\frac{m\,d\,\omega_d}{(4\pi)^\frac{d}{2}}\dfrac{\Gamma(d/\alpha)}{\Gamma(d(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{\alpha})+1)},$$ where $\omega_d$ denotes the volume of the unit sphere of ${\mathds{R}}^d$.
We recall that $\tilde{k}_{ii}$ is the heat kernel of the semigroup generated by the scalar operator $\tilde{L}_v=\Delta -(v-v_{ii})$. By we know that $(v-v_{ii})(x)=|x|^\alpha +o(|x|^\alpha)$. So, the assertion follows from [@Meta-Spina Proposition 4.4].
[References]{} D. Addona, L. Angiuli, L. Lorenzi, G. Tessitore, *On coupled systems of Kolmogorov equations with applications to stochastic differential games,* ESAIM Control. Optim. Calc. Var., **23** (2017), 937-976.
L. Angiuli, L. Lorenzi, D. Pallara, *$L^p$-estimates for parabolic systems with unbounded coefficients coupled at zero and first order,* J. Math. Anal. Appl., **444** (2016), 110–135. E.B. Davies, *Heat Kernels and Spectral Theory*, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989.
E.B. Davies, B. Simon, *Ultracontractivity and the heat kernel for Schrödinger operators and Dirichlet Laplacians,* J. Funct. Anal. **59** (1984), 335-395.
S. Delmonte, L. Lorenzi, *On a class of weakly coupled systems of elliptic operators with unbounded coefficients,* Milan J. Math. **79** (2011), 689-727.
K. J. Engel and R. Nagel, *One-Parameter Semigroups for Linear Evolution Equations*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000.
D. Gilbarg, N. S. Trudinger, *Elliptic partial differential equations of second order*, Reprint of the 1998 edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001.
M. Hieber, L. Lorenzi, J. Prüss, A. Rhandi, R. Schnaubelt, *Global properties of generalized Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operators on $L^p({\mathds{R}}^N,{\mathds{R}}^N)$ with more than linearly growing coefficients*, J. Math. Anal. Appl. **350** (2009), 100-121.
M. Kunze, L. Lorenzi, A. Rhandi, *Kernel estimates for nonautonomous Kolmogorov equations,* Advances in Mathematics [**287**]{} (2016), 600–639.
M. Kunze, L. Lorenzi, A. Rhandi, *Kernel Estimates for Nonautonomous Kolmogorov Equations with Potential Term,* In “New Prospects in Direct, Inverse and Control Problems for Evolution Equations”, eds. A. Favini et al., Springer INdAM Series 10, pp. 229-252, Springer 2014.
M. Kunze, L. Lorenzi, A. Maichine, A. Rhandi, *$L^p$-theory for Schrödinger systems*, https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.03333
L. Lorenzi, *Analytical methods for [K]{}olmogorov equations. Second edition*, Monograph and Research Notes in Mathematics, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2017.
L. Lorenzi, A. Rhandi: *On Schrödinger type operators with unbounded coefficients: generation and heat kernel estimates*, J. Evol. Equ. **15** (2015), 53-88.
A. Maichine, *Generation of semigroup for symmetric matrix Schrödinger operators in $L^p$-spaces,* https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08400
G. Metafune, D. Pallara, A. Rhandi: *Kernel estimates for Schrödinger operators*, J. Evol. Equ. **6** (2006), no. 3, 433-457.
G. Metafune, C. Spina, *Kernel estimates for a class of Schrödinger semigroups* J.evol.equ. **7** (2007), 719-742.
S. Monniaux, J. Pr[ü]{}ss, *A theorem of the [D]{}ore-[V]{}enni type for noncommuting operators*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 349 (1997), 4787–4814.
R. Nagel (ed.), *One-parameter semigroups of positive operators*, Lecture Notes in Math. **1184**, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1986.
N. Okazawa, *An $L^p$-theory for Schrödinger operators with nonnegative potentials*, J. Math. Soc. Japan, **36** (1984), 675-688.
N. Okazawa, *$L^p$-theory of Schrödinger operators with strongly singular potentials*, Japan. J. Math. Vol **22**, No. 2, (1996), 199-239.
E.M. Ouhabaz, *Analysis of Heat Equations on Domains*, London Math. Soc. Monogr. Ser., **31**, Princeton Univ. Press, 2004.
E. M. Ouhabaz, A. Rhandi, *Kernel and eigenfunction estimates for some second order elliptic operators*, J. Math. Anal. Appl. **387** (2012), 799–806.
A. Sikora, *On-diagonal estimates on Schrödinger semigroup kernels and reduced heat kernels*, Commun. Math. Phys., **188** (1997), 233-249.
B. Simon, *Functional Integration and Quantum Physics*, Academic Press, 1979.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'For $d\in\{5,6\}$, we classify arrangements of $d + 2$ points in $\mathbf{RP}^{d-1}$ for which the minimum distance is as large as possible. To do so, we leverage ideas from matrix and convex analysis to determine the best possible codes that contain equiangular lines, and we introduce a notion of approximate Positivstellensatz certificates that promotes numerical approximations of Stengle’s Positivstellensatz certificates to honest certificates.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA'
author:
- 'Dustin G. Mixon'
- Hans Parshall
bibliography:
- 'sosbib.bib'
title: Globally optimizing small codes in real projective spaces
---
Introduction
============
Given a compact metric space $(X,d)$ and a positive integer $n$, it is natural to consider a subset $C\subseteq X$ that maximizes the minimum distance $\delta(C):=\min_{x,y\in C,x\neq y}d(x,y)$. Such a subset, known as an **optimal $n$-code** for $(X,d)$, is guaranteed to exist by compactness. Optimal codes are maximally robust to noise, since one can identify $x\in C$ from any noisy version $\hat{x}\in X$ that satisfies $d(\hat{x},x)<\delta(C)/2$. Optimal codes have been an object of study ever since a legendary dispute in 1694 between Isaac Newton and David Gregory [@casselman04]. Consider the unit sphere $S^2\subseteq \mathbf{R}^3$ with distance inherited from the ambient Euclidean distance. In our language, Gregory asserted that an optimal $13$-code $C$ for $S^2$ has $\delta(C)\geq1$. Interest in spherical codes was rejuvenated in 1930 by the Dutch botanist Tammes, who studied the distribution of pores on pollen grains [@tammes30]. Thanks to this resurgence, Gregory was finally proved wrong in 1953 by Schütte and van der Waerden [@schutte53].
In 1948, Claude Shannon founded the field of information theory [@shannon48], which in turn motivated the pursuit of optimal codes over $\mathbf{Z}_2^n$ with Hamming distance. Noteworthy optimal codes in this metric space include the Golay code [@golay49] and the Hamming code [@hamming50]. This metric space can be viewed in terms of the Cayley graph on $\mathbf{Z}_2^n$ with generators given by the identity basis. More generally, every graph produces a metric space consisting of the vertex set and the graph’s geodesic distance. In this language, the independence number of a graph is the largest $n$ for which an optimal $n$-code $C$ satisfies $\delta(C)>1$. For example, the independence number of the Paley graph is of particular interest in number theory [@chung89; @hanson19]. The connection between optimal codes and independence numbers has been rather fruitful, as the Lovász–Schrijver bound can be generalized to obtain useful bounds for a variety of metric spaces [@delaat15].
In 1996, Conway, Hardin and Sloane [@conway96] posed the problem of finding optimal codes for Grassmannian spaces with **chordal distance**, defined as follows: Given two subspaces $U,V\subseteq\mathbf{F}^d$ of dimension $r$ with principal angles $\{\theta_i\}_{i\in[r]}$, then $d(U,V)=(\sum_i\sin^2\theta_i)^{1/2}$. In the time since this seminal paper, there has been a flurry of progress in the special case of projective spaces due in part to emerging applications in multiple description coding [@strohmer03], digital fingerprinting [@mixon13], compressed sensing [@bandeira13], and quantum state tomography [@renes04]. Most of this work takes a particular form: Identify a collection $S$ of mathematical objects such that for every $s\in S$, there exists an explicit optimal $n$-code in $\mathbf{FP}^{d-1}$, where $n=n(s)$ and $d=d(s)$. For example, one may take $S$ to be the set of regular two-graphs [@seidel76], $n(s)$ the number of vertices in $s$, and $d(s)$ the multiplicity of the positive eigenvalue of $s$; indeed, for every $s\in S$, one may construct an optimal $n$-code for $\mathbf{RP}^{d-1}$ known as an *equiangular tight frame* [@strohmer03]. See [@fickus15] for a survey of these developments.
Due to this style of progress, the current literature on optimal codes for real projective spaces is rather spotty; while we have provably optimal $n$-codes for $\mathbf{RP}^{d-1}$ for infinitely many $(d,n)$, large gaps remain. In what follows, we identify where these gaps first emerge. It is straightforward to verify that for $n\leq d$, the optimal $n$-codes for $\mathbf{RP}^{d-1}$ correspond to orthogonal lines. For $n=d+1$, the optimal $n$-codes are obtained from regular simplices centered at the origin; indeed, the lines spanned by the vertices correspond to an equiangular tight frame [@strohmer03; @fickus15]. However, for $n=d+2$, the optimal $n$-codes for $\mathbf{RP}^{d-1}$ are unknown for most values of $d$. In this paper, we focus on this minimal case.
Since $\mathbf{RP}^1$ is a circle, the $d=2$ case is uniquely solved by four uniformly spaced points. The $d=3$ case is far less trivial, and was originally solved by Fejes Tóth [@fejes65] in 1965. The optimal code is unique up to isometry, and can be obtained by removing any one of the six lines that are determined by antipodal vertices of the icosahedron. A second treatment of this proof was provided by Benedetto and Kolesar [@benedetto06] in 2006. Finally, Fickus, Jasper and Mixon [@fickus18] gave a third, more general treatment in 2018, and the ideas of their proof also solved the $d=4$ case. This optimal code is unique up to isometry, and corresponds to the putatively optimal code provided by Sloane on his website [@sloaneDatabase]. Following [@fickus18], the putatively optimal codes for $d\in\{5,6\}$ can be expressed in terms of Gram matrices of unit-vector representatives of each line: $$\label{eq:winners}
\normalsize{G_5 := \scriptsize{\left[
\begin{matrix*}[r]
1 & -a & a & -a & \phantom{-}a & -a & a \\
-a & 1 & a & a & a & -a & a \\
a & a & 1 & -a & a & a & -a\\
-a & a & -a & 1 & a & -a & -a\\
a & a & a & a & 1 & a & a\\
-a & -a & a & -a & a & 1 & -a\\
a & a & -a & -a & a & -a & 1
\end{matrix*}\right]}, \quad
G_6 := \scriptsize{\left[
\begin{matrix*}[r]
1 & b & b & -b & b & c & b & -b\\
b & 1 & -b & -b & -b & -b & -c & -b\\
b & -b & 1 & -b & -b & -b & -b & -b\\
-b & -b & -b & 1 & b & -b & b & -b\\
b & -b & -b & b & 1 & -b & -b & b\\
c & -b & -b & -b & -b & 1 & b & -b\\
b & -c & -b & b & -b & b & 1 & b\\
-b & -b & -b & -b & b & -b & b & 1
\end{matrix*}\right]}}$$ where $a>0$ is the second smallest root of $x^3-9x^2-x+1$, $b>0$ is the second smallest root of $$\label{eq.6x8 coherence}
106x^6 - 264x^5 - 53x^4 + 84x^3 + 20x^2 - 4x - 1,$$ and $c\in(0,b)$ is the fourth smallest root of $$53x^6+484x^5+814x^4-860x^3-347x^2+352x-32.$$ Note that $\sqrt{1-a^2}$ and $\sqrt{1-b^2}$ are lower bounds on the minimum chordal distance of optimal $(d+2)$-codes for $\mathbf{RP}^{d-1}$ for $d\in\{5,6\}$, respectively. Recently, Bukh and Cox [@bukh19] proved the best-known upper bound on this minimum distance: $$\label{eq.bukh--cox}
\delta(C)\leq\sqrt{1-\big(\tfrac{3}{2d+1}\big)^2},$$ and furthermore, they characterized the codes that achieve equality in this bound, which occurs for every $d\equiv 1\bmod 3$. In particular, this gives an alternate proof of the $d=4$ case. As a result, the next open cases are $d\in\{5,6,8\}$.
In this paper, we resolve the cases of $d\in\{5,6\}$. As conjectured, $G_5$ and $G_6$ above describe optimal codes for $\mathbf{RP}^4$ and $\mathbf{RP}^5$, which are unique up to isometry. The next section reviews the preliminaries that set up our approach. In particular, \[prop:fjm\] (that is, Lemma 6 in [@fickus18]) implies that every optimizer is necessarily an optimizer of one of a handful of subprograms. These subprograms come in two different species, and in Section 3, we apply ideas from matrix and convex analysis to solve the first species; specifically, we determine the best possible $(d+2)$-codes that contain $d+1$ equiangular lines. In Section 4, we apply this theory to the $d=5$ case, and we solve the second species with a clever application of cylindrical algebraic decomposition. This approach does not scale to the $d=6$ case. As an alternative, Section 5 introduces a method to convert numerical approximations of Stengle’s Positivstellensatz certificates into honest certificates. This allows us to tackle the $d=6$ case in Section 6, where we solve the second species of subprograms by computing numerical approximations of Positivstellensatz certificates using a Julia-based implementation of sum-of-squares programming. We conclude in Section 7 by discussing opportunities for future work.
The proofs of our main results are computer assisted. Our computations were performed on a 3.4 GHz Intel Core i5, and we report runtimes throughout to help identify computational bottlenecks. While our code is far from optimized, we make it available with the arXiv version of this paper.
Preliminaries
=============
We identify an $n$-code for $\mathbf{RP}^{d - 1}$ with a set of $n$ lines through the origin of $\mathbf{R}^d$. We seek to classify the optimal $n$-codes, that is, sets of $n$ lines for which the minimum angle between any two lines is maximized. The cosine of the minimum angle is known as the **coherence**, and so classifying optimal $n$-codes is equivalent to classifying sets of lines with the minimum coherence.
Let $U^{d \times n}$ denote the set of $d \times n$ real matrices with unit-norm columns. We can specify an $n$-code for $\mathbf{RP}^{d - 1}$ using a matrix $\Phi \in U^{d \times n}$ whose column vectors span the $n$ lines in $\mathbf{R}^d$. Let $B_n$ denote the group of $n \times n$ signed permutation matrices. Observe that $\Phi, \Psi \in U^{d \times n}$ specify the same $n$-code of (unordered) points in $\mathbf{RP}^{d - 1}$ if and only if there exists $P \in B_n$ such that $\Phi P^T = \Psi$. Moreover, $\Phi, \Psi \in U^{d \times n}$ specify the same $n$-code for $\mathbf{RP}^{d - 1}$ *up to isometry* if and only if there exists $P \in B_n$ such that $P \Phi^T \Phi P^T = \Psi^T \Psi$. Let $E_{n,d}$ denote the rank-constrained elliptope $$E_{n,d} := \{G \in \mathbf{R}^{n \times n} : G = G^T, \operatorname{diag}(G) = \mathbf{1}, G \succeq 0, \operatorname{rank}(G) \leq d\}.$$ We say that $G, G' \in E_{n,d}$ are **equivalent** if there exists $P \in B_n$ such that $P G P^T = G'$. Observe that the resulting equivalence classes correspond to isometry classes of $n$-codes for $\mathbf{RP}^{d - 1}$, and we can recover a representation $\Phi \in U^{d \times n}$ of one such $n$-code by decomposing $G = \Phi^T \Phi$. The coherence of the lines represented by $G$ is given by $$\mu(G) := \max_{1 \leq i < j \leq n} |G_{ij}|.$$ Hence, our problem is equivalent to computing $$\mu_{n,d} := \inf\{\mu(G) : G \in E_{n,d}\}$$ and classifying the corresponding optimizer(s), which necessarily exist by compactness. We say $G \in E_{n,d}$ is **optimal** if $\mu(G) = \mu_{n,d}$.
In principle, one may directly apply Tarski–Seidenberg [@mishra93] to find optimal $G$, but in practice, quantifier elimination over the reals is slow. For example, cylindrical algebraic decomposition (CAD) [@collins75] is known to have runtimes that are doubly exponential in the number of variables [@davenport88], which is already too slow for the values of $n$ that we are interested in. For this reason, we need to somehow reduce the problem size before passing to tools like CAD. To this end, in the special case where $n=d+2$, optimal $G \in E_{n, d}$ are known to satisfy certain (strong) combinatorial constraints:
\[prop:fjm\] Suppose $G \in E_{d + 2, d}$ is optimal and put $\mu = \mu(G)$. Then $$G = I + \mu S + X,$$ where $I$ is the identity matrix, the matrices $I$, $S$ and $X$ are symmetric with disjoint support, the entries of $X$ all reside in $[-\mu,\mu]$, and the entrywise absolute value $|S|$ is the adjacency matrix of either (i) $K_{d+1}$ union an isolated vertex or (ii) the complement of a maximum matching.
In what follows, we assume $n=d+2$ without mention. \[prop:fjm\] considerably reduces the search space for optimal $G\in E_{n,d}$. Let $\mathcal{S}_1\subseteq\mathbf{R}^{n \times n}$ denote the set of symmetric $S$ for which $|S|$ is the adjacency matrix of $K_{d + 1}$ union an isolated vertex, and similarly, let $\mathcal{S}_2\subseteq\mathbf{R}^{n \times n}$ denote the set of symmetric $S$ for which $|S|$ is the adjacency matrix of the complement of a maximum matching. Letting $\circ$ denote entrywise matrix product, then for each $S \in \mathcal{S}_1 \cup \mathcal{S}_2$, we consider the subprogram $$m(S)
:= \inf\{ \mu : I + \mu S + X \in E_{n, d}, (I + S)\circ X=0, -\mu\leq X_{ij} \leq\mu \}.$$ \[prop:fjm\] implies that $\mu_{n,d}=\min\{m(S):S\in\mathcal{S}_1\cup\mathcal{S}_2\}$, and we can recover each optimal $G \in E_{n, d}$ from the minimizers of $m(S)$. We call $S \in \mathcal{S}_1 \cup \mathcal{S}_2$ **optimal** if $m(S) = \mu_{n, d}$.
Given $P\in B_n$, then $(\mu,X)$ is feasible in the program defining $m(S)$ if and only if $(\mu,PXP^T)$ is feasible in the program defining $m(PSP^T)$. We may leverage this symmetry to further simplify our search for optimal $S$. In particular, for each $i\in\{1,2\}$, the conjugation action of $B_n$ partitions $\mathcal{S}_i$ into orbits, and we say that two members of the same orbit are **equivalent**. We may select a representative from each orbit to produce $\mathcal{R}_i\subseteq\mathcal{S}_i$. Then $$\mu_{n,d}=\min\{m(S):S\in\mathcal{R}_1\cup\mathcal{R}_2\},$$ and furthermore, every optimal $G\in E_{n,d}$ corresponding to an optimal $S\not\in\mathcal{R}_1\cup\mathcal{R}_2$ is equivalent to some optimal $G'\in E_{n,d}$ corresponding to an optimal $S'\in\mathcal{R}_1\cup\mathcal{R}_2$. We select the members of $\mathcal{R}_1$ to be zero in the last row and column and the members of $\mathcal{R}_2$ to be zero in the last $\lfloor n/2 \rfloor$ diagonal $2\times 2$ blocks. This determines the support of both types of matrices.
$d$ $n$ $\mu$ min polynomial $|\mathcal{R}_1|$ $|\mathcal{R}_2|$ optimality
----- ------ ---------- ---------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -- ------------------------------------------
$3$ $5$ $0.4473$ $5x^2 - 1$ $3$ $6$ Ref. [@fejes65; @benedetto06; @fickus18]
$4$ $6$ $0.3334$ $3x - 1$ $7$ $14$ Ref. [@fickus18; @bukh19]
$5$ $7$ $0.2863$ $x^3 - 9x^2 - x + 1$ $16$ $144$ Thm. \[thm:5by7\]
$6$ $8$ $0.2410$ Eq. $54$ $560$ Thm. \[thm:6by8\]
$7$ $9$ $0.2000$ $5x - 1$ $243$ $49,127$ Ref. [@bukh19]
$8$ $10$ $0.1828$ $19x^2 + 2x - 1$ $2,038$ $599,108$ —
: Parameters of optimal $n$-codes for $\mathbf{RP}^{d-1}$ with $n=d+2$. Coherence $\mu$ is rounded to the next multiple of $10^{-4}$, and we provide the minimal polynomial of $\mu$ to specify its precise value. As a consequence of \[prop:fjm\], every optimizer is necessarily an optimizer of a subprogram specified by some $S\in\mathcal{R}_1\cup\mathcal{R}_2$, suggesting that one solves each of these subprograms; the sheer number of subprograms makes this approach infeasible for the $d=8$ case. For the other cases, we provide the location(s) of the proof(s) of optimality. \[table.opt packings\]
As we will see, optimizing over $\mathcal{R}_1$ is easier than optimizing over $\mathcal{R}_2$, and we will apply different techniques to perform these optimizations. Before discussing these techniques, we first determine the sizes of $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$ to help establish which values of $d$ are amenable to this approach. For every member of $\mathcal{R}_1$, the off-diagonal entries are only nonzero on the leading $(d+1)\times(d+1)$ principal submatrix. Restricting to this submatrix, then the members of $\mathcal{R}_1$ are precisely the Seidel adjacency matrices of switching class representatives on $d+1$ vertices, which were counted by Mallows and Sloane [@mallows75]. In \[table.opt packings\], we report the size of $\mathcal{R}_1$ for $d\in\{3,\ldots,8\}$.
The size of $\mathcal{R}_2$ does not appear in the literature, and so we apply Burnside’s lemma to formulate a fast algorithm that computes it. Let $\mathcal{T}_2\supseteq\mathcal{R}_2$ denote the subset of $\mathcal{S}_2$ that is zero in the last $\lfloor n/2 \rfloor$ diagonal $2\times 2$ blocks. Next, consider the conjugation action of $B_n$ on $\mathcal{S}_2$, and let $F_2$ denote the largest subgroup of $B_n$ that acts invariantly on $\mathcal{T}_2$. Then our choice for $\mathcal{R}_2$ equates to representatives of orbits of the action of $F_2$ on $\mathcal{T}_2$. By Burnside, the size of $\mathcal{R}_2$ then equals the average number of points in $\mathcal{T}_2$ that are fixed by a random member of $F_2$. By construction, every member of $\mathcal{T}_2$ has the same support above the diagonal $E\subseteq\{(i,j):1\leq i<j\leq n\}$, and for each $P\in F_2$, the mapping $X\mapsto PXP^T$ over symmetric $X$ induces a signed permutation $P_E$ over $\mathbf{R}^E$, which enjoys a unique decomposition into disjoint signed cycles. If any of these cycles features an odd number of sign changes, then there is no $x\in\{\pm1\}^E$ for which $P_Ex=x$, and so $P$ has no fixed points in $\mathcal{T}_2$. Write $O\subseteq F_2$ for this subset of $P$’s. If $P\not\in O$, then the number of points fixed by $P$ equals $2^{k(P)}$, where $k(P)$ denotes the number of disjoint signed cycles in the decomposition of $P_E$. Overall, we have $$|\mathcal{R}_2|
=\frac{1}{|F_2|}\sum_{P\in F_2}
\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
0&\text{if }P\in O\\
2^{k(P)}&\text{else}
\end{array}\right\},$$ which can be computed quickly by iterating over members of $B_n$. See \[table.opt packings\] for the result of this computation for $d\in\{3,\ldots,8\}$.
In what follows, we describe our methodology for minimizing $m(S)$ subject to $S\in\mathcal{R}_1\cup\mathcal{R}_2$ in the cases where $d\in\{5,6\}$. In vague terms, our approach performs a computation for each $S$ and then compares the results. Considering \[table.opt packings\], we expect this approach to require about a thousand times as much runtime to resolve the next open case of $d=8$, even if the per-$S$ runtime matches the $d=6$ case (in reality, it is slower). As such, new ideas will be necessary to tackle this case.
Codes from equiangular lines
============================
In this section, we prove results that will help us to estimate $m(S)$ for every $S\in\mathcal{R}_1$.
\[lem:eig\] Let $S \in \mathcal{R}_1$ and let $\lambda$ be the minimum eigenvalue of its leading $(d + 1) \times (d + 1)$ principal submatrix. Then $m(S) \in \{-\lambda^{-1}, \infty\}$.
Suppose $m(S) \neq \infty$. Then there exist $\mu$ and $X$ such that $$I + \mu S + X \in E_{d + 2, d},
\qquad
(I + S)\circ X=0,
\qquad
-\mu\leq X_{ij} \leq\mu.$$ In particular, $I + \mu S + X \succeq 0$, and so $I + \mu S' \succeq 0$, where $S'$ is the leading $(d + 1) \times (d + 1)$ principal submatrix of $S$. Furthermore, $I + \mu S'$ has rank at most $d$, and so $1 + \mu \lambda = 0$.
The next result requires a definition: We say $\{v_i\}_{i\in[l]}$ in $\mathbf{R}^d$ are conically dependent if there exists $j\in[l]$ and nonnegative $\{\alpha_i\}_{i\in[l]\setminus\{j\}}$ such that $$v_j
=\sum_{i\in[l]\setminus\{j\}}\alpha_iv_i.$$ Otherwise, we say $\{v_i\}_{i\in[l]}$ are **conically independent**.
\[lem:eiginf\] Let $S \in \mathcal{R}_1$, suppose the minimum eigenvalue $\lambda < 0$ of its leading $(d + 1) \times (d + 1)$ principal submatrix $S'$ has multiplicity $1$, take $L\in\mathbf{R}^{(d+1)\times d}$ such that $LL^T = I - \lambda^{-1}S'$, and consider the pseudoinverse given by $L^\dagger=(L^TL)^{-1}L^T$.
- Suppose $\| L^\dagger y \|_2 < -\lambda$ for every $y \in \{\pm 1\}^{d + 1}$. Then $m(S) = \infty$.
- Suppose there exists a nonempty subset $\mathcal{Y}\subseteq \{\pm 1\}^{d + 1}$ such that $\{L^\dagger y\}_{y\in\mathcal{Y}}$ is conically independent, $\| L^\dagger y \|_2 < -\lambda$ for every $y \in \{\pm 1\}^{d + 1}\setminus\mathcal{Y}$, and for every $y\in\mathcal{Y}$, the matrix $$Z(y):=\begin{bmatrix}0 & y\\ y^T & 0\end{bmatrix}$$ has the property that $S+Z(y)$ has minimum eigenvalue $\lambda$ with multiplicity $2$. Then $m(S) = -\lambda^{-1}$ and the corresponding minimizers are given by $X=-\lambda^{-1} Z(y)$ for $y\in\mathcal{Y}$.
First, $\lambda < 0$ since $S$ is a nonzero matrix with zero trace. Hence, $I - \lambda^{-1}S' \succeq 0$, and since $I - \lambda^{-1}S'$ has rank at most $d$, there exists $L\in\mathbf{R}^{(d+1)\times d}$ such that $LL^T = I - \lambda^{-1}S'$. In fact, $L$ has rank exactly $d$ since $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $S'$ with multiplicity $1$.
\(a) We will prove this claim by contraposition, and so we suppose $m(S) \neq \infty$. By \[lem:eig\], it follows that $m(S) = -\lambda^{-1}$. Set $\mu = m(S)$ and consider the set $$\mathcal{X} := \{X : I + \mu S + X \in E_{d + 2, d}, (I + S)\circ X=0, -\mu\leq X_{ij} \leq\mu\}.$$ Since $m(S) \neq \infty$, a compactness argument gives that $\mathcal{X}$ is nonempty, and we may select $X \in \mathcal{X}$ and obtain a decomposition of the form $I + \mu S + X = A^TA$, where $A = [L^T~x]$ and $x \in \mathbf{R}^d$ is a unit vector satisfying $\| Lx \|_\infty \leq \mu = -\lambda^{-1}$. Since $L$ has rank $d$, it holds that $\| Lx \|_\infty>0$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
-\lambda
\leq \| Lx \|_\infty^{-1}
\leq \sup_{\|z\|_2=1} \| Lz \|_\infty^{-1}
= \sup_{z \neq 0} \frac{ \| z \|_2}{ \| Lz \|_\infty }
&= \sup_{y \in \operatorname{im}(L)\setminus \{0\}} \frac{\| L^\dagger y \|_2}{\| y \|_\infty}\\
&\leq \sup_{y \neq 0} \frac{\| L^\dagger y \|_2}{\| y \|_\infty}
= \sup_{y \in B_\infty^{d + 1}} \| L^\dagger y \|_2
=\max_{y \in \{\pm 1\}^{d + 1}} \| L^\dagger y \|_2,\end{aligned}$$ where the last step uses the fact that the maximum of a convex function over a compact polytope is achieved at a vertex of that polytope.
\(b) Since $\mathcal{Y}$ is nonempty, there exists $y$ such that $I-\lambda^{-1}(S+Z(y))$ is positive semidefinite with rank $d$, and so $m(S)\neq\infty$. Then by \[lem:eig\], it holds that $m(S) = -\lambda^{-1}$. It remains to show that the minimizers $X\in \mathcal{X}$ of the program defining $m(S)$ are $X=-\lambda^{-1}Z(y)$ for $y\in\mathcal{Y}$.
First, we show that $\| L^\dagger y \|_2=-\lambda$ for every $y\in\mathcal{Y}$. To see this, fix $y\in\mathcal{Y}$ and consider the decomposition $I-\lambda^{-1}(S+Z(y))=A^TA$, where $A=[L^T~x]$. Then $x$ has unit norm and $Lx=-\lambda^{-1}y$. We apply $-\lambda L^\dagger$ to both sides and take norms to get $\| L^\dagger y \|_2=\|-\lambda x\|_2=-\lambda$. As such, $$\label{eq.max minus lambda}
\max_{y \in \{\pm 1\}^{d + 1}} \| L^\dagger y \|_2
=-\lambda.$$ Next, we follow the proof of (a) to see that every $X\in \mathcal{X}$ yields a decomposition $I+\mu S+X=A^TA$ with $A=[L^T~x]$, where $x$ has unit norm and $$-\lambda
\stackrel{(*)}{\leq} \| Lx \|_\infty^{-1}
\stackrel{(\dagger)}{\leq} \sup_{\|z\|_2=1} \| Lz \|_\infty^{-1}
= \sup_{y \in \operatorname{im}(L)\setminus \{0\}} \frac{\| L^\dagger y \|_2}{\| y \|_\infty}
\stackrel{(\ddagger)}{\leq} \sup_{y \neq 0} \frac{\| L^\dagger y \|_2}{\| y \|_\infty}
=\max_{y \in \{\pm 1\}^{d + 1}} \| L^\dagger y \|_2
=-\lambda,$$ where the last step comes from . By equality, we may conclude a few things. First, equality in ($\dagger$) implies $x\in\arg\max\{\|Lz\|_\infty^{-1}:\|z\|_2=1\}$, and so a change of variables gives $$Lx
\in\arg\max\{\|y\|_\infty^{-1}:\|L^\dagger y\|_2=1,y\in\operatorname{im}(L)\}
\subseteq\arg\max\Big\{\tfrac{\|L^\dagger y\|_2}{\|y\|_\infty}:y\in\operatorname{im}(L)\setminus\{0\}\Big\}.$$ Next, equality in ($*$) implies $\|Lx\|_\infty=-\lambda^{-1}$, and so we further have $$-\lambda Lx
\in\arg\max\{\|L^\dagger y\|_2:\|y\|_\infty\leq1,y\in\operatorname{im}(L)\}
\subseteq\arg\max\{\|L^\dagger y\|_2:\|y\|_\infty\leq1\},$$ where the last step follows from equality in ($\ddagger$). We claim that $\arg\max\{\|L^\dagger y\|_2:\|y\|_\infty\leq1\}=\mathcal{Y}$. Our result follows from this intermediate claim since $-\lambda Lx=y\in\mathcal{Y}$ implies $$I+\mu S+X
=A^TA
=\begin{bmatrix}LL^T & Lx\\ x^TL^T & x^Tx\end{bmatrix}
=\begin{bmatrix}I-\lambda^{-1}S' & -\lambda^{-1} y\\ -\lambda^{-1} y^T & 1\end{bmatrix}
=I+\mu S- \lambda^{-1}Z(y),$$ and so rearranging gives that every minimizer $X\in\mathcal{X}$ is of the form $X=-\lambda^{-1}Z(y)$, as desired.
We use convexity to prove $\mathcal{M}:=\arg\max\{\|L^\dagger y\|_2:\|y\|_\infty\leq1\}=\mathcal{Y}$. First, we know $\mathcal{Y}\subseteq \mathcal{M}$ since the maximum of a convex function over a compact polytope is achieved at a vertex of that polytope. For the sake of contradiction, suppose this containment is proper, that is, there exists $y_0\in \mathcal{M}\setminus\mathcal{Y}$. By convexity, we may write $y_0=\sum_{v\in\{\pm1\}^{d+1}} c_v v$ with $c_v\geq0$ and $\sum_vc_v=1$.
In what follows, we show that $c_v>0$ for some $v\in\{\pm1\}^{d+1}\setminus\mathcal{Y}$. Suppose otherwise that $c_v$ is only nonzero for $v\in\mathcal{Y}$. Since $y_0\not\in\mathcal{Y}$, then there exists a subset $\mathcal{Y}'\subseteq\mathcal{Y}$ of size at least $2$ such that $c_v$ is nonzero precisely when $v\in\mathcal{Y}'$. By assumption, $\{L^\dagger y\}_{y\in\mathcal{Y}'}$ is conically independent. As such, picking $y_1\in\mathcal{Y}'$, it holds that $c_{y_1}L^\dagger y_1$ is not a positive scalar multiple of $\sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}'\setminus\{y_1\}}c_y L^\dagger y$, and so $$\begin{aligned}
-\lambda
=\|L^\dagger y_0\|_2
=\bigg\|L^\dagger \sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}'}c_y y\bigg\|_2
&=\bigg\|c_{y_1} L^\dagger y_1+\sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}'\setminus\{y_1\}}c_y L^\dagger y\bigg\|_2\\
&<\|c_{y_1} L^\dagger y_1\|_2+\bigg\|\sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}'\setminus\{y_1\}}c_y L^\dagger y\bigg\|_2
\leq \sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}'}c_y\|L^\dagger y\|_2
=-\lambda,\end{aligned}$$ a contradiction. Overall, it must be the case that $c_v>0$ for some $v\in\{\pm1\}^{d+1}\setminus\mathcal{Y}$.
Finally, $\|L^\dagger y_0\|_2=\|L^\dagger y\|_2=-\lambda$ for every $y\in\mathcal{Y}$ and $\|L^\dagger y_0\|_2\leq\sum_{v\in\{\pm1\}^{d+1}} c_v \|L^\dagger v\|_2$, and so $$\begin{aligned}
-\lambda
&=\frac{1}{1-\sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}}c_y}\Big(\|L^\dagger y_0\|_2-\sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}}c_y\|L^\dagger y\|_2\Big)\\
&\leq\frac{1}{1-\sum_{y\in\mathcal{Y}}c_y}\sum_{v\in\{\pm1\}^{d+1}\setminus\mathcal{Y}} c_v \|L^\dagger v\|_2
\leq \max_{v\in\{\pm1\}^{d+1}\setminus\mathcal{Y}}\|L^\dagger v\|_2
\leq -\lambda.\end{aligned}$$ By equality, we then conclude that $\max_{v\in\{\pm1\}^{d+1}\setminus\mathcal{Y}}\|L^\dagger v\|_2=-\lambda=\|L^\dagger y\|_2$ for every $y\in\mathcal{Y}$, which contradicts the fact that $\arg\max\{\|L^\dagger y\|_2:y\in\{\pm1\}^{d+1}\}=\mathcal{Y}$.
The optimal 7-code for RP4 {#5by7section}
==========================
In this section we fix $n = 7$ and $d = 5$ and prove the following classification.
\[thm:5by7\] $G \in E_{7,5}$ is optimal if and only if $G$ is equivalent to $G_5$, given in .
First, we recall the bounds on $\mu_{7,5}$ implied by the Bukh–Cox bound in and the code represented by $G_5$ in : $$\label{eq:5by7bounds}
\frac{3}{11} \leq \mu_{7,5} \leq 0.2863.$$ These bounds will play a role in our analysis of both $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$.
Let $\mathcal{T}_1$ denote the subset of $\mathcal{S}_1$ that is zero in its last row and column, and let $F_1$ be the subgroup of $B_n$ that acts invariantly on $\mathcal{T}_1$. Every member of $\mathcal{T}_1$ is equivalent to a matrix of the form $$\label{eq:r1n7}
\normalsize{
\scriptsize{\left[
\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}
0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & \phantom{\pm} 0\\
1 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0\\
1 & \pm 1 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & \pm 1 & 0\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right]}
}$$ and so we can generate orbits of $\mathcal{T}_1$ under the action of $F_1$ by generating the orbits of these $2^{10}$ matrices. We then build $\mathcal{R}_1$ by selecting one representative from each orbit of the form , and this takes under one second.
For each $S \in \mathcal{R}_1$, we compute the minimum eigenvalue $\lambda$ of its leading $6 \times 6$ principal submatrix. By \[lem:eig\] and , we know that if $S$ is optimal, then $\frac{3}{11} \leq -\lambda^{-1} \leq 0.2863$, and this rules out all but two members of $\mathcal{R}_1$ from being optimal. For each of these two remaining members, we verify that $\lambda$ has multiplicity 1, compute $L^\dagger$ according to the setup of \[lem:eiginf\], and compute $\|L^\dagger y\|_2$ for every $y \in \{\pm 1\}^6$. In one case, we verify that $\|L^\dagger y\|_2 < -\lambda$ for every $y \in \{\pm 1\}^6$, and so this case is eliminated by \[lem:eiginf\](a). For the only remaining $S \in \mathcal{R}_1$, we obtain $\mathcal{Y} \subseteq \{\pm 1\}^6$ satisfying the hypotheses of \[lem:eiginf\](b) and set $\mu = -\lambda^{-1} \approx 0.2863$ with minimal polynomial $x^3 - 9x^2 - x + 1$. Applying \[lem:eiginf\](b) reveals that any minimizer $X$ for $m(S)$ leads to a Gram matrix $I + \mu S + X$ whose off-diagonal entries are all $\pm \mu$. This corresponds to a set of 7 equiangular lines in $\mathbf{R}^5$, unique up to isometry, reported by Bussemaker and Seidel as the complement of the 25th two-graph of order 7 in Table 1 of [@bussemaker81]. To show that this configuration is optimal, we must still analyze $\mathcal{R}_2$.
Let $\mathcal{T}_2$ denote the subset of $\mathcal{S}_2$ with zero entries in its last 3 diagonal $2 \times 2$ blocks, and let $F_2$ be the subgroup of $B_n$ that acts invariantly on $\mathcal{T}_2$. Every member of $\mathcal{T}_2$ is equivalent to a matrix of the form $$\label{eq:r2n7}
\normalsize{\scriptsize{
\left[
\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}
0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1\\
1 & 0 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0\\
\end{array}
\right]},}$$ and so we can generate orbits of $\mathcal{T}_2$ under the action of $F_2$ by generating the orbits of these $2^{12}$ matrices. We then build $\mathcal{R}_2$ by selecting one representative from each orbit of the form , and this takes under one minute.
For each member $S \in \mathcal{R}_2$, we build the corresponding Gram matrix $G = I + \mu S + X$ with variable entries $\{\mu, X_{23}, X_{45}, X_{67}\}$. We restrict $\mu$ according to and $X_{23}, X_{45}, X_{67} \in [-\mu,\mu]$. If $S$ is optimal, then there must be a choice of $\mu$ and $X$ for which $G$ is positive semidefinite and of rank $5$. We can determine if such a choice of variables exists by solving the system of polynomial equalities and inequalities resulting from ensuring that each $6 \times 6$ minor of $G$ vanishes, some $5 \times 5$ minor of $G$ does not vanish, and each principal minor is nonnegative. In principle, a solution is provided by CAD, but even after our reduction to this $4$-variable system, its exceedingly slow runtime makes it necessary to relax our problem. We relax our rank and positive semidefinite constraints to simply ask for three $6 \times 6$ minors of $G$ to vanish, two of which are polynomials only in $\mu, X_{45}, X_{67}$, and the third of which is linear in $X_{23}$. Then after roughly two minutes, CAD reports that out of the 144 representatives $S \in \mathcal{R}_2$, only 11 allow the prescribed minors to vanish with $\mu$ satisfying and $X_{23}, X_{45}, X_{67} \in [-\mu,\mu]$. Moreover, for each of these 11 representatives, $\mu$ is the root of $x^3 - 9x^2 - x + 1$ reported in Table 1 and $X_{23}, X_{45}, X_{67} \in \{\pm \mu\}$, and so each resulting Gram matrix corresponds to a set of equiangular lines with coherence $\mu$. Each of these Gram matrices has rank 5, and therefore correspond to the previously described set of 7 equiangular lines in $\mathbf{R}^5$.
Our use of CAD here does not scale to the $d=6$ case, and so the next section describes an alternative approach involving Stengle’s Positivstellensatz.
Approximate Positivstellensatz
==============================
Let $\mathbf{R}[x]=\mathbf{R}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ denote the set of polynomials with real coefficients and variables $x_1,\ldots,x_n$. Let $\Sigma^2[x]$ denote the set of polynomials that can be expressed as a sum of squares of polynomials from $\mathbf{R}[x]$. Given $f_1(x),\ldots,f_k(x),g_1(x),\ldots,g_l(x)\in\mathbf{R}[x]$, put $f:=\{f_i(x)\}_{i\in[k]}$ and $g:=\{g_j(x)\}_{j\in[l]}$, and consider the sets $$P(f):=\Big\{x\in\mathbf{R}^n:f_i(x)\geq0~\forall i\in[k]\Big\},
\qquad
Z(g):=\Big\{x\in\mathbf{R}^n:g_j(x)=0~\forall j\in[l]\Big\}.$$ Then every polynomial in the cone $$C(f)
:=\bigg\{\sum_{I\subseteq[k]}s_I(x)\prod_{i\in I}f_i(x):s_I(x)\in\Sigma^2[x] ~ \forall I\subseteq[k]\bigg\}$$ is nonnegative over $P(f)$, while every polynomial in the ideal $$I(g)
:=\bigg\{\sum_{j\in[l]}t_j(x)g_j(x):t_j(x)\in\mathbf{R}[x] ~ \forall j\in[l]\bigg\}$$ is zero over $Z(g)$. As such, writing $p(x)+q(x)=-1$ with $p(x)\in C(f)$ and $q(x)\in I(g)$ would certify that $P(f)\cap Z(g)$ is empty. Amazingly, such a certificate is available whenever $P(f)\cap Z(g)$ is empty:
The following are equivalent:
- $P(f)\cap Z(g)=\emptyset$.
- $-1\in C(f)+ I(g)$.
In principle, one may hunt for Positivstellensatz certificates by fixing $D\in\mathbf{N}$ and restricting to a search for $p(x)$ and $q(x)$ of degree at most $D$, as this reduces to a semidefinite program. As a proof of concept, Parrilo and Sturmfels [@parrilo03] applied this method to prove that $$\label{eq.ps example}
S=\Big\{(x,y)\in\mathbf{R}^2:x-y^2+3\geq0,~y+x^2+2=0\Big\}$$ is empty. In reproducing this proof, we found the Julia implementation of sum-of-squares programming to be particularly user-friendly [@bezanson17; @dunning17]. However, as an artifact of numerical optimization, the resulting degree-$4$ polynomials $p(x)$ and $q(x)$ have the property that $p(x)+q(x)+1$ is also a degree-$4$ polynomial, but all of its coefficients have absolute value smaller than $10^{-12}$. Indeed, numerical optimization will generally fail to deliver an exact Positivstellensatz certificate, meaning we cannot directly apply Stengle’s Positivstellensatz. As an alternative, we introduce the notion of an **approximate Positivstellensatz certificate**, taking inspiration from the approximate dual certificates that arise in compressed sensing and matrix completion [@gross11; @foucart13].
\[approxpsatz\] Suppose $r>0$ and $\|x\|_\infty< r$ for every $x\in P(f)\cap Z(g)$. Then the following are equivalent:
- $P(f)\cap Z(g)=\emptyset$.
- There exists $h(x)=\sum_\alpha c_\alpha x^\alpha\in 1+ C(f)+ I(g)$ such that $$\label{eq.bound on coefficients}
\max_\alpha|c_\alpha|
\leq\Bigg[\sum_{k=0}^{\operatorname{deg}h(x)}\binom{n+k-1}{k}r^k\Bigg]^{-1}.$$
To see that (a) implies (b), set $h = 0$ and apply Stengle’s Positivstellensatz. Now suppose $h \in1+ C(f)+ I(g)$ satisfies . If $h = 0$, then (a) follows from Stengle’s Positivstellensatz. Otherwise $h \neq 0$. If (a) fails, then there exists $x \in P(f)\cap Z(g)$, where $h$ satisfies $$1
\stackrel{(*)}{\leq}
h(x)
\leq|h(x)|
\stackrel{(\dagger)}{\leq} \max_\alpha|c_\alpha|\cdot \sum_\alpha |x^\alpha|
\stackrel{(\ddagger)}{<} \max_\alpha|c_\alpha|\cdot \sum_{k=0}^{\operatorname{deg}h(x)}\binom{n+k-1}{k}r^k
\stackrel{(\S)}{\leq} 1,$$ a contradiction. In particular, ($*$) follows from the fact that $h(x)\in1+ C(f)+ I(g)$, ($\dagger$) uses the triangle inequality, ($\ddagger$) applies our assumptions that $h\neq0$ and $\|x\|_\infty<r$ and the count of monomials of each degree $k$, and finally ($\S$) applies the bound .
Returning to the example , one can easily prove a bound on $\max\{|x|,|y|\}$ for every $(x,y)\in S$. For example, if $|x|\geq 3$, then $$2|x|
\geq|x+3|
\geq|y|^2
=|x^2+2|^2
\geq|x|^4,$$ which implies $|x|\leq 2^{1/3}$, a contradiction. As such, if $(x,y)\in S$, then it must hold that $|x|<3$, and therefore $|y|=|x|^2+2<11$. Now that we know that $\max\{|x|,|y|\}<r:=11$ for every $(x,y)\in S$, we recall that our numerical optimizer produced a degree-$4$ polynomial $h(x,y)\in 1+ C(f)+ I(g)$ whose coefficients $c_\alpha$ all have absolute value smaller than $10^{-12}$. A short computation shows $$\max_\alpha|c_\alpha|
\leq 10^{-12}
\leq \Bigg[\sum_{k=0}^{4}\binom{n+k-1}{k}r^k\Bigg]^{-1},$$ meaning $h(x,y)$ serves as an approximate Positivstellensatz certificate that $S=\emptyset$.
When $r<1$, we note that can be replaced by the simpler bound $$\label{eq.simpler bound}
\max_\alpha|c_\alpha|
\leq (1-r)^n,$$ since in this case it holds that $$\sum_{k=0}^{\operatorname{deg}h(x)}\binom{n+k-1}{k}r^k
\leq \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\binom{n+k-1}{k}r^k
=(1-r)^{-n}.$$ We will apply this simpler bound in our classification of optimal $8$-codes for $\mathbf{RP}^5$.
The optimal 8-code for RP5
==========================
In this section we fix $n = 8$ and $d = 6$ and prove the following classification.
\[thm:6by8\] $G \in E_{8,6}$ is optimal if and only if $G$ is equivalent to $G_6$, given in .
First, we recall the bounds on $\mu_{8,6}$ implied by the Bukh–Cox bound in and the code represented by $G_6$ in : $$\label{eq:6by8bounds}
\frac{3}{13} \leq \mu_{8,6} \leq 0.2410.$$ These bounds will play a role in our analysis of both $\mathcal{R}_1$ and $\mathcal{R}_2$.
Let $\mathcal{T}_1$ denote the subset of $\mathcal{S}_1$ that is zero in its last row and column, and let $F_1$ be the subgroup of $B_n$ that acts invariantly on $\mathcal{T}_1$. Every member of $\mathcal{T}_1$ is equivalent to a matrix of the form $$\label{eq:r1n8}
\normalsize{\scriptsize{\left[
\begin{array}{rrrrrrrr}
0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \phantom{\pm} 0\\
1 & \pm 1 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & \pm 1 & 0\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right]}}$$ and so we can generate orbits of $\mathcal{T}_1$ under the action of $F_1$ by generating the orbits of these $2^{15}$ matrices. We then build $\mathcal{R}_1$ by selecting one representative from each orbit of the form , and this takes under one minute.
For each $S \in \mathcal{R}_1$, we compute the minimum eigenvalue $\lambda$ of its leading $7 \times 7$ principal submatrix. By \[lem:eig\] and , we know that if $S$ is optimal, then $\frac{3}{13} \leq -\lambda^{-1} \leq 0.2410$, and this rules out all but two members of $\mathcal{R}_1$ from being optimal. Both of these are then ruled out by \[lem:eiginf\](a). Thus, no member of $\mathcal{R}_1$ is optimal, and so we proceed to investigate $\mathcal{S}_2$.
Let $\mathcal{T}_2$ denote the subset of $\mathcal{S}_2$ with zero entries in its diagonal $2 \times 2$ blocks, and let $F_2$ denote the subgroup of $B_n$ that acts invariantly on $\mathcal{T}_2$. Every member of $\mathcal{T}_2$ is equivalent to a matrix of the form $$\label{eq:r2n8}
\normalsize{\scriptsize{\left[
\begin{array}{rrrrrrrr}
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1\\
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1\\
1 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0 & \pm 1 & \pm 1\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0\\
1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & \pm 1 & 0 & 0\\
\end{array}
\right]}}$$ and so we can generate orbits of $\mathcal{T}_2$ under the action of $F_2$ by generating the orbits of these $2^{17}$ matrices. We then build $\mathcal{R}_2$ by selecting one representative from each orbit of the form ; it takes roughly 15 minutes to produce the 560 elements of $\mathcal{R}_2$.
For 558 members of $\mathcal{R}_2$, we will show that they are not optimal by proving $m(S) > 0.2410$. To do so, we introduce the decision variables $\{\mu, X_{12}, X_{34}, X_{56}, X_{78}\}$ and, for each member of $S \in \mathcal{R}_2$, build the symmetric matrix $G := I + \mu S + X$ with $(I + S) \circ X = 0$. Then by definition, $m(S)$ is the infimum of $\mu$ such that $G$ is positive semidefinite with rank $6$ and $-\mu \leq X_{ij} \leq \mu$. As in \[5by7section\], we will obtain a lower bound for $m(S)$ by completely relaxing the positive semidefinite constraint and partially relaxing the rank-6 constraint. However, unlike that case, we were not able to find a suitable relaxation for which CAD both provided the necessary lower bound on $m(S)$ and also terminated in a reasonable amount of time.
We introduce the polynomials $$f := \{f_i\}_{i \in [10]} = \{\mu - \tfrac{3}{13}\} \cup \{0.2410 - \mu\} \cup \{\mu \pm X_{j,j + 1}\}_{j \in \{1,3,5,7\}},$$ and we let $g = \{g_i\}_{i \in [12]}$ denote a carefully selected set of $7 \times 7$ minors of $G$ for which at least one of the variables $X_{j,j + 1}$ has degree 0 or 1. Observe $P(f)\cap Z(g) = \emptyset$ implies $m(S) > 0.2410$, which then implies that $S$ is not optimal. For most $S \in \mathcal{R}_2$, we will show that $P(f)\cap Z(g)$ is empty by producing an approximate Positivstellensatz certificate. With $x = (\mu,X_{12},X_{34},X_{56},X_{78})$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
C_{m}(f) &:= \bigg\{\sum_{I\subseteq[10]}s_I(x)\prod_{i\in I}f_i(x):s_I(x)\in\Sigma^2[x],~\deg(s_I) \leq m ~ \forall I\subseteq[10]\bigg\},\\
I_{m}(g) &:=\bigg\{\sum_{j\in[12]}t_j(x)g_j(x):t_j(x)\in\mathbf{R}[x],~\deg(t_j) \leq m ~ \forall j\in[12]\bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ By Stengle’s Positivstellensatz, it suffices to produce $h_1 \in C_{m_1}(f)$ and $h_2 \in I_{m_2}(g)$ for which $h = 1 + h_1 + h_2$ satisfies . We use a Julia-based implementation [@bezanson17; @dunning17] of sum of squares programming to obtain numerical solutions $\hat{h}_1 \in C_{m_1}$ and $\hat{h}_2 \in I_{m_2}$ for which $\hat{h}_1 + \hat{h}_2 \approx -1$, that is, $(\hat{h}_1,\hat{h}_2)$ provides a numerical approximation to a putative certificate that $P(f)\cap Z(g)$ is empty. We will promote $(\hat{h}_1,\hat{h}_2)$ to an honest certificate by carefully rounding. We write each scalar $s_I$ for $\hat{h}_1$ as a sum of squares and, for each term being squared, round its coefficients to five decimal places. We similarly round the coefficients for each scalar $t_j$ for $\hat{h}_2$ to five decimal places. Let $h_1 \in C_{m_1}(f)$ and $h_2 \in I_{m_2}(f)$ denote the resulting rounded polynomials with rational coefficients. As each of our five variables is less than $1/4$ in absolute value, we may use in place of so as to apply \[approxpsatz\] and conclude that $P(f) \cap Z(g) = \emptyset$ whenever the largest coefficient of $1 + h_1 + h_2$ is at most $1/5$ in absolute value.
We apply this strategy to each $S \in \mathcal{R}_2$ with $m_1 = 2$. On a first run, we take $m_2 = 0$ and successfully eliminate 545 members of $\mathcal{R}_2$ in roughly 5 hours. On a second run, we take $m_2 = 1$ and eliminate another 13 members of $\mathcal{R}_2$ in roughly 8 minutes. This leaves us with only two members of $\mathcal{R}_2$ that could be optimal, and we proceed to use CAD to show that both are indeed optimal.
For these CAD queries, we again impose the constraint $f_i \geq 0$ for all $i\in[10]$, but we found that requiring $g_i = 0$ for all $i\in[12]$ resulted in CAD computations that did not terminate in a reasonable amount of time. We instead relaxed to only require $g_i = 0$ for a select few $i\in[12]$ that only depend on four of the five decision variables. For both of the remaining $S \in \mathcal{R}_2$, the corresponding CAD query reports that the optimal Gram matrix $G$ is equivalent to $G_6$. One of these computations takes roughly 18 minutes, while the other takes over three hours.
Discussion
==========
In this paper, we classified the optimal $(d+2)$-codes for $\mathbf{RP}^{d-1}$ for both $d\in\{5,6\}$. The next open case in this direction is $d=8$. Sloane’s putatively optimal code [@sloaneDatabase] is equiangular: $$\normalsize{
G_8:=
\scriptsize{\left[\begin{array}{rrrrrrrrrr}
1&-\mu&\mu&\mu&\mu&-\mu&\mu&\mu&-\mu&\mu\\
-\mu&1&-\mu&\mu&\mu&-\mu&\mu&\mu&\mu&\mu\\
\mu&-\mu&1&-\mu&\mu&-\mu&\mu&-\mu&\mu&-\mu\\
\mu&\mu&-\mu&1&\mu&-\mu&-\mu&-\mu&\mu&-\mu\\
\mu&\mu&\mu&\mu&1&\mu&-\mu&-\mu&-\mu&\mu\\
-\mu&-\mu&-\mu&-\mu&\mu&1&\mu&\mu&\mu&-\mu\\
\mu&\mu&\mu&-\mu&-\mu&\mu&1&-\mu&-\mu&-\mu\\
\mu&\mu&-\mu&-\mu&-\mu&\mu&-\mu&1&\mu&-\mu\\
-\mu&\mu&\mu&\mu&-\mu&\mu&-\mu&\mu&1&\mu\\
\mu&\mu&-\mu&-\mu&\mu&-\mu&-\mu&-\mu&\mu&1\\
\end{array}\right]},}$$ where $\mu$ is given in \[table.opt packings\].
We expect that our current approach can already be used to partially tackle this case. For example, our methods in Section 3 should be able to treat $\mathcal{R}_1$, but recall that it took 5 hours for us to rule out most of $\mathcal{R}_2$ in the $d=6$ case. Considering $\mathcal{R}_2$ is over a thousand times larger in the $d=8$ case (see \[table.opt packings\]), our methods should require the better part of a year to tackle this larger case. For the record, our naive enumeration of the members of $\mathcal{R}_1$ is too slow for this case, but faster approaches are available, e.g., [@szollosi18]. Still, $\mathcal{R}_2$ requires new ideas. Is there a way to treat $\mathcal{R}_2$ in an analogous manner to our treatment of $\mathcal{R}_1$ in Section 3? Previous work classified optimal codes for $S^2$ and for $\mathbf{RP}^2$ by leveraging spherical geometry and linear programming instead of Positivstellensatz [@musin12; @musin15; @mixon19a]; perhaps an analogous approach is available here? At the end of our approach, we use CAD to exactly optimize $G$ for any surviving $S\in\mathcal{R}_2$. In the $d=8$ case, these CAD queries may not terminate in a reasonable amount of time. We note that in the $d=6$ case, the Positivstellensatz step quickly produced an improved lower bound of $\mu_{8,6}\geq0.24$ before this CAD step, and including this information in our CAD query cut the three-hour runtime in half. It might be possible to obtain improved lower bounds on $\mu_{10,8}$ even if CAD takes too long.
There might be some improvements available in our application of Positivstellensatz. For example, we rounded our numerical approximations of Positivstellensatz certificates to five decimal places before using exact arithmetic to verify that the result satisfies the bound . The exact arithmetic step might be faster if we had rounded to four decimal places (say), but we expect the bound to be violated if we round too much. Next, in order for Positivstellensatz and CAD to have reasonable runtimes, we relaxed various determinant constraints. While we have some heuristics for when a relaxation is good (e.g., some of the remaining polynomials have low degree in certain variables), this process remains an artform that deserves a careful treatment.
In prior work, numerical applications of Stengle’s Positivstellensatz come in two different types. The first type solves a sum-of-squares program numerically, and then performs what appears to be a handcrafted rounding step to ensure that $-1$ exactly resides in the set $C(f)+I(g)$; see [@parrilo03], for example. This approach was not suitable for our purposes since we were solving hundreds of sum-of-squares programs. The second type takes the numerical result that $h\approx-1$ resides in $C(f)+I(g)$ as sufficient evidence that $P(f)\cap Z(g)$ is empty; see [@davis11], for example. Since this does not constitute a proof, it was also not suitable for our purposes. Presumably, \[approxpsatz\] could replace the ad-hoc strategy of the first type and give theoretical justification for the second type. Furthermore, it would be interesting if \[approxpsatz\] could provide sum-of-squares certificates of lower degree than Stengle’s original Positivstellensatz.
Finally, we point out some problems that are adjacent to ours. While we have focused on real projective spaces, the analogous question can be posed in complex projective spaces $\mathbf{CP}^{d-1}$. Here, the optimal $n$-codes are known for $n\leq d+1$, but they are similarly mysterious for $n=d+2$. Since $\mathbf{CP}^1$ is the $2$-sphere, the optimal $4$-code for $\mathbf{CP}^1$ is given by the vertices of the tetrahedron. More generally, Bukh and Cox [@bukh19] characterize the optimal $(d+2)$-codes for $\mathbf{CP}^{d-1}$ for every $d\equiv 2\bmod 4$. These are the only solved cases. For the $d=3$ case, Jasper, King and Mixon [@jasper19] conjecture that the optimal $5$-code is given by the lines spanned by the columns of $$\left[\begin{array}{lllll}
a&b&b&c&c\\
b&a&b&cw&cw^2\\
b&b&a&cw^2&cw
\end{array}\right],
~a=\frac{\sqrt{13}+\sqrt{2+\sqrt{13}}-1}{3\sqrt{3}},
~b=\sqrt{\frac{1-a^2}{2}},
~c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}},
~w=e^{2\pi i/3}.$$ Furthermore, King will buy a coffee for the first person to prove this conjecture [@dustinBlog]. Our methods do not easily transfer to this setting since sign patterns in the Gram matrix are no longer discrete.
The analogous question has also been posed in the sphere $S^{d-1}$, where the optimal $n$-codes are known for $n\leq 2d$. For $n=2d+1$, little is known. For $d=2$, the optimal code is given by five uniformly spaced points on the circle, and the $d=3$ case was solved by Schütte and van der Waerden [@schutte51] in 1951. Ballinger et al. [@ballinger09] offer a conjecture that treats all dimensions simultaneously: Let $S\in\mathbf{R}^{(d-1)\times d}$ be a matrix whose unit-norm columns form the vertices of a regular simplex. The putatively optimal $(2d+1)$-code for $S^{d-1}$ is unique up to isometry and given by the columns of $$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
1&\alpha&\beta\\
0&\sqrt{1-\alpha^2}\cdot S&-\sqrt{1-\beta^2}\cdot S
\end{array}\right],$$ where $\alpha$ is the unique root between $0$ and $1/d$ of $$(d^3-4d^2+4d)x^3-d^2x^2-dx+1,$$ and $\beta$ is the unique root between $-1$ and $1$ of $$\alpha x+\frac{1}{d-1}\sqrt{(1-\alpha^2)(1-x^2)}-\alpha.$$ Our methods do not easily transfer to this setting since the contact graphs are far less dense, meaning the resulting programs have more decision variables.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
DGM was partially supported by AFOSR FA9550-18-1-0107, NSF DMS 1829955, and the 2019 Kalman Visiting Fellowship at the University of Auckland. HP was partially supported by an AMS-Simons Travel Grant.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Recently Brown and York have devised a new method for defining quasilocal energy in general relativity. Their method employs a Hamilton-Jacobi analysis of an action functional for a spatially bounded spacetime $M$, and this analysis yields expressions for the quasilocal energy and momentum surface densities associated with the two-boundary $B$ of a spacelike slice of such a spacetime. These expressions are essentially Arnowitt-Deser-Misner variables, but with canonical conjugacy defined with respect to the time history $^{3}\! B$ of the two-boundary. These boundary ADM variables match previous variables which have arisen directly in the study of black hole thermodynamics. Further, a “microcanonical" action which features fixed-energy boundary conditions has been introduced in related work concerning the functional integral representation of the density of quantum states for such a bounded gravitational system. This paper introduces Ashtekar-type variables on the time history $^{3}\! B$ of the two-boundary and shows that these variables lead to elegant alternative expressions for the quasilocal surface densities. In addition, it is demonstrated here that both the boundary ADM variables and the boundary Ashtekar-type variables can be incorporated into a larger framework by appealing to the tetrad-dependent Sparling differential forms. Finally, using these results and a tetrad action principle employed by Goldberg, this paper constructs two new tetrad versions of the microcanonical action.'
---
= = IFP-470\
July 1993
Stephen Lau
Introduction
============
Recent investigations in black hole physics have revealed the fundamental role played by boundary conditions in the equilibrium theory of self-gravitating systems. The following principal ideas have spawned this new perspective: (1) equilibrium systems are necessarily spatially finite when general relativity is taken into account, and (2) the selection of a statistical ensemble dictates what boundary terms are present in the classical action.[@BMYW] The various ensembles corresponding to the same self-gravitating system differ by what thermodynamic data are fixed on the spatial boundary $B$. When treating a system in a particular ensemble and constructing the corresponding partition function as a functional integral, one must use the classical action associated with the appropriate variational principle. Therefore, the importance of the spatial boundary and its time history $^{3}\!B$ has been elevated. This history is a (2+1)-dimensional Lorentz manifold. As a result of this new emphasis, attention has been focused on the canonical structure associated with $^{3}\! B$.
Motivated by these considerations, Brown and York have devised a somewhat different method for defining quasilocal energy in general relativity.[@BY] The new method consists of a Hamilton-Jacobi analysis of a classical action functional appropriate for such a spatially bounded system. Though a sketch of this analysis is presented below, the reader is urged to consult the original reference. Following this method, one constructs expressions for the quasilocal energy, quasilocal momentum, and quasilocal spatial stress surface densities which are point-wise functions on the two-boundary $B$. These expressions are intimately related to variables which arise directly in the examination of self-gravitating thermodynamical systems. For instance, the quasilocal energy, the integral over $B$ of the quasilocal energy surface density, plays the role of the total thermodynamical internal energy and is conjugate to inverse temperature. It has been emphasized that thermodynamical conjugacy and canonical conjugacy with respect to $^{3}\! B$ are essentially the same.[@micro] Both types of conjugacy are present simultaneously, and both illuminate different aspects of the gravitational field. In this spirit the quasilocal expressions, which are basically the ADM variables but defined on $^{3}\! B$ rather than a spacelike slice, may be viewed as “thermodynamical" variables.
This work demonstrates that new Ashtekar-type variables can be introduced on $^{3}\!B$. These [*boundary Ashtekar variables*]{} enjoy the usual magical properties associated with the conventional Ashtekar variables, and, furthermore, they allow an elegant reformulation of some of the major Brown-York results. In particular they allow a compact expression for the boundary piece of the Hamiltonian which, modulo the constraints of general relativity, is the full Hamiltonian for such a spatially bounded system. Since one of the new boundary variables is a connection, their utility seems quite promising. Indeed, the existence of the boundary Ashtekar variables has already suggested some interesting avenues of research in gravitational thermodynamics which will be reported elsewhere. Also, this discussion shows that both the original Brown-York variables and boundary Ashtekar variables can be incorporated into a larger framework. This is achieved by appealing to Cartan’s calculus of orthonormal frames and to certain frame-dependent differential forms, first discovered by Sparling, that enjoy properties linking them closely with notions of gravitational energy. Finally, this paper uses the developed formalism and a tetrad action principle employed by Goldberg to construct two new tetrad versions of the microcanonical action. The microcanonical action features fixed-energy boundary conditions. Brown and York have presented the microcanonical action in a separate but related work, where they have used it in a functional integral representation of the density of quantum states associated with a spatially bounded self-gravitating system. [@micro]
Preliminaries
=============
This section collects some notational conventions and presents a skeletal description of the Brown-York method for constructing the quasilocal expressions. To facilitate the introduction of the boundary Ashtekar variables, the Brown-York results are then presented in the language of orthonormal frames. The conventions presented here adhere almost fully to those found in [@BY].
Conventions and assumptions
---------------------------
Throughout this discussion the focus of interest is a spacetime region $M$ which is topologically the Cartesian product of a three-manifold $\Sigma$ and a closed connected segment of the real line $I$. The spacetime $M$ is foliated by a time function $t: M\rightarrow I$. The level hypersurfaces of this function or “slices" are the leaves of the foliation, and the slices labeled by the initial and final endpoints of $I$ are denoted respectively by $t'$ and $t''$. The letter $\Sigma$ is used both to denote the foliation of $M$ and to refer to a generic slice of this foliation. The timelike, future pointing, unit, hypersurface normal of the foliation $\Sigma$ is denoted by $u$. Also it is assumed that the three-space $\Sigma$ has a boundary $\partial\Sigma = B$ which is not necessarily simply connected. The product of $B$ with $I$ is an element of the three-boundary of $M$ and is denoted by $^{3}\!B$. This element is often referred to as the three-boundary, even though technically the three-boundary of $M$ consists of $^{3}\!B$, $t'$, and $t''$. The spacelike, outward pointing, unit, normal vector field of $^{3}\!B$ is represented by $n$. Since $^{3}\!B$ is a $(2+1)$-dimensional spacetime in its own right, one may consider the foliation of $^{3}\!B$ by $t|_{^{3}\!B}$, the restriction of the time function $t$ to the three-boundary, independently of the complete spacetime $M$ and its foliation $\Sigma$. The letter $B$ is used both to denote the independent foliation of $^{3}\!B$ and to refer to a generic leaf of this foliation. Regarding the compatibility of the foliations $B$ and $\Sigma$, the following crucial assumption is made: the leaves of the hypersurface foliation $\Sigma$ of $M$ are orthogonal to $^{3}\!B$. This condition requires that the hypersurface normal $u$ is orthogonal to the three-boundary normal $n$. Equivalently, this condition implies that the restriction of $u$ to $B = \partial\Sigma$ is the timelike, future pointing, unit, normal vector field of the two-surface $B$ when it is viewed as a particular leaf of the foliated $^{3}\!B$.
The induced metric tensor and extrinsic curvature tensor of a generic slice $\Sigma$ as embedded in $M$ are denoted respectively by $h_{ij}$ and $K_{ij}$. Lower case Latin letters from the latter half of the alphabet $(i,j,k,\cdots )$ are used as coordinate indices on $\Sigma$ and run over the values $(1, 2, 3)$. Letters of the same type with hats are used as orthonormal indices and labels on a slice and run over the values $(\hat{1},\hat{2},\hat{3})$. The induced metric and extrinsic curvature of $^{3}\!B$ as a manifold embedded in $M$ are denoted respectively by $\gamma_{ij}$ and $\Theta_{ij}$. Lower case Latin letters from the latter half of the alphabet are also used as coordinate indices on $^{3}\!B$, however, $^{3}\!B$ coordinate indices run over the values $(0, 1, 2)$. Again the same letters with hats refer to an orthonormal frame, but on $^{3}\!B$ indices with hats take the values $(\bot,\hat{1},\hat{2})$. For $B$, a generic leaf of the foliated $^{3}\!B$, $\sigma_{ab}$ and $k_{ab}$ are used respectively as the intrinsic metric tensor and extrinsic curvature tensor of the two-surface as embedded in $\Sigma$. One should note that $\sigma_{ab}$ is also the induced metric of $B$ as a surface embedded in $^{3}\! B$. There is no need here to consider the extrinsic curvature tensor of $B$ as embedded in $^{3}\! B$. Coordinate indices on $B$ are represented by lower case Latin letters from the beginning of the alphabet $(a,b,c,\cdots ,h)$ and run over the values $(1,2)$, while orthonormal indices on $B$ are represented by the same letters with hats and run over $(\hat{1},\hat{2})$. When potential confusion arises between slice and three-boundary indices or between slice and $B$ indices, the practice of underlining slice indices, [*e.g.*]{} $h_{\underline{ij}}$, is followed. The metric on $M$ is denoted by $g_{\mu\nu}$. Spacetime coordinate indices are represented by lower case Greek letters $(\mu,\nu,\sigma,\cdots )$ and run over the values $(0,1,2,3)$, while orthonormal indices on $M$ are represented by the same letters with hats and run over $(\bot,\hat{1},\hat{2},\hat{3})$. Finally, $\epsilon_{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}$ is used to denote the orthonormal components of the Levi-Civita tensor on both $\Sigma$ and $^{3}\!B$. On $\Sigma$ these components are determined by $\epsilon_{\hat{1}\hat{2}\hat{3}} = 1
=\epsilon^{\hat{1}\hat{2}\hat{3}}$, while on $^{3}\!B$ one has $\epsilon_{\bot\hat{1}\hat{2}} = 1 = -\epsilon^{\bot\hat{1}\hat{2}}$. The orthonormal Levi-Civita tensor on $B$ is denoted by $\epsilon_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}$ with $\epsilon_{\hat{1}\hat{2}} = 1 =
\epsilon^{\hat{1}\hat{2}}$, and on $M$ it is denoted by $\epsilon_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}\hat{\mu}\hat{\nu}}$ with $\epsilon_{\bot\hat{1}\hat{2}\hat{3}} = 1 = -
\epsilon^{\bot\hat{1}\hat{2}\hat{3}}$.
A variety of derivative operators is used in this work. The ordinary metric compatible covariant derivative on a generic slice $\Sigma$ which acts on coordinate indices is denoted by $D_{i}$. For a vector field $v = v^{i}\partial_{i}$ on $\Sigma$ its action is given by
$$D_{j}\,v^{i} = \partial_{j}\,v^{i} +
v^{k}\,\Gamma^{i}_{kj}\, ,$$
where the $\Gamma^{i}_{kj}$ are the ordinary Christoffel symbols on $\Sigma$ determined by $h_{ij}$. In addition to $D_{i}$ there exists the orthonormal frame representation of this derivative which acts on orthonormal $\Sigma$ indices, and this operator is denoted by $\overline{D}_{i}$. An orthonormal frame or [*triad*]{} $\left\{ E_{\hat{s}} =
E_{\hat{s}}\,^{j}\partial_{j} | \hat{s} =
\hat{1},\hat{2},\hat{3}\right\}$ determines connection coefficients $\omega^{\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{s}\hat{t}} =
\omega^{\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{s}j}E_{\hat{t}}\,^{j}$. For the same vector field $v$ expressed as $v = v^{\hat{s}}\,E_{\hat{s}}$, the action of $\overline{D}_{j}$ is defined by
$$\overline{D}_{j}\,v^{\hat{s}} =
\partial_{j}\,v^{\hat{s}} +
v^{\hat{t}}\,\omega^{\hat{s}}\,_{\hat{t}j}\, .$$
The analogous operators on the three-boundary $^{3}\!B$ are represented by ${\cal D}_{i}$ and $\overline{{\cal D}}_{i}$. The analogous operators on $B$ are denoted by $^{2}\nabla_{b}$ and $^{2}\overline{\nabla}_{b}$ and on spacetime $M$ by $\nabla_{\mu}$ and $\overline{\nabla}_{\mu}$. Finally, $\hat{{\cal D}}_{i}$ is used for the Ashtekar derivative on $^{3}\!B$. The major conventions of this paper are collected in a table found on the last page. All remaining conventions used in this analysis are are presented “locally" throughout the text.
Review of the Brown-York method
-------------------------------
The analysis of Brown and York [@BY] begins with the action for pure Einstein gravity which is appropriate for a variational principle in which the induced metric is fixed on all the elements of the three-boundary. Namely,[@York]
$$S^{1} =
\frac{1}{2\kappa}\int_{M}d^{4}x\,\sqrt{-g}\,\Re +
\frac{1}{\kappa}\int_{t'}^{t''}d^{3}x\,\sqrt{h}\,K -
\frac{1}{\kappa}\int_{^{3}\!B}d^{3}x\,\sqrt{-\gamma}\,\Theta .
\label{BYaction1}$$
In the above formula $\Re$ is the Ricci scalar associated with the metric space $M$, and the notation $\int_{t'}^{t''}d^{3}x$ is a compact expression for $\int_{t''}d^{3}x - \int_{t'}d^{3}x$. The variation of this action is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta S^{1} & = & ( {\rm terms\, giving\,the\,
equations\, of\, motion} ) \\
& & + \int_{t'}^{t''}d^{3}x\,p^{ij}\,\delta h_{ij} +
\int_{B^{3}}d^{3}x\,\pi^{ij}\,\delta\gamma_{ij}\, . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In the above expression $p^{ij}$ denotes the ADM gravitational momentum conjugate to $h_{ij}$
$$p^{ij} = \frac{1}{2\kappa}\sqrt{h}\left( Kh^{ij} -
K^{ij}\right)\, . \label{slicemomentum1}$$
Likewise, $\pi^{ij}$ represents the gravitational momentum conjugate to $\gamma_{ij}$, where in this case conjugacy is defined with respect to $^{3}\!B$. One finds that
$$\pi^{ij} = - \frac{1}{2\kappa}\sqrt{-\gamma}\left(
\Theta\gamma^{ij} - \Theta^{ij}\right) . \label{bdmomentum1}$$
As described in [@BY], it is often necessary to consider actions which differ from (\[BYaction1\]) by a subtraction term $S^{0}$ which is a functional solely of the fixed boundary data $\gamma_{ij}$. The complete action is therefore given by
$$S = S^{1} - S^{0} . \label{BYaction2}$$
If the general variation of the action $S^{1}$ is restricted to variation among just the classical solutions, then the action (\[BYaction1\]) is identified with the Hamilton-Jacobi principal function $S^{1}_{c\ell}$. The subscript $c\ell$ denotes “evaluation on a classical solution." The principal function $S^{1}_{c\ell}$ is a functional of the fixed boundary data $\gamma_{ij}, h'_{ij}, h''_{ij}$. Clearly there are only boundary contributions to $\delta
S^{1}_{c\ell}$. Since the fixed three-boundary metric $\gamma_{ij}$ provides the information necessary to determine the lapse of proper time between the hypersurface slices $t'$ and $t''$, in analogy with Hamilton-Jacobi theory for simple systems one would expect that $\pi^{ij}_{c\ell}$, the gravitational momentum determined by a classical history, is related to a gravitational energy density. However, since $\gamma_{ij}$ also contains all the metrical information about $^{3}\!B$, the momentum $\pi^{ij}_ {c\ell}$ provides more than just a quasilocal energy density. The three-boundary momentum may also be used to define a quasilocal momentum density and quasilocal spatial stress density. The argument of this paragraph applies equally well to the action (\[BYaction2\]), however, in this case one must consider an additional term to $\pi_{c\ell}^{ij}$ given by $\delta
S^{0}/\delta\gamma_{ij}|_{c\ell}$ . Therefore, the quasilocal expressions are not unique.
To construct the quasilocal expressions a (2+1)-decomposition of the metric on $^{3}\!B$ must first be performed. In coordinates adapted to the foliation the metric on $^{3}\!B$ takes the ADM form
$$\gamma_{ij}\, dx^{i}\otimes dx^{j} = -N dt\otimes N dt
+ \sigma_{ab}\left( dx^{a} + V^{a}dt\right)\otimes \left( dx^{b} +
V^{b}dt\right)\, . \label{bdmetric}$$
The lapse function $N$ and shift vector field $\vec{V}$ are usually kinematical variables, but here they constitute part of the fixed boundary data on $^{3}\!B$. Following Brown and York, one defines the quasilocal energy and momentum surface densities by
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \varepsilon\, :=\, -\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sigma}}\frac{\delta
S_{c\ell}}{\delta N} = \left.\frac{1}{\kappa}\, k \right|_{c\ell} +
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\sigma}}\frac{\delta S^{0}_{c\ell}}{\delta N}
\label{ep}\\
& & j_{b}\, :=\, \frac{1}{\sqrt{\sigma}}\frac{\delta
S_{c\ell}}{\delta V^{b}} = \left.- \frac{2}{\sqrt{h}}\,
\sigma_{b\underline{i}}\, n_{\underline{j}}\, p^{\underline{ij}}
\right|_{c\ell} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{\sigma}}\frac{\delta
S^{0}_{c\ell}}{\delta V^{b}}\, , \label{jay} \end{aligned}$$
where $\sqrt{\sigma}$ denotes the square root of the determinant of the two-metric of $B$. The final expressions for the quasilocal energy and momentum densities are discussed further below. For the above definitions it is quintessential to note that these functional derivatives are with respect to the lapse and shift [*on the three-boundary*]{} $^{3}\!B$ which, as mentioned, are not considered kinematical variables. Since it is not needed in this work, the form of the spatial stress density is not presented above. If the subtraction term $S^{0}$ is functionally linear in $N$ and $\vec{V}$, then the above expressions depend only on slice Cauchy data. In this case $\varepsilon$ and $j_{b}$ are functionals on the $\Sigma$ phase space. Therefore, the $c\ell$ in the above expressions may be omitted with the understanding that these expressions are to be evaluated on a point of phase space $\left(h_{ij}, p^{ij}\right)$ corresponding to a solution of the equations of motion.[@BY] This viewpoint is adopted in what follows.
Triad version of the Brown-York method
--------------------------------------
In order to pass to a connection formalism it is necessary to enlarge the phase space associated with the boundary.[@Ashtekar1] This is achieved by the introduction of an orthonormal frame (technically pseudo-orthonormal) or triad $\left\{ \xi_{\hat{r}} \mid \hat{r} =
\bot, \hat{1}, \hat{2}\right\}$ on $^{3}\!B$ and its associated cotriad $\left\{ \xi^{\hat{r}} \mid \hat{r} = \bot,\hat{1},\hat{2}\right\}$. In a coordinate system the frame and coframe may be expanded respectively as $\xi_{\hat{r}} = \xi_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}\partial_{j}$ and $\xi^{\hat{r}} = \xi^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} dx^{j}$. Orthonormality implies that $\eta_{\hat{r}\hat{s}} =
\gamma_{ij}\,\xi_{\hat{r}}\,^{i}\,\xi_{\hat{s}}\,^{j}$, where $\eta_{\hat {r}\hat{s}} = \eta^{\hat{r}\hat{s}} = diag(-1,1,1)$. In terms of the cotriad the metric on $^{3}\!B$ is given by $\gamma_{ij} =
\eta_{\hat{r}\hat{s}}\,\xi^{\hat{r}}\,_{i}\,\xi^{\hat{s}}\,_{j}$ , and $(\xi)$ represents $det|\xi^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}| = \sqrt{-\gamma}$. At this point the [*densitized triad*]{} $(\xi)\xi_{\hat{r}}\,^{j} =
\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}$ is chosen as the fundamental variable, and $\gamma_{ij}$ is considered to be a secondary or derived quantity. As a result of this shift in emphasis, the subtraction term in (\[BYaction2\]) is now considered to be a functional solely of the densitized triad. Employing the identity
$$\frac{\partial\gamma_{ij}}{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{k}} =
(\xi)^{-1}\left(\xi^{\hat{r}}\,_{k}\gamma_{ij} -
\xi^{\hat{r}}\,_{i}\gamma_{kj} -
\xi^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\gamma_{ki}\right)\, ,$$
one finds that the momentum conjugate to $\tilde{\xi}^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}$ with respect to $^{3}\!B$ is
$$\Pi^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} =
\frac{\partial\gamma_{ik}}{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}}\,\pi^{ik}
= -\frac{1}{\kappa}\Theta^{i}\,_{j}\,\xi^{\hat{r}}\,_{i} =
-\frac{1}{\kappa}\Theta^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} . \label{bdmomentum2}$$
In the above formula $\Theta^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}$ is referred to as the hybrid extrinsic curvature since it has one coordinate and one orthonormal index. The extrinsic curvature $\Theta_{ij}$ is symmetric, however, $\Pi_{ij} =
\Pi^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\xi_{\hat{r}i}$ is not manifestly symmetric. This necessitates the introduction of the following additional constraint associated with the three-boundary phase space:
$$\Phi^{\hat{r}\hat{s}} :=
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
2\Pi^{[\hat{r}}\,_{j}\,\eta^{\hat{s}]\hat{t}}\,\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{t}}\,^{j}\,\approx\,
0. \label{bdrotation}$$
This [*boundary rotation constraint*]{} is set weakly equal to zero, and the factor of $2$ is chosen to make a correspondence with the analogous constraint associated with the triad formalism for $\Sigma$.[@Brown] For the remainder of this discussion the symbol $\approx$ is taken to mean modulo the constraint (\[bdrotation\]). With this convention one writes
$$\Pi_{ij}\,\approx\, - \frac{1}{\kappa}\Theta_{ij}\, .$$
The triad is assumed to obey the [*time gauge condition*]{}. This restriction requires that when the time leg of the triad $\xi_{\bot}$ is restricted to $B$, a generic leaf of the foliation, it must coincide with the normal vector field $u$. Subject to this requirement the frame and coframe are expressed [*locally*]{} as
$$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{\bot} = \frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial
t} - V^{a}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{a}}\right) & &\xi_{\hat a} =
\beta_{\hat{a}}\,^{b}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{b}} \nonumber \\
\xi^{\bot} = Ndt\hspace{2.55cm} & & \xi^{\hat a} =
\beta^{\hat{a}}\,_{b}\left( dx^{b} + V^{b}dt\right) . \label{bdtriad}\end{aligned}$$
In the above relations $\{\beta_{\hat a}\mid\hat{a} =
\hat{1}, \hat{2}\}$ and $\{\beta^{\hat a}\mid\hat{a} = \hat{1},
\hat{2}\}$ are respectively a collection of local orthonormal frames and a collection of local orthonormal coframes (each parameterized by t) on the leaves $B$ of the foliated $^{3}\!B$. An orthonormal frame on $B$ is referred to as a [*dyad*]{}. The two-metric on a generic slice $B$ is related to the coframe or codyad on the same slice by $\sigma_{ab} =
\delta_{\hat{a}\hat{b}}\,\beta^{\hat{a}}\,_{a}\,\beta^{\hat{b}}\,_{b}$ where $\delta_{\hat{a}\hat{b}} = \delta^{\hat{a}\hat{b}} = diag(1,1)$. On $B$ it is also true that $\delta_{\hat{a}\hat{b}} = \sigma_{ab}\,
\beta_{\hat{a}}\,^{a}\,\beta_{\hat{b}}\,^{b}$ and $\sqrt{\sigma} =
(\beta) = det|\beta^{\hat{a}}\,_{b}|$. The densitized triad can now be broken into three pieces: $N, V^{a},$ and $\tilde{\beta}_{\hat{a}}\,^{b} = (\beta )\beta_{\hat{a}}\,^{b}$. [*One should note that*]{} $\tilde{\beta}_{\hat{a}}\,^{b}$ [*is a two-density and not a three-density like*]{} $\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}$. The following identities are easily verified:
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}}{\partial N} =
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\sqrt{\sigma}\,\beta_{\hat{a}}\,^{b}\,\delta^{\hat{a}}_{\hat{r}}\,\delta^{j}_{b}
\nonumber \\
& & \frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}}{\partial V^{b}} =
-\,\sqrt{\sigma}\,\delta^{\bot}_{\hat{r}}\,\delta^{j}_{b}
\label{identities1} \\
& &
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\frac{\partial\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}}{\partial\tilde{\beta}_{\hat{a}}\,^{b}}
= \beta^{\hat{a}}\,_{b}\,\delta^{\bot}_{\hat{r}}\,\delta^{j}_{0} -
V^{c}\,\beta^{\hat{a}}\,_{b}\,\delta^{\bot}_{\hat{r}}\,\delta^{j}_{c} +
N\,\delta^{\hat{a}}_{\hat{r}}\,\delta^{j}_{b}\, . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
If the subtraction term $S^{0}$ in (\[BYaction2\]) is taken to be zero, then these identities allow one to demonstrate swiftly that the Brown-York quasilocal energy and momentum densities are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \varepsilon |_{_{0}}\: =
-\,\beta_{\hat{a}}\,^{b}\,\Pi^{\hat{a}}\,_{b}\,\approx\,\frac{1}{\kappa}\,k
\label{epzero} \\
& & j_{b} |_{_{0}}\: = -\,\Pi^{\bot}\,_{b}\,\approx\, -
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\frac{2}{\sqrt{h}}\,\sigma_{b\underline{i}}\,n_{\underline{j}}\,p^{\underline{ij}}\,
. \label{jayzero} \end{aligned}$$
The symbol $|_{_{0}}$ is used to indicate the choice $S^{0} =0$. In the above relations $k$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature $k_{ab}$ of $B$ as a two-surface embedded in $\Sigma$. Also, the mixed component two-metric in (\[jayzero\]) may be expressed as
$$\sigma_{b\underline{i}} = \frac{\partial
x^{c}}{\partial x^{\underline{i}}}\,\sigma_{bc}\, .$$
The final expressions in (\[epzero\]) and (\[jayzero\]) are obtained by the use of a Brown-York result.[@BY] They have found the following expression for the three-boundary extrinsic curvature:
$$\Theta_{ij} = k_{ij} +
u_{i}u_{j}n_{\underline{k}}a^{\underline{k}} +
2\sigma^{\underline{k}}\,_{(i}u_{j)}n^{\underline{l}}K_{\underline{kl}}\,
,$$
where $a = \nabla_{u}\, u$ is the spacetime covariant acceleration of $u$. For the above relation one should also note that $u^{i} = \xi_{\bot}\,^{i}$ and that the two-boundary extrinsic curvature, though it carries three-boundary indices, is a spatial tensor because $k_{ij}\, u^{j} = 0$.
Boundary Ashtekar variables
===========================
Construction and properties
---------------------------
The introduction of the boundary Ashtekar variables is achieved by appending to the action (\[BYaction1\]) the following pure imaginary subtraction term: $$S^{0} =
\frac{i}{2\kappa}\int_{^{3}\!B}d^{3}x\,
\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\tau_{\hat{s}\hat{t}
j}\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}\, . \label{bdsubterm}$$ The $\tau^{\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{s}\hat{t}} = \tau^{\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{s}
i}\,\xi_{\hat{t}}\,^{i}$ are the connection coefficients determined by the time gauge triad. These are given explicitly by
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \tau^{\bot}\,_{\hat{c}\bot} = \beta_{\hat{c}}\left[\log N\right]
\nonumber \\
& & \tau^{\bot}\,_{\hat{a}\hat{c}} = -\frac{1}{N}\left(
\sigma_{bd}\,\beta_{(\hat{a}}\,^{b}\,\dot{\beta}_{\hat{c})}\,^{d} +\,
^{2}\overline{\nabla}_{(\hat{c}}V_{\hat{a})}\right)
\label{bdconnection} \\
& & \tau^{\hat{1}}\,_{\hat{2}\hat{a}} =
\beta_{\hat{a}}\,^{a}\beta^{\hat{1}}\,_{b}\, \left(
^{2}\nabla_{a}\,\beta_{\hat{2}}\,^{b}\right) \nonumber \\
& & \tau_{\hat{1}\hat{2}\bot} =
\frac{1}{N}\left(\sigma_{bd}\,\beta_{[\hat
{1}}\,^{b}\,\dot{\beta}_{\hat{2} ]}\,^{d} +\,
^{2}\overline{\nabla}_{[\hat {2}}V_{\hat{1} ]} -
V^{\hat{c}}\,\tau_{\hat{1}\hat{2}\hat{c}}\right)\, , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where the dot denotes partial time differentiation. The choice of this particular subtraction term may appear [*ad hoc*]{}, however, its introduction is justified by a careful treatment of the boundary terms of an appropriate complex tetrad action principle for general relativity. The analysis of this complex tetrad action principle is found in the the last section. From the form of these time gauge connection coefficients one can verify that the subtraction term (\[bdsubterm\]) is functionally linear in both $N$ and $V^{a}$. These two conditions imply that the alterations of $\varepsilon |_{_{0}}$ and $j_{b} |_{_{0}}$ which arise from appending (\[bdsubterm\]) to the action (\[BYaction1\]) do not spoil the requirement that these quantities depend only on the Cauchy data of $\Sigma$.[@BY]
With the full action (\[BYaction2\]) the three-boundary momentum conjugate to the densitized triad is given by
$$\Pi_{_{NEW}}\,^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} = \Pi^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} -
\frac{i}{2\kappa}\,\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\tau_{\hat{s}\hat{t}j}\,
, \label{bdmomentum3}$$
because the term (\[bdsubterm\]) obeys a remarkable identity which is analogous to an identity often employed in the construction of the $\Sigma$ Ashtekar variables.[@tetradgrav] Namely,
$$\frac{\delta S^{0}}{\delta\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}}
=
\frac{i}{2\kappa}\,\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\tau_{\hat{s}\hat{t}j}\,
. \label{identity2}$$
The boundary Ashtekar connection is defined by
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\,:=
i\Pi_{_{NEW}}\,^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} & = &
\frac{1}{\kappa}\,\tau^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} + i\Pi^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}
\label{bdAshconnection} \\
& \approx & \frac{1}{\kappa}\left( \tau^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} -
i\Theta^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\right)\, , \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
where $\tau^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} =
\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\tau_{\hat{s}\hat{t}j}$. Modulo the boundary rotation constraint (\[bdrotation\]), the boundary Ashtekar connection (\[bdAshconnection\]) is the Sen connection [@Ashtekar1; @Sen] for the three-boundary $^{3}\!B$. The transformation of the $^{3}\! B$ phase space coordinates obtained by appending (\[bdsubterm\]) to the action is of the form $(q^{j},
p_{j}) \rightarrow (q^{j}, ip_{j} + \partial G/\partial q^{j})$, where $G\left[ q^{j}\right]$ is a q-dependent generating function. The boundary Ashtekar variable ${\cal A}^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}$ is the pull back of a complexified $SO(2,1)$ connection on the bundle of orthonormal frames over $^{3}\!B$. The associated derivative operator is defined by its action on vector fields $v^{\hat{r}}$
$$\hat{{\cal D}}_{j}\, v^{\hat{r}} = \partial_{j}\,
v^{\hat{r}} + \kappa\,\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}}\,_{\hat{t}}\,{\cal
A}_{\hat{s}j}\,v^{\hat{t}}\, .$$
The boundary rotation constraint (\[bdrotation\]) can be expressed in a “Gauss law" form with this derivative operator. Indeed, the identity $\overline{{\cal
D}}_{j}\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{k}}\,^{j} = 0$ justifies the following expression: $$\hat{{\cal
D}}_{j}\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j} =
\frac{i}{2}\kappa\,\epsilon_{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\Phi^{\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,
.\label{bdGauss}$$ Since the epsilon symbol is invertible, the [*boundary Gauss constraint*]{} (\[bdGauss\]) is fully equivalent to the boundary rotation constraint (\[bdrotation\]).
Because $^{3}\!B$ is a submanifold of the metric space $M$, its geometry must obey the Gauss-Codacci embedding conditions. These are integrability criteria relating the spacetime Riemann tensor $\Re_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}\left[ g\right]$ to the $^{3}\!B$ Riemann tensor ${\cal R}_{ijkl}\left[ \gamma\right]$ and extrinsic curvature tensor $\Theta_{ij}$.[@York] Further, if $M$ is an Einstein spacetime, then the vacuum field equations $\Re_{\alpha\beta} = 0$ hold. The Gauss-Codacci conditions are used to express the projections $n^{\alpha}\, n^{\beta}\,\Re_{\alpha\beta}$ and $\gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu}\, n^{\beta}\,\Re_{\alpha\beta}$ in terms of the triple $\left(^{3}\!B, \gamma_{ij},\Theta_{ij}\right)$. The $^{3}\!B$ metric is given in spacetime coordinates by $\gamma_{\mu\nu} =
g_{\mu\nu} - n_{\mu}\, n_{\nu}$. Apart from density factors, these projections are respectively the [*boundary scalar constraint*]{} and [*boundary vector constraint*]{}. The curvature of ${\cal
A}^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}$,
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}^{\hat{r}}\,_{jk} & = & 2\partial_{[j}{\cal
A}^{\hat{r}}\,_{k]} + \kappa\,\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,{\cal
A}_{\hat{s}j}\,{\cal A}_{\hat{t}k} \label{bdAshcurvature}\\
& = & \frac{1}{\kappa}{\cal R}^{\hat{r}}\,_{jk} -
\kappa\,\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\Pi_{\hat{s}j}\,\Pi_{\hat{t}k}
+ 2i\,\overline{{\cal D}}_{[j}\,\Pi^{\hat{r}}\,_{k]}\, , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
can be used to express these constraints compactly. In the above formula (\[bdAshcurvature\]) one should note that
$${\cal R}^{\hat{r}}\,_{jk} =
2\partial_{[j}\,\tau^{\hat{r}}\,_{k]} +
\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\tau_{\hat{s}j}\,\tau_{\hat{t}k}\, ,$$
where the relation of this Yang-Mills-type curvature to the mixed components of the Riemann tensor on $^{3}\!B$ is given by ${\cal R}^{\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{t}jk} =
\epsilon^{\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,{\cal R}^{\hat{s}}\,_{jk}$. In an orthonormal frame the Riemann tensor on $^{3}\!B$ takes its values in the Lie algebra of the matrix group $SO(2,1)$. It is evident from the considerations above that the theory employs the adjoint or vector representation for the generators $\left\{ T_{\hat{r}} | \hat{r} =
\bot,\hat{1},\hat{2}\right\}$. In other words, the Lie algebra valued forms on $^{3}\!B$ are being contracted on the structure constants $\epsilon^{\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{s}\hat{t}} = \left(
T_{\hat{s}}\right)^{\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{t}}$ of the $so(2,1)$ Lie algebra. Manipulation of the boundary Ashtekar curvature (\[bdAshcurvature\]) yields the following elegant expressions for the boundary scalar and boundary momentum constraints:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2(\xi )}\,\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,
\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{i}\,\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{s}}\,^{j}\,{\cal
F}_{\hat{t}ij} & = & \frac{\kappa}{2}\sqrt{-\gamma}\left\{
(\Pi^{j}\,_{j})^{2} - \Pi^{i}\,_{j}\,\Pi^{j}\,_{i}\right\} \nonumber \\
& & - \frac{\sqrt{-\gamma}}{2\kappa}\,{\cal R} -\,
i\,\sqrt{-\gamma}\,\epsilon^{ijk}\,{\cal D}_{i}\,\Pi_{jk}
\label{bdscalar} \\
& \approx & \frac{\sqrt{-\gamma}}{2\kappa}\left\{
(\Theta^{i}\,_{i})^{2} - \Theta^{i}\,_{j}\,\Theta^{j}\,_{i} - {\cal
R}\right\}\, , \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
i\,\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{i}\,{\cal
F}^{\hat{r}}\,_{ij} & = &
- \frac{i}{2\kappa}\sqrt{-\gamma}\,\epsilon^{lmp}\,{\cal R}_{j[lmp]}
\nonumber \\
& & + \,i\kappa\,\sqrt{-\gamma}\,\epsilon^{lmp}\,\Pi_{lm}\,\Pi_{pj}
- 2 \,\sqrt{-\gamma}\,{\cal D}_{[i}\,\Pi^{i}\,_{j]} \label{bdvector}
\\
& \approx & \frac{2}{\kappa}\,\sqrt{-\gamma}\,{\cal
D}_{[i}\,\Theta^{i}\,_{j]}\, . \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
In (\[bdscalar\]) the $\epsilon^{ijk} =
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\xi_{\hat{r}}\,^{i}\,\xi_{\hat{s}}\,^{j}\,\xi_{\hat{t}}\,^{k}$ are the coordinate components of the Levi-Civita tensor, and ${\cal
R}$ denotes the Ricci scalar of $^{3}\!B$. The last step in (\[bdvector\]) appeals to the algebraic Bianchi identity for the Riemann tensor.[@DiffGeom] It is interesting to note that the relative signs of the quadratic extrinsic curvature terms in (\[bdscalar\]) are like those found for a hypersurface in a Euclidean spacetime. This being true, one may wonder why the factor of $i$ multiplying $\Pi^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}$ is necessary in the definition of the boundary Ashtekar connection, since the Ashtekar connection for the Euclidean case is manifestly real. However, the $i$ is crucial, because $^{3}\!B$ does have a time direction and thus there is an extra minus sign hidden in its Levi-Civita tensor used to form (\[bdscalar\]). Since $^{3}\!B$ is a Lorentz manifold, there are also extra minus signs buried in the Ricci scalar because it is built from a metric with signature $(-1,1,1)$. However, these signs have no effect on the form of (\[bdscalar\]).
Some mention of reality conditions for these boundary variables is in order. The following nonpolynomial form for these conditions suffices for this work:
$$\begin{aligned}
\left( \tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}\right)^{*} & = &
\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j} \nonumber \\
\left( {\cal A}^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} - \frac{1}{\kappa}\,
\tau^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\right)^{*} & = & - \left( {\cal
A}^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} - \frac{1}{\kappa}\, \tau^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\right)\,
, \end{aligned}$$
where $*$ denotes complex conjugation.
Relation to Brown-York quasilocal expressions
---------------------------------------------
In the previous expressions for the quasilocal energy surface density (\[epzero\]) and the quasilocal momentum surface density (\[jayzero\]) it was assumed that the subtraction term was zero. After appending the subtraction term (\[bdsubterm\]) to the action (\[BYaction1\]), an examination of the definitions for $\varepsilon$ (\[ep\]) and $j_{b}$ (\[jay\]) shows that
$$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon & = & i\,\beta_{\hat{a}}\,^{b}\,{\cal
A}^{\hat{a}}\,_{b} \nonumber \\ & = &
-\beta_{\hat{a}}\,^{b}\,\Pi^{\hat{a}}\,_{b} +
\frac{i}{\kappa}\,\epsilon^{\bot\hat{a}\hat{c}}\,\tau_{\bot\hat{a}\hat{c}}
\label{bdAshep} \\
& = & \varepsilon |_{_{0}}\nonumber \\ & & \nonumber \\
j_{b} & = & i\,{\cal A}^{\bot}\,_{b} \nonumber \\ & = &
-\Pi^{\bot}\,_{b} - \frac{i}{\kappa}\,\tau_{\hat{1}\hat{2}b}
\label{bdAshjay} \\
& = & j_{b} |_{_{0}} - \frac{i}{\kappa}\,\tau_{\hat{1}\hat{2}b}\,
. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
The last equality in (\[bdAshep\]) holds because $\tau_{\bot\hat{a}\hat{c}} =
\tau_{\bot(\hat{a}\hat{c})}$. Provided that the time gauge condition is enforced, as it is here, the expression for the Brown-York quasilocal energy density $\varepsilon$ is unchanged relative to the $S^{0} = 0$ case by this choice of subtraction term. The momentum density, however, picks up an imaginary piece. This term is proportional to the connection form on $B$, and hence is related to the freedom to perform local dyad rotations.
Expanding the expression $\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{a}{\cal
A}^{\hat{r}}\,_{a}$ which has a “qp" form, one verifies that
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{b}{\cal A}^{\hat{r}}\,_{b} &
= & \sqrt{-\gamma}\,\xi_{\hat{r}}\,^{b}{\cal A}^{\hat{r}}\,_{b}
\nonumber \\
& = & N\sqrt{\sigma}\,\xi_{\bot}\,^{b}{\cal A}^{\bot}\,_{b} +
N\sqrt{\sigma}\,\beta_{\hat{a}}\,^{b}{\cal A}^{\hat{a}}\,_{b}
\label{bdHamdensity}\\
& = & - i\sqrt{\sigma}\left( -V^{b}j_{b} + N\varepsilon\right)\, .
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
It should be noted that in the proceeding double sum the coordinate indices run only over $(1,2)$. The previous formula is the main result of this work. Apart from a factor of $- i$ the above expression is the integrand of the boundary piece of the Hamiltonian that Brown and York find via a canonical analysis of (\[BYaction2\]).[@BY] Therefore, the now complex surface term in the Hamiltonian can be written compactly as
$$H_{\partial\Sigma} =
i\int_{B}d^{2}x\,\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{a}{\cal A}^{\hat{r}}\,_{a}\,
. \label{bdHamiltonian}$$
The close relation between the Brown-York expressions and the boundary Ashtekar variables is made manifest by selecting the time gauge. One could consider subtraction terms of the same form as (\[bdsubterm\]) but built from arbitrary triads and their associated connection forms. Such a more general subtraction term would also allow the introduction of a boundary Ashtekar connection. However, in general such a subtraction term would not be functionally linear in $N$ and $\vec{V}$, and therefore the resulting expressions for the quasilocal energy and momentum densities would not depend solely on slice Cauchy data. In other words, these more general subtraction terms would mix the slice dynamical variables (Cauchy data) with essentially “gauge" variables. It does not seem that anything physically significant would be gained by allowing such generality.
Sparling forms
==============
The Brown-York expressions for the $S^{0} = 0$ quasilocal energy and momentum surface densities, relations (\[epzero\]) and (\[jayzero\]), are intimately related to certain frame-dependent differential forms first introduced by Sparling. This section presents the construction of these forms, a review of their properties, and their relation to the original Brown-York and boundary Ashtekar variables.
Construction and properties
---------------------------
Before the introduction of the Sparling forms can be made, it is first necessary to consider on the spacetime $M$ an orthonormal frame (technically pseudo-orthonormal) or [*tetrad*]{} $\{ e_{\hat{\alpha}} |
\hat{\alpha} = \bot, \hat{1}, \hat{2}, \hat{3}\} $ and its associated coframe or cotetrad $\{ e^{\hat{\alpha}} | \hat{\alpha} = \bot,
\hat{1}, \hat{2}, \hat{3}\}$. A spacetime manifold $M$ which is topologically $R\times \Sigma$ admits a globally defined orthonormal frame, if $\Sigma$ is an orientable three-space.[@DiffGeom] However, there will be need to examine certain frames which cannot in general be globally defined. In a coordinate system the tetrad and cotetrad may be expanded respectively as $ e_{\hat{\alpha}} =
e_{\hat{\alpha}}\,^{\mu}\,\partial_{\mu}$ and $e^{\hat{\alpha}} =
e^{\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\mu}\,dx^{\mu}$. The coordinate components of the Lorentz metric on $M$ are given by $g_{\mu\sigma} =
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\eta_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}}e^{\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\mu}e^{\hat{\beta}}\,_{\sigma}$ and $e_{\hat{\alpha}}\,^{\mu}e_{\hat{\beta}\mu} =
\eta_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}}$ , where $\eta_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}}
= \eta^{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}} = diag(-1,1,1,1)$.
For such a tetrad the connection one-forms $\omega_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}} =
\omega_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}\hat{\gamma}}e^{\hat{\gamma}} =
\omega_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}\mu}dx^{\mu}$ which specify the Levi-Civita connection on the frame bundle of $M$ are characterized by the following two requirements:[@DiffGeom] (1) the metric compatibility condition
$$\omega_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}}
=\omega_{[\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}]}\, , \label{metriccompatibility}$$
and (2) the vanishing of the torsion two-form which casts the first Cartan structure equation into the form
$$de^{\hat{\alpha}} +
\,\omega^{\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}} \wedge e^{\hat{\beta}} = 0\, .
\label{notorsion}$$
The curvature two-form is defined by the second Cartan structure equation
$$\Omega^{\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}} =
d\omega^{\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}} +
\omega^{\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\gamma}} \wedge
\omega^{\hat{\gamma}}\,_{\hat{\beta}}\, ,$$
and the orthonormal components of the spacetime Riemann tensor are related to the curvature form by the relation
$$\Omega^{\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}} =
\frac{1}{2}\Re^{\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}\hat{\gamma}\hat{\delta}}
e^{\hat{\gamma}} \wedge e^{\hat{\delta}}.$$
From the cotetrad and the connection forms one can construct the Sparling two-forms and three-forms
$$\sigma_{\hat{\alpha}} =
-\,\frac{1}{2}\,\omega^{\hat{\beta}\hat{\gamma}} \wedge
e^{\ast}_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}\hat{\gamma}} \label{sigSparling}$$
$$\tau_{\hat{\alpha}} =
\frac{1}{2}\left(\omega_{\hat{\alpha}}\,^{\hat{\beta}} \wedge
\omega^{\hat{\gamma}\hat{\delta}} \wedge
e^{\ast}_{\hat{\beta}\hat{\gamma}\hat{\delta}} -
\omega^{\hat{\beta}}\,_{\hat{\delta}} \wedge
\omega^{\hat{\delta}\hat{\gamma}} \wedge
e^{\ast}_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}\hat{\gamma}}\right)\, ,
\label{tauSparling}$$
where $e^{\ast}_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}\hat{\gamma}} =
\epsilon_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}\hat{\gamma}\hat{\delta}}e^{\hat{\delta}}$.
Several properties of the Sparling forms should be noted. Since the connection coefficients transform inhomogeneously under tetrad transformations, the Sparling forms defined above are frame dependent. However, it is possible to construct canonically defined analogs of these forms on the orthonormal frame bundle over $M$. Pull backs of these canonically defined forms with respect to sections of the orthonormal frame bundle yield the various frame-dependent Sparling forms on $M$.[@Sparling] The fundamental relation obeyed by the Sparling forms is now presented. Employing the structure equations and the fact that $G_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}}$, the tetrad version of the Einstein tensor, is the contracted double dual Riemann tensor [@MTW], one can demonstrate that
$$d\sigma_{\hat{\alpha}} = \tau_{\hat{\alpha}} +
G_{\hat{\alpha}}\,^{\hat{\beta}}e^{\ast}_{\hat{\beta}}\, ,
\label{Sparlingrelation}$$
where $e^{\ast}_{\hat{\alpha}}
=
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
(3!)^{-1}\,\epsilon_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}\hat{\gamma}\hat{\delta}}e^{\hat{\beta}}
\wedge e^{\hat{\gamma}} \wedge e^{\hat{\delta}}$. The form of the above equation suggests that $\tau_{\hat{\alpha}}$ may be interpreted as a frame-dependent energy-momentum density with the corresponding superpotential given by $\sigma_{\hat{\alpha}}$.[@Goldberg] For the case of this discussion the form of (\[Sparlingrelation\]) is even simpler since $G_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}} = 0$ for vacuum spacetimes. In fact, for the vacuum theory the fundamental relation (\[Sparlingrelation\]) reduces Einstein’s equations to an integrability theorem: $M$ is Ricci flat if and only if $d\sigma_{\hat{\alpha}} = \tau_{\hat{\alpha}}$.
Link with $^{3}\! B$ variables
------------------------------
Since $\sigma_{\hat{\alpha}}$ acts like a frame-dependent superpotential in (\[Sparlingrelation\]), an examination of its form for a natural choice of frame is merited. In the remainder of this section a natural choice of frame is constructed, and the Brown-York expressions for $\varepsilon |_{_{0}}$ (\[epzero\]) and $j_{b}
|_{_{0}}$ (\[jayzero\]) are written in terms of the connection coefficients associated with this distinguished frame. Finally, the relation between $\sigma_{\hat{\alpha}}$ and the Brown-York formalism, cast in this connection coefficient language, is revealed.
Though the frame which will be considered is quite natural, its construction requires some effort. For some $X \subset B$, an open subset of a generic leaf of the foliated $^{3}\!B$, it is assumed that there exists a dyad $\left\{\beta_{\hat{a}} | \hat{a} = \hat{1},
\hat{2}\right\}$ globally defined on $X$. There is also need to consider $Y \subset \Sigma$, an open set which contains $B$ and therefore $X$. It is assumed that there exists a function $r: Y
\rightarrow {\cal I}$, where ${\cal I}$ is a connected closed subset of the real line. The function $r$ provides a local “radial foliation" of $\Sigma$ in the region surrounding $B$. The leaves of this local foliation have the topology of $B$. The foliation associated with the function $r$ may not be extendable to one which fills the whole spacelike slice $\Sigma$. The construction of the distinguished frame proceeds as follows: first employing the radial foliation, one constructs a triad $\left\{ E_{\hat{s }} |\, \hat{s} = \,\vdash,
\hat{1}, \hat{2}\right\}$ and its associated cotriad on $\Sigma$ from the dyad and codyad on $B$; and then one employs the hypersurface foliation $\Sigma$ to construct a tetrad and cotetrad from this slice triad and cotriad. This prescription gives the following tetrad and cotetrad on a suitably small spacetime neighborhood of $X$:
$$\begin{aligned}
e_{\bot} = u = \xi_{\bot} =
\frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} -
V^{\hat{a}}\beta_{\hat{a}} - V^{\vdash}E_{\vdash}\right) & & e^{\bot}
= \xi^{\bot} = Ndt \nonumber \\ e_{\vdash} =\,^{_{2}}n = E_{\vdash} =
\frac{1}{M}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial r} -
W^{\hat{a}}\beta_{\hat{a}}\right) & & e^{\vdash} = E^{\vdash} +
V^{\vdash}dt \nonumber \\
& & e^{\vdash} = M dr + V^{\vdash}dt\hspace{1.75cm}
\label{distinguishedframe} \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{3.25cm}e_{\hat{a}} = \xi_{\hat{a}} =
E_{\hat{a}} = \beta_{\hat{a}} & & e^{\hat{a}} = \beta^{\hat{a}} +
V^{\hat{a}}dt + W^{\hat{a}}dr \nonumber \\
& & e^{\hat{a}} = \xi^{\hat{a}} + W^{\hat{a}}dr \nonumber \\ & &
e^{\hat{a}} = E^{\hat{a}} + V^{\hat{a}}dt \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
For the above batch $M$ and $W^{\hat{a}}$ are respectively the kinematical “lapse" and “shift" associated with the local radial foliation. One should recall that in this analysis the crucial assumption is made that the leaves of the hypersurface foliation $\Sigma$ are orthogonal to $^{3}\!B$. From the canonical perspective this assumption requires that the component of $\vec{V}$ normal to $B$ must vanish [@BY]
$$\left.\vec{V} \cdot e_{\vdash} \right|_{^{3}\! B} =
0\, .\label{distinguishedgauge}$$
Therefore, one may set $V^{\vdash} = 0$ in the above collection for the remainder of this section. It follows that $e_{\vdash} =\, ^{_{2}}n = n$ is also the normal of $^{3}\! B$ in $M$.
At this point, in order to make a comparison with the Brown-York and boundary Ashtekar quasilocal expressions, an auxiliary assumption is made. [*It is assumed that the spacetime metric on the region surrounding $X$ determined by the distinguished tetrad*]{} (\[distinguishedframe\]) [*is Ricci flat*]{}. In other words, the metric
$$g = -\, e^{\bot} \otimes e^{\bot} + e^{\vdash} \otimes
e^{\vdash} + e^{\hat{1}} \otimes e^{\hat{1}} + e^{\hat{2}} \otimes
e^{\hat{2}}$$
is a solution of the vacuum Einstein equations. This requirement is enforced for the remainder of this (4.2) subsection, and hence most of the superfluous $c\ell$’s which should be present in the following formulas will be suppressed. Since this auxiliary assumption is made, the quasilocal expressions (\[epzero\]) and (\[jayzero\]) may be expressed in terms of the connection coefficients determined by (\[distinguishedframe\]). The extrinsic curvature of $B$ as embedded in $\Sigma$ is given by
$$k_{ij} = - \sigma_{i}\,^{k}\, D_{k}n_{j}\, ,$$
where the two-metric on $B$ is given in $\Sigma$ coordinates by $\sigma_{ij} = h_{ij} - n_{i}n_{j}$. Therefore, for an arbitrary orthonormal triad $\left\{ E_{\hat{r}} = e_{\hat{r}} |
\hat{r} = \hat{1},\hat{2},\hat{3}\right\}$ on $\Sigma$ the $S^{0} = 0$ quasilocal energy density (\[epzero\]) is expressed by
$$\varepsilon |_{_{0}} = - \frac{1}{\kappa}\left(
E_{\hat{r}}\left[ n^{\hat{r}}\right] +
n^{\hat{s}}\,\omega^{\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{s}\hat{r}}\right)\, .$$
However, when the triad on $\Sigma$ in the region near $B$ is determined by the pull back of (\[distinguishedframe\]), the orthonormal indices run over $(\vdash, \hat{1}, \hat{2})$. In this case the above equation allows one to write
$$\varepsilon |_{_{0}} = \left. -
\frac{1}{\kappa}\,\omega^{\hat{a}}\,_{\vdash\hat{a}} \right|_{c\ell}\,
.\label{connectionep}$$
The $c\ell$ notation is again adopted to emphasize the extra condition that $g$ is Ricci flat. Similarly, for an arbitrary triad on $\Sigma$ one can express the $S^{0} = 0$ quasilocal momentum density (\[jayzero\]) as
$$j_{b} |_{_{0}} = - \frac{1}{\kappa}\,
E^{\underline{\hat{r}}}\,_{b}\,n^{\underline{\hat{s}}}\,
\omega^{\bot}\,_{\underline{\hat{r}\hat{s}}} \, .$$
The last line above follows from (\[slicemomentum1\]) and the definition for the tetrad components of the extrinsic curvature $K^{\hat{r}\hat{s}}$ in the time gauge
$$K^{\hat{s}}\,_{\hat{r}} = \left\langle e^{\hat{s}}\,
,\, - \overline{\nabla}_{\hat{r}}\, e_{\bot}\right\rangle =
-\omega^{\hat{s}}\,_{\bot\hat{r}}\, . \label{excurvature}$$
Therefore, referring again to the distinguished frame (\[distinguishedframe\]) one casts the previous expression for the quasilocal momentum density into the form
$$j_{b} |_{_{0}} = \left. -
\frac{1}{\kappa}\,\beta^{\hat{a}}\,_{b}\,\omega^{\bot}\,_{\vdash\hat{a}}
\right|_{c\ell}\, . \label{connectionjay}$$
Again, the ${c\ell}$ notation has been reintroduced for emphasis.
The Sparling two-forms $\left\{ \sigma_{\bot}, \sigma_{\vdash},
\sigma_{\hat{a}}\right\}$ are built with the connection coefficients $\omega^{\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}\mu}$ determined by (\[distinguishedframe\]) using the definition (\[sigSparling\]). The $\sigma_{\bot}$ and $\sigma_{\hat{a}}$ two-forms are quickly related to the expressions (\[connectionep\]) and (\[connectionjay\]). The inclusion map of the spacetime region $X
\subset M$ under consideration is denoted by $s: X \rightarrow M$. This inclusion map is now used to pull back the Sparling two-forms $\sigma_{\bot}$ and $\sigma_{\hat{a}}$ onto $B$. For $\sigma_{\bot}$ one calculates that
$$\begin{aligned}
s^{*}\left( \sigma_{\bot}\right) & = & -\frac{1}{2}\,
\omega^{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}}\,_{\hat{\gamma}}\,\epsilon_{\bot
\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}\hat{\delta}}\,\, s^{*}\left( e^{\hat{\gamma}}
\wedge e^{\hat{\delta}}\right) \nonumber\\
& = & -
\frac{1}{2}\,\omega^{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}}\,_{\hat{a}}\,\epsilon_{\bot
\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}\hat{b}}\,\beta^{\hat{a}} \wedge
\beta^{\hat{b}} \\ & = & -\,\kappa\, \varepsilon
|_{_{0}}\,\sqrt{\sigma}d^{2}x\, . \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Similarly, one can pull back $\sigma_{\hat{a}}$ to discover that
$$s^{*}\left( \sigma_{\hat{a}}\right) =
\kappa\,\beta_{\hat{a}}\,^{b}\,j_{b} |_{_{0}}\,\sqrt{\sigma} d^{2}x\,
.$$
The previous considerations allow one to write the following compact expression:
$$-\,\frac{1}{\kappa}\,s^{*}\left(e^{\hat{r}}\,_{0}\,\sigma_{\hat{r}}\right)
= \left(N\,\varepsilon |_{_{0}} - V^{b}\,j_{b}
|_{_{0}}\right)\,\sqrt{\sigma}\,d^{2}x\, , \label{SparlingHam}$$
[*where one should note that the index*]{} $\hat{r}$ [*is a*]{} $^{3}\!B$ [*orthonormal index and hence runs over the values*]{} $(\bot, \hat{a} = \hat{1},\hat{2})$.
The path between the Sparling forms and the boundary Ashtekar variables is almost as direct. First one defines the [*self-dual*]{} and [*antiself-dual connection forms*]{} by
$$\omega^{(\pm)\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}} =
\frac{1}{2}\left(\omega^{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}} \mp
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\frac{i}{2}\epsilon^{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}\hat{\gamma}\hat{\delta}}\omega_{\hat{\gamma}\hat{\delta}}\right).
\label{sd/asdconnection}$$
These complex connection forms suggest the following complex Sparling superpotentials:
$$\sigma^{(\pm)}\,_{\hat{\alpha}} =
-\omega^{(\pm)\hat{\beta}\hat{\gamma}} \wedge
e^{\ast}_{\hat{\alpha}\hat{\beta}\hat{\gamma}}.
\label{sd/asdsigSparling}$$
For the distinguished gauge choice (\[distinguishedframe\]) an analysis which is very similar to the previous one yields that
$$\begin{aligned}
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
-\,\frac{1}{\kappa}\,s^{*}\left(e^{\hat{r}}\,_{0}\,\sigma^{(+)}\,_{\hat{r}}\right)
& = & \left\{ N\,\varepsilon |_{_{0}} - V^{b}\left(j_{b} |_{_{0}} -
\frac{i}{\kappa}\,\tau_{\hat{1}\hat{2}b}\right)\right\}\,\sqrt{\sigma}\,d^{2}x
\nonumber \\ & = & i\,\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{a}\,{\cal
A}^{\hat{r}}\,_{a}\,d^{2}x\, , \label{SparlingAshHam} \end{aligned}$$
[*where again the index*]{} $\hat{r}$ [*runs over the values*]{} $(\bot, \hat{a} = \hat{1},\hat{2})$.
Off-shell expressions
---------------------
Developments in the next section devoted to the microcanonical action require an additional remark concerning the Sparling forms. The special gauge choices (\[distinguishedframe\]) and (\[distinguishedgauge\]) may be enforced on spacetime region $X$ [*without*]{} requiring that the spacetime metric on $X$ is necessarily Ricci flat. In this more general case the following relations hold:
$$s^{*}\left(e^{\hat{r}}\,_{0}\,\sigma_{\hat{r}}\right)
= \left(N\, \omega^{\hat{a}}\,_{\vdash\hat{a}} -
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
V^{b}\,\beta^{\hat{a}}\,_{b}\,\omega^{\bot}\,_{\vdash\hat{a}}\right)\,\sqrt{\sigma}\,d^{2}x\,
, \label{SparlingGoldberg}$$
$$s^{*}\left(e^{\hat{r}}\,_{0}\,\sigma^{(+)}\,_{\hat{r}}\right) = \left\{
N\, \omega^{\hat{a}}\,_{\vdash\hat{a}} - V^{b}
\left(\beta^{\hat{a}}\,_{b}\,\omega^{\bot}\,_{\vdash\hat{a}} +
i\,\tau_{\hat{1}\hat{2}b}\right)\right\} \sqrt{\sigma} d^{2}x\, .
\label{complexSparlingGoldberg}$$
These expressions are the “off-shell" versions of (\[SparlingHam\]) and (\[SparlingAshHam\]).
Microcanonical action
=====================
The aim of this final section is to present two new expressions for the microcanonical action in spacetime covariant form. As mentioned in the last paragraph of the introductory section, the microcanonical action is employed in a path integral representation of the density of quantum states associated with the type of self-gravitating system under analysis.[@micro] The task of building these expressions requires the detailed analysis of two closely related tetrad action principles for general relativity. Before displaying the new forms for the microcanonical action, this section first discusses the construction and (3+1)-decomposition of both these actions. Goldberg has given a similar presentation before in a discussion of a covariant variational principle for the conventional Ashtekar variables.[@Goldberg] Since Goldberg’s discussion adopts different conventions for the fundamental definitions of (pseudo)Riemannian geometry than those given in this paper, a partial account of his work is presented here in a notation consistent with the previous sections. The first tetrad action, which is referred to as the Goldberg action, is shown to be equivalent in a definite sense to the action (\[BYaction1\]) presented in the preliminary section. The second tetrad action, referred to as the complex Goldberg action, differs from the first by a complex boundary term. Goldberg has demonstrated that the canonical analysis of this action leads naturally to the $\Sigma$ Ashtekar variables. It is shown that a careful treatment of the boundary terms associated with the complex Goldberg action suggests the subtraction term (\[bdsubterm\]) used for the introduction of the boundary Ashtekar variables.
Most of the assumptions about the spacetime region $M$ and notational conventions presented in the preliminary section of this work still hold. However, the special assumption (\[distinguishedgauge\]) that the leaves of the hypersurface foliation $\Sigma$ are orthogonal to $^{3}\!B$ is momentarily relaxed in the interest of generality. In addition, to begin with no special frame conditions are imposed on the spacetime tetrad. When necessary later, the foliation assumption and conditions on the tetrad are enforced. With regard to frame requirements, a few comments are in order. In the following discussion it is necessary to deal with spacetime tetrads which obey the time gauge and which reduce to the distinguished frame (\[distinguishedframe\]) on $^{3}\! B$. The global existence of such tetrads depends crucially on the topology of the generic slice $\Sigma$. In general, there exist no global sections of the orthonormal frame bundle which satisfy these two conditions simultaneously. Therefore, the specification of such a special frame on $M$ may require the use of multiple sections and transition functions. The subtleties involved with such an analysis are not relevant for the present discussion and are ignored here. Finally, in this last section the spacetime metric $g$ on $M$ is [*not*]{} assumed to satisfy the vacuum Einstein equations.
Construction of the Goldberg actions
------------------------------------
The machinery developed in the preceding section on Sparling forms allows the construction of the Goldberg first order tetrad action. A brief manipulation yields that $e^{\hat{\alpha}} \wedge \tau_{\hat{\alpha}} =
0$, where $\tau_{\hat{\alpha}}$ is given by (\[tauSparling\]). The next necessary ingredient is the following well known identity obeyed by the Einstein three-form:
$$-e^{\hat{\alpha}} \wedge
G_{\hat{\alpha}}\,^{\hat{\beta}}\,e^{*}_{\hat{\beta}} = \Re e^{\ast}\,
,$$
where $ e^{\ast} = e^{\bot} \wedge e^{\hat{1}} \wedge
e^{\hat{2}} \wedge e^{\hat{3}}$ is the volume form of $M$. With these facts, the fundamental relation (\[Sparlingrelation\]), and the first Cartan structure equation, one verifies that
$$\Re e^{\ast} = -e^{\hat{\alpha}} \wedge
d\sigma_{\hat{\alpha}} = \omega^{\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}} \wedge
e^{\hat{\beta}} \wedge \sigma_{\hat{\alpha}} + d\left(e^{\hat{\alpha}}
\wedge \sigma_{\hat{\alpha}}\right)\, .$$
The above expression leads one to examine the following frame-dependent first order action:
$$S\left[ e^{\hat{\alpha}}\right] =
\frac{1}{2\kappa}\int_{M}\omega^{\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}} \wedge
e^{\hat{\beta}} \wedge \sigma_{\hat{\alpha}}\, .
\label{Goldbergaction1}$$
This action is closely related to a first order action originally used by Einstein [@York], but it differs from the Einstein action by a tetrad expression which cannot be written in terms of the metric. The form of the Goldberg action (\[Goldbergaction1\]) is inherently frame-dependent. However, though the Goldberg Lagrangian does not transform as a gauge scalar with respect to transformations of frame, it is manifestly invariant under spacetime diffeomorphisms which leave the boundary fixed and preserve the boundary conditions, since it is expressed solely in the language of differential forms.[@DiffGeom]
The complex Goldberg tetrad action appropriate for the introduction of the slice Ashtekar variables is closely related to the Goldberg action. Remarkably, it turns out that
$$\Re e^{\ast} =
\omega^{(+)\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}} \wedge e^{\hat{\beta}} \wedge
\sigma^{(+)}\,_{\hat{\alpha}} + d\left(e^{\hat{\alpha}} \wedge
\sigma^{(+)}\,_{\hat{\alpha}}\right)\, ,$$
where $\omega^{(+)\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}}$ and the complex superpotential $\sigma^{(+)}\,_{\hat{\alpha}}$ are defined respectively by (\[sd/asdconnection\]) and (\[sd/asdsigSparling\]). An identical expression holds for the corresponding antiself-dual case. This result suggests the alternative action
$$S^{(+)}\left[ e^{\hat{\alpha}}\right]
= \frac{1}{2\kappa}\int_{M}\omega^{(+)\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}}
\wedge e^{\hat{\beta}} \wedge \sigma^{(+)}\,_{\hat{\alpha}}\, ,
\label{Goldbergaction2}$$
which differs from the Goldberg action (\[Goldbergaction1\]) by the addition of an imaginary pure divergence. Setting
$$S^{(+)} = S + \Delta S^{(+)}\, ,$$
one finds that the term appended to the Goldberg action (\[Goldbergaction1\]) is
$$\Delta S^{(+)} = \frac{1}{2\kappa}\int_{M}d\left\{
e^{\hat{\alpha}} \wedge \left( \sigma_{\hat{\alpha}} -
\sigma^{(+)}\,_{\hat{\alpha}}\right)\right\}\, . \label{deltaS1}$$
With the enforcement of the time gauge and the kinematical conditions (\[distinguishedframe\]) and (\[distinguishedgauge\]) on the three-boundary, an appeal to the generalized Stokes’ theorem yields that
$$\Delta S^{(+)} =
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
-\frac{i}{2\kappa}\int^{t''}_{t'}d^{3}x\,\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\omega_{\hat{s}\hat{t}
j}\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j} -
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\frac{i}{2\kappa}\int_{^{3}\!B}d^{3}x\,\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\tau_{\hat{s}\hat{t}
j}\tilde{\xi}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}\, . \label{deltaS2}$$
In the above formula $\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j} = det|E^{\hat{s}}\,_{k}|
E_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}$ and $\omega_{\hat{r}\hat{s}j}$ represent respectively the densitized triad and connection coefficients induced on either $t'$ or $t''$. Further properties of the slice triad and its associated connection coefficients are found below. Either the integral over $t'$ or the integral over $t''$ above may be viewed as the generating functional often employed in the passage to the conventional Ashtekar variables.[@tetradgrav] Later, the Goldberg action will be identified with the action (\[BYaction1\]) use by Brown and York. Therefore, the preceding formula also exhibits the origin of the subtraction term (\[bdsubterm\]) introduced earlier in order to pass to the boundary Ashtekar variables. This term arises because, subject to the gauge conditions (\[distinguishedframe\]) and (\[distinguishedgauge\]), the time gauge spacetime connection induces the intrinsic connection (\[bdconnection\]) on $^{3}\! B$. Also, in order to obtain the $^{3}\! B$ integral in (\[deltaS2\]), it should be noted that $\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}} = -
\epsilon^{\vdash\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t} }$.
(3+1)-form of the Goldberg action
---------------------------------
It is necessary to perform a (3+1)-decomposition of the Goldberg action in order to carefully examine its $^{3}\! B$ boundary terms. To facilitate this decomposition by removing superfluous gauge variables from the start, the time gauge condition is enforced and is retained for the remainder of this paper.[@tetradgrav] Again, the time leg of the tetrad $e_{\bot}$ coincides with the hypersurface normal of the foliation $\Sigma$. For the moment the kinematical conditions (\[distinguishedframe\]) and (\[distinguishedgauge\]) on $^{3}\! B$ are not enforced. It follows that both the tetrad and cotetrad can be expressed in terms of the orthonormal triads and cotriads on the $\Sigma$ slices by
$$\begin{aligned}
e_{\bot} = \frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial
t} - V^{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{j}}\right) & & e_{\hat{r}} =
E_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{j}} \nonumber \\ e^{\bot}
= Ndt\hspace{2.55cm} & & e^{\hat{r}} = E^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\left( dx^{j}
+ V^{k}dt\right)\, . \label{timetetrad} \end{aligned}$$
The lapse function $N$ and the shift vector field $\vec{V}$ are the kinematical pieces of the spacetime metric $g$. In coordinates adapted to the foliation $\Sigma$ the metric takes the following ADM form:
$$g_{\mu\nu}\, dx^{\mu} \otimes dx^{\nu} = - Ndt \otimes
Ndt + h_{ij}\left( dx^{i} + V^{i}dt\right) \otimes \left( dx^{j} +
V^{j}dt\right)\, .$$
Orthonormality implies that $\delta_{\hat{r}\hat{s}} =
h_{ij}\,E_{\hat{r}}\,^{i}\,E_{\hat{s}}\,^{j}$ where $\delta_{\hat{r}\hat{s}} = diag (1,1,1) = \delta^{\hat{r}\hat{s}}$, the slice metric $h_{ij}$ is related to the cotriad by $h_{ij} =
\delta_{\hat{r}\hat{s}}\,E^{\hat{r}}\,_{i}\,E^{\hat{s}}\,_{j}$, and $\sqrt{h} = (E) = det|E^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}|$.
The (3+1)-decomposition of the Goldberg action is achieved by first discerning the appropriate expressions for the connection coefficients determined by (\[timetetrad\]) and then expanding the action in terms of these expressions. Appealing to (\[notorsion\]), one calculates the following batch of connection coefficients:
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \omega^{\bot}\,_{\hat{s}\bot} = E_{\hat{s}}\left[\log N\right]
\nonumber \\ & & \omega^{\bot}\,_{\hat{r}\hat{s}} =
-\frac{1}{N}\left(
h_{ij}\,E_{(\hat{r}}\,^{i}\,\dot{E}_{\hat{s})}\,^{j} +
\overline{D}_{(\hat{s}}V_{\hat{r})}\right) \label{sliceconnection}
\\ & & \omega^{\hat{t}}\,_{\hat{r}\hat{s}} =
E_{\hat{s}}\,^{j}E^{\hat{t}}\,_{i}\left(
D_{j}E_{\hat{r}}\,^{i}\right) \nonumber \\ & &
\omega_{\hat{r}\hat{s}\bot} = \frac{1}{N}\left( h_{ij}\,E_{[\hat
{r}}\,^{i}\,\dot{E}_{\hat{s} ]}\,^{j} + \overline{D}_{[\hat
{s}}V_{\hat{r} ]} -
V^{\hat{t}}\omega_{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\right)\, . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Again, the dot denotes partial time differentiation. Expanding the Goldberg action (\[Goldbergaction1\]) in terms of these coefficients, one arrives at
$$\begin{aligned}
& S & = -\frac{1}{2\kappa}\int_{M}d^{4}x\,N(E)\left(
\omega^{\bot}\,_{\hat{r}\hat{s}}\,\omega_{\bot}\,^{\hat{s}\hat{r}} -
\omega_{\bot}\,^{\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{r}}\,\omega^{\bot\hat{s}}\,_{\hat{s}}
\right. \nonumber \\ & & \left. \hspace{2cm} - 2
\omega_{\hat{r}}\,^{\bot}\,_{\bot}\,
\omega^{\hat{r}\hat{s}}\,_{\hat{s}} +
\omega^{\hat{t}}\,_{\hat{r}\hat{s}}\,\omega^{\hat{s}\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{t}}
-
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\omega_{\hat{t}}\,^{\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{r}}\,\omega^{\hat{t}\hat{s}}\,_{\hat{s}}\right)\,
. \label{Goldbergaction3} \end{aligned}$$
In anticipation of working with the Ashtekar variables in the canonical form of the theory, the densitized triad $\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j} =
(E)E_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}$ is chosen as the configuration space variable. With this choice of configuration space variable the next step is to calculate $\partial \tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}/ \partial t$. One accomplishes this task by using the identity
$$\delta E_{\hat{r}}\,^{j} = (E)^{-1}\left(
\delta^{\hat{s}}_{\hat{r}} \,\delta^{j}_{k} -
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\frac{1}{2}E^{\hat{s}}\,_{k}E_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}\right)\delta\tilde{E}_{\hat{s}}\,^{k}
\label{yuck}$$
in tandem with the explicit form of the time gauge connection coefficients. A brief manipulation yields
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j} / \partial t & = &
N(E) E^{\hat{s}j}\left( \omega_{\bot\hat{s}\hat{r}} +
\omega_{\hat{s}\hat{r}\bot} -
\delta_{\hat{s}\hat{r}}\,\omega_{\bot}\,^{\hat{t}}\,_{\hat{t}}\right)
\nonumber \\
& & +\, (E) E^{\hat{s}j} \left(
V^{\hat{t}}\,\omega_{\hat{s}\hat{r}\hat{t}} +
\delta_{\hat{s}\hat{r}}\,\overline{D}_{\hat{t}}V^{\hat{t}} -
\overline{D}_{\hat{r}}V_{\hat{s}}\right)\, . \label{Edot}\end{aligned}$$
Armed with the above equation and the expression for the slice Ricci scalar $R$ in terms of the slice connection coefficients $\omega_{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}$, one finds after some calculation that the action (\[Goldbergaction3\]) takes the following form:
$$\begin{aligned}
S & = & \int_{M}d^{4}x\,\left( \frac{1}{\kappa}\,
K^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\,\frac{\partial\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}}{\partial t}
-N {\cal H} - V^{j} {\cal H}_{j}\right) \nonumber \\
& & - \int_{^{3}\! B}d^{3}x\,\frac{1}{\kappa}\,\,
^{_{2}}n_{i}\left\{
N\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{i}\,\omega^{\hat{r}\hat{s}}\,_{\hat{s}} +
V^{j}\left(
\delta^{i}_{j}\,K^{\hat{r}}\,_{k}\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{k} - K
^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{i}\right)\right\}\, ,
\label{(3+1)action1} \end{aligned}$$
where $^{_{2}}n$ is the unit normal of $B$ in $\Sigma$. In the equation above
$$K^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}= -\omega^{\bot\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{s}}\,
E^{\hat{s}}\,_{j}\, .\label{hybridexcurv}$$
The time gauge definition of the extrinsic curvature (\[excurvature\]) establishes that $K^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}$ is the hybrid extrinsic curvature $K^{\hat{r}}\,_{\hat{s}}\, E^{\hat{s}}\,_{j}$. Inspection of the formula for $\omega^{\bot}\,_{\hat{r}\hat{s}}$ (\[sliceconnection\]) shows that the above hybrid extrinsic curvature is a complicated expression built from $N, V^{j}, \tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}$, and $\partial \tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}/ \partial t$. Also, in the above equation ${\cal H}$ and ${\cal H}_{j}$ are given by
$${\cal H} = \frac{1}{2\kappa(E)}\left(
K^{\hat{r}}\,_{i}\,K^{\hat{s}}\,_{j} -
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
K^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\,K^{\hat{s}}\,_{i}\right)\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}\tilde{E}_{\hat{s}}\,^{i}
-\frac{(E)}{2\kappa}\, R \label{scalar}$$
$${\cal H}_{j} = \frac{1}{\kappa}\, D_{k}\left(
K^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{k} -
\delta^{k}_{j}\,K^{\hat{r}}\,_{i}\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{i}\right)\, .
\label{vector}$$
From the appearance of the $\Sigma$ connection coefficient in the (3+1)-form of the action (\[(3+1)action1\]), it is evident that the choice of the time gauge does not fully remove the frame-ambiguity associated with the Goldberg action (\[Goldbergaction1\]). However, the residual frame-dependence has been swept into a three-boundary term. To remove this left-over ambiguity, one specifies the tetrad on $^{3}\! B$. Implementation of the kinematical conditions (\[distinguishedframe\]) and (\[distinguishedgauge\]) allows the (3+1)-form of the Goldberg action to be expressed as
$$\begin{aligned}
S & = & \int_{M}d^{4}x\,\left( \frac{1}{\kappa}\,
K^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\,\frac{\partial\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}}{\partial t}
-N {\cal H} - V^{j} {\cal H}_{j}\right) \nonumber \\
& & + \,\frac{1}{\kappa} \int_{^{3}\! B} dt\, e^{\hat{r}}\,_{0}\,
\sigma_{\hat{r}}\,\, . \label{(3+1)action2} \end{aligned}$$
The above result is obtained by appealing to the “off-shell" expression (\[SparlingGoldberg\]). One should note that this is [*not*]{} a canonical action since $K^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}$ is just a short-hand expression (\[hybridexcurv\]). This is the action obtained by directly “translating" the canonical form of the action (\[BYaction1\]) presented by Brown and York [@BY] into the language of densitized triads. The details of this prescription are given below in a similar “translation" of the microcanonical action.
(3+1)-form of the complex Goldberg action
-----------------------------------------
In order to obtain the appropriate (3+1)-form of the complex Goldberg action, it suffices to carefully examine the (3+1)-decomposition of the boundary term (\[deltaS1\]) and discern its effect on the previous result for the chosen (3+1)-form of the Goldberg action. Using the no torsion condition (\[notorsion\]), one quickly demonstrates that $d\sigma^{(+)}\,_{\hat{\alpha}} = d\sigma_{\hat{\alpha}}$. This result along with another appeal to the no torsion condition allows $\Delta
S^{(+)}$ to be written as follows:
$$\Delta S^{(+)} =
\frac{1}{2\kappa}\int_{M}\omega^{\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}} \wedge
e^{\hat{\beta}} \wedge \left( \sigma^{(+)}\,_{\hat{\alpha}} -
\sigma_{\hat{\alpha}}\right)\, .$$
Extensive manipulation of the previous expression which involves the gymnastics of $\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}$ identities allows one to verify that
$$\Delta S^{(+)} = \frac{i}{2\kappa}\int_{M}d^{4}x\,
N(E)\,\epsilon^{\bot\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,
\omega_{\hat{r}\hat{s}}\,^{\hat{p}}\left( \omega_{\bot\hat{p}\hat{t}} +
\omega_{\hat{p}\hat{t}\bot} - \delta_{\hat{t}\hat{p}}\,
\omega_{\bot}\,^{\hat{m}}\,_{\hat{m}}\right)\, .$$
After a long calculation which employs the relation (\[Edot\]) and the algebraic Bianchi identity $R^{\hat{p}}\,_{[\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}]} =
0$ expressed in terms of the slice connection coefficients, one finds that the above equation can be rewritten as
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta S^{(+)} & = &
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\frac{i}{2\kappa}\int_{M}d^{4}x\,\epsilon^{\bot\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\omega_{\hat{r}\hat{s}j}\,\frac{\partial\tilde{E}_{\hat{t}}\,^{j}}{\partial
t} \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{i}{2\kappa}\int_{^{3}\! B}d^{3}x\,\, ^{_{2}}n_{j}\left(
\epsilon^{\bot\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,
\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}\,\omega_{\hat{s}\hat{t}k}\,V^{k} -
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
(E)\,\epsilon^{\bot\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\omega_{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,V^{j}\right)\,
. \label{yuck2} \end{aligned}$$
Appending the preceding term to the (3+1)-form of the Goldberg action (\[(3+1)action1\]), one discovers that in the leading “pq" term of the complex Goldberg action the “momentum" is
$$\frac{1}{\kappa}\, K_{_{NEW}}\,^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} =
\frac{1}{\kappa}\left( K^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} +
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\frac{i}{2}\,\epsilon^{\bot\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\omega_{\hat{s}\hat{t}j}\right)
\, . \label{hybridexcurv2}$$
Defining $\omega^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} =
\frac{1}{2}\,\epsilon^{\bot\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\omega_{\hat{s}\hat{t}j}
=
-\frac{1}{2}\,\epsilon^{\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\omega_{\hat{s}\hat{t}j}$, one introduces the triad version of the [*Sen connection*]{} on $\Sigma$ as
$$A^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} := -iK_{_{NEW}}\,^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}
= \omega^{\hat{r}}\,_{j} - i K^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\, .
\label{Senconnection}$$
The Sen connection is [*not*]{} the Ashtekar connection which is a canonical variable. The Sen connection is the pull back of a complexified $SO(3)$ connection on the bundle of orthonormal frames over $\Sigma$, and its properties are well known.[@Ashtekar1; @Sen]
If one enforces the gauge choices (\[distinguishedframe\]) and (\[distinguishedgauge\]), then the expression (\[yuck2\]) becomes
$$\Delta S^{(+)} =
%% FOLLOWING LINE CANNOT BE BROKEN BEFORE 80 CHAR
\frac{i}{2\kappa}\int_{M}d^{4}x\,\epsilon^{\bot\hat{r}\hat{s}\hat{t}}\,\omega_{\hat{r}\hat{s}j}\,\frac{\partial\tilde{E}_{\hat{t}}\,^{j}}{\partial
t} - \frac{i}{\kappa}\int_{^{3}\! B}d^{3}x\,
\sqrt{\sigma}\,\tau_{\hat{1}\hat{2} b}\, V^{b}\, . \label{yuck3}$$
Appending the above term to the special (3+1)-form of the Goldberg action (\[(3+1)action2\]), one discovers that the (3+1)-form of the complex Goldberg action is
$$\begin{aligned}
S^{(+)} & = & \int_{M}d^{4}x\,\left(
\frac{1}{\kappa}\,
K_{_{NEW}}\,^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\,\frac{\partial\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}}{\partial
t} -N {\cal H} - V^{j} {\cal H}_{j}\right) \nonumber \\
& & + \,\frac{1}{\kappa} \int_{^{3}\! B} dt\, e^{\hat{r}}\,_{0}\,
\sigma^{(+)}\,_{\hat{r}}\,\, . \label{(3+1)action3} \end{aligned}$$
The above result follows from the “off-shell" relation (\[complexSparlingGoldberg\]).
Tetrad expressions for the microcanonical action
------------------------------------------------
The necessary machinery is now in place to present the new expressions for the Brown-York microcanonical action in spacetime covariant form. The microcanonical action is given in canonical form by [@micro]
$$S_{mic} = \int_{M}d^{4}x\,\left(
p^{ij}\,\frac{\partial h_{ij}}{\partial t} -N {\cal H} - V^{j} {\cal
H}_{j}\right)\, . \label{microaction1A}$$
In terms of the conventional ADM variables the scalar and vector constraints take the form
$${\cal H} = \frac{2\kappa}{\sqrt{h}} \left\{ p^{ij}\,
p_{ij} - \frac{1}{2}\, (p^{i}\,_{i})^{2}\right\} -
\frac{\sqrt{h}}{2\kappa} R \label{ADMscalar}$$
$${\cal H}_{j} = - 2 D_{i}\, p^{i}\,_{j}\, .
\label{ADMvector}$$
As described in [@micro], in the variational principle associated with the above action (\[microaction1A\]) the quantities $\sqrt{\sigma}\,\varepsilon$, $\sqrt{\sigma}\, j_{b}$, and $\sigma_{ab}$ are fixed on $^{3}\! B$. One can translate the above formula for the microcanonical action directly into the language of densitized triads. First, the ADM $p^{ij}$ is demoted to an expression depending on $N, V^{i}, h_{ij}$, and $\partial\, h_{ij}/\partial t$. This is achieved by using equation (\[slicemomentum1\]) and considering the extrinsic curvature to be given by the standard formula
$$K_{ij} = \frac{1}{2N}\left( - \frac{\partial
h_{ij}}{\partial t} + D_{j}\, V_{i} + D_{i}\, V_{j}\right)\, ,$$
which holds for coordinates adapted to the foliation. Next, one employs the identity
$$\frac{\partial
h_{ij}}{\partial\tilde{E}_{\hat{s}}\,^{k}} = (E)^{-1}\left(
E^{\hat{s}}\,_{k}h_{ij} - E^{\hat{s}}\,_{i}h_{kj} -
E^{\hat{s}}\,_{j}h_{ki}\right)$$
and considers $h_{ij}$ to be a secondary quantity derived from $\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}$. This prescription yields the following action:
$$S'_{mic} = \int_{M}d^{4}x\,\left( \frac{1}{\kappa}\,
K^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}\,\frac{\partial\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}}{\partial t}
-N {\cal H} - V^{j} {\cal H}_{j}\right)\, , \label{microaction1B}$$
where now the constraints are given by (\[scalar\]) and (\[vector\]). In the above equation $K^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}$ depends upon $N, V^{j}, \tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}$, and $\partial
\tilde{E}_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}/ \partial t$. The preceding action is [*not*]{} in canonical form.
Subject to the distinguished gauge conditions (\[distinguishedframe\]) and (\[distinguishedgauge\]), the chosen (3+1)-form of the Goldberg action (\[(3+1)action2\]) suggests that the Brown-York microcanonical action may be expressed in the following spacetime covariant form:
$$S'_{mic} =
\frac{1}{2\kappa}\int_{M}\omega^{\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}} \wedge
e^{\hat{\beta}} \wedge \sigma_{\hat{\alpha}} -
\frac{1}{\kappa}\int_{^{3}\! B}\,\! ^{\bot}e^{\hat{r}} \wedge
\sigma_{\hat{r}}\, , \label{microaction2}$$
where $^{\bot}
e^{\hat{r}} := \left\langle e^{\hat{r}}\, ,\partial/\partial
t\right\rangle\,dt$ and $r$ is a $^{3}\! B$ index taking the values $(\bot\, , \hat{a})$. Also subject to the same restrictions, the considerations regarding the complex Goldberg action suggest the following closely related expression for the microcanonical action in spacetime covariant form:
$$S''_{mic}
= \frac{1}{2\kappa}\int_{M}\omega^{(+)\hat{\alpha}}\,_{\hat{\beta}}
\wedge e^{\hat{\beta}} \wedge \sigma^{(+)}\,_{\hat{\alpha}} -
\frac{1}{\kappa}\int_{^{3}\! B}\,\! ^{\bot}e^{\hat{r}} \wedge
\sigma^{(+)}\,_{\hat{r}}\, . \label{microaction3}$$
One should note the equivalence of the actions (\[microaction1B\]) and (\[microaction2\]). However, the action (\[microaction3\]) possesses a slight modification. Namely, after being cast into (3+1)-form, the “momentum" (\[hybridexcurv2\]) in its leading “pq" term has a complex piece. Since both of the covariant tetrad versions of the microcanonical action are written solely in the language of differential forms, they are manifestly invariant under spacetime diffeomorphisms which leave the boundary fixed and preserve the boundary conditions.[@DiffGeom] In addition, they are also invariant under transformations of tetrad which preserve the time gauge and the distinguished frame (\[distinguishedframe\]) on $^{3}\! B$. Such frame transformations are local $SO(3)$ rotations of the triad on the $\Sigma$ slices which on the $B$ slices become just local $SO(2)$ rotations of the dyad.
Acknowledgments
===============
I thank J. D. Brown, L. Dolan, and J. W. York for valuable insights and helpful discussions. I am particularly indebted to J. D. Brown, J. Kusnet, and J. W. York for proofreading this manuscript. Research support was received from the National Science Foundation, grant number PHY-8908741.
[99]{}
J. W. York, Phys. Rev. [**D33**]{}, 2092 (1986); H. W. Braden, B. F. Whiting, and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. [**D36**]{}, 3614 (1987); B. F. Whiting and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 1336 (1988); J. W. York, Physica [**A158**]{}, 425 (1989); J. D. Brown, G. L. Comer, E. A. Martinez, J. Melmed, B. F. Whiting, and J. W. York, Class. Quantum Grav. [**7**]{}, 1433 (1990); H. W. Braden, J. D. Brown, B. F. Whiting, and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. [**D42**]{}, 3376 (1990); J. W. York in [*Conceptual Problems of Quantum Gravity*]{}, edited by A. Ashtekar and J. Stachel (Birkhäuser, Boston, 1991); J. D. Brown, E. A. Martinez, and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 2281 (1991).
J. D. Brown and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{}, 1407 (1993).
J. D. Brown and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{}, 1420 (1993).
J. W. York, Found. Phys. [**16**]{}, 249 (1986).
A. Ashtekar, [*Lectures on Non-perturbative Canonical Gravity*]{} (World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore, 1991).
J. D. Brown, unpublished notes on triad gravity.
M. Henneaux, J.E. Nelson, and C. Schomblond, Phys. Rev. [**D39**]{}, 434 (1989).
A. Sen, J. Math. Phys. [**22**]{}, 1781 (1981).
M. Göckeler and T. Schücker, [*Differential Geometry, Gauge Theories, and Gravity*]{} (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1987).
M. Dubois-Violette and J. Madore, Commun. Math. Phys. [**108**]{}, 213 (1987).
C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, [*Gravitation*]{} (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).
J. N. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. [**D37**]{}, 2116 (1988).
------------- ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------
spacetime hypersurface three-boundary two-boundary
$M$ $\Sigma$ embedded $^{3}\! B$ embedded $B$ embedded
in $M$ in $M$ in $\Sigma$
unit
normal $u$ $n$ $^{_{2}} n = n$
metric $g_{\mu\sigma}$ $h_{ij}$ $\gamma_{ij}$ $\sigma_{ab}$
orthonormal
frame $e_{\hat{\alpha}} = $E_{\hat{r}} = $\xi_{\hat{r}} = $\beta_{\hat{a}} =
e_{\hat{\alpha}}\,^{\mu}\,\partial_{\mu}$ E_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}\,\partial_{j}$ \xi_{\hat{r}}\,^{j}\,\partial_{j}$ \beta_{\hat{a}}\,^{b}\,\partial_{b}$
ADM
momentum $p^{ij}$ $\pi^{ij}$
densitized
triad $\Pi^{\hat{r}}\,_{j}$
momentum
coordinate
covariant $\nabla_{\mu}$ $D_{j}$ ${\cal D}_{j}$ $^{2}\nabla_{b}$
derivative
orthonormal
covariant ${\overline{\nabla}}_{\mu}$ ${\overline{D}}_{j}$ ${\overline{{\cal D}}}_{j}$ $^{2}{\overline{\nabla}}_{b}$
derivative
intrinsic
curvature $\Re_{\mu\nu\sigma\lambda}$ $R_{ijkl}$ ${\cal R}_{ijkl}$
extrinsic
curvature $K_{ij}$ $\Theta_{ij}$ $k_{ab}$
------------- ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------
\
[**Conventions Table**]{}
Some spaces above have been left blank because they are either not applicable or not needed. The symbol $\Re$ is used for the Riemann tensor on $M$ and is not a tensor density. The unit normal for $^{3}\!
B$ embedded in $M$ is also the unit normal for B embedded in $\Sigma$ by virtue of the condition that $\left( u \cdot n \right) = 0$ on $^{3}\! B$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Recent publications claim that there is no convincing evidence for measurements of the baryonic acoustic (BAO) feature in galaxy samples using either monopole or radial information. Different claims seem contradictory: data is either not consistent with the BAO model or data is consistent with both the BAO model and featureless models without BAO. We investigate this point with a set of 216 realistic mock galaxy catalogs extracted from MICE7680, one of the largest volume dark matter simulation run to date, with a volume of 1300 cubical gigaparsecs. Our mocks cover similar volume, densities and bias as the real galaxies and provide 216 realizations of the Lambda or $\omega=-1$ Cold Dark Matter ($\omega$CDM) BAO model. We find that only $20\%$ of the mocks show a statistically significant (3 sigma) preference for the true (input) $\omega$CDM BAO model as compared to a featureless (non-physical) model without BAO. Thus the volume of current galaxy samples is not yet large enough to claim that the BAO feature has been detected. Does this mean that we can not locate the BAO position? Using a simple (non optimal) algorithm we show that in 50% (100%) of the mocks we can find the BAO position within 5% (20%) of the true value. These two findings are not in contradiction: the former is about model selection, the later is about parameter fitting within a model. We conclude that current monopole and radial BAO measurements can be used as standard rulers if we assume $\omega$CDM type of models.'
author:
- |
Anna Cabré$^1$, Enrique Gaztañaga$^2$\
$^1$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, 209, South 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6396, USA\
$^2$Instituto de Ciencias del Espacio (IEEC/CSIC), F. de Ciencias, Torre C5- Par-2a, Bellaterra, 08193 Barcelona, Spain.\
date: 'Accepted —. Received —;in original form —'
title: 'Have Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations in the galaxy distribution really been measured?'
---
galaxies: statistics, cosmology: theory, large-scale structure.
Introduction
============
Primordial fluctuations generated acoustic waves in the early universe photon-baryon plasma. Those waves were frozen at decoupling, $z\sim1100$, then baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) were imprinted in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at the sound horizon scale, as a series of peaks in the power spectrum or a single peak in the 2-point correlation function (see eg Peebles and Yu, 1970 and Komatsu et al 2010 for the latest measurements by WMAP). BAO can also be seen at the present in matter power spectrum, and its position, $r_{BAO}$ can be used as a standard cosmological ruler. Measurements in the radial (redshift direction), $\Delta z$, can be used to estimate the Hubble rate as $H(z) =c\Delta z/ r_{BAO}$, while angular measurements, $\Delta \theta$, can be used to estimate the angular diameter distance: $D_A(z) =r_{BAO}/ \Delta \theta$. Baryon acoustic oscillations in the galaxy correlations of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) luminous red galaxy (LRG) sample have been used to constrain cosmological parameters (eg Eisenstein et al 2005, Hutsi et al 2006, Sanchez et al 2009, Percival et al 2010, Reid et al 2010, Kazin et al 2010a and references therein). Different studies use different ways to extract the BAO signal and quantify the significance of the measurements (see Sanchez et al 2008). For example, Eisenstein et al 2005 and Sanchez et al 2009 used the full shape of the 2-point correlation to $\omega$CDM class of models and found constraints to the combination distance $D_v(z)=(D_A^2/H)^{1/3}$ to the galaxy sample mean redshift based on a global $\chi^2$ fitting, while Percival et al 2010 used a fit to the oscillatory components in the power spectrum to find constraints on $D_v(z)$.
These previous analysis used the monopole component of the correlation function, where all pairs are averaged with independence of their orientation. Okumura et al 2008 did a separate analysis of pairs as a function of orientation but avoiding the radial direction. Gaztanaga, Cabré and Hui (2009, GCH hereafter) presented constraints to $H(z)$ based on the radial correlation, which uses only those pairs aligned with the redshift direction. This reduces the number of observational data but boost the contrast on the BAO peak because of redshift space distortions. At intermediate scales, lower than BAO, the correlation function becomes negative in the line-of-sight direction, creating a better contrast in the BAO position, easier to detect than in real space. Also, non-linearities, magnification and bias can boost the peak (see GCH and Tian et al 2010 for further details). GCH presented two ways to analyze the BAO data: the peak and the shape method. In the peak method they find the location of the peak and use it as standard ruler to measure $H(z)$. In the shape method they use a $\chi^2$ fit to the full shape of the correlation and find the best shift in the distance $H(z)/H_0$. The shape method was also used to test if the data was compatible with the shape of the correlation expected in $\omega$CDM. They compare different classes of models: the standard BAO $\omega$CDM model, a similar class of models without BAO (so called no-wiggle model in Eisenstein & Hu 1998) and a model with zero correlation $\xi=0$. The no-BAO model has $\Delta \chi^2=10$ with respect to the best fitting $\omega$CDM model while a model with $\xi=0$ has $\Delta \chi^2=4$. Kazin et al (2010b) did an independent analysis of the SDSS catalog and found similar results for the correlation measurements and errors. In their interpretation they did not explore the parameter space of $\omega$CDM but conclude that there is no convincing evidence for radial BAO because the $\xi=0$ model fit the data better than $\omega$CDM. They argue that there are no parameters in the $\xi=0$ model while for $\omega$CDM several parameters where fitted in GCH. After including the penalty for adding parameters, they find that $\omega$CDM is not significantly better than $\xi=0$.
But a similar argument could be extended to the BAO monopole measurements. For example, if one fits a constant correlation to the LRG correlation function in Fig.17 of Sanchez etal (2009) to scales larger than 70 Mpc/h one finds that this model can not be distinguished from a $\omega$CDM model with free parameters. The original Eisenstein etal (2005) results can also be well fitted with a power-law model$^1$. Does this mean that the BAO feature has not been detected at all? These are important points to clarify as it is common practice to include BAO measurements when fitting cosmological models to provide evidence for dark energy models (eg Sanchez et al 2009; Komatsu et al 2010; Kazin et al 2010a; Gaztanaga, Miquel & Sanchez 2009).
Other recent studies seem to reach a similar conclusion, that the BAO feature has not been detected, but using an argument that seems to go in the opposite direction. Rather than finding that data is too noisy and compatible with featureless models, they find that the data is not consistent with $\omega$CDM (eg see Labini et al 2009, Labatie et al 2010). Also see Martinez et al 2009 for a study of peak detection using DR7 monopole. We will investigate this here to find, as in previous analysis (eg GCH, Sanchez et al 2009, Kazin et al 2010a) that data is in good agreement with $\omega$CDM although we should stress that this statement will depend on the specific test we use.
We will argue that there are two separate questions mixed up in the above line of argumentation: model selection and parameter fitting. We will find that while current data can not be used to select $\omega$CDM, one can still constrain the parameters of $\omega$CDM if this model is assumed. To show this, we will set out to address two main questions: 1) can we use current BAO data to favor $\omega$CDM? In other words: is the volume of current data large enough to pass a null detection test to choose $\omega$CDM over some other model? 2) can we constrain the parameters of the $\omega$CDM model, and in particular the BAO position with current data?
We will investigate these points with a set of 216 mock galaxy catalogs extracted from MICE7680 (see Fosalba et al 2008, Crocce et al 2009), one of the largest volume dark matter simulation run to date. The mocks are made to match the SDSS LRG DR6 sample and should therefore provide a good representation of biased $\omega$CDM realizations. We will use these mocks to explore the peak and the shape method applied to the monopole. We use the monopole here (rather than radial BAO) for several reasons: shape measurements have larger signal-to-noise, theoretical modeling of monopole is better understood (see GCH) and the monopole BAO has been more widely used to test cosmological models. Rather than comparing the $\omega$CDM with some add-hoc correlation (power-law, constant or some combination) we choose to focus on comparing BAO and no-BAO models. This has the advantage of being a well defined procedure (quite standard in the literature) where we have the same number of parameters in each case, which simplifies the interpretation of the statistical significance when comparing two different models with different number of parameters (eg see Liddle 2009).
Throughout we assume a standard cosmological model, with $\Omega_{\rm M}=0.25$,$\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.75$, $\Omega_{\rm b}=0.044$, $n_s=0.95$, $\sigma_8=0.8$ and $h\equiv H_{0}/(100\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}{\rm Mpc}^{-1})=0.7$.
BAO in galaxy mocks
===================
Appendix A in Cabré & Gaztanaga 2009 (CG09 from now on) describes how our mocks were built and also how the correlation function is estimated.$^1$ We include both bias and redshift distortions in the mocks. We will focus here on the monopole correlation for halo z=0 mocks with a bias $b\simeq 2$, similar to LRG galaxies. The correlation function for our 216 mocks, its mean and errors are displayed in Fig.\[fig:correlation\]. These mocks are realistic as they cover similar volume, densities and bias as the real LRG galaxies, but they have some limitations. In general, one needs first to explore the parameters in $\omega$CDM (and bias model) to get a good match to data. Our simulations have $\beta\equiv
f(\Omega_m)/b \simeq 0.25$ and $z=0$, which are different from the values in real data $\beta \simeq 0.34 \pm 0.03$ and $z=0.35$ (the difference in $\beta$ comes from the difference in redshift, as bias is similar, see CG09). Depending on the test used, this could result in a poor fit of models to data. Despite these limitations, we will find below a good fit of data to the mocks when we allow the amplitude to vary in the fit. This indicates that our mocks provide a good representation of the data, given the errors, at least for the questions we want to address here.
![Thin (black) lines show the correlation function $\xi(r)$ (scaled by $r^2$) in each of our 216 mocks. Solid (green) line shows the BAO model (the mean of the mocks). Short dashed (green) lines encompass 1-sigma errorbars from the mean (these are mock to mock errors, the error of the mean would be $1/\sqrt{216}$ better). Long dashed (blue) line shows the no-BAO model. The (red) errorbars correspond to the real LRG data shifted as shown in Eq.\[eq:scale\].[]{data-label="fig:correlation"}](figs/xi2plot.pdf){width="80mm"}
In our analysis we will pretend that each mock is a realization of the real LRG data. Our mocks are close enough to the real data to provide a realistic representation of how much variation there is from one realization of real data to the other. Indeed the jack-knife (JK) errors (and covariance matrix) in the real data are similar to the JK errors in our mocks and to the ensemble variation from mock to mock. This was shown in CG09 and can also be seen in Fig.\[fig:correlation\] where we compare the ensemble variation in mocks (short dashed lines) to the JK errors in the DR6 SDSS LRG measurements from CG09 (note that we show DR6 to be consistent with the mocks, but similar results are found for DR7, see GCH). To compare to simulations we have scaled the LRG data as: $$\xi(r) \rightarrow A \left[\xi(r) +K \right]
\label{eq:scale}$$ with $A=1.2$ and $K=-0.005$. The value of $A$ accounts for the differences between the simulation and LRG data in $\beta$, growth and bias. The value of $K$ represents a possible, but quite minor ($0.25\%$), error (contamination or sampling fluctuation) in the overall mean density of the sample. This has little impact in the fit of models to data (covariance allows for a constant shift in the data) but improves the visual comparison in the figure (see Fig.17 in Sanchez et al 2009). As indicated by Fig.\[fig:correlation\] the mocks represent quite well the variation seen in the observational data.
The shape method: null test
---------------------------
We use two models to fit the correlation $\xi(r)$: 1) [*the BAO model*]{}: it uses the mean of all the mocks in order to have a perfect BAO model (with bias, redshift space and non-linearities effects included). 2) [*the no-BAO model*]{}: a non-physical model that imitates well the broad band correlation but does not include a BAO peak. We use the no-wiggle power spectrum of Eisenstein& Hu (2001) with same $\omega$CDM parameters as the simulation. Fig.\[fig:correlation\] compares the BAO (solid line) with the no-BAO model (long-dashed line). Our null test is: does the data prefer the BAO to the no-BAO model at 3-sigma confidence level (CL)?
To simplify the analysis and interpretation, the only free parameter that we fit is the global amplitude $A$ of the correlation, which includes a possible bias (as we are using halos) and a constant redshift distortion boost (Kaiser 1987). We use the correlation function $\xi_i(r_j)$ measured in the $i$-th mock at separation $r_j$ to perform a $\chi^2$ fit and find the best fit amplitude $A_i$ for either BAO or no-BAO models (which are labeled generically as $\xi_m$): $$\chi^2_i = \sum_{jk} \left[\xi_i(r_j)-A_i \xi_{m}(r_j)\right]
C_{jk}^{-1}
\left[ \xi_i(r_k)-A_i\xi_{m}(r_k) \right]$$ The indexes $j$ and $k$ run over the $N_b=20$ bin separations, ie $\nu=19$ degrees of freedom. Bins are linearly spaced with $\Delta r=5$ Mpc/h between 30 and 130 Mpc/h (we find similar results in the range 20-150 Mpc/h). The covariance matrix $C_{jk}$ is estimated from the mocks: $$C_{jk}= {1\over{215}} \sum_{i=1}^{216} \left[\xi_i(r_j)- \bar{\xi}(r_j)\right]
\left[\xi_i(r_k)- \bar{\xi}(r_k)\right]$$ where $\bar{\xi}(r_j) \equiv {1\over{216}} \sum_i \xi_i(r_j)$ is the mean value in bin $j$.
![ Histograms showing the distribution of differences in $\chi^2$ values for different LRG mocks. The correlation function in each mock is fitted with both the standard $\omega$CDM BAO correlation and with the no-BAO class of models. The difference between the two $\chi^2$ values in each mock is accumulated in the histogram. There are $N_b=20$ data bins in each fit, but only one parameter is fitted (the overall amplitude). The figure shows that only $20\%$ of the cases show a significant preference at $3\sigma$ (ie $\Delta\chi^2<-9$) for the BAO model over the no-BAO model. The mean for mocks is $\Delta\chi^2=-5$. A fit to the real LRG data gives also $\Delta \chi^2=-5$, close to the maximum.[]{data-label="fig:dchi2"}](figs/dchi2b.pdf){width="60mm"}
The resulting distribution of values of $\chi^2_i$ for the BAO model peaks around $\chi^2_i \simeq \nu = 19$ and is quite broad ($\Delta\chi^2
\simeq \sqrt{2\nu} \simeq 6$, as expected). The no-BAO model peaks at larger values ($\chi^2_i
\simeq 24$) and is slightly broader ($\Delta\chi^2 \simeq 7.7$). The real LRG data produces $\chi^2=20$ for the BAO model and $\chi^2=25$ for the no-BAO model, well within the values found for most of the mocks. Thus, given the large errorbars, the real data seems to match quite well our mocks, despite the differences in the modeled values of $\beta$, bias and $z$ mentioned above.
In Fig.\[fig:dchi2\] we plot the histogram of the differences between the $\chi^2_i$ values in the fits to the BAO and no-BAO models for each mock. Negative values mean that the mock prefers the BAO model over no-BAO model. A difference at $3\sigma$ CL between both models, ie $\Delta\chi^2 < -9$, only happens in the 20% of cases (up to 30% when we explore other range of scales). This means than in $80\%$ of the cases one does not expect to be able to distinguish between the two models (at more than $3\sigma$ CL). This result is not surprising. The mean difference in $\chi^2$ between the BAO and no-BAO model is only $\Delta\chi^2 \simeq -5$, which in comparable to the width of the $\chi^2$ distribution with 19 degrees of freedom. In other words, current errors are still too large to claim a BAO detection.
The peak method: BAO position
-----------------------------
In the peak method, we assume that we live in a $\omega$CDM universe and try to locate the BAO position. To keep things simple, here we locate the position of the peak by searching the maximum in the correlation function in the BAO scale, between 80-135Mpc/h (results are similar when we move around 70-150Mpc/h). The BAO feature is modified by the presence of the broad band (CDM) correlation function, which can be modeled approximately by a power law. We fit a power law to each correlation function at small scales (10 - 70Mpc/h) and subtract the correlation function from the best power law before locating the peak. GCH use a very similar peak method but do not need to subtract the power-law because the correlation is quite flat (and close to zero) in the radial direction. Sanchez et al (2010) use a similar but more elaborated version, where they fit simultaneously a power-law, a constant shift and a gaussian (BAO) peak. This would provide more accurate errors for the peak.
![Histogram showing the distribution of peak BAO position measured in LRG mocks. This distribution has $r_{BAO}= 107.2 \pm 8.8$ Mpc/h as compared to $r_{BAO}=107.5$ Mpc/h in the mean model. The distribution is quite gaussian, as shown by the line crossing the histograms. The same measurement in real LRG DR6 data yields $r_{BAO}=112$ Mpc/h.[]{data-label="fig:hbao"}](figs/hbaob1070.pdf){width="60mm"}
Fig. \[fig:hbao\] shows the distribution of recovered BAO positions for individual mocks. This distribution is well approximated by a Gaussian (also shown in the figure). The mean BAO position is 107.2Mpc/h with a dispersion of 8.8Mpc/h, compared to mocks mean value position at 107.5Mpc/h (note that the resolution in the position of the peak is of 5Mpc/h). The position of the peak can differ slightly (less than 2%) from the sound horizon scale at decoupling (see Sánchez, Baugh and Angulo 2008 and Sánchez et al 2010) depending on the cosmology, non-linearities, and other effects. For WMAP parameters, very similar to MICE simulation, the sound horizon scale is at 107.3Mpc/h.
We find similar results when we use a fixed power-law for all mocks, the one fitted for the mean correlation function, or when using the best power-law for each mock, as one would do in real data. When we apply the same method to the real DR6 data we find $r_{BAO} =112Mpc/h$, well within the bulk of our mocks.
We have also tried the method to locate the BAO position propposed by Kazin et al (2010a). The mocks (or data) are fitted using a $\chi^2$ likelihood (including covariance) to a BAO model which consists in the mean of the mocks, $\xi_m(r)$, shifted by two free parameters: the amplitude $A$ and a scale shift $\alpha$, ie $A\xi_m(\alpha r)$. We find a very similar histogram to that in Fig.\[fig:hbao\] but with smaller errorbar: $6\%$ instead of $8\%$. Kazin et al (2010a) further reduced this error to $3-4\%$ by using only the mocks which have a clear BAO as in the DR6 data. We will obviusly get smaller errors by removing such outliers in our mocks but this later step involves more assumptions than just the existance of a peak. It not only assumes that we live in $\omega$CDM, but selects in a subjective way (a posteriori) within a subset of realizations. Also note that in this method we are using a priori knowledge of the shape of the input model to locate the peak. In the peak method, used in Fig.3, we do not need to make such assumption and so we think this makes a stronger case for the point we want to demostrate, even when the error is larger.
It is more robust and self-consistent to locate the BAO and error using the full shape of $\xi(r)$ and a larger family of cosmological models, eg as shown in Sanchez et al (2009), avoiding any dependence on a particular cosmology in the algorithm to locate the peak. The point demonstrated here is that the BAO position is imprinted in the mocks despite the fact that they do not pass a null detection test. A comparison between methods is left for future analysis.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
The first question we set out to address was if the volume of current BAO data is large enough to pass a null detection test for $\omega$CDM. The answer to this question seems negative. We have shown in Fig.2 that the distribution of $\chi^2$ differences is quite broad and one could find mocks for which the null test is passed or failed. In fact $80\%$ of the mocks have $\Delta\chi^2>-9$, which indicates no statistically significant (at 3-sigma CL) preference for the true BAO input model as compared to the featureless no-BAO family. Current SDSS (DR6-DR7) data seems to lie close to the peak of this distribution, $\Delta \chi^2 \simeq -5$, but according to Fig.2 this does not provide convincing evidence for the BAO model. As expected, the DR3 results in Eisenstein et al 2005 (about half of the DR6 volume) is even less significant: $\Delta \chi^2 \simeq
-1.1$. When we compare the BAO model to a power-law fit (with 2 parameters) we find $\chi^2_{BAO}-\chi^2_{power-law} \simeq 0.4$.$^1$
Our mocks have slightly different values of $\beta$ and $z$ than the DR6 data (see Fig.1) and we wonder if this could affect the above conclusion. The important point to notice is that the BAO and no-BAO model also have a similar difference of $\Delta\chi^2$ (ie $\simeq -5$) when we compare to the DR6 data (using the same bins and covariance as in the mocks). Models with other cosmological parameters within the uncertainties of $\omega$CDM also produce similar $\Delta\chi^2$. But a value of $\Delta \chi^2 \simeq -5$ is comparable to the width of a $\chi^2$ distribution with 19 degrees of freedom (which is $\Delta\chi^2 \simeq 6$). This is why the result is not significant. Our conclusion is quite robust and mostly relays in the size of the errors and covariance between bins. The covariance estimate is consistent in the data (ie from Jack-knife subsamples), in our mocks and in other mocks produced by several groups (eg Eisenstein et al 2005, CG2009, Kazin et al 2010a). We would need $\sqrt{1.8}$ times smaller errors, ie 1.8 times more data or some optimal weighting (Hamaus et al. 2010, Cai etal 2010), than DR6 (so that $\Delta\chi^2$ increases from 5 to 9) to be able to claim a 3 sigma BAO detection in the monopole.
For the radial BAO analysis, GCH reach similar conclusions. They find that the difference $\Delta\chi^2 \simeq -10$ in DR6 for 20 degrees of freedom (5Mpc/h radial bins within 40-140 Mpc/h) when comparing BAO (plus magnification) and no-BAO models (without magnification the difference is $\Delta\chi^2 \simeq -6$). This seems more significant than the monopole, probably because the radial BAO peak is boosted by redshift space distortions and magnification.
Does this mean that the BAO position can’t be measured? If we assume the $\omega$CDM model, we can locate the BAO position to better than $8\%$ of the true value, as illustrated in Fig.3. We show that in 50% (100%) of the mocks we can find the BAO position within 5% (20%) of the true value. This error is an upper bound as we have not tried to optimize the method to locate the peak. We have compared the mocks with the real data and found no evidence for deviations away from the $\omega$CDM. None of the 216 $\omega$CDM realizations is identical to the measurements (or in fact to each other), but observations produce values that lie well within the histograms in Fig.2 and Fig.3 for the two simple but generic tests that we have explored here.
Lessons learned in this study can be applied to the monopole BAO analysis (eg Eisenstein et al 2005, Sanchez et al 2009, Percival et al 2010, Kazin et al 2010a) and the radial BAO in GCH (or the BAO in the 3-point function by Gaztanaga et al 2009). Kazin et al (2010b) have argued that because $\omega$CDM does not fit the radial BAO data significantly better than a model with $\xi=0$ (null test), the $H(z)$ measurements presented by CGH based on the location of the radial BAO peak can not be regarded as a detection. We have shown here that his argument is not necessarily correct. If we apply such argument to the monopole BAO measurements previously cited we would conclude that we can not locate the peak position in current data because according to Fig.2 there is no significant BAO detection. But we have shown here that we can locate the BAO position with reasonable accuracy even with data that fails the null BAO detection test. A similar analysis was done with Monte Carlo mocks in GCH for the radial BAO position. Even if the shape method gives low significance, the peak method can still be used to detect the position of the peak.
Tian et al 2010 reaches similar conclusions for the radial BAO peak using different simulations. They use a wavelet technique to detect the peak and asses the significance of the detection, splitting SDSS into slices in various rotations. Current BAO measurements can not yet be used to select $\omega$CDM, but they can be used to locate the BAO position (or other cosmological parameters) if one assumes $\omega$CDM or models which produce similar clustering (and errors) to the ones in $\omega$CDM. [^1]
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Carlton Baugh, Pablo Fosalba, Ramon Miquel and Ariel Sanchez for their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. The MICE simulations have been developed at the MareNostrum supercomputer (BSC-CNS) thanks to grants AECT-2006-2-0011 through AECT-2010-1-0007. Data products have been stored at the Port d’Informació Científica (PIC). This work was partially supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion (MICINN), projects AYA2009-13936, Consolider-Ingenio CSD2007- 00060 and research project 2009-SGR-1398 from Generalitat de Catalunya.
[99]{}
, A. and [Gazta[ñ]{}aga]{}, E., 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1183
Cai Y.-C., Bernstein G., Sheth R. K., 2010, arXiv:1007.3500
Crocce, M.,2009, MNRAS, 403, 1353
Eisenstein, D. J., & Hu, W. 1998, ApJ, 496, 605
Eisenstein D.J., , 2005, ApJ, 633, 560
Fosalba, P.,2008, MNRAS, 391, 435
Gazta[ñ]{}aga, E. and Cabré, A. and Hui, L., 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1663
Gazta[ñ]{}aga, E. and Miquel, R. and S[á]{}nchez, E., 2009, PhyRevLet, 103, 9
Gazta[ñ]{}aga E., Cabr[é]{} A., Castander F., Crocce M., Fosalba P., 2009, MNRAS, 399, 801
Hamaus N., Seljak U., Desjacques V., Smith R. E., Baldauf T., 2010, PhRvD, 82, 043515
Kaiser N., 1987, MNRAS, 227, 1
Kazin, E. , 2010a, ApJ, 710, 1444
Kazin, E. , 2010b, ApJ, 719, 1032
Komatsu, E., , 2010, astro-ph/1001.4538
Labatie A., , 2010, astro-ph/1009.1232
Labini, S. et al 2009 A&A, 505, 981-990
Liddle A., 2009, Ann.Rev.Nucl.Part.Sci.59, 95
Martinez, V. , 2009, ApJ, 696, L93
Okumura, T., , 2008, ApJ, 676, 889
, P. J. E. and [Yu]{}, J. T., 1970, ApJ, 162, 815
Percival W., , 2010, MNRAS 401, 2148
Reid, B.A., , 2010, MNRAS, 404, 60
S[á]{}nchez A. G., Crocce M., Cabr[é]{} A., Baugh C. M., Gazta[ñ]{}aga E., 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1643
S[á]{}nchez A. G., Baugh C. M., Angulo R., 2008, MNRAS, 390, 1470
Sanchez E., et al, 2010, arXiv, arXiv:1006.3226
, H. J. and [Neyrinck]{}, M. C. and [Budav[á]{}ri]{}, T. and [Szalay]{}, A. S., 2010, arXiv, 1011.2481
[^1]: Data and mocks used in this paper, together with covariance matrix and additional figures can be found in http://www.ice.csic.es/mice/baodetection.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle), FIMP (Feebly interacting Massive Particle) and EWIP (Extremely Weakly Interacting Particle) dark matter are different theoretical frameworks that have been postulated to explain the dark matter. In this paper we examine an intermediate scenario that combines features from these three frameworks. It consists of a weakly interacting particle –á la WIMP– that does not reach thermal equilibrium in the early Universe –á la FIMP– and whose relic density is determined by the reheating temperature of the Universe –á la EWIP. As an example, an explicit realization of this framework, based on the singlet scalar model of dark matter, is analyzed in detail. In particular, the relic density is studied as a function of the parameters of the model, and the new viable region within this intermediate scenario is determined. Finally, it is shown that this alternative framework of dark matter allows for arbitrarily heavy dark matter particles and that it suggests a connection between dark matter and inflation.'
author:
- |
Carlos E. Yaguna[^1]\
*Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Münster,\
*Wilhelm-Klemm-Straße 9, D-48149 Münster, Germany**
bibliography:
- 'darkmatter.bib'
title: '**An intermediate framework between WIMP, FIMP, and EWIP dark matter**'
---
Motivation
==========
The nature of dark matter is one of the most important open problems in fundamental physics today. We know that dark matter exists, for the evidence in its favor is overwhelming, but we still ignore the identity and the properties of the dark matter particle. Since none of the known particles can play the role of the dark matter, the solution to this puzzle requires new physics, physics beyond the Standard Model.
WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle) dark matter is a generic framework that can naturally explain the observed dark matter density. Its basic idea is that a stable massive particle ($M\sim 100-1000$ GeV) with weak-strength interactions will typically have, via freeze-out in the early Universe, a relic density not far from the observed dark matter density. Given that several extensions of the Standard Model contain such a particle, they can account in a natural way for the dark matter of the Universe. In fact, most of the dark matter models considered in the literature, including the neutralino [@Griest:2000kj], the lightest KK particle [@Hooper:2007qk] and scalar dark matter [@Honorez:2010re; @Yaguna:2008hd], fall within this category. And most of the experimental effort in dark matter detection is focused on this kind of candidates [@Bertone:2004pz]. It must be stressed, however, that currently there are no indications that dark matter is actually composed of WIMPs. It is important therefore to consider viable alternatives to this paradigm.
One interesting alternative is FIMP (Feebly Interacting Massive Particle) dark matter [@Hall:2009bx; @Yaguna:2011qn]. In this case the interactions of the dark matter particles are so suppressed that they are unable to reach thermal equilibrium in the early Universe. They are slowly produced as the Universe cools down but are never abundant enough to annihilate among themselves. To reproduce the observed value of the dark matter density, the coupling between the dark matter and the thermal plasma should be of order $10^{-11}$-$10^{-12}$. As a result of such feeble interactions, FIMPs are not expected to produce significant signals at direct or indirect detection experiments. It is, nonetheless, a framework as simple and predictive as the WIMP one.
Another alternative is EWIP (Extremely Weakly Interacting Particle) dark matter [@Choi:2005vq; @Steffen:2008qp], sometimes called EWIMP. It features dark matter particles with extremely weakly and non-renormalizable interactions. The gravitino and the axino are two well-known examples belonging to this class. Due to their non-renormalizable interactions, the dark matter production is dominated by the high temperature regime and the relic density is ultimately determined by the reheating temperature of the Universe.
In this paper, we examine a further alternative to the WIMP paradigm, an intermediate framework that share features from WIMP, FIMP and EWIP dark matter. The scenario consists of a weakly interacting particle –á la WIMP– that does not reach thermal equilibrium in the early Universe –á la FIMP. To achieve this, a reheating temperature smaller than the mass of the dark matter particle, though not necessarily *low* in the conventional sense, is postulated. In consequence, the dark matter relic density turns out to depend also on the reheating temperature of the Universe –á la EWIP. We not only describe this intermediate framework but also analyze in detail one explicit realization of it based on the singlet scalar model of dark matter. In particular, we study the relic density as a function of the parameters of the model, and we find the regions that are compatible with the dark matter constraint. Remarkably, this intermediate framework suggests a connection between dark matter and inflation, and it allows, in contrast to WIMP dark matter, for dark matter particles of arbitrary mass, so even super-heavy dark matter becomes viable.
In the next section we explain in more detail the differences between the various theoretical frameworks that have been postulated to account for the dark matter. Then, we describe the intermediate scenario, paying particular attention to the assumptions behind it and to the computation of the relic density. In section \[sec:model\], we consider an explicit realization of this framework based on the singlet scalar model of dark matter. The relic density is computed and the new viable region corresponding to this dark matter scenario is obtained. It is then shown that this intermediate framework allows for super-heavy dark matter and that it suggests a connection between dark matter and inflation. Finally, some important implications of this intermediate framework are briefly discussed.
WIMP, FIMP and EWIP dark matter {#sec:wimp}
===============================
WIMPs are the most common candidates proposed to account for the dark matter of the Universe. The reason they are so popular is twofold. On the one hand, massive particles ($M\sim 0.1-1{\mathrm{~TeV}}$) with weak-strength interactions frequently appear in well-motivated extensions of the Standard Model. On the other hand, such particles naturally have a relic density not far from the observed dark matter density –the so-called WIMP miracle. Neutralinos in the MSSM are the most prominent example of this class. Due to their interactions, WIMPs easily reach thermal equilibrium in the early Universe and their relic density is the result of a freeze-out. The WIMP distribution simply follows the equilibrium distribution until the freeze-out temperature ($T\sim M/25$) is reached; from then on the WIMP abundance remains essentially unchanged until today. The Boltzmann equation that determines the evolution of the WIMP density, $Y=n/s$, is $$\frac{dY}{dT}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi g_*(T)}{45}}M_p{\langle\sigma v\rangle}(Y_{eq}(T)^2-Y(T)^2)
\label{eq:boltzmann}$$ with the initial condition that WIMPs are in equilibrium at high temperatures: $Y(T_i\gtrsim M)=Y_{eq}(T_i\gtrsim M)$. An approximate analytical solution of this equation yields [@Griest:2000kj] $$Y(T_0)\approx 10^{-8}\frac{{\mathrm{~GeV}}}{M_{WIMP}} \frac{3\times 10^{-27}{\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^{-1}}}{{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}\,.$$ From it, the present relic density of dark matter is obtained as $${\Omega h^2}=0.1\frac{3\times 10^{-26}{\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^{-1}}}{{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}\,,$$ which shows that the relic density is inversely proportional to the dark matter annihilation cross section and that the WMAP measurement [@Komatsu:2010fb] implies ${\langle\sigma v\rangle}\approx 3\times 10^{-26}{\mathrm{cm}^3\mathrm{s}^{-1}}$. An important feature of WIMPs is that, thanks to their interaction strength and mass, they can be probed in different ways. They can be produced and observed at colliders such as the LHC, or be detected as they scatter of nuclei in direct detection experiments, or in indirect detection experiments through their annihilation products –mainly gamma rays, antimatter, and neutrinos. Most of the dark matter experiments running today, in fact, were designed to detect WIMP dark matter. As it is clear from this discussion, the WIMP framework is indeed a simple, predictive, and verifiable scenario for dark matter.
FIMP dark matter is an alternative scenario in which the interactions of the dark matter particle, even though renormalizable, are of much weaker strength. As a result, FIMPs do not reach equilibrium in the early Universe. In this case, dark matter particles are slowly produced by scatterings in the thermal plasma and they are never abundant enough to annihilate with each other. This production ceases, the dark matter abundance *freezes-in*, when $T\lesssim M_{FIMP}$ and the particles in the plasma no longer have enough energy to produce dark matter [@Hall:2009bx]. The simplest realization of this framework is that of the singlet scalar model [@Yaguna:2011qn]. The equation that determines the evolution of the dark matter abundance in this case is $$\frac{dY}{dT}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi g_*(T)}{45}}M_p\langle\sigma v\rangle Y_{eq}(T)^2
\label{eq:boltzmann2}$$ with the initial condition $Y(T_i\gg M)\sim 0$. Because their production is dominated by the region $T\sim M_{FIMP}$, the precise value of $T_i$ is not relevant for the calculation. For FIMPs, the dark matter relic density is proportional to ${\langle\sigma v\rangle}$ and its observed value can be obtained for masses in the ${\mathrm{~GeV}}$ to ${\mathrm{~TeV}}$ range and couplings of order $10^{-11}-10^{-12}$ [@Yaguna:2011qn]. Such small couplings preclude the observation of FIMP dark matter in direct and indirect detection experiments. If, within the next decade, such experiments do not provide evidence of dark matter, the WIMP paradigm will have to be abandoned [@Bertone:2010at] and FIMP dark matter may become the most suitable scenario to account for the absence of such signals. Conversely, if such evidence is found, FIMPs can be ruled out as the right explanation for dark matter. Notice that, in any case, regarding dark matter the FIMP framework is as simple and predictive as the WIMP one. They both assume the Standard Cosmological Model and their only difference is the typical interaction strength of the dark matter particle.
A third theoretical framework that can explain the dark matter is that of EWIPs. Their main difference with respect to FIMPs is that in this case the interactions of the dark matter particle are non-renormalizable. The gravitino and the axino are the two typical examples of EWIPs. In this case, the relic density is also determined by equation (\[eq:boltzmann2\]) and with the same initial condition. Now, however, due to the non-renormalizable interaction, the production is dominated by the high temperature regime (rather than the low one) with the result that the relic density depends on the reheating temperature of the Universe, ${T_{RH}}$. The gravitino relic density, for instance, is given by [@Bolz:2000fu] $${\Omega h^2}= 0.27\left(\frac{{T_{RH}}}{10^{10}{\mathrm{~GeV}}}\right)\left(\frac{100{\mathrm{~GeV}}}{{m_{\tilde G}}}\right)\left(\frac{{m_{\tilde g}}(\mu)}{1{\mathrm{~TeV}}}\right)^2\,,$$ where ${m_{\tilde G}}$ and ${m_{\tilde g}}$ are respectively the gravitino and the gluino masses. This scenario is then slightly less predictive than the two previous ones, as it does not allow to compute the relic density in terms of the masses and couplings of the model. It opens the possibility, nevertheless, of determining the reheating temperature of the Universe via measurement at colliders [@Choi:2007rh].
Whether dark matter consists of WIMPs, FIMPs, EWIPs or something else is at the end an experimental issue, and it is an issue that is being addressed right now by a number of direct and indirect detection experiments, and by collider searches at the LHC. The main point of this paper is to examine another theoretical framework that may account for the dark matter. Since this scenario has certain similarities with the three we have already discussed, we have dubbed it the intermediate framework between WIMP, FIMP and EWIP dark matter, or just the intermediate framework for short.
The intermediate framework {#sec:int}
==========================
The intermediate dark matter framework shares some features with WIMP, FIMP and EWIP dark matter. The basic idea is to have a massive and weakly interacting particle –á la WIMP– that does not reach thermal equilibrium in the early Universe –á la FIMP. To make these two conditions compatible with each other, a reheating temperature smaller than the dark matter mass is assumed. In consequence, the dark matter relic density turns out to depend on the reheating temperature of the Universe –á la EWIP.
The Boltzmann equation that determines the abundance of dark matter is the same as in the FIMP scenario: $$\frac{dY}{dT}=\sqrt{\frac{\pi g_*(T)}{45}}M_p\langle\sigma v\rangle Y_{eq}(T)^2\,,
\label{eq:boltz}$$ but the initial condition is different. Now we require that $Y({T_{RH}})=0$ with ${T_{RH}}\ll M$, being $M$ the mass of the dark matter particle[^2]. It must be emphasized that this initial condition is one of the defining assumptions of the intermediate scenario we are examining. If this condition is not satisfied in a particular model, then such a model is simply not realized within the intermediate framework. It may indeed happen that ${T_{RH}}\gg M$ as in the standard scenario, or that dark matter particles are abundantly produced during the reheating process so that $Y({T_{RH}})=0$ is not a good approximation –see e.g. [@Gelmini:2006pq]. The validity of such initial condition, in fact, is ultimately related to inflationary models. Throughout this work, we simply assume that this condition is satisfied.
Solving the above equation we can determine the dark matter abundance at low temperatures, $Y(T_0)$, and from it the relic density is found via $${\Omega h^2}=2.742\times 10^8 \frac{M}{{\mathrm{~GeV}}} Y(T_0),
\label{eq:rd}$$ where $M$ is the mass of the dark matter particle. Since the temperature in equation (\[eq:boltz\]) is always smaller than the mass of the dark matter particle, the equilibrium abundance is exponentially suppressed, $Y_{eq}\propto e^{-M/T}$. Thus, the relic density will depend exponentially on the reheating temperature. In addition, ${\Omega h^2}\propto {\langle\sigma v\rangle}$ just as it happens for FIMPs. Hence, to compute the dark matter relic density in this scenario we just need to know $M$, ${T_{RH}}$ and the function ${\langle\sigma v\rangle}$. The intermediate framework can be realized within different particle physics models of dark matter. Each model will give a specific value for ${\langle\sigma v\rangle}$ and a preferred range for the dark matter mass. Imposing the relic density constraint will then provide a relation between the reheating temperature of the Universe and the other parameters of the model.
To our knowledge, this intermediate framework of dark matter has not been analyzed in detail before. Non-standard scenarios for dark matter, including models with low reheating temperatures [@Gelmini:2006pq; @Drees:2006vh] or with non-thermal production [@Arcadi:2011ev], have certainly been considered in previous works, but, as we will see, they differ in significant ways from the intermediate scenario we are examining.
In the next section we study a particular realization of the intermediate framework based on the singlet scalar model of dark matter. This model has the advantage that the function ${\langle\sigma v\rangle}$ depends on only one additional coupling, so the relic density is entirely determined by three parameters[^3].
A specific model {#sec:model}
================
The singlet scalar model [@McDonald:1993ex; @Burgess:2000yq] is one of the minimal extensions of the Standard Model that can explain the dark matter. It contains an additional field, $S$, that is singlet under the SM gauge group and odd under a new $Z_2$ symmetry that guarantees its stability. The Lagrangian that describes this model is $$\mathcal{L}= \mathcal{L}_{SM}+\frac 12 \partial_\mu S\partial^\mu S-\frac{m_0^2}{2}S^2-\frac{\lambda_S}{4}S^4-\lambda S^2 H^\dagger H\,,
\label{eq:la}$$ where $\mathcal{L}_{SM}$ denotes the Standard Model Lagrangian and $H$ is the higgs doublet. The above is the most general renormalizable Lagrangian that is compatible with the assumed symmetries and field content of the model. The singlet scalar model introduces, therefore, only two relevant parameters[^4]: the singlet mass ($M=\sqrt{m_0^2+\lambda v^2}$) and the coupling to the higgs boson, $\lambda$. In addition, the higgs mass, a SM parameter, also affects the phenomenology of the model. Given the narrow range over which $m_h$ is allowed to vary [@CMS-PAS-HIG-11-023], we will in the following take $m_h=120{\mathrm{~GeV}}$. Our results do not strongly depend on this choice.
In the early Universe, singlets are pair-produced as the particles in the thermal plasma scatter off each other. The dominant production processes are $s$-channel higgs boson mediated diagrams originating in a variety of initial states: $f\bar f$, $W^+W^-$, $Z^0Z^0$, and $hh$. Likewise, they can also be produced from the initial state $hh$ either directly or through singlet exchange. As a general rule, it is the initial state $W^+W^-$ that tends to dominate the total production rate of dark matter in this model.
The main advantages of the singlet model with respect to other models of dark matter are its simplicity, which allows one to make concrete predictions about dark matter observables, and its versatility, which allows us to use it as a toy model for many different dark matter studies. In previous works, it was shown that the singlet model can explain the dark matter either in the WIMP regime [@Yaguna:2008hd; @Goudelis:2009zz] or in the FIMP regime [@Yaguna:2011qn]. Here, we will show that it can also account for the dark matter in the intermediate framework.
The Boltzmann equation that determines the dark matter abundance, equation (\[eq:boltz\]), can be solved either analytically or numerically. The analytic solution relies on the velocity expansion of the annihilation rate –see e.g. [@Griest:2000kj]– which, as is well-known, breaks down close to resonances and thresholds. Since in the singlet model the higgs resonance and the $W^\pm$ (and $Z^0$) threshold play a very important role in the evaluation of ${\langle\sigma v\rangle}$, the analytic solution becomes unreliable and one has to resort to numerical methods. In our calculations we have used micrOMEGAs [@Belanger:2010gh] to compute ${\langle\sigma v\rangle}$, as it automatically takes into account resonance and threshold effects. With it, equation (\[eq:boltz\]) can be easily solved numerically to obtain $Y(T_0)$ and ${\Omega h^2}$.
![The relic density as a function of $\lambda$ for a dark matter mass ($M= 55 {\mathrm{~GeV}}$) close to the higgs resonance ($m_h/2=60{\mathrm{~GeV}}$). The lines corresponds to different values of ${T_{RH}}/M$: $0.03$ (dotted line), $0.04$ (dashed line), $0.05$ (solid line), $0.06$ (dash-dotted line). The WMAP range is illustrated as a horizontal band.[]{data-label="fig:omlam55"}](omlamm55)
In this scenario, the singlet relic density depends on three parameters: $\lambda$, $M$ and ${T_{RH}}$. It is convenient however to use ${T_{RH}}/M$ rather than ${T_{RH}}$ as the free parameter. Figure \[fig:omlam\] shows, for $M=10{\mathrm{~GeV}}$ (left) and $M=1{\mathrm{~TeV}}$ (right), the predicted relic density as a function of $\lambda$ for different values of ${T_{RH}}/M$. As expected, ${\Omega h^2}$ increases quadratically with $\lambda$. It also increases, though significantly faster, with the ratio ${T_{RH}}/M$. In fact, from ${T_{RH}}/M=0.04$ to ${T_{RH}}/M=0.07$ the relic density changes by about $9$ orders of magnitude, a consequence of the exponential suppression in the equilibrium density of dark matter. The behavior of ${\Omega h^2}$ is analogous for $M=10{\mathrm{~GeV}}$ and $M=1{\mathrm{~TeV}}$, the only difference being a value about four orders of magnitude larger for the latter. Notice, in particular, that if we want to have dark matter with weak-strength interactions ($\lambda\sim 0.1$), ${T_{RH}}/M$ should be about $0.05$ for $M=10{\mathrm{~GeV}}$ or $0.04$ for $M=1{\mathrm{~TeV}}$. It is clear from the figure, however, that the correct density of dark matter can also be obtained for much smaller couplings with only a mild increase in the ratio ${T_{RH}}/M$.
![The viable parameter space of the singlet scalar model in the plane ($M$, $\lambda$) for different values of ${T_{RH}}/M$. From top to bottom the lines correspond to ${T_{RH}}/M= 0.040$ (dotted line), $0.045$ (dashed line), and $0.050$ (solid line). This viable region corresponds to the intermediate regime between WIMP, FIMP and EWIP dark matter examined in this paper.\[fig:pspace\]](pspace)
If the dark matter mass is close to the higgs resonance, ${\langle\sigma v\rangle}$ is enhanced and the production of dark matter particles is increased, leading to a different behavior of the relic density –see figure \[fig:omlam55\]. In this figure $M=55{\mathrm{~GeV}}$, so there is only a $5{\mathrm{~GeV}}$ splitting between the dark matter mass and the higgs resonance ($m_h/2=60{\mathrm{~GeV}}$). The effect of the resonance is twofold: it yields a larger value of ${\Omega h^2}$ over the entire range of $\lambda$ and ${T_{RH}}/M$, and it gives rise to a deviation from a straight line for $\lambda\gtrsim 0.01$. In that region, the production cross section is large enough to allow the total conversion of radiation into dark matter; essentially all particles in the thermal plasma with energies large enough to annihilate into a pair of dark matter particles do so, giving rise to an asymptotic value of the relic density. Indeed, the relic density hardly increases for $\lambda>0.01$.
![The viable parameter space of the singlet scalar model in the plane ($M$, ${T_{RH}}/M$) for different values of $\lambda$. From top to bottom the lines correspond to $\lambda= 10^{-5}$ (solid line), $10^{-3}$ (dashed line), and $10^{-1}$ (dotted line).This viable region corresponds to the intermediate regime between WIMP, FIMP and EWIP dark matter examined in this paper. \[fig:pspace2\]](pspace2)
If we now impose the relic density constraint, ${\Omega h^2}={\Omega h^2}_{WMAP}$, one of the three parameters that determines the relic density can be eliminated, and the viable parameter space of the model is obtained. Figure \[fig:pspace\] shows the viable parameter space in the plane ($M$, $\lambda$) for different values of ${T_{RH}}/M$: 0.040,0.045, 0.050. In it, we have restricted $\lambda$ to be smaller than $1$ so that perturbativity is guaranteed. The curves all have the same behavior: for $M\lesssim 50{\mathrm{~GeV}}$ $\lambda$ decreases with the dark matter mass whereas for $M\gtrsim 100{\mathrm{~GeV}}$ $\lambda$ remains almost constant –it actually increases slightly. In the region $50{\mathrm{~GeV}}<M<100{\mathrm{~GeV}}$ the behavior is more complicated due to the presence of the higgs resonance and the $W^\pm$ (and $Z^0$) threshold. The required value of $\lambda$ changes over several orders of magnitude (decreasing and then increasing in the higss resonance and finally decreasing once more at the $W^\pm$ threshold) within that small mass range. As expected, the larger the value of ${T_{RH}}/M$ the smaller the viable $\lambda$. For the values of $M$ and ${T_{RH}}/M$ we consider, the correct dark matter density is typically obtained for $\lambda$ between $1$ and $10^{-3}$.
One can also study the viable parameter space of this model in the plane ($M$, ${T_{RH}}/M$) for different values of $\lambda$ –see figure \[fig:pspace2\]. In it we consider $\lambda=0.1, 10^{-3}, 10^{-5}$. Again, three different mass ranges can easily be distinguished: $M\lesssim 50{\mathrm{~GeV}}$, $M\gtrsim 100{\mathrm{~GeV}}$, and the region in-between. For $M\lesssim 50{\mathrm{~GeV}}$, ${T_{RH}}/M$ decreases with $M$ whereas it remains almost constant for $M\gtrsim 100{\mathrm{~GeV}}$. As observed in the figure, for $50{\mathrm{~GeV}}<M<100 {\mathrm{~GeV}}$ the value of ${T_{RH}}/M$ varies apreciably. Notice, however, that the variation in ${T_{RH}}/M$ is much smaller than that in $\lambda$: for $\lambda$ in the range ($10^{-5},0.1$) ${T_{RH}}/M$ varies only from $0.04$ to $0.1$. At higher masses ($M>100{\mathrm{~GeV}}$), the range of variation is even smaller –from $0.04$ to $0.07$.
In conclusion, the intermediate framework allows to account for the observed dark matter density within a restricted range of ${T_{RH}}/M$ but over a wide range of couplings and masses. Part of that region overlaps with that characteristic of the WIMP scenario: masses in the ${\mathrm{~GeV}}$-${\mathrm{~TeV}}$ range and couplings of order $10^{-2}-1$. Hence, all WIMP models considered in the literature, including neutralino dark matter, can also be realized within the intermediate scenario. That is, for any given SUSY model it is possible to find a value of ${T_{RH}}/M$ such that the relic density is in agreement with the observations. Such values would then define the new viable regions for neutralino dark matter in this framework. More interesting, however, is the fact that the intermediate framework opens up new possibilities not found within the WIMP scenario, as we show next.
Super-heavy dark matter {#sec:heavy}
=======================
In the usual WIMP scenario, the dark matter mass cannot be arbitrarily large. A model-independent upper bound, based on unitarity, in fact gives $M\lesssim 100 {\mathrm{~TeV}}$ [@Griest:1989wd]. And in specific models, such as the CMSSM, the bound is typically stronger. This upper limit on the mass of the dark matter particle, however, applies only to WIMP dark matter. It is natural, therefore, to ask whether one can have much heavier dark matter particles, that is super-heavy dark matter, in the intermediate framework we are considering. We will see that that is indeed the case. The intermediate scenario can easily accommodate super-heavy dark matter.
![The viable parameter space of the model in the plane ($M$, $\lambda$) for the super heavy dark matter regime. The lines correspond, from top to bottom, to different values of ${T_{RH}}/M$: $0.040$ (dotted line), $0.045$ (dashed line), $0.050$ (solid line).\[fig:pspaceh\]](pspaceh)
Figure \[fig:pspaceh\] shows, for the super-heavy dark matter regime, the viable parameter space of the model in the plane ($M$, $\lambda$) for three different values of ${T_{RH}}/M$. Notice that in the figure the dark matter mass varies between $1{\mathrm{~TeV}}$ and $10^{13}{\mathrm{~GeV}}$. The required value of $\lambda$ lies approximately between $10^{-3}$ and $1$ (for the examined values of ${T_{RH}}/M$), and it is observed not to depend on the dark matter mass –it is entirely determined by ${T_{RH}}/M$. It makes sense, henceforth, to illustrate the viable parameter space rather in the plane ($\lambda$, ${T_{RH}}/M$) for *any* value of $M$, as shown in figure \[fig:pspaceh3\]. In it, we have considered a much wider range for $\lambda$ and ${T_{RH}}/M$ so that the transition from the intermediate framework analyzed in this paper to the FIMP regime ($\lambda\sim 10^{-11}$ , ${T_{RH}}/M$ large) can be observed. As expected, at high values of ${T_{RH}}/M$ the required value of $\lambda$ becomes independent of ${T_{RH}}/M$ and equal to that obtained for FIMP dark matter. Notice that for $\lambda\gtrsim 10^{-8}$ the variation in ${T_{RH}}/M$ is quite small, in agreement with our previous results. The high mass regime of the intermediate framework thus predicts a well-defined relation between $\lambda$ and ${T_{RH}}/M$. If ${T_{RH}}/M$ can be obtained, say from a given inflationary model, then one could use the above figure to determine the coupling $\lambda$ and consequently the interaction between the dark matter and the Standard Model particles. Additional input would be needed, however, to obtain some information on the dark matter mass.
![The viable parameter space of the model in the plane ($\lambda$, ${T_{RH}}/M$) for the super heavy dark matter regime. This viable region does not depend on $M$ for $M\gtrsim 1{\mathrm{~TeV}}$. Notice that the range of $\lambda$ and ${T_{RH}}/M$ considered is much larger in this figure than in all the previous ones.\[fig:pspaceh3\]](pspaceh3)
An important lesson of this super-heavy regime is that the solution to the dark matter puzzle is not necessarily associated with new physics at the ${\mathrm{~TeV}}$ scale. Contrary to current expectations, dark matter might be the result of physics at scales well-above the reach of present and planned experiments.
Discussion {#sec:disc}
==========
The intermediate framework does not make any specific prediction regarding the detectability of dark matter. In general, the detection prospects of the dark matter particle depend on its mass and its interactions with other SM particles, that is on $M$ and $\lambda$ for the singlet scalar model we have studied. As we have seen, the intermediate framework allows these two parameters to vary over several orders of magnitude, so the detectability of singlet dark matter will depend on the specific values that are realized in nature. If, for instance, $M\sim 0.1-1{\mathrm{~TeV}}$ and $\lambda\gtrsim 10^{-2}$, the detection prospects would be similar to those expected for WIMPs. Dark matter could be observed in direct and indirect detection experiments and be produced at high energy colliders such as the LHC. In this optimistic case, one could in principle reconstruct ${\langle\sigma v\rangle}$ from the data and use it to compute ${\Omega h^2}$ within the Standard Cosmological Model [@Baltz:2006fm]. If that value does not agree with the observed one, we would know that some new phenomena enters into the determination of the relic density and the intermediate framework would provide a plausible solution –certainly not the only one– to that disagreement. But, if the couplings are smaller or the masses are larger the detection prospects of singlet scalar dark matter quickly fade away. More concrete predictions for the detection prospects of dark matter in direct and indirect detections experiments can be made in other models of dark matter where the range of variation of the relevant parameters is not as wide as in the singlet scalar model.
An interesting aspect of the intermediate framework is the connection that it entails between ${T_{RH}}$ and $M$. We have found that this scenario can account for the observed dark matter density if the reheating temperature of the Universe and the mass of the dark matter particle are related by $${T_{RH}}\sim 4-5\,\times 10^{-2} M$$ for typical values of the coupling[^5]. That ${T_{RH}}$ and $M$, two apparently unrelated quantities, should be related to one another by a number not much smaller than one is a very suggestive fact. It points toward a link between two of the most important open problems in fundamental physics: dark matter and inflation. A link that becomes more easily realized in the super-heavy dark matter regime of this framework. In fact, for $M$ in the ${\mathrm{~GeV}}$ to ${\mathrm{~TeV}}$ range the above condition would require a reheating temperature significantly below the electroweak scale –that is, a scenario with *low* reheating temperature. But in the super-heavy regime, the reheating temperature can be as large as usually assumed in the Standard Cosmological Model, ${T_{RH}}\sim 10^{8}-10^{12}{\mathrm{~GeV}}$. It is clear, therefore, that the intermediate framework examined in this paper does not require a low reheating temperature –although it allows it. This is an important feature from the point of view of inflationary models because scenarios with low reheating temperatures are being constrained by CMB data [@Martin:2010kz]. Furthermore, this link to inflationary models might open new possibilities to test the intermediate framework via cosmological observations. In a future work we will investigate in more detail this intriguing connection between dark matter and inflation.
Conclusions
===========
We have considered the intermediate framework for dark matter, a scenario that shares some features with WIMP, FIMP and EWIP dark matter. It consists of a weakly interacting particle (WIMP-like) that is unable to reach thermal equilibrium with the thermal plasma (FIMP-like) because the reheating temperature of the Universe is smaller than the dark matter mass. Consequently, the dark matter relic density depends also on ${T_{RH}}$ (EWIP-like). An explicit realization of this scenario, based on the singlet scalar model of dark matter, was analyzed in detail. Specifically, the region of the parameter space that is compatible with the dark matter constraint within this scenario was determined. A salient feature of this framework is that, in contrast to WIMP dark matter, it allows for dark matter particles of arbitrary mass, so even super-heavy dark matter is viable. Moreover, since the scenario implies that ${T_{RH}}$ and $M$ are connected to one another, it suggests a thought-provoking link between dark matter and inflation.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is supported by the “Helmholtz Alliance for Astroparticle Phyics HAP” funded by the Initiative and Networking Fund of the Helmholtz Association.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: Also in EWIP scenarios is assumed that $Y({T_{RH}})=0$.
[^3]: In other dark matter models the number of parameters is usually larger so the analysis becomes less transparent.
[^4]: $\lambda_S$ only affects the self-interactions of the dark matter particle.
[^5]: This result was obtained for the singlet model but it can clearly be generalized to other dark matter models.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'One of the cornerstones of modern physics is Einstein’s special relativity, with its constant speed of light and zero photon mass assumptions. Constraint on the rest mass $m_{\gamma}$ of photons is a fundamental way to test Einstein’s theory, as well as other essential electromagnetic and particle theories. Since non-zero photon mass can give rise to frequency-(or energy-) dependent dispersions, measuring the time delay of photons with different frequencies emitted from explosive astrophysical events is an important and model-independent method to put such a constraint. The cosmological gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), with short time scales, high redshifts as well as broadband prompt and afterglow emissions, provide an ideal testbed for $m_{\gamma}$ constraints. In this paper we calculate the upper limits of the photon mass with GRB early time radio afterglow observations as well as multi-band radio peaks, thus improve the results of Schaefer (1999) by nearly half an order of magnitude.'
address:
- 'Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China'
- 'School of Physics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China'
- |
Department of Physics, University of Hong Kong,\
Hong Kong, China
- |
Joint Center for Particle, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, Nanjing University-Purple Mountain Observatory,\
Nanjing 210008, China
author:
- Bo Zhang
- 'Ya-Ting Chai'
- 'Yuan-Chuan Zou'
- 'Xue-Feng Wu'
title: 'Constraining the Mass of the Photon with Gamma-Ray Bursts'
---
Radio continuum: general, gamma-ray burst: general, photon rest mass.
\#1[\#1]{}
Introduction {#sect:intro}
============
Modern physics theories, especially Maxwellian electromagnetism, Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity as well as quantum electrodynamics (QED) are all based on a simple precondition: the speed of light in vacuum is a constant $c$ for all electromagnetic waves, from radio to the $\gamma$-ray band. That is, photons are massless particles. Thus, whether the speed of light is a constant across the electromagnetic spectrum plays a fundamental role in physics. If photons have non-zero rest mass, various key theories should be affected. Although enormous successes have been achieved based upon the theories aforementioned, it is still necessary to put the massless photon assumption to test with as many independent methods as possible.
The mass of photon can be measured via two types of approaches, laboratory experiments and astronomical observations (Tu et al. 2005, and references therein). According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, currently the best limit of photon rest mass $m_{\gamma}$ one can achieve should be $m_{\gamma} \approx \hbar/c^2 \Delta T$, here $\hbar$ is the Planck constant, and $\Delta T$ the age of the Universe. With $\Delta T$ known to be in the order of $10^{10}$ years, the value of $m_{\gamma}$ inferred from various tests should be no smaller than $\approx 10^{-66}$ g (Tu et al. 2005). The laboratory measurements based upon Coulomb’s law, Ampère’s law, and other electromagnetic phenomena have achieved very stringent constraints, with a lower limit of $m_{\gamma} < \left(0.7\pm 1.7\right) \times 10^{-52}$ g from measurements of torque on rotating magnetized toroid (Tu et al. 2006). On the other hand, astronomical tests utilizing various principles, from dispersions of astrophysical radiations caused by non-zero photon mass, to magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD) related phenomena, can provide independent tests on the mass limit of photons other than laboratory measurements.
Currently the mass limit of photon adopted by Particle Data Group is $m_{\gamma} \le 1.783\times 10^{-51}$g, nearly 24 orders of magnitude smaller than electron’s mass $m_e$ (Olive et al. 2014), and this value is measured from observations of MHD phenomena in planetary magnetic fields (Ryutov 2007). Besides, Chibisov (1976) obtained a more stringent limit of $m_{\gamma} \le 3\times 10^{-60}$g, by analysing the stability of magnetized gas in galaxies, although this result depends on the applicability of virial theorem and other assumptions. Goldhaber & Nieto (2003) also put a limit on the mass of photon of $10^{-52}$g considering the stability of plasma in Coma Cluster. However, since astronomical MHD phenomena can be quite complicated, such constraints could be more model-dependent in many cases.
Besides, Accioly & Pazszko (2004) obtained a result of $m_\gamma \le 10^{-40}$g based on gravitational deflections of radio waves. While Schaefer (1999) got a limit of $m_\gamma \le 4.2 \times 10^{-44}$ by comparing the time-delay of photons with different frequencies from a wide range of explosive astronomical events, including gamma ray bursts (GRBs for short), Type Ia supernovae with high redshift, TeV flares from blazar Mrk 421, as well as the Crab Pulsar. And with a lower observational frequency as well as a shorter time scale, the time delay between the radio afterglow and prompt $\gamma$-ray emission of GRB 980703 yielded the best result in this analysis. Since the basic idea behind the time-delay method is quite simple and does not related to any specific models, more reliable constraints can be obtained.
In this paper we present our analysis of limit on $m_{\gamma}$ with a larger GRB radio afterglow sample provided by Chandra & Frail (2012), thus improving the results of Schaefer (1999). In Section 2 the basic equations and method are presented. Our analysis is based on multi-wavelength radio afterglows as well as prompt emissions for each GRB, and data from more than 60 GRBs are utilized. Our results are presented in Section 3. Also we make an attempt to incorporate synchrotron radiation model for afterglows in our analysis, thus making the time delay shorter, in order to get more stringent constraints. Section 4 summarizes our results and a conclusion is drawn. Throughout our analysis we adopt the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with the cosmological parameters based upon 9-year observations of *Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe* (WMAP), that is, $H_0 = 69 {\rm{km \, s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}}}$, $\Omega_m = 0.286$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.714$ (Hinshaw et al. 2013).
Velocity Dispersion from Non-Zero Photon Mass {#sect:vdnz}
=============================================
In this section we present our methods of analysis. Supposing the rest mass of photon is $m_\gamma$, according to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, the energy of the photon can be expressed as $$\label{}
E=h\nu=\sqrt{p^2c^2+m_\gamma^2c^4}.$$ In the case of $m_\gamma \neq 0$, the group velocity $v_p$ of photon in vacuum is no longer a constant, and changes with photon energy $E$ (or frequency $\nu$) according to the dispersion relation $$\label{}
v_p=\frac{\partial{E}}{\partial{p}}=c\sqrt{1-\frac{m_\gamma^2c^4}{E^2}}=c\sqrt{1-A\nu^{-2}}\approx c(1-0.5A\nu^{-2}),$$ where $A=\frac{m_{\gamma}^2c^4}{h^2}$.
It is easily seen from Equation (2) that the lower frequency, the slower the photon propagates in vacuum. For explosive events with short time scales such as GRBs, assuming photons with different frequencies emitted simultaneously, the time delay of low energy photons relative to high energy ones thus can be used to calculate the rest mass of a photon. In reality radiations of different bands arise at different times. For example, during a GRB explosion high energy photons should be radiated earlier than X-ray to radio afterglows, and radio afterglows with higher frequencies emerge earlier than lower frequency ones (e. g., see Chandra & Frail 2012). Therefore, by ignoring such intrinsic time delays, this method can be used to put an upper limit on the photon rest mass.
In our analysis we consider a photon with a higher frequency (energy) $\nu_1$, and another photon with a lower frequency $\nu_2$. Schaefer (1999) did not explicitly clarify what kind of cosmological distance is used to calculate the $\delta t$, while we improve their previous analysis by taking this factor into account. Assuming the high energy photon is emitted at redshift $z$, the comoving distance from source to Earth-based observers for the high energy photon $\nu_1$ with a non-zero mass should be $$\label{}
D(z,\nu_1)=\frac{c}{H_0}
\int_0^{z}[1-\frac{1}{2}A\nu_1^{-2}\frac{1}{(1+z')^2}]
\frac{d{z'}}{\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z')^3+\Omega_{\Lambda}}}.$$ Suppose the low energy photon with $\nu_2$ arrives at Earth later with a nominal redshift difference $z=-\delta z$, $\delta z \ll 1.0$, the comoving distance traveled by this photon is $$\label{}
D(z,\nu_2)=\frac{c}{H_0}
\int_{-\delta{z}}^{z}[1-\frac{1}{2}A\nu_2^{-2}\frac{1}{(1+z')^2}]
\frac{d{z'}}{\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z')^3+\Omega_{\Lambda}}}.$$ Since the two photons should travel the same comoving distance before they reach Earth, we have $$\label{}
D(z,\nu_1) = D(z,\nu_2).$$ Thus the time delay $\delta t$ of the low energy photon $\nu_2$ is $$\label{}
\delta{t}=\frac{\delta{z}}{H_0}=
\frac{B}{2H_0}(\nu_2^{-2}-\nu_1^{-2})
\int_0^{z}\frac{dz'}{(1+z')^2\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z')^3+\Omega_{\Lambda}}},$$ where $B=\frac{2H_0\delta{t}}{(\nu_2^{-2}-\nu_1^{-2})H(z)}$, and $H(z)=\int_0^{z}\frac{{\rm d}z'}{(1+z')^2\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z')^3+\Omega_{\Lambda}}}$. With a little algebra, the mass of photon can be calculated from the time delay between $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ as $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\gamma} & = & B^{1/2} h c^{-2}\nonumber \\
& = & \left[ \frac{2H_0\delta t}{\left(\nu_2^{-2}-\nu_1^{-2}\right) H\left(z\right)} \right]^{1/2} h c^{-2} \nonumber\\
& \simeq & 7.4\times 10^{-48} \left[ \frac{2H_0\delta t}{\left(\nu_2^{-2}-\nu_1^{-2}\right) H\left(z\right)} \right]^{1/2} {\rm{g}}\end{aligned}$$
It can be seen that in order to get a tighter constraint, a lower $\nu_2$, a larger $z$, as well as a shorter $\delta t$ are prefered. Thus, explosive events with radio emissions occurring at cosmological distances are the most favorable choices. In our analysis we use cosmological GRBs, with their short durations as well as radio afterglows, to put stringent constraints on the upper limit of the photon mass $m_{\gamma}$. However, it should be noted that since $m_{\gamma} \propto \delta t^{1/2}/\left(\nu_2^{-2}-\nu_1^{-2}\right)^{1/2}$, the result of $m_{\gamma}$ is more dependent on $\nu_2$ rather than $\delta t$.
For cosmological GRBs, an intrinsic time delay between prompt gamma-ray emission and radio afterglow does exist, and this should be the most important contributor of the observed $\delta t$. Since prompt emissions are originated from internal interactions of the burst ejecta, and radio afterglows are from later interactions between ejecta and circumburst medium, such a $\delta t_{int}$ is always positive for radio photons. The exact value of $\delta t_{int}$ is hard to know, since early radio afterglows are subject to synchrotron self absorptions, and their starting phases are hard to detect. However, as long as $\delta t_{int} > 0$ stands, what we get from observational data still can provide upper limits of the mass of photons.
Other processes can also be responsible for dispersions between photons with different energies. One of such process is Lorentz invariance violation (LIV), that is, dispersion caused by Planck scale fluctuations of space-time itself. However recent works show that linear LIV does not exist, while time delay from possible higher order items can be completely omitted (e.g., see Abdo et al. 2009, Vasileiou et al. 2013). Besides, high energy photons rather than radio waves suffered most from LIV. Thus we ignore LIV effects in following calculations. Another possible source of time delay is deviation from Einstein’s Equivalence Principle (EEP). If such deviation exists, two photons with different energies travel at different speed in gravitational potentials (e.g. see Shapiro 1964, Krauss & Tremaine 1988, Longo 1988). Currently the best constraints of EEP are $\delta \gamma < 5.9 \times 10^{-14}$ between 1.23 - 1.45 GHz radio photons, and $\delta \gamma < 1.9 \times 10^{-12}$ between MeV and optical (eV) photons, here $\gamma$ is the Parameterized Post-Newtonian (PPN) parameter (Luo et al. 2016). If EEP violation between radio and gamma-ray photons are at the same order of magnitude, this will bring a $\sim$ seconds time delay only, which is much smaller than observed time delay between prompt emission and afterglow of GRBs, and can be neglected. Thus in this work we just assume $\left|\gamma_{MeV} - \gamma_{radio}\right| < 10^{-12}$, and ignore the possible effects of EEP violations. However since no constraint has been performed in such a broad band yet, the possible time delay caused by EEP may bring largest uncertainties here.
Also, plasma effects can change the propagation of radio waves. However, even for cosmological sources within dense medium, such as GRBs, dispersions caused by plasma are in the order of $10^0 \sim 10^2$ seconds only, which is much shorter than the observed time delay between GRB prompt emissions and radio afterglows. And emissions with longer wavelengths should arrive later due to plasma dispersion. Such an effect cannot change our conclusion on upper limits of $m_{\gamma}$. Thus we neglect plasma effects in this paper.
In one word, the observed time delay $\delta t$ between GRB prompt and afterglow emissions came from 3 major sources, non-zero photon mass $\delta t_{\gamma}$, the intrinsic time delay between prompt emission and afterglow $\delta t_{int}$, and plasma effect $\delta t_{plas}$, along with a negligible $\delta t_{others}$ arises from EEP violation, LIV, observational errors, as well as other effects. All the 3 major sources can make lower energy photons arrive later, making $\delta t_{\gamma}>0$, $\delta t_{int}>0$, and $\delta t_{plas}>0$. Thus by considering $\delta t$ comes from non-zero $m_{\gamma}$ completely, what we get is a stringent upper limit of $m_{\gamma}$.
The GRB Sample and the Results {#sect:result}
==============================
Chandra & Frail (2012) compiled radio observations of GRBs between 1997 January and 2011 January, as well as one Fermi burst, GRB 110428A, with a total of 304 GRBs. Based upon this paper, we select our sample for this analysis. First, we put a limit on the mass of photon with the same method as Schaefer (1999), that is, using time delays between high energy prompt detection and the first radio afterglow detection to constrain the mass limit of photon. In our analysis, we choose those GRBs with known redshift $z$ and confirmed radio afterglow detections. Data are selected from various literatures as well as GCN circulars. We compute the time delay $\delta t$ between the trigger time of GRB detectors and the radio observations for each burst, and calculate the upper limit of the photon mass $m_{\gamma}$. For those early afterglow data with large errors, we choose the ones marked as reliable detections in radio light curves in related publications.
In Table 1 we list our data as well as results. Here the frequencies of high energy photon $\nu_1$ are the lower limits of each detector. However, since $\nu_2 \ll \nu_1$ the item $\nu_2^{-2}-\nu_1^{-2}$ can be approximated as $\nu_2^{-2}$, thus in fact the values of $\nu_1$ do not have noticeable effect on our results. All of the redshift $z$ are taken from Chandra & Frail (2012). We also list the references for our $\delta t$ data in the last column, in which GCN circulars are represented with circular numbers, while published papers are cited by abbreviations, with a complete list presented at the end of the table.
It can be seen from Table 1 that the best result is $m_{\gamma} < 1.062 \times 10^{-44}$ g with GRB 050416A. This GRB has very early radio observations at moderately low radio frequencies ($\sim$ 8.5 GHz). By comparison, The best constraint from Schaefer (1999) is $m_{\gamma} < 4.2 \times 10^{-44}$ g with GRB 980703. Thus we can say that by using early radio afterglow data, our constraints are half orders of magnitude better than those from Schaefer (1999).
However, the main disadvantage of the method of Schaefer (1999) is that, GRB prompt and afterglow photons originate from different regions and different mechanisms, i.e., ejecta interactions for prompt emission and external shocks for afterglows. Although the size difference between prompt and afterglow emission zones is negligible compared with cosmological distance, assuming low and high energy photons radiating from the same region is still too simplified. As a matter of fact, GRB afterglows must arise later than prompt $\gamma$-ray radiations. Thus in order to get more reliable constraints, we also adopt another new method in this analysis, that is, constraining the mass of photon with multi-wavelength radio observations only. In this case, we assume multi-band radio peaks arise at the same time in external shocks despite of afterglow dynamics, and take the time delay between high and low frequency peaks as a result of dispersion induced by non-zero photon mass. It is known that lower frequency radio peaks in GRB afterglows intrinsically appear later than higher frequency ones (e.g., see Wu et al. 2005, as well as Chandra & Frail 2012), thus from our assumption an upper limit of photon mass can be achieved.
Chandra & Frail (2012) listed the radio peak flux densities and the peak time for each GRB with radio afterglow light curve observations (i.e, GRBs with more than 3 radio detections in a single radio frequency). Here we analyse the GRBs with (1) radio peak data in two or more bands; (2) flux peaking at higher frequencies earlier than at lower frequencies; and (3) reliable redshift measurements from the whole sample. With all these three criteria we select 23 GRBs with multi-band radio peak data. Also Chandra & Frail (2012) only used late time data to fit peak time, which means the early reverse shocks have very little effects on fitting results. Thus all peak photons we used here are from forward shock emissions only, which can reduce uncertainties bring out by two-component method used by Schaefer (1999). All of the necessary information of our sample as well as the results derived from multi-band radio peaks are listed in Table 2. It can be seen that generally speaking, the results derived from the radio peaks are worse than in Table 1. That is because in our second method the values of $\delta t$ are more than 1 order of magnitude larger than those from the first one, thus bring out noticeable effects. One exception is GRB 991208. With a time delay between 1.43 and 8.46 GHz peaks of only $1.1$ days, it can give a constraint of $m_{\gamma} < 1.161 \times 10^{-44}$ g, comparable to (although still slightly larger than) our best result based upon the same method as Schaefer (1999). The major disadvantage of multi-band peak method is that, in Chandra & Frail (2012), more than half of the peak data are fitting results from forward shock model with uniform circumburst density profile assumption, rather than observations. Therefore, constraints from such radio peaks are more model-dependent than those from the method of Schaefer (1999). The few upper limits drawn from observed peaks are marked with “\*” in Table 2. These are model-independent results from our second method, and the best one is $m_{\gamma} < 2.804 \times 10^{-44}$ g from GRB 000301C.
In the analysis above, we just assume that the radio peaks of different frequencies were emitted at the same time in a GRB event. However, these peak times can be strongly dependent of dynamical evolution. In the synchrotron radiation model for GRBs, the radio emission peaks at the time when the typical frequency $\nu_m$ drops down to the observational frequency $\nu$, and the frequency $\nu_m$ is proportional to $t^{-3/2}$ (e.g., see Katz 1994). I.e., $$\label{}
\nu_1\propto {t_{p,1}}^{-\frac{3}{2}}, \nu_2\propto {t_{p,2}}^{-\frac{3}{2}},$$ Here $t_{p,1}$ and $t_{p,2}$ denote the theoretical values in the framework of the synchrotron radiation model of the peak time at $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$, respectively. That is $$\label{}
t_{p,2}=t_{p,1}(\frac{\nu_1}{\nu_2})^{\frac{2}{3}}.$$ Assuming $t_{p,1}=t_1$, we can get a time delay $\delta t'$ with synchrotron model correction $$\label{}
\delta t'=t_2-t_{p,2}=t_2-t_1(\frac{\nu_1}{\nu_2})^{\frac{2}{3}}$$ It can be seen that since $\nu_1 > \nu_2$, $\delta t' < \delta t$. Thus in this way we can reduce the value of time delay between $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ further for those GRBs with $\delta t' > 0$, and bring out improvement to our results. Our best result based on synchrotron radiation model is $2.346\times 10^{-44}$ g, from GRB 980703, which is still worse than our best constraint without synchrotron corrections. That is because the 1.43 GHz peak of GRB 991208 arrives earlier than the 4.86 GHz peak, making $\delta t' < 0$, thus the data of this burst cannot be used here. Also, the most important issue is that, such a little improvement requires an essential assumption, that is, GRB radio afterglows arise from synchrotron radiation only. Although in most cases it seems to be the case, and in GRB radio afterglows other radiation mechanisms, such as inverse Compton scattering, should not play major roles (e.g., see Wu et al. 2005), such an assumption still may bring extra concerns and uncertainties.
Conclusion and Discussions {#sect:Conclusion}
==========================
In this paper, we present our constraints of photon mass $m_{\gamma}$ based upon multi-band GRB data. Using early time radio detections as well as multi-band radio afterglow peaks, we improve the results of Schaefer (1999) by nearly half an order of magnitude. Our best result is $m_{\gamma} < 1.062 \times 10^{-44}$ g from GRB 050416A, from the time delay between early radio afterglow and prompt high energy observations, compared with $4.2 \times 10^{-44}$ g from Schaefer (1999). We also tried to reduce the time difference between multi-band radio peaks by taking synchrotron radiation model into account. However, since the weak dependency between time delay and $m_{\gamma}$, the improvements are not significant, and may bring further uncertainties, therefore such an approach is not favored. We also analyzed several latest GRBs not listed in Chandra & Frail (2012). However, the results do not show tighter constraints, thus they are not listed in Tables 1 and 2.
Besides possible uncertainties brought by EEP violations, as mentioned in Section 2, other errors from observations and data reductions exist. First of all, early radio observations may suffer from many complicated factors, with synchrotron self absorptions as the most significant one. Synchrotron self absorption can suppress the early fluence of radio afterglow, and can lead to a detection later than the afterglow onset, that is, making the observed $\delta t > \delta t_{\gamma}+\delta t_{int} +\delta t_{plas}+\delta t_{others}$. Thus these early detections may not truly reflect the onset time of GRBs as well as their afterglows. Also it should be noted that the peak times and fluences of most of samples in Chandra & Frail (2012) are fitted from multiple observations, rather than taken from direct measurements, thus have considerable errors. However since the dependency between $m_{\gamma}$ and $\delta t$ is relatively weak, that is, $m_{\gamma} \propto \delta t^{1/2}$, even taking all these factors into consideration, the $\delta t$ we use to constrain the photon mass can only vary within 1 order of magnitude in the worst case, and our results still stand.
It should be noted that the upper limit of $m_{\gamma}$ constrained by GRBs may have a best value of $m_{\gamma} \sim 10^{-45}$ g or so. That is because, the radio observations usually cannot start very early after the trigger of GRB detectors. Besides, radio afterglows, especially low frequency afterglows, which are more favorable for $m_{\gamma}$ constraints, suffer strongly from synchrotron self absorption during early times, thus have very low fluxes. However, currently radio afterglow observations are heavily restricted to the sensitivities of instruments, and in most cases only the brightest afterglows at late times can be clearly detected (Chandra & Frail 2012). Taking GRB 050416A with very early 8.46 GHz radio observations (0.026 day after the GRB trigger) as an example, the upper limit of $m_{\gamma}$ obtained from this GRB is $1.062 \times 10^{-44}$ g. Suppose this burst occuring at a typical redshift $1.8$ rather than the measured one $z=0.650$, and the early radio observations are taken at a lower 1.43 GHz, which is more favorable for $m_{\gamma}$ constraints, we can get $m_{\gamma} < 1.52 \times 10^{-45}$ g. This value might be the best result one can expect from GRB observations, or even all astrophysical explosive events. And with current detector sensitivities, such early low frequency radio observations can be expected only for a few brightest GRBs with ideal circum burst medium conditions. As far as we know, no such early low frequency detection exists so far.
The only exception may be the newly discovered fast radio bursts (FRBs, Lorimer et al. 2007; Thornton et al. 2013). With a duration of $\sim$ ms, and a newly measured redshift $z = 0.492$ for FRB 150418 (Keane et al. 2016), a better constraint can be achieved ($5.2\times 10^{-47}$ g, see Wu et al. 2016). However, currently controversies still remain for FRB redshift measurements, and Williams & Loeb (2016) noted that the radio “afterglow” for FRB 150418 may come from AGN variabilities rather than FRB itself. Thus, constraints from FRBs are with more uncertainties compared to GRBs, and may be not quite reliable. Until the redshift of FRBs can be measured with less uncertainties, constraining the photon mass with GRBs yields the best results among all measurements using time delays.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is partially supported by the National Basic Research Program (“973” Program) of China (Grants 2014CB845800 and 2013CB834900), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants Nos. 11322328 and 11433009), the Youth Innovation Promotion Association (2011231), and the Strategic Priority Research Program “The Emergence of Cosmological Structures” (Grant No. XDB09000000) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Abdo A. A., Ackermann M., Ajello M. et al., 2009, Nature, 484, 351 Accioly A., Pazszko R., 2004, Phys Rev D, 69, 107501 Berger E., Soderberg A. M., Frail D. A., 2003, GCN Circ., 2014 Berger E., Kulkarni S. R., Pooley G. et al., 2003, Nature, 426, 154 Berger E., Frail D. A., Kulkarni S. R., 2002, GCN Circ., 1613 Berger E., Kulkarni S. R., Frail D. A. et al., 2002, GCN Circ., 1555 Berger E., Kulkarni S. R., Frail D. A., 2002, GCN Circ., 1331 Berger E., Diercks A., Frail D. A. et al., 2001, ApJ, 556, 556 Berger E., Frail D. A., 2001, GCN Circ., 968 Berger E., Sari R., Frail D. A. et al., 2000, ApJ, 545, 56 Berger E., Price P., Frail D. A., 2000, GCN Circ., 795 Berger E., Frail D. A., 2000, GCN Circ., 589 Bertoldi F., 2000, GCN Circ., 580 Bock D. C.-J., Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2009, GCN Circ., 9005 Bremer M., Castro-Tirado A. J., Neri, R., 2005, GCN Circ., 4157 Bremer M., 2002, GCN Circ., 1590 Bremer M., Bertoldi F., Lisenfeld U. et al., 1999, GCN Circ., 459 Cameron P. B., Frail D. A., 2005, GCN Circ., 4154 Cameron P. B., 2005, GCN Circ., 3761 Cameron P. B., Frail D. A., 2005, GCN Circ., 3676 Cameron P. B., 2005, GCN Circ., 3513 Cameron P. B., Frail D. A., 2005, GCN Circ., 3495 Cenko S. B., Kasliwal M., Harrison F. A. et al., 2006, ApJ, 652, 490 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 746, 156 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2010, GCN Circ., 11257 Chandra P., Frail D. A., Fox D. et al., 2010, ApJ, 712, L31 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2009, GCN Circ., 9889 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2009, GCN Circ., 9695 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2009, GCN Circ., 9533 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2009, GCN Circ., 9260 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2009, GCN Circ., 9166 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2008, GCN Circ., 8103 Chandra P., Cenko S. B., Frail D. A. et al., 2008, ApJ, 683, 924 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2008, GCN Circ., 7855 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2008, GCN Circ., 7843 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2007, GCN Circ., 7132 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2007, GCN Circ., 6978 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2007, GCN Circ., 6853 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2007, GCN Circ., 6600 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2007, GCN Circ., 5997 Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2006, GCN Circ., 5843 Chibisov G. V., 1976, Sov Phys Usp, 19, 624 Djorgovski S. G., Frail D. A., Kulkarni S. R. et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, 654 Frail D. A., Chandra P., Cenko S. B. et al., 2010, GCN Circ., 10698 Frail D. A., Chandra P., Singh T., 2009, GCN Circ., 10088 Frail D. A., Chandra P., Cenko B., 2009, GCN Circ., 9060 Frail D. A., Chandra P., 2009, GCN Circ., 9011 Frail D. A., 2005, GCN Circ., 4416 Frail D. A., Cameron P. B, Soderberg A. M., 2005, GCN Circ., 4244 Frail D. A., Berger E., 2003, GCN Circ., 1827 Frail D. A., Berger E., 2002, GCN Circ., 1574 Frail D. A., Berger E., 2002, GCN Circ., 1490 Frail D. A., Berger E., 2000, GCN Circ., 805 Frail D. A., 2000, GCN Circ., 655 Frail D. A., Kulkarni S. R., Bloom J. S. et al., 1999, ApJ, 525, L81 Frail D. A., Kulkarni S. R., Nicastro L. et al., 1999, Nature, 389, 261 Frail D. A., 1999, GCN Circ., 451 Frail D. A., Kulkarni S. R., Bloom J. S. et al., 1998, GCN Circ., 141 Frail D. A., Cameron P. B., Kasliwal M. et al., 2006, ApJ, 646, L99 Galama T. J., Bremer M., Bertoldi F. et al., 2000, ApJ, 541, L45 Goldhaber A .S. & Nieto M. M. 2003, Phys Rev Lett, 91, 149101 Harrison F., Cenko B., Frail D. A., 2009, GCN Circ., 9043 Harrison F. A., Yost S. A., Sari R. et al., 2001, ApJ, 559, 123 Harrison F. A., Bloom J. S., Frail D. A. et al., 1999, ApJ, 523, L121 Hinshaw G., Larson D., Komatsu E., et al., 2013, ApJS, 208, 19 Jakobsson P., Frail D. A., Fox D. B. et al., 2005, ApJ, 629, 45 Kamble A. P., van der Horst A. J., Wijers R. A. M. J., 2010, GCN Circ., 10697 Kamble A., van der Horst A. J., Wijers R., 2009, GCN Circ., 9538 Katz J. I., 1994, ApJ, 432, L107 Keane E. F., Johnston S., Bhandari S. et al., 2016, Nature, 530, 453 Krauss L. M., Tremaine S., 1988, Phys Rev Lett, 60, 176 Kulkarni S. R., Frail D. A., Sari R. et al., 1999, ApJ, 522, L97 Kulkarni S. R., Frail D. A., Wieringa M. H. et al., 1998, Nature, 395, 663 Kuno N., Sato N. Nakanishi H., 2003, GCN Circ., 2089 Longo M. J., 1988, Phys Rev Lett, 60, 173 Lorimer D. R., Bailes M., McLaughlin M. A. et al., 2007, Science, 318, 777 Luo Z.-X., Zhang B., Wei J.-J. et al., 2016, JHEAP, 9, 35 Martin S., Petitpas G., de Ugarte Postigo A., 2010, GCN Circ., 10630 Moin A., Chandra P., Miller-Jones J. C. A. et al., 2013, ApJ, 779, 105 Olive K. A., Agashe K., Amsler C. et al. (Particle Data Group), 2014, Chin. Phys. C, 38, 090001 Perley D. A., Li W., Chornock R. et al., 2008, ApJ, 688, 470 Pooley G., 2010, GCN Circ., 11259 Pooley G., 2009, GCN Circ., 9532 Pooley G., 2009, GCN Circ., 9003 Pooley G., 2003, GCN Circ., 2043 Pooley G., 2002, GCN Circ., 1588 Pooley G., 1999, GCN Circ., 489 Pooley G., 1999, GCN Circ., 457 Pramesh Rao A., Ishwara Chandra C. H., Bhattacharya D., 2003, GCN Circ., 2073 Rol E., Vreeswijk P. M., Strom R. et al., 1999, GCN Circ., 491 Rol E., Wijers R., 2003, GCN Circ., 1864 Price P. A., Berger E., Fox D. W. et al., 2001, GCN Circ., 1107 Price P. A., Kulkarni S. R., Berger E. et al., 2002, ApJ, 571, L121 Ryutov D. D., 2007, Plasma Phys Control Fusion, 49, B429 Schaefer B. E., 1999, Phys Rev Lett, 82, 4964 Shapiro I. I., 1964, Phys Rev Lett, 13, 789 Smith I., 2003, GCN Circ., 2088 Soderberg A. M., Chandra P., Frail D. A., 2008, GCN Circ., 7506 Soderberg A. M., Nakar E., Cenko S. B. et al., 2007, ApJ, 661, 982 Soderberg A. M., Frail D. A., 2006, GCN Circ., 4794 Soderberg A. M., 2005, GCN Circ., 3318 Soderberg A. M., 2005, GCN Circ., 3187 Soderberg A. M., Frail D. A., 2005, GCN Circ., 3102 Soderberg A. M., Kulkarni S. R., Berger E. et al., 2004a, ApJ, 606, 994 Soderberg A. M., Kulkarni S. R., Berger E. et al., 2004b, Nature, 430, 648 Subrahmanyan R., Kulkarni S. R., Berger E., 2001, GCN Circ., 1156 Taylor G. B., Frail D. A., 2000, GCN Circ., 514 Taylor G. B., Berger E., 1999, GCN Circ., 483 Taylor G. B., Frail D. A., Kulkarni S. R. et al., 1999, GCN Circ., 308 Taylor G. B., Frail D. A., Kulkarni S. R. et al. 1998, ApJ, 502, L115 Thornton D., Stappers B., Bailes M. et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53 Tu L.-C., Shao C.-G., Luo J. et al., 2006, Phys Lett A, 352, 267 Tu L.-C., Luo J., Gillies G. T., 2005, Rep Prog Phys, 68, 77 van der Horst A. J., Wiersema K., Kamble A. P., 2010, GCN Circ., 11221 van der Horst A. J., Kamble A. P., Wijers R. A. M. J., 2010, GCN Circ., 10647 van der Horst A. J., Kamble A. P., Wijers R. A. M. J., 2009, GCN Circ., 9883 van der Horst A. J., 2009, GCN Circ., 9047 van der Horst A. J., Kamble A. P., 2009, GCN Circ., 9016 van der Horst A. J., 2008, GCN Circ., 7507 van der Horst A. J., Wijers R. A. M. J., Wiersema K., 2007, GCN Circ., 6549 van der Horst A. J., 2007, GCN Circ., 6063 van der Horst A. J., Rol E., Wijers R. A. M. J., 2005, GCN Circ., 4158 van der Horst A. J., Rol E., 2005, GCN Circ., 3781 Vasileiou V., Jacholkowska A., Piron F. et al., 2013, Phys Rev D, 87, 122001 Wieringa M., Frail D. A., Kulkarni S. R. et al., 1998, GCN Circ., 63 Williams P. K. G., Berger E., 2016, arXiv:1602.08434 Wu X.-F., Zhang S.-B., Wei J.-J. et al., 2016, ApJ, 822, 15 Wu X. F., Dai Z. G., Huang Y. F., et al., 2005, ApJ, 619, 968 Zhang B., Yan H., 2011, ApJ, 726, 90
GRB $\nu_1$ (keV) $\nu_2$ (GHz) $\delta t$ (days) z$^a$ $m_{\gamma}$ (g) Ref.$^b$
------------ --------------- --------------- ------------------- ------- ------------------------- ----------------
970508 40 1.43 6.23 0.835 $2.627 \times 10^{-44}$ \[1\]
970508 40 4.86 6.23 0.835 $8.929 \times 10^{-44}$ \[1\]
970508 40 8.46 5.06 0.835 $1.401 \times 10^{-43}$ \[1\]
970828 5 8.46 3.5 0.958 $1.135 \times 10^{-43}$ \[2\]
980329$^c$ 40 4.9 9.90 2 $1.007 \times 10^{-43}$ \[3\]
980329 40 4.9 9.90 3.9 $9.748 \times 10^{-44}$ \[3\]
980329 40 8.3 1.07 2 $5.608 \times 10^{-44}$ \[3\]
980329 40 8.3 1.07 3.9 $5.429 \times 10^{-44}$ \[3\]
980425 40 1.38 11.7 0.009 $2.289 \times 10^{-43}$ \[4\]
980425 40 2.49 11.7 0.009 $4.131 \times 10^{-43}$ \[4\]
980425 40 4.80 2.82 0.009 $3.909 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 63
980425 40 8.64 3.07 0.009 $7.342 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 63
980703 40 1.43 5.32 0.966 $2.361 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 141
980703 40 4.86 1.22 0.966 $3.842 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 141
980703 40 8.46 4.12 0.966 $1.229 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 141
981226 40 8.46 3.51 1.11 $1.08 \times 10^{-43}$ \[5\]
990123 40 8.46 0.22 1.600 $2.645 \times 10^{-44}$ \[6\]
990506 20 8.4 1.72 1.307 $7.522 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 308
990510 40 4.8 0.72 1.619 $2.712 \times 10^{-44}$ \[7\]
990510 40 8.6 0.72 1.619 $4.859 \times 10^{-44}$ \[7\]
991208 25 1.43 7.71 0.706 $3.031 \times 10^{-44}$ \[8\]
991208 25 4.86 2.73 0.706 $6.130 \times 10^{-44}$ \[8\]
991208 25 8.46 2.73 0.706 $1.067 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 451
991208 25 14.97 13.77 0.706 $4.241 \times 10^{-43}$ \[8\]
991208 25 15 3.41 0.706 $2.115 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 457
991208 25 22.49 13.77 0.706 $6.371 \times 10^{-43}$ \[8\]
991208 25 30 5.44 0.706 $5.342 \times 10^{-43}$ \[8\]
991208 25 86.24 7.43 0.706 $1.795 \times 10^{-42}$ \[8\]
991208 25 100 3.44 0.706 $1.416 \times 10^{-42}$ \[8\]
991208 25 240 3.58 0.706 $3.467 \times 10^{-42}$ GCN Circ., 459
991216 20 4.8 1.11 1.020 $3.586 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 491
991216 20 8.4 1.65 1.020 $7.650 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 514
991216 20 8.5 1.49 1.020 $7.536 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 483
991216 20 15 1.14 1.020 $1.136 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 489
: Constraints of photon mass from time delay between $\gamma$-ray and radio observations.
GRB $\nu_1$ (keV) $\nu_2$ (GHz) $\delta t$ (days) z$^a$ $m_{\gamma}$ (g) Ref.$^b$
--------- --------------- --------------- ------------------- ------- ------------------------- -----------------
000301C 5 4.86 4.26 2.034 $6.544 \times 10^{-44}$ \[9\]
000301C 5 8.46 4.26 2.034 $1.139 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 589
000301C 5 22.5 4.26 2.034 $3.030 \times 10^{-43}$ \[9\]
000301C 5 250 2.88 2.034 $2.768 \times 10^{-42}$ GCN Circ., 580
000418 25 4.86 12.65 1.119 $1.207 \times 10^{-43}$ \[10\]
000418 25 8.46 10.66 1.119 $1.929 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 655
000418 25 15 12.32 1.119 $3.677 \times 10^{-43}$ \[10\]
000911 25 8.46 3.06 1.059 $1.043 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 795
000926 25 4.86 1.98 2.039 $4.460 \times 10^{-44}$ \[11\]
000926 25 8.46 1.17 2.039 $5.969 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 805
000926 25 15 1.82 2.039 $1.320 \times 10^{-43}$ \[11\]
000926 25 22.5 7.19 2.039 $3.935 \times 10^{-43}$ \[11\]
000926 25 98.48 2.72 2.039 $1.059 \times 10^{-42}$ \[11\]
010222 40 22 0.31 1.477 $8.238 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 968
010921 8 4.86 25.93 0.450 $2.130 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 1107
010921 8 8.46 25.93 0.450 $3.708 \times 10^{-43}$ \[12\]
010921 8 22.5 25.93 0.450 $9.863 \times 10^{-43}$ \[12\]
011121 40 8.64 0.88 0.362 $7.474 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 1156
020405 25 8.46 1.19 0.690 $7.083 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 1331
020813 8 8.46 1.24 1.254 $6.469 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 1490
020819 8 4.86 9.72 0.410 $1.342 \times 10^{-43}$ \[13\]
020819 8 8.46 1.75 0.410 $9.914 \times 10^{-44}$ \[13\]
020903 2 1.5 25.7 0.250 $7.991 \times 10^{-44}$ \[14\]
020903 2 4.9 25.7 0.250 $2.610 \times 10^{-43}$ \[14\]
020903 2 8.46 23.8 0.250 $4.337 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 1555
020903 2 22.5 25.7 0.250 $1.200 \times 10^{-42}$ \[14\]
021004 8 1.43 5.66 2.330 $2.199 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 1613
021004 8 4.86 5.66 2.330 $7.472 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 1613
021004 8 8.46 5.66 2.330 $1.301 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 1613
021004 8 15 1.34 2.330 $1.122 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 1588
021004 8 22.5 0.78 2.330 $1.284 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 1574
021004 8 86.233 1.42 2.330 $6.641 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 1590
030115A 25 4.9 1.74 2.500 $4.160 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 1864
030115A 25 8.46 2.28 2.500 $8.221 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 1827
GRB $\nu_1$ (keV) $\nu_2$ (GHz) $\delta t$ (days) z$^a$ $m_{\gamma}$ (g) Ref.$^b$
------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------- ------- ------------------------- -----------------
030329$^d$ 6 1.288 2.10 0.169 $2.287 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 2073
030329 6 1.43 66.53 0.169 $1.429 \times 10^{-43}$ \[15\]
030329 6 4.86 1.05 0.169 $6.103 \times 10^{-44}$ \[15\]
030329 6 8.46 0.58 0.169 $7.896 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 2014
030329 6 15.2 1.21 0.169 $2.049 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 2043
030329 6 22.5 2.65 0.169 $4.489 \times 10^{-43}$ \[15\]
030329 6 23 4.98 0.169 $6.290 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 2089
030329 6 43.3 2.65 0.169 $8.638 \times 10^{-43}$ \[15\]
030329 6 90 4.98 0.169 $2.461 \times 10^{-42}$ GCN Circ., 2089
030329 6 350 4.92 0.169 $9.514 \times 10^{-42}$ GCN Circ., 2088
031203 20 1.43 39.37 0.105 $1.347 \times 10^{-43}$ \[16\]
031203 20 4.86 4.43 0.105 $1.536 \times 10^{-43}$ \[16\]
031203 20 8.46 1.60 0.105 $1.606 \times 10^{-43}$ \[16\]
031203 20 22.5 13.46 0.105 $1.239 \times 10^{-42}$ \[16\]
050315 15 8.5 0.80 1.950 $4.976 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 3102
050401 15 8.5 5.69 2.898 $1.295 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 3187
050416A 15 1.43 76.46 0.650 $9.736 \times 10^{-44}$ \[17\]
050416A 15 4.86 5.58 0.650 $8.938 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 3318
050416A$^e$ 15 8.46 0.026 0.650 $1.062 \times 10^{-44}$ \[17\]
050525A 15 22.5 0.42 0.606 $1.155 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 3495
050603 15 8.5 0.35 2.821 $3.216 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 3513
050724 15 8.5 0.57 0.258 $6.665 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 3676
050730$^f$ 15 4.9 5.63 3.968 $7.348 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 3781
050730 15 8.5 2.20 3.968 $7.968 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 3761
050820A 15 4.86 2.15 2.615 $4.575 \times 10^{-44}$ \[18\]
050820A 15 8.46 0.116 2.615 $1.850 \times 10^{-44}$ \[18\]
050904 15 8.46 34.18 6.290 $3.101 \times 10^{-43}$ \[19\]
051022 6 4.9 1.09 0.809 $3.790 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 4158
051022 6 8.5 1.54 0.809 $7.815 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 4154
051022 6 100 1.35 0.809 $8.609 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 4157
051109A 15 8.5 2.10 2.346 $7.957 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 4244
051221A 15 8.5 0.91 0.547 $6.601 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 4416
060218 15 8.46 1.85 0.033 $2.956 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 4794
061121 15 8.46 0.74 1.315 $4.965 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 5843
GRB $\nu_1$ (keV) $\nu_2$ (GHz) $\delta t$ (days) z$^a$ $m_{\gamma}$ (g) Ref.$^b$
------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------- ------- ------------------------- ------------------
061222A 15 8.46 0.86 2.088 $5.108 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 5997
070125 30 4.9 5.39 1.548 $7.610 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 6063
070125 30 8.46 4.01 1.548 $1.133 \times 10^{-43}$ \[20\]
070125 30 14.94 13.07 1.548 $3.380 \times 10^{-43}$ \[20\]
070125 30 22.5 10.73 1.548 $4.930 \times 10^{-43}$ \[20\]
070125 30 95 10.98 1.548 $2.106 \times 10^{-42}$ \[20\]
070125 30 250 6.52 1.548 $4.270 \times 10^{-42}$ \[20\]
070612A 15 4.88 18.75 0.617 $1.667 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 6600
070612A$^g$ 15 4.9 3.23 0.617 $6.946 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 6549
071003 15 4.86 3.84 1.604 $6.347 \times 10^{-44}$ \[21\]
071003 15 8.46 1.76 1.604 $7.480 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 6853
071020 15 8.46 2.17 2.146 $8.098 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 6978
071122 15 8.46 2.88 1.140 $9.997 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 7132
080319B 15 4.86 2.30 0.937 $5.305 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 7506
080319B$^h$ 15 4.9 3.58 0.937 $6.673 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 7507
080603A$^i$ 20 8.46 1.92 1.687 $7.773 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 7843
080603A 20 8.46 3.95 1.687 $1.115 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 7855
080810 15 8.46 2.81 3.350 $9.008 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 8103
090313 15 4.9 7.41 3.375 $8.471 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 9016
090313 15 8.46 5.85 3.375 $1.299 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 9011
090313 15 14.5 2.70 3.375 $1.513 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 9003
090313 15 92.5 1.02 3.375 $5.933 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 9005
090323 8 4.9 4.74 3.57 $6.762 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 9047
090323 8 8.46 4.38 3.57 $1.122 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 9043
090328 8 8.46 2.59 0.736 $1.030 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 9060
090418 15 8.46 1.00 1.608 $5.637 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 9166
090423 15 8.46 7.72 8.260 $1.471 \times 10^{-43}$ \[22\]
090424 15 8.46 1.50 0.544 $8.447 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 9260
090618 15 4.9 1.43 0.540 $4.787 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 9538
090618 15 8.46 0.98 0.540 $6.842 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 9533
090618 15 14.6 0.76 0.540 $1.040 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 9532
090715B 15 8.46 4.26 3.000 $1.114 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 9695
090902B 8 4.8 1.13 1.883 $3.349 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 9883
090902B 8 8.46 1.54 1.883 $6.892 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 9889
091020 15 8.46 0.76 1.710 $4.884 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 10088
100414A 8 4.8 13.57 1.368 $1.200 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 10697
100414A 8 8.46 13.08 1.368 $2.077 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 10698
GRB $\nu_1$ (keV) $\nu_2$ (GHz) $\delta t$ (days) z$^a$ $m_{\gamma}$ (g) Ref.$^b$
------------- --------------- --------------- ------------------- ------- ------------------------- ------------------
100418A 15 4.8 1.97 0.620 $5.307 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 10647
100418A 15 5.5 2 0.620 $6.127 \times 10^{-44}$ \[23\]
100418A 15 8.46 3 0.620 $1.154 \times 10^{-43}$ \[23\]
100418A 15 9 2 0.620 $1.003 \times 10^{-43}$ \[23\]
100418A 15 345 0.66 0.620 $2.208 \times 10^{-42}$ GCN Circ., 10630
100901A 15 4.5 4.90 1.408 $6.737 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 11257
100901A$^j$ 15 4.9 2.28 1.408 $5.004 \times 10^{-44}$ GCN Circ., 11221
100901A 15 7.9 4.90 1.408 $1.183 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 11257
100906A 15 13.5 2.34 1.727 $1.366 \times 10^{-43}$ GCN Circ., 11259
Notes:\
$^a$ All redshift data are adopted from Chandra & Frail (2012)\
$^b$ Abbreviations for the references are as follows: \[1\] Frail et al. (1999a); \[2\] Djorgovski et al. (2001); \[3\] Taylor et al. (1998); \[4\] Kulkarni et al. (1998); \[5\] Frail et al. (1999b); \[6\] Kulkarni et al. (1999); \[7\] Harrison et al. (1999); \[8\] Galama et al. (2000); \[9\] Berger et al. (2000); \[10\] Berger et al. (2001); \[11\] Harrison et al. (2001); \[12\] Price et al. (2002); \[13\] Jakobsson et al. (2005); \[14\] Soderberg et al. (2004a); \[15\] Berger et al. (2003); \[16\] Soderberg et al. (2004b); \[17\] Soderberg et al. (2007); \[18\] Cenko et al. (2006); \[19\] Frail et al. (2006); \[20\] Chandra et al. (2008); \[21\] Perley et al. (2008); \[22\] Chandra et al. (2010); \[23\] Moin et al. (2013).\
$^c$ Chandra & Frail (2012) presents a redshift range ($z \sim 2-3.9 $) for this burst. Thus we calculate the $m_{\gamma}$ with upper and lower limits of $z$, respectively.\
$^d$ Possible detection.\
$^e$ The 0.026 day observation has very large error bars ($20 \pm 51$ $\mu$Jy), as shown in Soderberg et al. (2007). However in Fig. 6 of Chandra & Frail (2012) this data point is marked as “radio detected”. Thus in our analysis we take this early observation into consideration.\
$^f$ Possible detection.\
$^g$ Possible detection.\
$^h$ Possible detection.\
$^i$ Possible detection.\
$^j$ Possible detection.\
GRB $\nu_1$(GHz) $\nu_2$(GHz) $t_1$(day) $t_2$(day) z m$_\gamma$ (g)
----------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ ------- -------------------------
970508 4.86 1.43 57.6 179.1 0.835 $1.214 \times 10^{-43}$
970508 8.46 1.43 37.2 179.1 0.835 $1.272 \times 10^{-43}$
970508 8.46 4.86 37.2 57.6 0.835 $1.974 \times 10^{-43}$
980425 2.5 1.38 32.7 47.1 0.009 $3.046 \times 10^{-43}$
980425 4.8 1.38 18.3 47.1 0.009 $3.750 \times 10^{-43}$
980425 4.8 2.5 18.3 32.7 0.009 $5.390 \times 10^{-43}$
980425 8.64 1.38 12.7 47.1 0.009 $3.977 \times 10^{-43}$
980425 8.64 2.5 12.7 32.7 0.009 $5.665 \times 10^{-43}$
980425 8.64 4.8 12.7 18.3 0.009 $6.690 \times 10^{-43}$
980703 4.86 1.43 9.1 25.4 0.966 $4.324 \times 10^{-44}$
980703 8.46 1.43 10 25.4 0.966 $4.076 \times 10^{-44}$
990510 8.46 4.86 4.2 9.2 1.619 $8.840 \times 10^{-44}$
991208 8.46 1.43 7.8 8.9 0.706 $1.161 \times 10^{-44}$
991208 8.46 4.86 7.8 12.8 0.706 $1.014 \times 10^{-43}$
991208 15 1.43 5.4 8.9 0.706 $2.052 \times 10^{-44}$
991208 15 4.86 5.4 12.8 0.706 $1.067 \times 10^{-43}$
991208 15 8.46 5.4 7.8 0.706 $1.212 \times 10^{-43}$
991216\* 15 4.86 1.3 17.4 1.020 $1.461 \times 10^{-43}$
000301C\* 15 4.86 3.6 4.3 2.034 $2.804 \times 10^{-44}$
000301C\* 15 8.46 3.6 14.1 2.034 $2.166 \times 10^{-43}$
000301C 22.5 8.46 4.3 14.1 2.034 $1.884 \times 10^{-43}$
000418 8.46 4.86 18.1 27 1.119 $1.237 \times 10^{-43}$
000418 15 4.86 12.3 27 1.119 $1.375 \times 10^{-43}$
000418 15 8.46 12.3 18.1 1.119 $1.723 \times 10^{-43}$
000418 22.5 4.86 14.6 27 1.119 $1.224 \times 10^{-43}$
000418 22.5 8.46 14.6 18.1 1.119 $1.193 \times 10^{-43}$
000911 8.46 4.86 3.1 11.1 1.059 $1.183 \times 10^{-43}$
000926 8.46 4.86 12.1 16.9 2.039 $8.485 \times 10^{-44}$
000926 15 4.86 4.7 16.9 2.039 $1.170 \times 10^{-43}$
000926 15 8.46 4.7 12.1 2.039 $1.818 \times 10^{-43}$
000926 22.5 4.86 14.6 16.9 2.039 $4.924 \times 10^{-44}$
000926 22.5 8.46 7.2 12.1 2.039 $1.318 \times 10^{-43}$
: Constraints of photon mass from multi-band radio afterglow peaks.
GRB $\nu_1$(GHz) $\nu_2$(GHz) $t_1$(day) $t_2$(day) z m$_\gamma$ (g)
---------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ ------- -------------------------
010921 8.46 4.86 27 31.5 0.45 $1.084 \times 10^{-43}$
010921 22.5 4.86 25.9 31.5 0.45 $1.014 \times 10^{-43}$
010921\* 22.5 8.46 25.9 27 0.45 $8.243 \times 10{-44}$
020903 4.86 1.43 36.7 91 0.25 $1.159 \times 10^{-43}$
020903\* 8.46 1.43 23.8 91 0.25 $1.250 \times 10^{-43}$
020903 8.46 4.86 23.8 36.7 0.25 $2.241 \times 10^{-43}$
021004 8.46 4.86 18.7 32.2 2.33 $1.410 \times 10^{-43}$
021004 15 4.86 4.1 32.2 2.33 $1.760 \times 10^{-43}$
021004 15 8.46 4.1 18.7 2.33 $2.530 \times 10^{-43}$
021004 22.5 4.86 8.7 32.2 2.33 $1.559 \times 10^{-43}$
021004 22.5 8.46 8.7 18.7 2.33 $1.866 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 4.86 1.43 32.9 78.6 0.169 $1.240 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 8.46 1.43 17.3 78.6 0.169 $1.392 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 8.46 4.86 17.3 32.9 0.169 $2.874 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 15 1.43 10.9 78.6 0.169 $1.448 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 15 4.86 10.9 32.9 0.169 $2.953 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 15 8.46 10.9 17.3 0.169 $3.176 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 22.5 1.43 8.4 78.6 0.169 $1.471 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 22.5 4.86 8.4 32.9 0.169 $3.019 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 22.5 8.46 8.4 17.3 0.169 $3.338 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 22.5 15 8.4 10.9 0.169 $3.899 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 43 1.43 5.8 78.6 0.169 $1.496 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 43 4.86 5.8 32.9 0.169 $3.120 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 43 8.46 5.8 17.3 0.169 $3.586 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 43 15 5.8 10.9 0.169 $4.430 \times 10^{-43}$
030329 43 22.5 5.8 8.4 0.169 $5.217 \times 10^{-43}$
031203 4.86 1.43 58.4 65.5 0.105 $5.986 \times 10^{-44}$
031203 8.46 1.43 48 65.5 0.105 $9.112 \times 10^{-44}$
031203 8.46 4.86 48 58.4 0.105 $2.875 \times 10^{-43}$
031203 22.5 1.43 13.5 65.5 0.105 $1.551 \times 10^{-43}$
031203 22.5 4.86 13.5 58.4 0.105 $5.007 \times 10^{-43}$
031203 22.5 8.46 13.5 48 0.105 $8.051 \times 10^{-43}$
051022 8.46 4.86 5.2 57 0.809 $3.166 \times 10^{-43}$
GRB $\nu_1$(GHz) $\nu_2$(GHz) $t_1$(day) $t_2$(day) z m$_\gamma$ (g)
---------- -------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ ------- -------------------------
060218 4.86 1.43 3.8 4.9 0.033 $4.032 \times 10^{-44}$
060218 8.46 1.43 2 4.9 0.033 $6.348 \times 10^{-44}$
060218 8.46 4.86 2 3.8 0.033 $2.047 \times 10^{-43}$
060218\* 22.5 1.43 3 4.9 0.033 $5.075 \times 10^{-44}$
060218 22.5 4.86 3 3.8 0.033 $1.144 \times 10^{-43}$
070125 22.5 15 13.6 18.6 1.548 $3.010 \times 10^{-43}$
070612A 8.46 4.86 84.1 140.3 0.617 $3.511 \times 10^{-43}$
071010B 8.46 4.86 4.2 12.5 0.947 $1.229 \times 10^{-43}$
100414A 8.46 4.86 8 38 1.368 $2.207 \times 10^{-43}$
100418A 8.46 4.86 47.6 70.3 0.62 $2.228 \times 10^{-43}$
100814A 7.9 4.5 10.4 13 1.44 $5.955 \times 10^{-44}$
Notes: Peak and redshift data are adopted from Chandra & Frail (2012).\
\*: Constraints with observed (rather than fitted) radio peaks.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A program RCFP will be presented for calculating standard quantities in the decomposition of many–electron matrix elements in atomic structure theory. The list of quantities wich are supported by the present program includes the coefficients of fractional parentage, the reduced coefficients of fractional parentage, the reduced matrix elements of the unit operator $T^{(k)}$ as well as the completely reduced matrix elements of the operator $W^{(k_jk_q)}$ in $jj$–coupling. These quantities are now available for all subshells ($nj$) with $j \leq 9/2$ including partially filled $9/2$–shells. Our program is based on a recently developed new approach on the spin–angular integration which combines second quantization and quasispin methods with the theory of angular momentum in order to obtain a more efficient evaluation of many–electron matrix elements. An underlying Fortran 90/95 module can directly be used also in (other) atomic structure codes to accelerate the computation for open–shell atoms and ions.'
author:
- |
Gediminas Gaigalas$^{\, a,b}$ and Stephan Fritzsche$^{a}$\
\
\
$^a$ Fachbereich Physik, Universität Kassel,\
Heinrich–Plett–Str. 40, D–34132 Kassel, Germany.\
$^b$ Institute of Theoretical Physics and Astronomy,\
A. Goštauto 12, Vilnius 2600, Lithuania.\
title: 'Calculation of reduced coefficients and matrix elements in $jj$–coupling'
---
[**PROGRAM SUMMARY**]{}
[*Title of program:*]{} RCFP
[*Catalogue number:*]{} ADNA
[*Program obtainable from:*]{} CPC Program Library, Queen’s University of Belfast, N. Ireland. Users may obtain the program also by down–loading a tar–file `ratip-rcfp.tar` from our home page at the University of Kassel (http://www.physik.uni-kassel.de/fritzsche/programs.html).
[*Licensing provisions:*]{} None.
[*Computer for which the program is designed and has been tested:*]{} IBM RS 6000, PC Pentium II. University of Kassel (Germany). IBM AIX 4.1.2+, Linux 6.1+.
[*Program language used in the new version:*]{} ANSI standard Fortran 90/95.
[*Memory required to execute with typical data:*]{} 100 kB.
[*No. of bits in a word:*]{} All real variables are parametrized by a `selected kind parameter` and, thus, can be adapted to any required precision if supported by the compiler. Currently, the `kind` parameter is set to double precision (two 32–bit words) as it is for other components of the RATIP package \[1\].
[*Peripheral used:*]{} Terminal for input/output.
[*Distribution format:*]{} tar gzip file
[*CPC Program Library Subprograms required:*]{} Catalogue number: to be assigned: Title: REOS99; Ref. \[1\]\
[*Keywords:*]{} atomic many–body perturbation theory, complex atom, configuration interaction, effective Hamiltonian, energy level, Racah algebra, reduced coefficients of fractional parentage, reduced matrix element, relativistic, second quantization, standard unit tensors, tensor operators, $9/2$–subshell.
[*Nature of the physical problem:*]{} The calculation of atomic properties and level structures is based on the evaluation of many–particle matrix elements of physical operators. For symmetry–adapted functions, the matrix element for a given tensor operator $A^{(K)}$ of rank $K$ can be expressed as $\sum_{j,k}~{\rm coeff} (j,k)~<\gamma_{j}J_{j}||A^{(K)}||\gamma_{k}J_{k}>$ by using the (reduced) coefficients of fractional parentage and the reduced matrix elements of the (unit) standard tensors $T^{(k)}$ or $W^{(k_q k_j)}$. These reduced coefficients and matrix elements are frequently applied to both the configuration interaction and multi–configuration Dirac–Fock method \[2\] as well as to many–body perturbation theory \[3\].
[*Method of solution:*]{} A new combination of second quantization and quasispin methods with the theory of angular momentum and irreducible tensor operators leads to a more efficient evaluation of (many–particle) matrix elements and to faster computer codes \[4\]. Practical implementations of this new scheme will support not only large–scale computations on open–shell atoms but may even help to develop programs for calculating the angular parts of (effective) one– and two–particle operators for many–body perturbation theory (in higher orders) in the future.
[*Restrictions onto the complexity of the problem:*]{} For $jj$–coupled subshells states, our module provides coefficients and matrix elements for all subshells ($nj$) with $j$ = $1/2$, $3/2$, $5/2$, $7/2$, and $9/2$.
[*Typical running time:*]{} For large computations, the running time depends on the shell structure and the size of the wave function expansion for a given atomic system. However, the program *promptly* responds in its interactive mode if only single coefficients and matrix elements are to be calculated.
[*Unusual features of the program:*]{} The interactive version of RCFP can be used as an ”electronic tabulation” of standard quantities for evaluating general matrix elements for $jj$–coupled functions.
[*References:*]{} \[1\] S. Fritzsche, C. F. Fischer, and C. Z. Dong, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124 (2000) 340. \[2\] I. P. Grant, and H. Quiney, Advances in Atomic and Molecular Physics 23 (1987) 37. \[3\] G. Merkelis, G. Gaigalas, J. Kaniauskas, and Z. Rudzikas, Izvest. Acad. Nauk SSSR, Phys. Series 50 (1986) 1403. \[4\] G. Gaigalas, Lithuanian Journal of Physics 39 (1999) 80.
[**LONG WRITE–UP**]{}
Introduction
============
In atomic structure theory, the efficient evaluation of many–electron matrix elements play a crucial role. Typically, such matrix elements have to be evaluated for different one– and two–particle operators which describe the interaction of the electrons with each other or with external particles and fields. By exploiting the techniques of Racah’s algebra [@RI], the evaluation of these matrix elements may often be considerably simplified by carrying out the integration over the spin–angular coordinates analytically. For atoms with open shells, several approaches to this analytic integration were developed in the past. One of the most widely–used computational schemes is from Fano [@Fano; @Grant-a] and has been implemented in a number of powerful programs [@MCHF-ASP; @MGN] since that time.
Fano’s procedure [@Fano] is based on the coefficients of fractional parentage (cfp). During the last decades, this procedure was applied both to $LS$– and $jj$–coupling; in the following, we will restrict ourselves to $jj$–coupling as appropriate for relativistic calculations. By using the cfp as the basic quantities, however, Fano’s procedure does not exploit the full power of Racah’s algebra. Instead of using cfp, it is often more convenient to exploit unit tensors [@Judd-o; @R] which are closer related to the tensorial form of physical operators. But so far, unit tensors have been applied only for evaluating diagonal matrix elments while all non–diagonal matrix elements still have to be evaluated by using the cfp [@R; @NR]. A recently developed approach [@method2; @method6] now treats diagonal and non–diagonal matrix elements on a uniform basis. This approach is based on a second quantization and uses a coupled tensorial form for the creation and annihilation operators [@RK-book]. It also applies the theory of angular momentum to two different spaces, i.e. the space of orbital angular momentum $j$ and the quasispin space [@RK]. The basic quantities of this new approach are the so–called reduced coefficients of fractional parentage (rcfp) and the completely reduced matrix elements of the $W^{(k_qk_j)}$ operator.
Obviously, each computational scheme is based on a set of standard quantities to decompose the many–electron matrix elements. These quantities are either the cfp, rcfp, the reduced matrix elements of the unit tensor $T^{(k)}$, the completely reduced matrix elements $W^{(k_qk_j)}$, depending on the approach. Therefore, very different tabulations of these quantities are found in the literature. For example, numerical values for the cfp are found by Shalit and Talmi [@ST] for subshells with $j=5/2$, $7/2$ and $9/2$ while rcfp for $j=5/2$ and $7/2$ were first tabulated by Savičius [*et al*]{} [@SKR]. Matrix elements of $T^{(k)}$ are tabulated, for instance, by Slepcov [*et al*]{} [@SSKR] for subshells with $j=3/2$, $5/2$ and $7/2$; often, however, it is more convenient to express these matrix elements in terms of the completely reduced matrix elements of the operator $W^{(k_q k_j)}$ even though no explicit compilation of these matrix elements yet available. In practical applications, they are instead derived from a sum of products of rcfp and 6–$j$ symbols.
In this paper, we will present the program RCFP for the calculation of the standard quantities both in Fano’s and our new approach. These quantities are needed for the integration over the spin–angular variables. Our program not only supports large–scale computations on open–shell atoms but may even help to develope codes for calculating the angular parts of (effective) one– and two–particle operators from many–body perturbation theory (in higher orders) in the future.
The theoretical background will be presented in section 2. This includes a brief outline of the quasispin concept, the definitions of the rcfp and the reduced matrix elements of the unit tensors $W^{(k_q k_j)}$ and $T^{(k)}$ as well as the proper classification of subshells in $jj$–coupling. The program organization will be dealt with in section 3 while, finally, a few examples are given in section 4.
Theoretical background
======================
The theory of angular integration for symmetry–adapted functions has been reviewed in several texts and monographs [@Grant-a; @R; @method6; @Cowan]. As mention above, this theory is usually built on a number of standard quantities like the cfp or the reduced matrix elements of the unit tensor $T^{(k)}$ which, in turn, can be applied to lay down the expressions for more complex matrix elements. Other important quantities (which are also provided by our program) are the rcfp and the completely reduced matrix elements of the tensor operators $W^{(k_q k_j)}$. In the following, we shall not repeat too many details about this angular integration on the spin–angular coordinates; instead, we just list the definition of those quantities which can be obtained from our program along with a number of useful relations among them. For all further details, we ask the reader to refer to the literature given above.
In the literature, several definitions and phase conventions are used for defining the standard quantities for angular integration. Here, we follow the definitions from Savičius [@SKR] and from Kaniauskas and Rudzikas [@RK]. We also apply the so–called *standard–phase systems*, $$\label{eq:phase}
A_{m_k}^{\left(k \right) \dagger} = \left( -1 \right) ^{k-m_k}
A_{-m_k}^{\left(k \right)}$$
throughout this paper which were originally introduced by Fano and Racah [@FR-phase].
The quasispin concept
---------------------
In $jj-$coupling, a wave function for a subshell of $N$ *equivalent* electrons with principal quantum number $n$ and (one–electron) angular momentum $j$ is often written as $$\label{eq:quasispin-aa}
|nj^N\alpha J)$$ where $J$ denotes the total angular momentum and $\alpha$ all additional quantum numbers as needed for an unique classification of these states. Using the quasispin concept, a further (angular) quantum number $Q$, the quasispin momentum of the subshell, can be introduced so that the wave function of this subshell (to which we briefly refer to as a *subshell state*) then reads $$\label{eq:quasispin-ab}
|nj^N\alpha QJ) \ .$$ For any given subshell, the quasispin Q is closely related to the seniority quantum number $\nu$ as used in the *seniority scheme*, i.e. $Q=\left( \frac{2j+1}{2}-\nu \right) /2$. If compared with the seniority notation the quasispin $Q$ to has the advantage of its projection, $M_Q$, being related to the occupation number $N$ by $M_Q=\left( N - \frac{2j+1}{2} \right) /2$. Therefore, when exploring the quasispin concept for classifying the atomic subshell states (\[eq:quasispin-ab\]), the Wigner–Eckart theorem can be applied twice, both to the space of quasispin ($Q$–space) as well as to the total angular momentum ($J$–space). Hence, any reduced matrix element in $J$–space can be further reduced also in $Q$–space [@RK] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:quasispin-a}
\left( j^N\;\alpha QJM_Q||\, A_{m_q}^{\left( qj\right) } \,
||j^{N^{\prime }}\;
\alpha ^{\prime} Q^{\prime } J^{\prime } M_Q^{\prime } \right)
& = & (-1)^{Q-M_Q} \,
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
Q & q & Q^{\prime } \\
-M_Q & m_q & M_Q^{\prime }
\end{array}
\right)
\nonumber \\[0.3cm]
& & \hspace*{1.5cm}
\times \,
\left( j\;\alpha QJ|||\, A^{\left( qj\right) } \,|||j\;
\alpha ^{\prime} Q^{\prime } J^{\prime} \right)\end{aligned}$$ to a so–called *completely reduced* matrix element. In Eq. (\[eq:quasispin-a\]), $ A_{\,m_q}^{\left( qj\right)} $ denotes a tensor with rank $q$ and projection $m_q$ in the $Q-$space. As seen from its notation the completely reduced matrix element $\left( j\;\alpha QJ|||\, A^{\left( qj\right) } \,|||j\;\alpha ^{\prime
}Q^{\prime }J^{\prime }\right)$ is independent of the occupation number $N$ of the particular subshell states; the occupation number $N$ of these states occurs explicitly only on the left–hand–side of Eq. (\[eq:quasispin-a\]) while it is incorporated into $Q$ on the right–hand side. Thus, by applying the quasispin concept, the evaluation of general matrix elements will result in a much smaller number of completely reduced matrix elements which are independent of the occupation of electrons $N$ in this subshell but still allows an unique decomposition.
Coefficients of fractional parentage
------------------------------------
The electron creation $ a_{m_{j}}^{\left(j \right)} $ and annihilation $ a_{-m_{j}}^{\left(j \right) \dagger} $ operators play a key role in the theory of second quantization and atomic structure [@Judd-s]. Using the quasispin concept, the operators $a_{-m_{j}}^{\left(j \right)}$ and $ \stackrel{\sim}{a}_{m_{j}}^{\left(j \right)}=\left( -1\right)^{j-m_{j}}
a_{-m_{j}}^{\left(j \right) \dagger}$ also form components of an irreducible tensor of rank $q=\frac 12$ in $Q$–space, i.e.$$\label{eq:second-a}
a_{\, m_q m_j }^{\left( q j\right) }=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
a_{\, m_j}^{( j )} & \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{ for } m_q = \frac 12, \\[0.3cm]
\stackrel{\sim }{a}_{\, m_j}^{( j ) }
& \hspace*{1cm} \mbox{ for } m_q = -\frac 12.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Compared with the electron creation and annihilation operators above, the operators $a_{\, m_q m_j }^{\left( q j\right) }$ also act in an additional quasispin space like a tensor component with rank $q$ and a projection $m_q=\pm \frac 12$. There is the following relation known between the reduced matrix element of a creation operator and the cfp [@La-Ma] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cfp-amat}
\left( j^N \;\alpha QJ||a^{\left( j \right) }||j^{N-1} \;\alpha ^{\prime
}Q^{\prime }J^{\prime }\right)
& = &
\left( -1\right) ^{N}
\sqrt{N\left[ J\right]}
\left( j^N\;\alpha QJ||j^{N-1}\;
\left( \alpha ^{\prime }Q^{\prime}J^{\prime }
\right) j
\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\left[ J \right] \equiv \left( 2J +1\right)$. Eq. (\[eq:cfp-amat\]) can be used to define the relation between the cfp and its reduced counterpart in $Q$–space. Introducing the $z-$projection, $M_Q$, of the quasispin, this relation is given by [@R]
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:second-b}
\left( j\;\alpha QJ|||a^{\left( qj\right) }|||j\;\alpha ^{\prime
}Q^{\prime }J^{\prime }\right)
& = &
\left( -1\right) ^{N+Q-M_Q}
\sqrt{N\left[ J\right]} \, \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
Q & 1/2 & Q^{\prime } \\
-M_Q & 1/2 & M_Q^{\prime }
\end{array} \right)^{-1}
\nonumber \\[0.3cm]
& & \hspace*{2.7cm} \times
\left( j^N\;\alpha QJ||j^{N-1}\;
\left( \alpha ^{\prime }Q^{\prime
}J^{\prime }
\right) j
\right).\end{aligned}$$
The properties of the rcfp have been summarized by Savičius [*et al*]{} [@SKR] and Gaigalas [*et al.*]{} [@method5]. The latter reference also discusses *phase conventions* which are frequently applied in the literature to subshell states with a the same number $N \; (< j + 1/2) \,$ of electrons or holes, respectively.
Reduced matrix elements of standard operators
---------------------------------------------
The unit tensors $W^{(k_qk_j)}$ and $T^{(k)}$ are other standard quantities in atomic spectroscopy. Many texts on the evaluation of matrix elements in many–particle physics frequently refer to these quantities [@Judd-o; @R]. The tensor $W^{(k_qk_j)}$, for example, is defined as the tensorial product of two creation operators in second quantization $$\label{eq:unit-a}
W^{\, (k_q k_j) }_{\, m_q m_j} \: = \:
\left[ \, a^{ ( q j ) } \times a^{ ( q j ) }
\right]^{\, (k_q k_j) }_{\, m_q m_j}.$$
Following Savičius [*et al*]{} [@SKR], the operators $T^{(k)}$ and $W^{(k_qk_j)}$ obey the relation $$\label{eq:unit-d}
T_{\,m}^{\,(k) } = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
- \left( 2 \left[ k \right] \right) ^{-1/2} W_{\,0m}^{\, (0 k) }
& \hspace*{1.5cm} \mbox{if $k$ is odd}, \\[0.35cm]
- \left( 2 \left[ k \right] \right) ^{-1/2} W_{\,0m}^{\, (1 k) }
& \hspace*{1.5cm} \mbox{if $k$ is even }.
\end{array}
\right.$$
The reduced matrix elements of $T^{(k)}$ can be represented in terms of a sum over 6–$j$ symbols and cfp’s $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:unit-e}
\hspace*{-0.5cm}
\left( j^N\;\alpha J || T^{(k)} || j^{N}\;
\alpha ^{\prime } J^{\prime }\right)
& = &
N \sqrt{ \left[ J,J^{\prime} \right]} \;
\displaystyle {\sum_{\alpha ^{\prime \prime } J^{\prime \prime }}}
(-1)^{J^{\prime \prime } +j + J + k} \,
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
j & J & J^{\prime \prime } \\
J^{\prime } & j & k
\end{array}
\right\} \hspace*{0.6cm}
\nonumber \\[0.35cm]
& & \hspace*{0.3cm} \times
\left( j^N\;\alpha J|| j^{N-1}\;\left( \alpha ^{\prime \prime }
J^{\prime \prime } \right) j\right)
\left( j^{N-1}\;\left( \alpha ^{\prime \prime }
J^{\prime \prime } \right) j
|| j^N\;\alpha ^{\prime } J^{\prime } \right) \; .\end{aligned}$$ The completely reduced matrix elements of the operator $W^{(k_qk_j)}$ is related to the rcfp in the following way $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:unit-f}
& & \hspace*{-1.6cm}
\left( nj\;\alpha QJ||| W^{(k_qk_j)} |||nj\;\alpha
^{\prime }Q^{\prime }J^{\prime }\right)
\nonumber \\[0.3cm]
& = &
\left( -1\right) ^{Q+J+Q^{\prime }+J^{\prime }
+k_q+k_j} \, \sqrt{\left[ k_q,k_j \right]} \;
\displaystyle {\sum_{\alpha ^{\prime \prime }Q^{\prime \prime }J^{\prime
\prime }}} \;
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
q & q & k_q \\
Q^{\prime } & Q & Q^{\prime \prime }
\end{array}
\right\} \left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
j & j & k_j \\
J^{\prime } & J & J^{\prime \prime }
\end{array}
\right\}
\nonumber \\[0.4cm]
& & \hspace*{0.8cm} \times \,
\left( j\;\alpha QJ|||a^{\left( qj\right)} |||
j\;\alpha ^{\prime \prime }Q^{\prime \prime }J^{\prime \prime }
\right)
\left( j\;\alpha ^{\prime \prime }Q^{\prime \prime }J^{\prime \prime } |||
a^{\left( qj\right)} |||
j \;\alpha ^{\prime }Q^{\prime }J^{\prime }\right) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, a close relationship between the completely reduced matrix elements of $W^{(k_qk_j)}$ and the reduced matrix elements of the unit tensor $T^{(k)}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:unit-g}
\left( nj \;\alpha QJ ||| W^{(1k)} |||
nj \;\alpha ^{\prime }Q^{\prime }J^{\prime }\right)
& = &
(-1)^{1+Q-M_Q} \sqrt{2 \left[ k \right] }
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
Q & 1 & Q^{\prime } \\
-M_Q & 0 & M_Q^{\prime }
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
\nonumber \\[0.2cm]
& & \hspace*{1.0cm} \times \,
\left( j^N\;\alpha QJ M_Q || T^{(k)} || j^{N}\; \alpha ^{\prime }
Q^{\prime } J^{\prime } M_{Q}^{\prime } \right)
\nonumber \\[0.4cm]
& & \hspace*{4cm} \mbox{if $k_q$ = 1 and $k$ is even}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:unit-h}
\left( nj \;\alpha QJ ||| W^{(0k)} |||
nj \;\alpha ^{\prime }Q^{\prime }J^{\prime }\right)
& = &
- \sqrt{2 \left[ Q,k \right] } \,
\left( j^N\;\alpha QJ M_Q || T^{(k)} || j^{N}\; \alpha ^{\prime } Q^{\prime }
J^{\prime } M_{Q}^{\prime } \right)
\nonumber \\[0.4cm]
& & \hspace*{4cm} \mbox{if $k_q$ = 0 and $k$ is odd.}\end{aligned}$$ Since the completely reduced matrix elements $\left( nj\;\alpha QJ|||\, W^{ (k_q k_j) } \,|||nj\;\alpha
^{\prime }Q^{\prime }J^{\prime }\right) $ of the operator $W^{(k_qk_j)}$ are, again, independent of the occupation number, they allow for a more compact representation (tabulation) in atomic structure calculations. This fact becomes important, in particular, when calculating atoms with open $d-$ and/or $f-$shells. So far, no detailed analysis or tabulation of these completely reduced matrix elements in $jj-$coupling has been published in the literature or has been implemented in any atomic structure code.
Classification of subshells in $jj$–coupling
--------------------------------------------
A unique classification of the atomic states and, hence, the subshell states is required for all structure computations. For subshells with $j = 1/2, \, 3/2, \, 5/2, $ and $ 7/2 $, two quantum numbers $Q$ and $J$ (respectively, $\nu$ and $J$ in the seniority notation) are sufficient to classify the subshell states for all allowed occupation numbers $N$ unambiguously. For these subshells, no additonal quantum numbers $\alpha$ are then needed to be specified in (\[eq:quasispin-ab\]). By contrast, some additional number(s) are required for classifying the subshell states for $j \ge 9/2$ \[cf. Shalit and Talmi [@ST] or Grant [@Grant-a]\]. For $j = 9/2$, there are two doublets (pairs of subshell states) with $\nu = 4, \: J = 4$ and $\nu = 4, \: J = 6$ in the $[9/2]^4$ and $[9/2]^6$ configurations which require an additional ”number” in order to classify these states uniquely. To distinguish the individual subshell states of these two pairs, we use the number $Nr = 1$ or $Nr = 2$ beside of the standard quantum numbers $Q$ and $J$, respectively, $\nu$ and $J$. Table 1 lists all ($jj-$coupled) subshell states for $j$ = $1/2$, $3/2$, $5/2$, $7/2$ and $9/2$, starting for each $j$ with the lowest occupation number.
[ l l r l l|l l r l l ]{}\
$subshell$ & $\nu$ & $J$ & $2Q$ & $Nr$ & $subshell$ & $\nu$ & $J$ & $2Q$ & $Nr$\
& & & & & & & & &\
$\left[ 1/2 \right]^{0}$ or $\left[ 1/2 \right]^{2}$ & $0$ & $ 0 $ & $1$ & & & $3$ & $5/2$ & $2$ &\
$\left[ 1/2 \right]^{1}$ & $1$ & $1/2$ & $0$ & & & $3$ & $7/2$ & $2$ &\
& & & & & & $3$ & $9/2$ & $2$ &\
$\left[ 3/2 \right]^{0}$ or $\left[ 3/2 \right]^{4}$ & $0$ & $ 0 $ & $2$ & & & $3$ & $11/2$& $2$ &\
$\left[ 3/2 \right]^{1}$ or $\left[ 3/2 \right]^{3}$ & $1$ & $3/2$ & $1$ & & & $3$ & $13/2$& $2$ &\
$\left[ 3/2 \right]^{2}$ & $0$ & $ 0 $ & $2$ & & & $3$ & $15/2$& $2$ &\
& $2$ & $ 2 $ & $0$ & & & $3$ & $17/2$& $2$ &\
& & & & & & $3$ & $21/2$& $2$ &\
$\left[ 5/2 \right]^{0}$ or $\left[ 5/2 \right]^{6}$ & $0$ & $ 0 $ & $3$ & & $\left[ 9/2 \right]^{4}$ or $\left[ 9/2 \right]^{6}$ & $0$ & $ 0 $ & $5$ &\
$\left[ 5/2 \right]^{1}$ or $\left[ 5/2 \right]^{5}$ & $1$ & $5/2$ & $2$ & & & $2$ & $ 2 $ & $3$ &\
$\left[ 5/2 \right]^{2}$ or $\left[ 5/2 \right]^{4}$ & $0$ & $ 0 $ & $3$ & & & $2$ & $ 4 $ & $3$ &\
& $2$ & $ 2 $ & $1$ & & & $2$ & $ 6 $ & $3$ &\
& $2$ & $ 4 $ & $1$ & & & $2$ & $ 8 $ & $3$ &\
$\left[ 5/2 \right]^{3}$ & $1$ & $5/2$ & $2$ & & & $4$ & $ 0 $ & $1$ &\
& $3$ & $3/2$ & $0$ & & & $4$ & $ 2 $ & $1$ &\
& $3$ & $9/2$ & $0$ & & & $4$ & $ 3 $ & $1$ &\
& & & & & & $4$ & $ 4 $ & $1$ & 1\
$\left[ 7/2 \right]^{0}$ or $\left[ 7/2 \right]^{8}$ & $0$ & $ 0 $ & $4$ & & & $4$ & $ 4 $ & $1$ & 2\
$\left[ 7/2 \right]^{1}$ or $\left[ 7/2 \right]^{7}$ & $1$ & $7/2$ & $3$ & & & $4$ & $ 5 $ & $1$ &\
$\left[ 7/2 \right]^{2}$ or $\left[ 7/2 \right]^{6}$ & $0$ & $ 0 $ & $4$ & & & $4$ & $ 6 $ & $1$ & 1\
& $2$ & $ 2 $ & $2$ & & & $4$ & $ 6 $ & $1$ & 2\
& $2$ & $ 4 $ & $2$ & & & $4$ & $ 7 $ & $1$ &\
& $2$ & $ 6 $ & $2$ & & & $4$ & $ 8 $ & $1$ &\
$\left[ 7/2 \right]^{3}$ or $\left[ 7/2 \right]^{5}$ & $1$ & $7/2$ & $3$ & & & $4$ & $ 9 $ & $1$ &\
& $3$ & $3/2$ & $1$ & & & $4$ & $10 $ & $1$ &\
& $3$ & $5/2$ & $1$ & & & $4$ & $12 $ & $1$ &\
& $3$ & $9/2$ & $1$ & & $\left[ 9/2 \right]^{5}$ & $1$ & $9/2$ & $4$ &\
& $3$ & $11/2$& $1$ & & & $3$ & $3/2$ & $2$ &\
& $3$ & $15/2$& $1$ & & & $3$ & $5/2$ & $2$ &\
$\left[ 7/2 \right]^{4}$ & $0$ & $ 0 $ & $4$ & & & $3$ & $7/2$ & $2$ &\
& $2$ & $ 2 $ & $2$ & & & $3$ & $9/2$ & $2$ &\
& $2$ & $ 4 $ & $2$ & & & $3$ & $11/2$& $2$ &\
& $2$ & $ 6 $ & $2$ & & & $3$ & $13/2$& $2$ &\
& $4$ & $ 2 $ & $0$ & & & $3$ & $15/2$& $2$ &\
& $4$ & $ 4 $ & $0$ & & & $3$ & $17/2$& $2$ &\
& $4$ & $ 5 $ & $0$ & & & $3$ & $21/2$& $2$ &\
& $4$ & $ 8 $ & $0$ & & & $5$ & $1/2$ & $0$ &\
& & & & & & $5$ & $5/2$ & $0$ &\
$\left[ 9/2 \right]^{0}$ or $\left[ 9/2 \right]^{10}$& $0$ & $ 0 $ & $5$ & & & $5$ & $7/2$ & $0$ &\
$\left[ 9/2 \right]^{1}$ or $\left[ 9/2 \right]^{9}$ & $1$ & $9/2$ & $4$ & & & $5$ & $9/2$ & $0$ &\
$\left[ 9/2 \right]^{2}$ or $\left[ 9/2 \right]^{8}$ & $0$ & $ 0 $ & $5$ & & & $5$ & $11/2$& $0$ &\
& $2$ & $ 2 $ & $3$ & & & $5$ & $13/2$& $0$ &\
& $2$ & $ 4 $ & $3$ & & & $5$ & $15/2$& $0$ &\
& $2$ & $ 6 $ & $3$ & & & $5$ & $17/2$& $0$ &\
& $2$ & $ 8 $ & $3$ & & & $5$ & $19/2$& $0$ &\
$\left[ 9/2 \right]^{3}$ or $\left[ 9/2 \right]^{7}$ & $1$ & $9/2$ & $4$ & & & $5$ & $25/2$& $0$ &\
& $3$ & $3/2$ & $2$ &\
Program organization
====================
Overview to program
-------------------
The program RCFP supports the computation of the cfp, the rcfp, the (completely) reduced matrix elements of the operator $W^{(k_qk_j)}$ as well as the matrix elements of the unit tensor $T^{(k)}$. It can be applied interactively, for instance, for calculating a few individual coefficients or matrix elements in some theoretical derivation but also, by *using* the underlying module `rabs_rcfp`, in any relativistic atomic structure calculations in order to evaluate all required (many–electron) matrix elements automatically. RCFP is written in Fortran 90/95 and is designed as additional component of the RATIP package [@Fritzsche/CFF/Dong:99] as will be explained in subsection 3.3. By exploiting the advantages of the new Fortran 90/95 standard, we defined several derived data types which facilitate the work and which shall enable us to incorporate this module in our present developments on large–scale computations for open–shell atoms and ions. The definition of the various derived structures can be found in the header of the module `rabs_rcfp` but will not be explained here.
As seen from section 2, the most basic quantities for evaluating matrix elements among different subshell states are the rcfp and the completely reduced matrix elements of $W^{(k_q k_j)}$. These quantities are more general than the cfp or the reduced matrix elements of the unit tensor $T^{(k)}$ as they do not depend on the occupation number in the corresponding shells. Thus, the rcfp and the completely reduced matrix elements can be tabulated much easier for subshells with $j \le 7/2$ or even $j = 9/2$ and are also applied in the present program. This is in contrast to most earlier atomic structure codes which are built on the cfp. For $j \le 7/2$, the rcfp have been taken from Rudzikas [@R] while the corresponding tables for $ j = 9/2 $ have been created by us using Eq. (\[eq:second-b\]) and the tabulations by Shalit and Talmi [@ST] for the cfp. Similarly, a tabulation of the completely reduced matrix elements of $W^{(k_q k_j)}$ have been obtained from the reduced matrix elements of $T^{(k)}$ [@SSKR] and from the two relations (\[eq:unit-g\]) and (\[eq:unit-h\]) for the subshells with $j \le 7/2$. Up to the present, the module `rabs_rcfp` does not contain a full tabulation of the completely reduced matrix elements of $W^{(k_q k_j)}$ for $ j = 9/2 $ even though such an implementation might help considerably in the future in order to accelarate structure calculations on atoms having open $g_{\,9/2}$ and/or $h_{\,9/2}$ subshells. At present, these coefficients are calculated from Eq. (\[eq:unit-f\]) each time they are needed. Also, the values of the cfp and the reduced matrix elements of $T^{(k)}$ are calculated from Eqs. (\[eq:second-b\]) or (\[eq:unit-g\]) and (\[eq:unit-h\]), respectively.
Interactive work
----------------
The program RCFP is typically applied in its interactive mode. In this mode, it replies immediately to the input as typed in by the user. In the next section, we display several short dialogs for calculating individual coefficients and matrix elements. From the main menu of the RCFP component (see Fig. 1),
RCFP: Calculation of coefficients of fractional parentage (cfp) and various
reduced matrix elements in jj-coupling (Fortran 90 version)
(C) Copyright by G. Gaigalas and S. Fritzsche, Kassel (1999).
Select one issue from the list for calculating:
1: coefficients of fractional parentage,
2: reduced coefficients of fractional parentage,
3: completely reduced matrix elements of the operator W^{k_q k_j},
4: reduced matrix elements of unit operator T^{(k)},
b: return to this menu,
q: quit.
[**Figure 1:**]{}
we need first to select the type of the quantity which is to be computed. For example, by entering `1` on the screen the user can calculate any cfp in $jj$–coupling for subshells with $ j \le 9/2 $. Similarly, a `2` supports the computation of rcfp, and so on. Finally, a `q` will terminate the program.
The input of the required quantum numbers needed for the computation of any quantity is facilitated by the program. It is only necessary to type those quantum numbers which cannot be derived automatically and which distinguish the individual coefficients and matrix elements. For calculating a cfp or a reduced matrix elements of $T^{(k)}$, for instance, the orbital quantum number $j$, the subshell occupation number $N$, the seniority quantum number $\nu$, and the subshell total angular momentum $J$ is needed in order to specify the bra–function uniquely. Only if additional quantum numbers are indeed required for a unique classification of the subshell states, the program will ask for the quantum number $Nr$. A number of examples will illustrated the usage of RCFP below in section 4.
Distribution and installation of the program
--------------------------------------------
RCFP has been developed as (a new) component of the RATIP package [@Fritzsche/CFF/Dong:99]. To facilitate the combination with this package, RCFP will be distributed as an archive file of the directory `ratip_rcfp`. From this archive, first of all the file structure is reconstructed by the command `tar -xvf ratip_rcfp.tar` on a UNIX workstation or any compatible environment. The directory `ratip_rcfp` then contains the Fortran 90/95 module `rabs_rcfp.f`, the (main) program `xrcfp.f` as well as the makefile `make-rcfp`. It also includes a number of examples in the subdirectory `test-rcfp` and a short `Read.me` which explains further details about the installation. Since the same file structure is preserved in both cases, the combination of RCFP with RATIP is simply achieved by running the command `cp -r ratip_rcfp/. ratip/.` — Inside of the RATIP root directory, then `make -f make-rcfp` will generate the executable `xrcf`, similarly as for the other two components `xcesd99` [@Fritzsche/Anton:99] and `xreos99` [@Fritzsche/CFF/Dong:99] of the RATIP package. Like before, the name of the (Fortran 90/95) compiler and special compiler flags can be overwritten in the header of the makefile. Although RCFP makes *use* of four other modules which are part already of RATIP, no further adaptation of the program is needed. At present, the RCFP program has been installed and tested under the operating systems Linux and AIX but, owing to the compliance of the Fortran 90/95 standard, no difficulties should arise on any other platform.
The subdirectory `test-rcfp` lists a number of examples which demonstrate the usage of the program. To each item in the main menu in Fig. 1, a short file displays the full dialog to compute one or several individual coefficients or (completely reduced) matrix elements. The file `show-cfp-dialog`, for instance, reports the calculation of several cfp for subshells with $ j = 9/2 $ including an example for which the (additional) quantum number Nr need to be specified.
Apart from the application of `rabs_rcfp` in the RCFP program, this module can be *use*d also in other programs which, in the future, will provide the angular coefficients for general matrix elements of one– and two–particle operators for $jj-$coupled functions.
Examples
========
To illustrate the use of RCFP in its interactive mode, we show three examples concerning the calculation of rcfp and matrix elements. We will just display the input (which has to be typed in by the user) along with the given reply by the program. In order to support also an occasional usage of the program, the notation of the various coefficients and matrix elements is kept as close as possible with their printed form \[cf. section 2\]. Moreover, all information which can automatically be deduced by the program is simply provided by typing at input time. For an improper selection of quantum numbers or any incomplete information, a short message is printed explaining the failure before all previous (correct) input is repeated. This saves the user from re-enter all of the previously typed input just because of one single (mistyped) quantum number. In the following examples, we display the user’s input in boldface mode while the response of the program is shown in normal text mode.
Our first examples displays the computation of the cfp $\left( [7/2]^4, \, \nu =2, \, J=2 \, \{|\: [7/2]^3,\, \nu =3, \, J=3/2,\,
\nu =1, \, j=7/2 \right)$; from the main menu in figure 1, we therefore select the first item
1
Calculate a cfp (j^N nu J {| j^{N-1} nu' J', j) :
**(7/2\^4 2 2** ` (7/2^4 2 2 \left\{| \right. 7/2 ^3` **3 3/2,** ` (7/2^4 2 2 \left\{| \right. 7/2 ^3 3 3/2, 1 7/2 ) = 2.53546276E-01 Continue `
Next, let us calculate the rcfp $\left( 9/2, \: \nu =5, \: J=1/2 \: ||| \: a^{(q j)} \: ||| \:
9/2, \: \nu =4, \: J=5 \right)$ for which we select item 2 from the main menu
2
Calculate a reduced cfp (j nu J ||| a^{(1/2 j)} ||| j nu' J') :
**(9/2 5 1/2** ` (9/2 5 1/2 ||| a^\left\{ (1/2 \: j) \right\} ||| 9/2` **4 5,** ` Input must either start with symbol ’(’ or end with symbol ’)’; reenter ... (9/2 5 1/2 ||| a^\left\{(1/2 \: j)\right\} ||| 9/2` **4 5)** ` (9/2 5 1/2 ||| a^\left\{(1/2 \: j)\right\} ||| 9/2 4 5) = 3.22490310E+00 Continue `
In our third example, finally, we ask for the value of one of the completely reduced matrix element of the $W^{(10)}$ operator, i.e. $(j = 9/2, \: \nu = 4, \: J = 6, \: Nr= 2 \: ||| \: W^{ (1 0) } \: ||| \:
j = 9/2, \: \nu = 4, \: J = 6, \: Nr= 2)$. As mentioned in section 2, an additional quantum number $Nr$ is required for a unique specification of the subshells states with $j=9/2$. Here, we start by selecting item 3 from the main menu.
3
Calculate a completely reduced matrix element
(j nu J ||| W^{k_q k_j} ||| j nu' J') :
**(9/2 4 6** ` Enter the additional state identifier Nr = 1 or 2. (9/2 4 6 Nr=` **2** ` (9/2 4 6 Nr= 2 ||| W^ \left\{ \right. ` **1 0** ` (9/2 4 6 Nr= 2 ||| W^ \left\{ \right. 1 0 \left. \right\} ||| 9/2` **4 6 )** ` (9/2 4 6 Nr= 2 ||| W^ \left\{ \right. 1 0 \left. \right\} ||| 9/2 Nr=` **2 )** ` (9/2 4 6 Nr= 2 ||| W^ \left\{ \right. 1 0 \left. \right\} ||| 9/2 Nr= 2) = -3.94968353E+00 Continue `
A very similar dialog occurs for the computation of any other coefficient or reduced matrix element. In conclusion, RCFP has been developed as a new component of the RATIP package which enables the user to calculate standard quantities in the evaluation of many–electron matrix elements explicitly. In the future, the underlying Fortran 90/95 module `rabs_rcfp` will be exploited also to calculate the Hamiltonian matrix and further properties of free atoms from $jj-$coupled configuration state functions. The definition of the rcfp and the completely reduced matrix elements and further improvements (see Gaigalas [*et al*]{} [@method2]) will allow for faster and more convinient computations than it is presently supported by standard atomic structure programs. A module for calculating the angular coefficients for $jj-$coupled functions with respect to any (given) scalar two–particle operator is currently under development.
[000]{} G. Racah, Phys. Rev. 61 (1941) 186.; Phys. Rev. 62 (1942) 438.; Phys. Rev. 63 (1943) 367.; Phys. Rev. 76 (1949) 1352.
U. Fano, Phys. Rev. A 140 (1965) A67.
I.P. Grant, Meth. Comput. Chem. 2 (1988) 1.
C. Froese Fischer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64 (1991) 369.
I.P. Grant, B.J. McKenzie, P.H. Norrington, D.F. Mayers and N.C. Pyper, Comput. Phys. Commun. 21 (1980) 207; B.J. McKenzie, I.P. Grant and P.H. Norrington, Comput. Phys. Commun. 21 (1980) 233; F.A. Parpia, C. Froese Fischer and I.P. Grant, Comput. Phys. Commun. 94 (1996) 249.
B.R. Judd, *Operator Techniques in Atomic Spectroscopy* (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1998).
Z.B. Rudzikas, *Theoretical Atomic Spectroscopy* (Cambrige Univ. Press, Cambrige, 1997).
A.A. Nikitin and Z. Rudzikas, *Foundations of the Theory of the Spectra of Atomis and Ions* (Nauka, Moscow, 1983, in Russian).
G. Gaigalas, Z. Rudzikas and C. Froese Fischer, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 30 (1997) 3747.
G. Gaigalas, Lithuanian Journal of Physics 39 (1999) 80.
Z.B. Rudzikas and J.M. Kaniauskas, *Quasispin and Isospin in the Theory of Atom* (Mokslas, Vilnius, 1984, in Russian).
J. Kaniauskas and Z. Rudzikas, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 13 (1980) 3521.
A. de-Shalit and I. Talmi, *Nuclear Shell Theory* (Academic Press, New York and London, 1963).
E.G. Savičius, J.M. Kaniauskas and Z.B. Rudzikas, Liet. Fiz. Rink. (Sov. Phys. Coll.) 19 (1979) 747.
A.A. Slepcov, V.I. Sivcev, I.S. Kičkin and Z.B. Rudzikas, Liet. Fiz. Rink. (Sov. Phys. Coll.) 15 (1975) 5.
R.D. Cowan, *The Theory of Atomic Spectra* (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1981).
U. Fano and G. Racah, *Irreducible Tensorial Sets* (Academic Press, New York, 1959).
B.R. Judd, *Second Quantization and Atomic Spectroscopy* (John Hopkins, Baltimore, 1967).
R.D. Lawson and M.H. Macfarlane, Nuclear Physics 66 (1965) 80.
G. Gaigalas, Z. Rudzikas and C. Froese Fischer, At. Data and Nucl. Data Tables 70 (1998) 1.
S. Fritzsche, C. F. Fischer, and C. Z. Dong, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124 (2000) 340.
S. Fritzsche and J. Anton, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124 (2000) 353.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we give an analytic solution for graphs with $n$ nodes and $E$ edges for which the probability of obtaining a given graph $G$ is $\mu(G)=e^{-\beta\sum_{i=1}d_i^2}$, wherer $d_i$ is the degree of node $i$. We describe how this model naturally appears in the context of load balancing in communication networks, namely Peer-to-Peer overlays. We then analyse the degree distribution of such graphs and show that the degrees are concentrated around their mean value. Finally, we derive asymptotic results on the number of edges crossing a graph cut and use these results $(i)$ to compute the graph expansion and conductance, and $(ii)$ to analyse the graph resilience to random failures.'
author:
- 'M. [Draief]{} [^1], A. [Ganesh]{} [^2] and L. [Massoulié]{} [^3]'
title: Exponential random graphs as models of overlay networks
---
[**AMS classification:** ]{}60K35,60F15,68R10,90B18,05C07,05C80,05C85,05C90
[**Keywords:** ]{}Exponential random graphs, Peer-to-Peer networks, overlay optimisation, load balancing, degree distribution, graph cut, expansion, conductance, failure resilience.
Introduction
============
Random graphs provide a way of modelling large and complex networks, and of studying stochastic processes on such networks. Early work on this topic goes back to the famous random graph or Bernoulli graph introduced by Solomonoff and Rapoport [@SoRa51] in the early 1950s and studied by Erdös-Rényi [@ER60] a decade later. The Bernoulli random graph model is, however, rather simplistic and fails to capture important features of many real-world networks. This has stimulated work on a number of other random graph models. Exponential random graphs were first introduced in the early 1980s by Holland and Leinhardt [@HL81] based on the work of Besag [@Besag74]. More recently Frank and Strauss [@FS86] studied a subclass of these graphs namely Markov graphs. They correspond to log-linear statistical models of random graphs with general dependence structure and Markov dependence [@bremaud] widely used by statisticians and social network analysts [@Snijders02].
To motivate the study of such graphs, we consider the situation where we have measurements of a number of network properties, or observables, for a real-world network, and wish to come up with a network model that exhibits similar properties. Denote these observables by $(x_i)_{i=1,\dots,k}$ and denote by $(\bar{x}_i)_{i=1,\dots,k}$ their measured average value. Let $\mathcal{G}$ a set of graphs, and let $G$ be a graph in $\mathcal{G}$. To describe a family of graphs that reproduce the graph’s observed properties, we wish to choose a probability distribution $\mu$ on $\mathcal{G}$ such that $$\label{eq-observables}
\sum_{G\in \mathcal{G}}\mu(G) x_i(G)=\bar{x}_i\:,\quad \forall i=1,\dots,k$$ where $x_i(G)$ is the value taken by $x_i$ in the graph $G$. Clearly, there are infinitely many such probability distributions; a popular choice is the one that maximises the Gibbs or Shannon Entropy $$S=-\sum_{G\in \mathcal{G}}\mu(G)\log{\mu(G)}\:$$ subject to (\[eq-observables\]) and the normalising condition $\sum_{G\in \mathcal{G}}\mu(G)=1$. Introducing Lagrange multipliers one can easily show [@Newman04] that the maximum entropy is achieved for the distribution $$\label{eq-erg}
\mu(G)=\frac{1}{Z}e^{-H(G)},\quad H(G)=\sum_{i=1}^k \theta_i x_i(G)\:,$$ and $Z=\sum_{G\in \mathcal{G}}e^{-H(G)}$ is the normalising constant. Graphs drawn according to distributions defined by (\[eq-erg\]) are called exponential random graphs. Thus, they are random graphs with maximum entropy subject to the specified constraints.
Exponential random graphs can be generated using suitable random walks on the space of graphs, for which they arise as the stationary distribution. More precisely, given $H(G)$, a cost or energy function associated with the graph $G$, define the Markov chain on $\mathcal{G}$ with transition $$p_{G,G'}=\min\left(1,e^{-(H(G')-H(G))}\right)\:.$$ It can easily be shown that the transition matrix fulfills the detailed balance condition (the Markov chain is reversible) and the corresponding stationary distribution is given by the Boltzmann type probability distribution $\mu(G)=Z^{-1}e^{-H(G)}$.
In this paper, we study the particular case of graphs with $n$ nodes and $E$ edges for which $H(G)=\sum_{i=1}d_i^2$, where $d_i$ is the degree of node $i$. This model naturally appears in the context of load balancing in certain communication networks, namely peer-to-peer overlays. Such overlays are used to support many popular file-sharing applications on the Internet. A primary objective in designing such overlays is to ensure connectivity of the resulting graph even in the face of node and edge disconnections. We can model an overlay as a graph with $n$ nodes representing the peers connected by edges describing whether two peers know each other or not. We assume that the “who knows who” relationship is symmetric, i.e., the graph is undirected. In [@GMK03a], an algorithm is described that ensures the construction of an Erdös-Rényi-like overlay, wherein any pair of peers is connected with a given probability independently from other pairs. It is known that such graphs are connected if the mean degree of nodes is of order higher than $\log{n}$ [@bollobas], and the result is true for more general graphs [@BB90]. In [@GMK03b], the exponential random graph model with energy function $H(G)=\sum_{i=1}d_i^2$ was proposed as a mechanism for achieving better load balancing and greater resilience to random link failures. [^4]
The outline of the rest of the paper is as follows. We analyse the degree distribution of such graphs in section \[se-degree\] and show that the degrees are concentrated around their mean value with high probability ($\whp$). In section \[se-cuts\], we derive asymptotic results on the number of edges crossing a graph cut and use these results $(i)$ to compute the graph expansion and conductance in paragraph \[sse-conductance\], and $(ii)$ to analyse the graph resilience to random failures in paragraph \[sse-resilience\].
Degree distribution {#se-degree}
===================
We work with labelled graphs throughout. We consider the following random graph model on $\nv$ nodes with $\ne$ edges: $$\label{eq:graph-distr}
\mu_{\nv}(G) = \frac{1}{Z} \exp{\left(-\beta \sum_{i=1}^{\nv} d_i^2\right)}{\bf 1}_{\{\sum_{i=1}^nd_i=2E\}},$$ where $d_i$ denotes the degree of node $i$ in the graph $G$, $\beta$ is a specified parameter, and $Z$ is a normalizing constant.
Our aim in this section is to show that graphs generated according to (\[eq:graph-distr\]), with $2E=cn\log n$, have a sequence of degrees that are concentrated around their mean value.
The probability measure $\mu_{\nv}$ on graphs induces a probability measure on degree distributions, which we denote by $\pi_{\nv}$. For $\dvec=(d_1,\ldots,d_{\nv})$, $$\label{eq:deg-distr1}
\pi_{\nv}(\dvec) = \frac{1}{Z_{\nv}} G_{\nv}(\dvec) e^{-\beta
\sum_{i=1}^{\nv} d_i^2} {\bf 1}_{\{\sum_{i=1}^nd_i=2E\}},$$ where $G_{\nv}(\dvec)$ is the number of graphs having the degree sequence $\dvec$, and $Z_{\nv}$ is a normalizing constant. We can rewrite the above as $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{\nv}(\dvec) &=& \frac{1}{Z_{\nv}(\gamma)} \left[ \frac{\ne! 2^{\ne}}
{(2\ne)!} G_{\nv}(\dvec) \prod_{i=1}^{\nv} (d_i!) \right]
\prod_{i=1}^{\nv} \frac{1}{d_i!} e^{-\beta d_i^2 + \gamma (\log \nv) d_i}
{\bf 1}_{\{\sum_{i=1}^nd_i=2E\}} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{\tilde G_{\nv}(\dvec)}{Z_{\nv}(\gamma)} \prod_{i=1}^{\nv}
\frac{1}{d_i!} e^{-\beta d_i^2 + \gamma (\log \nv) d_i}{\bf 1}_{\{\sum_{i=1}^nd_i=2E\}}. \label{eq:deg-distr2}\end{aligned}$$ The introduction of the tilt parameter $\gamma$ does not change the distribution as it multiplies $\pi_{\nv}(\dvec)$ by $e^{2 \gamma \ne \log \nv}$. This is a constant since the total number of edges is fixed. Thus, it can be absorbed into the normalization factor $Z_{\nv}(\gamma)$ along with the term $\ne! 2^{\ne}/(2\ne)!$.
To construct a graph with a given degree distribution, we use the standard [*configuration model*]{} [@bollobas]: To each node $i$ we associate $d_i$ labelled half-edges, also called configuration points or stubs. All stubs need to be matched to construct the graph, this is done by randomly connecting them. When a stub of $i$ is matched with a stub of $j$, we interpret this as an edge between $i$ and $j$. The graph obtained following this procedure may not be simple, i.e., may contain self-loops due to the matching of two stubs of $i$, and multi-edges due to the existence of more than one matching between two given nodes.
To restrict ourselves to the family of simple graphs we define the [*erased configuration model*]{}. Starting from the multigraph obtained through the configuration model, we merge all multiple edges into a single edge and erase all self-loops. It is shown in [@vanderHofstad], that provided that the maximum degree of the graph $d_{\max}$ is such that $d_{\max}=o(\sqrt{n})$, the configuration model and the erased configuration model are asymptotically equivalent, in probability, and every simple graph thus obtained corresponds exactly to $\prod_{i=1}^n d_i!$ distinct configurations describing the number of ways stubs are assigned. We will show in Theorem \[thm:main\] that the above condition is indeed satisfied.
We denote the minimum and maximum degrees by $d_{\min}$ and $d_{\max}$ respectively. The parameter $\tilde{G}_n({\bf d})$ introduced above corresponds to the probability of obtaining a simple graph in the configuration model. This implies the upper bound $\tilde G_{\nv}(\dvec) \le 1$ for any degree sequence $\dvec$. Moreover, if $d_{\max} = o(\ne^{1/4})$, then McKay and Wormald [@MW90] establish the equivalence, for $n$ large, $$\label{eq:graphcount-equiv1}
\tilde G_{\nv}(\dvec) \sim e^{-\lambda-\lambda^2}, \; \hbox{where} \;
\lambda = \frac{1}{4\ne} \sum_{i=1}^{\nv} d_i(d_i-1).$$
Given a degree sequence $\dvec$, we define the mean degree $\dmean=
\sum_{i=1}^n d_i/n$ and the variance $\mbox{Var}(\dvec) = \frac{1}{\nv}
\sum_{i=1}^{\nv} (d_i-\dmean)^2$. We are interested in a regime where $\dmean = c\log \nv$ for some specified constant $c$, so that $\ne = c\nv \log \nv/2$.
For fixed constants $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$, we define the following sets of degree sequences: $$\begin{aligned}
A &=& \{ \dvec : \; \dmean = c\log \nv \}, \\
A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) &=& \{ \dvec : \; - \sqrt{\alpha_1 \log \nv} \le
d_i - \dmean \le \sqrt{\alpha_2 \log \nv} \:, \forall i=1,\dots,\nv \}, %\\\end{aligned}$$ Note that, in the regime $\dmean = c\log \nv$, $\pi_{\nv}$ is supported on $A$, and so $\pi_{\nv}(B)=\pi_{\nv}(A\cap B)$ for any set $B$ of labelled graphs on $\nv$ nodes. Define $\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) = A \cap A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$. We wish to show that
\[thm:main\] There exist constants $\alpha_1, \alpha_2$ such that $\pi_n(\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2))$ goes to 1 as $\nv$ goes to infinity.
The above theorem states that for the random graph model defined by the distribution (\[eq:graph-distr\]), the node degrees concentrate about their mean value. Specifically, all node degrees are within order $\sqrt{\log \nv}$ of the mean, $\whp$. This is in contrast to the Erdös-Rényi model (with the same number of edges) where the maximum fluctuation of node degrees is typically of order $\log \nv$. The rest of the section is devoted to the proof of this theorem. To this end, we start by proving that
\[thm:estimate\] Define the event $A_2 = \{ \dvec : \; d_i \le \nv^{1/4} \:, \forall i=1,\dots,\nv \}$. Then $$\pi_n(A_2^c)\to 0,\qquad \text{as }\nv \to \infty\:,$$ and the estimate in (\[eq:graphcount-equiv1\]) holds.
To prove this we first state a series of lemmas which are proved in Appendix \[se-appendix\].
If $\dvec \in
\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$, then in the regime $\ne = c\nv \log \nv/2$, we have $d_{\max} = o(\ne^{1/4})$. Observe from (\[eq:graphcount-equiv1\]) that $4\ne \lambda =
\nv(\mbox{Var}(\dvec)+\dmean^2-\dmean)$. Moreover, for $\dvec \in
\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$, we have $\mbox{Var}(\dvec) \le \max \{ \alpha_1,
\alpha_2 \} \log \nv$, so that
$$\label{eq-lambdaupper}
\lambda \le \frac{1}{2}( c\log \nv - 1
+ \frac{1}{c} \max\{ \alpha_1,\alpha_2 \} )\:.$$
Hence, $$\label{eq-G_nequi}
\dvec \in \hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) \; \Rightarrow \;
\frac{1}{\tilde G_{\nv}(\dvec)}
\sim e^{\lambda+\lambda^2} \le e^{\frac{c^2 \log^2 \nv}{2}},$$ for all $\nv$ sufficiently large. Recall that $\tilde G_{\nv}(\dvec)
\le 1$ for all $\dvec$ and, in particular, for $\dvec \in A_2^c$, the complement of $A_2$. Thus, it follows from (\[eq:deg-distr2\]) and (\[eq-G\_nequi\]) that, for $\nv$ sufficiently large, $$\label{eq:tail2}
\frac{\pi_n(A_2^c)}{\pi_n(\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2))} \le
e^{ \frac{c^2 \log^2 \nv}{2} }
\frac{ \sum_{\dvec \in A_2^c} \prod_{i=1}^{\nv} \frac{1}{d_i!}
e^{-\beta d_i^2+\gamma (\log \nv) d_i} }{ \sum_{\dvec \in
\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)} \prod_{i=1}^{\nv} \frac{1}{d_i!}
e^{-\beta d_i^2+\gamma (\log \nv) d_i} }.$$
Let $D_1,\ldots,D_{\nv}$ be independent and identically distributed (iid) random variables, with $$\label{eq:marginal}
\PP(D_1 = k) = \frac{1}{F(\gamma)} \frac{1}{k!}
e^{-\beta k^2+\gamma (\log \nv) k},
\quad k\in \Nats,$$ where $F(\gamma)$ is a normalization constant. The dependence of the $D_i$ on $\nv$ and $\gamma$ has not been made explicit in the notation. We choose $\gamma$ so that $\EE D_1 = c\log \nv$, for a specified constant, $c$; this is possible by the following lemma.
\[le-deg dist1\] Let $x_{\gamma}=\frac{1}{2\beta}\left(\gamma \log{n}+\log\log{n}+\frac{\gamma}{2\beta}\right)$, and let $k_{\gamma}-1$ denote the integer part of $x_{\gamma}$. Then, $\EE D_1-k_{\gamma}$ and $\mbox{Var}(D_1)$ remain bounded as $n$ tends to $\infty$. Moreover, let $\alpha=2\beta\left(x_{\gamma}-k_{\gamma}+\frac{1}{2}\right)$ and $$\psi(\theta)=\frac{\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{\theta j- \beta j^2} }{\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}e^{- \beta j^2} }\:.$$
Then, the moment generating function of $D_1$ satisfies $$\EE\left[e^{\theta D_1}\right]\sim e^{\theta k_{\gamma}} \frac{\psi(\theta+\alpha)}{\psi(\alpha)},\qquad \text{as }\nv \to \infty\\:.$$
*Proof*: See proof in section \[proof-deg dist1\]. $\Box$
Let ${\bf D}$ denote the random vector $(D_1,\ldots,D_{\nv})$. We can now rewrite (\[eq:tail2\]) as $$\label{eq:sloppybd1}
\frac{\pi_n(A_2^c)}{\pi_n(\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2))} \le
e^{ \frac{c^2 \log^2 \nv}{2} }
\frac{ \PP( {\bf D} \in A_2^c) }{ \PP( {\bf D} \in
\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) }.$$
\[lem:tail1\] There exists a constant $K>0$, independent of $\nv$, such that $$\label{eq-A_2}
\PP({\bf D} \in A_2^c) \le
Kne^{-\beta \sqrt{\nv}/4}\:.$$
*Proof*: See proof in section \[proof-le-tail1\]. $\Box$
Let $(\tilde D_1,\ldots,\tilde D_{\nv})$ have the joint distribution of $(D_1,\ldots,D_{\nv})$ conditional on ${\bf D} \in
A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$. Equivalently, $\tilde D_1,\ldots,\tilde D_{\nv}$ are iid, with $\tilde D_j$ having the distribution of $D_j$ conditional on $$- \sqrt{\alpha_1 \log \nv} \le D_j-\EE D_j \le \sqrt{\alpha_2\log \nv}\:.$$ Now $$\begin{aligned}
\PP\left({\bf D} \in \hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\right)
&=&
\PP\left({\bf D} \in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\right)~\PP\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\nv} D_j =
c\nv \log \nv \mid {\bf D} \in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\right) \nonumber \\
& =& \; \PP\left({\bf D} \in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\right)~
\PP\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\nv} \tilde D_j = c\nv \log \nv\right) \label{eq:denom-sloppy1}\end{aligned}$$ Suppose $\alpha_1, \alpha_2 > 0$ are chosen large enough so that, for $n$ large, $\EE\tilde D_1 = \EE D_1
= c\log \nv$.
We wish to estimate the probability that $\tilde{D_1}+\tilde{D_2}+\cdots+\tilde{D_{\nv}} =
c\nv \log \nv$. We shall do this using a result from [@M79]. For $j=1,\ldots,\nv$, define the centred random variables, $X_{\nv j}=\tilde{D_j} -\EE \tilde{D_j}$; we have made the dependence of the distribution of $\tilde{D_j}$ on $\nv$ explicit in the notation. Thus, $X_{\nv 1}, X_{\nv 2},\ldots, X_{\nv \nv}$ is an array of integer-valued zero mean random variables such that, for each $\nv$, $X_{\nv 1},\ldots,X_{\nv \nv}$ are independent and identically distributed. Now, to apply [@M79 Theorem 1], we need the following result.
\[lem:cgf\] The random variables, $\{ X_{\nv j}, j=1,\ldots,\nv, \nv \in \Nats \}$, satisfy the following conditions:\
(i) $\limsup_{\nv \to \infty} \EE[e^{\theta |X_{\nv 1}|}] < \infty$ for some $\theta > 0$.\
(ii) $\liminf_{\nv \to \infty} \mbox{Var}(X_{\nv 1}) > 0$.\
(iii) $\liminf_{\nv \to \infty} \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}
\min \{ \PP(X_{\nv 1}=j), \PP(X_{\nv 1}=j+1) \} > 0$.
*Proof*: See proof in section \[proof-le-cgf\]. $\Box$
Indeed, an immediate corollary of [@M79 Theorem 1] is that
If a sequence of independent random variables, $\{ X_{\nv j}, j=1,\ldots,\nv, \nv \in \Nats \}$, satisfies the conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) of Lemma \[lem:cgf\], then $$\PP\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\nv} X_{\nv j}= \sum_{j=1}^{\nv}\EE X_{\nv j}\right) =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sum_{j=1}^{\nv} \mbox{Var}(X_{\nv j})}} \Bigl( 1+ O\Bigl( \frac{1}{\nv}
\Bigr) \Bigr),$$
A direct application of the above result yields $$\label{eq:locallimit1}
\PP\left(\sum_{j=1}^{\nv} \tilde D_j = c\nv \log \nv\right) =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\nv} \tilde \sigma} \Bigl( 1+ O\Bigl( \frac{1}{\nv}
\Bigr) \Bigr),$$ where $\tilde \sigma = \mbox{Var}(\tilde D_1)$ remains bounded as $\nv \to \infty$. Combining this with (\[eq:sloppybd1\]), (\[eq-A\_2\]) and (\[eq:denom-sloppy1\]), we get $$\label{eq:sloppybd2}
\pi_n(A_2^c) \le
\frac{\pi_n(A_2^c)}{\pi_n(\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2))} \le
e^{ \frac{c^2 \log^2 \nv}{2} }
\frac{ \sqrt{2\pi} \tilde \sigma K \nv^{3/2} e^{-\beta \sqrt{\nv}/4} }
{ \PP({\bf D} \in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) } \Bigl( 1+ O\Bigl( \frac{1}{\nv}
\Bigr) \Bigr).$$
\[lem:a1prob\] Let ${\bf D}$ denote the random vector $(D_1,\ldots,D_{\nv})$. Given any $K>0$, we can choose $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ such that $\PP({\bf D} \in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)^c) < e^{-K\log \nv}$ for all $\nv$ sufficiently large.
*Proof*: See proof in section \[proof:a1prob\]. $\Box$
Combining the above lemma with the bound in (\[eq:sloppybd2\]), it is immediate that $\pi_n(A_2^c)\to 0$ as $\nv \to \infty$ which establishes the claim of Theorem \[thm:estimate\]. Thus, to prove Theorem \[thm:main\], we can restrict our attention to graphs with degree sequences in $A_2$, for which we can use the estimate in (\[eq:graphcount-equiv1\]).
*Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]*: Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_n(\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2))
&=& \pi_{\nv}(A) -\pi_{\nv}(A\setminus A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) \\
&\ge& \pi_{\nv}(A) -\pi_{\nv}((A\setminus A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2))\cap A_2)
-\pi_{\nv}(A_2^c).\end{aligned}$$ But $\pi_{\nv}(A)=1$ by definition, and we have shown above that $\pi_n(\hat A_2^c) \to 0$ as $\nv \to \infty$. Hence, it suffices to show that $$\label{eq:suff}
\pi_n((A\setminus A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2))\cap A_2) \to 0, \quad
\mbox{ as $\nv\to \infty$.}$$ Recall from (\[eq:graphcount-equiv1\]) that, if $\dvec \in A_2$, then $\tilde G_{\nv}(\dvec) \sim
e^{-\lambda(\dvec)-\lambda(\dvec)^2}$. Now, $$\lambda(\dvec) = \frac{\mbox{Var}(\dvec)+{\overline d}^2-{\overline d}}
{2\overline d} \ge \frac{c\log \nv-1}{2}, \quad \forall \: \dvec \in A,$$ since the mean degree, ${\overline d}=c\log \nv$. In particular, the above lower bound on $\lambda(\dvec)$ holds for all degree sequence $\dvec$ in $(A\setminus A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) \cap A_2$, since this is a subset of $A$.
In addition, we saw earlier in (\[eq-lambdaupper\]) that, if $\dvec \in
\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$, then $$\lambda(\dvec) \le \frac{1}{2} \Bigl( c\log \nv - 1 + \frac{1}{c}\max
\{ \alpha_1,\alpha_2 \} \Bigr)\:,$$
and the estimate in (\[eq:graphcount-equiv1\]) holds.
Denote $\max \{ \alpha_1,\alpha_2 \}$ by $\alpha$. Now, by (\[eq:deg-distr2\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ \pi_n\left((A\setminus A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) \cap A_2\right) }
{ \pi_n(\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) }
&=& \; \frac{ \sum_{ \dvec \in (A\setminus A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) \cap A_2 }
e^{ -\lambda(\dvec)-\lambda(\dvec)^2 } \prod_{i=1}^{\nv}
\frac{1}{d_i!} e^{ -\beta d_i^2+\gamma (\log \nv) d_i } }
{ \sum_{ \dvec \in \hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) }
e^{ -\lambda(\dvec)-\lambda(\dvec)^2 } \prod_{i=1}^{\nv}
\frac{1}{d_i!} e^{ -\beta d_i^2+\gamma (\log \nv) d_i } } \\
&\leq & \; e^{ \frac{\alpha}{2c} \left(
c\log \nv + \frac{ \alpha }{2c} \right) }
\frac{ \sum_{ \dvec \in (A\setminus A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) \cap A_2 }
\frac{1}{d_i!} e^{ -\beta d_i^2+\gamma (\log \nv) d_i } }
{ \sum_{ \dvec \in \hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) }
\frac{1}{d_i!} e^{ -\beta d_i^2+\gamma (\log \nv) d_i } }.\end{aligned}$$ In other words, there are constants $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ \pi_n((A\setminus A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) \cap A_2) }
{ \pi_n(\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) }
&\le& \kappa_1 e^{\kappa_2 \log \nv}
\frac{ \PP( {\bf D} \in (A\setminus A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) \cap A_2 ) }
{ \PP( {\bf D} \in \hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) ) } \nonumber \\
&\le& \kappa_1 e^{\kappa_2 \log \nv}
\frac{ \PP( {\bf D} \in A\setminus A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) ) }
{ \PP( {\bf D} \in \hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) ) }. \label{eq:main-bd1}\end{aligned}$$ Now, by Lemma \[lem:a1prob\], for any given $K>0$, we can choose $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ such that $\PP\left( {\bf D} \in
A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)^c \right) \le e^{-K\log \nv}$. Thus, $$\label{eq:main-num}
\PP({\bf D} \in A\setminus A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) \le
\PP({\bf D} \in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)^c) \le e^{-K\log \nv}.$$ Moreover, analogous to (\[eq:locallimit1\]), we have $$\PP({\bf D} \in A) = \PP(\sum_{j=1}^{\nv} D_j = c\nv \log \nv)
= \frac{1}{ \sqrt{2\pi\nv} \sigma } \left( 1+O\left( \frac{1}{n}
\right) \right),$$ where $\sigma = \mbox{Var}(D_1)$ remains bounded as $\nv \to \infty$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\PP({\bf D} \in \hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2))
&=& \PP({\bf D}\in A) - \PP({\bf D} \in A\cap A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)^c)
\nonumber \\
&\ge& \PP({\bf D}\in A) - \PP({\bf D} \in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)^c) \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{ \sqrt{2\pi\nv} \sigma } \left( 1+O\left( \frac{1}{n}
\right) \right). \label{eq:main-den}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[eq:main-num\]) and (\[eq:main-den\]) in (\[eq:main-bd1\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_n((A\setminus A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) \cap A_2)
&\le& \frac{ \pi_n(A\setminus A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) }
{ \pi_n(\hat A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) } \\
&\le& \kappa_1 \sigma \sqrt{2\pi \nv} \, e^{(\kappa_2-K)\log \nv}
\left( 1+O\left( \frac{1}{n} \right) \right).\end{aligned}$$ Since $K$ can be chosen arbitrarily large, the above quantity goes to zero as $\nv \to \infty$, which establishes (\[eq:suff\]) and the claim of the theorem. $\Box$
Graph cuts {#se-cuts}
==========
Given a graph $G$ and a subset $U$ of its vertex set, let $e_U(G)$ denote the number of edges incident within $U$ (i.e., having both their vertices with $U$); let $e_{U,U^c}(G)$ denote the number of edges having one vertex in $U$ and the other in its complement, $U^c$ (i.e., crossing the cut $(U,U^c)$); and denote by $u$ or $|U|$ the number of vertices or size of $U$.
Let ${\bf d}(G) = (d_1,d_2,\ldots,d_{\nv})$ denote the degree sequence of $G$ and define the volume of a subset of vertices $U$ by $$\mbox{Vol}(U) = \sum_{i\in U} d_i.$$ Note that $$\label{eq-vol}
2e_U(G) + e_{U,U^c}(G) = \mbox{Vol}(U).$$ In the remainder of this section we derive lower bounds for the graph cuts. To this end we will show that there exists a constant $\delta$ such that $e_{U,U^c}(G)>(1-\delta)|U|c\log n,\:\whp$, using different techniques depending on the size of $U$, when $|U|\leq n/2$.
\[expander0\] For any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $\delta_1\in(0,1)$, independent of $n$, such that, if the subset of vertices $U$ is such that $u\leq 2\epsilon c\log \nv$, then $e_{U,U^c}(G) \ge (1-\delta_1) u c\log \nv$, $\whp$.
*Proof*: Denote $|U|$ by $u$. Suppose first that $u \le 2\epsilon c\log \nv$, for a given $\epsilon>0$. The number of edges incident within $U$ can be at most ${u\choose 2}$, so $e_U(G) \le \epsilon u c\log \nv$, for all $U$. Now, for any degree sequence ${\bf d} \in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$, $ \mbox{Vol}(U) \ge cu\log \nv - u\sqrt{\alpha_1 \log \nv}$. By Theorem \[thm:main\], it is not restrictive to consider only graphs with degree sequences belonging to the set $A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$. Hence, using (\[eq-vol\]) for graphs $G$ with such degree sequences, $$e_{U,U^c}(G) \ge u[(1-2\epsilon) c\log \nv - \sqrt{\alpha_1 \log \nv}].$$ Let $\delta_1=3\epsilon$. Then, for $\nv$ sufficiently large, $e_{U,U^c}(G) \ge (1-\delta_1) u c\log \nv$, $\whp$, whenever $u \le 2\epsilon c\log \nv$ and the claim of the proposition is established. $\Box$
To prove a similar result for all subsets $U$ such that $u\leq n/2$ we will use the configuration model [@bollobas]. Fix a degree sequence ${\bf d} \in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$. By (\[eq:graph-distr\]), all graphs with the same degree sequence are equally likely under the distribution $\mu_{\nv}$, so we can use the configuration model to generate a random graph with this distribution, conditional on the degree sequence.
For constants $\delta\in(0,1)$, $\epsilon>0$, and $\tau>0$, for $\nv \in \Nats$ and a degree sequence ${\bf d}$, we define the following subsets of graphs on a vertex set $V$ of cardinality $\nv$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal E}_1(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d}) &=&
\{ G: {\bf d}(G)={\bf d} \mbox{ and } e_{U,U^c}(G) < (1-\delta) u c\log \nv
\nonumber \\
&& \quad \mbox{for some $U\subseteq V$ with $2\epsilon c\log \nv < u \le \tau \nv$} \},
\label{badgraphs1} \\
{\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d}) &=&
\{ G: {\bf d}(G)={\bf d} \mbox{ and } e_{U,U^c}(G) < (1-\delta) u c\log \nv \nonumber \\
&& \quad \mbox{for some $U\subseteq V$ with $\tau \nv < u \le \nv/2$} \}.
\label{badgraphs2}\end{aligned}$$ We also define $$\label{badgraphs}
{\cal E}_1(\nv,\delta,\tau) =
\bigcup_{\bf d} {\cal E}_1(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d}), \quad
{\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau) =
\bigcup_{\bf d} {\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d}).$$ We shall derive bounds on the probabilities of these sets using the configuration model [@bollobas]. To this end, we define the analogous sets of configurations $\hat {\cal E}_1(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d})$, $\hat {\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d})$, $\hat {\cal E}_1(\nv,\delta,\tau)$ and $\hat {\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau)$. It is useful to define the following sets of configurations on the same vertex set. More precisely, given a degree sequence ${\bf d}=(d_1,d_2,\ldots,d_{\nv})$, and for $H$ a configuration on $V$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\cal E}_1(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d}) &=&
\{ H: {\bf d}(H)={\bf d} \text{ and }
e_{U,U^c}(H) < (1-\delta) u c\log \nv \nonumber \\ &&\quad \mbox{ for some } U\subseteq V \mbox{ with }
2\epsilon c\log \nv < u \le \tau \nv \}, \label{badconfigs1}\\
\hat{\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d}) &=&
\{ H: {\bf d}(H)={\bf d} \text{ and }
e_{U,U^c}(H) < (1-\delta) u c\log \nv \nonumber \\ &&\quad \mbox{ for some } U\subseteq V \mbox{ with }
\tau \nv < u \le \nv/2 \}, \label{badconfigs2}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{badconfigs}
\hat{\cal E}_1(\nv,\delta,\tau) =
\bigcup_{\bf d} \hat{\cal E}_1(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d}), \quad
\hat{\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau) =
\bigcup_{\bf d} \hat{\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d}).$$
Recall that configurations correspond to multigraphs, i.e, there may be loops or multiple edges. A multiple edge is counted the corresponding number of times in the above definitions.
Since ${\bf d} \in A(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$, estimate (\[eq:graphcount-equiv1\]) holds. Using the enumeration formula of McKay and Wormald [@MW90], this bound says that, for $i=1,2$ $$\label{configbound1}
\mu_{\nv}({\cal E}_i(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d})|{\bf d}) \le
e^{\lambda+\lambda^2}
\P(H \in \hat {\cal E}_i(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d})|{\bf d}),$$ where $\P(\cdot|{\bf d})$ denotes the probability with respect to the uniform distribution on configurations with degree sequence ${\bf d}$. Recall that $\lambda$ was defined in (\[eq:graphcount-equiv1\]) to be $\sum_{i=1}^{\nv} d_i(d_i-1)/4E$, where $E$ is the number of edges, i.e., $2E=\sum_{i=1}^{\nv} d_i$. The dependence of $\lambda$ on ${\bf d}$ has been suppressed for notational convenience.
\[expander1\] If $\tau\in(0,\frac{1}{1+4e})$, then there exists $\delta_2\in(0,1)$, independent of $n$, such that $$\lim_{\nv \to \infty} \mu_{\nv} ({\cal E}_1(\nv,\delta_2,\tau)) = 0,$$ where the distribution $\mu_{\nv}$ was defined in (\[eq:graph-distr\]).
*Proof*:
For degree sequences ${\bf d} \in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$ and any subset $U$ of the vertex set, $\mbox{Vol}(U)\sim uc\log \nv$, for $n$ large.
Hence, by (\[eq-vol\]), $e_{U,U^c}(H) <u(1-\delta) c\log \nv$ for a subset $U$ implies that $e_U(H) > \frac{\delta}{2} \mbox{Vol}(U)$, for sufficiently large $\nv$. To prove the proposition it therefore sufffices to show that there exists $\delta_2 \in(0,1)$ such that $\P(e_U(H) > \frac{\delta_2}{2} ~\mbox{Vol}(U))$ tends to $0$ when $n$ tends to infinity.
Recall that for subset $U$ of $V$, the volume of $U$ is given by $\mbox{Vol}(U)= \sum_{i\in U} d_i$. As the half-edges in the configuration model are matched uniformly, $e_U(H)$, the number of edges incident within $U$ in a random configuration, is bounded above by a binomial random variable $X$ with parameters $\mbox{Vol}(U)$ and $\mbox{Vol}(U)/(2E-\mbox{Vol}(U))$. The dependence of $X$ on $U$ has been suppressed for notational convenience. For $\delta\in(0,1)$, by Chernoff’s bound, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\log \P\left(X > \frac{\delta}{2}~\mbox{Vol}(U)\right)
& \le &-\mbox{Vol}(U) \Bigl[ \frac{\delta}{2} \log \frac{\frac{\delta}{2} (2E-\mbox{Vol}(U))}{\mbox{Vol}(U)}
+ (1-\frac{\delta}{2}) \log \frac{(1-\frac{\delta}{2})(2E-\mbox{Vol}(U))}{2E-2\mbox{Vol}(U)} \Bigr] \\
& \le & -\mbox{Vol}(U) \Bigl[ \frac{\delta}{2} \log \frac{\frac{\delta}{2} (2E-\mbox{Vol}(U))}{\mbox{Vol}(U)}
+ (1-\frac{\delta}{2}) \log (1-\frac{\delta}{2}) \Bigr]. \end{aligned}$$
Applying the inequality $\log x \le x-1$ for $x\geq 1$ to $x=1/(1-\frac{\delta}{2})$, we have that $\log(1-\frac{\delta}{2}) \ge -\frac{\delta}{2}/(1-\frac{\delta}{2})$. Using the fact that $$\Bigm| \frac{ \mbox{Vol}(U)}{uc\log \nv}-1 \Bigm| < \frac{\sqrt{\alpha}}{c}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\log \nv}}\:,$$ we have $$\label{binom-ubd1}
\log \P\left(X > \frac{\delta}{2} \mbox{Vol}(U)\right) \le -u c\log \nv
\left[ \frac{\delta}{2} \log\left(\frac{\delta(\nv-u)}{2u}\right) -\frac{\delta}{2} \right]
\Bigl( 1+O \Bigl( \frac{1}{\sqrt{\log \nv}} \Bigr) \Bigr).$$
Suppose first that $2\epsilon c\log \nv < u\le \sqrt{n}$.
For all $\nv$ sufficiently large, equation (\[binom-ubd1\]) becomes $$\log {\P}\left(X > \frac{\delta}{2} \mbox{Vol}(U)\right) \le -\frac{u \delta c}{6} \log^2 \nv.$$
Since $X$ stochastically dominates $e_U(H)$ (conditional on ${\bf d}$), we have by the union bound that, for $\nv$ sufficiently large, $$\begin{aligned}
\P\left(\exists U,\: 2\epsilon c\log \nv < u
\leq \sqrt{\nv},\: e_U(H) > \frac{\delta}{2} \mbox{Vol}(U)\right) \nonumber
& \le &\sum_{u=2\epsilon c\log \nv}^{\sqrt{\nv}} {\nv \choose u}
\exp \Bigl( -\frac{u \delta c}{6} \log^2 \nv \Bigr) \nonumber \\
& \le&\sum_{u=2\epsilon c\log \nv}^{\sqrt{\nv}} \frac{1}{u!}
\exp \Bigl( u\log \nv -\frac{u \delta c}{6} \log^2 \nv \Bigr) \nonumber \\
& \le &\kappa_3 \exp \Bigl( -\kappa_4 \epsilon \delta c^2 \log^3 \nv \Bigr)\:,
\label{binom-ubd2}\end{aligned}$$ for two constants $\kappa_3, \kappa_4>0$. We have used the inequality ${\nv \choose u} \le \nv^u/u!$ to obtain the second inequality above.
Next, consider $\sqrt{\nv} < u \le \tau \nv$.
In this case equation (\[binom-ubd1\]) becomes,
$$\log \P\left(X > \frac{\delta}{2} \mbox{Vol}(U)\right) \le -\frac{1}{2}u c\log \nv
\left[ \delta \log\left(\frac{\delta(1-\tau)}{2\tau}\right) -\delta \right]
\Bigl( 1+O \Bigl( \frac{1}{\sqrt{\log \nv}} \Bigr) \Bigr).$$
If $\tau<\frac{1}{1+4e}$, then there exists $\delta_2\in(0,1)$ such that $$\delta_2\log\left( \frac{\delta_2(1-\tau)}{2\tau}\right) -\delta_2 > \frac{2}{c}.$$ and subsequently, for all $\nv$ sufficiently large and for $u\le \tau \nv$, we have $$\log \P\left(X > \frac{\delta_2}{2} \mbox{Vol}(U)\right) \le -2u\log \nv.$$ Hence, by the union bound, $$\begin{aligned}
\P\left(\exists U: \sqrt{\nv} < u
< \tau \nv,\: e_U(H) > \frac{\delta_2}{2} \mbox{Vol}(U) \right) \nonumber
& \leq & \sum_{u=\sqrt{\nv}}^{\tau \nv} {n\choose u} e^{-2u\log \nv}\\ \nonumber
&\leq & \sum_{u=\sqrt{\nv}}^{\tau \nv} \frac{1}{u!} e^{-u\log \nv}\\
&\leq & \kappa_5 e^{-\sqrt{\nv}\log n}. \label{binom-ubd3} \end{aligned}$$
By (\[configbound1\]), (\[binom-ubd2\]) and (\[binom-ubd3\]), for $n$ large, we can find two constants $\kappa_6, \kappa_7>0$ such that $$\mu_{\nv}({\cal E}_1(\nv,\delta_2,\tau,{\bf d})|{\bf d}) \le
e^{\lambda+\lambda^2}\kappa_6 e^{-\kappa_7 \log^3\nv}.$$ Since $\lambda=O(\log \nv)$, it is readily checked that $\mu_{\nv}({\cal E}_1(\nv,\delta_2,\tau,{\bf d})|{\bf d} \in
A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) )$ goes to $0$ as $\nv \to \infty$.
By Theorem \[thm:main\], $\mu_{\nv}( {\bf d} \notin A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) )$ goes to 0 as well. Noting that $$\mu_{\nv}({\cal E}_1(\nv,\delta,\tau)) \le
\mu_{\nv}({\cal E}_1(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d})|{\bf d} \in
A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) ) + \mu_{\nv}( {\bf d} \notin A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2) ),$$ the claim of the proposition is established. $\Box$
Next, we find a similar lower bound for $e_{U,U^c}(G)$ that holds, $\whp$, for subsets $U$ with $\tau \nv < u \le \nv/2$.
\[expander2\] For $\tau>0$, there exists $\delta_3\in(0,1)$, independent of $n$, such that $$\lim_{\nv \to \infty} \mu_{\nv} ({\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta_3,\tau)) = 0.$$
*Proof*: As in the proof of Proposition \[expander1\], we fix a degree sequence ${\bf d}$ and a subset $U$, and bound the probability that $e_{U,U^c}(G) < u(1-\delta)c\log n$ in terms of the probability that $e_{U,U^c}(H) < u(1-\delta)c\log n$, where $H$ is drawn uniformly at random from configurations with degree sequence ${\bf d}$, i.e., $$\label{configbound2}
\mu_{\nv}({\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d})|{\bf d}) \le
e^{\lambda+\lambda^2}
\P(H \in \hat {\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d})|{\bf d}),$$
Fix constants $\tau>0$ and $\delta\in(0,1)$, and a degree sequence ${\bf d}$. Let $U$ be a subset of the vertex set with $\tau \nv < u \le \nv/2$, and let $j<(1-\delta)uc\log n\leq \frac{1}{2}(1-\delta) cn \log n$. Recall that the number of configurations with degree sequence ${\bf d}$ is $$\label{nconfig}
H_{\nv}({\bf d}) = \frac{(2E)!}{E!2^E} \prod_{i=1}^{\nv} d_i!,$$ where $E = \sum_{i=1}^{\nv} d_i/2$ is the total number of edges. The number of these configurations with exactly $j$ edges crossing the cut between $U$ and $U^c$ is [$$\label{nconfigcut}
{\cal H}_{U,U^c}(j)
\le {\mbox{Vol}(U) \choose j}{2E-\mbox{Vol}(U) \choose j} j! ~
\frac{(\mbox{Vol}(U)-j)! }{\left(\frac{\mbox{Vol}(U)-j}{2}\right)! ~ 2^{\frac{\mbox{Vol}(U)-j}{2}} }~
\frac{ (2E-\mbox{Vol}(U)-j)!}{\left(E-\frac{\mbox{Vol}(U)-j}{2}\right)! ~ 2^{\frac{2E-\mbox{Vol}(U)-j}{2}} }
\prod_{i=1}^{\nv} d_i!\:.$$ ]{} The dependence of ${\cal H}$ on ${\bf d}$ has been suppressed for notational convenience. The first two terms on the right above count the number of ways we can choose $j$ configurations points each from $U$ and $U^c$ to match up. The term $j!$ counts the number of ways of matching them. The remaining configuration points have to be matched within the sets $U$ and $U^c$ as there are only $j$ edges crossing the cut. The number of ways of doing this is the number of configurations on $U$ with $\mbox{Vol}(U)-j$ points, times the number of configurations on $U^c$ with $2E-\mbox{Vol}(U)-j$ points, and with a degree sequence strictly bounded by ${\bf d}$ (since $j$ points each in $U$ and $U^c$ have been used up). This yields the remaining terms in the bound above. We obtain from (\[nconfig\]) and (\[nconfigcut\]) after some simplification that $$\P(e_{U,U^c}(H) = j) = \frac{ {\cal H}_{U,U^c}(j) }{ H_{\nv}({\bf d}) }
\le \frac{ {E\choose \mbox{Vol}(U)/2} {\mbox{Vol}(U)/2 \choose j/2 } {E-(\mbox{Vol}(U)/2) \choose j/2} }
{ {2E\choose \mbox{Vol}(U)} {j\choose j/2} } 2^j.$$ Taking logarithms and using Stirling’s formula, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\log \P(e_{U,U^c}(H) = j) &\le&
E h \left( \frac{\mbox{Vol}(U)}{2E} \right) + \frac{\mbox{Vol}(U)}{2} h \left( \frac{j}{\mbox{Vol}(U)} \right)
+ \frac{2E-\mbox{Vol}(U)}{2} h \left( \frac{j}{2E-\mbox{Vol}(U)} \right) \nonumber \\
&& - 2E h \left( \frac{\mbox{Vol}(U)}{2E} \right) + O(\log \nv),
\label{stirling1}\end{aligned}$$ where, for $x\in [0,1]$, $h(x) = -x\log x-(1-x)\log(1-x)$ is the binary entropy of $x$. Now, $2E = c\nv \log \nv$ and, since it was assumed that ${\bf d} \in
A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$, $|\mbox{Vol}(U) - cu\log \nv| \le u\sqrt{\alpha \log \nv}$, $\alpha=\max\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2\}$. Moreover, $\tau \nv < u \le {\nv}/2$, while $j<\frac{1}{2}(1-\delta)c\nv\log\nv$. Hence, for some $\hat\delta_1$ and for large enough $\nv$, we have, for all $\delta\geq \hat\delta_1$ $$h \left( \frac{j}{\mbox{Vol}(U)} \right) <
h \left( \frac{(1-\delta)\nv\log\nv}{2\tau \nv \log \nv} \right)
= h\left(\frac{(1-\delta)}{2\tau}\right),$$ and it can likewise be shown that, for some $\hat\delta_2$ and for large enough $\nv$, we have, for all $\delta\geq \hat\delta_2$ $$h\left(\frac{j}{2E-\mbox{Vol}(U)}\right)< h(1-\delta)\:.$$ On the other hand, as $|U|<n/2$, for $n$ large, $$h \left( \frac{\mbox{Vol}(U)}{2E} \right) \geq h(\tau).$$ Using the fact that $\mbox{Vol}(U)\leq 2E$, for all $U$, it follows from (\[stirling1\]) that, for $\nv$ sufficiently large, $$\label{stirling2}
\log \P(e_{U,U^c}(H) = j) \le -E \left( h\left(\tau\right)- h\left(\frac{1-\delta}{2\tau}\right)-h\left(1-\delta\right)\right)
\le -\kappa \nv \log \nv$$ where $\delta$ is chosen big enough so that $h(\tau)- h\left(\frac{1-\delta}{2\tau}\right)-h(1-\delta)>0$, i.e., $\kappa>0$.
The above bound applies for all subsets $U$ of $V$, of size $u$ where $\nv < u < \nv/2$. The number of subsets $U$ with cardinality between $\tau \nv$ and $\nv/2$ is smaller than the total number of subsets, which is $2^{\nv}$. Hence, by the union bound, $$\P(H: \mbox{$\exists \, U$ with $\tau \nv < u < \nv/2$ and
$e_{U,U^c}(H)=j$}) \le 2^{\nv} e^{ -\kappa \nv \log \nv}.$$ The above holds for each $j<\frac{1}{2}(1-\delta)cn\log n$. Applying the union bound once more, $$\P(H \in \hat {\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d})|{\bf d})
\le (1-\delta)cn\log{(n)}~ 2^{\nv-1} e^{ -\kappa\nv \log \nv }\:,$$ for all ${\bf d} \in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$. Substituting this in (\[configbound2\]) and noting that $\lambda=O(\log \nv)$, we see that, for $\delta$ large enough $$\mu_{\nv}({\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d})|{\bf d}\in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)) \to 0
\mbox{ as $\nv \to \infty$}\:.$$
We also know from Theorem \[thm:main\] that $\mu_{\nv}({\bf d} \notin A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2))$ goes to zero. Since $$\mu_{\nv}\left({\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau)\right) \le
\mu_{\nv}\left({\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta,\tau,{\bf d})|{\bf d} \in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\right)
+ \mu_{\nv}\left({\bf d} \notin A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)\right),$$ then, there exists $\delta _3>0$ such that $\mu_{\nv}({\cal E}_2(\nv,\delta_3,\tau)) \to 0$ as $\nv \to \infty$, as claimed. $\Box$
Fix $\epsilon>0$ and $\tau <1/(1+4e)$, then by Propositions \[expander0\], \[expander1\] and \[expander2\], there exists $\tilde{\delta}$, independent of $n$, which is the maximum of $\delta_1$, $\delta_2$ and $\delta_3$ for which the three propositions hold. Hence we have the following lower bound for the graph cut,
\[expandermain\] For graphs $G$ drawn according to (\[eq:graph-distr\]), there exists $\tilde{\delta}\in(0,1)$ such that for $U$ subset of $V$ with $u=|U|\leq n/2$, the number of edges crossing the cut $(U,U^c)$ is such that $$e_{U,U^c}\geq (1-\tilde\delta) c u \log n, \quad \whp.$$
Conductance and Expansion {#sse-conductance}
-------------------------
Using Theorem \[expandermain\], we can easily recover asymptotic results on the conductance and the expansion of a graph drawn according to (\[eq:graph-distr\]), which are relevant for phenomena such as routing congestion analysis [@GMS03], the behaviour of random walks in terms of the mixing and cover times [@lovasz96], and epidemic threshold [@GMT05].
Let $A=(a_{ij})_{i,j=1,\dots,n}$ be the adjacency matrix of a graph $G$ and $D=\mbox{Diag}(d_1,\dots,d_n)$ the diagonal matrix of the degree distribution of $G$. First, we define the [*isoperimetric constant or expansion*]{} of a graph $G$ by $$\phi=\inf_{U\subset V,\: u\leq
n/2 }\frac{e_{U,U^c}}{u}$$ It is related to $\lambda_2(L)$ the second (smallest) eigenvalue of the Laplacian $L=D-A$ of the graph through the following inequality [@chung96; @mohar] $$\frac{\phi^2}{2d_{\max}}\leq \lambda_2(L)\leq 2 \phi\:.$$ The lower bound in the above inequality is known as the Cheeger’s inequality.
The [*conductance*]{} of a graph $G$ is defined by $$\Phi=\inf_{U\subset V,\: \mbox{Vol}(U)\leq
E }\frac{e_{U,U^c}}{\mbox{Vol}(U)}\:.$$
Let $\lambda_2(P)$ be the second (largest) eigenvalue of $P$ the transition matrix of the simple random walk on a graph $p_{ij}=a_{ij}/d_i$. By Cheeger’s inequality [@lovasz96 Theorem 5.3],
$$\frac{\Phi^2}{8} \leq 1-\lambda_2(P)\leq \Phi\:.$$
\[expansion conductance\] For graphs $G$ drawn according to (\[eq:graph-distr\]), and for the constant $\tilde{\delta}$ of Theorem \[expandermain\], we have that the expansion $\phi$ and the conductance $\Phi$ satisfy, $$(1-\tilde\delta) c\log{n} \leq \phi \leq c\log{n},\qquad (1-\tilde\delta) \leq \Phi \leq 1, \qquad \whp\:.$$
*Proof*: First note that if $d_{\min}$ is the minimum degree of $G$, then by Theorem \[thm:main\], $d_{\min}=c\log{n}-\sqrt{\alpha_1 \log{n}}$, $\whp$. Hence, $$\phi\leq (1+o(1))c\log{n},\qquad \Phi \leq (1+o(1)), \qquad \whp\:.$$ The lower bounds follow from Theorem \[expandermain\]. $\Box$
Failure resilience {#sse-resilience}
------------------
In the following, we work with graphs whose degree sequence belongs to the set $A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$ for some specified $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$. We are interested in the probability that the graph remains connected when links fail independently with probability $p$. It is straightforward to compute the probability that a given node $i$ becomes isolated due to link failures; it is simply $p^{d_i}$. Thus, by the union bound, the probability that some node becomes isolated is at most $$\sum_{i=1}^{\nv} p^{d_i} \le \nv p^{c\log \nv -\sqrt{\alpha_1 \log \nv}}
= \exp [ (1+c\log p)\log \nv -\sqrt{\alpha_1 \log \nv} \log p ].$$ Hence, if $c\log p < -1$ or, equivalently, $p < \exp(-1/c)$, then the probability that some node becomes isolated goes to zero as $\nv$ increases to infinity.
By way of comparison, consider the classical random graph model of Erdös and Rényi [@ER60] with the same mean degree. Here, an edge is present between each pair of nodes with probability $c\log \nv/\nv$, independent of all other edges. Here we should assume that $c>1$ to ensure that the Erdös-Rényi graph is connected, $\whp$. After taking failures into account, the edge probability becomes $(1-p)c\log \nv/\nv$, and the presence of edges continues to be mutually independent. It is well known for this model that, if $(1-p)c< 1$, then the graph is disconnected with high probability. Moreover, in a sense that can be made precise, the main reason for disconnection when $(1-p)c$ is “close to" 1 is the isolation of individual nodes. Intuitively, these arguments suggest that balanced random graphs can tolerate link failure rates up to $e^{-1/c}$ while retaining connectivity, whereas classical random graphs can only tolerate failure rates up to $(c-1)/c$. We now rigourously establish a weaker result.
We shall use Thereom \[expandermain\] to show that random graphs drawn from the distribution $\mu_{\nv}$ can tolerate link failure rates up to $\exp{\left(-\frac{1}{c(1-\tilde{\delta})}\right)}$, where $\tilde{\delta}$ is defined in Theorem \[expandermain\], without losing connectivity.
For any $p<\exp{\left(-\frac{1}{c(1-\tilde{\delta})}\right)}$, a graph $G$ chosen at random from the distribution $\mu_{\nv}$, and subjected to independent link failures with probability $p$ remains connected, $\whp$.
*Proof*:
Fix $p<\exp{\left(-\frac{1}{c(1-\tilde{\delta})}\right)}$. For a subset $U$ of the vertex set, let $\hat e_{U,U^c}$ denote the number of edges between $U$ and $U^c$ that have not failed. We shall show that, with high probability, $\hat e_{U,U^c}>0$ for all subsets $U$, i.e., the graph is connected. Now, $$\mu_n\left(\hat e_{U,U^c}(G)=0|e_{U,U^c}(G)\right) = p^{e_{U,U^c}(G)}.$$
Assume that $e_{U,U^c}(G) \ge (1-\tilde \delta) uc\log \nv$, for all $U\subseteq V$ with $u\leq \tau \nv$. Hence, $$\mu_n(\exists \, U: u\le \tau\nv, \, \hat e_{U,U^c}(G)=0)
\le \sum_{u=1}^{\tau\nv} {\nv \choose u} p^{(1-\tilde \delta) uc\log \nv}.$$ Since $p<\exp{\left( -\frac{1}{c(1-\tilde{\delta})} \right) }$ given, then for some $\epsilon>0$ and $n$ large, $p^{(1-\tilde\delta)c\log \nv}<e^{-(1+\epsilon) \log \nv}$. Using the inequality ${\nv \choose u} \le \nv^u/u!$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mu_n(\exists \, U: u\le \tau \nv, \, e_{U,U^c}(G)=0)
&\le & \sum_{u=1}^{\tau \nv} \frac{1}{u!} \left(np^{(1-\tilde\delta) c\log \nv} \right)^u\\ \label{disconnect-bd1}
&\le & \exp\left(np^{(1-\tilde\delta) c\log \nv}\right)-1 \leq \exp\left(ne^{-(1+\epsilon) \log \nv}\right)-1\end{aligned}$$ which goes to zero as $\nv \to \infty$.
Suppose that $e_{U,U^c}(G)
\ge (1-\tilde\delta) cu \log{n}$ for all $U\subseteq V$ with $\tau \nv <u \le \nv/2$. Hence, $$\label{disconnect-bd2}
\mu_n(\exists \, U: \tau \nv<u \le \nv/2, \, \hat e_{U,U^c}(G)=0)
\le \sum_{U:\tau \nv < u \le \nv/2} p^{(1-\tilde\delta)c u \log{n}}
\le 2^{\nv} p^{(1-\tilde\delta)\tau cn \log{n}}.$$
We see from (\[disconnect-bd1\]) and (\[disconnect-bd2\]) that, $$\mu_n(\exists \, U: \hat e_{U,U^c}(G)=0 | e_{U,U^c}(G)
\ge (1-\tilde\delta) cu \log{n}) \to 0
\mbox{ as } \nv \to \infty.$$ Also, by Theorem \[expandermain\], $$\mu_n( e_{U,U^c}(G)
< (1-\tilde\delta) cu \log{n},\: \forall\: U\subseteq V, 0 <u \le \nv/2)
\to 0 \mbox{ as } \nv \to \infty,$$ when $G$ is chosen according to the distribution $\mu_{\nv}$, which establishes the claim of the theorem.
$\Box$
[10]{}
F. Ball and A. Barbour. Poisson approximation for some epidemic models, 27, 479–490, 1990.
J.E. Besag. Spatial interaction and statistical analysis of lattice systems, 36, 192–236, 1974.
B. Bollobàs. , Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2001. P. Brémaud. , Springer-Verlag, 2001.
Cachelogic research , http://www.cachelogic.com/research/p2p2005.php.
F. Chung. , in [*Combinatorics, Paul Erdos is eighty*]{}, Vol. 2 (Keszthely, 1993), Bolyai Math. Soc., Budapest, 157–172, 1996.
P. Erdös and A. Rényi. On the evolution of random graphs, 5, 17–61, 1960.
O. Frank and D. Strauss. Markov Graphs, 81, 832–842, 1986.
A.J. Ganesh, A.-M. Kermarrec, and L. Massoulié. Probabilistic reliable dissemination in large-scale systems, 14(3), 248–258, 2003.
A.J. Ganesh, A.-M. Kermarrec, and L. Massoulié. Network Awareness and Failure Resilience in Self-Organising Overlay Networks, in [*Proceedings IEEE Symposium on Reliable and Distributed Systems*]{}, 47–55, 2003.
A.J. Ganesh and L. Massoulié. Failure resilience in balanced overlay networks, in [*Proceedings 41st Allerton conference on communication, control and computing*]{}, 2003.
A.J. Ganesh, L. Massoulié and D. Towsley. The effect of network topology on the spread of epidemics, in [*Proc. IEEE Infocom*]{}, 2005.
C. Gkantsidis, , M. Mihail and A. Saberi. Conductance and congestion in power law graphs, in [*Proceedings ACM SIGMETRICS*]{}, 2003.
P.W. Holland and S. Leinhardt. An exponential family of probability densities for directed graphs, 76, 33–51, 1981.
L. Lovász. Random Walks on Graphs: A Survey, , 353-398, 1996.
D. McDonald. A local limit theorem for large deviations of sums of independent, non-identically distributed random variables, 7, 526–531, 1979.
B.D. McKay and N.C. Wormald. Asymptotic enumeration by degree sequence of graphs of high degree, *Europ. J. Combinatorics* 11, 565-580, 1990.
B. Mohar. Some applications of Laplace eigenvalues of graphs, in [*Graph Symmetry*]{}, G. Hahn, G. Sabidussi (Eds.), Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, 225–275, 1997.
M. E. J. Newman. The structure and functions of complex networks, 45, 167–256, 2003.
J. Park and M. E. J. Newman. The statistical mechanics of networks, 70, 066117, 2004.
R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani. Evolution and structure of the Internet, , 2004.
T.A.B. Snijders. Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation of exponential random graph models, 3(2), 2002.
R. Solomonoff and A. Rapoport. Connectivity of random nets, 13, 107-117, 1951.
R. van der Hofstad. Random Graphs and Complex Networks, http://www.win.tue.nl/ rhofstad/NotesRGCN2008.pdf
Appendix {#se-appendix}
========
Let $D_1,\ldots,D_{\nv}$ be iid random variables with distribution given by (\[eq:marginal\]). Define $$\label{eq:defprob}
f(j,\gamma) = \frac{1}{j!} e^{-\beta j^2+\gamma j \log \nv}, \quad
\mbox{and} \quad F(\gamma) = \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} f(j,\gamma),$$ so that $\PP(D_1=j) = f(j,\gamma)/F(\gamma)$. Now, the ratio $$\frac{f(j+1,\gamma)}{f(j,\gamma)} =
\frac{1}{j+1}e^{-(2j+1)\beta+\gamma \log \nv},$$ is a decreasing function of $j$. Define $k_{\gamma}$ to be the smallest value of $j$ for which $f(j+1,\gamma)/f(j,\gamma) \le 1$, and note that the maximum of $f(j,\gamma)$ over $j$ is attained at $k_{\gamma}$. Now, $k_{\gamma}-1$ is the integer part of the (unique) solution of the equation $$\label{maxeq1}
h(x,\gamma) := - \log(x+1) - (2x+1)\beta + \gamma \log \nv = 0.$$ It is readily verified that the solution is $$\label{argmax1}
x_{\gamma} = \frac{1}{2\beta} \Bigl( \gamma \log \nv + \log \log \nv
+ \frac{\gamma}{2\beta} \Bigr) + o(1).$$ Let $k_{\gamma}=\left\lfloor x_{\gamma}\right\rfloor+1$. Then for any $j>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{f(k_{\gamma}+j+1,\gamma)}{f(k_{\gamma}+j,\gamma)} &=&
\frac{1}{k_{\gamma}+j+1} e^{-\beta(2k_{\gamma}+2j+1)
+\gamma \log \nv} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{f(k_{\gamma}+1,\gamma)}{f(k_{\gamma},\gamma)}~
\frac{k_{\gamma}+1}{k_{\gamma}+j+1}~ e^{-2\beta j} \ \le \ e^{-2\beta j},
%\label{eq:ineqratio1}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that $f(k_{\gamma}+1,\gamma)/f(k_{\gamma},\gamma) \le 1$ to obtain the last inequality. Iterating this inequality yields $ f(k_{\gamma}+j,\gamma)/f(k_{\gamma},\gamma) \le e^{-\beta j(j-1)}$. Similarly, we get $$%\label{eq:ineqratio2}
\frac{f(k_{\gamma}-j-1,\gamma)}{f(k_{\gamma}-j,\gamma)} =
\frac{f(k_{\gamma}-1,\gamma)}{f(k_{\gamma},\gamma)}
\Bigl( 1-\frac{j}{k_{\gamma}} \Bigr) e^{-2\beta j} \le e^{-2\beta j},$$ since $f(k_{\gamma},\gamma)/f(k_{\gamma}-1,\gamma) > 1$ by the definition of $k_{\gamma}$. Iterating this inequality yields $ f(k_{\gamma}-j,\gamma)/f(k_{\gamma},\gamma) \le e^{-\beta j(j-1)}$. Thus, for all integers $j\ge -k_{\gamma}$, we have the inequality $$\label{eq:ineqratio}
\frac{f(k_{\gamma}+j,\gamma)}{f(k_{\gamma},\gamma)} \le e^{-\beta |j|(|j|-1)}\le e^{-\beta(|j|-1)^2}.$$
Next, we derive an equivalent for the above ratio. Observe that, for any fixed $j$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ f( k_{\gamma}+j, \gamma) }{ f( k_{\gamma}, \gamma) } &=&
\frac{k_{\gamma}!}{( k_{\gamma}+j )!}
e^{-\beta j(2k_{\gamma}+j)+\gamma j\log \nv} \\
&=& \frac{1}{k_{\gamma}^j} e^{-\beta j(2k_{\gamma}+j)+\gamma j\log \nv}
\Bigl( 1+O \Bigl( \frac{j^2}{k_{\gamma}} \Bigr) \Bigr).\end{aligned}$$ Taking logarithms, $$\begin{aligned}
\log \frac{ f( k_{\gamma}+j, \gamma) }{ f( k_{\gamma}, \gamma) } &=&
-j\log k_{\gamma} -\beta j(2k_{\gamma}+j)+\gamma j\log \nv +
O \Bigl( \frac{j^2}{\log \nv} \Bigr) \\
&=& j h(x_{\gamma},\gamma) + \alpha j - \beta j^2 +
O \Bigl( \frac{j^2}{\log \nv} \Bigr),\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha = 2\beta (x_{\gamma}-k_{\gamma}+\frac{1}{2})$. Note that $\alpha \in [-\beta,\beta]$ for all $\nv$ because $k_{\gamma}
\in [x_{\gamma},x_{\gamma}+1]$. Since $h(x_{\gamma},\gamma)=0$ by the definition of $x_{\gamma}$, we can now write $$\label{eq:ratio}
g(j,\gamma) := \frac{ f( k_{\gamma}+j, \gamma) }{ f( k_{\gamma}, \gamma) }
= (1+\lambda_j) e^{\alpha j-\beta j^2}, \quad \mbox{where } \;
\lambda_j = O\Bigl( \frac{j^2}{\log \nv} \Bigr).$$ Thus, by (\[eq:defprob\]), $$\label{eq:Fgamma}
F(\gamma) = f(k_{\gamma},\gamma) \sum_{j=-k_{\gamma}}^{\infty}
g(j,\gamma) = K_0(\alpha,\beta) f(k_{\gamma},\gamma),$$ where $K_0(\alpha,\beta) \sim \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}
e^{\alpha j-\beta j^2}$ is bounded uniformly in $\gamma$ and $\nv$.
Proof of Lemma \[le-deg dist1\] {#proof-deg dist1}
-------------------------------
We obtain from (\[eq:marginal\]) and (\[eq:ratio\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\EE D_1 &=&
\frac{ \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} jf(j,\gamma) }{ \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} f(j,\gamma) }
\ =\ k_{\gamma}
\frac{ \sum_{j=-k_{\gamma}}^{\infty} ( 1+\frac{j}{k_{\gamma}} ) g(j,\gamma) }
{ \sum_{j=-k_{\gamma}}^{\infty} g(j,\gamma) } \nonumber \\
\noalign{\vspace{2mm}}
&=& k_{\gamma} \Bigl[ 1 + \frac{1}{k_{\gamma}}
\frac{ \sum_{j=-k_{\gamma}}^{\infty} j(1+\lambda_j) e^{\alpha j-\beta j^2} }
{ \sum_{j=-k_{\gamma}}^{\infty} (1+\lambda_j) e^{\alpha j-\beta j^2} } \Bigr]
\nonumber \\
\noalign{\vspace{2mm}}
&=& k_{\gamma} + K_1(\alpha,\beta), \label{eq:mean}\end{aligned}$$ where $$K_1(\alpha,\beta) \sim \Bigl( \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}
je^{\alpha j-\beta j^2} \Bigr) \Bigm/ \Bigl( \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}
e^{\alpha j-\beta j^2} \Bigr).$$ Note that $K_1(\alpha,\beta)$ is bounded uniformly in $\gamma$ and $\nv$. It is also easy to see that $\EE D_1$ is a continuous and increasing function of $\gamma$. This yields the first claim of the lemma.
A similar calculation yields $$\begin{aligned}
\EE[(D_1)^2] &=&
\frac{ \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} j^2f(j,\gamma) }{ \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} f(j,\gamma) }
\ =\ k_{\gamma}^2
\frac{ \sum_{j=-k_{\gamma}}^{\infty} (1+\frac{j}{k_{\gamma}})^2 g(j,\gamma) }
{ \sum_{j=-k_{\gamma}}^{\infty} g(j,\gamma) } \\
\noalign{\vspace{2mm}}
&=& k_{\gamma}^2 + 2k_{\gamma}K_1(\alpha,\beta)+K_2(\alpha,\beta),\end{aligned}$$ where $$K_2(\alpha,\beta) \sim \Bigl( \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}
j^2 e^{\alpha j-\beta j^2} \Bigr) \Bigm/ \Bigl( \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}
e^{\alpha j-\beta j^2} \Bigr)$$ remains bounded, uniformly in $\gamma$ and $\nv$. Hence, $$\mbox{Var}(D_1) = K_2(\alpha,\beta) - K_1(\alpha,\beta)^2$$ remains bounded. In fact, we see that $\mbox{Var}(D_1)$ is asymptotic to the variance of a discrete Gaussian distribution; this distribution is non-degenerate for any finite $\beta$. Hence, $\mbox{Var}(D_1)$ remains bounded below by some strictly positive constant as $\nv$ goes to infinity.
Next, we evaluate the moment generating function of $D_1$. Proceeding as in the calculations of the mean and variance, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\EE[e^{\theta D_1}] &=&
\frac{ \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} e^{\theta j} f(j,\gamma) }{ \sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
f(j,\gamma) } \ =\ e^{\theta k_{\gamma}} \frac{
\sum_{j=-k_{\gamma}}^{\infty} e^{\theta j} g(j,\gamma) }{
\sum_{j=-k_{\gamma}}^{\infty} g(j,\gamma) } \nonumber \\
\noalign{\vspace{2mm}}
&=& e^{\theta k_{\gamma}} \frac{ \sum_{j=-k_{\gamma}}^{\infty}
(1+\lambda_j) e^{(\theta+\alpha) j-\beta j^2} }{ \sum_{j=-k_{\gamma}}^{\infty}
(1+\lambda_j)e^{\alpha j-\beta j^2} } \nonumber \\
\noalign{\vspace{2mm}}
&\sim& e^{\theta k_{\gamma}} \frac{\psi(\theta+\alpha)}{\psi(\alpha)},
\label{eq:mgf1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{eq:mgfgauss}
\psi(\theta) = \frac{\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{\theta j-\beta j^2}}
{\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-\beta j^2}}$$ is the moment generating function of the discrete Gaussian distribution which puts mass proportional to $e^{-\beta j^2}$ at each $j\in \Ints$.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:tail1\] {#proof-le-tail1}
----------------------------
We obtain using (\[eq:ineqratio\]) and (\[eq:Fgamma\]) that, for $n$ large,
$$\begin{aligned}
\PP(D_1> \nv^{1/4}) &=& \frac{ \sum_{j=n^{1/4}+1}^{\infty} f(j,\gamma) }
{ F(\gamma) } \\
&\le& \frac{1}{K_0(\alpha,\beta)}
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} e^{-\beta(j+ n^{1/4}-k_{\gamma})^2}\\
&\le& \frac{1}{K_0(\alpha,\beta)}
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} e^{-\beta(j+ \frac{1}{2}n^{1/4})^2}\\
&\leq &\frac{\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} e^{-\beta j^2}}{K_0(\alpha,\beta)}~ e^{-\beta\sqrt{n}/4}\end{aligned}$$
By the union bound $$\PP({\bf D} \in A_2^c) \le \sum_{i=1}^{\nv}
\PP(D_i > {\nv}^{1/4}) \le K{\nv}e^{-\beta \sqrt{\nv}/4}.$$
which establishes the claim of the lemma.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:cgf\] {#proof-le-cgf}
--------------------------
In what follows we prove the result for the sequence $D_i$. Following the same lines, one can prove the lemma for $\tilde D_i$.
Since $\EE D_1 = k_{\gamma}+K_1(\alpha,\beta)$, it follows from (\[eq:mgf1\]) that $$\label{eq:mgf2}
\EE[e^{\theta X_{\nv 1}}] = e^{-\theta \EE[D_1]} \EE[e^{\theta D_1}]
\sim e^{-\theta K_1(\alpha,\beta)} \frac{\psi(\theta+\alpha)}{\psi(\alpha)}.$$ For fixed $\theta$, this is bounded uniformly in $\nv$ since $K_1(\alpha,\beta)$ is so bounded, and $\psi$ does not depend on $\nv$. The first claim of the lemma now follows from the inequality $ \EE[e^{\theta |X_{\nv 1}|}] \le \EE[e^{\theta X_{\nv 1}}] +
\EE[e^{-\theta X_{\nv 1}}]$.
Since $X_{\nv 1}=D_1-\EE D_1$, therefore $\mbox{Var}(X_{\nv 1})=\mbox{Var}(D_1)$, and the second claim of the lemma is immediate from Lemma \[le-deg dist1\].
The last claim of the lemma follows from the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \min \{ \PP(X_{\nv 1}=j), \PP(X_{\nv 1}=j+1) \}
&= &\ \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \min \{ \PP(D_1=j), \PP(D_1 = j+1) \} \\
&\ge &\ \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \PP(D_1=j)\PP(D_1 = j+1) \\
&\sim & \ \frac{ \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} (e^{\alpha j-\beta j^2})
(e^{\alpha(j+1)-\beta(j+1)^2}) }{ \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}
e^{\alpha j-\beta j^2} } \ >\ 0.\end{aligned}$$
This completes the proof of the lemma.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:a1prob\] {#proof:a1prob}
-----------------------------
We shall bound $\PP({\bf D} \in A_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)^c)$ using the moment generating function of $X_{\nv 1} := D_1-\EE D_1$, and Chernoff’s bound. Observe from (\[eq:mgf2\]) that $$\label{eq:mgf3}
\EE[e^{( \sqrt{\theta\log \nv})X_{\nv 1}}] = e^{- \sqrt{\theta\log \nv}
K_1(\alpha,\beta)} \frac{\psi( \sqrt{\theta\log \nv}+\alpha)}{\psi(\alpha)},$$ where $\psi$ is defined in (\[eq:mgfgauss\]). Here, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are constants, and $K_1(\alpha,\beta)$ remains bounded as $\nv \to \infty$. Let $$y^* = \frac{ \sqrt{\theta\log \nv}+\alpha}{2\beta}, \quad
j^* = \lfloor y^* \rfloor.$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
&& \Bigl( \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-\beta j^2} \Bigr)
\psi( \sqrt{\theta \log \nv} +\alpha) \\
&&= \; e^{( \sqrt{\theta\log \nv}+\alpha)j^*-\beta (j^*)^2}
\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{( \sqrt{\theta\log \nv}+\alpha)(j-j^*)
-\beta(j^2-(j^*)^2)} \\
&&= \; e^{\beta j^* (2y^* - j^*)}
\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{2\beta (y^*-j^*)k -\beta k^2} \\
&&= \; e^{\beta (y^*)^2} e^{-\beta(y^*-j^*)^2}
\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{2\beta (y^*-j^*)k -\beta k^2}, \end{aligned}$$ and so, $$\psi( \sqrt{\theta\log \nv} +\alpha) = \kappa(\alpha,\beta,\theta)
\exp \Bigl( \frac{( \sqrt{\theta\log \nv}+\alpha)^2}{4\beta} \Bigr),$$ where $\kappa(\alpha,\beta,\theta)$ is bounded, uniformly in $\nv$ and $\theta$. Substituting this in (\[eq:mgf3\]) yields $$\label{eq:mgf4}
\EE[e^{( \sqrt{\theta\log \nv})X_{\nv 1}}] = \kappa_1 \exp \Bigl(
\frac{\theta \log \nv}{4\beta} + \kappa_2 \sqrt{\theta\log \nv} \Bigr),$$ where $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ may depend on $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\theta$ and $\nv$, but are bounded. Thus, we obtain using Chernoff’s bound that $$\PP(X_{\nv 1} > \sqrt{\alpha_2\log \nv}) \le \kappa_1 \exp \Bigl(
-\sqrt{\theta \alpha_2} \log \nv + \frac{\theta \log \nv}{4\beta} +
\kappa_2 \sqrt{\theta\log \nv} \Bigr),$$ for all $\theta>0$. Take $\theta=4\alpha_2 \beta^2$. Now, by the union bound, $$\PP \Bigl( \bigcup_{j=1}^{\nv} \{ X_{\nv j} > \sqrt{\alpha_2\log \nv} \}
\Bigr) \le \kappa_1 \exp \left( -\left(\alpha_2 \beta-1\right) \log \nv +
2\kappa_2 \beta \sqrt{\alpha_2\log \nv} \right).$$ The constant $\alpha_2$ can be chosen large enough so that $\alpha_2 \beta-1 > K$. Hence the right hand side above decreases to zero faster than $e^{-K\log \nv}$ as $\nv \to \infty$. A similar bound can be obtained on the probability that $X_{\nv j} < - \sqrt{\alpha_1\log \nv}$ for some $j\in \{ 1,\ldots,\nv \}$. Thus, we have shown that, given $K>0$, we can choose $\tilde \alpha_1$ and $\tilde \alpha_2$ so that $$\label{eq:a1prob-bd1}
\PP \Bigl( \bigcup_{j=1}^{\nv} \{ X_{\nv j} > \sqrt{\tilde\alpha_2\log \nv}
\} \cup \bigcup_{j=1}^{\nv} \{ X_{\nv j} < - \sqrt{\tilde\alpha_1\log \nv}
\} \Bigr) < \frac{e^{-K\log \nv}}{2}$$ for all $\nv$ sufficiently large. Here, $X_{\nv j} = D_j-\EE D_j$, and the $D_j$ are iid with mean $c\log \nv$. Let ${\overline D}$ denote the empirical mean of $D_1,\ldots,D_{\nv}$. The event, $|{\overline D}-\EE D_1|
>\sqrt{ \eta \log \nv}$ is the same as the event $|X_{\nv 1}+\cdots+X_{\nv \nv}| > \nv \sqrt{\eta \log \nv}$. Using the same Chernoff bound techniques as above, we can show that $\eta$ can be chosen so that, for sufficiently large $\nv$, this event has probability at most $e^{-K\log \nv}/2$. Combining this with (\[eq:a1prob-bd1\]) yields the claim of the lemma: simply take $\sqrt{\alpha_1} = \sqrt{\tilde \alpha_1} + \sqrt{\eta}$ and $\sqrt{\alpha_2} = \sqrt{\tilde \alpha_2} + \sqrt{\eta}$.
[^1]: Imperial College E-mail: [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: University of Bristol, E-mail: [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: Thomson Research E-mail: [[email protected]]{}
[^4]: This paper expands on an earlier short version which appeared in the proceedings of the 41st Allerton Conference on Communications, Control and Computing [@GM03].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Cross-lingual document alignment aims to identify pairs of documents in two distinct languages that are of comparable content or translations of each other. Such aligned data can be used for a variety of NLP tasks from training cross-lingual representations to mining parallel bitexts for machine translation training. In this paper we develop an unsupervised scoring function that leverages cross-lingual sentence embeddings to compute the semantic distance between documents in different languages. These semantic distances are then used to guide a document alignment algorithm to properly pair cross-lingual web documents across a variety of low, mid, and high-resource language pairs. Recognizing that our proposed scoring function and other state of the art methods are computationally intractable for long web documents, we utilize a more tractable greedy algorithm that performs comparably. We experimentally demonstrate that our distance metric performs better alignment than current baselines outperforming them by 7% on high-resource language pairs, 15% on mid-resource language pairs, and 22% on low-resource language pairs.'
author:
- 'Ahmed El-Kishky'
- Francisco Guzmán
bibliography:
- 'sample-base.bib'
title: 'Massively Multilingual Document Alignment with Cross-lingual Sentence-Mover’s Distance'
---
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We compute the perturbative corrections to the HQET sum rules for the matrix element of the $\Delta B=2$ operator that determines the mass difference of $B^0$, $\bar{B}^0$ states. Technically, we obtain analytically the non-factorizable contributions at order $\alpha_s$ to the bag parameter that first appear at the three-loop level. Together with the known non-perturbative corrections due to vacuum condensates and $1/m_b$ corrections, the full next-to-leading order result is now available. We present a numerical value for the renormalization group invariant bag parameter that is phenomenologically relevant and compare it with recent lattice determinations.'
---
SI-HEP-2016-15\
QFET-2016-10
[ **[$B^0$-$\bar{B}^0$ ]{} Mixing at Next-to-Leading Order**]{}
[Andrey G. Grozin]{}\
[Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics SB RAS, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia]{} and\
[Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia]{}\
[Rebecca Klein, Thomas Mannel ]{} and [Alexei A. Pivovarov]{}\
[Theoretische Elementarteilchenphysik, Naturwiss.- techn. Fakultät,\
Universität Siegen, 57068 Siegen, Germany]{}
PACS: 12.38.Bx, 12.38.Lg, 12.39.Hg, 14.40.Nd
Introduction
============
The mixing of states in the systems of neutral flavored mesons belongs to the most sensitive probes for effects from physics beyond the standard model (SM). While the mixing in the kaon and the charmed-meson systems has significant or even dominant long distance effect contribution, the mixing for the neutral $B$ mesons is dominated by the top-quark contribution and hence is dominated by short-distance physics. Technically, this fact means that the still necessary non-perturbative input is given by a matrix element of a local operator with $\Delta B = 2$, even if physics beyond the SM is present.
Within the SM, the mixing frequency $\Delta m$ of the $B^0$–$\bar{B}^0$ oscillations is determined by the following expression $$\label{DelM}
\Delta m = \frac{G_F^2}{8 \pi^2} (V_{td}^* V_{tb})^2 F(x_t) m_t^2
\eta_{\rm QCD}(\mu) \langle B^0|Q(\mu)|\bar{B}^0 \rangle$$ where $x_t=m_t^2/m_W^2$, and $$F(x) = \frac{1}{4} \left[ 1+ \frac{9}{1-x} - \frac{6}{(1-x)^2}
- \frac{6 x^2}{(1-x)^3} \log x \right]$$ is the Inami-Lim function [@Inami:1980fz] (as a review, see, e.g. [@Lenz:2006hd; @Lenz; @Nierste]).
The mass difference $\Delta m$ depends on the matrix element $ \langle B^0|Q(\mu)|\bar{B}^0 \rangle$ of the local four-quark operator $$Q = J_\mu J^\mu = Z(\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)) Q(\mu)\,,\quad
J^\mu = \bar{d}_L \gamma^\mu b_L\,,
\label{Intro:Q}$$ where $b_L$, $d_L$ are the left-handed bare quark fields (see, e.g., [@BBL:96; @Beneke:1998sy]). The short-distance coefficient $\eta_{\rm QCD}(\mu)$ in (\[DelM\]) accounts for contributions of scales larger than the $b$-quark mass $m_b$. The dependence of $\eta_{\rm QCD}(\mu)$ on the renormalization point $\mu$ compensates the $\mu$-dependence of the matrix element $
\langle B^0|Q(\mu)|\bar{B}^0
\rangle
$ that is the main object of low energy (for the scales down of $m_b$) QCD analysis. The matrix element of the four quark operator is traditionally written as $$\langle B^0|Q(\mu)|\bar{B}^0 \rangle =
2 \left(1 + \frac{1}{N_c}\right)
\langle B^0|J_\mu|0\rangle \cdot\langle0|J^\mu|\bar{B}^0\rangle
B(\mu)=2 \left(1 + \frac{1}{N_c}\right) f_B^2 M_B^2B(\mu)\, ,
\label{Intro:B}$$ where $N_c$ is the number of colours, $N_c=3$ in QCD, $B(\mu)$ is the bag parameter, and $$\langle 0|J^\mu|\bar{B}^0(p) \rangle = - \frac{i}{2} f_B p^\mu\,$$ is given by the $B$ meson decay constant $f_B$. Note that the decay constant $f_B$ is a physical quantity which is independent of the renormalization point, its numerical value is rather well known (as recent reviews, see, e.g. [@Gelhausen:2013wia; @Aoki:2016frl]). Hence the full $\mu$ dependence enters the bag parameter $B(\mu)$.
Setting $B(\mu) = 1$ corresponds to the naive factorization prescription for the matrix element (\[Intro:B\]) which would be true for the bare operator $Q$ at tree level but is spoiled by the strong interactions for the “dressed” operator $Q(\mu)$. The hadronic parameter $B(\mu)$ can only be obtained by using some non-perturbative method, such as lattice simulations (see, e.g., [@Aoki:2016frl; @Aoki:2014nga; @Gamiz:2009ku; @Carrasco:2013zta; @Lattice; @Dowdall:2014qka]) or QCD sum rules [@OP:88; @Reinders:1988aa; @KOPP:03; @MPP:11; @Pivovarov:2012zz]. While the naive factorization estimate $B(m_B) = 1$ is rather satisfactory even quantitatively, it is a kind of a model assumption, and a key issue in the precision phenomenological analysis of the processes of mixing is the determination of the deviation of $B(\mu)$ from unity. The matrix element appearing in (\[DelM\]) still depends on $m_b$ which is a scale large compared to $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. To evaluate this matrix element further, we perform a heavy quark expansion (HQE) for this quantity, resulting in a combined expansion in powers of $\alpha_s (m_b)$ and $\Lambda_{\rm QCD} / m_b$. The remaining matrix elements appearing in this expansion are defined in Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) and may be estimated in an HQET sum rule.
In a previous paper [@MPP:11], we have estimated the subleading terms of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD} /m_b$ in such an expansion with a sum rule. However, in order to obtain the full next-to-leading order (NLO) result, we also need to estimate the perturbative contributions of order $\alpha_s$. Within the framework of HQET sum rules this requires a calculation of three-loop diagrams. The relevant master integrals have been found in [@GL:09]. In the present paper we give the results of the calculation for the bag parameter. With this calculation the complete NLO terms are now known.
In the next section we collect some known perturbative results which are needed to set up the sum rule calculation discussed in section \[S:HQET\]. Finally, we present a complete NLO result and discuss its implications for $B^0$–$\bar{B}^0$ mixing.
Perturbative Contributions to the Bag Parameter
===============================================
In this section we collect some perturbation theory results relevant for the analysis of mixing. The $\mu$ dependence of the bag parameter at scales above the $b$ quark mass is known to two loops [@Buras:1990fn], the result reads $$\begin{aligned}
B(\mu) ={}& B(\mu_0)
\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)}{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu_0)}\right)^{\gamma_0/(2\beta_0^{(n_f)})}
\Biggl[1 + \frac{\gamma_0}{2\beta_0^{(n_f)}} \left(
\frac{\gamma_1}{\gamma_0}
- \frac{\beta_1^{(n_f)}}{\beta_0^{(n_f)}} \right)
\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu) - \alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu_0)}{4\pi}
\nonumber\\
&\hphantom{B(\mu_0)\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)}
{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu_0)}\right)^{\gamma_0/(2\beta_0^{(n_f)})}\biggl[\Biggr.}
+ \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2) \biggr]
\nonumber\\
={}& \hat{B} \left(\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)\right)^{\gamma_0/(2\beta_0^{(n_f)})}
\left[1 + \frac{\gamma_0}{2\beta_0^{(n_f)}} \left(
\frac{\gamma_1}{\gamma_0}
- \frac{\beta_1^{(n_f)}}{\beta_0^{(n_f)}} \right)
\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)}{4\pi} + \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2) \right]\,,
\label{Intro:RG}\end{aligned}$$ where the anomalous dimension of the operator $Q$ in (\[Intro:Q\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
&\gamma(\alpha_s) = \frac{d\log Z(\alpha_s(\mu))}{d\log\mu}
= \gamma_0 \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
+ \gamma_1 \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2
+ \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)\,,
\nonumber\\
&\gamma_0 = 6 \frac{N_c - 1}{N_c}\,,\quad
\gamma_1 = - \frac{N_c-1}{2 N_c}
\left( \frac{19}{3} N_c + 21 - \frac{57}{N_c} - \frac{4}{3} n_f \right)
\label{Intro:gamma}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_f$ is the number of flavors including the $b$ quark. The $\beta$-function coefficients are $$\beta_0=\frac{11}{3}N_c-\frac{2}{3} n_f\, ,\quad
\beta_1 = \frac{34}{3} N_c^2 - \left(\frac{13}{3} N_c - \frac{1}{N_c}\right) n_f\, .
\label{Intro:beta}$$ In the physical quantity $\Delta m$ (\[DelM\]), the $\mu$ dependence of $B(\mu)$ is compensated by the $\mu$ dependence of the Wilson coefficient $F(x_t) \eta_{\text{QCD}}(\mu)$.
At scales $\mu$ below the $b$ quark mass the QCD operators are expanded into a series in $\Lambda_{\rm QCD} / m_b$ by employing HQET, see e.g. [@N:94; @MW:00; @G:04]. In particular, the operator $Q$ in (\[Intro:Q\]) becomes [@CFG:96; @B:96] $$Q(\mu) = 2 \sum_{i=1}^2 C_i(\mu) \tilde{Q}_i(\mu) +
\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{m_b}\right)\, ,
\label{Intro:match}$$ where the $1/m_b$ contributions have been discussed in [@KM:92]. The leading order part is $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{Q}_1 &{}= \tilde{J}_{1\mu} \tilde{J}_2^\mu\,,\quad
\tilde{J}_1^\mu = \bar{d}_L \gamma^\mu h_+\,,\quad
\tilde{J}_2^\mu = \bar{d}_L \gamma^\mu h_-\,,
\label{Intro:Q1}\\
\tilde{Q}_2 &{}= \tilde{Q}_2' + \frac{1}{4} \tilde{Q}_1\,,\quad
\tilde{Q}_2' = \tilde{J}_1 \tilde{J}_2\,,\quad
\tilde{J}_1 = \bar{d}_L h_+\,,\quad
\tilde{J}_2 = \bar{d}_L h_- \, .
\label{Intro:Q2}\end{aligned}$$ The bare field $h_+$ annihilates the HQET heavy quark (moving with the four velocity $v$), and $h_-$ creates the heavy antiquark (again moving with the four velocity $v$), which is a completely separate particle in HQET framework. The factor two in (\[Intro:match\]) comes from the fact that there are two $b$ fields in $Q$, one of them becomes $h_+$ and the other one $h_-$. The HQET operators $\tilde{Q}_1,\tilde{Q}_2$ have opposite Fierz parities and hence don’t mix under renormalization which is designed so to preserve Fierz transformations.
The matrix elements of the leading HQET operators in (\[Intro:Q1\]), (\[Intro:Q2\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\bf B}^0|\tilde{Q}_1(\mu)|{\bf \bar{B}}^0 \rangle & =
\left(1 + \frac{1}{N_c}\right)\,
\langle {\bf B}^0|\tilde{J}_{2\mu}(\mu)|0 \rangle \,
\langle 0 |\tilde{J}_1^\mu(\mu)|{\bf \bar{B}}^0\rangle \,
\tilde{B}_1(\mu)\,,
\label{Intro:B1}\\
\langle {\bf B}^0|\tilde{Q}'_2(\mu)|{\bf \bar{B}}^0 \rangle &=
\left(1 - \frac{1}{2 N_c}\right)
\langle {\bf B}^0|\tilde{J}_2(\mu)|0 \rangle\,
\langle 0 |\tilde{J}_1(\mu)|{\bf \bar{B}}^0 \rangle
\tilde{B}'_2(\mu)\,,
\label{Intro:B2}\end{aligned}$$ where the $B$ meson states with a static $b$ quark $| {\bf B} \rangle$ are normalized non-relativistically $$\langle {\bf B} (p')| {\bf B} (p) \rangle = (2\pi)^3 \delta(\vec{p}\,'-\vec{p}\,)\,,\quad
|B(p) \rangle = \sqrt{2 p^0}\,| {\bf B}(p) \rangle + {\cal O} (1/m_b) \, ,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle 0| \tilde{J}_1^\mu(\mu)|{\bf \bar{B}}^0 \rangle=
- \frac{1}{2} \langle 0|\tilde{\jmath}_1(\mu)|{\bf \bar{B}}^0 \rangle \,v^\mu\,,\quad
\langle 0 |\tilde{J}_1(\mu)|{\bf \bar{B}}^0 \rangle =
- \frac{1}{2}\langle 0 |\tilde{\jmath}_1(\mu)|{\bf \bar{B}} ^0\rangle \,,\\
&\langle{\bf B}^0| \tilde{J}_2^\mu(\mu) |0\rangle =
\frac{1}{2} \langle{\bf B}^0| \tilde{\jmath}_2(\mu) |0\rangle\,v^\mu\,,\quad
\langle{\bf B}^0| \tilde{J}_2(\mu) |0\rangle =
- \frac{1}{2} \langle{\bf B}^0| \tilde{\jmath}_2(\mu) |0\rangle\,,\\
&\tilde{\jmath}_1 = \bar{d} \gamma_5 h_+\,,\quad
\tilde{\jmath}_2 = \bar{d} \gamma_5 h_-\,,\\
&\langle 0| \tilde{\jmath}_1(\mu) |{\bf \bar{B}}^0\rangle = i F(\mu)\,,\quad
\langle{\bf B}^0| \tilde{\jmath}_2(\mu) |0\rangle = i F(\mu)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The $B$ meson decay constant $\langle0|j^\mu|\bar{B}^0\rangle = i f_B p_B^\mu$ (where $j^\mu = \bar{d} \gamma_5 \gamma^\mu b$) is $$f_B = \sqrt{\frac{2}{ m_B}}C(\mu) F(\mu)
+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{m_b}\right)\,,
\label{Intro:fB}$$ where [@EH:90] $$j^\mu v_\mu = C(\mu) \tilde{\jmath}_1(\mu)
+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{m_b}\right)\,,\quad
C(m_b)=1 - 2 C_F \frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi} + \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)
\label{Intro:cFB}$$ ($C_F = (N_c^2-1)/(2 N_c)$). The anomalous dimension of the operators $\tilde{\jmath}_{1,2}$ is [@JM:91; @BG:91; @G:92][^1] $$\tilde{\gamma}(\alpha_s) = - 3 C_F \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
+ C_F \left[ \frac{2}{3} \pi^2 \left( C_A - 4 C_F \right)
+ \frac{1}{2} \left( 5 C_F - \frac{49}{3} C_A \right)
+ \frac{5}{3} n_l \right]
\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2 + \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)\,,
\label{Intro:gammaj}$$ where $n_l = n_f-1$ is the number of light flavors (now excluding $b$ quark), and $C_A = N_c = 3$. In terms of these parameters, the anomalous dimension of the operator $\tilde{Q}_1$ in (\[Intro:Q1\]) [@G:93] can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
&\tilde{\gamma}_1(\alpha_s) - 2 \tilde{\gamma}(\alpha_s)
= \delta_{11} \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2
+ \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^3)\,,
\nonumber\\
&
\delta_{11} = \frac{N_c-1}{3 N_c} \left[ 2 \pi^2
\left( 3 N_c - 2 - \frac{6}{N_c} \right)
- 11 N_c^2 - 15 N_c - 12 + \frac{18}{N_c}
+ 2 ( N_c + 3) n_l \right]\,.
\label{Intro:gamma1}\end{aligned}$$ Vanishing of the leading (linear in $\alpha_s$) term in (\[Intro:gamma1\]) reflects the (accidental) fact that at one loop and for scales below the $b$ quark mass, the naive factorization of the four quark operator $\tilde{Q}_1$ into a product of two bi-linear operators is scale independent, i.e. $\tilde{\gamma}_1 = 2 \tilde{\gamma}$ [@SV:88; @PW:88]. Therefore the $\mu$ dependence of $\tilde{B}_1(\mu)$ is weak and contains no leading logarithms: $$\tilde{B}_1(\mu) = \tilde{B}_1(\mu_0) \left[1 +
\frac{\delta_{11}}{2 \beta_0^{(n_l)}}
\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_l)}(\mu) - \alpha_s^{(n_l)}(\mu_0)}{4\pi}
+ \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2) \right]\,.
\label{Intro:B1mu}$$ The anomalous dimension of $\tilde{Q}_2$ is only known up to one loop order [@CFG:96; @B:96]: $$\tilde{\gamma}_2(\alpha_s) - 2 \tilde{\gamma}(\alpha_s)
= \delta_{20} \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
+ \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)\,,\quad
\delta_{20} = 4 \frac{N_c+1}{N_c}\,,
\label{Intro:gamma2}$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{B}_2(\mu)
&\equiv - \left(1 - \frac{1}{2 N_c}\right) \tilde{B}_2'(\mu)
+ \frac{1}{4} \left(1 + \frac{1}{N_c}\right) \tilde{B}_1(\mu)\nonumber
\\
&= \tilde{B}_2(\mu_0)
\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_l)}(\mu)}{\alpha_s^{(n_l)}(\mu_0)}\right)^{\delta_{20}/(2\beta_0^{(n_l)})}
\left[1 + \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)\right]\,.\end{aligned}$$ The matching to HQET is most conveniently performed at $\mu=m_b$, such that the matching coefficients contain no large logarithms: $$Q(m_b) = 2 \left( C_1(m_b) \tilde{Q}_1(m_b) + C_2(m_b) \tilde{Q}_2'(m_b) \right)
+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{m_b}\right)\,,
\label{Intro:Match}$$ where [@CFG:96; @B:96; @FHH:91] $$\begin{aligned}
&C_1(m_b) = 1 - \frac{8 N_c^2 + 9 N_c - 15}{2 N_c} \frac{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(m_b)}{4\pi}
+ \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)\,,
\nonumber\\
&C_2(m_b) = - 2 (N_c + 1) \frac{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(m_b)}{4\pi}
+ \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^2)\,.
\label{Intro:C12}\end{aligned}$$ Taking the matrix element of (\[Intro:Match\]), using (\[Intro:B\]), (\[Intro:B1\]), (\[Intro:B2\]), and re-expressing $f_B$ via $F(m_b)$ (\[Intro:fB\]), we obtain $$B(m_b) = \frac{C_1(m_b)}{C^2(m_b)} \tilde{B}_1(m_b)
- \frac{N_c - \frac{1}{2}}{N_c + 1} \frac{C_2(m_b)}{C^2(m_b)} \tilde{B}_2'(m_b)\,.
\label{Intro:Bmatch}$$ Substituting $C_{1,2}(m_b)$ (\[Intro:C12\]) and $C(m_b)$ (\[Intro:cFB\]), we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
B(m_b) ={}& \left[1 - \frac{4 N_c^2 + 9 N_c - 11}{2 N_c}
\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(m_b)}{4\pi} \right] \tilde{B}_1(m_b)
+(2 N_c-1)
\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(m_b)}{4\pi} \tilde{B}_2(m_b)
\nonumber\\
&{} + \mathcal{O}\left(\alpha_s^2,\frac{1}{m_b}\right)
\label{Intro:Bmb0}\end{aligned}$$ where within the needed accuracy $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(m_b) = \alpha_s^{(n_l)}(m_b)$. Consequently, in order to obtain the QCD bag parameter $B(\mu)$ with the NLO precision, we only need the leading order $\tilde{B}_2$; in particular, we do not need the two-loop anomalous dimension of the operator $\tilde{Q}_2$.
Dependence of $\tilde{B}_1(\mu)$ on $\mu$ is weak. $\tilde{B}_1(m_b)$ is related to $\tilde{B}_1(\mu)$ (where $\mu$ is a low normalization point used in the sum rules) by (\[Intro:B1mu\]). Neglecting factorization breaking in the terms suppressed by $\alpha_s$, i.e. setting $\tilde{B}_1(\mu)=\tilde{B}_2'(\mu)=1$ in these terms, we obtain $$B(m_b) = \tilde{B}_1(m_b) - \frac{11}{2} \left(1 - \frac{1}{N_c}\right) \frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi}\,.
\label{Intro:Bmb1}$$ There are two sources of factorization violation in the QCD bag parameter $B(m_b)$: the HQET bag parameter $\tilde{B}_1$ of the matrix element of the HQET operator $\tilde{Q}_1$ (which will be considered in Sects. \[S:HQET\], \[S:SR\]) and the matching contribution (\[Intro:Bmb1\]). As expected, they are suppressed as $1/N_c$ in the large $N_c$ limit.
This concludes the collection of necessary results concerning the renormalization of the matrix element of the four-quark operator and its matching to HQET at scales below the $b$ quark mass. The remaining task is to evaluate the hadronic matrix element of the operator $\tilde{Q}_1$ in HQET, or the HQET bag parameter $\tilde{B}_1$, for which we perform a sum-rule analysis in HQET using operator product expansion (OPE).
OPE in HQET for sum rules {#S:HQET}
=========================
In the following subsections we evaluate the matrix element of the four-quark operator $\tilde{Q}_1$ with HQET sum rules. We first consider the perturbative part of the sum rule, which requires a three-loop calculation of a suitably chosen correlator, and in a second step we study the quark-condensate contribution to the HQET sum rule.
Leading Perturbative Part
-------------------------
To evaluate the matrix element, we use a vertex (three-point) correlation function that has been first proposed for the analysis of the kaon mixing in [@Chetyrkin:1985vj]. This correlator reveals the factorizable structure of the matrix element more clearly than the two-point function but is significantly more difficult to compute at NLO in QCD compared to the calculation of the two-point function [@Narison:1994zt]. For the present analysis we however set up a three-point sum rule in HQET where the computational difficulties have been solved [@GL:09]. We consider the correlator $$K = \int d^d x_1\,d^d x_2\,e^{i p_1 x_1 - i p_2 x_2}
\langle 0 |T \tilde{\jmath}_2(x_2)
\tilde{Q}_1(0) \tilde{\jmath}_1(x_1) | 0 \rangle
\label{SR:K}$$ of the operator $\tilde{Q}_1$ given in (\[Intro:Q1\]). Here we compute in dimensional regularization with $d = 4 - 2 \varepsilon$ dimensions. The currents $$\tilde{\jmath}_1 = \bar{h}_+ \gamma_5 d\, ,\quad
\tilde{\jmath}_2 = \bar{h}_- \gamma_5 d\, .
\label{SR:j}$$ interpolate the ground state of a static $B$ meson.
Both the HQET quark and the HQET antiquark propagate only forward in time $x \cdot v$, so that the product in (\[SR:K\]) is non-zero only at $x_1\cdot v<0$, $x_2\cdot v>0$ and thus the time-ordered product coincides with the product.
The correlator $K$ depends on two scalar quantities $\omega_{1,2} = p_{1,2} \cdot v$, $K=K(\omega_{1},\omega_{2})$ which correspond to the residual energies of the $b$ quark and the anti-$b$ quark respectively.
![The leading perturbative contributions. The currents $\tilde{J}_1$, $\tilde{J}_2$ are shown slightly split.[]{data-label="F:0"}](d00.eps "fig:") ![The leading perturbative contributions. The currents $\tilde{J}_1$, $\tilde{J}_2$ are shown slightly split.[]{data-label="F:0"}](d01.eps "fig:") $\quad$
![Some diagrams with corrections to the left loop. Of course, similar corrections to the right loop exist.[]{data-label="F:1"}](d10.eps "fig:") ![Some diagrams with corrections to the left loop. Of course, similar corrections to the right loop exist.[]{data-label="F:1"}](d11.eps "fig:") $\quad$
The perturbative diagrams for the correlator $K$ can be subdivided into two classes. The factorizable diagrams include the leading contributions (Fig. \[F:0\]) and those diagrams which contain corrections to the left loop and to the right one separately (e.g., Fig. (\[F:1\])). The right diagrams in Figs. (\[F:0\], \[F:1\]) are equal to the corresponding left diagrams times the factor $(d-2)/(2 N_c)$. This factor is obviously color suppressed $1/N_c$ at $d=4$: there is one color loop ($N_c$) less, and the Dirac structures can be reduced to products (as in the left diagrams) by Fierz rearrangement. At $d\ne4$ there is a contraction $\gamma_\mu\cdots\gamma^\mu$ within the same $\gamma$-matrix string in each right diagram, and it produces the factor $d-2$.
![Nonfactorizable diagrams.[]{data-label="F:2"}](d20.eps "fig:") ![Nonfactorizable diagrams.[]{data-label="F:2"}](d21.eps "fig:") $\quad$\
![Nonfactorizable diagrams.[]{data-label="F:2"}](d22.eps "fig:") ![Nonfactorizable diagrams.[]{data-label="F:2"}](d23.eps "fig:") $\quad$
Nonfactorizable diagrams contain gluon exchanges between the left loop and the right one. They first appear at three loops (Fig. \[F:2\]). Up to 3 loops, the results for the correlators $K(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ can be written as $$K(\omega_1,\omega_2) = \left(1 + \frac{d-2}{2 N_c}\right)
\Pi(\omega_1)
\Pi(\omega_2)
+ \Delta K(\omega_1,\omega_2)\,,
\label{Kstruct}$$ where $$\Pi(\omega) = \frac{N_c (-2\omega)^{2-2\varepsilon}}{(4\pi)^{d/2}} \left[ I_1
- 2 C_F \frac{g_0^2 (-2\omega)^{-2\varepsilon}}{(4\pi)^{d/2}} \frac{d-2}{d-4}
\left( I_1^2 - \frac{d (2d-5)}{d-4} I_2 \right) \right]
\label{Pi}$$ is the correlator of $\tilde{\jmath}_1$ and $\tilde{J}_1$ [@BG:92; @BBBD:92; @N:92], and $$I_n = \Gamma(2n+1-nd) \Gamma^n\left({\textstyle\frac{d}{2}}-1\right)
\label{In}$$ are the integrals corresponding to the “sunset” diagrams in HQET. The 3-loop nonfactorizable contribution is $$\Delta K(\omega_1,\omega_2) = N_c C_F \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi)^{3d/2}}
R(\omega_1,\omega_2)\,.
\label{DK}$$ We have reduced $R(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ to the master integrals investigated in [@GL:09] using the integration-by-parts program [@L:12] $$\begin{aligned}
R =&
- \frac{(d-2) (3d-7) (d^2-16d+40) (\omega_1 - 2 \omega_2)}{2 (d-4) (3d-8) \omega_1 (\omega_1 - \omega_2)}
I_3 (-2\omega_1)^{3d-5} + (\omega_1\leftrightarrow\omega_2)
\nonumber\\
&{} + \frac{(d-2) \bigl[(d-4) (3d-8) \omega_1 - (d-2) (2d-5) \omega_2\bigr]}
{(d-3) (d-4) \omega_1}
I_1 I_2 (-2\omega_1)^{2d-4} (-2\omega_2)^{d-3} + (\omega_1\leftrightarrow\omega_2)
\nonumber\\
&{} - \frac{(d-2) \bigl[(3d-8) (5d-14) \omega_1 - 2 (d-4) (d^2-7d+11) \omega_2\bigr]}
{(d-4) (3d-8) (\omega_1 - \omega_2)}
M_1(\omega_1,\omega_2) + (\omega_1\leftrightarrow\omega_2)
\nonumber\\
&{} + \frac{(d-2) (2d^2-15d+26)}{2 (d-3)} M_2(\omega_1,\omega_2)
+ \frac{(d-2)^2 \omega_1 \omega_2}{(d-3)^2} M_2'(\omega_1,\omega_2)
\nonumber\\
&{} + \frac{4 (d-2) (d-3) (d^2-16d+40) \omega_1 \omega_2}{(d-4) (3d-8)} M_3(\omega_1,\omega_2)
\nonumber\\
&{} - \frac{2 (d-2)^2 \omega_1}{d-4} M_4(\omega_1,\omega_2) + (\omega_1\leftrightarrow\omega_2)\,.
\label{R}\end{aligned}$$
The next step is to expand the master integrals around $d = 4$, i.e. in $\varepsilon$. The relevant technicalities are discussed in [@GL:09] and in Appendix \[S:A\]. We obtain $$\Delta K(\omega_1,\omega_2) =
N_c C_F \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi)^{3d/2}} \left[\Gamma(1+2\varepsilon)
\Gamma(1-\varepsilon)\right]^3
(-2\omega_1)^{2-3\varepsilon} (-2\omega_2)^{2-3\varepsilon} S(x)\,,
\label{Ke}$$ where $$x = \frac{\omega_2}{\omega_1}\,,
\label{x}$$ and $S(x)=S(x^{-1})$ is $$\begin{aligned}
S(x) =&
\left[\frac{1}{48} (x^2+x^{-2}) - \frac{\pi^2}{3} + \frac{5}{4}\right]
\frac{1}{3 \varepsilon^2}
\nonumber\\
&{} + \left[- \frac{1}{16} (x^2-x^{-2}) \log x + \frac{61}{288}
(x^2+x^{-2}) + x + x^{-1} - 4 \zeta_3 - \frac{4}{3} \pi^2 +
\frac{41}{4} \right]
\frac{1}{3 \varepsilon}
\nonumber\\
&{} + \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{1}{16} (x^2+x^{-2}) + \frac{\pi^2}{3} -
\frac{5}{4}\right) \log^2 x
- \left(\frac{61}{288} (x+x^{-1}) + 1\right) (x - x^{-1}) \log x
\nonumber\\
&{} + \frac{1}{216} \left(\pi^2 + \frac{2519}{24}\right) (x^2 + x^{-2})
- \frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{4}{9} \pi^2 - \frac{67}{4}\right) (x + x^{-1})
\nonumber\\
&{} - \frac{1}{3} \left(16 \zeta_3 + \frac{4}{45} \pi^4 + \frac{25}{6} \pi^2 - \frac{193}{4}\right)\,.
\label{S}\end{aligned}$$
The correlator $K(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ is analytic at $\omega_{1,2}<0$. It has a cut in $\omega_1$ from $0$ to $+\infty$ with the discontinuity $$\rho_1(\omega_1,\omega_2) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}
\left[K(\omega_1+i0,\omega_2)
- K(\omega_1-i0,\omega_2)\right]
\label{rho1}$$ if we keep $\omega_2<0$. The discontinuity $\rho_1(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ as a function of $\omega_2$ (at some $\omega_1>0$) has a cut from 0 to $+\infty$ with the discontinuity in $\omega_2$ $$\rho(\omega_1,\omega_2) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}
\left[\rho_1(\omega_1,\omega_2+i0) - \rho_1(\omega_1,\omega_2-i0)\right]\,.
\label{rho}$$ On dimensional grounds, the correlator at three loops has the form $$K(\omega_1,\omega_2) =
(-2\omega_1)^{2-3\varepsilon} (-2\omega_2)^{2-3\varepsilon} f(x)\,,
\label{Kf}$$ where the function $f$ can be gathered from the formulas given above. Looking at the spectral function $\rho_1 (\omega_1,\omega_2)$, we first rotate $\omega_1$: we set $\omega_1=-\nu_1 e^{-i\alpha}$ ($\nu_1>0$) and vary $\alpha$ from 0 to $\pi-0$ or $-\pi+0$ (keeping $\omega_2<0$); this gives $$\rho_1(\nu_1,\omega_2) = \frac{(2\nu_1)^{2-3\varepsilon}
(-2\omega_2)^{2-3\varepsilon}}{2\pi i}
\left[e^{3\pi i\varepsilon} f\left(-\frac{\omega_2}{\nu_1} e^{\pi i}\right)
- e^{-3\pi i\varepsilon} f\left(-\frac{\omega_2}{\nu_1} e^{-\pi i}\right) \right]\,,
\label{rho1f}$$ where $\pi$ means $\pi-0$. Now we set $\omega_2=-\nu_2 e^{-i\alpha}$ ($\nu_2>0$) and vary $\alpha$ from $0$ to $\pi-0$ or $-\pi+0$: $$\rho(\nu_1,\nu_2) = \frac{(2\nu_1)^{2-3\varepsilon} (2\nu_2)^{2-3\varepsilon}}{(2\pi i)^2}
\left[ \left(e^{6\pi i\varepsilon} + e^{-6\pi i\varepsilon}\right)
f(x)
- f(x e^{2\pi i}) - f(x e^{-2\pi i}) \right]\,,\,
x = \frac{\nu_2}{\nu_1}\,,
\label{rhof}$$ where $x e^{\pm2\pi i}$ are at the Riemann sheets of the function $f(x)$ reached after crossing the cut in $x$ from $0$ to $-\infty$.
The bare double spectral density is $$\rho(\omega_1,\omega_2) = \left(1 + \frac{1-\varepsilon}{N_c}\right)
\rho(\omega_1) \rho(\omega_2)
+ \Delta \rho(\omega_1,\omega_2)\,,
\label{rho0}$$ where [@BG:92; @BBBD:92; @N:92] $$\begin{split}
\rho(\omega) =& \frac{N_c (2\omega)^{2-2\varepsilon}}{(4\pi)^{d/2}}
\frac{\Gamma(1+2\varepsilon) \Gamma(1-\varepsilon)}{1-2\varepsilon}\\
&\left[1 + C_F \frac{g_0^2 (2\omega)^{-2\varepsilon}}{(4\pi)^{d/2}}
\Gamma(1+2\varepsilon) \Gamma(1-\varepsilon)
\left( \frac{3}{\varepsilon} + \frac{4}{3} \pi^2 + 17 \right) \right]\,,
\end{split}
\label{rhoBG}$$ and $$\Delta\rho(\omega_1,\omega_2) = N_c C_F \frac{g_0^2}{(4\pi)^{3d/2}}
\left[\Gamma(1+2\varepsilon) \Gamma(1-\varepsilon)\right]^3
(2\omega_1)^{2-3\varepsilon} (2\omega_2)^{2-3\varepsilon} r(x)\,,
\label{Dr}$$ where $r(x)=r(x^{-1})$. In the case of the operator $\tilde{Q}_1$ we have found that $r(x)$ does not, in fact, depend on $x$ $$r(x) = - \left( \frac{4}{3} \pi^2 - 5 \right)\, .
\label{rx}$$ The expression for $r(x)$ is a key computational result of our paper.
The renormalized double spectral density $\rho_r(\omega_1,\omega_2) =
\tilde{Z}_1^{-1} \tilde{Z}_j^{-2} \rho(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ is finite at the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$. This fact may be seen explicitly by using (with $\alpha_s$ accuracy) the relation $\tilde{Z}_1 = \tilde{Z}_j^2$ (see (\[Intro:gamma1\])). Multiplying the factorizable part of (\[rho0\]) by $\tilde{Z}_1^{-1} \tilde{Z}_j^{-2} = \tilde{Z}_j^{-4}$ makes it finite separately. Therefore, also the nonfactorizable part has to become finite separately. At the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$ we obtain $$\rho_r(\omega_1,\omega_2) = \left(1 + \frac{1}{N_c}\right)
\rho_r(\omega_1) \rho_r(\omega_2)
+ \Delta\rho_r(\omega_1,\omega_2)\,,
\label{rhor}$$ where [@BG:92; @BBBD:92; @N:92] $$\rho_r(\omega) = \frac{N_c (2\omega)^2}{(4\pi)^2} \left[ 1
+ C_F \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \left( - 6 \log\frac{2\omega}{\mu}
+ \frac{4}{3} \pi^2 + 17 \right) \right]
\label{rrBG}$$ and $$\Delta\rho_r(\omega_1,\omega_2) = - N_c C_F \frac{\alpha_s}{(4\pi)^5}
(2\omega_1)^2 (2\omega_2)^2
\left( \frac{4}{3} \pi^2 - 5 \right)\,.
\label{Drr}$$ We note again, that for the operator $\tilde{Q}_1$ as given in (\[Intro:Q1\]), $r(x)$ does not depend on $x$, i.e. on $\omega_{1,2}$; for other operators this is not necessarily so.
It is useful to rewrite the presentation (\[Drr\]) in the form $$\Delta\rho_r(\omega_1,\omega_2) = -\frac{1}{ N_c} C_F \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
\rho_r(\omega_1) \rho_r(\omega_2)
\left( \frac{4}{3} \pi^2 - 5 \right)\,
\label{Drr-1}$$ which is valid with $\mathcal{O}(a_s)$ accuracy. This form shows immediately the deviation from the factorization with correct relative normalization and can be used for the computation of corrections to the $B$ parameter. Modifying the representation (\[Drr-1\]) even further one finds for the spectral density of three point correlator at NLO $$\rho_r(\omega_1,\omega_2) = \left(1 + \frac{1}{N_c}\right)
\rho_r(\omega_1) \rho_r(\omega_2)
+ \Delta\rho_r(\omega_1,\omega_2)$$ $$= \left(1 + \frac{1}{N_c}\right)
\rho_r(\omega_1) \rho_r(\omega_2)\left(1-\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
\frac{N_c-1}{2 N_c}\left( \frac{4}{3} \pi^2 - 5 \right)\right)\,
\label{rhor-1}$$ that is a master relation for the sum rules computation of “direct” contribution to $\Delta B$.
In the next subsection we compute the contributions of the quark condensate to the correlator (\[SR:K\]).
Quark Condensate Contribution {#S:Q}
-----------------------------
The power correction to the sum rule discussed above are given in term of quark and gluon condensates. The leading term is given by the quark condensate contributions to the correlator $K$. The diagrams contributing to these power corrections are shown in Figs. \[F:Q0\], \[F:Q1\], \[F:Q2\].
![The leading quark condensate contributions. Of course, the mirror-symmetric diagrams also exist.[]{data-label="F:Q0"}](q00.eps "fig:") ![The leading quark condensate contributions. Of course, the mirror-symmetric diagrams also exist.[]{data-label="F:Q0"}](q01.eps "fig:") $\quad$
![Some of the factorizable contributions.[]{data-label="F:Q1"}](q20.eps "fig:") ![Some of the factorizable contributions.[]{data-label="F:Q1"}](q21.eps "fig:") $\quad$\
![Some of the factorizable contributions.[]{data-label="F:Q1"}](q10.eps "fig:") ![Some of the factorizable contributions.[]{data-label="F:Q1"}](q11.eps "fig:") $\quad$
The leading order quark condensate contribution (Fig. \[F:Q0\]) as well as some some of the 2-loop contributions (Fig. \[F:Q1\]) are factorizable. They are contained in the product in (\[Kstruct\]), if we add the quark-condensate term [@BG:92] $$\Pi_q(\omega) = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\langle \bar{d}d\rangle}{-2\omega}
\left[1 + 2 C_F \frac{g_0^2 (-2\omega)^{-2\varepsilon}}{(4\pi)^{d/2}}
(d-1)
(d-4) I_1\right]\, .
\label{Piq}$$ to the perturbative one (\[Pi\]).
![Nonfactorizable contributions (the mirror-symmetric diagrams also exist).[]{data-label="F:Q2"}](q30.eps "fig:") $\quad$ ![Nonfactorizable contributions (the mirror-symmetric diagrams also exist).[]{data-label="F:Q2"}](q31.eps "fig:") $\quad$ ![Nonfactorizable contributions (the mirror-symmetric diagrams also exist).[]{data-label="F:Q2"}](q32.eps "fig:")\
![Nonfactorizable contributions (the mirror-symmetric diagrams also exist).[]{data-label="F:Q2"}](q33.eps "fig:") $\quad$ ![Nonfactorizable contributions (the mirror-symmetric diagrams also exist).[]{data-label="F:Q2"}](q34.eps "fig:") $\quad$ ![Nonfactorizable contributions (the mirror-symmetric diagrams also exist).[]{data-label="F:Q2"}](q35.eps "fig:")
The first nonfactorizable contributions due to quark condensate appear at the two loop level as shown in Fig. \[F:Q2\]. The contribution of these diagrams to the correlator becomes $$\Delta K_q(\omega_1,\omega_2) = C_F \frac{g_0^2
{\langle }\bar{d}d{\rangle }}{(4\pi)^d}
R_q(\omega_1,\omega_2)\,,
\label{DKq}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&R_q = \frac{4 (\omega_1+\omega_2) \left[(d-2) (d-5)
(\omega_1^2+\omega_2^2) - (d^3 - 10 d^2 + 30 d - 30) \omega_1 \omega_2\right]}{(d-4) (-2\omega_1)^{5-d} (-2\omega_2)^{5-d}} I_1^2
\nonumber\\
&{} + \frac{2d-5}{2 (d-3) (d-4) (d-5) \omega_2^2 (\omega_1-\omega_2)}
\nonumber\\
&{} \times \bigl[ (d-2) (d-5)^2 \omega_1^3 + 2 (d-2) (d-5) (2d-5)
\omega_1^2 \omega_2 - (d-3) (d^2 - 11 d + 6) \omega_1 \omega_2^2
\nonumber\\
&\qquad{} - 4 (d-2) (d-3) \omega_2^3 \bigr]
I_2 (-2\omega_1)^{2d-7} + (\omega_1\leftrightarrow\omega_2)
\nonumber\\
&{} + \frac{- (d-2) (d-5) \omega_1^3 - d \omega_1^2 \omega_2
+ (d-3) (d-8) \omega_1 \omega_2^2 + (d-2) \omega_2^3}{4 (d-4) \omega_1 \omega_2^2 (\omega_1-\omega_2)}
M(\omega_1,\omega_2) + (\omega_1\leftrightarrow\omega_2)
\label{Rq}\end{aligned}$$ where $M(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ is defined in (\[App:M\]). Expanding in $\varepsilon$ we obtain $$\Delta K_q(\omega_1,\omega_2) = C_F
\frac{g_0^2 {\langle}\bar{d}d{\rangle}}{(4\pi)^d}
\left[ \Gamma(1+2\varepsilon) \Gamma(1-\varepsilon) \right]^2
(-2\omega_1)^{\frac{1}{2}-2\varepsilon} (-2\omega_2)^{\frac{1}{2}-2\varepsilon} S_q(x)\,,
\label{Kqe}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&S_q(x) = S_q(x^{-1}) = - \frac{7}{16} \frac{x^{1/2} + x^{-1/2}}{\varepsilon^2}
\nonumber\\
&{} + \biggl[ \frac{7}{2} (x^{1/2} - x^{-1/2}) \log x
+ (x^{1/2} + x^{-1/2}) (x + x^{-1} - 3) \frac{\pi^2}{3}
\nonumber\\
&\qquad{} - \frac{1}{4} (x^{1/2} + x^{-1/2}) (5 x + 5 x^{-1} + 14)
\biggr]
\frac{1}{4\varepsilon}
\nonumber\\
&{} + (x^{1/2} + x^{-1/2}) (x + x^{-1} - 3) \left[ 3 {\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}(1-x)
+ 3 {\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}(1-x^{-1}) - 2 L(x) \log x - 2 \zeta_3 \right]
\nonumber\\
&{} + (x^{1/2} - x^{-1/2}) (x + x^{-1}) L(x)
+ \frac{1}{8} (x^{1/2} + x^{-1/2}) (2 x + 2 x^{-1} - 7) \log^2 x
\nonumber\\
&{} + (x^{1/2} + x^{-1/2}) (10 x + 10 x^{-1} - 27) \frac{\pi^2}{24}
\nonumber\\
&{} + \frac{1}{8} (x^{1/2} - x^{-1/2}) (5 x + 5 x^{-1} + 32) \log x
- \frac{1}{4} (x^{1/2} + x^{-1/2}) (9 x + 9 x^{-1} + 11)\,.
\label{Sq}\end{aligned}$$ Here the special function $L(x)$ is $$L(x)=-L(x^{-1})={\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{2}}(1-x)+\frac{1}{4} \log^2 x\, .$$ Some useful properties of of this function and relevant polylogarithms (${\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{2}}$, ${\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}$) are given in the Appendix.
Finally, the double discontinuity of the function $R_q(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ across the cuts $\omega_{1,2}>0$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
&{\rm disc}_2~R_q(\omega_1,\omega_2) =
2\Biggl[\left(\frac{\pi^2}{3}-\frac{5}{4}\right)
\omega_2^2\delta(\omega_1)
\nonumber\\
&-(\omega_2+\omega_1)\left(\frac{\omega_2}{\omega_1}
+\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_2}-3\right)
\log\left(1-\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_2}\right)
\Biggr]\theta(\omega_2-\omega_1)
\nonumber\\
&+(\omega_2\leftrightarrow\omega_1)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the coefficient of the $\delta(\omega_1)$ is related (up to a proportionality factor) to that of a nonfactorizable perturbative correction in eq. (\[rx\]).
The spectral density of quark condensate contribution now reads $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta\rho_q(\omega_1,\omega_2) = C_F
\frac{\alpha_s {\langle}\bar{d}d{\rangle}}{4\pi}
\frac{2}{16\pi^2}\biggl\{
\nonumber\\
&\biggl[\left(\frac{\pi^2}{3}-\frac{5}{4}\right)
\omega_2^2\delta(\omega_1)
-(\omega_2+\omega_1)\left(\frac{\omega_2}{\omega_1}
+\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_2}-3\right)\log\left(1-\frac{\omega_1}{\omega_2}\right)
\biggr]\theta(\omega_2-\omega_1)
\nonumber\\
&+(\omega_2\leftrightarrow\omega_1)
\biggr\}\,.
\label{Drq-f}\end{aligned}$$ The two-point correlator with the quark-condensate correction is given in (\[Piq\]).
Sum Rules in HQET {#S:SR}
=================
The sum rule is now set up by comparing the perturbatively computed correlator (\[rhor-1\]) with its hadronic representation. The hadronic spectral function is given by $$\rho_H(\omega_1,\omega_2) = F^2\langle B |\tilde{Q}_1|B\rangle
\delta(\omega_1-\bar\Lambda)\delta(\omega_2-\bar\Lambda)
+\rho_{\rm cont}(\omega_1,\omega_2)
\label{rho-had}$$ where $$\langle \bar{B} |\tilde{Q}_1|B\rangle =
\left(1+\frac{1}{N_c}\right)\frac{1}{4}F(\mu)^2 \tilde{B}_1
= (1+1/N_c)\frac{1}{4}F(\mu)^2 (1+\Delta \tilde{B}_1 )
\label{rho-had-me}$$ and $$\rho_{\rm cont}(\omega_1,\omega_2)=\rho_{\rm PT}(\omega_1,\omega_2)
\left[1 - \theta(\omega_c-\omega_1) \theta(\omega_c-\omega_2)\right]\, .$$ Here $\bar{\Lambda}$ is the $B$ meson residual energy, $M_B - m_b = \bar{\Lambda}$ and $\omega_c$ is the continuum threshold. One sees that if one considers also the sum rules for two point correlators then the factorizable part of the matrix element disappears and one has the direct prediction for $\Delta \tilde{B}_1$.
The simplest way to extract $\Delta \tilde{B}_1$ is to use the finite energy sum rules (FESR) that equate the integrals over the square $0<\omega_{1,2}<\omega_c$ of hadronic and OPE spectra. One obtains for the perturbation theory contribution the folowing expression $$\Delta\tilde{B}_1(\mu) = - \frac{N_c-1}{2 N_c}
\left( \frac{4}{3} \pi^2
- 5 \right) \frac{\alpha_s^{(n_l)}(\mu)}{4\pi}
\approx - 0.68 \frac{\alpha_s^{(n_l)}(\mu)}{\pi}
=-2.72\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_l)}(\mu)}{4\pi}\,.
\label{Bsr1}$$ Here $n_l=4$. Eq. (\[Bsr1\]) gives a direct contribution to the violation of factorization.
One can consider a more sophisticated analysis that controls power corrections as in the Borel modification of dispersion sum rules. In HQET, however, there is a nice way of solving the problem of controlling power corrections suggested by the structure of dispersion representation for the correlators in configuration space. Indeed, in coordinate-space, the renormalized correlator (\[SR:K\]) at the parton level for Euclidean times $\tau_{1,2}$ ($\tau=i t$) becomes $$K_r(\tau_1,\tau_2) = \int_0^\infty d\omega_1\,d\omega_2
\,e^{-\omega_1\tau_1-\omega_2\tau_2}\,\rho_r(\omega_1,\omega_2)
+ (\text{p.\,c.})\,,
\label{Ktau}$$ where (p.c.) represents the power corrections proportional to vacuum condensates. The power corrections are important mainly for fixing the continuum threshold. We are not interested in the sum rules analysis on its own but in precise determination of $\Delta {\tilde{B}}_1$. Therefore we fix $\omega_c$ from all known sources (like $F(\mu)$ or $f_B$ eventually) and use the knowledge about two-point sum rules where the main power correction is the quark condensate contribution.
The sum rule for the matrix element of the four-quark operator is obtained now from equating the OPE result to the hadronic expression for the correlator $K$ with the spectral density (\[rho-had\]) $$K_{\rm had}(\tau_1,\tau_2) = \int_0^\infty d\omega_1\,d\omega_2
\,e^{-\omega_1\tau_1-\omega_2\tau_2}\,\rho_{\rm had}(\omega_1,\omega_2)
\label{ktau-hadr}$$ which contains the desired matrix element (\[rho-had-me\]). With the usual duality assumption for the excited states, we obtain the sum rule $$F^2(\mu)\,\langle {\bf B} ^0|\tilde{Q}_1(\mu)|{\bf \bar{B}}^0
\rangle \,e^{-\bar{\Lambda} (\tau_1+\tau_2)}
= \int_0^{\omega_c} d\omega_1 \int_0^{\omega_c} d\omega_2\,
e^{-\omega_1\tau_1-\omega_2\tau_2}\,\rho_r(\omega_1,\omega_2)
+ (\text{p.\,c.})\,,
\label{sr3}$$ with the same parameters $\bar{\Lambda}$, $M_B - m_b = \bar{\Lambda}$ and the continuum threshold $\omega_c$. The Euclidean times $\tau_{1,2}$ ($\tau=i t$) play the role of suppressing-higher-states parameters ($1/\tau_{1,2}$ are the Borel parameters of the double Borel transform in $\omega_{1,2}$). One can study the stability of the result with respect to varying $\tau_{1,2}$. The version of sum rules in coordinate space in HQET is the most similar to the lattice treatment of the problem.
Dividing the sum rule (\[sr3\]) by two copies (product) of the two-point sum rules [@BG:92; @BBBD:92; @N:92] $$\frac{1}{2} F^2(\mu) e^{-\bar{\Lambda} \tau}
= \int_0^{\omega_c} d\omega\,e^{-\omega\tau}\,\rho_r(\omega)
+ (\text{p.\,c.})\,,
\label{sr2}$$ we finally obtain the result for the bag factor $$\tilde{B}_1(\mu) = 1 - \frac{N_c-1}{2 N_c} \left( \frac{4}{3} \pi^2
- 5 \right) \frac{\alpha_s^{(n_l)}(\mu)}{4\pi} + (\text{p.\,c.})
\approx 1 - 0.68 \frac{\alpha_s^{(n_l)}(\mu)}{\pi} + (\text{p.\,c.})\,.
\label{Bsr}$$ which coincides with that of the FESR approach. This result is valid at a low normalization scale $\mu\sim1/\tau_{1,2}$ or, in fact, $\mu\sim\omega_c$. Also it assumes the same $\omega_c$ for both the two-point and three-point correlators (this is the reason why $\tilde{B}_1(\mu)$ is not explicitly dependent on $\omega_c$). Thus, eq. (\[Bsr\]) gives the most complicated contribution to the bag parameter directly coming from the three-loop correlation function (a “direct” violation of factorization to be contrasted with the violation in matching given in Eq. (\[Intro:Bmb1\])).
There are still contributions originated from matching as given in Eq. (\[Intro:Bmb1\]) that should be added. Let us add them first neglecting higher order corrections due to different normalization points (running with NLO anomalous dimensions). They give the total violation of factorization in the form $$-\frac{N_c - 1}{2 N_c} \left[ 11 \frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi}
+ \left( \frac{4}{3} \pi^2 - 5 \right) \frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{4\pi} \right]
\approx -(3.67+2.72) \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} .
\label{B-par0}$$ where in the left-hand side we have still distinguished between the different scales of $\alpha_s$ which appear on the one hand in the matching and on the other hand in the QCD sum rule. However, $\mu$ is not fixed and can be chosen somewhere in the vicinity of $\omega_c$ such that $\mu > \omega_c$. In our numerical analysis below we choose the scale to be $m_b$ and include the difference which is formally of order $\alpha_s(m_b)^2\log(m_b/\omega_c)$ in the uncertainty. Nevertheless, one sees that the direct violation ($2.72$ in eq. (\[B-par0\])) is quantitatively important and is comparable in magnitude with the violation in matching ($3.67$ in eq. (\[B-par0\])).
The deviation of $\tilde{B}_1(\mu) $ from unity that we have found so far measures the deviation from the naive factorization estimate due to perturbation theory contribution to the OPE. Now we account for the contribution of quark condensate that violates factorization. It can be important as its contribution to the two-point sum rule that determines $F(\mu)$ and eventually $f_B$ is not small.
After integrating the $\rho_q(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ within the finite energy sum rules one finds $$\int\rho_q(\omega_1,\omega_2)d\omega_1d\omega_2
= C_F \frac{\alpha_s \langle\bar{q}q\rangle}{4\pi}
\frac{2}{3}\frac{\omega_c^3}{(4\pi)^2} \left(\pi^2 - \frac{149}{18}\right)\,.
\label{qq-sr}$$ The two-point function sum rule (\[sr2\]) at $\tau=0$ (the finite-energy sum rule) gives $$m_B f_B^2 = 2 F^2 = N_c \frac{\omega_c^3}{3 \pi^2} - \langle\bar{q}q\rangle\,;$$ we obtain $$\Delta \tilde{B}_1|_q = \frac{N_c - 1}{N_c}
\frac{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle}{m_B f_B^2}
\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
\left[1 + \frac{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle}{m_Bf_B^2}\right]
\left(\pi^2-\frac{149}{18}\right)\,.
\label{qq-sr-fB}$$ Numerically one has $$\frac{N_c-1}{N_c} \left(\pi^2 - \frac{149}{18}\right) \approx 1.06$$ and $$\frac{\langle \bar q q\rangle }{m_Bf_B^2}=-0.07$$ for $$\langle \bar q q \rangle =-(0.25~{\rm GeV})^3,
\quad m_B=5.3~{\rm GeV},
\quad f_B = 200~{\rm MeV}$$ that are typical values for the parameters. In our numerical analysis we neglect the quark condensate contribution in the square bracket in (\[qq-sr-fB\]). One finds literally $$\Delta \tilde{B}_1|_q=-0.08\frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi}
\label{qq-sr-res}$$ and after adding uncertainties we finally write $$\Delta \tilde{B}_1|_q=-(0.10\pm 0.04)\frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi}\, .
\label{qq-sr-res-n}$$ The contribution is rather small. Note that this is, in fact, a numerical smallness. Indeed, the result is a difference of two large numbers (of order 10) $\left(\pi^2-\frac{149}{18}\right)\approx 9.9 - 8.3=1.6$ that happens to be small (of order 1). Let us emphasize again that our estimates for the phenomenological parameters have very generous uncertainties. It is safe doing so because the contribution is rather small.
The nonPT terms (power corrections) have been analyzed in [@OP:88] and then extended and updated in [@MPP:11]. The FESR estimate from the latter is $$\label{NPTT}
\Delta B_{\rm cond}=-\frac{3\pi^2}{64}\left(\frac{1}{\omega_c^4}
\langle\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} GG\rangle
-\frac{1}{\omega_c^5}\langle{\bar{q}Gq}\rangle\right)=
-\frac{3}{64}(0.06+0.1)=-0.008$$ for standard values of gluon condensate $\langle\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} GG\rangle$ [@Novikov:1976tn] and mixed quark-gluon condensates $\langle{\bar{q}Gq}\rangle$ (e.g., see [@Ovchinnikov:1988gk; @Pivovarov:1991ie]). The final result after an accurate Borel SR analysis in HQET reads for the $B_s$ meson [@MPP:11] $$\Delta B_{\rm cond}=-0.006\pm 0.005\, ,
\label{cond-lo-res}$$ and we use this estimate also for the $B_d$ meson.
Because the values are very small they can be analyzed in linear approximation that means that the consideration of sum rules with included power corrections does not change the result for the parton part (no mutual influence).
Nonfactorizable $1/m_b$ corrections can only emerge in the $\alpha_s/m_b$ order (LO loops are completely factorized in QCD and this feature is reproduced in HQET as well). Therefore they are by factor $\Lambda/m_b=(0.5~{\rm GeV})/(5~{\rm GeV})=1/10$ smaller than those analysed here and we simply include them in the uncertainty.
We discuss the final result in the next section where the comparison with lattice is also given.
Results and discussion
======================
The main result of our analysis is the deviation $\Delta B$ from the value $B = 1$ in facorization. In this section we collect all contributions and discuss the result.
The partonic result (i.e. the purely perturbative contribution) consists of three pieces originating from the matching, from the QCD sum rule analysis and from the running: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta B|_{\rm PT} &= - \frac{N_c - 1}{2 N_c} \left[ 11 \frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi}
+ \left( \frac{4}{3} \pi^2 - 5 \right) \frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{4\pi} \right]
+ \frac{\delta_{11}}{2 \beta_0^{(n_l)}} \frac{\alpha_s(m_b) - \alpha_s(\mu)}{4 \pi}\\
&\approx - \left(\frac{4}{9} \pi^2 +2\right) \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\, .\end{aligned}$$ As discussed after eq. (\[B-par0\]) we set for our numerical evaluation $\mu = m_b$ in the last step. Higher orders of $\alpha_s^2\log(m_b/\omega_c)$ can be taken through NLO anomalous dimension but they are small and included as uncertainty in our analysis. To this end, we write $$\Delta B|_{\rm PT}=-6.4\frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi}
\pm \left(X\frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi}\right)\frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi}$$ where $X$ accounts for higher order terms. In order to estimate the uncertainty induced by such terms, we take a sizable value $X=20$ for this parameter, and we obtain $$\Delta B|_{\rm PT}=-6.4\frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi}
\pm 0.3\frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi}=
-(6.4\pm 0.3)\frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi}\, .$$ The choice of the value for the coupling constant is important for the absolute estimate. For the lattice estimates the reference value $
\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1184
$ from [@Bethke:2009jm] is usually used [@Aoki:2016frl]. Note that the estimate from the low energy $\tau$ decay data gives a close value [@Korner:2000xk] $$\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1184\pm 0.0007|_{\text{exp}}\pm 0.0006|_{\text{hq mass}} \, .$$ We stick, therefore, to the standard value $$\alpha_s(m_{b})=0.20\pm 0.02
\label{alpha}$$ with rather generous uncertainty to account for possible systematic errors.
With the numerical value from (\[alpha\]) we obtain including systematic errors at the level of 30% $$\Delta B_{\rm PT}=-0.10\pm 0.02\pm 0.03\, .$$
We now turn to the non-perturbative condensate terms. The quark-condensate term computed in this paper at order $\alpha_s$ gives $$\Delta B_q=-(0.10\pm 0.05)\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_l)}(m_b)}{4\pi}=-0.002\pm
0.001\, .
\label{qq-sr-res-1}$$
In [@MPP:11] the non-perturbative condensate terms that appear at tree level have been computed, see (\[NPTT\]). Their numerical value is [@MPP:11] $$\Delta B_{\rm nonPT}=-0.006\pm 0.005\, .$$
Including everything we obtain the estimate $$\Delta B =-0.11 \pm 0.04\,
\label{final-dB}$$ where we summed errors in quadrature.
In order to compare this to other calculations, it is useful to employ the translation factor to the renormalization group invariant parameter $\hat{B} = \hat{Z} B(m_b)$ is $$\hat{Z} = \alpha_s(m_{b})^{-\frac{\gamma_0}{2\beta_0}}
\left(1 + \frac{ \alpha_s(m_{b})}{4\pi}
\left(\frac{\beta_1\gamma_0-\beta_0\gamma_1}{2\beta_0^2}\right)\right)$$ with $$\gamma_0 = 4, \quad \gamma_1 = -7 + \frac{4}{9}n_f,\quad n_f = 5,$$ which numerically is $$\hat{Z} = 1.51$$ at $\alpha_s(m_b)=0.2$ [@Lattice].
Applying this factor to our result $$B(m_b)|_{\rm this~paper} =1-(0.11\pm 0.04)
\label{final-Bmb}$$ we obtain $$\hat B|_{\rm this~paper}= 1.51\left\{1-(0.11\pm 0.04)\right\}=1.34\pm 0.06\, .
\label{final-Bhat}$$ The main uncertainty comes from the choice of scale for $\alpha_s(\mu)$ between $\mu\sim \omega_c$ and $m_b$, higher orders in $\alpha_s(m_b)$, and the value of $\alpha_s(m_b)$. The uncertainties due to other sources (like NNLO matching, or systematics of sum rules) is difficult to quantify. For them we add some typical values known from the experience with similar correlation functions (see, e.g. [@BBBD:92; @N:92]). More recent examples of uncertainty analysis within sum rules approach can be found in [@Gelhausen:2013wia; @MPP:11].
We note that the sum rule yields a quite precise prediction. This is due to the fact, that the actual sum-rule calculation is performed for the deviation $\Delta B$ of the bag factor from unity. Although the calculation of $\Delta B$ suffers from the typical sum-rule uncertainty of tens of percents, the value obtained for $\hat{B}$ is quite precise since $\Delta B$ is small compared to unity.
This value has to be compared to lattice value results. The recent review [@Aoki:2016frl] quotes the average $$\hat{B}_{\rm latt} = 1.26(9)$$ for $n_f=2+1$ flavors based on [@Aoki:2014nga; @Gamiz:2009ku] and $$\hat{B}_{\rm latt} = 1.30(6)$$ for $n_f=2$ [@Carrasco:2013zta]. The recent result [@Lattice] is $$\label{lattice-Bhat}
\hat{B}_{\rm latt} = 1.38(12)(6)$$ The parameter $B$ itself normalized at the $b$ quark mass is given earlier as [@Dowdall:2014qka] $${B}_{\rm latt}(m_b) = 0.8\pm 0.1$$ (unfortunately, the number is not given explicitly and the result is extracted from the figure only). At present, the progress in lattice computations is pretty fast and the results are going to further improve. Nevertheless, currently our sum rule estimate is competitive with the lattice calculations for the reasons discussed above.
A comment on the QCD computation of the bag parameter with the moments of the spectral density at the finite $b$-quark mass used in the analysis of ref. [@KOPP:03] is in order here. The subtraction of divergences for the operator Q has been done in a way that is different from the scheme adopted for the computation of the coefficient functions of $\Delta B=2$ Hamiltonian in [@Buras:1990fn]. Thus, the renormalised operator $Q(\mu)$ of [@KOPP:03] differs from the one given in [@Buras:1990fn] (and used in the present paper) by a finite amount of order $\alpha_s$. We are going to convert the results of [@KOPP:03] to the canonical basis in a separate paper.
Summary
=======
We have computed non-factorizable corrections to the bag parameter for the $B_d^0-\bar{B}_d^0$ mixing. The most complicated part is a “direct” contribution that requires an acccount for three loop diagrams in HQET. The main result of phenomenological analysis is that these corrections are small, and factorization approximation is quantitatively valid. We have found $$B(m_b)-1=-(0.11\pm 0.04)
\label{B-final}$$ and $$\hat B|_{\rm QCD}=1.34\pm 0.06\,
\label{Bhat-final}$$ for the $B_d$ meson bag parameter.
The main advantage of our approach is that we classify the contributions (diagrams) at the level of OPE such that we can explicitly single out contributions that completely factorize. In that sense they can only produce unity in the bag parameter and do not require any computation if properly marked. Subtracting these terms at the level of OPE we keep only terms that explicitly violate factorization and use the sum rules for them. It happens that those terms are numerically small and even rather large uncertainties in their estimate still produce rather precise result for the matrix element itself.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
We thank Th. Feldmann for the interest in the work and discussion. A.G. is grateful to Siegen University for hospitality; his work has been partially supported by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science. This work is supported by the DFG Research Unit FOR 1873 “Quark Flavour Physics and Effective Theories”.
Master integrals {#S:A}
================
Expansions of the master integrals in $\varepsilon$ up to finite terms have been obtained in [@GL:09] Appendix A. However, we have found that the coefficients of $M_{3,4}$ in the correlator are $\mathcal{O}(1/\varepsilon)$, and we need one more term in their expansions. The expansion of $M_3$ is given by (A.4) in [@GL:09]; the new additional term in the braces is $$\begin{aligned}
&{} + \biggl[ 144 (2 x \log x - 1 + 19 x - 3 x^2) {\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}(1-x)
- 144 (2 x \log x + 3 - 19 x + x^2) {\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}(1-x^{-1})\\
&\qquad{} + 288 L^2(x)
+ 216 (1 - 7 x + x^2) L(x) \log x
+ 252 (1 - x^2) L(x)\\
&\qquad{} + \frac{81}{4} x \log^4 x
+ \frac{9}{2} (1 - x^2) \log^3 x
- \frac{9}{4} (19 + 70 x + 19 x^2) \log^2 x
+ 18 (1 - x^2) \log x\\
&\qquad{} - 8 \left( 630 \zeta_3 + \frac{71}{15} \pi^4 + 18 \pi^2 \right) x
+ 3 (11 - 120 x + 11 x^2)
\biggr] \varepsilon^4\,.\end{aligned}$$ The expansion of $M_4$ is given by (A.5) in [@GL:09]; the new additional term in the braces is $$\begin{aligned}
&{} - 2 \biggl[ 144 x^2 L_4(x)
- 12 x (2 x \log x + 3 + 18 x - 3 x^2) {\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}(1-x)\\
&\qquad{} + 12 x (2 x \log x - 1 - 18 x + x^2) {\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}(1-x^{-1})\\
&\qquad{} - 24 x^2 L^2(x)
+ 6 x \left[ 4 x \log^2 x + 18 x \log x - 5 (1 - x^2) \right] L(x)\\
&\qquad{} + 3 x (1 - x^2) \log^3 x
+ x \left[ 8 \pi^2 x + 3 (5 - 9 x - 5 x^2) \right] \log^2 x\\
&\qquad{} + 3 x \left[ 4 (8 \zeta_3 + 3 \pi^2) x - 1 + x^2 \right] \log x\\
&\qquad{} + 2 \left( 270 \zeta_3 + \frac{28}{15} \pi^4 + 9 \pi^2 \right) x^2
+ 2 x (7 + 2 x - x^2)
\biggr] \varepsilon^4\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the function $$L_4(x) = - L_4(x^{-1}) = {\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{4}}(x)
+ \frac{1}{6} \log^3 x \log(1-x)
- \frac{1}{16} \log^4 x
- \frac{\pi^2}{12} \log^2 x
- \frac{\pi^4}{90}$$ is analytical in $(0,+\infty)$ (no branching singularity at $x=1$). We have also checked that the expansions (A.2) and (A.3) of $M_2$, $M_2'$ in [@GL:09] satisfy the identity $$M_2' = \frac{d-3}{(d-4) \omega_1^2 \omega_2}
\left[ (\omega_1^2 - \omega_2^2) \frac{\partial M_2}{\partial \omega_2}
+ \frac{1}{2} (3d-8) (\omega_1 + 2 \omega_2) M_2 \right]$$ following from IBP.
![Topology of 2-loop integrals[]{data-label="F:L2"}](i.eps)
For the calculation of 2-loop diagrams in Sect. \[S:Q\] we need Feynman integrals shown in Fig. \[F:L2\]. Using LiteRed [@L:12] we reduce them to 3 trivial master integrals $I_1^2 (-2\omega_1)^{d-3} (-2\omega_2)^{d-3}$, $I_2 (-2\omega_1)^{2d-5}$, $I_2 (-2\omega_2)^{2d-5}$ and 2 nontrivial ones, $$M(\omega_1,\omega_2) = \raisebox{-3.5mm}{\includegraphics{m.eps}} = I_1 I(3-d,1,1;\omega_1,\omega_2)
\label{App:M}$$ and $M(\omega_2,\omega_1)$. Expansion of $M(\omega_1,\omega_2)$ in $\varepsilon$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&M(\omega_1,\omega_2) = -
\frac{\Gamma^2(1-\varepsilon) \Gamma(1+4\varepsilon)}{16 \varepsilon^2 (1-2\varepsilon) (1-4\varepsilon) (3-4\varepsilon)}
\Bigl\{ x (x-1) - (4 x^2 - 6 x + 1) \varepsilon\\
&{} - 2 \bigl[ x (x-1) \bigl( 4 L(x) + \log^2 x \bigr) - 2 (2x-1) \log x \bigr] \varepsilon^2\\
&{} + 8 \bigl[ x (x-1) \bigl( 4 {\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}(1-x) + 2 {\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}(1-x^{-1}) - 4 L(x) \log x - \tfrac{1}{3} \log^3 x + 4 L(x) \bigr)\\
&\qquad{} + (x^2 + x - 1) \log^2 x \bigr] \varepsilon^3 + \cdots \Bigr\} \frac{(-2\omega_2)^{2-4\varepsilon}}{x^2}\,.\end{aligned}$$
For calculations of spectral densities we used $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{2}}(1-x e^{\pm2\pi i}) =
{\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{2}}(1-x) \mp 2 \pi i \left[ \log|x-1| \pm \pi i \theta(x-1) \right]\,,\\
&{\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}(1-x e^{\pm2\pi i}) =
{\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}(1-x) \mp \pi i \left[ \log|x-1| \pm \pi i \theta(x-1) \right]^2\,,\\
&{\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{n}}(x+i0) - {\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{n}}(x-i0) = \frac{2\pi i}{\Gamma(n)} \log^{n-1} x\quad (x>0)\end{aligned}$$ (where $1-x e^{\pm2\pi i}$ are on the Riemann sheets reached after crossing the cut). We also used the identity $${\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}(x) + {\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}(1-x) + {\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits_{3}}(1-x^{-1}) = \frac{1}{6} \log^3 x - \frac{1}{2} \log^2 x\,\log(1-x) + \frac{\pi^2}{6} \log x + \zeta_3\,.$$
[99]{}
T. Inami, C.S. Lim, *Effects of superheavy quarks and leptons in low-energy weak processes $K_L \to \mu \bar{\mu}$, $K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar{\nu}$ and $K^0 \leftrightarrow \bar{K}^0$*, Prog. Theor. Phys. **65** (1981) 297; Erratum: **65** (1981) 1772. A. Lenz, U. Nierste, *Theoretical update of $B_s$ – $\bar{B}_s$ mixing*, JHEP **06** (2007) 072 \[hep-ph/0612167\]. A. Lenz, *The theoretical status of $\bar{B}$ – $B$ mixing and lifetimes of heavy hadrons*, Int. J. Mod. Phys. **A 23** (2008) 3321 \[arXiv:0710.0940 \[hep-ph\]\];\
*Theoretical update of $B$-mixing and lifetimes*, arXiv:1205.1444 \[hep-ph\];\
*$B$-mixing in and beyond the Standard Model*, arXiv:1409.6963 \[hep-ph\]. U. Nierste, *Three lectures on meson mixing and CKM phenomenology*, arXiv:0904.1869 \[hep-ph\];\
*$B$ Mixing in the Standard Model and beyond*, arXiv:1212.5805 \[hep-ph\]. G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras, M.E. Lautenbacher, *Weak decays beyond leading logarithms*, Rev. Mod. Phys. **68** (1996) 1125 \[hep-ph/9512380\];\
A.J. Buras, *Weak Hamiltonian, CP violation and rare decays*, hep-ph/9806471.
M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, C. Greub, A. Lenz, U. Nierste, *Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to the lifetime difference of $B_s$ mesons*, Phys. Lett. **B 459** (1999) 631 \[hep-ph/9808385\]. P. Gelhausen, A. Khodjamirian, A.A. Pivovarov, D. Rosenthal, *Decay constants of heavy-light vector mesons from QCD sum rules*, Phys. Rev. **D 88** (2013) 014015; Erratum: **D 89** (2014) 099901; Erratum: **D 91** (2015) 099901 \[arXiv:1305.5432 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Aoki *et al.*, *Review of lattice results concerning low-energy particle physics*, arXiv:1607.00299 \[hep-lat\]. Y. Aoki, T. Ishikawa, T. Izubuchi, C. Lehner, A. Soni, *Neutral $B$ meson mixings and $B$ meson decay constants with static heavy and domain-wall light quarks*, Phys. Rev. **D 91** (2015) 114505 \[arXiv:1406.6192 \[hep-lat\]\]. E. Gámiz, C.T.H. Davies, G.P. Lepage, J. Shigemitsu, M. Wingate \[HPQCD Collaboration\], *Neutral $B$ meson mixing in unquenched lattice QCD*, Phys. Rev. *D 80* (2009) 014503 \[arXiv:0902.1815 \[hep-lat\]\]. N. Carrasco *et al.* \[ETM Collaboration\], *$B$-physics from $N_f=2$ tmQCD: The Standard Model and beyond*, JHEP [**1403**]{} (2014) 016 \[arXiv:1308.1851 \[hep-lat\]\]. A. Bazavov *et al.* \[Fermilab Lattice and MILC Collaborations\], *$B^0_{(s)}$-mixing matrix elements from lattice QCD for the Standard Model and beyond*, Phys. Rev. **D 93** (2016) 113016 \[arXiv:1602.03560 \[hep-lat\]\]. R.J. Dowdall *et al.* \[HPQCD Collaboration\], *$B$-meson mixing from full lattice QCD with physical $u$ , $d$, $s$ and $c$ quarks*, PoS LATTICE **2014** (2014) 373 \[arXiv:1411.6989 \[hep-lat\]\].
A.A. Ovchinnikov, A.A. Pivovarov, *Estimate of the hadronic matrix element of $B^0$–$\bar{B}^0$ mixing using the method of QCD sum rules*, Phys. Lett. **B 207** (1988) 333. L.J. Reinders, S. Yazaki, *A QCD sum rule calculation of the $B \bar{B}$ mixing matrix element $\langle\bar{B}^0|O_{\Delta B=2}|B^0\rangle$*, Phys. Lett. **B 212** (1988) 245. J.G. Körner, A.I. Onishchenko, A.A. Petrov, A.A. Pivovarov, *$B^0$ – $\bar{B}^0$ mixing beyond factorization*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91** (2003) 192002 \[hep-ph/0306032\]. T. Mannel, B.D. Pecjak, A.A. Pivovarov, *Sum rule estimate of the subleading non-perturbative contributions to $B_s$ – $\bar{B}_s$ mixing*, Eur. Phys. J. **C 71** (2011) 1607. A.A. Pivovarov, *($B^0$ – $\bar{B}^0$) mixing in the next-to-leading order of the $1/m_b$-expansion*, Theor. Math. Phys. **170** (2012) 187 \[Teor. Mat. Fiz. **170** (2012) 230\]. A.G. Grozin, R.N. Lee, *Three-loop HQET vertex diagrams for $B^0$ – $\bar{B}^0$ mixing*, JHEP **02** (2009) 047 \[arXiv:0812.4522 \[hep-ph\]\].
A.J. Buras, M. Jamin, P.H. Weisz, *Leading and next-to-leading QCD corrections to $\epsilon$ parameter and $B^0$ – $\bar{B}^0$ mixing in the presence of a heavy top quark*, Nucl. Phys. **B 347** (1990) 491. M. Neubert, *Heavy quark symmetry*, Phys. Reports **254** (1994) 259. A.V. Manohar, M.B. Wise, *Heavy Quark Physics*, Cambridge University Press (2000).
A.G. Grozin, *Heavy Quark Effective Theory*, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics **201**, Springer (2004). M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, V. Giménez, *Next-to-leading order renormalization of the $\Delta B=2$ operators in the static theory*, Phys. Lett. **B 388** (1996) 167 \[hep-ph/9608204\]. G. Buchalla, *Renormalization of $\Delta B=2$ transitions in the static limit beyond leading logarithms*, Phys. Lett. **B 395** (1997) 364 \[hep-ph/9608232\]. W. Kilian, T. Mannel, *QCD corrected $1/m_b$ contributions to $B\bar{B}$ mixing*, Phys. Lett. **B 301** (1993) 382 \[hep-ph/9211333\].
E. Eichten, B. Hill, *An effective field theory for the calculation of matrix elements involving heavy quarks*, Phys. Lett. **B 234** (1990) 511.
X.D. Ji, M.J. Musolf, *Subleading logarithmic mass dependence in heavy meson form-factors*, Phys. Lett. **B 257** (1991) 409. D.J. Broadhurst, A.G. Grozin, *Two loop renormalization of the effective field theory of a static quark*, Phys. Lett. **B 267** (1991) 105 \[hep-ph/9908362\]. V. Giménez, *Two loop calculation of the anomalous dimension of the axial current with static heavy quarks*, Nucl. Phys. **B 375** (1992) 582. K.G. Chetyrkin, A.G. Grozin, *Three loop anomalous dimension of the heavy–light quark current in HQET*, Nucl. Phys. **B 666** (2003) 289 \[hep-ph/0303113\]. V. Giménez, *Two loop calculation of the anomalous dimension of four fermion operators with static heavy quarks*, Nucl. Phys. **B 401** (1993) 116. M.A. Shifman, M.B. Voloshin, *On annihilation of mesons built from heavy and light quark and $\bar{B}^0\leftrightarrow B^0$ oscillations*, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. **45** (1987) 292 \[Yad. Fiz. **45** (1987) 463\].
H.D. Politzer, M.B. Wise, *Leading logarithms of heavy quark masses in processes with light and heavy quarks*, Phys. Lett. **B 206** (1988) 681. J.M. Flynn, O.F. Hernández, B.R. Hill, *Renormalization of four fermion operators determining $B\bar{B}$ mixing on the lattice*, Phys. Rev. **D 43** (1991) 3709. K.G. Chetyrkin, A.L. Kataev, A.B. Krasulin, A.A. Pivovarov, *Calculation of the $K^0$ – $\bar{K}^0$ mixing parameter via the QCD sum rules at finite energies*, Phys. Lett. **B 174** (1986) 104 \[hep-ph/0103230\]. S. Narison, A.A. Pivovarov, *QSSR estimate of the $B_B$ parameter at next-to-leading order*, Phys. Lett. **B 327** (1994) 341 \[hep-ph/9403225\]. D.J. Broadhurst, A.G. Grozin, *Operator product expansion in static-quark effective theory: Large perturbative correction*, Phys. Lett. **B 274** (1992) 421 \[hep-ph/9908363\].
E. Bagan, P. Ball, V.M. Braun, H.G. Dosch, *QCD sum rules in the effective heavy quark theory*, Phys. Lett. **B 278** (1992) 457.
M. Neubert, *Heavy-meson form factors from QCD sum rules*, Phys. Rev. **D 45** (1992) 2451.
R.N. Lee, *Presenting LiteRed: A tool for the loop integrals reduction*, arXiv:1212.2685 \[hep-ph\];\
*LiteRed 1.4: a powerful tool for reduction of multiloop integrals*, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. **523** (2014) 012059 \[arXiv:1310.1145 \[hep-ph\]\].
V.A. Novikov, L.B. Okun, M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, M.B. Voloshin, V.I. Zakharov, *Sum rules for charmonium and charmed mesons in quantum chromodynamics*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **38** (1977) 626; Erratum: **38** (1977) 791. A.A. Ovchinnikov, A.A. Pivovarov, *QCD sum rule calculation of the quark gluon condensate*, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. **48** (1988) 721 \[Yad. Fiz. **48** (1988) 1135. A.A. Pivovarov, *Determination of the numerical magnitude of the mixed quark-gluon vacuum condensate*, Bull. Lebedev Phys. Inst. **5** (1991) 1 \[Kratk. Soobshch. Fiz. **5** (1991) 3\]. S. Bethke, *The 2009 world average of $\alpha_s$*, Eur. Phys. J. **C 64** (2009) 689 \[arXiv:0908.1135 \[hep-ph\]\]. J.G. Körner, F. Krajewski, A.A. Pivovarov, *Strong coupling constant from $\tau$ decay within renormalization scheme invariant treatment*, Phys. Rev. **D 63** (2001) 036001 \[hep-ph/0002166\].
[^1]: The three-loop term is also known [@CG:03], but we don’t need it.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Daniel P. Sablowski[^1], Silva Järvinen & Michael Weber'
bibliography:
- 'library\_disentangling.bib'
date: 'Received 2018; accepted 2019'
title: 'Spectangular: Disentangling variable spectra'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Spectral disentangling is a technique used to separate component spectra of spectroscopic binaries (SB2) and multiples. In comparison to separation techniques [e.g. @1983LowOB9180B] which need prior knowledge of radial velocities (RVs), it [**only**]{} requires a set of spectra spread over the orbital period at known times. This is made possible by connecting the disentangling algorithm with a global optimization algorithm, working on the orbital elements (or individual radial velocities). The solution is a disentangled spectrum of the two components (in the case of SB2), which can be interpreted as an extracted average of all individual single spectra from the observations. In addition, the orbital elements best fitting the data are derived. However, many binaries are variable and the influence of the changes in spectral behaviour on the output of the disentangling needs to be investigated and properly understood. This paper is dedicated to a discussion of procedures dealing with different kinds of variability and how to extract the information of variability from the result of the disentanglement.
`Spectangular` was published by @refId0 (hereafter PaperI); we point the reader to that article for the description of the program. The first application to highly variable Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars was presented in [@refId1]. `Spectangular` is based on singular value decomposition (SVD) and runs in a downhill simplex optimization. It differs significantly from another disentangling code, `KOREL`, which works in the frequency domain. Application of `KOREL` to variable spectra was presented in [@refId2] and [@refId3]. In Sect.\[code\] we summarize improvements to the code since it was first published. The SVD leads to results of least-squares nature, hence random variability will be strongly suppressed in the disentangled spectra. This is shown in Sect.\[tellurics\], where we discuss the influence and a way to correct for telluric features by two-step disentangling. Section \[sec2\] concentrates on specific cases of variability of stellar origin. Section \[pulsations\] shows a way to search for periodic line profile variations using the information in the spectrum-to-spectrum differences between the disentangled spectra and the individual observations. Continuum brightening has an effect on the extracted spectra as well, and is discussed in Sect.\[flares\]. Since eclipsing binaries play an important role in stellar physics, Sect.\[eclipsing\] is dedicated to demonstrating the applicability of the code to such systems. Surface spots imprint another periodic variability on the line profiles, and we investigate it in Sect.\[surfspots\]. The main results are summarized in Sect.\[summary\].
Code modifications and procedures {#code}
=================================
For data preparation, we use the in-house developed code `CroCo` (see also PaperI). This code is used to re-sample the observations on a logarithmic wavelength scale and for two-dimensional cross-correlation (CC). The step size $b_{log}$ for the logarithmic wavelength scale was set to be the minimum step size, $b_{log} = \min[b_{log,i}],~i=0 \dots n$, found from all $n$ spectra (multiplied by a user-set increment), where $b_{log,i},~i=0 \dots n$. is the minimum step size in spectrum $i$ (which usually refers to the bluest pixel). Since that can lead to a step size of zero length (data errors), we implemented a user definable step size. Alternatively, the median, $b_{log} = \text{median}[b_{log,i}]$, or the arithmetic mean, $b_{log} = \text{mean}[b_{log,i}]$, of all these minimum step sizes can be used. Furthermore, the interpolation of the spectra can now be performed with a cubed spline (or a linear) interpolation. The spline can lead to better approximations at larger step sizes, corresponding to less data on the logarithmic scale.
![Example of the differences between the disentangled spectra and 19 individual observations of Capella. The optimization has failed to find proper RV values for two spectra, which can be seen by the strong differences (black crosses). The spectra have been shifted by 0.3 on the y-axis for better visibility.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](./Differences.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
When running the optimization with `Spectangular` on the individual RVs, there can be spectra for which the code does not find proper RVs. There can be three reasons for this: (i) the large number of variables, e.g. if 10 spectra of a SB2 system are used, we already have to deal with 20 variables; (ii) the noise level within the spectra; (iii) the selection of the initial values. In the case of non-convergence of optimization the disentangling fails. The SVD extracts a mean spectrum, best adapted to the data by the determined RVs. If the RVs are not realistic, the disentangled spectra are distorted. It is necessary now to identify these spectra and either remove them from the data set or change the initial RVs. This is usually best done during a first optimization run. The code writes some statistical information of the residual spectra (sum, mean, square sum) into a file (diffstatisic.dat) that can be used to identify the worst offenders. However, in most cases they can already be identified by visual inspection of the plotted differences in the GUI window. These differences are calculated by shifting the disentangled spectra by the determined RVs of each observation and subtracting these shifted disentangled spectra from the observations. As an example, we show the differences for such a case in Fig.\[Fig1\] where we can clearly identify two spectra with outlying RVs. User interaction is likely to be necessary.
A further way to increase the convergence to the global minimum is to change the transformation coefficients of the optimizer (see paper I). @185709, among others, found that a higher value of the contraction coefficient (e.g. 0.75 instead of 0.5) can be advantageous. This leads to a slower contraction of the simplex and an increase in the possibility to escape from local minima.
The program can also be run without the GUI, in a cluster environment for example. Only some minor changes need to be made in the source code, which are described in the manual of the software.[^2]
Handling broad wavelength ranges {#largewl}
--------------------------------
Since SVD is very time consuming, `Spectangular` is used in narrow wavelength ranges. In high-resolution spectroscopy, however, we have spectra with data points of the order of 100000. Therefore, we have implemented a routine in `CroCo` to create whole data sequences. This routine creates several short re-sampled spectrum pieces written in separate files. From our experience with echelle spectra, it can be advantageous to constrain the spectrum pieces by the length of a spectral order. This prevents problems rising from order merging. The advantage of using echelle orders separately is also known from two-dimensional cross-correlation [see e.g. @ZuckerI]. Furthermore, for example in the case of hot stars, long pieces of pure continuum can be excluded since the disentangling relies on shifts of spectral lines. In `Spectangular`, we implemented a function to disentangle such a sequence. To achieve this, the code needs a criterion to stop the optimization and to continue with the next wavelength range. The criterion for the optimization algorithm is the summed squares of differences, $r$, between the disentangled spectra and the observations (see Fig.\[Fig1\]). After each iteration of the optimization, the mean $m$ and the standard deviation $s$ of the simplex are calculated (see Paper I). At the end of an optimization run, the simplex has contracted to a small region around a single point. In that case, $m$ (and $s$) do not change any more from one iteration to the next. This stage is defined here as stagnation of the optimization. When this stage is reached, the re-initiation function implemented will re-initiate the optimization. Hence, a complete optimization needs multiple re-initiations of the simplex. The end of the whole optimization is reached if the optimization stagnates and the minimal $r$ corresponds to the initial parameter set. The auto-stop function implemented will stop the optimizer if that stage is reached. In the case where a sequence is specified, the code will load the next data set and start again with the optimization procedure.
Influence and correction of telluric lines {#tellurics}
------------------------------------------
The tellurics can be removed by using the differences between the disentangled spectra and observations. An example is shown in Fig.\[FigHadiff\] using the H$\alpha$ region of Capella. The telluric absorption appears as emission in the residuals (black = observation - RV-shifted disentangled spectra). Here, we use a spline to reproduce these features and correct the individual observations by that spline. In the same figure the uncorrected spectrum (blue) and the spectrum corrected from terrestrial absorption (purple) are shown. To avoid removing any variability by fitting the differences, special care should be taken in the line profiles under consideration to make sure that only known terrestrial lines were fitted and removed. To identify these lines we used the HITRAN data base [@GORDON20173]. However, when the disentanglement is repeated on these cleaned spectra we did not observe any differences between the resulting line profiles. This is due to the strong variability of the terrestrial line strengths from spectrum to spectrum (in many spectra they are hardly visible) such that their influence is negligible.
To support this statement, we show in Fig.\[FigHadiffA\] a zoomed-in image of an overplot of disentangled H$\alpha$ profiles of the primary of Capella (G8III). The purple line is the result from the cleaned spectrum and the blue from the raw spectrum. The black line at the bottom shows the difference between these two profiles. Hence, such a telluric-check (TC) should always be performed to prevent any influence on the disentangled profile from tellurics.
If these lines do not show such a strong variability (also in the case of the strong terrestrial O2 absorption bands) the procedure will fail. In this case, a more classical approach is necessary (by observed tellurics within a spectrum of a hot star or simulated spectrum) to remove these lines before the disentangling is performed.
In addition, a third static component can be taken into account by the code. However, this can further complicate the optimization and will increase the time for computation significantly. Finally, for all of these procedures to work, it is necessary to use non-heliocentric corrected spectra. Otherwise, we have to deal with a third moving and variable component.
![Example of the remaining differences (black at bottom) from the disentanglement around the H$\alpha$ region used to remove the terrestrial absorption from the observation (blue at 1.0) to get a cleaned spectrum (purple, shifted to 1.25 for better visibility).[]{data-label="FigHadiff"}](./Ha_diff_cor_1.png){width="\columnwidth"}
![Zoomed-in image of the disentangled H$\alpha$ profile of the primary of Capella when using spectra cleaned from terrestrial (purple) and non-cleaned (blue). Black is the difference between the two profiles.[]{data-label="FigHadiffA"}](./Ha_diff_cor_A.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Signal-to-noise ratio and flux ratio {#snr}
------------------------------------
A major advantage of the disentanglement (especially in contrast to simple separation methods) is the enhancement of the S/N in the resulting spectra (see Table 1 in Paper I). However, for this to work the data has to be of equal quality in the sense of S/N and normalization. Assuming that this is fulfilled by the measurements, the S/N in the results can be estimated by simple statistics, $$\label{Eq1}
SNR_{A,B} = SNR f_{A,B}\sqrt{N},$$ where $N$ is the number of observations, $$\label{Eq2}
f_{A,B} =
\begin{cases}
k/(1+k) & \quad \text{for component A} \\
1/(1+k) & \quad \text{for component B} \\
\end{cases}$$ the strengths of component A and B in normalized spectra ($f_{A}+f_{B}\equiv 1$), $SNR_{A,B}$ the estimated S/N of the disentangled spectra for component A and B, and $k$ is the flux-ratio. Hence, to conserve the S/N of the observations, at least $N =1/ \min[f^2_{A,B}]$ spectra are required. For example, if $k=1$ the two components have identical strength, $f_B = f_A = 0.5$, and at least $N=4$ spectra are required to maintain the S/N in the disentangled spectra.
Disentangling variable spectra {#sec2}
==============================
General remarks
---------------
As stated in the previous section, the disentanglement results in a spectrum of each component which can be interpreted as an extracted mean from the individual composite observations. Hence, there are two general ways to investigate variability. First, the differences between the disentangled spectra and the individual observations (O-D) are affected by variability such as non-periodic line profile variability and telluric features with large variations from observation to observation. This variability can be reconstructed within the O-D spectra, and in the case of telluric lines corrected for in the observations (see Sect.\[tellurics\]). This approach is applied to periodic line variability in Sect.\[pulsations\]. Second, if one component can be treated as stable compared to a more variable component, the disentangled spectrum of that stable component can be subtracted from the individual observations. This will result in a time series of individual spectra of the variable component and makes more detailed line-profile analysis possible. This approach is used in Sect.\[surfspots\].
However, especially in active binaries or systems with complex temporal changes, both components may show variability. Hence, the line-profile analysis need to be performed in the rest frame of the star of interest. Therefore, computing line moments, the interval of integration needs to be shifted according to the orbital motion of the component. The subtraction algorithm implemented uses the final RVs to shift the disentangled spectrum to be subtracted and, according to user preference, can also shift the resulting time series by the RVs of the non-subtracted component. This results in a time series of spectra with no (or constant) shift with respect to the rest frame.
[**a.**]{}\
![[**a:**]{} Data set 1 (see text) spread over the whole orbital period to be used for disentangling. [**b:**]{} Data set 2 (see text) at orbital quadrature spread over the rotation period of the secondary used for rotational modulated line profile analysis.[]{data-label="FigGR1"}](./Set_1.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}\
[**b.**]{}\
![[**a:**]{} Data set 1 (see text) spread over the whole orbital period to be used for disentangling. [**b:**]{} Data set 2 (see text) at orbital quadrature spread over the rotation period of the secondary used for rotational modulated line profile analysis.[]{data-label="FigGR1"}](./Set_2.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
In that context, in some binaries where the orbital period differs significantly from the rotational period, the following procedure may be applied if rotational effects (e.g. surface spots) are in the focus. Let us consider a binary with components A and B. The orbital period is $P$ and the periods of rotation for the primary and secondary are $P_A=P$ and $P_B \ll P_A$, respectively. The spectra of the components can only be extracted if the orbital motion is well covered by observations at different orbital phases. For the analysis of the line profiles, however, it is advantageous to use spectra in quadrature (maximum separation of the two components in RVs). If we are interested in rotationally modulated effects of component B, two data sets are necessary, one set that covers the orbital period $P$ (set 1, see Fig.\[FigGR1\]a) and another set that covers the period of rotation of component B (set 2, see Fig.\[FigGR1\]b), preferably around quadrature.
For rotation modulated analysis of the line profile of the secondary, the spectra of the components are disentangled by the use of data set 1 (data spread over orbital period) first. The disentangled spectra can then be used as templates to perform a two-dimensional CC with the spectra of set 2 covering the rotational period of component B. The obtained RVs from the CC can be used to subtract the disentangled spectrum of component A from data set 2. This method is applied in Sect. \[surfspots\] to artificial data to create surface temperature maps.
Radial pulsations {#pulsations}
-----------------
As an example of a binary with a pulsating component, we generated 20 artificial SB2 spectra of a non-variable sharp-lined component ($v \sin i $ = 5 km s^-1^) and a periodic pulsating (change in FWHM of the lines) broad-lined ($v \sin i$ = 20 km s^-1^) component with different amplitudes of the pulsation and a S/N of 50. The period of pulsation was one-sixth of the orbital phase and we used a Mizar-like orbit to generate the data [see @2011AJ....142....6B].
The resulting spectra of the disentangling for this artificial data is shown in Fig.\[Fig2\]. Purple is a composite spectrum at orbital phase 0.05, blue is the disentangled mean spectrum of the pulsating component, and green shows the disentangled spectrum of the non-pulsating component (we note the strong noise suppression in the disentangled spectra). To detect the variability, we subtract the disentangled spectra from the composite spectra and summed up the differences over wavelength for each spectrum. These differences versus orbital phase are plotted in Fig.\[Fig3\]a (crosses) for the data with 2 km s^-1^ pulsational amplitude. The green curve is a sinusoidal fit to the data. Extracted periods of the pulsation are summarized in Table \[tabl2\]. Columns 1 and 2 list the amplitude of the pulsation in km s^-1^ and in per cent of the rotational velocity of the pulsating star (20 km s^-1^), respectively. The extracted periods are inverse periods of the pulsation in fraction of the orbital period, that is, number of pulsation within the orbital period. As mentioned earlier, this value was set to six. The standard error results from a sin-fit to the data in least-squares minimization. As expected, the error increases with decreasing amplitude.
![Result from disentangling of the artificial SB2 with a broad-lined pulsating component. Blue: Disentangled mean spectrum of the pulsating component. Green: Same, but for the non-pulsating component. Purple: Artificial spectrum at orbital phase 0.05 for comparison.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](./Pulsation_res.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
[**a.**]{}\
![Summed differences (crosses) and sin-fit (green line) vs orbital phase for the artificial SB2 data. [**a:**]{} With primary amplitude of pulsation of 2 kms^-1^ to extract the pulsational period. [**b:**]{} With amplitude of pulsation for the primary and secondary of 2 kms^-1^ and 1 kms^-1^, respectively.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](./sinfit2.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} [**b.**]{}\
![Summed differences (crosses) and sin-fit (green line) vs orbital phase for the artificial SB2 data. [**a:**]{} With primary amplitude of pulsation of 2 kms^-1^ to extract the pulsational period. [**b:**]{} With amplitude of pulsation for the primary and secondary of 2 kms^-1^ and 1 kms^-1^, respectively.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](./sin2fit.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[llll]{} $A_{pul}$ & $A_{pul}$ & Extracted & Standard\
\[km s^-1^\] & % $v\sin(i)$& pulsations & error\
5 & 25 & 6.009 & 0.011\
2 & 10 & 5.976 & 0.017\
1 & 5 & 6.027 & 0.036\
0.5 & 2.5 & 6.138 & 0.048\
\[tabl2\]
In the case of a similar variability of the two components, the differences can be used in an equivalent way. However, in any case, the signatures in these differences need to be tracked in RVs in order to identify the component to which the variability is connected. With a single pulsation period of both components, we show the differences and a combined fit in Fig.\[Fig3\]b. Again, we used six pulsations within the orbital phase for the primary; we used four for the secondary, instead of none as in previous test set-up. The extracted number of pulsations from the differences for the primary and secondary are 6.028 $\pm$ 0.022 and 3.799 $\pm$ 0.054, respectively.
Flares
------
In contrast to the variability by pulsations, flares are sudden non-periodic events. Hence, it is important to investigate how such changes in the spectra influence the extracted mean spectrum from the disentanglement. A flare also imprints changes in the radiated continuum of the star [e.g. @1980ApJ...242..336M].
We generated a series of spectra (orbital elements, as used in Sect.\[pulsations\]) with one showing a flare as a brightening of the continuum of one component. This can be seen by a significant increase in the squared summed differences for this spectrum. Such an event introduces a slope to the continuum of the resulting spectra. This slope further depends on the spectrum on which the flare event happened. We show three examples in Fig.\[Figflare\]. The disentangled spectra at the bottom correspond to a series of 20 spectra and the flare happened in spectrum number 5 (phase 0.25). In the middle graph, the flare happened in spectrum number 9 (phase 0.50) and at the top in spectrum number 15 (phase 0.75). If in the second data set (flare at phase 0.50) we exchange the flare spectrum with that at phase 0.00, we obtain the same result. Therefore, the tilt does not depend on the order of the spectra within the data set, but within the orbital motion. This also shows the importance of equally well-normalized spectra. Hence, in the case of strongly slanted disentangled spectra, the normalization of the observations needs to be checked and corrected.
![Results from disentangled artificial spectra (time series of 20) showing a flare at phase 0.25 (bottom), 0.50 (centre), and 0.75 (top). The sign of the slope introduced in the results changes at the middle of such an equidistantly spread data set.[]{data-label="Figflare"}](./flare_033_15.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Results from disentangled artificial spectra (time series of 20) showing a flare at phase 0.25 (bottom), 0.50 (centre), and 0.75 (top). The sign of the slope introduced in the results changes at the middle of such an equidistantly spread data set.[]{data-label="Figflare"}](./flare_033_10.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Results from disentangled artificial spectra (time series of 20) showing a flare at phase 0.25 (bottom), 0.50 (centre), and 0.75 (top). The sign of the slope introduced in the results changes at the middle of such an equidistantly spread data set.[]{data-label="Figflare"}](./flare_033_5.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
The resulting slope cannot be corrected by re-normalization of the disentangled spectra by division of the continuum. It is a difference of fluxes between the two components. Therefore, the slope has to be corrected by subtracting the difference. Let the continuum be $c(\lambda)$ and the disentangled spectrum $s(\lambda)$. The disentangled spectra are assumed to be calculated with the correct flux ratio. The corrected disentangled spectrum is then $$s'(\lambda) = s(\lambda)-(c(\lambda)-1).$$ To conserve the flux in the resulting disentangled spectra, the continuum function $c(\lambda)$ is the same for both spectra, $$s'_{A,B}(\lambda) = s(\lambda) \mp (c(\lambda)-1),$$ such that what is subtracted in A has to be added to B.
As long as the difference in normalization is constant with wavelength, the slope is represented by a linear function, $c(\lambda) = m\lambda+b$. Hence, we have implemented a function to correct the resulting disentangled spectra from such a tilt.
Eclipsing binaries {#eclipsing}
------------------
The contribution of star A and B to the flux of the composite spectra of an eclipsing binary varies with phase. Hence, it is necessary for the disentanglement of such systems to know the light curve and a sufficient model.
[**a.**]{}\
![[**a:**]{} Geometry of the binary model with spherical stars and orbit. The $z$-axis points towards the observer. [**b:**]{} Circle cross section of the stars during eclipse.[]{data-label="FigE1"}](./Model_Geometry.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}\
[**b.**]{}\
![[**a:**]{} Geometry of the binary model with spherical stars and orbit. The $z$-axis points towards the observer. [**b:**]{} Circle cross section of the stars during eclipse.[]{data-label="FigE1"}](./Circle_Sections.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
### Light curve model {#lightmodel}
In this section a simple spherical geometry model (no eccentricity and limb darkening) to generate a light curve is used to demonstrate how the disentanglement behaves with the data.
Let $r$ be the vector distance between the two stars. From classical mechanics [see e.g. @Goldstein] we know that the distance to the centre of mass is $$\label{Eq5}
\begin{split}
r_{A} = - r~M_{B}/(M_{A}+M_{B})=-r~ \beta_A,\\
r_{B} = r~M_{A}/(M_{A}+M_{B}) = r~ \beta_B.
\end{split}$$ The geometry of the situation is sketched in Fig.\[FigE1\]a. From that figure we find $$\begin{split}
x = r \sin(\phi), ~y = r \cos(i)\cos(\phi),\\
\text{and } z = r \sin(i)\cos(\phi),
\end{split}$$ where $\phi$ is the phase angle and $i$ the inclination. Substituting this into Eq.(\[Eq5\]) yields the coordinates in the centre-of-mass system $$\begin{split}
x_A = -r \sin(\phi)\beta_A,~y_A = -r\cos(i)\cos(\phi)\beta_A,\\
\text{and } z_A = -r \sin(i)\cos(\phi)\beta_A
\end{split}$$ for component A and $$\begin{split}
x_B = r \sin(\phi)\beta_B,~y_B = r\cos(i)\cos(\phi)\beta_B,\\
\text{and } z_B =-r \sin(i)\cos(\phi)\beta_B
\end{split}$$ for component B. In addition, let be $R_A$ and $R_B$ the radii, $A_A$ and $A_B$ the unobscured areas, and $L_A$ and $L_B$ the luminosities of the stars. Hence, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
I(\phi) &= n (L_A A_A / R^2_A + L_B A_B /R^2_B)/(4\pi)\\
&=I_A(\phi) + I_B(\phi)
\end{aligned}$$ for the brightness of the system, where $n$ is a constant to normalize the light curve. The projected distance between the two stars in the plane perpendicular to the line of sight is $$d_{AB} = \sqrt{(x_B-x_A)^2 + (y_B - y_A)^2}.$$
During an eclipse, the common cross section of the stars is described by circular segments of area $dA_{A,B}=R^2_{A,B}(\alpha_{A,B}-\sin\alpha_{A,B})/2$. The angle $\alpha$, the segment extents (see Fig.\[FigE1\]b), is found by the projected distance in the plane perpendicular to the line of sight by $\alpha_{A,B} =2 \arccos[(\mp (R^2_B-R^2_A)+d^2_{AB})/(2R_{A,B}d_{AB})]$. For example, in the case that $z_A>z_B$ star A is in front of star B. Hence the areas are $A_A=\pi R^2_A$ and $A_B = \pi R^2_B - (dA_A+dA_B)$.
An example light curve of this simple model is shown in Fig.\[FigE2\].
![Example of a light curve modelled by the equations presented here. $I$ is the (measurable) combined brightness of $I_A$ and $I_B$ and Ratio is the brightness (or light) ratio between the two components, $I_B/I_A$.[]{data-label="FigE2"}](./Light_Curve.png){width="\columnwidth"}
[llll]{} Quantity & value& Quantity & value\
$M_A$ & 0.60 & $M_B$ & 0.10\
$R_A$ & 0.50 & $R_B$ & 0.40\
$L_A$ & 0.60 & $L_B$ & 0.20\
$r$ & 0.9 & $i$ & 85 deg\
$n$ & 5.00 & & \
\[tabl3\]
[**a.**]{}\
![Disentangled spectra of the artificial eclipsing binary. [**a:**]{} Phase dependent flux ratio has not been taken into account. As shown in the previous section, this introduces a slope to the disentangled spectra. Shown are the sharp-lined component A (purple) and B (green). [**b:**]{} Disentangled spectra with correct flux ratios used in comparison with the templates used to create the set of spectra. Template A and B are shifted by 0.1 and -0.1 on the y-axis for visibility. [**c:**]{} As [**b**]{}, but with flux ratios from the optimization with start ratio of $k=1$ for all phases.[]{data-label="FigE3"}](./Eclipse_result.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}\
[**b.**]{}\
![Disentangled spectra of the artificial eclipsing binary. [**a:**]{} Phase dependent flux ratio has not been taken into account. As shown in the previous section, this introduces a slope to the disentangled spectra. Shown are the sharp-lined component A (purple) and B (green). [**b:**]{} Disentangled spectra with correct flux ratios used in comparison with the templates used to create the set of spectra. Template A and B are shifted by 0.1 and -0.1 on the y-axis for visibility. [**c:**]{} As [**b**]{}, but with flux ratios from the optimization with start ratio of $k=1$ for all phases.[]{data-label="FigE3"}](./Eclipse_result2.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}\
[**c.**]{}\
![Disentangled spectra of the artificial eclipsing binary. [**a:**]{} Phase dependent flux ratio has not been taken into account. As shown in the previous section, this introduces a slope to the disentangled spectra. Shown are the sharp-lined component A (purple) and B (green). [**b:**]{} Disentangled spectra with correct flux ratios used in comparison with the templates used to create the set of spectra. Template A and B are shifted by 0.1 and -0.1 on the y-axis for visibility. [**c:**]{} As [**b**]{}, but with flux ratios from the optimization with start ratio of $k=1$ for all phases.[]{data-label="FigE3"}](./Comparison_ratio_opt.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
### Artificial eclipsing binary {#EclipsingBinary}
The values used for the model are summarized in Table \[tabl3\]. This model was used to create a set of 20 spectra equidistantly spread over the orbital phase (orbital parameters as in Sect.\[pulsations\]). From an observational point, the disentangling of such a set of data would be possible by using the spectra at phase 0.5 since the system shows a total eclipse; that is, only the signal of the primary is present in that spectrum. In wide eclipsing binaries, the disentangling can be performed with out-of-eclipse spectra. However, in close binaries the eclipses can cover a significant fraction of the orbital period (see Fig.\[FigE2\]). Furthermore, it is necessary for the disentanglement to use spectra that cover the orbital motion well. In the case of close binaries, spectra taken only out-of-eclipse may be insufficient for the disentangling. Hence, it is necessary to also use the spectra obtained during eclipse.
The light ratio necessary for the disentangling can be computed by $$\label{Eq11}
k(\phi) = 1/f_B(\phi)-1=f_A(\phi)/[1-f_A(\phi)],$$ where $$\label{Eq12}
f_A(\phi)=I_A(\phi)/I(\phi)~ \text{and}~ f_B(\phi)=I_B(\phi)/I(\phi).$$ From Sect.\[flares\], we expect to see a slope in the continuum of the disentangled spectra if the phase dependent flux ratios are not taken into account. The result, where a constant ratio of $k(\phi)=1$ is applied to this data, is shown in Fig.\[FigE3\]a. The appearance of such a slope gives a hint either to a variable flux of the system or to incorrect normalization. Therefore, if the case of bad normalization can be excluded, additional data (photometry) is necessary for a proper disentangling of the system. On the other hand, if we can exclude variability of the system, the normalization of the data needs to be corrected. In the same figure, we can also see that the line strengths are wrong (negative values for component A). It is therefore obvious that using the correct flux ratio (also if constant) is of major importance for any further analysis of the disentangled spectra.
The disentangled spectra with the correct flux ratios are shown in Fig.\[FigE3\]b together with the template spectra for both stars. They are shifted by 0.1 for A and -0.1 for B in the vertical direction for better visibility. In addition to the excellent agreement between disentangled spectra and templates, we can again see the enhancement of the signal-to-noise ratio.
### Extracting the flux ratios {#lightcurve}
As mentioned in Sect.\[EclipsingBinary\], knowing the flux ratios is essential for disentanglement in eclipsing systems. Since the extracted spectra is the mean spectrum present in all observations, the differences can also be used to optimize the flux ratio $k(\phi)$ in each spectrum. Therefore, we implemented a downhill simplex algorithm to find these flux ratios. This algorithm provides two targets for minimization: the summed squares of differences (as used for the spectral disentanglement) and the summed square of the slopes, $\sqrt{m^2_A+m^2_B}$, of linear functions, $c_{A,B}=m_{A,B}\lambda+b_{A,B}$, representing the continuum of each disentangled spectrum (see also Sect. \[flares\]). The latter turned out, in our test runs, to be too insensitive. However, the minimization of the residuals with an initial constant $k(\phi)=1$ lead to flux ratios plotted in Fig.\[FigE5\] together with the values from the model, as described in Sect.\[lightmodel\]. Furthermore, the resulting spectra in comparison with the templates used to create the data set are shown in Fig.\[FigE3\]c.
Knowing the correct RVs was assumed for that test run. They can be obtained, in a first step, by a CC. An iterative procedure alternating the optimization on flux ratios and RVs (or orbital elements) could be applied to such data with no information from photometry.
![Comparison of the component strengths $f_A$ and $f_B$ from the model used (Model A and B) and after optimization (Optimized A and B) on flux ratio $k(\phi)$, Eq.\[Eq11\], of the two components A and B. Also plotted are the differences of Model - Optimized.[]{data-label="FigE5"}](./Comparison_light_curve.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Knowing the flux ratio is not sufficient to get the light curve. However, if $I(\phi)$ is measured we can obtain the individual brightnesses of the two components from Eqs.(\[Eq12\]). Therefore, the combination with photometry yields more information about the system, i.e. a separate light curve for both components.
Surface spots {#surfspots}
-------------
Spots appear in the line-profiles as moving ‘bumps’ following the rotation of the star. Therefore, we constructed an artificial spotted star (A; see Fig.\[FigSpot\]a) and calculated the spectra from this configuration (the same orbital parameters as used in Sect.\[pulsations\]) with two spot features at almost opposite sides of the stellar surface, and put that star in orbit with an unspotted component (B). The resulting line-profiles are illustrated in Fig.\[Fig5\]a. Then the spectra are disentangled and the component (B) without spots is subtracted from the composite spectra using the RVs from a CC with the disentangled spectra as templates (see Fig.\[Fig5\]b). The resulting spectra of component A are corrected for RV to have the line-profile at the same wavelength, which ideally would be the rest wavelength. Especially when subtracting a sharp-lined component, small mismatches between the disentangled and the composite cause artefacts in the resulting ‘cleaned’ spectrum. These artefacts are visible in Fig.\[Fig5\]b and follow the relative motion in wavelength between the two components. We show in Fig.\[Fig11\]a a zoom-in of a small spectral region where we subtracted the sharp-lined component and plot over the input spectrum at phase 0.05. In Fig.\[Fig11\]b is a further zoom-in of a single line, but for the whole spectral sequence to visualize the line-profile asymmetries caused by the spots.
[**a.**]{}\
![[**a:**]{} Artificial data set of SB2 system with a spot on the broad-lined component. Disentangled profiles renormalized to one are shown at the top in blue and purple. [**b:**]{} The disentangled spectrum of the sharp-lined component is subtracted from the composite spectra and the result is shifted to the rest wavelength. These spectra were used to create the Doppler maps shown in Fig.\[FigSpot\]c.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](./Spot_all.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}\
[**b.**]{}\
![[**a:**]{} Artificial data set of SB2 system with a spot on the broad-lined component. Disentangled profiles renormalized to one are shown at the top in blue and purple. [**b:**]{} The disentangled spectrum of the sharp-lined component is subtracted from the composite spectra and the result is shifted to the rest wavelength. These spectra were used to create the Doppler maps shown in Fig.\[FigSpot\]c.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](./Spot_all2.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
[**a.**]{}\
![[**a:**]{} Zoom-in of three lines of the spectra shown in Fig.\[Fig5\]b. Purple is the input spectra of the spotted component, black the spectra of the spotted component after subtraction of the disentangled non-spotted component used to calculate the map in Fig.\[FigSpot\]c. [**b:**]{} Zoom-in of the leftmost line from panel a, but for all the spectra used to construct the maps.[]{data-label="Fig11"}](./compare.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}\
[**b.**]{}\
![[**a:**]{} Zoom-in of three lines of the spectra shown in Fig.\[Fig5\]b. Purple is the input spectra of the spotted component, black the spectra of the spotted component after subtraction of the disentangled non-spotted component used to calculate the map in Fig.\[FigSpot\]c. [**b:**]{} Zoom-in of the leftmost line from panel a, but for all the spectra used to construct the maps.[]{data-label="Fig11"}](./Spot_all_sub.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
As shown in Sect.\[pulsations\], the residual spectra can be used to analyse variability and to search for periods. Therefore, we plot the summed differences in Fig.\[FigSD\] together with a fit accounting for two spots crossing the surface. Hence, these differences can be used to search for the rotation period of the stars.
![Summed differences of the residuals from the artificial spot data (crosses). The solid line is a fit for two spots.[]{data-label="FigSD"}](./spot_differences.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The stellar surface of the test star is reconstructed using the $i$Map code . We note here that the two-temperature approximation used in the input map (Fig.\[FigSpot\]a) is not ideal for inversions as shown in Fig.\[FigSpot\]b, but is sufficient to investigate the differences between ideal spectra and disentangled spectra.
In the resulting maps shown in Fig.\[FigSpot\], we can see a small suppression of the temperature contrast. In the case of the ideal data (Fig.\[FigSpot\]b), the coolest temperature recovered is 5121K when the input value is 5000K, whereas the disentangled spectra lead to the coolest temperature of 5210K, see Fig.\[FigSpot\]c. The shift of the spectra to the same wavelength after subtracting one component is crucial to recover the temperatures. This is demonstrated by the map in Fig.\[FigSpot\]d. This map was computed from spectra shifted by RVs obtained from a CC without fitting the maximum of the CC function, but by manually adjusting the spectra. Therefore, this data set shows residual RV shifts between the spectra of the order of 0.05pix ($\approx$100 m/s), and the obtained coolest temperature (5257K) is a bit higher than in the case of ideal RV shifts. We also note the presence of a very weak spot at phase 0.5 in these maps. We attribute the remaining difference in temperature to residuals of the subtraction and re-sampling effects.
Regardless of the small discrepancies in temperatures, the resulting Doppler maps in Fig.\[FigSpot\] display the two spots at correct positions. Hence, a proper analysis of a systematic suppression of the temperature difference of spot and stellar surface can be performed for an individual target.
[**a.**]{}\
![[**a:**]{} Input map used to create artificial spot spectra shown from four different viewing angles. [**b:**]{} Surface map using the artificial spot spectra without a second component. [**c:**]{} Resulting surface map from the artificial spot data after subtraction of disentangled spectra. [**d:**]{} As [**c**]{}, but with RVs to align the spectra obtained by CC and manually adjusted.[]{data-label="FigSpot"}](./cinstar.png "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} [**b.**]{}\
![[**a:**]{} Input map used to create artificial spot spectra shown from four different viewing angles. [**b:**]{} Surface map using the artificial spot spectra without a second component. [**c:**]{} Resulting surface map from the artificial spot data after subtraction of disentangled spectra. [**d:**]{} As [**c**]{}, but with RVs to align the spectra obtained by CC and manually adjusted.[]{data-label="FigSpot"}](./idealmap.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} [**c.**]{}\
![[**a:**]{} Input map used to create artificial spot spectra shown from four different viewing angles. [**b:**]{} Surface map using the artificial spot spectra without a second component. [**c:**]{} Resulting surface map from the artificial spot data after subtraction of disentangled spectra. [**d:**]{} As [**c**]{}, but with RVs to align the spectra obtained by CC and manually adjusted.[]{data-label="FigSpot"}](./map_known_RVs.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} [**d.**]{}\
![[**a:**]{} Input map used to create artificial spot spectra shown from four different viewing angles. [**b:**]{} Surface map using the artificial spot spectra without a second component. [**c:**]{} Resulting surface map from the artificial spot data after subtraction of disentangled spectra. [**d:**]{} As [**c**]{}, but with RVs to align the spectra obtained by CC and manually adjusted.[]{data-label="FigSpot"}](./shift_out.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
Impact of variability on disentangling results
----------------------------------------------
Since the actual errors on the orbital parameters determined by the optimization algorithm depend, in first order, on the data quality and the amplitude of the variability, only an idea of their magnitudes can be given here. In addition, in real-world applications we most likely have to deal with a combination of multiple effects.
In the case of eclipsing binaries, it was suggested in Sect.\[lightcurve\] to iteratively alter the optimization on flux ratios and orbital elements. To demonstrate this procedure, the data from Sect.\[EclipsingBinary\] were used with an initial assumption of a constant flux ratio of $k(\phi)=1$ and the orbital parameters as listed in Table \[tabl4\] second column. The orbital elements used to create the data are listed in the first column. In runs 2 and 4 the flux ratios were optimized (no change in the orbital elements, therefore not listed). Since the period is often well determined, we fixed the period, $P$, and the time of periastron passage, $T_0$. In addition, for this example we fixed the systemic velocity $\gamma$ as well.
[lllll]{} Elements & ideal & initial & Run 1 & Run 3\
$P$ (days) & 20.54 & 20.54 & 20.54 & 20.54\
$e$ & 0.037 & 0.350 & 0.538 & 0.538\
$K_A$ [kms$^{-1}$]{}& 68.6 & 40.0 & 69.0 & 68.8\
$K_B$ [kms$^{-1}$]{}& 67.0 & 40.0 & 67.8 & 67.5\
$\gamma$ [kms$^{-1}$]{}& -5.6 & -5.6 & -5.6 & -5.6\
$T_0$ (days) 2436+ & 997 & 997 & 997 & 997\
$\omega$ (deg) & 106.16 & 80.0 & 106.35 & 106.14\
\[tabl4\]
From the results, we can see that the amplitudes $K_A$ and $K_B$ show the strongest deviation. These amplitudes may be extremely important when it comes to the determination of masses. However, the overall solution after four runs is close to the ideal values especially if we consider the resolution of $1.7$[kms$^{-1}$]{} of the spectra. Another optimization run on the orbital elements did not improved the results further.
Nevertheless, as was shown in Fig.\[FigE3\]a, incorrect flux ratios have a strong influence on the extracted spectra in the sense of line-depth. Hence, if spectral analyses are to be performed on the disentangled spectra, special care needs to be taken on the flux ratios.
The final precision of the flux ratios should be limited primarily by the S/N of the spectra. The RMS (between the ideal flux ratio used to create the data and the value obtained from optimization) from the 20 flux ratios obtained in Sect.\[lightcurve\] and obtained here from run 4 are 0.0047 and 0.0046, respectively. From the 20 spectra with a S/N of 50, we get $1/(50\sqrt20)=0.0045$, which is in agreement with the RMS values of the obtained flux ratios.
![Comparison of line-profiles between disentangled and template spectra using the same data as in Sect.\[flares\].[]{data-label="FigO1"}](./Flare_comp.png){width="\columnwidth"}
From this result we expect that a single flare spectrum has a negligible effect on the orbital parameters as long as the number of spectra without flares is much higher (>10). Figure \[FigO1\] shows a comparison of the line-profiles of the disentangled sprectrum with the template spectrum (as in Sect.\[flares\]). Noise was added to the template to construct the data. The continuum was a factor of three brighter during the flare. However, the disentangled spectra agrees very well with the template.
In Fig.\[FigO2\] the equivalent width (EW) of the line at 6721.73Åfrom Fig.\[Fig11\] is shown for the data used in Sect.\[surfspots\]. The ideal data (green x) shows the periodicity as reflected by the summed differences shown in Fig.\[FigSD\]. Therefore, both measures could be used to search for the stellar rotation periods. Purple crosses are used for the EW of the line after the disentangled spectrum of the constant component was subtracted (Fig.\[Fig11\]b) and the blue square is the data point from the disentangled spectrum of the spotted component. The subtraction leads to scatter of the data points of the EW measured.
![Equivalent width (EW) \[Å\] of the line at 6721.73Åfrom the artificial spot data of Sect.\[surfspots\]. Green is for the ideal single-component spectra used to create the composite binary spectra, purple (cleaned) is after subtraction of the constant component spectrum from the disentanglement, and the blue square corresponds to the EW of that line of the disentangled spectrum.[]{data-label="FigO2"}](./EW_spot.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Summary
=======
In this work we have investigated the influence of variability on the result of the disentanglement. This included tellurics and their correction, pulsations (change in FWHM of the lines), flare as continuum brightening, eclipsing binaries, and line profile variation by surface spots. The correction of tellurics is possible as long as they are highly variable in strength. In this case, the telluric features are strongly suppressed in the disentangled spectra. Furthermore, these lines can be reconstructed for each observation from the residuals by a spline approximation. In the case of strong variability from spectrum to spectrum, these tellurics do not influence the disentangled spectra.
Two ways of treating the variability were presented. First, the analysis of the residuals between the disentangled spectra and the individual observations can be used to search for periodic changes. Second, subtracting the disentangled spectra of component B, for example, from the observations leads to a time series of spectra for component A which can be used for further analysis (e.g. Doppler imaging, line-profile analysis).
We note that the code cannot account for wavelength dependent flux ratios. Therefore, temperature effects introducing a slope-change of the continuum may further affect the disentangling. However, since the wavelength ranges are rather narrow (in high-resolution spectra) the slope in such a small region may have a negligible effect. Since it also depends on the temperature difference, object-specific simulations should be performed. A wavelength dependent flux ratio to account for such effects (also from irradiation/heating) is a subject of future improvements to the code. We also presented the disentanglement on artificial data of an eclipsing binary. The code allows the user to specify the contribution to the flux of each spectrum and each component. As long as the correct flux ratios are used, the disentangled spectra are in very good agreement with the templates. Furthermore, it is now possible to run an optimization on the flux ratios of each observed spectrum. This now provides a method for obtaining information about the flux variation. However, we assumed that the radial velocities are known, for example by an initial cross-correlation. Hence, the disentangling approach is also usable to extract light curve information from the spectroscopic data. A combination of light curve modelling, spectral disentangling, and solving for the flux ratios is beyond of the scope of this paper.
Additionally, since the flux-ratios are not bound to a light curve model, the variation in the brightness of the system from other effects (e.g. non-symmetry) can be accounted for. In this context, we note that a simultaneous solution from light- and RV-curves can help to further improve the results, for example as was implemented in `FOTEL` [see @1990CoSka..20...23H]. This coupling is beyond of the scope of this work and is the subject of future improvements of the code. Effects like apsidal motion, non-constant orbital period, and a third spectroscopically non-visible component can be taken into account by optimizing on the individual RVs. Doppler imaging showed a sensitivity of the temperature difference between spot and surface to the alignment in wavelength of the time series of the spectra. This was shown by a comparison between maps obtained with spectra shifted by RVs from a CC and a manually fine adjustment compared to a map with the RVs computed to create the binary spectra. In a science application a fit of the CC maximum can be performed, and an iterative approach using line profiles derived from the Doppler maps as templates can be used to improve the accuracy of the RVs.
It is important to note that a proper normalization of the observations needs to be done with special care. This can introduce a slope to the resulting spectra. This is also true for a brightening of the continuum (e.g. by flares). Therefore, we finally note that a proper preparation of the data for the disentanglement is of great importance since it can mimic variability.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank the anonymous referee for the constructive comments that helped to improve the content and readability of this work. Based in part on data obtained with the STELLA robotic telescope in Tenerife, an AIP facility jointly operated by AIP and IAC.
[^1]: Corresponding author.
[^2]: www.dpsablowski.wordpress.com/disentangling
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The relationships between braid ordering and the geometry of its closure is studied. We prove that if an essential closed surface $F$ in the complements of closed braid has relatively small genus with respect to the Dehornoy floor of the braid, $F$ is circular-foliated in a sense of Birman-Menasco’s Braid foliation theory. As an application of the result, we prove that if Dehornoy floor of braids are larger than three, Nielsen-Thurston classification of braids and the geometry of their closure’s complements are in one-to-one correspondence. Using this result, we construct infinitely many hyperbolic knots explicitly from pseudo-Anosov element of mapping class groups.'
address: 'Graduate School of Mathematical Science, University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo, 153-8914, Japan'
author:
- Tetsuya Ito
title: Braid ordering and the geometry of closed braid
---
Introduction
============
In this paper we study an application of left-invariant total ordering of braid group $B_{n}$ to knot theory. An left-invariant total ordering, called Dehornoy ordering is an interesting structure of braid groups found in 1990’s by Dehornoy ([@d]). Today the ordering is interpreted in both algebraic and geometric way and these interpretation shows the Dehornoy ordering is a quite natural structure of braid groups.
Braid groups are very important tool for studying links. Many link invariants such as Jones polynomial are first constructed via closed braid representative of links, so it is natural to study an application of this interesting structure of braid groups to knot theory. In [@mn],[@ma] it is found that braid ordering can be seen as some kinds of restriction for admissibility of braid moves. Braid moves are moves of closed braids which do not change their representing link types. Most typical (and important) example of braid moves are [*exchange move*]{} or [*destabilization, stabilization*]{}, which is shown in figure \[braidmove\]. These works suggest that there would be some relationships between Birman-Menasco’s braid foliation theory and ordering of braid groups because braid moves appears naturally in braid foliation theory ([@bf]). For example, exchange move is used to make braid foliation simple and it is one of the most fundamental operation in Birman-Menasco’s braid foliation theory. Indeed, we investigate relationship between braid foliation and left invariant total ordering of braid groups, and obtain following result:
![exchange move, stabilization and destabilization[]{data-label="braidmove"}](braidmove.eps){width="120mm"}
\[thm:main1\] Let $\beta \in B_{n}$ be a braid and $F$ be an essential, genus $g$ closed surface in the complement of closed braid $\widehat{\beta}$.
1. If $F$ is tiled, then $[\beta]_{D} < g+2$.
2. If $F$ is mixed-foliated, $[\beta]_{D} < 2g+1$.
3. If $[\beta]_{D} \geq 2g+1$, then $F$ is circular foliated.
In above statements, $[\;]_{D}$ represents [*Dehornoy floor*]{} of $\beta$, which is a non-negative integer defined in section 2. This integer is determined by the Dehornoy ordering of braid groups, and efficiently computable. The notion of tiled, mixed foliated or circular foliated are derived from Birman-Menasco’s braid foliation theory, which will be explained in section 3. Proof of Theorem \[thm:main1\] will be given in section 4.
Theorem \[thm:main1\] means braid ordering gives some information about the geometry of closed braid complements, and especially if Dehornoy floor is relatively large with respect to its genus, then the surface can be positioned to special position, which is simple .
We remark that Dehornoy floor might vary under even conjugation, stabilization or destabilization, so it is far from knot invariant. Indeed, Dehornoy floor of braids obtained by performing stabilization always vanish. Nevertheless theorem \[thm:main1\] seems to suggests that braid ordering provide some important information about its closure which can not be obtained from known invariants of links.
As an application of theorem \[thm:main1\] we obtain a sufficient condition for Nielsen-Thurston classification determines the geometry of its closure’s complement. Nielsen-Thurston theorem states braids are classified into three types by their dynamics; [*periodic, reducible*]{} and [*pseudo-Anosov*]{}. On the other hand, a famous Thurston’s hyperbolization theorem shows knots are classified into following three types by the geometry of their complements; [*Torus knots, Satellite knots,*]{} and [*Hyperbolic knots*]{}. Although there are many similarities between these two classifications, in general there are no one-to-one correspondence of them. In figure \[fig:example\], we give an example of periodic, reducible and pseudo-Anosov braids whose closure represents $(2,3)$-Torus knot. Therefore the following question naturally arises:
[*When the Nielsen-Thurston classification of braids completely determine the geometrical types of its closure?* ]{}
Theorem \[thm:main2\] partially answers the question.
![Examples of periodic (a), pseudo-Anosov (b), reducible (c) braids all of whose closure are $(2,3)$-Torus knots[]{data-label="fig:example"}](example.eps){width="60mm"}
\[thm:main2\] Let $\beta \in B_{n}$ be a braid whose closure is a knot. If $[\beta]_{D} \geq 3$, following holds:
1. $\beta$ is periodic if and only if $\widehat{\beta}$ is a torus knot.
2. $\beta$ is reducible if and only if $\widehat{\beta}$ is a satellite knot.
3. $\beta$ is pseudo-Anosov if and only if $\widehat{\beta}$ is a hyperbolic knot.
Especially, under this assumption, Satellite knots are all braided-satellite.
We recall that satellite knot $K$ is called braided satellite if $K$ admit closed braid representatives whose axis does not intersect some essential tori in the complement of $K$. This theorem implies, under the condition $[\beta]_{D} \geq 3$, the Nielsen-Thurston classification of braid groups and the geometric classification of their closures are in one-to-one correspondence. In [@l], Los studied the relationship between these two classifications in the case knots are represented by closed braid with minimum braid index. Main result of [@l] shows under the condition of braid index, two classifications are related each other by performing exchange move. However, in general to determine braid index of given knots or links are very difficult question and to see whether or not given braids admit exchange move is also difficult, so the relationships between two classifications cannot be seen directly. In this regard, theorem \[thm:main2\] gives more general and direct condition for the question. We will give a proof of theorem \[thm:main2\] in section 5, and in this section we also give concrete method to create hyperbolic knots via Nielsen-Thurston theory.
The author would like to thank his adviser Toshitake Kohno for many helpful suggestions and advices for preparing this manuscript. He also would like to thank Eiko Kin for useful conversations.
Braid ordering and Dehornoy floor
=================================
In this section we review some of fundamental facts of Dehornoy ordering and Dehornoy floor. Braid group $B_{n}$ is, by definition, a group which is presented by $$\langle \sigma_{1},\cdots,\sigma_{n-1}| \sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}\sigma_{i}=\sigma_{j}\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j} \textrm{ if } |i-j|=1, \; \sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}=\sigma_{j}\sigma_{i} \textrm{ if } |i-j|\geq 2 \rangle .$$ Geometrically, elements of braid group $\beta \in B_{n}$ are represented by braided $n$-strands which move from above to below, oriented downward. By connecting their endpoints of strands canonically, we obtain an oriented link. We denote this link by $\widehat{\beta}$ and call [*closed braid*]{} or [*closure*]{} of $\beta$.
We call the braid $(\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots\sigma_{n-1})(\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots\sigma_{n-2})\cdots(\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2})(\sigma_{1})$ [*Garside’s fundamental braid*]{} and denote it by $\Delta$. The Garside fundamental braid$\Delta$ plays an important role in braid groups. It is known that $\Delta^{2}$ generates the center of $B_{n}$, which is an infinite cyclic group. For these basic facts about braid group, see [@b].
Dehornoy ordering, Dehornoy floor
---------------------------------
In this section we give a brief exposition of left-invariant total ordering of braid groups called Dehornoy ordering, and define Dehornoy floor. Dehornoy floor is first introduced in [@mn], though they do not use term Dehornoy floor. This is a measure of how far braid is from the identity elements with respect to Dehornoy ordering and can be seen as some kinds of complexity of braids. We describe fundamental results about Dehornoy floor, proved in [@mn],[@ma].
A braid $\beta \in B_{n}$ is called $\sigma$-$positive$ if $\beta$ can be represented by a word which contains at least one $\sigma_{i}$, and contains no $\sigma_{1}^{\pm1},\sigma_{2}^{\pm1}\cdots,\sigma_{i-1}^{\pm 1},\sigma_{i}^{-1}$ for some $1\leq i \leq n-1$. we say $\alpha < \beta$ is true if and only if the braid $\alpha^{-1}\beta$ is $\sigma$-positive. It is known that the relation $<$ defines left-invariant total ordering of $B_{n}$; That is, $<$ is total ordering and if braids $\alpha,\beta \in B_{n}$ satisfy $\alpha < \beta $ , then for all braid $\gamma \in B_{n}$, $\gamma \alpha < \gamma \beta$ holds. We call this ordering [*Dehornoy ordering*]{}. Dehornoy ordering has following nice property, called [*property $S$*]{} or [*Subword property*]{}.
\[prop:Property-S\] For any braids $\beta_{1},\beta_{2} \in B_{n}$ and $1\leq i \leq n-1$, $$\beta_{1}\sigma_{i}\beta_{2} > \beta_{1}\beta_{2} > \beta_{1}\sigma_{i}^{-1}\sigma_{2}$$ holds.
As we mentioned at introduction, there are many other interpretation and definition of Dehornoy ordering. See [@ddrw] for those other definitions and meanings. We will describe one of the geometrical definition later. Using Dehornoy ordering, we define Dehornoy floor of braids $[\beta]_{D}$ as follows.
Dehornoy floor $[\beta]_{D}$ of braid $\beta \in B_{n}$ is a minimal non-negative integer $m$ which satisfies $\beta \in (\Delta^{-2m-2},\Delta^{2m+2})$, where $(\Delta^{-2m-2},\Delta^{2m+2})= \{ \alpha \in B_{n} \;| \; \Delta^{-2m-2} < \alpha <\Delta^{2m+2} \}$.
Now we remark one important facts. We must be careful that when we think about Dehornoy floor, which $B_{n}$ a braid $\beta$ belongs to is very important. For example, for a braid $\beta = (\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2})^{4}$, $[\beta]_{D}=1$ if we consider $\beta \in B_{3}$, and $[\beta]_{D}=0$ if we consider $\beta \in B_{4}$. Fortunately, if we use braid groups to describe links, the number of strands are always implicit, so there might be no confusion about the number of braid strands. So in most cases, we omit to write which $B_{n}$ a braid $\beta$ belongs to. we also remark that Dehornoy floor is not a conjugacy invariant of braids. For example, 3-braid $\Delta^{2}\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}^{-1}$ has Dehornoy floor $1$ but its conjugation $\Delta^{-1}(\Delta^{2}\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}^{-1})\Delta = \Delta^{2}\sigma_{2}\sigma_{1}^{-1}$ has zero Dehornoy floor. This is mainly because Dehornoy ordering is not right-invariant; That is, it does not hold that for every $\gamma \in B_{n}$, $\alpha\gamma < \beta\gamma$ whenever $\alpha < \beta$. Thus, Dehornoy floor is far from knot invariant.
The most important property of Dehornor floor is that it can be seen as some kinds of restriction for admissibility of braid moves. We summarize the basic properties of Dehornoy floor, all of which are proved in [@mn], or [@ma].
\[prop:dehornoyfloor\] Let $\alpha,\beta \in B_{n}$. Then following holds.
1. If braid $\beta \in B_{n}$ is represented by braid word which contains $s$ occurrence of $\sigma_{1}$ and $k$ occurrence of $\sigma_{1}^{-1}$, then $[\beta]_{D} < max\{s,k\}$.
2. $|[\beta]_{D}-[\beta']_{D}|\leq 1$ if $\beta$ and $\beta'$ are conjugate.
3. $[\alpha \beta]_{D} \leq 1+[\alpha]_{D}+[\beta]_{D}$.
4. If closure of braid $\beta \in B_{n}$ admit destabilization or exchange move, $[\beta]_{D} \leq 1$.
5. For every $n$, there exist positive integer $r(n)$ such that for every $\beta \in B_{n}$, if $[\beta]_{D}>r(n)$ then $\widehat{\beta}$ is the unique closed $n$-braid representative of link types represented by its closure. That is, if $\widehat{\beta} = \widehat{\beta'}$ holds for some $\beta' \in B_{n}$, $\beta$ and $\beta'$ are conjugate.
We remark that Dehornoy floor is not a conjugacy invariant but proposition \[prop:dehornoyfloor\] (2) shows taking conjugate changes Dehornoy floor at most by one.
Our definition of Dehornoy floor is slightly different from one in [@ma]. Our definition is rather after [@mn]. We adopt this definition because for application of knot theory, this formulation seems to be more natural and makes statement of results simple.
There exist an infinite family of left-invariant total ordering of braid groups, containing Dehornoy ordering, called [*Thurston-type ordering*]{} (See [@ddrw] or [@sw]). Most of results in this paper can be stated by using Thurston-type ordering instead of using Dehornoy ordering, especially using “Thurston floor” defined by the similar way.
The geometric meaning of Dehornoy ordering and Dehornoy floor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now we give a geometric description of Dehornor ordering given in [@fgrrw]. Let $\Gamma$ be a graph in $D_{n}$ consisting of horizontal line which connects puncture points. See figure \[fig:braidorder\_meaning\]. We identify braid groups as a relative mapping class group $MCG(D_{n},\partial D_{n})$, which is a group of isotopy classes of homeomorphisms of $D_{n}$ whose restriction to boundary $\partial D_{n}$ is an identity. For braid $\alpha, \beta$, consider the image of graph $\Gamma$. By performing isotopy, we can assume $\alpha(\Gamma)$ and $\beta(\Gamma)$ have minimal intersections. If $\alpha \neq \beta$, these graphs must be different, so at some puncture point two graphs will diverge. We say $\beta >_{geom} \alpha$ if at divergence point, $\beta(\Gamma)$ moves left side of $\alpha(\Gamma)$. See figure \[fig:braidorder\_meaning\]. In [@fgrrw] it is proved that this relation $>_{geom}$ coincide with Dehornoy ordering $>$.
Since $\Delta^{2}$ corresponds to rotation of the disc $D_{n}$, Dehornoy floor of $\beta$ is the number of how many times the initial segment of graph $\beta(\Gamma)$ winding around $\partial D_{n}$ under neglecting orientation.
![Graph $\Gamma$ and examples[]{data-label="fig:braidorder_meaning"}](braidorder.eps){width="100mm"}
More precious estimation of Dehornoy floor
------------------------------------------
For later use, we prove slightly more precious estimation of Dehornoy floor than proposition \[prop:dehornoyfloor\] (1).
\[prop:newestimation\] If a braid $\beta$ is conjugate to a braid $\alpha$ which is represented by braid word which contains $s$ occurrence of $\sigma_{1}$ and $k$ occurrence of $\sigma_{1}^{-1}$, then $[\beta]_{D} < max\{s,k\}$.
We show $\beta < \Delta^{2k}$. The proof of $\Delta^{-2s}< \beta$ is identical. By assumption, we can write $\beta = \gamma^{-1}(W_{0}\sigma_{1}W_{1}\sigma_{1}\cdots W_{k})\gamma$ where $W_{i}$ is a braid word which contains no $\sigma_{1}$ and $\gamma \in B_{n}$. We remark that we can assume $W_{0}$ is empty because we can amalgamate $W_{0}$ into conjugating element $\gamma$.
Let $\Delta' = (\sigma_{2}\sigma_{3}\cdots \sigma_{n-1})^{n-1}$. From property S, we can find a braid $\beta' = \gamma^{-1}(\sigma_{1}\Delta'^{2p}_{(1)}\sigma_{1}\cdots \Delta'^{2p}_{(k)})\gamma > \beta$ by inserting $\sigma_{1},\cdots \sigma_{n-1}$ to braid $\beta$, for sufficiently large $p>0$. We show $\beta' <\Delta^{2k} $, that is equivalent to an inequality $ (\sigma_{1}\Delta'^{2p}_{(1)}\sigma_{1}\cdots \Delta'^{2p}_{(k)})\gamma < \Delta^{2k} \gamma$. First we consider the case $k=1$. We use the geometric interpretation of Dehornoy ordering. Let $D'$ be a sub-disc of $D_{n}$ which contains $2,\cdots n$-th puncture of $D_{n}$. Since $\Delta'^{2p}$ is p-times twists around $\partial D'$ and $\Delta^{2}$ is a rotation along $\partial D_{n}$, we conclude that the image of $\Delta^{2}\gamma(\Gamma)$ moves more left than $\sigma_{1}\Delta'^{2p}\gamma(\Gamma)$ for all $p$, thus $\sigma_{1}\Delta'^{2p}\gamma <\Delta^{2}\gamma$. Induction about $k$ gives desired result.
This proposition gives more accurate estimation of Dehornoy floor than using lemma \[prop:dehornoyfloor\] (1).
Proposition \[prop:newestimation\] makes results in [@mn] a bit stronger form because in [@mn] they use estimation via lemma \[prop:dehornoyfloor\] (1). Especially, we conclude that if $\widehat{\beta}$ admit destabilization or exchange move, then $[\beta_{D}]=0$.
Braid Foliation
===============
In this section, we summarize basic machinery of Birman-Menasco’s braid foliation theory in case of an embedded essential surface. For details of these techniques, see [@bf] or [@bm2].
Fix an unknot $A \in S^{3}$, called [*axis*]{} and choose a meridian fibration $H = \{ H_{\theta}| \theta \in [0,2\pi]\}$ of the solid torus $S^{3} \backslash A$. A link $L$ in $S^{3} \backslash A$ is called [*closed braid*]{} with axis $A$ if $L$ intersects every fiber $H_{\theta}$ transversely and each fiber is oriented so that all intersections of $L$ are positive. It is easy to see closed braid $L$ intersects every fiber $H_{\theta}$ in the same number of points, and we call this number [*braid index*]{} of $L$. Note that closed braids $\widehat{\beta}$ obtained by a braid $\beta\in B_{n}$ as described in section 2 is indeed closed braid with $z-$axis and braid index is $n$. Conversely, if we cut solid torus $S^{3}\backslash A$ along the fiber $H_{0}$, we obtain a braid $\beta$. It is known that isotopy in $S^{3}\backslash A$ does not change conjugacy class of $\beta$ and if the isotopy fixes $H_{0}\cap \widehat{\beta}$, obtained braid $\beta$ does not change as a element of braid group though geometrical configuration of strands are varied.
A closed embedded surface $F$ in $S^{3} \backslash A$ is called [*essential*]{} if $F$ is incompressible and non-boundary parallel. Let $F$ be a essential closed surface in $S^{3} \backslash L$. Then the intersections of fiber $\{H_{\theta}\}$ with $F$ induce a singular foliation of $F$. Leaves of this foliation are connected components of intersection with fiber. Braid foliation techniques are, in short, changing this foliation simpler as possible and obtain standard and simple position of the surface and braids. By the argument in [@bf], $F$ can be isotoped to “general” position with respect to the fibration satisfying:
(1)
: Axis $A$ pierces $F$ transversely in finitely many points.
(2)
: For each point $v \in A\cap F$, there exists neighborhood $N_{v}$ of $v$ such that $F\cap N_{v}$ is radially foliated disc.
(3)
: All but finitely many fibers $H_{\theta}$ intersect $F$ transversely, and each of the exceptional fiber is tangent to $F$ exactly one point. Moreover, each point of tangency is saddle tangency and lies in the interior of $F \cap H_{\theta}$.
Notice that the condition above is a bit stronger than usual general position arguments, since usual general position arguments only tell us that each tangency is local minimum, maximum, or saddle. In fact, this strong sense of general position is achieved from usual general position by deleting local minimum or maximum tangency.
We say fiber $H_{\theta}$ [*regular*]{} if $H_{\theta}$ transverse $F$ and [*singular*]{} if $H_{\theta}$ tangent to $F$. In the foliation of $F$, every non-singular leaf of induced foliation is either simple closed curve or arc which has both endpoints on axis $A$. We call former [*c-circle*]{} and the latter [*b-arc*]{}. Each b-arc in a fiber $H_{\theta}$ separates $H_{\theta}$ to two components, and we say b-arc is [*essential*]{} if both of these components are pierced at least once by $L$. For c-circle in a fiber $H_{\theta}$, c-circle bound a disc $D$ in $H_{\theta}$ and we say c-circle is [*essential*]{} if $D$ is pierced at least once by $L$. As shown in [@bf], we can assume further more condition about foliation of $F$.
(4)
: every fiber is essential.
(5)
: every c-circle is homotopically non-trivial.
This condition is achieved by deleting all inessential leaves or homotopically trivial c-circle. From now on, we always assume that $F$ satisfies condition (1)$-$(5).
We call an intersection point of $A$ with $F$ [*vertex*]{}. For each vertex $p$, the valance of vertex $p$ is, by definition, the number of singular leaves which pass $p$. We say singular point is $bb-singularity$ if the singular point derived from two b-arcs. $bc-singularity$ and $cc-singularity$ are defined by the same way. Each type of singularity has a neighborhood in $F$ as shown in figure \[fig:regions\], and we say such a neighborhood [*regions*]{}.
A foliation of $F$ is classified into following three types according to its containing leaves; We say $F$ is [*tiled*]{} if $F$ is foliated entirely b-arc and [*circular*]{} if $F$ is foliated entirely c-circle. The remaining case, if $F$ is foliated by both b-arcs and c-circles, we say $F$ is [*mixed*]{}. In tiled surface, there are only bb-singularity and circular surface has only cc-singularity. Mixed foliation might have all types of singularity and always contains bc-singularity.
![bb-tile,bc-annulus,cc-pants[]{data-label="fig:regions"}](tile.eps){width="120mm"}
Proof of theorem \[thm:main1\]
==============================
Now we are ready to prove theorem \[thm:main1\]. From now on, we always assume $F$ satisfies all conditions (1)-(5) described in section 3. First we consider the case $g=0$. In this case, $F$ is never circular foliated. The main result of [@bm1] shows in this case $\widehat{\beta}$ admit exchange move if $F$ is tiled and $\beta$ has word representatives which contains no $\sigma_{k}^{\pm1}$ for some $k$, so $[\beta]_{D}=0$. Thus, in this case theorem holds. Thus, we always assume $g>0$.
Tiled essential surface
-----------------------
First we prove statement (1), tiled case. Assume $F$ is tiled. Since $F$ is tiled, every singular point is bb-singularity, and $F$ can be decomposed into bb-tiles. A decomposition into bb-tiles determines cellular-decomposition of $F$, and we call this [*tiling*]{}. The notion of vertex and valance we defined in section 3 coincides to usual definition of vertex and valance in this cellular decomposition.
First we estimate a valance of each vertex, using Euler characteristic argument which is standard in braid foliation theory.
\[lem:eulerform-tiled\] Let $\beta$ be a braid and $F$ be a tiled essential genus $g$ closed surface in the complement of closed braid $\widehat{\beta}$, and $V(i)$ be a number of vertex whose valance is $i$. then, $$\sum_{v=1}^{3}(4-v)V(v)+8g-8= \sum_{v=4}^{\infty}(v-4)V(v)$$ holds.
Let $E,R$ be a number of 1-cell and 2-cell of tiling. Since $F$ has an Euler characteristic $-2g+2$, $(\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}V_{i}) - E + R = -2g+2$. On the other hand, each 1-cell is the boundary of exactly two 2-cells and each 1-cell has two vertices as their boundary ,so $2R=E$ and $(\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}iV_{i}) = 2E$. By combining these equation, we establish the claim.
Since each term of equation in lemma \[lem:eulerform-tiled\] is positive, lemma \[lem:eulerform-tiled\] implies $V(i)$ are bounded except $V(4)$. Next we see that Dehornor floor can be estimated from above by a valance of vertex.
\[lem:estimate-tiled\] Let $F$ be a tiled essential genus $g$ closed surface in the complement of closed braid $L=\widehat{\beta}$. If $F$ contains a valance $v$ vertex, then $[\beta]_{D} < \frac{v}{2}+1$.
Let $p$ be a valance $v$ vertex and $ \{H_{\theta_{1}},H_{\theta_{2}},\cdots ,H_{\theta_{v}} |\; \theta_{i}<\theta_{i+1} \} $ be a sequence of singular fibers such that each $H_{\theta_{i}}$ contains singular leaves which pass the vertex $p$. Let $b_{\theta}$ be a b-arc in the fiber $H_{\theta}$ which passes $v$. By taking isotopy near each singular fiber $H_{\theta_{i}}$, we can always assume that for sufficiently small $\varepsilon > 0 $, braiding of strands does not occur in the interval $[\theta_{i}-\varepsilon, \theta_{i}+\varepsilon]$ and each fiber $H_{\theta_{i} \pm \varepsilon}$ is pierced by $L$ exactly the same points $\{p_{1},p_{2},\cdots,p_{n}\}$. Notice that this modification can be done without changing $H_{0}\cap \widehat{\beta}$ so this modification does not change braid $\beta$ as a element of braid groups. After this modification, we can always consider sub-braiding in each interval $[\theta_{i} - \varepsilon,\theta_{i}+\varepsilon]$, $[\theta_{i}+\varepsilon, \theta_{i+1}-\varepsilon]$. Since $\varepsilon$ is chosen to sufficiently small, we can assume there exist no other singular points in each interval $[\theta_{i}-\varepsilon, \theta_{i}+\varepsilon]$.
Now we see a sequence of $b_{\theta}$ as a move of b-arc in $D^{2}$. Then we can also assume by taking isotopy of surface and braids, in the interval $[\theta_{i}+\varepsilon, \theta_{i+1}-\varepsilon]$, $b_{\theta}$ do not move when we see $b_{\theta}$ as a move of the arcs.
First we investigate a sub-braiding $\beta_{1}$ in $[\theta_{1}+\varepsilon, \theta_{3}-\varepsilon] $. By taking appropriate conjugacy of $\beta_{1}$, we can assume $F \cap H_{\theta_{1} + \varepsilon}$ consists of several number of vertical arcs as depicted in left of figure \[fig:model\] and bb-singularity in $\theta_{2}$ is modeled as shown in the right of figure \[fig:model\]. We denote this braid by $\beta'_{1}$
Then, by seeing braids as a move of puncture point of disc, we can write this modified braiding $\beta_{1}'$ in $[\theta_{1}+\varepsilon, \theta_{3}-\varepsilon]$ as shown in figure \[fig:braiding\], which contains only one $\sigma_{1},\sigma_{1}^{-1}$. The original braiding $\beta_{1}$ in $[\theta_{1}+\varepsilon, \theta_{3}-\varepsilon]$ is conjugate to the braid $\beta_{1}'$ so proposition \[prop:newestimation\] shows $[\beta_{1}]_{D} =0$.
![Model of intersection and bb-singularity[]{data-label="fig:model"}](model.eps){width="110mm"}
![Braiding in $[\theta_{1}+\varepsilon,\theta_{3}-\varepsilon]$: bb-singularity case[]{data-label="fig:braiding"}](subbraiding.eps){width="80mm"}
Iterating this argument, we conclude that sub-braid $\beta_{i}$ in the interval $[\theta_{2i-1}+\varepsilon, \theta_{2i+1}-\varepsilon]$ for $i=1,\cdots ,\frac{v}{2}$ has zero Dehornoy floor. Since original braid $\beta$ is conjugate to the braid $\beta_{1}\beta_{2}\cdots\beta_{v \slash 2}$, by proposition \[prop:dehornoyfloor\], $ [\beta]_{D}< \frac{v}{2} $.
Combining above two lemmas, now it is easy to estimate Dehornor floor via information of tiling.
Assume $F$ is tiled. Let $V(i)$ be the number of valance $i$ vertices. If some of $V(i)$ is non-zero for $i \leq 3$, then lemma \[lem:estimate-tiled\] means $[\beta]_{D}< 2 < g+1$, so conclusion holds. Therefore we can assume $V(i)=0$ for $i \leq 3$, and Euler characteristic formula in lemma \[lem:eulerform-tiled\] become $$8g-8= \sum_{v=4}^{\infty}(v-4)V(v)$$
Since $g$ is not zero, there exist at least two b-arcs in each regular fiber, so at least four vertices in the tiling of $F$. Therefore the minimal valance of vertices is smaller than $max\{ 2g+2,4 \}$, that is, $2g+2$. Then lemma \[lem:estimate-tiled\] establishes $[\beta]_{D}< g+2$.
Mixed foliated surface
----------------------
Next we proceed to $F$ is mixed foliated case. The strategy is almost the same as tiled case, but we need to do some additional arguments to evaluate valance of vertices because the decomposition by regions do not determine cellular decomposition. First we see the same conclusion of lemma \[lem:estimate-tiled\] holds.
\[lem:estimate-mixed\] Let $F$ be a mixed foliated essential genus $g(\neq0)$ closed surface in the complement of closed braid $\widehat{\beta}$. If $\beta$ contains a valance $v$ vertex, then $[\beta]_{D} < \frac{v}{2}+1$.
Let $p$ be a valance $v$ vertex. We can use the same arguments appeared in proof of lemma \[lem:estimate-tiled\]. The main difference is a presence of c-circles and bc-singularity around $p$. First we modify closed braid as in the proof of lemma \[lem:estimate-tiled\] so that we can consider sub-braiding in each interval $[\theta_{i}-\varepsilon, \theta_{i}+\varepsilon]$, $[\theta_{i}+\varepsilon, \theta_{i+1}-\varepsilon]$. Assume that singular point in the fiber $H_{\theta_{2}}$ is bc-singularity. Then by taking appropriate conjugation of sub-braiding $[\theta_{1}+\varepsilon, \theta_{3}-\varepsilon]$, bc-singularity is now modeled as in the figure \[fig:model2\]. Then braiding in the interval $[\theta_{1}+\varepsilon, \theta_{3}-\varepsilon]$ can be written as shown in figure \[fig:braiding2\], which contains only one $\sigma_{1}^{\pm 1}$. Thus, the same argument of the proof of lemma \[lem:estimate-tiled\] gives desired estimation.
![Model of bc-singularity[]{data-label="fig:model2"}](model2.eps){width="80mm"}
![Braiding in $[\theta_{1}+\varepsilon, \theta_{3}-\varepsilon]$: bc-singularity case[]{data-label="fig:braiding2"}](subbraiding2.eps){width="80mm"}
Then, we want to estimate the minimal valance of vertices. Since there might be all types of singularity in the foliation of $F$, in general decomposition into regions dose not define usual sense of cellular decomposition: bc-region is annulus, and cc-region is pair of pants. However, in special case of normal mixed foliation, defined below, one can constructs canonical cellular decomposition via decomposition into regions as shown in [@bm2]. First we describe this.
We say mixed foliation is [*normal*]{} if there exists no cc-singularity. In normal mixed foliation case, we can construct canonical cellular decomposition as follows. First we see that in normal mixed foliation, bc-annuli always occur in pairs. This is because the c-circle boundary of bc-annuli must be attached to c-circle boundary of another bc-annuli, since there is no cc-regions and boundary of bb-tile are all b-arcs. Now, take annulus $W$ obtained by attaching two bc-annuli along their c-circle boundaries. Each component of $\partial W $ has two vertices. By cutting $W$ along the arc which connects two vertices which lies different components of $\partial W$, as shown in figure \[fig:be-tile\], we obtain two 2-cells, called [*be-tile*]{}. These cutting arcs are called [*e-edge*]{}. Now decomposition into be-tile and bb-tile determines cellular decomposition of $F$.
![Construction of be-tile[]{data-label="fig:be-tile"}](betile.eps){width="120mm"}
Note that there might exist be-tile which has no singular point or two singular points, but from construction of be-tile, be-tile with zero singularity and be-tile with two singularity must occur in pairs in each neighbor of vertex, so the notion of vertex and valance defined in section 3 coincide with the usual meaning of vertex and valance in this cellular decomposition. Then we see the same Euler characteristic formula holds:
\[lem:eulerform-nmixed\] Let $F$ be a normal mixed foliated surface with genus $g \neq 0$ and $V(v)$ be a number of vertex whose valance is $v$ in cellular decomposition described above. Then,
$$\sum_{v=1}^{3}(4-v)V(v)+8g-8 = \sum_{v=4}^{\infty}(v-4)V(v)$$ holds.
A be-tile has exactly four 1-cells in its boundary and each 1-cell is boundary of two 2-cells, so the same argument in proof of lemma \[lem:eulerform-tiled\] gives desired result.
So we can estimate minimal valance of vertices in case of normal mixed foliation by using lemma \[lem:eulerform-nmixed\] as in the tiled case. To estimate general mixed foliated case, we perform “preimage surgery” to delete cc-singularities. Let $F$ be a mixed foliated surface and we denote $\mathcal{F} $ by the preimage of $F$; that is, $\mathcal{F}$ is a foliated surface forgetting information of embedding.
Let $c$ be an one of the c-circle boundary of cc-pants $P$. $c$ is also a boundary of some other cc-pants or bc-annulus $Q$. We modify foliations of $P$ and $Q$ as shown in figure \[fig:preimagesurgery\] by filling $c$ by discs and changes foliation in $P$ and $Q$, according to type of regions. Since modified regions are trivially foliated, these regions are amalgamated to some other regions and they disappears. Moreover, this operation can be done so that obtained surface is connected by choosing c-circle boundary $c$ appropriately and reduces genus of $\mathcal{F}$ because all c-circle in the foliation is non-null homotopic in $\mathcal{F}$. Thus, this modification deletes two regions $P$ and $Q$, hence two singular points. We call this operation [*preimage surgery*]{} because we can regard this modification as surgery of $\mathcal{F}$ along c-circle $c$. We remark that preimage surgery is not realizable as a surgery of embedded surface $F$, because we cannot choose take a disc bounded by $c$ without intersecting original surface $F$ in $S^{3}$.
Since each preimage surgery reduces a genus of $\mathcal{F}$, after $k \leq g$ preimage surgery we obtain normal mixed foliated surface $\mathcal{F}'$. As we remarked before, $\mathcal{F}'$ cannot be realized as an embedded surface, but we can use the arguments of proof of lemma \[lem:eulerform-nmixed\], because the proof uses only information from cellular decomposition of $\mathcal{F}'$. Therefore we can use lemma \[lem:eulerform-nmixed\] for $\mathcal{F}'$ to estimate valance of vertices of preimage-surgered surface $\mathcal{F}'$.
![Preimage surgery[]{data-label="fig:preimagesurgery"}](preimagesurgery.eps){width="120mm"}
Assume $F$ is mixed foliated and after performing preimage surgery $k$-times described above, we create abstract foliated surface $\mathcal{F}'$ with no cc-singularity, that is, normal mixed foliated. Let $m$ be a minimal valance of vertices of $\mathcal{F}'$. Then, we trace preimage surgery procedure backwards. Each surgery deletes at most one bc-singularity, so original surface $F$ has at most more than $k$ bc-singular points than that of $\mathcal{F}'$. Since singular leaf containing bc-singularity has two vertices as its endpoints and there exist at least two vertices in $F$, we conclude minimal valance of vertices in $F$ is smaller than $m+k$. Thus, we only need to estimate $m$ to estimate minimal valance of vertices in original surface $F$.
Let $V(v)$ be the number of valance $v$ vertices of $\mathcal{F}'$. If $V(i)$ is non-zero for some $1 \leq i \leq 3$, then form the argument above, we conclude the minimal valance of vertices of $F$ is smaller than $3+g$, so $[\beta]_{D} < \frac{3+g}{2} \leq 2g+1$, so we can assume $V(i)$ is zero for all $1 \leq i \leq 3$. In this case, the Euler characteristic formula for $\mathcal{F}'$ become $$8(g-k)-8 > \sum_{i=4}^{\infty}(v-4)V(v).$$ Mixed foliated means there exist at least one b-arc in the foliation, so there exist at least two vertices in $\mathcal{F}'$. Therefore the minimal value of valance of vertices in $\mathcal{F}'$ is less than $4(g-k)$. Therefore, from our earlier argument, minimal valance of vertices in $F$ is smaller than $4(g-k)+k = 4g-3k+1$. Now, lemma \[lem:estimate-mixed\] establishes an inequality $[\beta]_{D}< 2g-\frac{3k}{2}< 2g+1$.
From statement (1) and (2), we conclude if $[\beta]_{D} \geq 2g+1$, then $F$ is neither tiled nor mixed-foliated, hence circular-foliated. This completes proof of theorem \[thm:main1\]
Nielsen-Thurston classification and the geometry of closed braid complements
============================================================================
In this section, we describe an application of theorem \[thm:main1\] for genus one closed surface, namely, essential torus. A description of essential torus in closed braid complements is studied in [@bm2],[@n] by using braid foliation machinery. Since an essential torus deeply involves the geometry of link complements, we can extract some of geometrical information of closed braids from theorem \[thm:main1\].
Nielsen-Thurston classification
-------------------------------
First of all, we recall the Nielsen-Thurston classification of braids. Nielsen-Thurston theorem states that an isotopy class of orientation preserving homeomorphism $[f]$ of compact oriented surface $F$, that is, an element of mapping class group $MCG(F)$ of $F$, is classified into following three types:
1. [*periodic*]{}: there exists a positive integer $m$ such that $f^{m}$ is isotopic to the identity.
2. [*reducible*]{}: there exist an essential 1-submanifold $C$ of $F$, which is invariant under $f$.
3. [*pseudo-Anosov*]{}: $f$ is isotopic to a pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism.
We do not describe precise definition of pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism, because we do not use it.(see [@flp] for more details about Nielsen-Thurston theory.) Let $D_{n}$ be a $n$-punctured disc. Since braid group $B_{n}$ is identified with the group of boundary-fixing isotopy class of homeomorphisms of $D_{n}$ which is identity on $\partial D_{n}$, there exist natural projection $\pi:B_{n} \rightarrow MCG(D_{n})$ regarding an element of $B_{n}$ as an isotopy class of homeomorphism of $D_{n}$ whose restriction on $\partial D_{n}$ are not necessarily identity. Therefore we can define the Nielsen-Thurston classification of braids by taking pull-back of the Nielsen-Thurston classification of $MCG(D_{n})$. Concretely, the Nielsen-Thurston classification of $B_{n}$ can be described as following way:
1. [*periodic*]{} : some powers of $\beta$ is equal to some powers of Garside fundamental braid $\Delta$.
2. [*pseudo-Anosov*]{} : its representing homeomorphism is pseudo-Anosov.
3. [*reducible*]{}: its representing homeomorphism is reducible.
Periodic braids are the most simple braids and it is known that periodic braids are conjugate to some powers of braid $(\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots\sigma_{n-1})$ or $(\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots\sigma_{n-1}\sigma_{1})$, which represents rotation of disc.
We remark that the Nielsen-Thurston classification of mapping class groups has very beautiful connection to the geometry of its mapping torus. Let $F$ be a closed surface, $\varphi$ be a homeomorphism of $F$ and $F_{\varphi}$ be the mapping torus of $\varphi$. The topology of mapping torus $F_{\varphi}$ only depends on the isotopy class of $\varphi$.
It is known that $F$ admit a complete hyperbolic structure if and only if $\varphi$ is pseudo-Anosov and $F_{\varphi}$ is Seifert-fibered if and only if $\varphi$ is periodic. Moreover, $F_{\varphi}$ contains an essential torus (hence decomposable with respect to geometric decomposition) if and only if $\varphi$ is reducible. Thus, there exist one-to-one correspondence between the Nielsen-Thurston classification of mapping class group and the geometry of its mapping torus. Hence, in this regard, theorem \[thm:main2\] can be seen as some generalization of this well-known fact in the knot theory settings.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:main2\]
------------------------------
First we investigate non-braided satellite knots. Recall that a satellite knot $K$ is called braided-satellite if its complements has essential tori $T$ which is circular foliated under appropriate choice of closed braid representatives of $K$. In general it is difficult to handle non-braided satellite knot in braid theory, but fortunately they do not appear under assumption of theorem \[thm:main2\].
\[prop:nbdsatellite\] Let $\beta \in B_{n}$ be a braid such that $K=\widehat{\beta}$ is a non-braided satellite knot. Then, $[\beta ]_{D} < 3 $.
Assume $[\beta]_{D} \geq 3$. Then theorem \[thm:main2\] shows all of essential tori in the complement of $K$ is circular, contradicts to assumption $K$ is non-braided satellite.
In [@mn], it is proved that if a closure of $\beta$ is a composite knot, then $[\beta]_{D}<2$. Proposition \[prop:nbdsatellite\] can be seen some kind of generalization of this result because composite knots are special types of non-braided satellite knots.
To prove theorem \[thm:main2\], We need the following result of Menasco concerning about Torus knots.
Torus knots are exchange-reducible. That is, For every closed braid representative $\widehat{\beta}$ of $(p,q)$-torus knot, there exists a sequence of closed braids $$\widehat{\beta}= \widehat{\beta_{0}}\rightarrow \widehat{\beta_{1}} \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow \widehat{\beta_{m}}$$ such that $\widehat{{\beta}_{i+1}}$ is obtained by performing exchange move or destabilization or isotopy of $\widehat{\beta_{i}}$, and $\beta_{m} = (\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots\sigma_{p-1})^q$.
We remark that this Menasco’s theorem is also proved by braid foliation techniques.
First assume $\beta \in B_{n}$ and $K =\widehat{\beta}$ is a torus knot. If $n$ is not the braid index of knot $K$, that is, if $K$ can be represented as a closure of other braids which have strictly smaller number of strands, then Menasco’s theorem says $K$ admit exchange move or destabilization, hence by the proposition \[prop:dehornoyfloor\] (5), we conclude $[\beta]_{D}\leq 1$, which contradicts our assumption $[\beta]_{D} \geq 3 $. Therefore we can assume that $n$ is braid index of $K$. In this case, also Menasco’s theorem says $\beta$ is conjugate to braid $(\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots \sigma_{n-1})^{p}$ for some $p$, hence $\beta$ is periodic.
On the other hand, it is known that periodic braids are conjugate to braids $(\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots\sigma_{n-1})^{s}$ or $(\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots\sigma_{n-1}\sigma_{1})^{s}$ for some $s$ , both of which represent rotation of disc. Since closure of $(\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\cdots\sigma_{n-1}\sigma_{1})^{s}$ never become a knot, it is obvious that closure of periodic braids represent torus knots.
Next assume $K=\widehat{\beta}$ is a satellite knot. Let $T$ be a essential torus in the complement of $K$. Of course there might be some of choice for such torus, we can take arbitrary one. Our assumption $[\beta]_{D} \geq 3$ and theorem \[thm:main1\] shows $T$ is circular-foliated, so intersection of $T$ with some fiber $H_{\theta}$ gives reducing 1-submanifolds of $\beta$ as a homeomorphism of $D_{n}$, hence $\beta$ is reducible. The converse is trivial.
Since both classifications are exclusive, we conclude that $\widehat{\beta}$ is a hyperbolic knot if and only if $\beta$ is pseudo-Anosov.
As a corollary, we get an infinite, almost disjoint family of hyperbolic knots for each pseudo-Anosov element of mapping class group of punctured disc. Although it is known that “almost all” prime knots are hyperbolic knot, in general it is not so easy to determine given not is hyperbolic or not. Especially, most of known family of knots known to be hyperbolic are defined through knot diagrams such as alternativeness. We now construct many families of hyperbolic knot through braid-theoretical approach.
\[cor:c1\] Suppose $[f] \in MCG(D_{n})$ be a pseudo-Anosov element of mapping class group of $n$-punctured disc and $\pi: B_{n} \rightarrow MCG(D_{n})$ be the natural projection. Let $ P([f])=\{ \widehat{\beta} \;| \;\beta \in \pi^{-1} ([f]),[\beta]_{D} \geq 3 \} $.
Then $P([f])$ consists of infinite number of distinct hyperbolic knots. Moreover, let $[g] \in MCG(D_{n})$ be another pseudo-Anosov element which is not conjugate to $[f]$ in $MCG(D_{n})$. Then, the intersection of $P([f])$ and $P([g])$ are finite.
Since $P([f])$ consists of pseudo-Anosov braids with Dehornoy floor larger than three, Theorem \[thm:main2\] shows their closures are all hyperbolic knots. Proposition \[prop:dehornoyfloor\] $(6)$ says braids having sufficiently large Dehornoy floor is a unique closed representative of its closure in braid index $n$, therefore $P([f])$ consists of infinite number of distinct hyperbolic knots and $P([f])$ and $P([g])$ have finite intersection unless $[g]$ is conjugate to $[f]$.
Since every hyperbolic knots are represented as a closure of pseudo-Anosov braids, one might expects our construction of hyperbolic knots produces [*all*]{} hyperbolic knots; That is, for every hyperbolic knots, there exists pseudo-Anosov mapping class $[f]$ such that $K \in P([f])$. Unfortunately, this too optimistic conjecture is not true. For example, we can prove figure-eight knot, the most simple hyperbolic knots, do not appear as an element of $P([f])$. More generally, we can show genus one hyperbolic knots cannot be constructed from our method. This is a corollary of results of our subsequent paper [@i].
Finally, we state a special case of theorem \[thm:main2\] which simplifies the situation.
\[cor:c2\] Let $p$ be a prime and $\beta \in B_{p}$ be a braid whose closure is a knot and $[\beta]_{D}\geq 3$. Then $\widehat{\beta}$ is a hyperbolic knot if and only if $\beta$ is non-periodic.
Since $p$ is prime and $\widehat{\beta}$ is a knot, $\beta$ is never reducible braid. Assume $\widehat{\beta}$ is satellite. Then proposition \[prop:nbdsatellite\], $\widehat{\beta}$ is braided-satellite, so theorem \[thm:main2\] means $\beta$ is reducible, which contradicts above. Thus, under the assumption of corollary, $\widehat{\beta}$ is either hyperbolic or torus knot and $\beta$ is either periodic or pseudo-Anosov, so theorem \[thm:main2\] establishes the result.
Although there is an algorithm to determine Nielsen-Thurston classification, it requires exponential times with respect to word length of braid. On the other hand, since to determine given braids are periodic or not is easy and it requires only quadratic times, corollary \[cor:c2\] produces very many hyperbolic knots explicitly and rapidly. In particular, we conclude that for prime $p$, closure of braids $\beta \in B_{p}$ satisfying $[\beta]_{D} \geq 2$ are almost all hyperbolic knots.
[\[B\]]{} J.Birman, [*[Braids, Links, and Mapping Class Groups,]{}*]{} Annals of Math. Studies **82**, Princeton Univ. Press (1975). J.Birman, E.Finkelstein, [*[Studying surfaces via closed braids,]{}*]{} Journal of Knot Theory and its Ramifications, **7**, No.3 (1998), 267-334. J.Birman, W.Menasco, [*[Studying links via closed braid IV: Split links and composite links,]{}*]{} Invent. math. **102**,(1990), 115-139. J.Birman, W.Menasco, [*[Special positions for essential tori in link complements,]{}*]{} Topology, **33**, No.3 (1994), 525-556. P.Dehornoy, [*[Braid groups and left distributive operations,]{}*]{} Transactions American Mathematical Society, **345** (1994), 115-150. P.Dehornoy, I.Dynnkov, D.Rolfsen and B.Wiest, [*[Why are the braids orderable ?,]{}*]{} Panoramas et Synthéses **14**, Soc. Math. France. 2002. R.Fenn, M.greene, D. Rolfsen, C.Rourke and B.Wiest, [*[Ordering the braid groups,]{}*]{} Pacific journal of mathematics, **191**, No.1 (1999), 49-73. A. Fathi, F. Laudenbach, V. Poenaru, [*[Travaux de Thurston sur les surfaces,]{}*]{} Asterique, **66-67**, 1979. T.Ito, [*[Braid ordering and genus of knots,]{}*]{} e-print, Arxiv. math/0805.2042v1 J.Los, [*[Knots, Braid index and Dynamical type,]{}*]{} Topology, **33**, No.2 (1994), 257-270. A.Malyutin, N.Netsvetaev, [*[Dehornoy’s ordering on the braid group and braid moves,]{}*]{} St.Peterburg Math. J. **15**, No.3 (2004), 437-448. A.Malyutin, [*[Twist number of (closed) braids,]{}*]{} St.Peterburg Math. J. **16**, No.5 (2005), 791-813. W.Menasco, [*[On iterated torus knots and transversal knots,]{}*]{} Geometry & Topology, **5**, (2001), 651-682. W.Menasco, [*[An addendum to iterated torus knots,]{}*]{} e-print, Arxiv. math.GT/0610566 K.Ng, [*[Essential tori in link complements,]{}*]{} Journal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications, **7**, No.2 (1998), 205-216. H.Short, B.Wiest, [*[Ordering of mapping class groups after Thurston,]{}*]{} L’Enseignement Mathématique, **46**,(2000), 279-312.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Using a result of Kari and Ollinger, we prove that the torsion problem for elements of the Brin-Thompson group $2V$ is undecidable. As a result, we show that there does not exist an algorithm to determine whether an element of the rational group $\mathcal{R}$ of Grigorchuk, Nekrashevich, and Sushchanskii has finite order. A modification of the construction gives other undecidability results about the dynamics of the action of elements of $2V$ on Cantor Space. Arzhantseva, Lafont, and Minasyanin prove in 2012 that there exists a finitely presented group with solvable word problem and unsolvable torsion problem. To our knowledge, $2V$ furnishes the first concrete example of such a group, and gives an example of a direct undecidability result in the extended family of R. Thompson type groups.'
author:
- James Belk
- Collin Bleak
title: 'Some Undecidability Results for Asynchronous Transducers and the Brin-Thompson Group $2V$'
---
Introduction
============
If $G$ is a finitely presented group, the [*torsion problem*]{} for $G$ is the problem of deciding whether a given word in the generators represents an element of finite order in $G$. Like the word and conjugacy problems, the torsion problem is not solvable in general [@BBN]. Perhaps more surprising is the fact that there exist finitely presented groups with solvable word problem and unsolvable torsion problem. This result was proven by Arzhantseva, Lafont, and Minasyanin in 2012 [@ALM], but they did not give a specific example of such a group.
In the 1960’s, Richard J. Thompson introduced a family of three groups $F$, $T$, and $V$, which act by homeomorphisms on an interval, a circle, and a Cantor set, respectively. These groups have a remarkable array of properties: for example, $T$ and $V$ were among the first known examples of finitely presented infinite simple groups. Though Thompson and McKenzie used $F$ to construct new examples of groups with unsolvable word problem [@ThompsonMcKenzie], the groups $F$, $T$, and $V$ themselves have solvable word problem, solvable conjugacy problem, and solvable torsion problem (see [@BeMa]).
In 2004, Matt Brin introduced a family $\{nV\}_{n=1}^\infty$ of Thompson like groups, where $1V=V$ [@Brin]. Each group $nV$ acts by piecewise-affine homeomorphisms on the direct product of $n$ copies of the middle-thirds Cantor set. [These groups are all simple [@Brin3] and finitely presented [@Brin2; @HennigMatucci], and indeed they have type $F_\infty$ [@BritaEtAl; @FluchEtAl]. It follows from Brin’s work that they all have solvable word problems.]{} Our first main result is the following.
\[thm:MainTheorem1\]For $n\geq 2$, the Brin-Thompson group $nV$ has unsolvable torsion problem.
It is easy to show that $mV$ embeds in $nV$ for $m\leq n$, so it suffices to prove this theorem in the case where $n=2$. Our strategy is to use elements of $2V$ to simulate the operation of certain Turing machines. In 2008, Kari and Ollinger proved [@KaOl] that there does not exist an algorithm to determine whether a given complete, reversible Turing machine has uniformly periodic dynamics on its configuration space. We show that every such machine is topologically conjugate to an (effectively constructible) element of $2V$, and therefore there does not exist an algorithm to determine whether a given element of $2V$ has finite order.
Our second main result concerns the periodicity problem for asynchronous transducers. Roughly speaking, a [*asynchronous transducer*]{} is a finite-state automaton that converts an input string of arbitrary length to an output string. The transducer reads one symbol at a time, changing its internal state and outputting a finite sequence of symbols at each step. Asynchronous transducers are a natural generalization of [*synchronous transducers*]{}, which are required to output exactly one symbol for every symbol read.
Every transducer defines a [*rational function*]{}, which maps the space of infinite strings to itself. A transducer is [*invertible*]{} if this function is a homeomorphism. The group of all rational functions defined by invertible transducers is the [*rational group*]{} $\mathcal{R}$ defined by Grigorchuk, Nekrashevych, and Sushchanskii [@GNS2000]. Subgroups of $\mathcal{R}$ are known as [*automata groups*]{}.
The idea of groups of homeomorphisms defined by transducers has a long history. Alěsin [@Aleshin72] uses such a group to provide a counterexample to the unbounded Burnside conjecture. Later, Grigorchuk uses automata groups to provide a 2-group counterexample to the Burnside conjecture [@Grigorchuk80], and to construct a group of intermediate growth, settling a well-known question of Milnor [@Grigorchuk83]. In the last decade, the work of Bartholdi, Grigorchuk, Nekrashevich, Sidki, Sǔníc, and many others have advanced the theory of automata groups considerably, and have brought these groups to bear on problems in geometric group theory, complex dynamics, and fractal geometry.
A transducer is [*periodic*]{} if some iterate of the corresponding rational function is equal to the identity. Our second main theorem is the following.
\[thm:MainTheorem2\]There does not exist an algorithm to determine whether a given asynchronous transducer is periodic.
We prove this result by showing that every element of the group $2V$ is topologically conjugate to a rational function defined by a transducer. Since the torsion problem in $2V$ is undecidable, Theorem \[thm:MainTheorem2\] follows.
One important problem in the theory of automata groups is the *finiteness problem*: given a finite collection of invertible transducers, is it possible to determine whether the corresponding rational homeomorphisms generate a finite group? This question was posed by Grigorchuk, Nekrashevych, and Sushchanskii in [@GNS2000], and has since received significant attention in the literature. [Gillibert [@Gillibert2013] proved that it is undecidable whether the semigroup of rational functions generated by a given collection of (not necessarily invertible) transducers is finite, which our result implies as well. Akhvai, Klimann, Lombardy, Mairesse and Picantin [@AkhaviKlimannLombardyMairessePicantin2012], Klimann [@Klimann2012], and Bondarenko, Bondarenko, Sidke, and Zapata [@BondarenkoBondarenkoSidkiZapata2013] have also obtained partial decidability or undecidability results in various contexts.]{} Our result settles the question for asynchronous transducers.
\[thm:MainTheorem3\]The finiteness problem for groups generated by asynchronous automata is unsolvable.
This follows immediately from Theorem \[thm:MainTheorem2\], which states that no such algorithm exists for the cyclic group generated by a single asynchronous automaton. Note that the finiteness problem is still open for groups generated by synchronous automata, which includes all Grigorchuk groups, branch groups, iterated monodromy groups, and self-similar groups.
In the last section, we show how to simulate arbitrary Turing machines using elements of $2V$, and we use the construction to prove some further undecidability results for the dynamics of elements. For example, we prove that there exists an element of $f\in2V$ with an attracting fixed points such that the basin of the fixed point is a noncomputable set.
It is an open question whether the group $2V$ has a solvable conjugacy problem, and our result does not settle the issue. However, it does seem clear that the conjugacy problem in $2V$ must be considerably harder than in Thompson’s group $V$. In particular, there can be no conjugacy invariant for $2V$ that gives a complete description of the dynamics, for it is not even possible to detect whether the dynamics are periodic! This contrasts sharply with Thompson’s group $V$, in which such an invariant is easy to compute (see [@BeMa]).
Based on this result, it seems likely that the conjugacy problem in $2V$ is undecidable. If this is indeed the case, the group $2V$ may be useful for public-key cryptography [@AAG; @KoLee].
Turing Machines
===============
In this section we define Turing machines, reversible Turing machines, and complete reversible Turing machines. Our treatment here is very similar to the one in [@KaOl], which is in turn based on the treatments in [@Kur] and [@Mor].
For the following definition, we fix two symbols ${\mathsf{L}}$ (for [*left*]{}) and ${\mathsf{R}}$ (for [*right*]{}), representing the two types of movement instructions for a Turing machine.
A [*Turing machine*]{} is an ordered triple $({\mathcal{S}},{\mathcal{A}},{T})$, where
- ${\mathcal{S}}$ is a finite set of [*states*]{},
- ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a finite alphabet of [*tape symbols*]{}, and
- ${T}\subseteq ({\mathcal{S}}\times\{{\mathsf{L}},{\mathsf{R}}\}\times {\mathcal{S}}) \cup ({\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}\times {\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}})$ is the [*transition table*]{}.
A [*tape*]{} for a Turing machine ${\mathcal{T}}=({\mathcal{S}},{\mathcal{A}},{T})$ is any function ${\tau}\colon{\mathbb{Z}}\to{\mathcal{A}}$, i.e. any element of ${\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$. A [*configuration*]{} of a Turing machine is a pair $({s},{\tau})$, where ${s}$ is a state and ${\tau}$ is a tape. The set ${\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ of all configurations is called the [*configuration space*]{} for ${\mathcal{T}}$.
Each element of the transition table $T$ is called an [*instruction*]{}. There are two types of instructions:
1. An instruction $({s},\delta,{s'})\in {\mathcal{S}}\times\{{\mathsf{L}},{\mathsf{R}}\}\times{\mathcal{S}}$ is called a [*move instruction*]{}, with [*initial state*]{} ${s}$, [*direction*]{} $\delta$, and [*final state*]{} ${s'}$.
2. An instruction $({s},{a},{s'},{a'})\in {\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}\times{\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}$ is called a [*write instruction*]{}, with [*initial state*]{} ${s}$, [*read symbol*]{} ${a}$, [*final state*]{} ${s'}$, and [*write symbol*]{} ${a'}$.
Together, the instructions of $T$ define a [*transition relation*]{} $\to$ on the configuration space ${\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$.
Specifically, let $W\colon{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\times{\mathcal{A}}\to {\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $M \colon {\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\times\{{\mathsf{L}},{\mathsf{R}}\}\to{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ be the functions defined by $$W({\tau},{a})(n) \;=\; \begin{cases}{a}& \text{if }n = 0, \\ {\tau}(n) & \text{if }n \ne 0,\end{cases}
\quad\text{and}\quad
M({\tau},\delta)(n) \;=\; \begin{cases}{\tau}(n-1) & \text{if }\delta = {\mathsf{L}}, \\ {\tau}(n+1) & \text{if }\delta = {\mathsf{R}},\end{cases}$$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. That is, $W$ is the function that writes a symbol on the tape at position $0$, while $M$ is the function that moves the head left or right by one step. Using these functions, we can define the transition relation $\to$ for configurations:
1. Each move instruction $({s},\delta,{s'})\in T$ specifies that $$({s},{\tau}) \;\to\; \bigl({s'},M({\tau},\delta)\bigr)$$ for every tape ${\tau}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$.
2. Each write instruction $({s},{a},{s'},{a'})\in T$ specifies that $$({s},{\tau}) \;\to\; \bigl({s'},W({\tau},{a'})\bigr)$$ for every tape ${\tau}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ for which ${\tau}(0) = {a}$.
This completes the definition of $\to$, as well as the all of the basic definitions for general Turing machines.
We are interested in certain kinds of Turing machines:
Let ${\mathcal{T}}=({\mathcal{S}},{\mathcal{A}},{T})$ be a Turing machine.
1. We say that ${\mathcal{T}}$ is [*deterministic*]{} if for every configuration $({s},{\tau})$, there is at most one configuration $({s'},{\tau'})$ so that $({s},{\tau})\to({s'},{\tau'})$.
2. We say that ${\mathcal{T}}$ is [*reversible*]{} if ${\mathcal{T}}$ is deterministic and for every configuration $({s'},{\tau'})$, there is at most one configuration $({s},{\tau})$ such that $({s},{\tau})\to({s'},{\tau'})$.
3. We say that ${\mathcal{T}}$ is [*complete*]{} if for every configuration $({s},{\tau})$, there is at least one configuration $({s'},{\tau'})$ such that $({s},{\tau})\to({s'},{\tau'})$. (That is, ${\mathcal{T}}$ is complete if it has no halting configurations.)
Though we have defined these conditions using the configuration space ${\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$, they can be checked directly from the transition table ${T}$ (see [@KaOl]).
If ${\mathcal{T}}$ is a complete, reversible Turing machine, then the transition relation $\to$ is a bijective function on the configuration space ${\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$.
It is clear that $\to$ defines an injective function. The surjectivity follows from a simple counting argument on the transitions between states (see [@Kur]).
If ${\mathcal{T}}$ is a complete, reversible Turing machine, the bijection $F\colon {\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ defined by the transition relation is called the [*transition function*]{} for ${\mathcal{T}}$. We say that ${\mathcal{T}}$ is [*uniformly periodic*]{} if there exists an $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $F^n$ is the identity function. In [@KaOl], Kari and Ollinger prove the following theorem:
\[thm:KariOllinger\]It is undecidable whether a given complete, reversible Turing machine is uniformly periodic.
We shall use this theorem to prove the undecidability of the torsion problem for elements of $2V$.
The Group $2V$
==============
In this section we define the Brin-Thompson group $2V$ and establish conventions for describing its elements. Because we wish to view the Cantor set as the infinite product space $\{0,1\}^\infty$, our notation and terminology is slightly different from that of [@Brin].
Let $C$ be the Cantor set, which we identify with the infinite product space $\{0,1\}^\infty$, and let $\{0,1\}^*$ denote the set of all finite sequences of $0$’s and $1$’s. Given a finite sequence $\alpha\in\{0,1\}^*$, the corresponding [*dyadic interval*]{} in $C$ is the set $$I(\alpha) \;=\; {\bigl\{ \alpha\omega \;\bigr|\; \omega\in \{0,1\}^\infty \bigr\}}.$$ where $\alpha\omega$ denotes the concatenation of the finite sequence $\alpha$ with the infinite sequence $\omega$. Note that the Cantor set $C$ is itself a dyadic interval, namely the interval $I(-)$ corresponding to the empty sequence. A [*dyadic subdivision*]{} of the Cantor set $C$ is any partition of $C$ into finitely many dyadic intervals.
Let $C^2$ denote the Cartesian product $C\times C$. A [*dyadic rectangle*]{} in $C^2$ is any set of the form $R(\alpha,\beta) = I(\alpha)\times I(\beta)$, where $I(\alpha)$ and $I(\beta)$ are dyadic intervals. A [*dyadic subdivision*]{} of $C^2$ is any partition of $C^2$ into finitely many dyadic rectangles. As discussed in [@Brin], every dyadic subdivision of $C^2$ has an associated [*pattern*]{}, which is a subdivision of the unit square into rectangles. For example, Figure \[fig:SquarePatterns\](a) shows a dyadic subdivision of $C^2$ and the corresponding pattern.
If $R(\alpha,\beta)$ and $R(\gamma,\delta)$ are dyadic rectangles, the [*prefix replacement function*]{} $f\colon R(\alpha,\beta) \to R(\gamma,\delta)$ is the function defined by $$f(\alpha\psi,\beta\omega) \;=\; (\gamma\psi,\delta\omega),$$ for all $\psi,\omega \in\{0,1\}^\infty$. Note that this is a bijection between $R(\alpha,\beta)$ and $R(\gamma,\delta)$.
The [*Brin-Thompson group $\boldsymbol{2V}$*]{} is the group of all homeomorphisms $f\colon C^2\to C^2$ with the following property: there exists a dyadic subdivision ${\mathcal{D}}$ of $C^2$ such that $f$ acts as a prefix replacement on each dyadic rectangle of ${\mathcal{D}}$.
Note that the images $\{f(R) \mid R\in{\mathcal{D}}\}$ of the rectangles of the dyadic subdivision ${\mathcal{D}}$ are again a dyadic subdivision of $C^2$. Since there is only one prefix replacement mapping any dyadic rectangle to any other, an element of $2V$ is entirely determined by a pair of dyadic subdivisions, together with a one-to-one correspondence between the rectangles. This lets us represent any element $f\in 2V$ by a pair of numbered patterns, as shown in Figure \[fig:SquarePatterns\](b).
Note that the numbered pattern pair for an element $f\in 2V$ is not unique. In particular, given any numbered pattern pair for $f$, we can horizontally or vertically bisect a corresponding pair of rectangles in the domain and range to obtain another numbered pattern pair for $f$.
Nonetheless, it is possible to compute effectively using numbered pattern pairs. In [@Brin], Brin describes an effective procedure to compute a numbered pattern pair for a composition $fg$ of two elements of $2V$, given a numbered pattern pair for each element. Note that we can also effectively find a numbered pattern pair for the inverse of an element, simply by switching the numbered patterns for the domain and range.
Given numbered pattern pairs for two elements of $2V$, there is an effective procedure to determine whether the two elements are equal.\[prop:DetermineEqual\]
Let $f$ and $g$ be the two elements. Using Brin’s procedure, we can find a numbered pattern pair for $f^{-1} g$. Then $f=g$ if and only if $f^{-1}g$ is the identity element, which occurs if and only if the numbered domain and range patterns for $f^{-1} g$ are identical.
It is shown in [@Brin2] that the group $2V$ is finitely presented, with $8$ generators and $70$ relations. The following proposition is implicit in [@Brin] and [@Brin2].
The word problem is solvable in $2V$.
Given any two words, we can use Brin’s procedure to construct numbered pattern pairs for the corresponding elements. By Proposition \[prop:DetermineEqual\], we can use these to determine whether the elements are equal.
We will also need the following result.
Given a numbered pattern pair for an element $f\in 2V$, there is an effective procedure to find a word for $f$. \[prop:EffectiveWord\]
Given a word $w$, we can determine whether $w$ represents $f$ by computing a numbered pattern pair for $w$, and then comparing with $f$ using Proposition \[prop:DetermineEqual\]. Therefore, we need only search through all possible words $w$ until we find one that agrees with $f$.
[See [@BurilloClearyMetric] for explicit bounds relating the word lengths of elements to the number of rectangles in a numbered pattern pair.]{}
Turing Machines in $2V$ {#sec:TuringMachinesIn2V}
=======================
The goal of this section is to prove Theorem \[thm:MainTheorem1\]. That is, we wish to encode any complete, reversible Turing machine as an element of $2V$, in such a way that the Turing machine is uniformly periodic if and only if the element has finite order.
Let ${\mathcal{T}}= ({\mathcal{S}},{\mathcal{A}},{T})$ be a complete, reversible Turing machine. Let $\{{s}_1,\ldots,{s}_m\}$ denote the states of ${\mathcal{T}}$, and let $\{I(\sigma_1),\ldots,I(\sigma_m)\}$ be a corresponding dyadic subdivision of $C$, where $\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_m\in\{0,1\}^*$. Similarly let $\{{a}_1,\ldots,{a}_n\}$ denote the tape symbols for ${\mathcal{T}}$, and let $\{I(\alpha_1),\ldots,I(\alpha_n)\}$ be a corresponding dyadic subdivision of $C$, where $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\in\{0,1\}^*$.
Given any infinite sequence $\omega\in{\mathcal{A}}^\infty$ of symbols, we can encode it to obtain an infinite sequence ${\epsilon}(\omega) \in \{0,1\}^\infty$ of $0$’s and $1$’s as follows: $${\epsilon}({a}_{i_1},{a}_{i_2},{a}_{i_3},\ldots) \;=\; \alpha_{i_1}\alpha_{i_2}\alpha_{i_3} \cdots,$$ That is, ${\epsilon}(\omega)$ is the infinite concatenation of the corresponding sequence of $\alpha$’s.
The function ${\epsilon}\colon {\mathcal{A}}^\infty\to\{0,1\}^\infty$ defined above is a bijection.
Let $\psi_0\in \{0,1\}^\infty$. Since $\{I(\alpha_1),\ldots,I(\alpha_n)\}$ is a dyadic subdivision of $C$, there exists a unique $i_1\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ so that $\alpha_{i_1}$ is a prefix of $\psi_0$. Then $\psi_0 = \alpha_{i_1}\psi_1$ for some $\psi_1\in\{0,1\}^\infty$. Then $\psi_1$ itself has some uniquely determined $\alpha_{i_2}$ as a prefix, and hence $\psi_1=\alpha_{i_2}\psi_2$ for some $\psi_2\in\{0,1\}^\infty$. Continuing in this way, we can express $\psi_0$ uniquely as an infinite concatenation $\alpha_{i_1}\alpha_{i_2}\alpha_{i_3} \cdots$. Then $${\epsilon}^{-1}(\psi_0) \;=\; ({a}_{i_1},{a}_{i_2},{a}_{i_3},\ldots),$$ which proves that ${\epsilon}$ is invertible.
Now let $\Phi\colon {\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\to C^2$ be the [*configuration encoding*]{} defined by $$\Phi({s}_i,{\tau}) \;=\; \bigl(\,\sigma_i\,{\epsilon}({\tau}_L),\;{\epsilon}({\tau}_R)\,\bigr)$$ for every configuration $({s}_i,{\tau})$, where $${\tau}_L = \bigl({\tau}(-1),{\tau}(-2),{\tau}(-3),\ldots\bigr)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
{\tau}_R = \bigl({\tau}(0),{\tau}(1),{\tau}(2),\ldots\bigr).$$ That is, the first component of $\Phi({s}_i,{\tau})$ encodes the state ${s}_i$ as well as the left half of the tape ${\tau}$, while the second component of $\Phi({s}_i,{\tau})$ encodes the right half of the tape ${\tau}$. Clearly $\Phi$ is a bijection from the configuration space ${\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ to $C^2$.
Let $F\colon {\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\to{\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ be the transition function for ${\mathcal{T}}$. Then ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}= \Phi\circ F\circ\Phi^{-1}$ is an element of $2V$.\[thm:BigConjugacyTheorem\]
Since ${\mathcal{T}}$ is complete and reversible, we know that $F$ is bijective, and therefore ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ is bijective as well. To show that ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}\in 2V$, we need only demonstrate a dyadic subdivision ${\mathcal{D}}$ of $C^2$ such that ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ acts by a prefix replacement on each rectangle of the subdivision.
The subdivision ${\mathcal{D}}$ consists of the following dyadic rectangles:
1. For each state ${s}_i$ that is the initial state of a left move instruction, ${\mathcal{D}}$ includes the rectangles $\bigl\{R(\sigma_i\alpha_k,-)\bigr\}_{k=1}^n$
2. For each state ${s}_i$ that is the initial state of a right move instruction, ${\mathcal{D}}$ includes the rectangles $\bigl\{R(\sigma_i,\alpha_k)\bigr\}_{k=1}^n$.
3. For each state ${s}_i$ that is the initial state of write instructions, ${\mathcal{D}}$ includes the rectangles $\bigl\{R(\sigma_i,\alpha_k)\bigr\}_{k=1}^n$.
Note that, in each of the three cases, the given rectangles are a subdivision of $R(\sigma_i,-)$. It follows that ${\mathcal{D}}$ is a dyadic subdivision of $C^2$. Moreover, it is easy to check that ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ has the right form on each rectangle of ${\mathcal{D}}$. In particular:
1. For a left move instruction $({s}_i,{\mathsf{L}},{s}_j)$, the formula for ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ on each rectangle $R(\sigma_i\alpha_k,-)$ is $${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}(\sigma_i\alpha_k\psi,\omega) \;=\; (\sigma_j\psi,\alpha_k\omega)$$ for all $\psi,\omega\in \{0,1\}^\infty$. That is, ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ maps each $R(\sigma_i\alpha_k,-)$ to $R(\sigma_j,\alpha_k)$.
2. For a right move instruction $({s}_i,{\mathsf{R}},{s}_j)$, the formula for ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ on each rectangle $R(\sigma_i,\alpha_k)$ is $${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}(\sigma_i\psi,\alpha_k\omega) \;=\; (\sigma_j\alpha_k\psi,\omega)$$ for all $\psi,\omega\in \{0,1\}^\infty$. That is, ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ maps each $R(\sigma_i,\alpha_k)$ to $R(\sigma_j\alpha_k,-)$.
3. For a write instruction $({s}_i,{a}_j,{s}_k,{a}_\ell)$, the formula for ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ on the rectangle $R(\sigma_i,\alpha_k)$ is $${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}(\sigma_i\psi,\alpha_k\omega) \;=\; (\sigma_j\psi,\alpha_\ell \omega)$$ for all $\psi,\omega\in \{0,1\}^\infty$. That is, ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ maps each $R(\sigma_i,\alpha_k)$ to $R(\sigma_j,\alpha_\ell)$.
We conclude that ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}\in 2V$.
Given a complete, reversible Turing machine ${\mathcal{T}}= ({\mathcal{S}},{\mathcal{A}},{T})$, there exists an effective procedure for choosing an element ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ as defined above, and expressing it as a word in the generators of $2V$.
Note first that it is easy to choose the dyadic subdivisions $\{I(\sigma_1),\ldots,I(\sigma_m)\}$ and $\{I(\alpha_1),\ldots,I(\alpha_n)\}$. For example, $(\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_m)$ could be the $m$’th term of the sequence $$(-),\quad (0,1),\quad (0,10,11),\quad (0,10,110,111),\quad (0,10,110,1110,1111),\quad \ldots,$$ and $(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n)$ could be the $n$’th term of this sequence.
Once the subdivisions are chosen, we can use the formulas given in the proof of Theorem \[thm:BigConjugacyTheorem\] to construct a numbered pattern pair for the element ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$. Finally, we can use Proposition \[prop:EffectiveWord\] to compute a word for ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$.
The element ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ has finite order if and only if ${\mathcal{T}}$ is uniformly periodic.
Since ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}= \Phi\circ F\circ\Phi^{-1}$, it follows that $({f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}})^p = \Phi\circ F^p\circ\Phi^{-1}$ for each $p$, so $({f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}})^p$ is the identity if and only if $F^p$ is the identity function.
This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:MainTheorem1\]. Combining this with the result of Kari and Ollinger (Theorem \[thm:KariOllinger\] above), we conclude that the torsion problem in $2V$ is undecidable. The following theorem may shed some light on the nature of this result:
For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\Omega(n)$ be the maximum possible order of a torsion element of $2V$ having at most $n$ rectangles in its numbered pattern pair. Then $\Omega$ is not bounded above by any computable function $\mathbb{N}\to\mathbb{N}$.
Suppose to the contrary that $\Omega$ were bounded above by a computable function $\gamma\colon{\mathbb{N}}\to{\mathbb{N}}$. Then, given any element $f\in 2V$ with $n$ rectangles in its numbered pattern pair, it would be a simple matter to determine whether $f$ has finite order. Specifically, we could first compute $\gamma(n)$, and then compute the powers $f,f^2,f^3,\ldots,f^{\gamma(n)}$, and finally check to see if any of these is the identity. Since the torsion problem in $2V$ is undecidable, it follows that no such function $\gamma$ exists.
Thus the function $\Omega(n)$ must grow very quickly, e.g. on the order of the busy beaver function (see [@Rado]).
We end this section with an example that illustrates the construction of ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$.
Consider the Turing machine ${\mathcal{T}}$ with four states $\{{s}_1,{s}_2,{s}_3,{s}_4\}$ and three symbols $\{{a}_1,{a}_2,{a}_3\}$, which obeys the following rules:
1. From state ${s}_1$, move the head right and go to state ${s}_2$.
2. From state ${s}_2$, read the input symbol ${\tau}(0)$:
1. If ${\tau}(0) = {a}_1$, then write ${a}_1$ and go back to state ${s}_1$.
2. If ${\tau}(0) = {a}_2$, then write ${a}_3$ and go back to state ${s}_1$.
3. If ${\tau}(0) = {a}_3$, then write ${a}_2$ and go to state ${s}_3$.
3. From state ${s}_3$, move the head left and go to state ${s}_4$.
4. From state ${s}_4$, read the input symbol ${\tau}(0)$:
1. If ${\tau}(0) = {a}_1$, then write ${a}_1$ and go back to state ${s}_3$.
2. If ${\tau}(0) = {a}_2$, then write ${a}_2$ and go to state ${s}_1$.
3. If ${\tau}(0) = {a}_3$, then write ${a}_3$ and go back to state ${s}_3$.
That is, the transition table for ${\mathcal{T}}$ is the set $$\begin{gathered}
\qquad \{({s}_1,{\mathsf{R}},{s}_2),({s}_2,{a}_1,{s}_1,{a}_1),({s}_2,{a}_2,{s}_1,{a}_3),
({s}_2,{a}_3,{s}_3,{a}_2), \\
({s}_3,{\mathsf{L}},{s}_4),({s}_4,{a}_1,{s}_3,{a}_1),({s}_4,{a}_2,{s}_1,{a}_2),
({s}_4,{a}_3,{s}_3,{a}_3)\}\qquad\end{gathered}$$ It is easy to check that ${\mathcal{T}}$ is complete and reversible.
![The element of $2V$ corresponding to the Turing machine in Example \[ex:TuringMachine\]. The four main vertical rectangles correspond to the four states $\{{s}_1,{s}_2,{s}_3,{s}_4\}$.[]{data-label="fig:TuringMachineElement"}](Turing1 "fig:")![The element of $2V$ corresponding to the Turing machine in Example \[ex:TuringMachine\]. The four main vertical rectangles correspond to the four states $\{{s}_1,{s}_2,{s}_3,{s}_4\}$.[]{data-label="fig:TuringMachineElement"}](Turing2 "fig:")
To make a corresponding element of $2V$, let $(\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3,\sigma_4)=(00,01,10,11)$, and let $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3)=(0,10,11)$. Then the resulting element ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}\in 2V$ is shown in Figure \[fig:TuringMachineElement\]. \[ex:TuringMachine\]
Transducers
===========
[In this section we show that it is undecidable whether the rational function defined by a given asynchronous transducer has finite order (Theorem \[thm:MainTheorem2\]). This settles the finiteness problem for asynchronous automata groups (Theorem \[thm:MainTheorem3\]).]{}
[We begin by briefly reviewing the relevant facts about transducers. See [@Gluskov63] for a thorough introduction to transducers, and [@GNS2000] for a discussion of transducers in the context of group theory.]{}
An asynchronous [*transducer*]{} is an ordered quadruple $({\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{S}},{s}_0,{\tau})$, where
- ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a finite alphabet,
- ${\mathcal{S}}$ is a finite set of states,
- ${s}_0 \in {\mathcal{S}}$ is the [*initial state*]{}, and
- ${\tau}\colon {\mathcal{S}}\times {\mathcal{A}}\to {\mathcal{S}}\times {\mathcal{A}}^*$ is the [*transition function*]{}, where ${\mathcal{A}}^*$ denotes the set of all finite strings over ${\mathcal{A}}$.
Given a transducer $({\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{S}},{s}_0,{\tau})$ and an infinite [*input string*]{} $\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3\cdots\in{\mathcal{A}}^\infty$, the corresponding [*state sequence*]{} $\{s_i\}$ and [*output sequence*]{} $\{\beta_i\}$ are defined recursively by $$({s}_i,\beta_i) \;=\; {\tau}({s}_{i-1},\alpha_i).$$ The concatenation $\beta_1\beta_2\cdots$ of the output sequence is called the [*output string*]{}. This string is usually infinite, but will be finite if only finitely many $\beta_i$’s are nonempty.
We say that the transducer is [*nondegenerate*]{} if every infinite input string results in an infinite output string. In this case, the function $f\colon {\mathcal{A}}^\infty \to {\mathcal{A}}^\infty$ mapping each input string to the corresponding output string is called the [*rational function*]{} defined by the given transducer. [Rational functions are always continuous, and any invertible rational function is a homeomorphism.]{}
[For a given finite alphabet ${\mathcal{A}}$, the [*rational group*]{} ${\mathcal{R}}$ is the group consisting of all invertible rational homeomorphisms of ${\mathcal{A}}^\infty$. It is proven in [@GNS2000] that ${\mathcal{R}}$ forms a group, and that the isomorphism type of ${\mathcal{R}}$ does not depend on the size of ${\mathcal{A}}$, as long as ${\mathcal{A}}$ has at least two letters.]{}
[Our goal in this section is to prove the following theorem.]{}
\[thm:SubgroupOfRationalGroup\]The rational group ${\mathcal{R}}$ has a subgroup isomorphic to $2V$.
[Since $2V$ has unsolvable torsion problem, Theorems \[thm:MainTheorem2\] and \[thm:MainTheorem3\] will follow immediately.]{}
[We begin with the following proposition, which will help us to]{} combine rational functions together.
\[prop:TransducerSplicing\]Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a finite alphabet, let $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\}$ be a complete prefix code over ${\mathcal{A}}$, and let $f_1,\ldots,f_n\colon {\mathcal{A}}^*\to{\mathcal{A}}^*$ be rational functions. Define a function $f\colon{\mathcal{A}}^*\to{\mathcal{A}}^*$ by $$f(\alpha_i\omega) = f_i(\omega)$$ for all $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ and $\omega\in{\mathcal{A}}^*$. Then $f$ is [a]{} rational [function.]{}
Let $\{\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_m\}$ be the set of all proper prefixes of strings in $\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\}$, where $\beta_1$ is the empty string. For each $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, let $({\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{S}}_i,{s}_{0i},{\tau}_i)$ be a transducer for $f_i$. Define a transducer $({\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{S}},{s}_0,{\tau})$ as follows:
- The state set ${\mathcal{S}}$ is the disjoint union $\{\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_m\} \uplus {\mathcal{S}}_1 \uplus \cdots \uplus {\mathcal{S}}_n$.
- The initial state ${s}_0$ is the empty string $\beta_1$.
- The transition function ${\tau}\colon {\mathcal{S}}\times {\mathcal{A}}\to {\mathcal{S}}$ is defined by $${\tau}({s},{a}) \;=\;
\begin{cases}
(\beta_j,-) & \text{if }{s}= \beta_i\text{ and }\beta_i{a}=\beta_j, \\
({s}_{0j},-) & \text{if }{s}= \beta_i\text{ and }\beta_i{a}=\alpha_j, \\
{\tau}_i({s},{a}) & \text{if }{s}\in{\mathcal{S}}_i.
\end{cases}$$
It is easy to check that the the rational function defined by this transducer is the desired function $f$.
Now consider the four-element alphabet ${\mathcal{A}}=\{00,01,10,11\}$. Let $\pi\colon {\mathcal{A}}^\infty \to C^2$ be the function defined by $$\pi(\epsilon_1\delta_1,\epsilon_2\delta_2,\epsilon_3\delta_3,\ldots) \;=\; (\epsilon_1\epsilon_2\epsilon_3\cdots,\delta_1\delta_2\delta_3\cdots).$$ Given any function $f\colon C^2\to C^2$, let $f^\pi = \pi^{-1}\circ f\circ \pi$ denote the corresponding function ${\mathcal{A}}^\infty \to {\mathcal{A}}^\infty$. [We shall prove that the mapping $f\mapsto f^{\pi}$ defines a monomorphism from $2V$ to ${\mathcal{R}}$.]{}
\[prop:TransducersForParts\]Let $\alpha,\beta\in \{0,1\}^*$, and let $\mu_{\alpha,\beta}\colon C^2\to C^2$ be the function $$\mu_{\alpha,\beta}(\psi,\omega) \;=\; (\alpha\psi,\beta\omega).$$ Then $\mu_{\alpha,\beta}^\pi$ is a rational function.
Suppose that $\alpha \in \{0,1\}$ has length $m$ and $\beta$ has length $n$. Consider the transducer $({\mathcal{A}},{\mathcal{S}},{s}_0,{\tau})$ defined as follows:
- The alphabet ${\mathcal{A}}$ is $\{00,01,10,11\}$.
- The state set ${\mathcal{S}}$ is $\{0,1\}^m\times \{0,1\}^n$.
- The initial state ${s}_0$ is $(\alpha,\beta)$.
- The transition function ${\tau}\colon {\mathcal{S}}\times {\mathcal{A}}\to {\mathcal{S}}\times {\mathcal{A}}^*$ is defined by $${\tau}\bigl((\delta_1\cdots\delta_m,\epsilon_1\cdots\epsilon_n),\delta_{m+1}\epsilon_{n+1}\bigr) = \bigl((\delta_2\cdots\delta_{m+1},\epsilon_2\cdots\epsilon_{n+1}),\delta_1\epsilon_1\bigr).$$
It is easy to check that the rational function defined by this transducer is $\mu_{\alpha,\beta}^\pi$.
If $f\in 2V$, then $f^\pi$ is a rational function.
Let $\{R(\alpha_1,\beta_1),\ldots,R(\alpha_n,\beta_n)\}$ be a dyadic partition of $C^2$ so that $f$ is linear on each $R(\alpha_i,\beta_i)$. By subdividing if necessary, we may assume that all of the strings $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$ and $\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_n$ have the same length. Let $R(\gamma_i,\delta_i) = f\bigl(R(\alpha_i,\beta_i)\bigr)$ for each $i$, and let $\epsilon_i$ be the common initial prefix of $\pi\bigl(R(\alpha_i,\beta_i)\bigr)$. Then $f^\pi$ is given by the formula $$f^\pi(\epsilon_i\omega) \;=\; \mu_{\gamma_i,\delta_i}^\pi(\omega)$$ for each $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ and each $\omega\in\{00,01,10,11\}^*$. By Proposition \[prop:TransducersForParts\], each of the functions $\mu_{\gamma_i,\delta_i}^\pi$ is [rational]{}. By Proposition \[prop:TransducerSplicing\], it follows that $f^\pi$ is [rational]{} as well.
This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:SubgroupOfRationalGroup\], and hence Theorems \[thm:MainTheorem2\] and \[thm:MainTheorem3\].
Allowing Halting
================
In this section, we briefly discuss how to simulate incomplete Turing machines using elements of $2V$, and we sketch the proofs of some further undecidability results. Similar results for general piecewise-affine functions can be found in [@Blond].
Let ${\mathcal{T}}$ be a reversible Turing machine, and let $({s},{\tau})$ be a configuration for ${\mathcal{T}}$.
1. We say that $({s},{\tau})$ is a [*halting configuration*]{} if there does not exist any configuration $({s'},{\tau'})$ such that $({s},{\tau}) \to ({s'},{\tau'})$.
2. We say that $({s},{\tau})$ is an [*inverse halting configuration*]{} if there does not exist any configuration $({s'},{\tau'})$ such that $({s'},{\tau'}) \to ({s},{\tau})$.
A Turing machine that reaches a halting configuration is said to [*halt*]{}.
If ${\mathcal{T}}$ is incomplete, then the transition function $F\colon {\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ on the configuration space is only partially defined, and is injective but not surjective. Specifically, if ${\mathcal{H}}$ is the set of halting configurations and ${\overline{\mathcal{H}}\rule{0pt}{0pt}}$ is the set of inverse halting configurations, then $F$ restricts to a bijection ${\mathcal{H}}^c \to {\overline{\mathcal{H}}\rule{0pt}{0pt}}^c$, where ${\mathcal{H}}^c$ and ${\overline{\mathcal{H}}\rule{0pt}{0pt}}^c$ denote the complements of ${\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\overline{\mathcal{H}}\rule{0pt}{0pt}}$ in the configuration space.
Our construction of the corresponding element ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}\in 2V$ is only a slight modification of the construction from Section \[sec:TuringMachinesIn2V\]. To start, we subdivide $C^2$ into three dyadic rectangles $$R_\zeta = R(0,0),\qquad R_{\mathcal{T}}= R(-,1),\qquad R_\eta = R(1,0),$$ We will use $R_\eta$ and $R_\zeta$ for halting and inverse halting, respectively, while $R_{\mathcal{T}}$ will be used for configurations of the Turing machine.
Now, let $\{{s}_1,\ldots,{s}_m\}$ denote the states of ${\mathcal{T}}$, and let $\{I(\sigma_1),\ldots,I(\sigma_m)\}$ be a corresponding subdivision of $C$, where $\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_m\in\{0,1\}^*$. Similarly, let $\{{a}_1,\ldots,{a}_n\}$ denote the tape symbols for ${\mathcal{T}}$, and let $\{I(\alpha_1),\ldots,I(\alpha_n)\}$ be a corresponding a dyadic subdivision of $C$, where $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n\in\{0,1\}^*$
Let ${\epsilon}\colon {\mathcal{A}}^\infty\to \{0,1\}^\infty$ be encoding function derived from $(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n)$, and let $\Phi\colon {\mathcal{S}}\times{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\to C^2$ be the configuration encoding defined by $$\Phi({s}_i,{\tau}) \;=\; \bigl(\,\sigma_i\,{\epsilon}({\tau}_L),\;1\,{\epsilon}({\tau}_R)\,\bigr)$$ Note that $\Phi$ is no longer surjective—its image is the rectangle $R_{\mathcal{T}}$. Moreover, note that $\Phi({\mathcal{H}})$ and $\Phi({\overline{\mathcal{H}}\rule{0pt}{0pt}})$ are each the union of finitely many dyadic rectangles.
Let ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ be any element of $2V$ that satisfies the following conditions:
1. ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ agrees with $\Phi\circ F\circ \Phi^{-1}$ on $\Phi({\mathcal{H}}^c)$.
2. ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ maps $R_\zeta$ bijectively onto $R_\zeta \cup \Phi({\overline{\mathcal{H}}\rule{0pt}{0pt}})$.
3. ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ maps $\Phi({\mathcal{H}})\cup R_\eta$ bijectively onto $R_\eta$.
Such an element can be constructed effectively. For example, to construct the portion of ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ on $R_\zeta$, we need only enumerate the dyadic rectangles $R_1,\ldots,R_k$ of $\Phi({\overline{\mathcal{H}}\rule{0pt}{0pt}})$, then choose a dyadic subdivision ${\mathcal{D}}$ of $R_\zeta$ into $k+1$ rectangles, and finally choose a one-to-one correspondence between the rectangles of ${\mathcal{D}}$ and $\{R_1,\ldots,R_k,R_\zeta\}$.
The element ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ constructed above simulates the Turing machine ${\mathcal{T}}$, in the sense that the following diagram commutes: $$\xymatrix@R=0.4in@C=0.2in@M=0.5em{
{\mathcal{H}}^c\ar[r]^F\ar[d]_\Phi & {\overline{\mathcal{H}}\rule{0pt}{0pt}}^c\ar[d]^\Phi \\
\Phi({\mathcal{H}}^c) \ar[r]_{{f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}} & \Phi({\overline{\mathcal{H}}\rule{0pt}{0pt}}^c)
}$$ Whenever a configuration halts, ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ maps the corresponding point to $R_\eta$. Similarly, ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ maps points from $R_\zeta$ onto inverse halting configurations to “fill in” the bijection.
Consider the incomplete Turing machine ${\mathcal{T}}$ with two states $\{{s}_1,{s}_2\}$ and two symbols $\{{a}_1,{a}_2\}$, which obeys the following rules:
1. From state ${s}_1$, move the head right and go to state ${s}_2$.
2. From state ${s}_2$, read the input symbol ${\tau}(0)$:
1. If ${\tau}(0) = {a}_1$, then write ${a}_2$ and go back to state ${s}_1$.
2. If ${\tau}(0) = {a}_2$, then halt.
That is, the transition table for ${\mathcal{T}}$ is the set $$\{({s}_1,{\mathsf{R}},{s}_2),({s}_2,{a}_1,{s}_1,{a}_2)\}$$ It is easy to check that ${\mathcal{T}}$ is reversible. The halting configurations for ${\mathcal{T}}$ are $${\mathcal{H}}= {\{ ({s}_2,{\tau}) \mid {\tau}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\text{ and }{\tau}(0) = {a}_2 \}},$$ and the inverse halting configurations are $${\overline{\mathcal{H}}\rule{0pt}{0pt}}= {\{ ({s}_1,{\tau}) \mid {\tau}\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\text{ and }{\tau}(0) = {a}_1 \}}.$$ To make a corresponding element of $2V$, let $(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)=(0,1)$ and $(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=(0,1)$. Then one possible choice for ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ is shown in Figure \[fig:TuringMachineElementHalt\].\[ex:TuringMachineHalt\]
![The element of $2V$ corresponding to the Turing machine in Example \[ex:TuringMachineHalt\]. The subrectangles $R_\zeta$ and $R_\eta$ are shown in gray, while $R_{\mathcal{T}}$ is shown in white.[]{data-label="fig:TuringMachineElementHalt"}](TuringHalt1 "fig:")![The element of $2V$ corresponding to the Turing machine in Example \[ex:TuringMachineHalt\]. The subrectangles $R_\zeta$ and $R_\eta$ are shown in gray, while $R_{\mathcal{T}}$ is shown in white.[]{data-label="fig:TuringMachineElementHalt"}](TuringHalt2 "fig:")
For our purposes, incomplete Turing machines are useful primarily because of their relation to the halting problem. Before we can discuss this, we must restrict ourselves to a class of configurations that can be specified with a finite amount of information. First, we fix a [*blank symbol*]{} ${a}_1$ from ${\mathcal{A}}$, and we define a configuration $({s}_i,{\tau})$ to be [*finite*]{} if the tape ${\tau}$ has the blank symbol in all but finitely many locations. Then any finite configuration $({s}_i,{\tau})$ can be specified using only the state ${s}_i$ and some finite subsequence $\bigl({\tau}(-n),\ldots,{\tau}(n)\bigr)$ of the tape whose complement consists entirely of blank symbols.
Any Turing machine can be effectively simulated by a reversible Turing machine.\[thm:ReversibleUniversal\]
This was proven in [@Bennett1973] for a $3$-tape reversible Turing machine, and improved to a 1-tape, 2-symbol machine in [@MSG].
It is not decidable, given a reversible Turing machine and a finite starting configuration, whether the machine will halt.\[thm:NoHalt\]
This follows immediately from Theorem \[thm:ReversibleUniversal\] and Turing’s Theorem on the unsolvability of the halting problem for general Turing machines.
We wish to interpret this result in the context of $2V$. We begin by defining points in $C^2$ that correspond to finite configurations.
A point $(\psi,\omega)\in C^2$ is [*dyadic*]{} if $\psi$ and $\omega$ have only finitely many $1$’s.
Note that a dyadic point in $C^2$ can be specified with a finite amount of information, namely the initial nonzero subsequences of $\psi$ and $\omega$. Assuming the sequence $\alpha_1$ corresponding to the blank symbol ${a}_1$ is a string of finitely many $0$’s, the dyadic points in $R_{\mathcal{T}}$ are precisely the points that correspond to finite configurations of ${\mathcal{T}}$.
It is not decidable, given an element $f\in 2V$, a dyadic point $p\in C^2$, and a dyadic rectangle $R\subseteq C^2$, whether the orbit of $p$ under $f$ contains a point in $R$.
Let ${\mathcal{T}}$ be a reversible Turing machine, let $({s}_i,{\tau})$ be a starting configuration for ${\mathcal{T}}$, and let ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ be the element constructed above. Then ${\mathcal{T}}$ eventually halts starting at $({s}_i,{\tau})$ if and only if the point $\Phi({s}_i,{\tau})$ eventually maps into the rectangle $R_\eta$ under ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$. By Theorem \[thm:NoHalt\], we cannot decide whether ${\mathcal{T}}$ will halt, so the given problem must be undecidable as well.
It is not decidable, given an element $f\in 2V$ and two dyadic points $p,q\in C^2$, whether the orbit of $p$ under $f$ converges to $q$.\[thm:NoConvergenceCheck\]
Let ${\mathcal{T}}$ be a reversible Turing machine, and let $({s}_i,{\tau})$ be a starting configuration for ${\mathcal{T}}$. Let ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ be the element constructed above, with the function ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ chosen so that ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}(1\psi,0\omega) = {f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}(10\psi,00\omega)$ for $(1\psi,0\omega)\in R_\eta$. Note then that the orbit of every point in $R_\eta$ converges to $(1\overline{0},\overline{0})$. Therefore, ${\mathcal{T}}$ eventually halts starting at $({s}_i,{\tau})$ if and only if the orbit of $\Phi({s}_i,{\tau})$ converges to $(1\overline{0},\overline{0})$. By Theorem \[thm:NoHalt\], we cannot decide whether ${\mathcal{T}}$ will halt, so the given problem must be undecidable as well.
There exists an element $f\in 2V$ with an attracting dyadic fixed point $p\in C^2$ such that $B(p)\cap D$ is a non-computable set, where $B(p)$ is the basin of attraction of $p$ and $D$ is the set of dyadic points in $C^2$.
It follows from Theorem \[thm:ReversibleUniversal\] that there exists a reversible Turing machine ${\mathcal{T}}$ that is computation universal, meaning that it can be used to simulate the operation any other Turing machine. Such a machine has the property that, given a starting configuration $({s}_i,{\tau})$, there does not exist an algorithm to determine whether ${\mathcal{T}}$ halts. (That is, the halting problem is undecidable in the context of this one machine.) If we use this machine to construct an element ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}\in 2V$ as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:NoConvergenceCheck\], then ${f_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathcal{T}}}}$ will have the desired property.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Matthew Brin, Rostislav Grigorchuk, Conchita Martinez-Perez, Francesco Matucci, Volodia Nekrashevich, and Brita Nucinkis for helpful conversations.
[10]{}
A. Akhavi, I. Klimann, S. Lombardy, J. Mairesse, and M. Picantin, *On the finiteness problem for automaton (semi)groups*, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. **22** (2012), no. 6, 1250052, 26. [MR]{}[2974106]{}
S. V. Ale[š]{}in, *Finite automata and the [B]{}urnside problem for periodic groups*, Mat. Zametki **11** (1972), 319–328. [MR]{}[0301107 (46 \#265)]{}
I. Anshel, M. Anshel, and D. Goldfeld, *An algebraic method for public-key crytpography*. Math. Res. Lett. **6** (1999), 287–291.
G. Arzhantseva, J.F. Lafont, and A. Minasyan, *Isomorphism versus commensurability for a class of finitely presented groups*. Preprint (2012), [arXiv:1109.2225v2](http://www.arxiv.org/abs/1109.2225v2).
J. Belk and F. Matucci, *Conjugacy and dynamics in Thompson’s groups*. Preprint (2013), to appear in Geom. Dedicata, [arXiv:0708.4250v4](http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0708.4250v4).
G. Baumslag, W. Boone, and B. Neumann, *Some unsolvable problems about elements and subgroups of groups*. Math. Scand. **7** (1959), 191–201.
C. H. Bennett, *Logical Reversibility of Computation*, IBM J. Res. Dev., **17**, (1973), no. 6, 525–532.
V. Blondel, O. Bournez, P. Koiran, C. Papadimitriou, and J. Tsitsiklis, *Deciding stability and mortality of piecewise affine dynamical systems*. Theoret. Comput. Sci. **255** (2001), 687–696.
I. V. Bondarenko, N. V. Bondarenko, S. N. Sidki, and F. R. Zapata, *On the conjugacy problem for Þnite-state automorphisms of regular rooted trees ([W]{}ith an appendix by [R]{}aphaël [M]{}. [J]{}ungers)*, Groups Geom. Dyn. (2013), no. 7, 1–33, to appear.
M. Brin, *Higher dimensional Thompson groups*. Geom. Dedicata **108** (2004), 163–192, [arXiv:math/0406046](http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math/0406046).
[to3em]{}, *Presentations of higher dimensional [T]{}hompson groups*, J. Algebra **284** (2005), no. 2, 520–558. [MR]{}[2114568 (2007e:20062)]{}
[to3em]{}, *On the baker’s map and the simplicity of the higher dimensional [T]{}hompson groups [$nV$]{}*, Publ. Mat. **54** (2010), no. 2, 433–439. [MR]{}[2675931 (2011g:20038)]{}
J. Burillo and S. Cleary, *Metric properties of higher-dimensional [T]{}hompson’s groups*, Pacific J. Math., **248** (2010), no. 1, 49–62.
M. G. Fluch, M. Marschler, S. Witzel and M. C. B. Zaremsky, *The [B]{}rin-[T]{}hompson groups $sV$ are type ${F}_\infty$*, Pacific J. Math., **266**, (2013), no. 2, 283–295.
P. Gillibert, *The finiteness problem for automaton semigroups is undecidable*, Preprint (2013), 1–7.
V. M. Glu[š]{}kov, *The abstract theory of automata. [I]{}*, Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Fiz. Oszt. Közl. **13** (1963), 287–309. [MR]{}[0158807 (28 \#2030)]{}
R. I. Grigor[č]{}uk, *On [B]{}urnside’s problem on periodic groups*, Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. **14** (1980), no. 1, 53–54. [MR]{}[565099 (81m:20045)]{}
[to3em]{}, *On the [M]{}ilnor problem of group growth*, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR **271** (1983), no. 1, 30–33. [MR]{}[712546 (85g:20042)]{}
R. I. Grigorchuk, V. V. Nekrashevich, and V. I. Sushchanski[ĭ]{}, *Automata, dynamical systems, and groups*, Proc. Steklov Inst. Math **231** (2000), 128–203.
J. Hennig and F. Matucci, *Presentations for the higher-dimensional [T]{}hompson groups [$nV$]{}*, Pacific J. Math. **257** (2012), no. 1, 53–74. [MR]{}[2948458]{}
J. Kari and N. Ollinger, *Periodicity and immortality in reversible computing*. Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (2008), 419–430, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008.
I. Klimann, *The finiteness of a group generated by a 2-letter invertible-reversible [M]{}ealy automaton is decidable*, Preprint (2012), 1–15.
K. Ko, S. Lee, J. Cheon, J. Han, J. Kang, and C. Park, *New public-key cryptosystem using braid groups*. Advances in cryptology–CRYPTO 2000 (Santa Barbara, CA), 166–183, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., 1880, Springer, Berlin, 2000.
D. H. Kochloukova, C. Martinez-Perez, and B. E. A. Nucinkis, *Cohomological finiteness properties of the Brin-Thompson-Higman groups $2V$ and $3V$*, Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc., (to appear).
P. Krka, *On topological dynamics of Turing machines*. Theoret. Comput. Sci. **174** (1997), 203–216.
R. McKenzie and R. J. Thompson. “An elementary construction of unsolvable word problems in group theory.” *Word problems: decision problems and the Burnside problem in group theory* (2000): 457–478.
K. Morita, *Universality of a reversible two-counter machine*. Theoret. Comput. Sci. **168** (1996), 303–320.
K. Morita, A. Shirasaki, and Y. Gono. *A 1-tape 2-symbol reversible Turing machine*. Trans. IEICE **72** (1989), 223–228.
T. Rado. *On non-computable functions*. Bell System Tech. J. **41** (1962), 877–884.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this article, we study constant mean curvature isometric immersions into ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ and ${\mathbb H}^2\times {\mathbb R}$ and we classify these isometric immersions when the surface has constant intrinsic curvature. As applications, we use the sister surface correspondence to classify the constant mean curvature surfaces with constant intrinsic curvature in the $3-$dimensional homogenous manifolds $\mathbb{E}(\kappa, \tau)$ and we use the Torralbo-Urbano correspondence to classify the parallel mean curvature surfaces in ${\mathbb S}^2 \times {\mathbb S}^2$ and ${\mathbb H}^2 \times {\mathbb H}^2$ with constant intrinsic curvature. It is worthwhile to point out that these classifications provide new examples.'
address:
- |
$^1$ Université de Lorraine\
Institut Élie Cartan de Lorraine\
UMR 7502 CNRS, B.P. 70239\
F-54506 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy cedex, France.
- |
$^2$ Universidade Federal de Alagoas\
Instituto de Matemática\
Campus A. C. Simões, BR 104 - Norte, Km 97, 57072-970. Maceió - AL, Brazil.
author:
- Benoît Daniel$^1$
- 'Iury Domingos$^{1,2}$'
- Feliciano Vitório$^2$
bibliography:
- 'ddv.bib'
title: 'Constant mean curvature Isometric Immersions into ${\mathbb S}^2 \times {\mathbb R}$ and ${\mathbb H}^2 \times {\mathbb R}$ and related results'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
This paper deals with the classification of constant mean curvature surfaces and parallel mean curvature surfaces with constant intrinsic curvature in some ambient manifolds. In ${\mathbb R}^3$, it is a classical result that an $H$-constant mean curvature surface with constant intrinsic curvature $K$ is either part of a plane, when $H=0$, or part of a right circular cylinder with $K=0$ or part of a round sphere of radius $1/H$ with $K=H^2$, when $H\neq 0$ (Levi-Civita [@levi-civita37]).
In the 3-space forms ${\mathbb M}^3_c$, surfaces with $H$ and $K$ constants are isoparametric surfaces, that is, the two principal curvatures are constant. In this direction, the first results of local classification in ${\mathbb S}^3_c$ and ${\mathbb H}^3_c$ started with E. Cartan [@Cartan1938] and since then many related results have been obtained. For example, minimal surfaces with constant intrinsic curvature in 3-dimensional space forms $\mathbb{M}^3_{c}$ are either totally geodesic with $K=c$ or a part of the Clifford torus with $K=0$ in ${\mathbb S}^3_c$ (Chen [@Chen72], Lawson [@lawson69]).
In codimension 2, for 4-dimensional space forms $\mathbb{M}^4_{c}$, minimal surfaces with constant intrinsic curvature are either totally geodesics with $K=c$, or a part of Clifford torus with $K=0$ in a totally geodesics ${\mathbb S}^3_c$ of ${\mathbb S}^4_c$, or a part of Veronese surfaces with $K=c/3$ in ${\mathbb S}^4_c$ (Kenmotsu [@kenmotsu83]). For parallel mean curvature surfaces with constant intrinsic curvature in the same ambient manifold either $K=0$ or $K=H^2+c$. If $c\geq0$, then the surface is either a part of product of circles with $K=0$ or a part of 2-sphere with $K=H^2+c$, where $H$ denotes the norm of the mean curvature vector (Hoffman [@hoffman1973]). When the ambient manifold is a complex $2-$dimensional space form ($\mathbb{C}^2$, $\mathbb{CH}^2(c)$, $\mathbb{CP}^2(c)$), parallel mean curvature surfaces with constant intrinsic curvature are either a product of circles, or a cylinder, or a round sphere, or a slant surface or one of the Hirakawa examples (Hirakawa [@hirakawa06gd]).
The aim of the work is to generalize these results to some other ambient homogeneous manifolds.
First, we classify the constant mean curvature surfaces with constant intrinsic curvature in ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ and ${\mathbb H}^2\times {\mathbb R}$ (Theorem \[theo-Kconstante\]). The minimal case has been treated by the first author in [@danielimj15]: either $K=0$ or $K=c$ and the surface is totally geodesic, or $K=c<0$ and the surface is part of an associate surface of the parabolic generalized catenoid in ${\mathbb H}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$. In this paper we consider the non-minimal case. Our study is based on a system of partial differential equations satisfied by the metric, the *angle* and *height functions* of the surface (which holds, more generally, without the condition of constant intrinsic curvature).
We show that apart from the vertical cylinders with $K=0$, there are exactly two examples of $H$-constant mean curvature surfaces in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ with constant intrinsic curvature. Both satisfy the relation $K=4H^2+c<0$. The first one is a surface found in the classification of surfaces whose Abresch-Rosenberg differential vanishes [@abresch2004] and the second one is a helicoidal surface that appears in the study of screw motion surfaces in ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ and ${\mathbb H}^2\times {\mathbb R}$, due to Sa Earp and Toubiana [@saearp2005]; however, it was not explicit there that this surface has both constant intrinsic and mean curvatures.
In particular, this classification provides an example of two CMC isometric immersions of the same Riemannian surface with a same mean curvature and which are not congruent up to an isometric reparametrization; this answers a question by Torralbo and Urbano [@torralbotams12 Remark 1].
As a corollary (Theorem \[theo-Ekappatau\]), using the sister surface correspondence [@danielcmh07], we obtain a classification of CMC surfaces with constant intrinsic curvature in the homogeneous $3$-manifolds $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$, for $\tau \not = 0$ and $\kappa-4\tau^2 \not = 0$. We show that apart from the cases with constant angle functions, we get either a minimal surface in $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$ invariant by parabolic isometries with $K=\kappa$ or one of twin helicoidal surfaces in $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$ with $K=4H^2+\kappa<0$. The first one is a surface found by Peñafiel in [@Penafiel2012] and the second ones are motivated by the study of screw motion surfaces in $\operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}$ in [@penafiel15] of the same author.
Next, as an application of the classification in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ and the results by Torralbo and Urbano [@torralbotams12], we obtain a classification of non-minimal parallel mean curvature (PMC) surfaces with constant intrinsic curvature in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ (Theorems \[thms2s2\] and \[thmh2h2\]). Note that ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ are Kähler-Einstein manifolds and are among the 19 models of geometry in dimension 4 (see for instance [@Wall1986]). In particular, in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ we obtain a new family of such surfaces; for some of them, the group of isometries induced by congruences (i.e., isometries of the ambient manifold) is discrete. Up to our knowledge, this also provides the first examples of PMC surfaces with non identically zero extrinsic normal curvature.
This work is organized as follows: In Section \[section2\], we fix some notations and we recall previous results about surfaces in ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ and ${\mathbb H}^2\times {\mathbb R}$. Moreover, from of study the angle and height functions and compatibility equations obtained in [@danielcmh07 Theorem 3.3], we establish necessary and sufficient conditions for a Riemannian surface to be isometrically immersed as a constant mean curvature surface in ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ or ${\mathbb H}^2\times {\mathbb R}$ (Theorem \[theo1\]). After, we derive an additional order-1 equation using the classical Weitzenböck-Bochner formula.
In Section \[section3\], we suppose that the metric of the surface has constant intrinsic curvature and we consider a function associated to the Abresch-Rosenberg differential. This function satisfies a new differential partial equation that can be reduced to an order-0 equation by the previous results. We get the classification for the $H$-constant mean curvature surfaces in ${\mathbb M}_c^2\times{\mathbb R}$ with constant intrinsic curvature (Theorem \[theo-Kconstante\]).
In Section \[section4\], we give the first application of Theorem \[theo-Kconstante\]. We use the sister surface correspondence [@danielcmh07 Theorem 5.2] to get the classification of $H$-constant mean curvature surfaces in $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$ with constant intrinsic curvature, for $\tau\neq 0$.
Finally, in Section \[sectionpmc\], we use Theorem \[theo-Kconstante\] and the correspondence by Torralbo and Urbano [@torralbotams12] between PMC immersions into ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ and pairs of CMC immersions into ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ to classify PMC surfaces in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ with constant intrinsic curvature. The main difficulty is that the Torralbo-Urbano correspondence relates immersions and not surfaces.
The angle and height functions {#section2}
==============================
We fix real numbers $c$ and $H$ such that $c\neq 0$. Let $\mathbb{M}^2_c$ be the simply connected Riemannian of constant intrinsic curvature $c$, that is, $\mathbb{M}^2_c=\mathbb{S}^2_c$ is the 2-sphere for $c>0$ and $\mathbb{M}^2_c=\mathbb{H}^2_c$ is the hyperbolic plane for $c<0$. For simplicity, we sometimes use the normalization $c=\pm 1$. In this case, ${\mathbb S}^2_{1}={\mathbb S}^2$ and ${\mathbb H}^2_{-1}={\mathbb H}^2$.
\[danieltams09\] Let $(\Sigma,\dif s^2)$ be an oriented simply connected Riemannian surface, $\nabla$ its Riemannian connection and $K$ be the intrinsic curvature of $\dif s^2$. Let $S:\mathrm{T}\Sigma\to \mathrm{T}\Sigma$ be a field of symmetric operators, $T\in \mathcal{X}(\Sigma)$ and $\nu:\Sigma\to[-1,1]$ be a smooth function. Then there is an isometric immersion $f:\Sigma\to{\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$ such that the shape operator with respect to the normal $N$ associated to $f$ is $$\dif f\circ S\circ \dif f^{-1}$$ and such that $$\partial_t=\dif f(T)+\nu N$$ if and only if the 4-uple $(\dif s^2,S,T,\nu)$ satisfies the following equations on $\Sigma$: $$\begin{gathered}
K=\det S+c\nu^2,\tag{C1}\label{C1}\\
\nabla_X SY-\nabla_Y SX-S[X,Y]=c\nu\big(\langle Y,T\rangle X -\langle X,T\rangle Y\big),\tag{C2}\label{C2}\\
\nabla_X T=\nu SX,\tag{C3}\label{C3}\\
\dif\nu(X)+\langle SX, T\rangle=0,\tag{C4}\label{C4}\\
\|T\|^2+\nu^2=1\tag{C5}\label{C5}.\end{gathered}$$
Moreover the immersion is unique up to an isometry of ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$ that preserve both orientations of ${\mathbb M}^2_c$ and $ {\mathbb R}$.
We will say that $(\dif s^2,S,T,\nu)$ are Gauss-Codazzi data of the immersion $f$ and that $\nu$ is its angle function. The height function of $f$ is the map $h=p\circ f$ where $p:{\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ is the projection onto the factor ${\mathbb R}$.
As a first result, we derive from Theorem \[danieltams09\] a system of compatibility equations for $H$-constant mean curvature surfaces in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$ in terms of the angle and height functions. We will say that an isometry of ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$ is horizontal if it is the identity on the factor ${\mathbb R}$.
\[theo1\] Let $\Sigma$ be an $H$-constant mean curvature surface in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$. Then the angle function $\nu: \Sigma\to [-1,1]$ and the height function $h:\Sigma\to {\mathbb R}$ of $\Sigma$ satisfy the following system $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla\nu +H \nabla h\|^2 &= (H^2-K+c\nu^2)(1-\nu^2),\label{M1} \\
\Delta \nu &= (2K -c(1+\nu^2)-4H^2)\nu,\label{M2} \\
\|\nabla h\|^2 &= 1-\nu^2,\label{M3} \\
\Delta h &= 2H\nu,\label{M4}\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ denotes the intrinsic curvature of $\Sigma$.\
Conversely, let $(\Sigma, \dif s^2)$ be an oriented simply connected Riemannian surface, with curvature $K$. Assume that $\nu: \Sigma\to (-1,1)$ and $h:\Sigma\to{\mathbb R}$ are smooth functions satisfying the system of four partial differential equations above. Then there is a $H$-constant mean curvature isometric immersion $f:\Sigma\to {\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$ such that $\nu$ and $h$ are the angle function and the height function of $\Sigma$, respectively. Moreover the immersion is unique up to horizontal isometries of ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$ that preserves the orientation of ${\mathbb M}^2_c$.
Let $\Sigma$ be an $H$-constant mean curvature surface in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$. Let $(\dif s^2,S,T,\nu)$ be the Gauss-Codazzi data on $\Sigma$ and $J$ the rotation of angle $\pi/2$ on $\mathrm{T}\Sigma$. By the symmetry of $S$ and $\operatorname{\mathrm{tr}}S=2H$, a straightforward computation shows that $SJ+JS=2H J$, and the compatibility equation implies that $\nabla \nu = - ST$. Away from the points where $T=0$, we consider the orthonormal frame $\{T/\|T\|,JT/\|T\|\}$. Then $S$ has the form $$S=\frac{1}{\|T\|^2}\begin{pmatrix}
-\dif \nu(T) & -\dif \nu(JT) \\
-\dif \nu(JT) & 2H\|T\|^2+\dif \nu(T)
\end{pmatrix}.$$
For the height function definition we have that $$\dif h(X)=\langle X,\partial_t\rangle, \text{ for every $X\in \mathrm{T}\Sigma$},$$ that is, $T=\nabla h$ and then $$\det S =-\frac{1}{\|T\|^2}\Big(\|\nabla \nu\|^2+
2H\langle\nabla\nu,\nabla h\rangle\Big).$$
Hence, the equations and imply that $$(K-c\nu^2)(1-\nu^2)=-\|\nabla \nu\|^2-2H\langle\nabla\nu,\nabla h\rangle,$$ i.e., holds. When $\nu^2=1$, the right and left sides of are equals to zero, then for this case also holds.
Let $L$ be the Jacobi operator of $\Sigma$, given by $L=\Delta + \|S\|^2 + \overline{\operatorname{\mathrm{Ric}}}(N)$, where $\overline{\operatorname{\mathrm{Ric}}}$ is the Ricci tensor of ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$. Since $\|S\|^2=4H^2-2\det S$ and $\overline{\operatorname{\mathrm{Ric}}} (N)=c(1-\nu^2)$, the equation implies that $$L=\Delta -2K +c(1+\nu^2)+4H^2.$$
On the other hand, as $\partial_t$ is a Killing field and $\nu=\langle \partial_t,N\rangle$ then $L\nu = 0$, so holds.
Since $\nabla h = T$, equation follows directly from equation . Moreover, equation gives that $\nabla_X \nabla h = \nu S X$, which concludes by the definition of divergence, finishing the first assertion. Note that also by equation , if $\nu^2\neq 1$, $T$ satisfies the following equation for every $X\in \mathrm{T}\Sigma$: $$\label{A1}
\nabla_X T= -\frac{\nu}{1-\nu^2}\dif \nu(X)T
-\frac{\nu}{1-\nu^2}\Big(\dif \nu(JX)
+2H\langle T,JX\rangle\Big)JT.$$
We now prove the second part of the theorem. Let $(\Sigma, \dif s^2)$ be a real analytic simply connected Riemannian surface, $\nu: \Sigma\to (-1,1)$ and $h:\Sigma\to{\mathbb R}$ smooth functions on $\Sigma$ satisfying equations , , and .
The vector field $T=\nabla h\in \mathrm{T}\Sigma$ satisfies equation .\
By equation and symmetry of the Hessian of $h$, that is $\langle\nabla_X\nabla h,Y\rangle=\langle\nabla_Y\nabla h,X\rangle$ for every $X, Y\in \mathrm{T}\Sigma$, we have $$\nabla_{\nabla h}\nabla h = -\nu\nabla \nu.$$
Since $\nu^2<1$, considering the orthonormal frame $\{\nabla h /\|\nabla h\|,J\nabla h/\|\nabla h\|\}$, by the symmetry of Hessian of $h$ we have $$\nabla_X \nabla h =
-\frac{\nu}{1-\nu^2}\dif \nu(X)\nabla h
+\frac{1}{1-\nu^2}\langle\nabla_{J\nabla h}\nabla h,X\rangle J \nabla h$$ for every $X\in \mathrm{T}\Sigma$. On the other hand, again by the symmetry of Hessian of $h$ we have $$\nabla_{JX}\nabla h+J\nabla_{X}\nabla h=\Delta h JX, \text{ for every $X\in \mathrm{T}\Sigma.$}$$
Since equation holds, we obtain that $$\nabla_X \nabla h =
-\frac{\nu}{1-\nu^2}\dif \nu(X)\nabla h
-\frac{\nu}{1-\nu^2}\Big(\dif \nu(JX)+2H\langle \nabla h,JX\rangle\Big)J\nabla h,$$ that is, the vector field $\nabla h$ satisfies equation .
Since $T=\nabla h$ does not vanish on $\Sigma$, because $\nu^2<1$, there is a unique symmetric operator $S:\mathrm{T}\Sigma\to \mathrm{T}\Sigma$ with constant trace $2H$, such that $ST=-\nabla \nu$.
We affirm that the 4-uple $(\dif s^2,S,T,\nu)$ is Gauss-Codazzi data on $\Sigma$. To prove this, it is sufficient to show the equations and . This is because is follows of definition of $S$, is the same of and the follows of , when we write any $X\in \mathrm{T}\Sigma$ in the basis $\{\nabla h /\|\nabla h\|,J\nabla h/\|\nabla h\|\}$ and use $\nabla \nu=-ST$.\
In a previous calculation, from the fact that $\nabla \nu=-ST$ and $S$ is a symmetric operator with $\operatorname{\mathrm{tr}}S=2H$, we have shown that $$\det S = -\frac{1}{\|T\|^2}\Big(\|\nabla \nu\|^2+
2H\dif \nu(T)\Big).$$
Using equations and we obtain the Gauss equation , that is, $$K=\det S+c\nu^2.$$
To show equation , it is sufficient to verify for $X=T$ and $Y=JT$. Since the rotation $J$ of angle $\pi/2$ on $\mathrm{T}\Sigma$ commutes with $\nabla_X$, for every $X\in \mathrm{T}\Sigma$, and $SJ+JS=2HJ$, by the equation we get $$[T,JT]=2\nu(JS-HJ)T.$$
By the symmetry of $S$ and $ST=-\nabla\nu$ we have $$\langle S[T,JT],T\rangle=2H\nu\dif \nu(JT).$$
Furthermore, again since the rotation $J$ of angle $\pi/2$ on $\mathrm{T}\Sigma$ commutes with $\nabla_X$, $SJ+JS=2HJ$, $\nabla_T T=-\nu\nabla \nu$ and $ST=-\nabla\nu$, we get $$\nabla_T SJT-\nabla_{JT}ST= -2H\nu J\nabla\nu +J \nabla_T \nabla \nu+\nabla_{JT}\nabla\nu,$$ and, by the symmetry of Hessian of $\nu$ and since $J^2=-\mathrm{I}$, we have $$\langle\nabla_T SJT-\nabla_{JT}ST,T\rangle=2H\nu\dif \nu(JT),$$ then $$\langle\nabla_T SJT-\nabla_{JT}ST-S[T,JT],T\rangle=0.$$
On the other hand, again by the symmetry of $S$, $SJ+JS=2HJ$, $ST=-\nabla\nu$ and the fact that $J$ is an isometry, we have $$\langle S[T,JT],JT\rangle=-2\nu\big(\|\nabla \nu\|^2+3H\dif \nu(T)+2H^2\|T\|^2\big).$$
Moreover, since $J$ is an isometry $$\langle\nabla_T SJT-\nabla_{JT}ST,JT\rangle=\|T\|^2\Delta \nu -2H\nu\dif \nu(T).$$
Then $$\langle\nabla_T SJT-\nabla_{JT}ST-S[T,JT],JT\rangle=\|T\|^2\big(\Delta \nu +4H^2\nu\big) +2\nu\big(\|\nabla \nu\|^2+2H\dif \nu(T)\big)$$ and by equations , and , we obtain $$\langle\nabla_T SJT-\nabla_{JT}ST-S[T,JT],JT\rangle=-c\nu(1-\nu^2)^2.$$
On the other hand, computing $c\nu\big(\langle Y,T\rangle X -\langle X,T\rangle Y\big)$ for $X=T$ and $Y=JT$, respectively, we get $$c\nu\big\langle\langle T,JT\rangle T - \langle T,T\rangle JT, T\big\rangle=0$$ and $$c\nu\big\langle\langle T,JT\rangle T - \langle T,T\rangle JT, JT\big\rangle=-c\nu(1-\nu^2)^2.$$
Thus we showed the Codazzi equation and then $(\dif s^2, S, T, \nu)$ are Gauss-Codazzi data on $U$. Since the operator $S$ and the vector field $T$ are determined in a unique way, the uniqueness follows from Theorem \[danieltams09\] and the fact that the height function is prescribed.
Assuming $\nu^2<1$ for the converse, it is possible to rewrite Theorem \[theo1\] changing the gradient $\nabla h$ by vector field $T$ if the function $\nu$ and the a vector field $T$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla\nu +H T\|^2 &= (H^2-K+c\nu^2)(1-\nu^2), \\
\Delta \nu &= (2K -c(1+\nu^2)-4H^2)\nu, \\
\|T\|^2 &= 1-\nu^2,\\
\operatorname{\mathrm{div}}T &= 2H\nu,\\
\langle\nabla_T T,JT\rangle&=\langle\nabla_{JT}T,T\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ This is because the last equation is equivalent to the fact that the $1-$form $\langle T, \cdot\rangle$ is closed and this is a necessary condition to show that $T$ satisfies equation .
The minimal case has been studied by the first author in [@danielimj15]. He obtained a slightly different result, involving only $\nu$ and equations and .
\[rmksign\] For a fixed $H$, the pair $(\nu,\nabla h)$ satisfies , , and for $H$ if and only if the pair $(-\nu,-\nabla h)$ does for $H$ and the pairs $(\nu,-\nabla h)$ and $(-\nu,\nabla h)$ do for $-H$. The isometric immersions corresponding to the pairs $(\nu,\nabla h)$ and $(-\nu,-\nabla h)$ are the same up to a $\pi$-rotation around a horizontal geodesic of ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$. For the pair $(\nu,-\nabla h)$ (respectively, $(-\nu,\nabla h)$), its correspondent isometric immersion is the same of the isometric immersion correspond to $(\nu,\nabla h)$ up to an isometry of ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ that preserves the orientation of ${\mathbb M}^2_c$ and reverses the orientation of ${\mathbb R}$ (respectively, reverses the orientation of ${\mathbb M}^2_c$ and preserves the orientation of ${\mathbb R}$), see also [@danieltams09 Proposition 3.8].
From Theorem \[theo1\] follows the next result that characterizes $H$-constant mean surfaces in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$ with constant angle function. This result was already proved by Espinar and Rosenberg in [@RosenbergCMH11].
Before that, we consider the smooth function $q:\Sigma\to{\mathbb R}$ introduced by Espinar and Rosenberg, in [@RosenbergCMH11]. This function $q$ is a normalization of the squared norm of the Abresch-Rosenberg differential; it will play an important role in the case of $H$-constant mean curvature surface $\Sigma$ in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$ with constant intrinsic curvature in the next section.
In [@RosenbergCMH11 Lemma 2.2], the authors show that $$\|\nabla\nu\|^2=\frac{4H^2+c-c\nu^2}{4c}(4(H^2-K+c\nu^2)+c(1-\nu^2))-\frac{q}{c}.$$
Combining this relation and Theorem \[theo1\], we can see that $q$ satisfies $$\label{definition-q}
q=2Hc\langle \nabla \nu,\nabla h\rangle + 4H^2(H^2-K+c\nu^2) +2H^2c(1-\nu^2)+ \frac{c^2}{4}(1-\nu^2)^2.$$
The simplest examples of $H$-CMC surfaces in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ are the horizontal surfaces and the vertical cylinders over curves of constant geodesic curvature.
Given $a\in {\mathbb R}$, then ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times\{a\}$ is a totally geodesic surface in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ (then $H=0$) with intrinsic curvature $K=c$. The height function is constant and, since the normal vector $N$ of ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times\{a\}$ is parallel to $\partial_t$ and both are unitary vectors, the angle function $\nu$ satisfies $\nu^2=1$, in particular it is constant.
Let $\gamma\subset{\mathbb M}^2_c$ be a curve with constant geodesic curvature $k$. Then $\gamma\times{\mathbb R}$ is a $(k/2)$-CMC surface in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ with intrinsic curvature $K=0$. Since the normal vector $N$ of $\gamma\times{\mathbb R}$ is orthogonal to $\partial_t$, then the angle function vanishes and the gradient of the height function is a principal direction of $\Sigma$ by equation and $2H=k$.
\[exarlsurf\] Abresch and Rosenberg [@abresch2004] classified CMC surfaces with vanishing Abresch-Rosenberg differential. In particular, when $c<0$ they proved that, for each $H$ such that $0<4H^2<-c$, there exists a unique $H$-CMC surface $P_H$ in ${\mathbb H}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ invariant by parabolic isometries such that its Abresch-Rosenberg differential vanishes. Moreover, Leite [@Leite2007] proved that $P_H$ has constant intrinsic curvature $K=4H^2+c$. We note that, in the limit, $P_H$ is a horizontal surface of ${\mathbb H}^2\times {\mathbb R}$ when $H\to 0$ and a vertical cylinder of ${\mathbb H}^2\times {\mathbb R}$ when $4H^2\to -c$.
In this work, we say that $P_{H}$ is an Abresch-Rosenberg-Leite surface, abbreviated ARL-surface. In the Abresch-Rosenberg classification of surfaces with vanishing Abresch-Rosenberg differential, we can also see that ARL-surfaces are the only ones that the angle function $\nu$ is constant with $0<\nu^2<1$. More explicitly, the ARL-surfaces $P_H$ have the following properties:
- The constant mean curvature $H$ satisfies $0<4H^2< -c$.
- $P_H$ has constant intrinsic curvature $K=4H^2+c$.
- The function $q$ vanishes identically on $P_H$.
- The function $\nu$ is constant on $P_H$, satisfying $\nu^2=\frac{4H^2+c}{c}\in(0,1)$.
- $P_H$ is foliated by horizontal horocycles of principal curvature $2H$ orthogonally crossed by geodesics in ${\mathbb H}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$.
In [@torralbotams12], Torralbo and Urbano gave a conformal parametrization of the ARL-surfaces, found earlier by Leite in [@Leite2007]. Considering the hyperbolic plane model $\big((-\pi/2,\pi/2)\times{\mathbb R},\frac{1}{-K\cos^2x}(\dif x^2+\dif y^2)\big)$, in [@torralbotams12 Example 4] it is shown that the height function is given by $$h(x,y)=\frac{2H}{\sqrt{-K}}(y-\log\cos{x}).$$
For future computations, we consider the following change of coordinates: $$(x,y)\mapsto z=\frac{i e^{-(y+ix)}}{\sqrt{-K}}.$$
This is a diffeomorphism between $\big(-\pi/2,\pi/2)\times{\mathbb R}$ and $\{z\in{\mathbb C}: {\mathrm{Im}(z)}>0\}$. The metric $\frac{1}{-K\cos^2x}(\dif x^2+\dif y^2)$ is rewrite as $$\dif s^2=\frac{4}{K(z-\overline{z})^2}|\dif z|^2,$$ and height function in the complex parameter $z$ is given by $$h(z)=-\frac{2H}{\sqrt{-K}}\log\Big(\frac{\sqrt{-K}}{2i}(z-\overline{z})\Big).$$
\[corollary1\] Let $\Sigma$ be an $H$-constant mean curvature surface in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$. If the angle function $\nu: \Sigma\to [-1,1]$ is constant then
- either $\nu^2=1$, $K=c$, $H=0$ and $\Sigma$ is part of a horizontal surface ${\mathbb M}_c^2\times \{a\},$ for some $a\in {\mathbb R}$,
- or $\nu = 0$, $K=0$ and $\Sigma$ is part of a vertical cylinder $\gamma\times{\mathbb R}$, where $\gamma\subset {\mathbb M}_c^2$ is a curve of geodesic curvature $2H$,
- or $0<\nu^2< 1$, $K=4H^2+c <0$ and $\Sigma$ is part of an ARL-surface.
Assume that $\nu^2=1$. Then implies $K=c+2H^2$ and implies that $T=0$, that is, the height function $h$ is constant on $\Sigma$, and so $H=0$, by . Hence $\Sigma$ is part of a horizontal surface ${\mathbb M}_c^2\times \{a\}$ of curvature $K=c$, for some $a\in {\mathbb R}$.
Assume that $\nu = 0$. Then equation implies that $K=0$. On the other hand, $\partial_t= T$, that is, the vertical vector is tangent to $\Sigma$ and it is a principal direction of $\Sigma$, by the equation . Then the other principal direction has eigenvalue $2H$, that is, $\Sigma$ is part of a vertical cylinder $\gamma\times {\mathbb R}$, where $\gamma\subset {\mathbb M}_c^2$ has geodesic curvature $2H$.
Assume that $0<\nu^2<1$. Then equations and imply $K=c\nu^2$. By , we obtain the following equation $$\label{eqcor1}
c(1-\nu^2)+4H^2=0.$$
Note that there is no solution to if $H=0$ or $c>0$. Then we have $c<0$ and $K=4H^2+c$. Moreover $c<K<0$ because $0<\nu^2<1$. Since $\nu$ constant and $K=c\nu^2$, again by equations and we get that the function $q$ vanishes on $\Sigma$; therefore $\Sigma$ is part of an ARL-surface.
The following result will be useful to future computations.
\[corollary2\] Let $\Sigma$ be an $H$-constant mean curvature surface in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$. The function $\phi=\nu+Hh$ is constant if and only if $\Sigma$ is either part of a minimal horizontal surface ${\mathbb M}_c^2\times \{a\}$, for some $a\in {\mathbb R}$, or part of a minimal vertical cylinder $\gamma\times{\mathbb R}$, where $\gamma$ is a geodesic of ${\mathbb M}_c^2$.
If $\phi=\nu+Hh$ is a constant function on $\Sigma$ then $(H^2-K+c\nu^2)(1-\nu^2)=0$ and $\nu\big(2K-c(1+\nu^2)-2H^2\big)=0$. Then from , and we get a system of two algebraic equations on $\nu$: $$\begin{aligned}
&(H^2-K+c\nu^2)(1-\nu^2)= 0, \\
&\nu\big(-2(H^2-K+c\nu^2)-c(1-\nu^2)\big)=0.\end{aligned}$$
At the points where $0<\nu^2<1$, the first equation of the system above implies $H^2-K+c\nu^2=0$; then replacing this in the second one we have $-c(1-\nu^2)=0$, which cannot occur because $c\neq0$. Then $|\nu|$ does not take values in the interval $(0,1)$. Then, by connectedness and continuity, either $\nu^2=1$ or $\nu=0$ and then $\Sigma$ is part of a horizontal surface in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ or $\Sigma$ is part of a vertical cylinder $\gamma\times{\mathbb R}$, where $\gamma\subset {\mathbb M}_c^2$, respectively.
For the minimality of $\Sigma$, note that if $\nu^2=1$, Corollary \[corollary1\] implies that $K=c$ and $H=0$. If $\nu=0$, Corollary \[corollary1\] implies that $K=0$, and by the first equation of the system above we get $H=0$.
Conversely, if $\Sigma$ is a minimal horizontal surface, then the unit normal $N$ is in the same direction of $\partial_t$. If $\Sigma$ is a minimal vertical cylinder over a geodesic of ${\mathbb M}^2_c$, then the unit normal $N$ is orthogonal to $\partial_t$. Then both cases imply that $\nu$ is constant on $\Sigma$. Since $\Sigma$ is minimal surface, $\phi$ is a constant function on $\Sigma$.
Let $\Sigma$ be an $H$-constant mean curvature surface in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$ with Gauss-Codazzi data $(\dif s^2, S, T, \nu)$. Consider a local orthonormal frame $\{e_1,e_2\}$ on $\Sigma$ such that $Je_1=e_2$ where $J$ is the rotation of angle $\pi/2$ on $\mathrm{T}\Sigma$.
Given a smooth function $f:\Sigma\to{\mathbb R}$ on $\Sigma$, we will set $$f_i=\langle \nabla f,e_i \rangle
\text{ \ and \ } f_{ij}=(\nabla^2 f)(e_i,e_j),$$ where $\nabla^2 f$ is the symmetric Hessian 2-tensor of $f$. Then if $\nu$ and $h$ are the angle function and height function of $\Sigma$, respectively, setting $\phi=\nu+Hh$ we found the following system of two partial differential equations from Theorem \[theo1\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_1^2+\phi_2^2 &= -(1-\nu^2)(K-c\nu^2-H^2),\label{N1} \\
\phi_{11}+\phi_{22} &= \big(2K -c(1+\nu^2)-2H^2\big)\nu.\label{N2}\end{aligned}$$
\[lemma1\] The function $\phi$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E1}
2\phi_{12}\|\nabla\phi\|^2 &= (1-\nu^2)(6c\nu\phi_1\phi_2-K_1\phi_2-K_2\phi_1) \\
&\quad +2H\nu(H^2-K-c+2c\nu^2)(h_1\phi_2+h_2\phi_1)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E2}
(\phi_{11}-\phi_{22})\|\nabla\phi\|^2 &= (1-\nu^2)\big(3c\nu(\phi_1^2-\phi_2^2)-K_1\phi_1+K_2\phi_2\big) \\
&\quad +2H\nu(H^2-K-c+2c\nu^2)(h_1\phi_1-h_2\phi_2).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Differentiating with respect to $e_1$ and $e_2$, we have
$$\begin{aligned}
2(\phi_1\phi_{11}+\phi_2\phi_{12}) &= 2\big(K-H^2+c(1-2\nu^2)\big)\nu\nu_1-(1-\nu^2)K_1\label{lemma1.1}, \\
2(\phi_1\phi_{12}+\phi_2\phi_{22}) &= 2\big(K-H^2+c(1-2\nu^2)\big)\nu\nu_2-(1-\nu^2)K_2.\label{lemma1.2}\end{aligned}$$
Making $\phi_2\eqref{lemma1.1}+\phi_1\eqref{lemma1.2}$ and using we obtain . In an analogous way, making $\phi_1\eqref{lemma1.1}-\phi_2\eqref{lemma1.2}$ we find $$\begin{gathered}
2(\phi^2_1\phi_{11}-\phi^2_2\phi_{22})= 2\big(K-H^2+c(1-2\nu^2)\big)\nu(\phi_1^2-\phi_2^2)-(1-\nu^2)(K_1\phi_1-K_2\phi_2)\\
\quad +2H\nu\big(K-H^2+c(1-2\nu^2)\big)(\phi_1h_1-\phi_2h_2).\end{gathered}$$
Since $$2(\phi^2_1\phi_{11}-\phi^2_2\phi_{22})=(\Delta \phi)(\phi_1^2-\phi_2^2)+(\phi_{11}-\phi_{22})\|\nabla \phi\|^2,$$ we get , using .
\[Prop.Bochner\] The functions $\nu$ and $h$ satisfy $$\begin{gathered}
0 = (H^2-K+c\nu^2)\Delta K+\|\nabla K\|^2-6c\nu\langle\nabla K,\nabla \nu\rangle-2Hc\nu\langle\nabla K,\nabla h\rangle\nonumber\\
\quad+6Hc(H^2-K-c\nu^2)\langle\nabla \nu,\nabla h\rangle+4H^2c\nu^2(H^2-K-2c+3c\nu^2)\label{M5}\\
\quad-4(H^2-K+c\nu^2)(K-c-H^2)(K+2c\nu^2).\nonumber\end{gathered}$$
If $\phi$ is constant on a non empty open set of $\Sigma$, then by analyticity $\phi$ is constant on $\Sigma$. By Corollary \[corollary2\], $\nu$ and $K$ are constant functions on $\Sigma$, $H=0$ and $H^2-K+c\nu^2=0$, so holds.
From now on, we assume that $\phi$ is not a constant function on $\Sigma$. By analyticity, it is sufficient to prove equation on a non empty set $U\subset \Sigma$ on which $\nabla \phi$ does not vanish. Restricting $U$ if necessary, we can consider an orthonormal frame $\{e_1,e_2\}$ on $U$ and assume all the previous notations. The classical Weitzenböck-Bochner formula reads as $$\label{bochner}
\frac{1}{2}\Delta\|\nabla\phi\|^2=\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\Delta \phi\rangle+\|\nabla^2\phi\|^2+K\|\nabla \phi\|^2.$$ Note that the Hessian term can be written $$\|\nabla^2 \phi\|^2=\frac{1}{2}(\Delta \phi)^2+\frac{1}{2}(\phi_{11}-\phi_{22})^2+2\phi_{12}^2.$$
Then by Lemma \[lemma1\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
2\|\nabla \phi\|^4\|\nabla^2\phi\|^2 &= \|\nabla \phi\|^4(\Delta\phi)^2\\
&\quad+(1-\nu^2)^2\|\nabla \phi\|^2\Big\{9c^2\nu^2\|\nabla \phi\|^2+\|\nabla K\|^2-6c\nu\langle\nabla K,\nabla \phi\rangle\Big\}\\
&\quad-4H\nu(1-\nu^2)\|\nabla \phi\|^2(H^2-K-c+2c\nu^2)\langle\nabla K,\nabla h\rangle\\
&\quad+12cH\nu^2(1-\nu^2)\|\nabla \phi\|^2(H^2-K-c+2c\nu^2)\langle\nabla \phi,\nabla h\rangle\\
&\quad+4H^2\nu^2(1-\nu^2)\|\nabla \phi\|^2(H^2-K-c+2c\nu^2)^2.\end{aligned}$$
Dividing the expression above by $(1-\nu^2)\|\nabla\phi\|^2$ and using we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{WB-1}
2(H^2-K+c\nu^2)\|\nabla^2\phi\|^2 &= (H^2-K+c\nu^2)(\Delta\phi)^2\nonumber\\
&\quad+(1-\nu^2)\Big\{9c^2\nu^2\|\nabla \phi\|^2+\|\nabla K\|^2-6c\nu\langle\nabla K,\nabla \phi\rangle\Big\}\nonumber\\
&\quad-4H\nu(H^2-K-c+2c\nu^2)\langle\nabla K,\nabla h\rangle\\
&\quad+12cH\nu^2(H^2-K-c+2c\nu^2)\langle\nabla \nu,\nabla h\rangle\nonumber\\
&\quad+4H^2\nu^2(H^2-K-c+2c\nu^2)(H^2-K-c\nu^2+2c).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
By equation , and since $\Delta\nu^2=2(\nu\Delta\nu+\|\nabla\nu\|^2)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{1}{2}\Delta\|\nabla \phi\|^2 &=\frac{1}{2}(1-\nu^2)\Delta K-2\nu\langle \nabla K,\nabla\nu\rangle\\
&\quad+(H^2-K-c+2c\nu^2)\nu\Delta\nu+(H^2-K-c+6c\nu^2)\|\nabla\nu\|^2,\end{aligned}$$ and by equation $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\Delta\phi\rangle &= 2\nu\langle\nabla K,\nabla\nu\rangle+2H\nu\langle\nabla K,\nabla h\rangle+(-2H^2+2K-c-3c\nu^2)\|\nabla\nu\|^2\\
&\quad+H(-2H^2+2K-c-3c\nu^2)\langle\nabla\nu,\nabla h\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
Since equation implies $K\|\nabla\phi\|^2=K(H^2-K+c\nu^2)(1-\nu^2)$ and equation implies $\|\nabla\nu\|^2=(-K+c\nu^2)(1-\nu^2)-2H\langle\nabla\nu,\nabla h\rangle$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{1}{2}\Delta\|\nabla \phi\|^2+ \langle\nabla\phi,\nabla\Delta\phi\rangle+K\|\nabla\phi\|^2&=\frac{1}{2}(1-\nu^2)\Delta K+(H^2-K-c+2c\nu^2)\nu\Delta\nu \\
&\quad+(-H^2+K-2c+3c\nu^2)(-K+c\nu^2)(1-\nu^2)\\
&\quad+3Hc(1-3\nu^2)\langle\nabla\nu,\nabla h\rangle+2H\nu\langle\nabla K,\nabla h\rangle\\
&\quad+K(H^2-K+c\nu^2)(1-\nu^2).\end{aligned}$$
Multiplying the expression above by $2(H^2-K+c\nu^2)$ and using , the Weitzenböck-Bochner formula implies that $$\begin{gathered}
0 =(1-\nu^2)\Big\{(H^2-K+c\nu^2)\Delta K+\|\nabla K\|^2-6c\nu\langle\nabla K,\nabla \phi\rangle+4Hc\nu\langle\nabla K,\nabla h\rangle\Big\}\\
\quad +6Hc(1-\nu^2)(H^2-K-c\nu^2)\langle\nabla\nu,\nabla h\rangle+\|\nabla\phi\|^2\Big\{9c^2\nu^2(1-\nu^2)\\
\quad+2(-K+c\nu^2)(-H^2+K-2c+3c\nu^2)+2K(H^2-K+c\nu^2) \Big\}\\
\quad +(H^2-K+c\nu^2)(\Delta \phi)^2+2(H^2-K+c\nu^2)(H^2-K-c+2c\nu^2)\nu\Delta\nu\\
\quad +4H^2\nu^2(H^2-K-c+2c\nu^2)(H^2-K-c\nu^2+2c).\end{gathered}$$
Since $\nabla \phi=\nabla\nu +H\nabla h$, observing that $(H^2-K-c\nu^2+2c)=(H^2-K+c\nu^2)+2c(1-\nu^2)$, we get $$\begin{gathered}
0 =(1-\nu^2)\Big\{(H^2-K+c\nu^2)\Delta K+\|\nabla K\|^2-6c\nu\langle\nabla K,\nabla \nu\rangle-2Hc\nu\langle\nabla K,\nabla h\rangle\Big\}\\
+6Hc(1-\nu^2)(H^2-K-c\nu^2)\langle\nabla\nu,\nabla h\rangle+\|\nabla\phi\|^2\Big\{9c^2\nu^2(1-\nu^2)\\
\quad+2(-K+c\nu^2)(-H^2+K-2c+3c\nu^2)+2K(H^2-K+c\nu^2)\\
\quad +3c\nu^2(2H^2-2K+c+2c\nu^2) \Big\}+8H^2c\nu^2(1-\nu^2)(H^2-K-c+2c\nu^2).\end{gathered}$$
Dividing by $(1-\nu^2)$ and using we get equation .
CMC surfaces with constant intrinsic curvature {#section3}
==============================================
Minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ with constant intrinsic curvature were classified in [@danielimj15 Theorem 4.2]: such a surface is either totally geodesic or part of an associate surface of the parabolic generalized catenoid (a certain limit of catenoids). Regarding the non minimal case, Corollary \[corollary1\] provides some examples of $H$-constant mean curvature surfaces in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ with constant intrinsic curvature, with $H\neq 0$. We will see next that these are not the only ones in ${\mathbb H}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$.
This new example is based on the work [@saearp2005] by Sa Earp and Toubiana, where they study $H$-constant mean curvature screw motion surfaces in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ and ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb R}$.
\[helicoid\] Up to scaling, suppose that $c=-1$. Consider the Poincaré disk model for ${\mathbb H}^2$. Let $K$ and $H$ be real numbers such that $H\neq 0$ and $K=4H^2-1<0$. Let $X:{\mathbb R}^2\to{\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ be the screw motion immersion given by $$\label{screwmotion-X}
X(\sigma,\tau)=\Big(\tanh\frac{\rho(\sigma)}{2} \cos\varphi(\sigma,\tau),\tanh\frac{\rho(\sigma)}{2}\sin\varphi(\sigma,\tau),\lambda(\sigma)+\varphi(\sigma,\tau)\Big),$$ where the functions $\rho$, $\lambda$ and $\varphi$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(\sigma)&=\operatorname{\mathrm{acosh}}\Big(\frac{\cosh(\sqrt{-K}\sigma)}{\sqrt{-K}}\Big),\\
\lambda(\sigma)&= 2H\sigma+\arctan\Big(\frac{e^{2\sqrt{-K}\sigma}+2K+1}{4H\sqrt{-K}}\Big),\\
\varphi(\sigma,\tau)&=\sqrt{-K}\tau-\arctan\Big(\frac{e^{2\sqrt{-K}\sigma}+2K+1}{4H\sqrt{-K}}\Big).\end{aligned}$$
The height function is $$\begin{aligned}
h(\sigma,\tau) &=\lambda(\sigma)+ \varphi(\sigma,\tau)\nonumber\\
&=2H\sigma+\sqrt{-K}\tau.\label{h-helicoid}\end{aligned}$$
We compute $$\rho'(\sigma)=\frac{\sqrt{-K}\sinh(\sqrt{-K}\sigma)}{\sqrt{\cosh^2(\sqrt{-K}\sigma)+K}}$$ and $$\lambda'(\sigma)=2H\frac{\cosh^2(\sqrt{-K\sigma})}{\cosh^2(\sqrt{-K\sigma})+K}.$$
By [@saearp2005 Proposition 9] with $l=1$ we have that, choosing the appropiate orientation, the angle function is $$\begin{aligned}
\nu(\sigma) &= \frac{\sinh\rho(\sigma)}{\sqrt{1+\sinh^2\rho(\sigma)+(\lambda'(\sigma)/\rho'(\sigma))^2\sinh^2\rho(\sigma)}}\nonumber \\
&= \sqrt{-K}\tanh(\sqrt{-K}\sigma)\label{nu-helicoid},\end{aligned}$$ and we also compute $$\frac{(\lambda'(\sigma)/\rho'(\sigma))\sinh^2\rho(\sigma)}{\sqrt{1+\sinh^2\rho(\sigma)+(\lambda'(\sigma)/\rho'(\sigma))^2\sinh^2\rho(\sigma)}}
=\frac{2H}{\sqrt{-K}}\cosh(\sqrt{-K}\sigma).$$
Hence the first formula of [@saearp2005 Lemma 11] implies that $X({\mathbb R}^2)$ has constant mean curvature $H$. Moreover, we see that equation $(\ast)$ in that lemma is satisfied for $d=0$ (see Figures 11 and 12 in [@saearp2005 Theorem 17] for pictures of this surface).
Next, a straightforward computation shows that the induced metric $\dif s^2$ on $X({\mathbb R}^2)$ is $$\dif s^2=\dif\sigma^2+\cosh^2(\sqrt{-K}\sigma)\dif\tau^2\label{metric-helicoid}.$$ By standard arguments, we obtain that this metric is complete and has intrinsic curvature $K$. Note that this surface when $H>0$ is the surface obtained in Theorem 19 in [@saearp2005] for $a=\sqrt{-K}$, $m=1/a$, $l=1$ and $U(\sigma)=\cosh(a\sigma)$.
Therefore, given $H\in{\mathbb R}$ satisfying $0<4H^2<1$, there is an $H$-constant mean curvature isometric immersion of ${\mathbb R}^2$ endowed with the metric into ${\mathbb H}^2\times {\mathbb R}$, with constant intrinsic curvature $K=4H^2-1$, such that the angle and height functions are given by and , respectively.
To find conformal coordinates, we consider the following change of coordinates on ${\mathbb R}^2$ for a complex parameter $z$: $$(\sigma,\tau)\mapsto z=e^{-\sqrt{-K}\tau}\Big(\tanh(\sqrt{-K}\sigma)+i \operatorname{\mathrm{sech}}(\sqrt{-K}\sigma)\Big).$$
This is a diffeomorphism between ${\mathbb R}^2$ and $\{z\in{\mathbb C}: {\mathrm{Im}(z)}>0\}$. The metric reads as $$\dif s^2=\frac{4}{K(z-\overline{z})^2}|\dif z|^2.$$
We compute the angle and height functions above, and , in the complex parameter by $$\nu(z)=
\frac{\sqrt{-K}}{2|z|}(z+\overline{z})$$ and $$h(z)=\frac{2H}{\sqrt{-K}}\operatorname{\mathrm{asinh}}\frac{i(z+\overline{z})}{z-\overline{z}}-\log|z|.$$
Let $\Sigma$ be an $H$-constant mean curvature surface in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$; we recall the smooth function $q:\Sigma\to{\mathbb R}_+$ defined on $\Sigma$ as before by $$q=2Hc\langle \nabla \nu,\nabla h\rangle + 4H^2(H^2-K+c\nu^2) +2H^2c(1-\nu^2)+ \frac{c^2}{4}(1-\nu^2)^2.$$
Since the Abresch-Rosenberg differential is holomorphic, $q$ either has isolated zeroes or vanishes identically. Moreover, away from its zeroes, it is proved in [@RosenbergCMH11] that the function $q$ satisfies the following equation $$\Delta \log q = 4K$$ i.e., $$\label{Delta.log.q}
4Kq^2=q\Delta q-\|\nabla q\|^2.$$ Therefore, this equation holds by continuity on the isolated zeroes of $q$, and also when $q$ vanishes identically.
If $H\neq 0$, when $\Sigma$ has constant mean curvature $H$ and also constant intrinsic curvature $K$, Proposition \[Prop.Bochner\] reads as $$2Hcr\langle \nabla \nu,\nabla h\rangle+W=0$$ where $$W=4H^2c\nu^2(H^2-K-2c+3c\nu^2)-4(H^2-K+c\nu^2)(K-c-H^2)(K+2c\nu^2)$$ and $$r=3(H^2-K-c\nu^2).$$
Note that the condition $r= 0$ implies that $\nu$ is a constant function on $\Sigma$ and then $\Sigma$ is characterized by Corollary \[corollary1\]. Then restricting in an open set of $\Sigma$ where $r\neq 0$, by Proposition \[Prop.Bochner\] we can written the function $q$ as $$q=\frac{p}{r}$$ where $p$ is defined by $$p=-W+ r\Big(4H^2(H^2-K+c\nu^2) +2H^2c(1-\nu^2)+\frac{c^2}{4}(1-\nu^2)^2\Big).$$
Since $K$, $H$ and $c$ are constants, the functions $W$, $p$ and $r$ are polynomials of $\nu$ on $\Sigma$. In the next lemma, we transform equation .
\[Delta.log.beta\] Let $H\neq 0$, $\Sigma$ be an $H$-constant mean curvature surface in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$ with constant intrinsic curvature $K$ and $U\subseteq \Sigma$ be an open set on which $r\neq 0$. If $K\neq 4H^2+c$, there is an even polynomial $g$ with degree $18$, such that $g\circ\nu=0$ on $U$.
In the open set $U\subseteq \Sigma$, since $rq=p$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
r^4q\Delta q&= r^2p\Delta p-p^2r\Delta r -2p\langle r\nabla p -p\nabla r,\nabla r\rangle,\\
r^4\|\nabla q\|^2 &= r^2\|\nabla p\|^2-2p\langle r\nabla p - p\nabla r,\nabla r\rangle-p^2\|\nabla r\|^2.\end{aligned}$$
Subtracting the equations above, multiplying by $r$ and using equation we get $$\label{M6}
4Kp^2r^3-p r^2(r\Delta p)+r^2(r\|\nabla p\|^2)-p^2(r\|\nabla r\|^2)+p^2r(r\Delta r)=0.\\$$
Note that the quantities between parentheses in $\eqref{M6}$ are all polynomial of $\nu$. In fact, if $f\in \mathcal{C}^\infty (\Sigma)$ is an even polynomial of $\nu$ of degree at most 6, given by $$f= f_0+f_2\nu^2+f_4\nu^4+f_6\nu^6,$$ where $f_i$ are constants, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla f\|^2 &=\nu^2(2f_2+4f_4\nu^2+6f_6\nu^4)^2\|\nabla\nu\|^2\\
\Delta f &=f_2\Delta\nu^2+f_4\Delta\nu^4+f_6\Delta\nu^6\\
&=(2f_2+4f_4\nu^2+6f_6\nu^4)\nu\Delta\nu+(2f_2+12f_4\nu^2+30f_6\nu^4)\|\nabla \nu\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, since $2Hcr\langle \nabla \nu,\nabla h\rangle+W=0$, by equation we have $$\begin{aligned}
r\|\nabla\nu\|^2 &= r(-K+c\nu^2)(1-\nu^2)+\frac{1}{c}W\\
&= \Big[-Kr_0+\frac{1}{c}W_0\Big]
+\Big[(K+c)r_0-Kr_2+\frac{1}{c}W_2\Big]\nu^2\\
&\quad+\Big[-cr_0+(K+c)r_2+\frac{1}{c}W_4\Big]\nu^4-cr_2\nu^6\end{aligned}$$ and $$\nu\Delta\nu=(2K-4H^2-c)\nu^2-c\nu^4.$$
With these expressions we can see that equation has degree at most 20 in $\nu$, and now we proceeds to compute its coefficients of degrees 20 and 18.
For the term $4Kp^2r^3$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(4Kp^2r^3)_{20} &= 0, \\
(4Kp^2r^3)_{18} &= 4Kp_6^2r_2^3.\end{aligned}$$
For the term $-p r^2(r\Delta p)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(-p r^2(r\Delta p))_{20}=& -6p_6^2r_2^3(\nu\Delta\nu)_4-30p_6^2r_2^2(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6, \\
(-p r^2(r\Delta p))_{18}=&
-p_6r_2^2\big(6p_6r_0(\nu\Delta\nu)_4+4p_4r_2(\nu\Delta\nu)_4+6p_6r_2(\nu\Delta\nu)_2\\
&+12p_4(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6+30p_6(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_4\big)\\
&-2p_6r_0r_2\big(6p_6r_2(\nu\Delta\nu)_4+30p_6(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6\big)\\
&-p_4r^2_2\big(6p_6r_2(\nu\Delta\nu)_4+30p_6(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6\big).\end{aligned}$$
For the term $r^2(r\|\nabla p\|^2)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(r^2(r\|\nabla p\|^2))_{20}&= 36p_6^2r_2^2 (r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6,\\
(r^2(r\|\nabla p\|^2))_{18}&= 72p_6^2r_0r_2 (r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6+r_2^2\big(36p_6^2 (r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_4+48p_4p_6r_2^2 (r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6\big).\end{aligned}$$
For the term $-p^2(r\|\nabla r\|^2)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(-p^2(r\|\nabla r\|^2))_{20}=&-4p_6^2r_2^2(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6,\\
(-p^2(r\|\nabla r\|^2))_{18}=&-4p_6^2r_2^2(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_4-8p_4p_6r_2^2(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6.\end{aligned}$$
And finally, for the term $p^2r(r\Delta r)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(p^2r(r\Delta r))_{20} &= p_6^2r_2\big(2r_2^2(\nu\Delta\nu)_4+2r_2(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6\big)\\
(p^2r(r\Delta r))_{18} &= p_6^2r_2\big(2r_0r_2(\nu\Delta\nu)_4+2r_2^2(\nu\Delta\nu)_2+2r_2(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_4\big)\\
&\quad +p_6^2r_0\big(2r_2^2(\nu\Delta\nu)_4+2r_2(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6\big)\\
&\quad +2p_4p_6r_2\big(2r_2^2(\nu\Delta\nu)_4+2r_2(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6\big).\end{aligned}$$
Summing all these terms of order 20 and 18, we get respectively $$\eqref{M6}_{20}=4p_6^2r_2^2\big((r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6-r_2(\nu\Delta\nu)_4\big),$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\eqref{M6}_{18}=4Kp_6^2r_2^3-14p_6^2r_0r_2^2(\nu\Delta\nu)_4-6p_4p_6r_2^3(\nu\Delta\nu)_4-4p_6^2r_2^3(\nu\Delta\nu)_2\\
+14p_6^2r_0r_2(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6+2p_4p_6r_2^2(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6+4p_6^2r_2^2(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_4.\end{gathered}$$
Since $p_4=-c^2(101H^2 - 29K + 26c)/4$, $p_6=-3c^3/4$, $r_0=3(H^2 - K)$, $r_2=-3c$, $(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_4=c(17H^2 - 8K + 5c)$, $(r\|\nabla\nu\|^2)_6=-cr_2$, $(\nu\Delta\nu)_2=- 4H^2 + 2K - c$ and $(\nu\Delta\nu)_4=-c$, we have that $\eqref{M6}_{20}=0$ and $$\eqref{M6}_{18}=-486c^9(4H^2+c-K).$$
If $K\neq4H^2+c$ then implies that exists an even polynomial g of degree 18, such that $g\circ \nu=0$ on $U$.
\[theo-Kconstante\] Let $H\neq 0$ and $\Sigma$ be an $H$-constant mean curvature surface in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times {\mathbb R}$ with constant intrinsic curvature $K$. Then one of the following holds:
- either $K=0$ and $\Sigma$ is part of a vertical cylinder $\gamma\times{\mathbb R}$, where $\gamma\subset {\mathbb M}_c^2$ is a curve of geodesic curvature $2H$,
- or $c<0$, $K=4H^2+c<0$ and $\Sigma$ is part of either an ARL-surface or a surface of Example \[helicoid\].
Let $\nu:\Sigma \to [-1,1]$ be the angle function of $\Sigma$. If $r=0$ then $\nu$ is a constant function on $\Sigma$ and so $\Sigma$ is characterized by Corollary \[corollary1\]. On an open set where $r\neq 0$, suppose that $K\neq4H^2+c$. Then by Lemma \[Delta.log.beta\] there is an even polynomial $g$ such that $g\circ\nu=0$; then $\nu$ is a constant function on $\Sigma$ and again $\Sigma$ is characterized by Corollary \[corollary1\].
Suppose that $K=4H^2+c$. If $\nu$ is constant on $\Sigma$ then the result follows from Corollary \[corollary1\] and $\Sigma$ is part of an ARL-surface. If $\nu$ is not a constant function on $\Sigma$, Proposition \[Prop.Bochner\] implies that $$\label{gradnu.gradh}
c\langle \nabla\nu,\nabla h\rangle=2H(4H^2+c-c\nu^2)$$ and by Theorem \[theo1\] we obtain the following system $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla \nu\|^2 &= -\frac{1}{c}(4H^2+c-c\nu^2)^2, \label{K=cte,gradnu}\\
\Delta\nu &= (4H^2+c-c\nu^2)\nu.\label{K=cte,Deltanu}\end{aligned}$$
The equation implies that $c<0$. Using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for $\langle\nabla\nu,\nabla h\rangle$ in , since $r\neq 0$, by equations and we have that $4H^2+c-c\nu^2<0$. Consequently, $K=4H^2+c<0$ and $|\nu|<\sqrt{\frac{K}{c}}$.\
The system and implies that the function $\nu$ is isoparametric, that is, $\|\nabla\nu\|^2$ and $\Delta \nu$ are functions of $\nu$. Then there is a local parametrization of $\Sigma$ such that $\nu$ is one of coordinates (see, e.g., [@kenmotsu00] and [@eisenhart40 page 163]), i.e., there is local coordinates $(x_1,x_2)$ on $\Sigma$ such that $\nu(x_1,x_2)=x_1$, for $x_1\in I$, where $I\subseteq\Big(-\sqrt{\frac{K}{c}},\sqrt{\frac{K}{c}}\Big)$ is an open interval, and $$\dif s^2=\frac{1}{F(x_1)^2}\dif x_1^2+G(x_1)^2\dif x^2_2,$$ for $F(x_1)=\|\nabla \nu\|$ and $G:I\to{\mathbb R}$ defined by $$F(x_1)G(x_1)=\exp\Big(\int\frac{\Delta \nu}{\|\nabla \nu\|^2}\dif x_1\Big).$$
By we have $$F(x_1)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{-c}}(cx_1^2-c-4H^2)$$ and we compute that, up to multiplication by a positive constant, $$G(x_1)=\frac{\sqrt{-c}}{(cx_1^2-c-4H^2)^{1/2}}.$$
Let $\{\partial_{x_1},\partial_{x_2}\}$ be the coordinate fields of the local parametrization $(x_1,x_2)$ on $\Sigma$. In the basis $\{\partial_{x_1},\partial_{x_2}\}$ of $\mathrm{T}\Sigma$, the gradient of height function $h$ of $\Sigma$ is written as $$\nabla h = \frac{\partial h}{\partial x_1}F^2\partial_{x_1}+\frac{\partial h}{\partial x_2}\frac{1}{G^2}\partial_{x_2},$$ and the following system holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla h\|^2 &= 1-\nu^2 \label{X-1},\\
c\langle\nabla \nu,\nabla h\rangle &= 2H(4H^2+c-cx_1^2).\label{X-3}\end{aligned}$$
Since $\nabla \nu=F^2\partial_{x_1}$, equations and imply that $$\frac{\partial h}{\partial x_1}=\frac{2H}{cx_1^2-c-4H^2} \ \text{ \ and \ } \ \frac{\partial h}{\partial x_2}=\varepsilon,$$ for $\varepsilon=\pm 1$ and then, up to the addition of a constant, we obtain $$h(x_1,x_2)=\frac{2H}{\sqrt{cK}}\operatorname{\mathrm{atanh}}\Big(\sqrt{\frac{c}{K}}x_1\Big)+\varepsilon x_2.$$
Considering the following change of coordinates $$(x_1,x_2)\mapsto (\sigma,\tau)=\Bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt{cK}}\operatorname{\mathrm{atanh}}\Big(\sqrt{\frac{c}{K}}x_1\Big),\frac{\varepsilon x_2}{\sqrt{-K}}\Bigg),$$ we can see that the metric $\dif s^2$, the angle and height functions of $\Sigma$ are also given, respectively, by $$\begin{aligned}
\dif s^2&=-c\dif\sigma^2-c\cosh^2(\sqrt{cK}\sigma)\dif\tau^2,\\
\nu(\sigma)&= \sqrt{\frac{K}{c}}\tanh(\sqrt{cK}\sigma),\\
h(\sigma,\tau)&= 2H\sigma+\sqrt{-K}\tau,\end{aligned}$$ that is, up to scaling, $\Sigma$ is the helicoidal surface of Example \[helicoid\].
Note that Theorem \[theo-Kconstante\] together with [@danielimj15 Theorem 4.2] give a complete classification of constant mean curvature surfaces in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ with constant intrinsic curvature.
For a given $H\neq0$, the ARL-surface and the helicoidal surface of Example \[helicoid\] are complete surfaces in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ with the same non-zero constant mean curvature, which are intrinsically isometric but not congruent; up to our knowledge this is the first example of such a pair (see [@torralbotams12 Remark 1]).
CMC surfaces with constant intrinsic curvature in $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$ {#section4}
===========================================================================
Preliminaries and first examples
--------------------------------
In this section, as an application of Theorem \[theo-Kconstante\], we classify constant mean curvature surfaces in $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$, for $\kappa-4\tau^2\neq 0$, with constant intrinsic curvature. The manifold $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$ is a 3-homogeneous space with a 4-dimensional isometry group; it is a Riemannian fibration of bundle curvature $\tau$ over ${\mathbb M}^2_\kappa$. A comprehensive literature about constant mean curvature surfaces in these manifolds has been developed in the past few decades. For more details, we refer to [@abresch05; @danielcmh07; @fernandezmira10; @scott83]. These spaces are classified as follows:
- When $\tau=0$, $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,0)$ is the product space ${\mathbb M}^2_\kappa\times {\mathbb R}$,
- When $\tau\neq0$ and $\kappa>0$, $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$ is a Berger sphere,
- When $\tau\neq0$ and $\kappa=0$, $\mathbb{E}(0,\tau)$ is the Heisenberg group with a left invariant metric.
- When $\tau\neq0$ and $\kappa<0$, $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$ is the universal cover of $\textrm{PSL}_{2}({\mathbb R})$ with a left invariant metric, and we denote by $\operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}$.
From now on, we will assume that $\tau\neq 0$. As already mentioned in the product case, some examples of $H$-constant mean curvature surfaces in $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$ with constant intrinsic curvature $K$ appears when angle function is constant [@RosenbergCMH11]. Note that, by the recent classification by Domínguez-Vázquez and Manzano in [@vazquezmanzano18], these constant angle CMC surfaces turn out to be the only isoparametric surfaces in $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$.
Let $\gamma\subset{\mathbb M}^2_\kappa$ be a curve with constant geodesic curvature $k$. If $\pi:\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)\to{\mathbb M}^2_\kappa$ is the Riemannian fibration then $\pi^{-1}(\gamma)$ is a $(k/2)$-CMC surface in $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$ with intrinsic curvature $K=0$. Since the normal vector $N$ of $\pi^{-1}(\gamma)$ is orthogonal to the unit Killing vector field $\xi$, the angle function vanishes.
In this work, we call generalized ARL-surface the $H$-constant mean curvature surfaces $P_{H,\kappa,\tau}$ in $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$ such that:
- $P_{H,\kappa,\tau}$ has constant intrinsic curvature $K=4H^2+\kappa<0$.
- The Abresch-Rosenberg differential vanishes identically on $P_{H,\kappa,\tau}$.
- The function $\nu$ is constant on $P_{H,\kappa,\tau}$ satisfying $\nu^2=\frac{4H^2+\kappa}{\kappa-4\tau^2}\in(0,1)$.
These surfaces generalizes the ARL-surfaces and have also been studied by Verpoort [@Verpoort2014]. Also in [@vazquezmanzano18], Domínguez-Vázquez and Manzano gave an explicit parametrization of $P_{H,\kappa,\tau}$ has an entire graph.
Moreover, in [@RosenbergCMH11] it is shown that generalized ARL-surfaces are the only $H$-constant mean curvature surfaces in $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$ such that the angle function $\nu$ is constant and satisfies $0<\nu^2<1$.
New examples in $\operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[parabolicsurface-psl\] Up to scaling, we suppose that $\kappa=-1$. Consider $\operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}=\{(x,y,t)\in{\mathbb R}^3 : y>0\}$ endowed with the metric $$\frac{\dif x^2+\dif y^2}{y^2}+\Big(-\frac{2\tau}{y}\dif x+\dif t\Big)^2, \text{\ with \ } \tau\neq 0.$$
Let $\Omega\subset{\mathbb R}^2$ be the open set given by $\Omega={\mathbb R}\times(0,1)$. Consider the immersion $X:\Omega \to \operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}$ given by $$\label{parabolic-X}
X(x,y)=\big(x,y,\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}\arcsin{y}\big).$$
This surface is the one studied by Peñafiel in [@Penafiel2012 Lemma 4.2] with $d=1$ (the other examples, with $d\in{\mathbb R}^*$, in that lemma can be reduced to this one if we consider the isometries of $\operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}$ given by $F_1(x,y,t)=(x/d,y/d,t)$, for $d>0$, and $F_2(x,y,t)=(x/d,-y/d,-t)$, for $d<0$, with a change of coordinates; for $d=0$, the surface is a generalized ARL-surface). Moreover, this surface is invariant by 1-parameter group of parabolic isometries of $\operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}$ and by Peñafiel’s results, $X(\Omega)$ is a minimal surface.
The induced metric on $X(\Omega)$ is $$\label{metric-parabolic-psl}
\dif s^2=\frac{4\tau^2+1}{y^2}\dif x^2-\frac{4\tau \sqrt{4\tau^2+1}}{y\sqrt{1-y^2}}\dif x \dif y+\frac{4\tau^2y^2+1}{y^2(1-y^2)}\dif y^2.$$
Choosing the appropiate orientation, the angle function $\nu$ is $$\label{nu-parabolic-psl}
\nu(y)=\frac{\sqrt{1-y^2}}{\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}}.$$
Since the coefficients of the first fundamental form of $X(\Omega)$ depend only of $y$, standard computations using the Christoffel symbols show that the intrinsic curvature $K$ of $\dif s^2$ is given by $$\label{curvature-parabolic-psl}
K(y) = \frac{1}{4(EG-F^2)^2}\Big\{E_y(EG)_y-2(EG-F^2)E_{yy}-2FE_yF_y\Big\}.$$
We compute all terms involved in : $$EG-F^2 = \frac{4\tau^2+1}{y^4(1-y^2)}, \ E_y = -\frac{2(4\tau^2+1)}{y^3}, \ E_{yy}=\frac{6(4\tau^2+1)}{y^4},$$ $$F_y = -\frac{2\tau \sqrt{4\tau^2+1}(2y^2-1)\sqrt{1-y^2}}{y^2(1-y^2)^2}$$ and $$(EG)_y = \frac{16\tau^2y^4(4\tau^2+1) -2y^2(16\tau^4-8\tau^2-3) -4(4\tau^2+1)}{y^5(1-y^2)^2}.$$
A straightforward computation using these expressions and shows that $X(\Omega)$ has constant intrinsic curvature $K=-1$.
Therefore, $X$ is a minimal isometric immersion of $\Omega$ endowed with the metric into $\operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}$, with constant intrinsic curvature $K=-1$, such that the angle function is given by . Considering the $\pi$-rotation around the geodesic $\{x=0, t=\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}\}$, we get a complete embedded minimal surface invariant by parabolic isometries of $\operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}$ (see Figures 10 and 11 in [@Penafiel2012 Example 4.3] for pictures of this surface).
\[helicoid-psl\] Since the relation $K=4H^2+\kappa<0$ is invariant by scaling the metric of $\operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}$, we may multiply this metric by $1/\sqrt{-\kappa}$ and so assume that $\kappa=-1$. Now we consider $\operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}=\{(x,y,t)\in{\mathbb R}^3 : x^2+y^2<1\}$ endowed with the metric $$\lambda^2(\dif x^2+\dif y^2)+\Big(2\tau\frac{\lambda_y}{\lambda}\dif x-2\tau\frac{\lambda_x}{\lambda}\dif y+\dif t\Big)^2,$$ with $\lambda=2/(1-(x^2+y^2))$.
Let $K$ and $H$ be real numbers, such that $H>0$ and $K=4H^2-1<0$. Let $\varepsilon=\pm 1$. We set $$\begin{aligned}
A &= \frac{H\sqrt{1-4H^2}}{\sqrt{H^2+\tau^2}}\big(\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}-2\varepsilon\tau\big), \\
B &= -\frac{H\sqrt{1-4H^2}}{\sqrt{H^2+\tau^2}}\big(\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}+2\varepsilon\tau\big),
\\
C &= -\frac{\varepsilon\tau\sqrt{1-4H^2}}{2H\sqrt{H^2+\tau^2}}.\end{aligned}$$
We note that $$1-A^2=\frac{\big(\varepsilon\tau(1-4H^2)+2H^2\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}\big)^2}{H^2+\tau^2};$$ hence $0<A\leq 1$, and $A=1$ if and only if $\varepsilon\tau<0$ and $\tau^2(1-8H^2)=4H^4$. Similarly, $$1-B^2=\frac{\big(\varepsilon\tau(1-4H^2)-2H^2\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}\big)^2}{H^2+\tau^2};$$ hence $-1\leq B<0$, and $B=-1$ if and only if $\varepsilon\tau>0$ and $\tau^2(1-8H^2)=4H^4$.
Consider the screw motion invariant immersion $X_{\varepsilon}:{\mathbb R}^2\to \operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}$ given by $$X_\varepsilon(\sigma,\theta)=\Big(f(\sigma)\cos(\theta),f(\sigma)\sin(\theta),u_{\varepsilon}(\sigma)+\big(-2\tau+\varepsilon\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}\big)\theta\Big),$$ where $f:{\mathbb R}\to(-1,1)$ and $u_\varepsilon:{\mathbb R}\to{\mathbb R}$ are defined as follows.
If $\varepsilon\tau>0$ or if $\varepsilon\tau<0$ and $\tau^2(1-8H^2)\neq4H^4$, the function $f$ is defined as $$f(\sigma)=\frac{\sqrt{\cosh(\sigma)-A}}{\sqrt{\cosh(\sigma)-B}}.$$
If $\varepsilon\tau<0$ and $\tau^2(1-8H^2)=4H^4$, the function $f$ is defined as $$f(\sigma) =\frac{\tanh(\sigma/2)}{\sqrt{4H^2\tanh^2(\sigma/2)+1-4H^2}}.$$
If $\tau^2(1-8H^2)\neq 4H^4$, the function $u_\varepsilon$ is defined as $$\begin{gathered}
u_\varepsilon(\sigma) = \frac{2H\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}}{\sqrt{1-4H^2}}\sigma\\
+\frac{2\sqrt{H^2+\tau^2}}{1-4H^2}\Bigg\{\frac{A(A-C)}{\sqrt{1-A^2}}\arctan\Bigg(\frac{\sqrt{1+A}}{\sqrt{1-A}}\tanh(\sigma/2)\Bigg)\\
-\frac{B(B-C)}{\sqrt{1-B^2}}\arctan\Bigg(\frac{\sqrt{1+B}}{\sqrt{1-B}}\tanh(\sigma/2)\Bigg)\Bigg\}.\end{gathered}$$
If $\varepsilon\tau>0$ and $\tau^2(1-8H^2)=4H^4$, the function $u_\varepsilon$ is defined as $$u_\varepsilon(\sigma) = \frac{2H\sqrt{1-4H^2}}{\sqrt{1-8H^2}}\sigma+\sqrt{1-8H^2}\arctan\Bigg(\frac{\sqrt{1-4H^2}}{2H}\tanh(\sigma/2)\Bigg).$$
If $\varepsilon\tau<0$ and $\tau^2(1-8H^2)=4H^4$, the function $u_\varepsilon$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
u_\varepsilon(\sigma) &= \frac{2H\sqrt{1-4H^2}}{\sqrt{1-8H^2}}\sigma-\sqrt{1-8H^2}\arctan\Bigg(\frac{2H}{\sqrt{1-4H^2}}\tanh(\sigma/2)\Bigg).\end{aligned}$$
We note that $f$ and $u_\varepsilon$ remain unchanged if we multiply both $\varepsilon$ and $\tau$ by $-1$. In all cases, $X_\varepsilon$ is analytic and $$u_\varepsilon'(\sigma)=\frac{2H\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}}{\sqrt{1-4H^2}}\frac{\big(\cosh(\sigma)-C\big)\cosh(\sigma)}
{\big(\cosh(\sigma)-A\big)\big(\cosh(\sigma)-B\big)}.$$
This surface is the analytic continuation of a surface that belongs to the screw motion invariant family in $\operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}$ studied by Peñafiel in [@penafiel15]. In fact, if we consider the change of coordinates given by $$\sigma(\rho) = \operatorname{\mathrm{acosh}}\Bigg(\frac{H\sqrt{1-4H^2}}{\sqrt{H^2+\tau^2}}\big(\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}\cosh(\rho)-2\varepsilon\tau\big)\Bigg)$$ for $\rho>\operatorname{\mathrm{acosh}}\frac{2\tau\varepsilon H\sqrt{1-4H^2}+\sqrt{H^2+\tau^2}}{H\sqrt{1-4H^2}\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}}$, we obtain the screw motion invariant surface of [@penafiel15 Section 3.3] with $$l=-2\tau+\varepsilon\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}\quad\textrm{and}\quad d=\frac{\varepsilon\tau(1-4H^2)}{H\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}}$$ ($l$ is the pitch if the screw motion). Indeed, we have $$(u_\varepsilon\circ\sigma)'(\rho)=\frac{\big(2H^2\sqrt{4\tau^{2} + 1}\cosh(\rho) +\varepsilon(1-4H^{2}) \tau\big) \big(\sqrt{4\tau^{2} + 1} \cosh(\rho) - 2\tau\varepsilon\big)}{\sinh(\rho)\sqrt{(1-4H^{2})H^2 \big(\sqrt{4\tau^{2} + 1} \cosh(\rho) - 2\tau\varepsilon\big)^{2} - H^{2} - \tau^{2}}}.$$ and $f(\sigma(\rho))=\tanh(\rho/2)$. By Peñafiel’s results, $X_\varepsilon({\mathbb R}^2)$ has constant mean curvature $H$.
The induced metric on $X_\varepsilon({\mathbb R}^2)$ is $$\dif s^2=E\dif\sigma^2+2F\dif\sigma \dif\theta+G\dif\theta^2$$ where the terms $E$, $F$ and $G$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
E(\sigma) &= \rho'(\sigma)^2+u_\varepsilon'(\sigma)^2,\\
F(\sigma) &= \frac{u_\varepsilon'(\sigma)}{H\sqrt{1-4H^2}\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}}\big(\varepsilon H\sqrt{1-4H^2}-2\tau\sqrt{H^2+\tau^2}\cosh(\sigma)\big), \\
G(\sigma) &=\frac{H^2+\tau^2}{H^2(1-4H^2)}\cosh^2(\sigma),\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho(\sigma)=2\operatorname{\mathrm{atanh}}(f(\sigma))$.
Since the coefficients of the first fundamental form of $X_\varepsilon({\mathbb R}^2)$ depend only of $\sigma$, standard computations using the Christoffel symbols show that the intrinsic curvature $K$ of $\dif s^2$ is given by $$\label{curvature-screw-motion-psl}
K(\sigma) = \frac{1}{2(EG-F^2)^2}\Bigg\{\frac{1}{2}(EG-F^2)_{\sigma}G_{\sigma}-(EG-F^2)G_{\sigma\sigma}\Bigg\}.$$
We compute all terms involved in : $$\begin{aligned}
G_\sigma &= \frac{2(H^2+\tau^2)}{H^2(1-4H^2)}\cosh(\sigma)\sinh(\sigma),\\
G_{\sigma\sigma} &=\frac{2(H^2+\tau^2)}{H^2(1-4H^2)}\big(2\cosh^2(\sigma)-1\big),\\
EG-F^2&= \frac{H^2+\tau^2}{H^2(1-4H^2)^2}\cosh^2(\sigma),\\
(EG-F^2)_\sigma &= \frac{2(H^2+\tau^2)}{H^2(1-4H^2)^2}\cosh(\sigma)\sinh(\sigma).\end{aligned}$$
A straightforward computation using these expressions and shows that $X_\varepsilon({\mathbb R}^2)$ has constant intrinsic curvature $K=4H^2-1<0$.
We now study the behaviour of the generating curve $\Gamma_\varepsilon=\{X_\varepsilon(\sigma,0) : \sigma\in{\mathbb R}\}$. First, note that $u_\varepsilon(\sigma)\to +\infty$ when $\sigma\to+\infty$ and $u_\varepsilon$ is odd; hence $X_\varepsilon({\mathbb R}^2)$ is a complete surface. We distinguish three cases in terms of $\varepsilon\tau$ and $H$ (see figures \[screwmotion-fig1\], \[screwmotion-fig2\] and \[screwmotion-fig3\]):
Type I
: If $\varepsilon\tau>0$ or if $\varepsilon\tau<0$ and $\tau^2(1-8H^2)<4H^4$, then $C<1$, and so $u_\varepsilon'>0$ and $u_\varepsilon$ is strictly increasing on $(0,+\infty)$. Moreover, $f$ is even and $u_\varepsilon$ is odd, so $\Gamma_\varepsilon$ is invariant by the $\pi$-rotation around the geodesic $\{y=0,t=0\}$.
Type II
: If $\varepsilon\tau<0$ and $\tau^2(1-8H^2)>4H^4$, then $C>1$, and so we can consider $\sigma_1=\operatorname{\mathrm{acosh}}(C)$. We have $u_\varepsilon'<0$ on $(0,\sigma_1)$ and $u_\varepsilon'>0$ on $(\sigma_1,+\infty)$, so $u_\varepsilon$ is strictly decreasing on $(0,\sigma_1)$ and $u_\varepsilon'$ is strictly increasing on $(\sigma_1,+\infty)$. Moreover, $f$ is even and $u_\varepsilon$ is odd, so $\Gamma_\varepsilon$ is invariant by the $\pi$-rotation around the geodesic $\{y=0,t=0\}$. Since $u_\varepsilon$ changes of sign, $\Gamma_\varepsilon$ is not an embedded curve.
Type III
: If $\varepsilon\tau<0$ and $\tau^2(1-8H^2)=4H^4$, then $u_\varepsilon'>0$ and so $u_\varepsilon$ is strictly increasing on $(0,+\infty)$. Moreover, $f$ and $u_\varepsilon$ are odd, so $\Gamma_\varepsilon$ is invariant by the $\pi$-rotation around the geodesic $\{x=0,t=0\}$.
Therefore, given $H>0$ satisfying $0<4H^2<1$, there are two complete $H$-constant mean curvature isometric immersions into $\operatorname{\widetilde{\mathrm{PSL}}_{2}({\mathbb R})}$, with constant intrinsic curvature $K=4H^2-1<0$: $X_1({\mathbb R}^2)$ and $X_{-1}({\mathbb R}^2)$ (these two surfaces are not congruent since they are invariant by screw motions with different pitches $l$).
\
We explain how type I and II surfaces converge to a type III surface. We fix $\tau$ and $\varepsilon$ such that $\varepsilon\tau<0$ and we now index by $H$ the previous quantities and functions. Note that the $u_{\varepsilon,H}$ functions have been chosen so that $u_{\varepsilon,H}(0)=0$. Let $H_*$ be the mean curvature of the type III surface; it satisfies $\tau^2(1-8H_*^2)=4H_*^4$, hence $$H_*^2=-\frac\tau{2l}.$$
We note that $$A_H-C_H=\frac{\sqrt{1-4H^2}}{2H\sqrt{H^2+\tau^2}}\big(\varepsilon\tau(1-4H^2)+2H^2\sqrt{4\tau^2+1}\big),$$ hence $$1-A_H^2=\frac{4H^2}{1-4H^2}(A_H-C_H)^2,$$ $A_H-C_H>0$ for $H>H_*$ (type I surfaces) and $A_H-C_H<0$ for $H<H_*$ (type II surfaces).
Consequently, using the fact that $l(l+4\tau)=1$ and $1-8H_*^2=l^2$, when $H\to H_*$ we have $A_H\to1$, $B_H\to8H_*^2-1$, $C_H\to1$ and $$\frac{2\sqrt{H^2+\tau^2}}{1-4H^2}\frac{A_H(A_H-C_H)}{\sqrt{1-A_H^2}}
\to\pm|l|.$$ So, since $\sqrt{\frac{1+A_H}{1-A_H}}\to+\infty$, we have $$u_{\varepsilon,H}\to u_{\varepsilon,H_*}\pm|l|\frac\pi2$$ uniformly on compact sets of $(0,+\infty)$. Here, the $+$ signs occur when the limit is for $H>H_*$ (type I surfaces) and the $-$ signs for $H<H_*$ (type II surfaces). On the other hand, $$f_H\to f_{H_*}$$ uniformly on compact sets of $(0,+\infty)$.
Considering the symmetries, we conclude that, when $H>H_*$, the curve $\Gamma_{\varepsilon,H}$ converges to $$T(\Gamma_{\varepsilon,H_*}^+)\cup S\cup (R\circ T)(\Gamma_{\varepsilon,H_*}^+)$$ where $\Gamma_{\varepsilon,H_*}^+=\{X_{\varepsilon,H_*}(\sigma,0):\sigma\in(0,+\infty)\}$, $S$ is the vertical segment $\{(0,0)\}\times[-|l|\pi/2,|l|\pi/2]$, $T$ is the vertical translation of length $|l|\pi/2$ upward and $R$ the $\pi$-rotation around the geodesic $\{y=0,t=0\}$. And when $H<H_*$, the curve $\Gamma_{\varepsilon,H}$ converges to $$T^{-1}(\Gamma_{\varepsilon,H_*}^+)\cup S\cup (R\circ T^{-1})(\Gamma_{\varepsilon,H_*}^+).$$ In both cases, this limit set generates by screw motion of pitch $l$ a type III surface translated by $\pi|l|/2$ or $-\pi|l|/2$ in the vertical direction, i.e., a type III surface rotated by angle $\pi/2$ or $-\pi/2$, depending also on the sign of $l$.
Classification
--------------
\[theo-Ekappatau\] Let $\kappa$ and $\tau$ be real numbers such that $\tau\neq0$ and $\kappa-4\tau^2\neq 0$, and $\Sigma$ be an $H$-constant mean curvature surface in $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$ with constant intrinsic curvature $K$. Then one of the following holds:
- either $K=0$ and $\Sigma$ is part of a vertical cylinder over a curve $\gamma\subset {\mathbb M}_\kappa^2$ with geodesic curvature $2H$,
- or $\kappa<0$, $K=4H^2+\kappa<0$ and $\Sigma$ is part of a generalized ARL-surface,
- or $\kappa<0$, $H=0$, $K=\kappa$ and $\Sigma$ is part of a minimal surface of Example \[parabolicsurface-psl\],
- or $\kappa<0$, $H\neq 0$, $K=4H^2+\kappa<0$ and $\Sigma$ is part of one of twin helicoidal surfaces of Example \[helicoid-psl\].
Let $\nu:\Sigma\to[-1,1]$ be the angle function of $\Sigma$. If $\nu$ is a constant function, since $\tau\neq 0$ by [@RosenbergCMH11 Theorem 2.2] we get that either $\nu=0$, $K=0$ and $\Sigma$ is part of a vertical cylinder over a complete curve $\gamma\in{\mathbb M}^2_\kappa$ with geodesic curvature $2H$, or $0<\nu^2<1$, $K=4H^2+\kappa<0$ and $\Sigma$ is part of a generalized ARL-surface.
From now on, suppose $\nu$ is not a constant function. Let $(\dif s^2, S, T, \nu)$ be the Gauss-Codazzi data on $\Sigma$ into $\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)$. Consider $\overline{H},\overline{\kappa}\in{\mathbb R}$ such that $\overline{H}^2=H^2+\tau^2$, $\overline{\kappa}=\kappa-4\tau^2$ and $\overline{\tau}=0$. By the sister surface correspondence [@danielcmh07 Theorem 5.2] the 4-uple $(\dif s^2, \overline{S}, \overline{T}, \nu)$ is the Gauss-Codazzi data of surface $\overline{\Sigma}$ in $\mathbb{E}(\overline{\kappa},0)={\mathbb M}_{\overline{\kappa}}^2\times{\mathbb R}$, where $$\overline{S}=e^{\theta J}(S-HI)+\overline{H}I \ \text{ \ and \ } \ \overline{T}=e^{\theta J}T,$$ with $\theta\in{\mathbb R}$ given by $i\overline{H}=e^{i\theta}(\tau+iH)$ and therefore $\overline{\Sigma}$ has constant mean curvature $\overline{H}$ and is isometric to $\Sigma$. Since $\dif s^2$ has constant intrinsic curvature and $\nu$ is not a constant function, by Theorem \[theo-Kconstante\] we get that $\overline{\kappa}<0$ and $K=4\overline{H}^2+\overline{\kappa}<0$, that is, $\kappa-4\tau^2<0$ and $K=4H^2+\kappa<0$, and $\overline{\Sigma}$ is part of the helicoidal surface of Example \[helicoid\] in ${\mathbb M}^2_{\kappa-4\tau^2}\times{\mathbb R}$.
However, the helicoidal surface of Example \[helicoid-psl\] in ${\mathbb M}^2_{\kappa-4\tau^2}\times{\mathbb R}$ of constant mean curvature $\overline{H}$ has at most two constant mean curvature sister surfaces $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ in $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)}$: denote by $H_k$ and $(\dif s^2,S_k, T_k, \nu)$, with $k=1,2$, their respective mean curvature and Gauss-Codazzi data, then $\overline{H}^2=H_k^2+\tau^2$, i.e., $H_1=-H_2=\pm H$, and $$S_k=e^{\theta_k J}(\overline{S}-\overline{H}\mathrm{I})+H_i\mathrm{I} \ \text{ \ and \ } \ T_k=e^{\theta_k J}\overline{T},$$ with $\theta_k\in{\mathbb R}$ given by $\tau+iH_k=ie^{i\theta_k}\overline{H}$. Consequently, $\Sigma$ is part of $\Sigma_1$ or of $\Sigma_2$.
Assume $H\neq 0$. Then $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ are twin surfaces [@danielcmh07 Theorem 5.14]. On the other hand, up to an orientation reversing isometry, Example \[helicoid-psl\] provided two non-congruent $H$-constant mean curvature surfaces in $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)}$ with constant intrinsic curtavure $K=4H^2+\kappa<0$ and non-constant angle function. Then, these two surfaces coincide with $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$, and we conclude that $\Sigma$ is part of one of the surfaces of Example \[helicoid-psl\].
Assume $H=0$. Then $\Sigma_1=\Sigma_2$ (since they have the same Gauss-Codazzi data). On the other hand, Example \[parabolicsurface-psl\] provided a minimal surface in $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}(\kappa,\tau)}$ with constant intrinsic curvature $K=\kappa<0$ and non-constant angle function. Then, this surface coincide with $\Sigma_1$, and we conclude that $\Sigma$ is part of one of the surfaces of Example \[parabolicsurface-psl\].
Parallel mean curvature surfaces in ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb S}^2$ and ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ with constant intrinsic curvature {#sectionpmc}
===============================================================================================================================================
Preliminaries and first examples {#prelim}
--------------------------------
A parallel mean curvature surface in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ is a surface whose mean curvature vector $\mathcal{H}$ satisfies $$\nabla^\perp\mathcal{H}=0,$$ where $\nabla^\perp$ is the normal connection. This implies in particular that the norm of $\mathcal{H}$ is constant on the surface. For $H>0$ we will call $H$-PMC surface a parallel mean curvature surface whose mean curvature vector has norm $H$. An $H$-PMC immersion is an immersion whose image is an $H$-PMC surface. We will not consider minimal surfaces in this section.
Torralbo and Urbano [@torralbotams12] studied PMC surfaces in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$. In particular (Theorem 1) they proved that there is a one-to-one correspondence between classes of congruence of $H$-PMC immersions into ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ and unordered pairs of classes of congruence of $H$-CMC immersions into ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ (we say that two immersions $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ into some Riemannian manifold $M$ are congruent if there exists an isometry $f$ of $M$ such that $\varphi_2=f\circ\varphi_1$). In particular, from [@torralbotams12 Theorem 1] and our Theorem \[theo1\] follows that a class of congruence of an $H$-PMC immersion of an oriented surface $\Sigma$ in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ can be characterized by a metric $\dif s^2$ and an unordered pair $\{\pm(\nu_1,\dif h_1),\pm(\nu_2,\dif h_2)\}$ where $(\nu_1,h_1)$ and $(\nu_2,h_2)$ are solutions to , , and . We refer to Section \[rktu\] for details.
Up to scaling, we may assume that $c=\pm1$.
The product manifold ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ is isometrically immersed into ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb S}^2$ as a totally geodesic ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb S}^1$, ${\mathbb S}^1$ being a geodesic of ${\mathbb S}^2$; similarly, ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ is isometrically embedded into ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ as a totally geodesic ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$, ${\mathbb R}$ being a geodesic of ${\mathbb H}^2$. Hence, for $H\neq0$, an $H$-CMC surface in ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ or ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ yields via these immersions an $|H|$-PMC surface in ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb S}^2$ or ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$. Moreover these immersions are characterized as follows: $[\Phi_1]=[\Phi_2]$ if and only if $\Phi$ is a CMC immersion into a totally geodesic ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb S}^1$ or a totally geodesic ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$. Then, in this case we have $[\Phi]=[\Phi_1]$. For this we refer to [@torralbotams12 page 788 and Theorem 1].
Using [@torralbotams12 Theorem 1] and our Theorem \[theo-Kconstante\], we will classify $H$-PMC surfaces in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ with constant intrinsic curvature. We have to be careful to the fact that [@torralbotams12 Theorem 1] is a correspondence between immersions and not surfaces.
We first recall examples from [@torralbotams12].
\[ex1\] Since ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ is isometrically immersed as a totally geodesic submanifold of ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ (as mentioned above), all $H$-CMC surfaces with constant intrinsic curvature given by Theorem \[theo-Kconstante\] yield $H$-PMC surfaces in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ with constant intrinsic curvature.
If $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are curves of constant curvatures $k_1$ and $k_2$ in ${\mathbb M}^2_c$ such that $k_1$ and $k_2$ are not both zero, then $\gamma_1\times\gamma_2$ is an $H$-PMC surface with $4H^2=k_1^2+k_2^2$. In particular, when $\gamma_1$ or $\gamma_2$ is a geodesic of ${\mathbb M}^2_c$, then this PMC surface is also one of those explained in Example \[ex1\].
Here we set $c=-1$. For $H\in(0,\frac12)$, Torralbo and Urbano introduced an explicit $H$-PMC isometric embedding of the hyperbolic plane of curvature $K=4H^2-1$ that does not lie in a totally geodesic ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$.
New examples in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$
--------------------------------------------------
We now describe new examples of $H$-PMC immersions into ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ with $H\in(0,\frac12)$ and intrinsic curvature $K=4H^2-1<0$.
We set $\Omega=\{z\in{\mathbb C}:{\mathrm{Im}(z)}>0\}$ and we endow $\Omega$ with the metric $$\dif s^2=\frac{4|\dif z|^2}{K(z-\bar z)^2}.$$ This is the half-plane model for the hyperbolic plane of curvature $K$. We assume that $\Omega$ is oriented. Its isometry group is $${\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}=\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})\cup\mathrm{PSL}^-_2({\mathbb R}),$$ where $\mathrm{PSL}^-_2({\mathbb R})=\{f\in\mathrm{GL}_2({\mathbb R}):\det f=-1\}/\{\pm\mathrm{id}\}$, with $\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})$ (group of orientation preserving isometries) acting on $\Omega$ by $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)(z)=\frac{\alpha z+\beta}{\gamma z+\delta}$$ and $\mathrm{PSL}^-_2({\mathbb R})$ (set of orientation reversing isometries) acting on $\Omega$ by $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)(z)=\frac{\alpha\bar z+\beta}{\gamma\bar z+\delta}.$$ We also set $$D=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & 0 \\ 0 & \alpha^{-1} \end{array}\right):\alpha\in{\mathbb R}^*\right\},\quad
T=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ 0 & \alpha^{-1} \end{array}\right):\alpha\in{\mathbb R}^*,\beta\in{\mathbb R}\right\},$$ $$\xi=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{array}\right),\quad
\eta=\left(\begin{array}{cc} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right),\quad
\zeta=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 1 \end{array}\right).$$ i.e., $$\xi(z)=-\frac1z,\quad\eta(z)=-\bar z,\quad\zeta(z)=\frac1{-z+1}.$$ For $f=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)\in\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})$ we set $$\rho(f)=\frac{\beta\gamma}{\alpha\delta}\in{\mathbb R}\cup\{\infty\}.$$
Finally, for an immersion $\Phi:\Omega\to{\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ or $\Phi:\Omega\to{\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ we let $$G_\Phi=\{f\in{\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}:[\Phi\circ f]=[\Phi]\}.$$ This is a subgroup of ${\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}$.
Obviously classes of congruence of $H$-CMC isometric immersions of $\Omega$ into ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ are identical to classes of congruence of $-H$-CMC isometric immersions of $\Omega$ into ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ because of reflections with respect to a totally geodesic surface; such a reflection multiplies either $\nu$ or $\dif h$ by $-1$, see Remark \[rmksign\]. For $\pm H$-CMC isometric immersions $\Phi_j:\Omega\to{\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ ($j=1,2$) of data $(\nu_j,h_j)$, we have $[\Phi_1]=[\Phi_2]$ if and only if $\nu_2=\pm\nu_1$ and $\dif h_2=\pm\dif h_1$. Moreover, if $\Phi_2=\Phi_1\circ f$ for some $f\in{\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}$, then $h_2=h_1\circ f$ and $\nu_2=\pm\nu_1\circ f$ according to whether $f$ preserves or reverses orientation. Hence $[\Phi_1\circ f]=[\Phi_1]$ if and only if $\nu_1\circ f=\pm\nu_1$ and $h_1\circ f=\pm h_1$. We let $\mathcal{X}:\Omega\to{\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ be the ARL-immersion given in Example \[exarlsurf\] and $\mathcal{Y}:\Omega\to{\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ the helicoidal immersion of Example \[helicoid\]. We first determine the groups $G_\mathcal{X}$ and $G_\mathcal{Y}$.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
G_\mathcal{X} & = & T\cup T\eta \\
& = & \left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ 0 & \alpha^{-1} \end{array}\right):\alpha\in{\mathbb R}^*,\beta\in{\mathbb R}\right\}
\cup\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc} -\alpha & \beta \\ 0 & \alpha^{-1} \end{array}\right):\alpha\in{\mathbb R}^*,\beta\in{\mathbb R}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
We recall from Example \[exarlsurf\] that the angle function of $\mathcal{X}$ is constant and its height function is $$h(z)=-\frac{2H}{\sqrt{-K}}\log\left(\frac{\sqrt{-K}}{2i}(z-\bar z)\right),$$ so $$h_z(z)=-\frac{2H}{\sqrt{-K}(z-\bar z)}.$$
We first consider an isometry $f=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)\in\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})$. The height function of $\mathcal{X}\circ f$ is $h\circ f$ and we have, since $f$ is holomorphic, $$(h\circ f)_z(z)=(h_z\circ f)(z)f'(z)=-\frac{2H}{\sqrt{-K}}\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)-\overline{f(z)}}=-\frac{2H}{\sqrt{-K}(z-\bar z)}\frac{\gamma\bar z+\delta}{\gamma z+\delta}.$$ Since $\nu$ is constant, we have $[\mathcal{X}\circ f]=[\mathcal{X}]$ if and only if $(h_z\circ f)f'=\pm h_z$, i.e., if and only if $\gamma=0$. This proves that $G_\mathcal{X}\cap\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})=T$.
Moreover, we have $h\circ\eta=h$, so $\eta\in G_\mathcal{X}$ and $G_\mathcal{X}=T\cup T\eta$.
We have $$G_\mathcal{Y}=D\cup D\xi=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & 0 \\ 0 & \alpha^{-1} \end{array}\right):\alpha\in{\mathbb R}^*\right\}\cup
\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \beta \\ -\beta^{-1} & 0 \end{array}\right):\beta\in{\mathbb R}^*\right\}.$$
We recall from Example \[helicoid\] that the angle function of $\mathcal{Y}$ is $$\nu(z)=\frac{\sqrt{-K}}2\frac{z+\bar z}{|z|}$$ and its height function is $$h(z)=\frac{2H}{\sqrt{-K}}\operatorname{\mathrm{asinh}}\frac{i(z+\bar z)}{z-\bar z}-\log|z|,$$ so $$h_z(z)=-\frac{2H}{\sqrt{-K}}\frac{\bar z}{|z|(z-\bar z)}-\frac1{2z}.$$
We first consider an isometry $f=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)\in\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})$. Then $$(\nu\circ f)(z)=\frac{\sqrt{-K}}2\frac{2\alpha\gamma|z|^2+(\alpha\delta+\beta\gamma)(z+\bar z)+2\beta\delta}{|\alpha z+\beta||\gamma z+\delta|}.$$ If $f\in G_\mathcal{Y}$, then $\nu\circ f=\pm\nu$ and, considering the points where these functions vanish, we get $\alpha\gamma=\beta\delta=0$, so $f\in D\cup D\xi$.
Conversely, we check that if $f\in D$ then $\nu\circ f=\nu$ and $(h\circ f)_z=h_z$, and if $f\in D\xi$ then $\nu\circ f=-\nu$ and $(h\circ f)_z=-h_z$, so $[\mathcal{Y}\circ f]=[\mathcal{Y}]$ in both cases.
This proves that $G_\mathcal{Y}\cap\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})=D\cup D\xi$.
We now consider an isometry $f=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)\in\mathrm{PSL}^-_2({\mathbb R})$. Assume that $f\in G_\mathcal{Y}$. Then $\nu\circ f=\pm\nu$, and, since $\nu\circ\eta=-\nu$, we have $\nu\circ(f\circ\eta)=\pm\nu$. By the previous discussion we obtain that $f\circ\eta\in D\cup D\xi\subset G_\mathcal{Y}$.
Consequently we get $\eta\in G_\mathcal{Y}$. But $$(h\circ\eta)(z)=-\frac{2H}{\sqrt{-K}}\operatorname{\mathrm{asinh}}\frac{i(z+\bar z)}{z-\bar z}-\log|z|,$$ so $$(h\circ\eta)_z(z)=\frac{2H}{\sqrt{-K}}\frac{\bar z}{|z|(z-\bar z)}-\frac1{2z},$$ so $(h\circ\eta)_z\neq\pm h_z$, which gives a contradiction.
Hence $G_\mathcal{Y}\cap\mathrm{PSL}^-_2({\mathbb R})=\emptyset$.
For $f\in{\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}$, we let $\mathcal{A}_f:\Omega\to{\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ be an $H$-PMC immersion corresponding to the pair $([\mathcal{Y}],[\mathcal{X}\circ f])$; this immersion is unique up to congruences in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$.
For $f\in{\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}$, we let $\mathcal{B}_f:\Omega\to{\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ be an $H$-PMC immersion corresponding to the pair $([\mathcal{Y}],[\mathcal{Y}\circ f])$; this immersion is unique up to congruences in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$.
We note that if $f\in G_\mathcal{Y}$, then $[\mathcal{Y}]=[\mathcal{Y}\circ f]$ and so, by the discussion in [@torralbotams12] recalled in Section \[prelim\], $\mathcal{B}_f$ is a CMC immersion into a totally geodesic ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$.
\[equivxy\] If $f_1,f_2\in{\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}$, then the immersions $\mathcal{A}_{f_1}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{f_2}$ have the same image in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ up to congruences if and only if there exist $k\in G_\mathcal{X}$ and $g\in G_\mathcal{Y}$ such that $$f_2=k\circ f_1\circ g.$$
Moreover, this property defines on ${\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}$ and equivalence relation $\sim$ whose equivalence classes are $G_\mathcal{X} G_\mathcal{Y}$ (the class of $\mathrm{id}$) and ${\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}\setminus G_\mathcal{X} G_\mathcal{Y}$ (the class of $\zeta$).
The immersions $\mathcal{A}_{f_1}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{f_2}$ have the same image in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ up to congruences if and only if there exists $g\in{\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}$ such that $$[\mathcal{A}_{f_1}\circ g]=[\mathcal{A}_{f_2}].$$ This condition is equivalent to $$([\mathcal{Y}\circ g],[\mathcal{X}\circ f_1\circ g])=([\mathcal{Y}],[\mathcal{X}\circ f_2]),$$ i.e., to $$[\mathcal{Y}\circ g]=[\mathcal{Y}]\quad\textrm{and}\quad[\mathcal{X}\circ f_1\circ g\circ f_2^{-1}]=[\mathcal{X}],$$ i.e., to $$g\in G_\mathcal{Y}\quad\textrm{and}\quad f_1\circ g\circ f_2^{-1}\in G_\mathcal{X}.$$ Setting $k=(f_1\circ g\circ f_2^{-1})^{-1}$, this proves the first assertion.
We now study the equivalence classes of $\sim$.
It is clear that $G_\mathcal{X} G_\mathcal{Y}$ is the equivalence class of $\mathrm{id}$.
We also notice that $$G_\mathcal{X}G_\mathcal{Y}=G_\mathcal{X}\cup G_\mathcal{X}\xi=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)\in{\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}:\gamma=0\textrm{ or }\delta=0\right\}.$$
Let $f=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)\in{\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}\setminus G_\mathcal{X} G_\mathcal{Y}$. Then $\gamma\neq0$ and $\delta\neq0$.
If $f\in\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})$ and $\frac\gamma\delta<0$ then $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)
=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \frac1{\delta\mu} & -\frac\alpha\mu \\ 0 & \delta\mu \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 1 \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} \mu & 0 \\ 0 & \mu^{-1} \end{array}\right)$$ for $\mu^2=-\frac\gamma\delta$. If $f\in\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})$ and $\frac\gamma\delta>0$ then $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)
=\left(\begin{array}{cc} -\frac\mu\delta & -\frac\beta\mu \\ 0 & -\frac\delta\mu \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 1 \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \mu \\ -\mu^{-1} & 0 \end{array}\right)$$ for $\mu^2=\frac\delta\gamma$. Hence in both cases we have $f\sim\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 1 \end{array}\right)$.
If $f\in\mathrm{PSL}^-_2({\mathbb R})$, then, since $\eta\in G_\mathcal{X}$, $\eta\circ f\in\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})\setminus G_\mathcal{X} G_\mathcal{Y}$, so $f\sim\eta\circ f\sim\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 1 \end{array}\right)$.
This proves that ${\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}\setminus G_\mathcal{X} G_\mathcal{Y}$ is included in the equivalence class of $\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 1 \end{array}\right)$, and so equal to it.
\[equivyy\] If $f_1,f_2\in{\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}$, then the immersions $\mathcal{B}_{f_1}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{f_2}$ have the same image in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ up to congruences if and only if there exist $g_1,g_2\in G_\mathcal{Y}$ such that $$f_2=g_1\circ f_1\circ g_2.$$
This property defines on ${\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}$ an equivalence relation $\approx$. For $s\in{\mathbb R}$ we set $$m_s=\left(\begin{array}{cc} s & 1-s \\ -1 & 1 \end{array}\right).$$ Then each equivalence class has exactly one representative in the set $$\{\mathrm{id},\eta\}\cup\{m_s:s\in[0,+\infty)\}\cup\{\eta\circ m_s:s\in[0,+\infty)\}.$$
The proof of the first assertion is analogous to that of Proposition \[equivxy\].
We now study the equivalence classes of $\approx$. We first notice that:
- if $f_1\approx f_2$, then $\det f_1=\det f_2$,
- the equivalence class of $\mathrm{id}$ is $G_\mathcal{Y}$,
- if $f\in\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})\setminus G_\mathcal{Y}$ and $g\in D$, then $\rho(g\circ f)=\rho(f\circ g)=\rho(f)$,
- if $f\in\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})\setminus G_\mathcal{Y}$ and $g\in D\xi$, then $\rho(g\circ f)=\rho(f\circ g)=\rho(f)^{-1}$.
[**Claim A.**]{} If $f=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)\in\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})\setminus G_\mathcal{Y}$, then $f\approx m_s$ for some $s\in{\mathbb R}$.
If $\gamma\neq0$ and $\delta\neq0$, then:
- if $\gamma$ and $\delta$ have the same sign, then $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)
=\left(\begin{array}{cc} -\frac\mu\delta & 0 \\ 0 & -\frac\delta\mu \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} s & 1-s \\ -1 & 1 \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \mu \\ -\mu^{-1} & 0 \end{array}\right)$$ with $s=-\beta\gamma$ and $\mu^2=\frac\delta\gamma$,
- if $\gamma$ and $\delta$ have opposite signs, then $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)
=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \frac1{\delta\mu} & 0 \\ 0 & \delta\mu \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} s & 1-s \\ -1 & 1 \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} \mu & 0 \\ 0 & \mu^{-1} \end{array}\right)$$ with $s=\alpha\delta$ and $\mu^2=-\frac\gamma\delta$.
Hence, in both cases, $f\approx m_s$ for some $s\in{\mathbb R}$.
If $\gamma=0$, then $\alpha\neq0$ and, since $f\notin G_{\mathcal{Y}}$, $\beta\neq 0$. Similarly, if $\delta=0$, then $\beta\neq0$ and, since $f\notin G_\mathcal{Y}$, $\alpha\neq 0$. Hence, in both cases, applying the previous argument to $\xi\circ f=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \gamma & \delta \\ -\alpha & -\beta \end{array}\right)$ we obtain that $f\approx\xi\circ f\approx m_s$ for some $s\in{\mathbb R}$.
This proves Claim A.
[**Claim B.**]{} Let $s,t\in{\mathbb R}$. Then $m_s\approx m_t$ if and only if
- $s=t$,
- or $s+t=1$ and $s\notin[0,1]$.
First, if $s>1$ or $s<0$, then $-s$ and $s-1$ do not vanish and have opposite signs, so by the previous arguments we have $$m_s\approx\xi\circ m_s=\left(\begin{array}{cc} -1 & 1 \\ -s & s-1 \end{array}\right)\approx m_{1-s}.$$
Conversely, let $s$ and $t$ such that $m_s\approx m_t$ and $s\neq t$. Then $\rho(m_s)=\rho(m_t)$ or $\rho(m_s)=\rho(m_t)^{-1}$. In the first case we have $\frac s{s-1}=\frac t{t-1}$, so $s=t$. In the second case we have $\frac s{s-1}=\frac{t-1}t$, so $t=1-s$.
Assume that $s\in[0,1]$. Then $s\geqslant0$ and $1-s\geqslant0$. Let $g_1,g_2\in G_{\mathcal{Y}}$ such that $m_{1-s}=g_1\circ m_s\circ g_2$. Considering the signs of the coefficients, both $m_s$ and $m_{1-s}$ are of type $\pm\left(\begin{array}{cc} \geqslant0 & \geqslant0 \\ <0 & >0 \end{array}\right)$. Since $\rho(m_{1-s})=\rho(m_s)^{-1}$, we have $g_1\in D$ and $g_2\in D\xi$ or the contrary. But in the first case we obtain that $m_{1-s}$ is of type $\pm\left(\begin{array}{cc} \leqslant0 & \geqslant0 \\ <0 & <0 \end{array}\right)$ and in the second case of type $\pm\left(\begin{array}{cc} <0 & >0 \\ \leqslant0 & \leqslant0 \end{array}\right)$, which is a contradiction in both cases. Hence we cannot have $m_{1-s}\approx m_s$ if $s\in[0,1]$.
This proves Claim B.
[**Claim C.**]{} If $f\in\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})\setminus G_\mathcal{Y}$, then there exists a unique $s\in[0,+\infty)$ such that $f\approx m_s$.
By Claim A, there exists $t\in{\mathbb R}$ such that $f\approx m_t$. If $t\geqslant0$, set $s=t$; if $t<0$, set $s=1-t$. Then in both cases we have $s\in[0,+\infty)$ and $f\approx m_t\approx m_s$ by Claim B.
And if there is $u\in[0,+\infty)$ such that $u\neq s$ and $f\approx m_u$, then by Claim B we have $s+u=1$ and $s>1$, so $u<0$, which is a contradiction.
This proves Claim C.
[**Claim D.**]{} Let $f_1,f_2\in{\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}$. Then $f_1\approx f_2$ if and only if $\eta\circ f_1\approx\eta\circ f_2$.
This is a consequence of the fact that $\eta$ commutes with all elements of $G_\mathcal{Y}$.
[**Claim E.**]{} If $f\in\mathrm{PSL}^-_2({\mathbb R})$, then either $f\approx\eta$ or there exists a unique $s\in[0,+\infty)$ such that $f\approx\eta\circ m_s$.
This is a consequence of Claim D and the fact that, either $\eta\circ f\in G_\mathcal{Y}$ and then $\eta\circ f\approx\mathrm{id}$, or $\eta\circ f\in\mathrm{PSL}_2({\mathbb R})\setminus G_\mathcal{Y}$ and then we conclude by Claim C.
We now determine, for each of these immersions, the groups of isometries of $\Omega$ that are induced by ambient isometries.
\[groups\] We have $$G_{\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{id}}=D,$$ $$G_{\mathcal{A}_\zeta}=\{\mathrm{id}\},$$ $$G_{\mathcal{B}_\eta}=G_\mathcal{Y},$$ $$G_{\mathcal{B}_{m_s}}=G_{\mathcal{B}_{\eta\circ m_s}}=\{\mathrm{id}\}\textrm{ if }s\notin(0,1),$$ $$G_{\mathcal{B}_{m_s}}=G_{\mathcal{B}_{\eta\circ m_s}}
=\left\{\mathrm{id},\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \sqrt{\frac{1-s}s} \ \\ -\sqrt{\frac s{1-s}} & 0 \end{array}\right)\right\}\textrm{ if }s\in(0,1).$$
Let $g\in{\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}$.
We have $[\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{id}\circ g]=[\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{id}]$ if and only if $$([\mathcal{Y}\circ g],[\mathcal{X}\circ g])=([\mathcal{Y}],[\mathcal{X}]),$$ i.e., if and only if $g\in G_\mathcal{Y}\cap G_\mathcal{X}=D$. Hence $G_{\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{id}}=D$.
We have $[\mathcal{A}_\zeta\circ g]=[\mathcal{A}_\zeta]$ if and only if $$([\mathcal{Y}\circ g],[\mathcal{X}\circ\zeta\circ g])=([\mathcal{Y}],[\mathcal{X}\circ\zeta]),$$ i.e., if and only if $g\in G_\mathcal{Y}$ and $\hat g=\zeta\circ g\circ\zeta^{-1}\in G_\mathcal{X}$. Considering the eigenvalues of $g$ and $\hat g$, we obtain that $g=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \lambda & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda^{-1} \end{array}\right)$ for some $\lambda\in{\mathbb R}^*$ and $\hat g=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \alpha & \beta \\ 0 & \alpha^{-1} \end{array}\right)$ for $\alpha=\lambda$ or $\lambda^{-1}$ and some $\beta\in{\mathbb R}$. Reporting in the relation $\hat g\circ\zeta=\zeta\circ g$ we get $\lambda=\pm1$ and $\beta=0$, hence $g=\hat g=\mathrm{id}$. This proves that $G_{\mathcal{A}_\zeta}=\{\mathrm{id}\}$.
We have $[\mathcal{B}_{\eta}\circ g]=[\mathcal{B}_{\eta}]$ if and only if $$([\mathcal{Y}\circ g],[\mathcal{Y}\circ\eta\circ g])=([\mathcal{Y}],[\mathcal{Y}\circ\eta]),$$ i.e., if and only if $g\in G_\mathcal{Y}$ and $\eta\circ g\circ\eta\in G_\mathcal{Y}$. Since $\eta$ commutes with elements in $G_\mathcal{Y}$, this condition is equivalent to $g\in G_\mathcal{Y}$. This proves that $G_{\mathcal{B}_\eta}=G_\mathcal{Y}$.
Let $s\in{\mathbb R}$. We have $[\mathcal{B}_{m_s}\circ g]=[\mathcal{B}_{m_s}]$ if and only if $$([\mathcal{Y}\circ g],[\mathcal{Y}\circ m_s\circ g])=([\mathcal{Y}],[\mathcal{Y}\circ m_s]),$$ i.e., if and only if $g\in G_\mathcal{Y}$ and $\hat g=m_s\circ g\circ {m_s}^{-1}\in G_\mathcal{Y}$. Considering the eigenvalues of $g$ and $\hat g$ we can see that there are two cases:
- either $g\in D$ and $\hat g=g$ or $g^{-1}$, and then we can compute that the only possibility is $g=\hat g=\mathrm{id}$,
- or $g\in D\xi$ and $\hat g\in D\xi$, and then we can compute that the only possibility is $s\in(0,1)$, $g=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \mu \\ -\mu^{-1} & 0 \end{array}\right)$ with $\mu^2=\frac{1-s}s$ and $\hat g=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \mu s \\ -\mu^{-1}s^{-1} & 0 \end{array}\right)$.
This proves the claimed assertions for $G_{\mathcal{B}_{m_s}}$.
Similarly, we have $[\mathcal{B}_{\eta\circ m_s}\circ g]=[\mathcal{B}_{\eta\circ m_s}]$ if and only if $g\in G_\mathcal{Y}$ and $\hat g=(\eta\circ m_s)\circ g\circ {(\eta\circ m_s)}^{-1}\in G_\mathcal{Y}$. Since $\eta^2=\mathrm{id}$ and elements in $G_\mathcal{Y}$ commute with $\eta$, this is equivalent to $g\in G_\mathcal{Y}$ and $m_s\circ g\circ {m_s}^{-1}\in G_\mathcal{Y}$. Hence $G_{\mathcal{B}_{\eta\circ m_s}}=G_{\mathcal{B}_{m_s}}$.
Classification
--------------
\[thms2s2\] Let $H>0$ and $K\in{\mathbb R}$. Let $\Sigma$ be an $H$-PMC surface with constant intrinsic curvature $K$ in ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb S}^2$. Then $K=0$ and $\Sigma$ is part of a product of two curves of constant curvatures.
Let $U$ be a surface with a Riemannian metric and $\Phi:U\to{\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb S}^2$ be an isometric immersion such that $\Phi(U)=\Sigma$. Let $\Phi_1,\Phi_2:U\to{\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ be the two $H$-CMC isometric immersions given by the Torralbo-Urbano correspondence. Then, by Theorem \[theo-Kconstante\] for $c=1$, we have $K=0$ and $\Phi_1(U)$ and $\Phi_2(U)$ are parts of vertical cylinders. In particular their angle functions vanish.
But the angles functions of $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ coincide with the Kähler functions of $\Phi$ for the two Kähler structures of ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb S}^2$ (see [@torralbotams12 page 790 and the proof of Theorem 1], precisely the relation $C_j=\nu_j$). Then, by [@torralbotams12 Theorem 2], $\Sigma$ is part of a product of two curves of constant curvatures.
\[thmh2h2\] Let $H>0$ and $K\in{\mathbb R}$. Let $\Sigma$ be an $H$-PMC surface with constant intrinsic curvature $K$ in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$. Then
- either $K=0$ and and $\Sigma$ is part of a product of two curves of constant curvatures,
- either $K=4H^2-1<0$ and $\Sigma$ is part of
- an ARL-surface in some totally geodesic ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$,
- a helicoidal surface of Example \[helicoid\] in some totally geodesic ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$,
- a Torralbo-Urbano surface,
- a surface $\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{id}(\Omega)$,
- a surface $\mathcal{A}_\zeta(\Omega)$,
- a surface $\mathcal{B}_\eta(\Omega)$,
- a surface $\mathcal{B}_{m_s}(\Omega)$ for some $s\in[0,+\infty)$,
- or a surface $\mathcal{B}_{\eta\circ m_s}(\Omega)$ for some $s\in[0,+\infty)$.
Moreover, the surfaces appearing in this list are pairwise non congruent.
Let $U$ be a surface with a Riemannian metric and $\Phi:U\to{\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ be an isometric immersion such that $\Phi(U)=\Sigma$. Let $\Phi_1,\Phi_2:U\to{\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ be the two $H$-CMC isometric immersions given by the Torralbo-Urbano correspondence. Then, by Theorem \[theo-Kconstante\] for $c=-1$,
- either $K=0$ and $\Phi_1(U)$ and $\Phi_2(U)$ are parts of vertical cylinders,
- or $K=4H^2-1$ and $\Phi_1(U)$ and $\Phi_2(U)$ are each part of an ARL-surface or of a helicoidal surface of Example \[helicoid\]
In the first case, we conclude as in the proof of Theorem \[thms2s2\] that $\Sigma$ is part of a product of two curves of constant curvatures.
From now on we assume that we are in the second case. Then, up to a repara-metrization, we can assume that $U$ is an open set of $\Omega$ and that there exist $f_1,f_2\in{\mathrm{Iso}(\Omega)}$ such that $\Phi_1=\mathcal{X}\circ f_1$ or $\Phi_1=\mathcal{Y}\circ f_1$ and $\Phi_2=\mathcal{X}\circ f_2$ or $\Phi_2=\mathcal{Y}\circ f_2$. In all cases $\Phi(U)$ will be part of a complete surface so it is not restrictive to assume that $U=\Omega$.
Assume that $\Phi_1=\mathcal{X}\circ f_1$ and $\Phi_2=\mathcal{X}\circ f_2$. The PMC immersion $\Phi$ admits two holomorphic *Hopf differentials*, and they coincide, up to the multiplication by a constant, with the Abresch-Rosenberg differentials of $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ [@torralbotams12 Definition 1, Proposition 3 and Theorem 1]. Then, as the ARL-surface has a vanishing Abresch-Rosenberg differential, the Hopf differentials of $\Phi$ vanish. Consequently, by [@torralbotams12 Theorem 4], either $\Sigma$ is an $H$-CMC surface in a totally geodesic ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$ with vanishing Abresch-Rosenberg differential, so an ARL-surface because it also has constant curvature, or $\Sigma$ is a Torralbo-Urbano surface.
Assume that $\Phi_1=\mathcal{Y}\circ f_1$ and $\Phi_2=\mathcal{X}\circ f_2$. Then the pair $([\Phi_1\circ f_1^{-1}],[\Phi_2\circ f_1^{-1}])$ corresponds to $[\Phi\circ f_1^{-1}]$, so will yield a reparametrization of $\Sigma$ (up to congruences) in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$. Hence we may assume that $f_1=\mathrm{id}$. Then $\Phi=\mathcal{A}_{f_2}$ (up to congruences) and, by Proposition \[equivxy\], $\Sigma$ is congruent to $\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{id}(\Omega)$ or to $\mathcal{A}_\zeta(\Omega)$.
Assume that $\Phi_1=\mathcal{X}\circ f_1$ and $\Phi_2=\mathcal{Y}\circ f_2$. Then, $\Phi$ is congruent to the PMC immersion corresponding to the pair $([\Phi_2],[\Phi_1])$, the conclusion is the same as in the previous case.
Finally, assume that $\Phi_1=\mathcal{X}\circ f_1$ and $\Phi_2=\mathcal{Y}\circ f_2$. As above we can assume that $f_1=\mathrm{id}$. If $f_2\in G_\mathcal{Y}$, then $[\Phi_1]=[\Phi_2]$ and $\Sigma$ is a helicoidal surface of Example \[helicoid\] in some totally geodesic ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$. If $f_2\notin G_\mathcal{Y}$, then $\Phi=\mathcal{B}_{f_2}$ (up to congruences) and, by Proposition \[equivyy\], $\Sigma$ is congruent to $\mathcal{B}_\eta(\Omega)$, to $\mathcal{B}_{m_s}(\Omega)$ or to $\mathcal{B}_{\eta\circ m_s}(\Omega)$ for some $s\in[0,+\infty)$.
The fact that all surfaces in this list are pairwise non congruent is a consequence of the fact that any two of them give different pairs of classes of congruences of CMC isometric immersions into ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb R}$.
The extrinsic normal curvature of an $H$-PMC surface in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ is given by $$\overline K^\perp=\frac{\nu_2^2-\nu_1^2}2$$ (see [@torralbotams12 page 790] and recall that $C_j=\nu_j$). Hence the surfaces $\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{id}(\Omega)$, $\mathcal{A}_\zeta(\Omega)$, $\mathcal{B}_{m_s}(\Omega)$ and $\mathcal{B}_{\eta\circ m_s}(\Omega)$ for $s\in[0,+\infty)$ are examples of $H$-PMC surfaces in ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ with non identically zero extrinsic normal curvature. Up to our knowledge, these are the first examples of such surfaces. Note that [@torralbotams12 Theorem 3] classifies $H$-PMC surfaces in ${\mathbb S}^2\times{\mathbb S}^2$ and ${\mathbb H}^2\times{\mathbb H}^2$ whose extrinsic normal curvature is identically zero.
By Proposition \[groups\], the group of isometries of $\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{id}(\Omega)$ induced by ambient isometries is a one-parameter group (namely, $G_{\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{id}(\Omega)}=D$); hence, it should be possible to compute an explicit expression of this surface, possibly in terms of solutions of ordinary differential equations. The same holds for the surface $\mathcal{B}_\eta(\Omega)$. However, for the surfaces $\mathcal{A}_\zeta(\Omega)$, $\mathcal{B}_{m_s}(\Omega)$ and $\mathcal{B}_{\eta\circ m_s}(\Omega)$ for $s\in[0,+\infty)$, the groups of isometries induced by ambient isometries are discrete, so such an explicit expression may not exist.
A remark on Torralbo and Urbano’s correspondence {#rktu}
------------------------------------------------
Let $H>0$. Let $(\Sigma,\dif s^2)$ be an oriented simply connected Riemannian surface. In this section we explain in details why Torralbo and Urbano’s correspondence is a one-to-one correspondence between classes of congruence of $H$-PMC immersions into ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ and *unordered* pairs of classes of congruence of $H$-CMC immersions into ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$.
It follows from their work and our Theorem \[theo1\] that a $4$-uple $$(\nu_1,\dif h_1,\nu_2,\dif h_2)$$ where $(\nu_1,h_1)$ and $(\nu_2,h_2)$ are solutions to , , and on $\Sigma$ characterizes an $H$-PMC immersion into ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ modulo isometries in the connected component of the identity in ${\mathrm{Iso}({\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c)}$. In the notations of [@torralbotams12 pages 795 and 796] we have, for $j=1,2$, $$\label{relcjnuj}
C_j=\nu_j,\quad\eta_j=h_j,\quad\gamma_j=-i\sqrt2(\eta_j)_z.$$
On the other hand, this $4$-uple characterizes an ordered pair of $H$-CMC immersions into ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ modulo isometries in the connected component of the identity in ${\mathrm{Iso}({\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R})}$ for each of them.
The isometry group of ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ has $8$ connected components; they can be obtained from the connected component of the identity applying the following isometries: $$G_1:(x_1,x_2)\mapsto(F(x_1),x_2),$$ $$G_2:(x_1,x_2)\mapsto(x_1,F(x_2)),$$ $$G_3:(x_1,x_2)\mapsto(x_2,x_1),$$ where $F:{\mathbb M}^2_c\to{\mathbb M}^2_c$ is an orientation reversing isometry (i.e., antiholomorphic).
Following the notation of [@torralbotams12 pages 787 and 790], we let $J$ be a conformal structure on ${\mathbb M}^2_c$, $\omega$ be the corresponding Kähler form on ${\mathbb M}^2_c$, $\pi_j:{\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c\to{\mathbb M}^2_c$ the $j$-st projection ($j=1,2$), $\omega_1=\pi_1^*\omega+\pi_2^*\omega$ and $\omega_2=\pi_1^*\omega-\pi_2^*\omega$.
Let $\Phi:\Sigma\to{\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ be an $H$-PMC isometric immersion with data $$(\nu_1,\dif h_1,\nu_2,\dif h_2).$$ For $j=1,2$, let $\Phi_j:\Sigma\to{\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ be the $H$-CMC isometric immersion with data $(\nu_j,\dif h_j)$.
The manifold ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb M}^2_c$ has two Kähler structures, $J_1=(J,J)$ and $J_2=(J,-J)$. The Kähler functions $C_j$ ($j=1,2$) of $\Phi$ for these two Kähler structures are defined by $$\Phi^*\omega_j=C_j\omega_\Sigma$$ where $\omega_\Sigma$ is the area $2$-form on $\Sigma$. Moreover, by [@torralbotams12 equations (3.2) and (3.3)], the “gamma” functions $\gamma_j$ ($j=1,2$) satisfy $$\label{defgammaj}
\gamma_j=\frac{\sqrt2}H\langle J_j\Phi_z,\mathcal{H}\rangle$$ where $\mathcal{H}$ is the mean curvature vector of $\Phi$.
We have $F^*\omega=-\omega$, $\pi_1\circ G_1=F\circ\pi_1$ and $\pi_2\circ G_1=\pi_2$ so $$(G_1\circ\Phi)^*\omega_1=\Phi^*G_1^*\pi_1^*\omega+\Phi^*G_1^*\pi_2^*\omega
=-\Phi^*\pi_1^*\omega+\Phi^*\pi_2^*\omega=-\Phi^*\omega_2,$$ so the first Kähler function of $G_1\circ\Phi$ is $-C_2$. Similarly, the second Kähler function of $G_1\circ\Phi$ is $-C_1$. Also, we have $$\langle J_1(G_1\circ\Phi)_z,\dif G_1(\mathcal{H})\rangle=-\langle J_2\Phi_z,\mathcal{H}\rangle,$$ $$\langle J_2(G_1\circ\Phi)_z,\dif G_1(\mathcal{H})\rangle=-\langle J_1\Phi_z,\mathcal{H}\rangle,$$ so, using , we obtain that the “gamma” functions of $G_1\circ\Phi$ are $-\gamma_2$ and $-\gamma_1$. Hence, taking into account, we conclude that $G_1\circ\Phi$ has data $$(-\nu_2,-\dif h_2,-\nu_1,-\dif h_1).$$
Arguing in the same way, we can see that $G_2\circ\Phi$ has data $$(\nu_2,\dif h_2,\nu_1,\dif h_1).$$
Finally, $\pi_1\circ G_3=\pi_2$ and $\pi_2\circ G_3=\pi_1$, from what we deduce that the Kähler functions of $G_3\circ\Phi$ are $C_1$ and $-C_2$. We also check that the “gamma” functions of $G_3\circ\Phi$ are $\gamma_1$ and $-\gamma_2$. Hence $G_3\circ\Phi$ has data $$(\nu_1,\dif h_1,-\nu_2,-\dif h_2).$$
Hence, from the data of $\Phi$ and its compositions with isometries in the group generated by $G_1$, $G_2$ and $G_3$, we obtain the data of the pair $(\Phi_1,\Phi_2)$ and all pairs that can be obtained by possibly replacing each $\Phi_j$ by $R\circ\Phi_j$ where $R$ is a $\pi$-rotation around a horizontal geodesic in ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ and possibly permuting the two elements. Such a set exactly characterizes an *unordered* pair of classes of congruence of $H$-CMC isometric immersions (note that orientation reversing isometries of ${\mathbb M}^2_c\times{\mathbb R}$ give rise to $-H$-CMC immersions and the corresponding data are not admissible for this correspondence).
[^1]: B. D. and F. V. were partially supported by the International Cooperation Program CAPES/COFECUB Fondation. The work of I. D. was conducted during a scholarship supported by the International Cooperation Program CAPES/COFECUB Fondation at the University of Lorraine; financed by CAPES – Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education within the Ministry of Education of Brazil.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Saving energy and enhancing performance are secular preoccupations shared by both nature and human beings. In animal locomotion, flapping flyers or swimmers rely on the flexibility of their wings or body to passively increase their efficiency using an appropriate cycle of storing and releasing elastic energy. Despite the convergence of many observations pointing out this feature, the underlying mechanisms explaining how the elastic nature of the wings is related to propulsive efficiency remain unclear. Here we use an experiment with a self-propelled simplified insect model allowing to show how wing compliance governs the performance of flapping flyers. Reducing the description of the flapping wing to a forced oscillator model, we pinpoint different nonlinear effects that can account for the observed behavior —in particular a set of cubic nonlinearities coming from the clamped-free beam equation used to model the wing and a quadratic damping term representing the fluid drag associated to the fast flapping motion. In contrast to what has been repeatedly suggested in the literature, we show that flapping flyers optimize their performance not by especially looking for resonance to achieve larger flapping amplitudes with less effort, but by tuning the temporal evolution of the wing shape (i.e. the phase dynamics in the oscillator model) to optimize the aerodynamics.'
author:
- 'Sophie Ramananarivo, Ramiro Godoy-Diana & Benjamin Thiria'
title: Behind the performance of flapping flyers
---
Introduction
============
Flying animals have since long inspired admiration and fueled the imagination of scientists and engineers. Alongside biologists studying form and function of flapping flyers in nature [@Alexander2004book; @Dudley2000book], the last decade has seen an impressive quantity of studies driven by engineering groups using new techniques to develop and study artificial biomimetic flapping flyers [@Ho2003; @Shyy2008book]. The widespread availability of high-speed video and in particular the merging of experimental methods borrowed from fluid mechanics into the toolbox of the experimental biologist have permitted to elucidate various key mechanisms involved in the complex dynamics of flapping flight (see e.g. [@Dickinson1999; @Wang2005; @Spedding2009]).
A recent field of investigation concerns the efficiency of flapping flyers, the major interrogation being about how natural systems optimize energy saving together with performance enhancement. In particular, the passive role of wing flexibility to increase flight efficiency through the bending of the wings while flapping has attracted a lot of attention. It is commonly agreed that this efficiency enhancement comes from the particular shape of the bent wing, which leads to a more favorable repartition of the aerodynamic forces (see [@anderson1998] and [@Shyy2010] for an extensive review). For flying animals in air, such as insects, it has been proposed [@Daniel2002; @Combes03; @Thiria10] that wing inertia should play a major role in competing with the elastic restoring force, compared to the fluid loading. The mechanism governing the propulsive performance of the flapping flyer can therefore be seen at leading order as a two-step process, where the instantaneous shape of the wings is determined by a structural mechanics problem which then sets the moving boundaries for the aerodynamic problem.
From a dynamical point of view, if we consider chordwise bending of a wing with a given flapping signal imposed at the leading edge, the instantaneous shape of the structure is strongly dependent on the phase lag between the forcing and the response of the wing (respectively the leading and trailing edges). Recent works by [@Spagnolie10] and [@Zhang_2_10] using a simplified model of a flexible wing as a combination of heaving and passive pitching have shown that a transition from enhanced thrust to underperformance occurs for a critical phase value close to the resonant frequency of the system. This sustains the commonly invoked argument suggesting that flapping flyers could take advantage of a structural property to save energy by matching the relaxation frequency of their compliant wings to the wingbeat frequency [@Greenewalt60; @Masoud10; @Michelin09; @Spagnolie10]. In nature this has been observed in particular for undulatory swimming fish or other swimmers that use deforming propulsive structures, such as jellyfish or scallops (see [@Long1996] and references therein). In the case of insects, however, the few available observations (especially for large species) report wingbeat frequencies far below the natural relaxation frequencies [@Sunada98; @Sunada02; @Nakamura07; @Chen08]. Recent experiments using a self-propelled model with large-flapping-amplitude elastic wings [@Thiria10] are consistent with the latter, since the propulsive efficiency of the model peaks for a flapping frequency lower than the primary linear resonance of the wings. Fully predicting the wing beat rate as the undamped resonant frequency of a linear oscillator (see e.g. [@Greenewalt60]) should be therefore taken with reserve. Super-harmonic nonlinear resonances have been invoked [@Vanella2009], suggesting that flying animals may effectively flap their wings far below the primary resonance while increasing their performance. This is probably one mechanism among others governing the dynamics of flapping flyers, but it is clear that the details of the underlying fluid-structure interaction problem are poorly understood. More specifically, the underlying phase dynamics that set the instantaneous wing shape and lead first to an increase and then a loss of the thrust power (and even a reversal of the propulsive force as in the case of [@Spagnolie10]) remain unexplained.
![Experimental setup: a) Pioneer experiment from Marey [@Magnan1934]. b) Actual setup. c) Details of the flapping flyer model used for this study.[]{data-label="Marey"}](FIgures/SetupLow.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
In this paper we address these questions using the experimental self-propelled flapping-wing model with elastic wings described in [@Thiria10]. Exploring a wide range of bending rigidities we show that, in the simplified context of chordwise-compliant wings, the performance optima of the system are far from being set by a simple resonant condition. We develop a nonlinear one-dimensional beam model for the bending wing which is reduced to a forced oscillator model suitable to study different nonlinear effects. In particular, a set of cubic nonlinearities coming from the clamped-free beam equation and a quadratic damping term representing the fluid drag associated to the fast flapping motion permit to account for the observed behavior. We show that the nonlinear nature of the fluid damping is an essential feature to determine the phase lag that leads to an increase/decrease of the efficiency.
As a whole fluid-solid interaction process leading to propulsion, we provide evidence that flapping flyers may optimize their performance not by especially looking for resonance but by using passive deformation to streamline the instantaneous shape of the wing with the surrounding flow.
Experiments
===========
Setup and physical quantities
-----------------------------
The experimental setup is the same described by Thiria & Godoy-Diana [@Thiria10], inspired from the pioneer $19^{th}$ century experiment by Marey [@Magnan1934]: a flapping wing device is attached to a mast that is ball bearing mounted to a central shaft in such a way that the thrust force produced by the wings makes the flyer turn around this shaft. A particular attention has been paid to reduce friction losses in the whole system. Wings are made of [Mylar^$\textregistered$^]{} semicircles of diameter $S=2L=6$ cm. The experimental parameters are the forcing frequency ($f$), the flapping amplitude ($A_{\omega}$) and the chordwise rigidity of the wings ($B$) governed by their thickness $h$. In contrast with the first study reported with this setup [@Thiria10], the set of wings used here covers a larger range of bending rigidities, from near-rigid to very soft materials. Six pairs of wings have been tested. Their structural properties (thickness, mass, and rigidity) are summarized in Table 1.
This specific setup allows to measure various averaged quantities (see [@Thiria10] for details): the cruising speed $U$ when the device is allowed to turn around, and the thrust force $F_{T}$ when it is held at a fixed station (see Fig. \[Powers\] (a) and (b)) which gives the averaged aerodynamic thrust power, being the product $P_T=UF$. In both cases, the power consumption $P_{i}$ is measured. On the other hand, we performed a precise dynamical study of the flapping wing. For each set of parameters ($A_{\omega},f_{f},B$), the phase and amplitude of the trailing edge, with respect to the forcing flapping motion, has been measured using a fast cadenced camera (1000 fps) in both air and vacuum.\
![(a) Cruising speed, (b) thrust force and nondimensional (c) thrust ($p_{T}$) and (d) input ($p_{i}$) powers as a function of $\bar{\omega_{f}}$. The gray area represents the optimum region, the dashed line indicates the location of the reduced natural frequency of the wing (linear resonance).[]{data-label="Powers"}](FIgures/performance.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
It is important to recall that for this setup, and more generally for flapping flyers in air, the main bending motor of the flexible wings is wing inertia [@Thiria10; @Daniel2002; @Combes03]. The competition between the wing inertia and the elastic restoring force is captured by the scaled elasto-inertial number $\mathcal{N}_{ei}$ [@Thiria10]: $$\mathcal{N}_{ei}=\frac{\mu_{s}A_{w}\omega_{f}^{2}L^{3}}{B}=\frac{A_{\omega}}{L}\left ( \frac{\omega_{f}}{\omega_{0}}\right )^{2}$$
The first expression is a direct comparison between both the moments of inertial and elastic forces. Interestingly, this number can also be expressed as a function of the ratio between the forcing and relaxation frequencies times the non-dimensional forcing amplitude of the driving motion, which allows to express directly the bending rate as function of a non-dimensional oscillator forcing term. The second expression is therefore useful to explore the nearness of the resonance and will be used to analyze the experimental data in this paper. Results will therefore displayed as a function of the reduced frequency $\bar{\omega_{f}}=(\omega_{f}/\omega_{0})=\bar{A_{\omega}}^{-1/2}\mathcal{N}_{ei}^{1/2}$, where $\bar{A_{\omega}}=\frac{A_{w}}{L}$ is the reduced flapping amplitude. In order to compare the aerodynamic performance in all the experiments, both the thrust force and cruising speed were rendered non-dimensional using the appropriate scalings $f_{T}=F_{T}L/B$ and $u={U/A_{\omega}\omega}$. The non-dimensional powers (displayed in Fig. \[Powers\] (c) and (d)) then read $p_{T}=UF_{T}L/BA_{\omega } \omega$ and $p_{i}=P_{i}L/B\omega$.
![a): Photograph of the flapping wing showing successive states of the bending wing during one stroke cycle (thickness is $0.050$ mm and $\bar{\omega_{f}}=.5$). As can be seen, the main deformation is mainly performed on the first mode. In this case the phase lag is quite large, leading to a strong increase of flight performance. b): Typical time series tracking the motion of the leading (black curve) and trailing (red curve) edges of the wing at mid-span, obtained from video recordings at 1000 fps. c): Same as b) but with a forcing near $\frac{1}{3}\omega_{0}$, exhibiting super-harmonic resonance typical from dynamical systems containing cubic nonlinearities. []{data-label="SignalAmpPhaz"}](FIgures/SignalAmpPhazLow.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
[@rrrrrrrrrrrrr]{} [**Table 1.** Wing properties ]{} & & & & & & wing thickness, $h$ (mm) & $0.050$ & $0.078$ & $0.130$ & $0.175$ & $0.250$ &$ 0.360$ mass per unit area $\mu_{s}$ (kg.m$^{-2}$) & $4.50$ $10^{-2}$ & $10.63$ $10^{-2} $ & $17.67$ $10^{-2} $ & $24.12$ $10^{-2} $ & $34.92$ $10^{-2}$ & $47.95$ $10^{-2}$ rigidity $B$ (N.m) & $3.34 .10^{-5}$ & $1.83 .10^{-4}$ & $1.02 .10^{-3}$ & $2.26 .10^{-3}$ & $7.31 .10^{-3}$ & $14.00 .10^{-3}$ relaxation frequency $f_{0}$ (Hz) & $25.4$ & $34.2$ & $62.2$ & $89.5$ & $117.1$ & $160.8$ color label in figures & & & & & & black
In both the thrust force and cruising speed curves, it is clear that increasing wing flexibility brings out two distinct regimes: up to a certain flapping frequency, the more flexible wings outperform the rigid linear $U(f)$ relationship (see also [@Vandenberghe2004]). The measurements for the two most flexible wings evidence the appearance of an underperformance regime in which both $F_T$ and $U$ lie below the rigid wing case. Looking now at the nondimensional thrust power, the data from all wings collapse on a single curve with a clear performance peak, which agrees with what has been observed by [@Spagnolie10; @Zhang_2_10] for heaving/pitching systems. An important point is that the maximum in performance does not take place at the resonant frequency, but much below (around $0.7\omega_{0}$, represented by the gray shaded area). Moreover, the nondimensional thrust power at $\bar{\omega_{f}}=1$ (see dahsed line in Fig. \[Powers\] (c)) is even more than 4 times lower than the optimum value. At last, we remark that there is also no sign of a resonant behavior in the consumed power curve (Fig. \[Powers\] (d)).
Wing dynamics
-------------
We proceed now to study the behavior of the wings considered as a forced oscillator, assuming the oscillation of the leading edge to be the forcing and that of the trailing edge to be the response (which means to assume that the wings bend following only the first deformation mode). As said before, the amplitude and phase shift of the response can thus be measured by following the two wing edges on a high cadenced camera recording (as seen on Fig. \[SignalAmpPhaz\] (a)). Figs. \[SignalAmpPhaz\] (b) and (c) display two characteristic time evolutions of the driving oscillation (the imposed wing beat, shown as black dots) and the wing elastic response (the motion of the trailing edge, red dots) in the moving frame. The first case shows a typical response, at $\bar{\omega_{f}}=0.79$, mainly sinusoidal at the driving frequency, which supports the assumption that the oscillations of the wing follow a single mode. In the second case, the driving frequency is near one third of the resonant frequency $\omega_0$. As can be observed in Fig. \[SignalAmpPhaz\] (c), the response is then a combination between $\omega_{0}/3$ and $\omega_{0}$, giving evidence of a super-harmonic resonance [@Nayfeh79], pointing out the fact that the system integrates cubic nonlinearities. The non dimensional amplitude $a$ (i.e. scaled by the length of the wing $L$) and phase $\gamma$ have therefore been extracted from those signals for each pair of wings as a function of the reduced driving frequency for two different amplitudes. Results are displayed in Fig. \[AmpPhaz\]. In parallel, the same experiments have been conducted in a vacuum chamber at 10 % of the ambient pressure. Results are also displayed in Fig. \[AmpPhaz\] for comparison.
As can be seen, the evolution of the amplitude $a$ shows a fast increase from very low flapping frequencies. This is the expected behavior owing to the inertial character of the forcing. A slight but rather broad peak can be observed in the nearness of $\omega_{0}/3$ in the amplitude curve, confirming the occurrence of the super-harmonic resonance hinted above and strengthening the fact that this type of mechanism may play a role as a strategy for performance enhancement in nature [@Vanella2009]. Two more points have to be underlined: first, measurements in air and vacuum are approximately the same, in accordance with the hypothesis that inertia is the main bending factor for flapping flyers [@Daniel2002; @Combes03; @Thiria10]. The second point is that no clear resonance is observed around $\bar{\omega_{f}}=1$ (only a barely visible peak in the case of the lowest forcing amplitude shown in the insert in Fig. \[AmpPhaz\](a)). Concerning the phase $\gamma$, the present results recover the trend of what has been observed recently [@Shyy2010; @Spagnolie10; @Zhang_2_10; @Masoud10]: $|\gamma|$ increases monotonically with $\bar{\omega_{f}}$. Considering the experiments in air at normal conditions, this observation together with the performance increase shown in the first part of the $p_t(\bar\omega_f)$ (Fig. \[Powers\] (c)), brings the following conclusion: the increasing phase shift $\gamma$, which corresponds to a situation where the wing experiences a larger bending at the maximal flapping velocity, leads to a more favorable repartition of the aerodynamic forces (as discussed in [@Thiria10]).\
A simple argument widely shared in the community connecting the phase dynamics to the propulsive performance is: the larger the phase lag is, the best the thrust power would be [@Spagnolie10; @Zhang_2_10], until the point where the wing experiences its largest bending at $\gamma=\pi /2$. However, while the argument reasonably agrees with the observations in the range of forcing frequencies where performance increases with $\bar\omega_f$, the maximum performance does not actually match with the maximum of bending that occurs at $\gamma=\pi /2$, but relatively far below this expected optimum (which lies actually around $\pi/4$).\
One last important remark to be made concerns the phase evolution in vacuum. It is clearly observed that $\gamma$ decreases more slowly in the low density environment within the whole range of flapping frequencies studied. In contrast with the amplitude measurements, where the data from the experiments in vacuum follow roughly the same curve of those in air at atmospheric pressure, the large difference in the $\gamma$ curves between both cases points out unequivocally the importance of the surrounding fluid in determining the phase dynamics. This point will be discussed later. At this stage, we have shown that, as observed in the pitching/heaving systems of [@Spagnolie10; @Zhang_2_10], the increase in performance of elastic wings undergoing large oscillations is essentially governed by a fast growing phase evolution. However, the physical mechanisms governing the propulsive performance remain unclear. In particular, the mechanisms leading to the useful evolution of $\gamma$ as well as the link between resonance and performance are still looking for a definitive answer.
![Evolution of the non-dimensional amplitude a) and phase b) of the trailing edge wing response as a function of the reduced driving frequency for both flapping amplitudes $\bar{A_{\omega}}= 0.8$ and $\bar{A_{\omega}}= 0.5$ (filled symbols correspond to measurements in air, open symbols in vacuum). Those results are compared to nonlinear predictions from Eq. \[Amp\] with (gray line) and without (black line) nonlinear air drag (discussed further in the text). []{data-label="AmpPhaz"}](FIgures/ampl_deph_final_with_model.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
Nonlinear 1D beam model
=======================
In order to understand those crucial points, one can consider the elastic wing as a clamped-free beam under base harmonic forcing. For simplicity, the beam is considered as one-dimensional taken at mid length in the spanwise direction of the wing. We assume here, according to the experiment, that only flexural displacements (i.e. perpendicular to the direction of the flight motion) are allowed. The structural properties of the beam are determined by measuring experimentally the relaxation frequency.
Thus, the equation governing the motion of the nonlinear flexural oscillations of clamped-free beam writes [@Crespo78]:
$$\begin{aligned}
EI W''''+\mu \ddot{W}&=&-EI (W'W''^{2} + W'''W'^{2})' \notag \\ &-&\frac{\mu}{2} \Bigg [ W'\int_{L}^{x} \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial t^{2}} \Bigg [\int_{0}^{x} W'^{2} dx \Bigg ] dx \Bigg ] '
\label{beam0}\end{aligned}$$
where $W$ is the transversal local displacement, $E$ the Young modulus, $I$ the second moment of inertia and $\mu$ the mass per unit of length. Writing $W$ as $W(x,t)=w(x,t)+w_{0}(t)$, where $w_{0}(t)$ is the driving motion defined by $w_{0}(t)=A_{\omega} \cos (\omega_{f}t)$, and using the non-dimensional quantities for space and time $\tilde{w}=\frac{w}{L}$; $ \tilde{x}=\frac{x}{L}$; $\tilde{t}=\frac{t}{\tau}$; with $\tau=\left (\frac{\mu}{EI} \right )^{1/2} L^{2}$, equation \[beam0\] reads:
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{w}''''+ \ddot{\tilde{w}} &=&-(\tilde{w}'\tilde{w}''^{2} + \tilde{w}'''\tilde{w}'^{2})' \notag \\&-&\frac{1}{2} \Bigg [ \tilde{w}'\int_{1}^{\tilde{x}} \frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial \tilde{t}^{2}} \Bigg [\int_{0}^{\tilde{x}} \tilde{w}'^{2} d\tilde{x} \Bigg ] d\tilde{x} \Bigg ] ' -\bar{A_{\omega}} \ddot{\tilde{w_{0}}}
\label{beam}\end{aligned}$$
which has to satisfy the clamped-free boundary conditions $\tilde{w}(0,\tilde{t})=\tilde{w}'(0,\tilde{t})=\tilde{w}''(1,\tilde{t})=\tilde{w}'''(1,\tilde{t})=0$. The last term on the right hand side in Eq. \[beam\], $-\bar{A_{\omega}} \ddot{\tilde{w_{0}}}=\bar{A_{\omega}}\bar{\omega_{f}}^{2}\cos (\bar{\omega_{f}} \tilde{t})=\mathcal{N}_{ei} \cos (\bar{\omega_{f}} \tilde{t})$, is a forcing term due to the wing inertia whose amplitude is given by the elasto-inertial number and which is dependent on the square of the driving frequency as seen before.\
The next step is to set apart the spatial dependence by projection of Eq. \[beam\] onto the complete set of eigenfunctons defined by the linear part. The displacement is expended as $w(x,t)=\sum_{1}^{\infty}X_{p}(t)\Phi_{p}(x)$ (see [@Nayfeh93]) where $\Phi_{p}$ are the non-dimensional *linear* modes for clamped-free beams which are not recalled here for the sake of brevity. The problem then writes (the $\tilde{}$ have been removed for simplicity):
$$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{X_{p}}+X_{p}&=&-\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{N} h_{ijk}^{p}X_{i}X_{j}X_{k}\notag \\ &-&\sum_{i,j,k=1}^{N} f_{ijk}^{p}(X_{i}X_{j}\ddot{X}_{k} + X_{i}\dot{X}_{j}\dot{X}_{k})+F_{p}(t)
\label{X}\end{aligned}$$
where $h_{ijk}^{p}$ and $f_{ijk}^{p}$ are determined by:
$$h_{ijk}^{p}=\int_{0}^{1}(\Phi'_{i}\Phi''_{j}\Phi''_{k}+\Phi'''_{i}\Phi'_{j}\Phi'_{k})'\Phi_{p}dx
\label{h}$$
$$f_{ijk}^{p}=\int_{0}^{1} \Bigg [\Phi'_{i} \int_{1}^{x}\int_{0}^{u} \Phi'_{j}(y)\Phi'_{k}(y) dydu \Bigg] ' \Phi_{p}dx
\label{f}$$
The projection of the forcing term on the $p^{th}$ mode, $F_{p}$, writes at the trailing edge:
$$F_{p}=\bar{A_{\omega}}\bar{\omega_{f}}^{2}\Phi_{p}(1)\int_{0}^{1} \Phi_{p} (x) dx
\label{F}$$
As the propulsive regimes observed in this work lie below the first relaxation frequency of the wing, we assume that the response of the wing is mainly governed by the first eigenmode. Hence, equation \[X\] can be considerably simplified and reduces for the only mode 1 to:
$$\ddot{X}+X=- h_{111}^{1}X^3- f_{111}^{1}(X^2\ddot{X} + X\dot{X}^2)+F_{1}(t)
\label{X1}$$
A crucial feature is now to choose a damping term to this dynamical system. During a stroke cycle, the wing follows very fast motions involving high local Reynolds numbers, which prompt us to include a nonlinear quadratic fluid drag term [@tritton] in addition to the classical linear viscous friction law. The damping is then chosen as a combination of linear and nonlinear terms as follows:
$$\Xi(X,\dot{X})=\xi \dot{X} +\xi_{nl} \vert \dot{X} \vert \dot{X}$$
The linear and nonlinear coefficients $\xi$ and $\xi_{nl}$ are estimated studying the impulse response for each wing [@Nayfeh79].The solution of Eq. \[X1\] including damping is determined by using a classical multiple scale method at first order (see [@Nayfeh79]). To this end, we introduce a small parameter $\epsilon$ and a detuning parameter $\sigma=(\bar{\omega_{f}}-1)/\epsilon$. The problem to be solved reads.
$$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{X}+X&=&- \epsilon (h_{111}^{1}X^3+ f_{111}^{1}(X^2\ddot{X} + X\dot{X}^2) \notag \\ &+&\Xi(X,\dot{X}) +F_{1}(t))
\label{X1eps}\end{aligned}$$
According to the multiple scales theory, we express the solution in terms of different time scales as $X=X_{0}(t_{0},t_{1})+\epsilon X_{1}(t_{0},t_{1})+....$ where $t_{0}=t$ and $t_{1}=\epsilon t$ are respectively short (relative to the oscillation of the wing) and long times scales. The system at order $\epsilon^{0}$ is $\partial_{t_{0}}^2{X_{0}}+X_{0}=0$ an gives the straightforward solution $X_{0}=A(t_{1})e^{it_{0}}+A^{*}(t_{1})e^{-it_{0}}$ where $A$ and $A^{*}$ are complex functions.
At order $\epsilon^{1}$, we obtain:
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial^{2}_{t_{0}}X_{1}+X_{1}&=&- h^{1}_{111}X_{0}^{3}-f^{1}_{111}(X_{0}^{2}\ddot{X_{0}}+X_{0}\dot{X_{0}}^{2})\notag \\ &-&\Xi(X_{0}, \dot{X_{0}})-2\partial_{t_{1}t_{0}} X_{0}+F_{1}\cos(t_{0}+\sigma t_{1})\notag \\
\label{Eqq}\end{aligned}$$
Using the expression of $X_{0}$ found at order $\epsilon^{0}$ into Eq. \[Eqq\], an equation for $A$ is obtained by elimination of the secular terms:
$$A^{2}A^{*}(3h_{111}^{1}-2f_{111}^{1})+i(2\partial_{t_{1}} A+ \xi A+\frac{4\xi_{nl}}{3 \pi} \vert A \vert A)=\frac{1}{2}F_{1}e^{i\sigma t_{1}}
\label{Amp}$$
where the pre-factor $\frac{4}{3\pi}$ in front of the nonlinear damping coefficient is obtained during the special integration over one period of the Fourier expansion of the function $\dot{X}_{0} \vert \dot{X}_{0} \vert$ (see [@Nayfeh79]).As can be seen, Eq. \[Amp\] is a characteristic equation of a forced damped oscillator with cubic nonlinearities. At last, substituting the polar form $A=\frac{1}{2}ae^{i(\sigma t_{1}-\gamma)}$, separating into real and imaginary parts and looking only to the steady-state solutions, we find two relations for the amplitude $a$ and phase $\gamma$.[^1]
$$\begin{aligned}
\left (\Gamma_{1} a^{3}-a \sigma \right )^{2}+(\xi a+\frac{4}{3 \pi} \xi_{nl} a^{2})^{2}=\frac{F_{1}^{2}}{4}
\label{a}\\
\gamma=\arctan \left(\frac{(\xi a+\frac{4}{3 \pi} \xi_{nl} a^{2})}{\Gamma_{1} a^{3}-a \sigma} \right)
\label{gamma}\end{aligned}$$
where $\Gamma_{1}=\frac{1}{8}(3h_{111}^{1}-2f_{111}^{1})$ is the nonlinear cubic term coefficient, which is computed from Eq. \[h\] and \[f\].
Eq. \[gamma\] closely resembles a classic nonlinear Duffing oscillator except that the forcing amplitude is frequency dependent and that a nonlinear damping term is present.
![Dependence of the amplitude $a$ and phase $\gamma$ with the reduced forcing frequency $\bar{\omega_{f}}$ for the first mode of a clamped-free beam forced by inertia for two different (high and medium) amplitudes $A_{\omega}$ (chosen arbitrarily for clarity). The blue line corresponds to the linear prediction, the black line to the non-linear model from Eq \[Amp\] with [*linear*]{} damping ($\xi_{nl}=0$), the red line to the non-linear model with [*nonlinear*]{} damping ($\xi_{nl}\neq0$). As can be seen only cases with relatively small flapping amplitude and [*linear*]{} damping can exhibit a slight resonance peak. Greater amplitudes and/or presence of [*nonlinear*]{} damping behave as a non-resonant system in the domain of flyers capabilities. Concerning the phase, models including only linear damping do not produce “useful” phase lag except in the nearness of the phase jump. In contrast, the presence of a nonlinear damping produces a fast and helpful evolution.[]{data-label="oscillator"}](FIgures/Oscillator2.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
Analysis and discussion
=======================
Resonance and phase evolution
-----------------------------
Predictions of the above model for the parameters of the experiments are plotted in Fig. \[AmpPhaz\] for both cases in air and vacuum. In addition, for a clear understanding of the underlying dynamics described by Eqs. \[a\] and \[gamma\], a comparison between predictions from a linear model, a [*nonlinear*]{} with [*linear*]{} damping and a [*nonlinear*]{} with [*nonlinear*]{} damping is displayed in Fig. \[oscillator\] for two flapping amplitudes $\bar{A_{\omega}}$. It can be seen that the model based on a single mode is capable of reproducing all the observations made from the experiments both in normal and low density environments. The good agreement between experiments and model allows us to pinpoint some mechanisms underlying the complex mechanisms of flapping flight.\
The first concerns the question of resonance: from Fig. \[oscillator\], it can be observed that the only case (apart from the linear case) exhibiting a slight resonance peak corresponds to relatively small flapping amplitude and damping coefficient \[i.e. only linear damping term, see Fig. \[oscillator\] (a)\]. Cases for higher amplitude and/or presence of nonlinear damping behave as a non-resonant like system in the range of flapping frequencies studied. In nonlinear oscillators, it is known that the main effect of the nonlinear term is to distort the resonance curve and shift the resonance peak to higher frequencies (for a hardening coefficient $\Gamma_{1}>0$, as in the present study) [@Nayfeh79]. An important feature of such nonlinear systems is that the distortion of the shape of the resonance curve is directly dependent on the amplitude of the excitation. In the present case where the forcing is inertial, the response depends on the square of the forcing frequency (or on the elasto-inertial number $\mathcal{N}_{ei}$), which provides an increase of the amplitude plotted in Fig. \[AmpPhaz\] independent of an intrinsic resonance mechanism. Hence, we can expect the actual resonance curve of the system to be all the more distorted that the flapping frequency increases. Another feature that makes it difficult for the flapping flyer to benefit from a resonance mechanism is the presence of a geometric saturation due to the finite length of the wing. Always due to the inertia effects, this geometrical saturation will be reached all the more soon that the demand for larger amplitude (i.e. better performances) is increased. Coming back to the distorted resonance curve, the visible consequence is that the wing, even for a small nonlinear cubic coefficient, behaves as a system never reaching a peak in the range of frequencies commonly used by flapping flyers. Additionally, the presence of strong damping accentuates this behavior by smoothing the value of a possible resonance peak. This last observation is consistent with the fact that birds or insects may not especially look for structural resonance to improve their performance.
The second point is the crucial role of fluid damping in triggering the phase lag that is useful for thrust enhancement. For the phase, shifting the resonance peak as a result of the nonlinear spring in the oscillator model means shifting the phase jump at $\gamma=\pi/2$ to higher frequencies as well. Thus, without air drag, as can be seen in Fig. \[oscillator\] (c) and (d), the nonlinear evolution of the phase $\gamma(\bar\omega_f)$ would be even slower than in the linear case for which the phase evolution is already not especially favorable except in the nearness of the resonance. This is exactly what is observed for the vacuum measurements where the nonlinear damping due to fluid drag is negligible. On the contrary, the presence of a quadratic fluid damping determines a fast increase of the phase lag (and a so a thrust improvement) even from the very first flapping frequencies. This implies of course that strong flapping velocities are a necessary condition for the bending to become efficient (i.e. elasticity will play a minor role if the flapping beat amplitude is not strong enough).\
Summarizing, the instantaneous wing shape is given by the two following ingredients: inertia provokes the bending (gives the amplitude) and damping, by controlling the phase lag, allows this bending to be usefully exploited. Large phase lags will provide largest bending of the wing at maximum flapping speed, leading to a more favorable repartition of aerodynamics forces.
Optimum
-------
Since classic resonance mechanisms cannot answer it, the question of the performance optimum (or the transition to underperformance) remains unclear. We therefore proceeded to study the kinematics of the wing in the laboratory frame. In particular, we have compared both characteristic angles relative to the global wing motion. The first characteristic angle is dependent on the ratio between the maximal vertical flapping velocity $u_{\omega}=\omega A_{\omega}$ and the cruising velocity $U$ and reads: $\phi = \arctan(\omega A_{\omega}/U)$. $\phi$ is considered as the instantaneous angle of attack of the wing and as can be seen, is directly related to the Strouhal number $St=\omega A_{\omega}/U$ which determines as well the performance of flapping flyers [@Taylor2003]. We define a second characteristic angle $\theta$ as the trailing-edge angle taken at the maximum flapping velocity. This angle is directly related to the phase lag $\gamma$, and thus determines to what extent the bending of the wing will be useful in terms of performance. Fig. \[phitheta\] shows the evolution of the ratio $\theta/\phi$, which is naturally a growing function of $\bar{\omega_{f}}$ because both an increase in $\theta$ or a decrease in $\phi$ lead to an enhancement of the propulsive performance.
![Evolution of the two characteristic angles of the wing motion $\theta$ and $\phi$ as a function of the reduced driving frequency $\bar{\omega_{f}}$. Two regimes can be distinguished: (I): $\phi<\theta$ corresponding to the performances increasing stage due to a useful phase lag. (II): $\phi>\theta$ corresponding to the transition to under-performances due to a loss of the effective wing area. The optimum occurs therefore when $\phi$ and $\theta$ point at the same direction (best phase lag).[]{data-label="phitheta"}](FIgures/Angle2.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
The interesting point is that the location of the performances/under performances transition takes place at $\theta/\phi=1$ (i.e. when both angles point instantaneously at the same direction). Thus, the optimum value of $\theta$ does not corresponds to the maximum bending experienced by the wing (which would be the optimal solution) but to the moment when the deflection angle matches the angle of attack as sketched in Fig. \[phitheta\]. For a rigid wing, because $\theta$ is fixed ($=0$), the optimization problem is here nonexistent and thrust only depends on the driving frequency (for a given amplitude). With flexibility and according to what has been previously observed, $\theta$ starts increasing and tends to align the wing trailing-edge with the flow. As discussed earlier, this leads to a more favorable repartition of the aerodynamics forces as sketched in Fig. \[phitheta\].\
However, this argument is only valid if the surrounding flow is totally attached to the wing (i.e. separation occurs only at the trailing-edge). A situation where $\theta>\phi$ is strongly subjected to flow separation before the wing trailing edge. In this case the effective surface relative to the aerodynamic load can be expected to be drastically reduced leading to a loss of aerodynamic performance. It has to be noticed that the value of $\pi /2$, or more generally values of phases greater than $\theta_{opt}$ observed in this experiments should be, theoretically, more optimal (i.e. should give more optimal bending shapes for useful projection of forces). However, if a separation occurs, the corresponding loss of thrust force (and so cruising speed) will accelerate the decoherence of both angles and hence, will provoke the subsidence of the performance, as has been observed on Fig. \[Powers\]. The more economic strategy to fly is therefore to set $\theta\approx\phi$ which corresponds to the optimum way to transfer useful momentum.
Concluding remarks
==================
In this work, we aimed at describing the dynamics governing the performance of flapping flyers. Considering large flapping amplitude and relatively large wings (as for big insect species), we have shown that nonlinear and inertia effects, together with geometric limitation, question the prevailing idea that energy-saving strategies in flapping flight must be related to resonance mechanisms. In search of improving performances, animals may actually stay below the resonance point. Besides, the nonlinear nature of air drag (which implies sufficiently strong flapping amplitudes) seems to be a fundamental ingredient to create the phase lag between the leading and trailing edges of the flapping wing that allows the elasticity energy to be used at its best. One last comment is that the presence of structure resonances for flyers in nature is not invalidated by the mechanism described here. For instance, small insects may not use much elasticity and bending because either their wings are too small or the local Reynolds number is not sufficiently high to produce enough damping, and thus a useful phase lag. However, studies containing a large bank of comparative resonant frequencies and wingbeats of insects or birds being rare in the literature, it is consequently hard to draw any conclusion about the existence of two distinct strategies at this state. According to biologists, resonant mechanisms lie at the muscle level more than in the wing structure itself (see [@Dudley2000book; @Ellington97] and reference therein) which would strengthen that there is no reason, [*a priori*]{}, for flapping flyers to look for structural resonance of the wing. Further analysis on such a way would certainly help to discern if there are, or not, universal characteristics for flapping flyers.
The authors are grateful to Daniel Pradal for his help concerning the experimental setup, Cyril Touzé for having shared his knowledge of nonlinear systems and Sarah Tardy for her careful reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by the French Research Agency through project ANR-08-BLAN-0099.
[10]{}
David E. Alexander. . , 2004.
R. Dudley. . , 2000.
S Ho, H Nassef, N Pornsinsirirak, YC Tai, and CM Ho. Unsteady aerodynamics and flow control for flapping wing flyers. , 39(8):635–681, 2003.
Wei Shyy, Yongsheng Lian, Jian Tang, Dragos Viieru, and Hao Liu. . Cambridge Aerospace Series. [Cambridge University Press]{}, 2008.
MH Dickinson, FO Lehmann, and SP Sane. Wing rotation and the aerodynamic basis of insect flight. , 284(5422):1954–1960, 1999.
ZJ Wang. Dissecting insect flight. , 37:183–210, 2005.
Geoffrey R Spedding and Anders Hedenstr[ö]{}m. Piv-based investigations of animal flight. , 46(5):749–763, 2009.
J. M. Anderson, K. Streitlien, D. S. Barret, and M. S. Triantafyllou. Oscillating foils of high propulsive efficiency. , 360:41–72, 1998.
W. Shyy, H. Aono, S.K. Chimakurthi, P. Trizila, C.-K. Kang, C.E.S. Cesnik, and H. Liu. Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelasticity. , 2010. In press, corrected proof. DOI: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2010.01.001.
T. L. Daniel and S. A. Combes. , 42(5):1044–1049, 2002.
S.A. Combes and T.L. Daniel. Into thin air: contributions of aerodynamic and inertial-elastic forces to wing bending in the hawkmoth [*manduca sexta*]{}. , 206:2999–3006, 2003.
B. Thiria and R. [Godoy-Diana]{}. How wing compliance drives the efficiency of self-propelled flapping flyers. , 82:015303(R), 2010.
S. E. Spagnolie, L. Moret, M. J. Shelley, and J. Zhang. Surprising behaviors in flapping locomotion with passive pitching. , 22(4):041903, 2010.
J. Zhang, L. Nan-Sheng, and L. Xi-Yun. Locomotion of a passively flapping flat plate. [*j. fluid mech. *]{} in press. , 659:43–68, 2010.
C.H. Greenewalt. The wings of insects and birds as mechanical oscillators. , 104:605–611, 1960.
H. Masoud and A. Alexeev. Resonance of flexible wings at low [Reynolds number]{}. , 81:056304, 2010.
S. Michelin and S. G. Llewellyn Smith. Resonance and propulsion performance of a heaving flexible wing. , 21(7):071902, 2009.
J. H. Long and K. S. Nipper. The importance of body stiffness in undulatory propulsion. , 36:678–694, 1996.
S. Sunada, L. Zeng, and K. Kawachi. The relationship between dragonfly wing stricture and torsional deformation. , 193:39–45, 1998.
S. Sunada and [et al.]{} Optical measurement of the deformation motion, and generated force of the wings of a moth, [*mythimna separa*]{} (walker). , 45:836–842, 2002.
M. Nakamura, A. Iida, and A. Mizuno. Visualization of three-dimensional vortex structures around a dragonfly with dynamic piv. , 10:159–160, 2007.
J. S. Chen, [J.-Y.]{} Chen, and [Y.-F.]{} Chou. On the natural frequencies and mode shapes of dragonfliy wings. , 313:643–654, 2008.
M. Vanella, T. Fitzgerald, S. Preidikman, E. Balaras, and B. Balachandran. Influence of flexibility on the aerodynamic performance of a hovering wing. , 212(1):95–105, Jan 2009.
Antoine Magnan. . , 1934.
N. Vandenberghe, J. Zhang, and S. Childress. Symmetry breaking leads to forward flapping flight. , 506:147–155, 2004.
A.H. Nayfeh and D.T. Mook. . John Wiley & sons, New-York, 1979.
M.R.M [Crespo Da Silva]{} and C.C. Glynn. . , 6:449–461, 1978.
A.H. Nayfeh. . John Wiley & sons, New-York, 1993.
D. J. Tritton. . , 1988.
G. K. Taylor, R. L. Nudds, and A. L. R. Thomas. Flying and swimming animals cruise at a strouhal number tuned for high power efficiency. , 425:707–711, 2003.
P. W. Willmott and C. P. Ellington. The mechanics of flight in the hawkmoth [*manduca sexta*]{}. , 200:2705–2722, 1997.
[^1]: It has to be noted that the linear damping term $a\xi$ corresponds to structural damping (and viscous fluid damping relative to very small displacements) and is therefore mainly dependent on the only displacement $X$ (i.e. in the wing frame). In contrast, $\frac{4}{3 \pi} \xi_{nl} a^{2}$ is strongly dependent on the global motion of the wing and has therefore to be estimated in the laboratory frame. Thus, at first order, a reasonable corrected approximation for this term is $\frac{4}{3 \pi} \xi_{nl} (a+A_{\omega})^{2}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Translation domains differing in the phase but not in the orientation of the corresponding order parameter are resolved in two types of multiferroics. Hexagonal (h-) YMnO$_3$ is a split-order-parameter multiferroic in which commensurate ferroelectric translation domains are resolved by piezoresponse force microscopy whereas MnWO$_4$ is a joint-order-parameter multiferroic in which incommensurate magnetic translation domains are observed by optical second harmonic generation. The pronounced manifestation of the generally rather “hidden” translation domains in these multiferroics and the associated drastic reduction of symmetry emphasize that the presence of translation domains must not be neglected when discussing the physical properties and functionalities of multiferroics.'
author:
- |
D. Meier$^{\rm a}$, N. Leo$^{\rm a}$, T. Jungk$^{\rm b}$, E. Soergel$^{\rm b}$, P. Becker$^{\rm c}$, L. Bohatý$^{\rm c}$ and M. Fiebig$^{\rm a}$$^{\ast}$ [^1]\
$^{\rm a}$[*[HISKP, Universität Bonn, 53115 Bonn, Germany]{}*]{}; $^{\rm b}$[*[PI, Universität Bonn, 53115 Bonn, Germany]{}*]{}; $^{\rm c}$[*[Institut für Kristallographie, Universität zu Köln, 50937 Köln, Germany]{}*]{}
title: Translation domains in multiferroics
---
Introduction
============
During the last decade an abundance of studies on systems with coexisting magnetic and electric order, the so-called multiferroics, disclosed a variety of new and intriguing phenomena such as “unconventional” ferroelectricity or “gigantic” coupling effects between magnetic and electric properties.[@Cheong07a; @Tokura07a] The multifarious physics and the technological potential of the multiferroics released a hunt for further members of this material family so that a steadily increasing number of multiferroic compounds is now at our disposal. Irrespective of the diversity of multiferroics and magnetoelectric coupling phenomena, they can be grouped into two fundamental categories: In the *split-order-parameter multiferroics* the electric and the magnetic order emerge independently — at separate transition temperatures and due to a different microscopic origin. Hexagonal (h-) HoMnO$_3$ is a prominent example with $T_{\rm C}^{\rm
el}=875$ K and $T_{\rm N}^{\rm mag}=75$ K.[@Aken04a; @Lottermoser04a] In the *joint-order-parameter multiferroics* the electric and the magnetic order have a common microscopic origin. For instance, in Ni$_3$V$_2$O$_8$ the magnetic long-range order violates the spatial inversion symmetry and induces a spontaneous polarization via the antisymmetric Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction.[@Lawes05a] Consequently, the symmetry-breaking magnetic and electric order parameters arise at the same temperature ($T=6.3$ K).
An universal property of all multiferroics is a substantial reduction of the number of symmetry elements by the multiple order which implies the formation of a large number of domains. In particular, incommensurate systems have a lower symmetry compared to the non-ferroic state because of the loss of the three-dimensional translation symmetry. With the unusual nature of the magnetic and electric order in multiferroics and the additional degree of freedom arising from their interaction, novel types of domains and domain-related effects are expected. Unfortunately, we still have a very fragmentary understanding of the complex domain states in multiferroics — the diversity of multiferroic domains is largely ignored, although domains are the key to many macroscopic properties of technological relevance such as coercive field, electrical resistivity, and switching dynamics.
Investigations of domains in multiferroics so far are focussed on *orientation domains*, i.e., domains differing in the orientation of magnetic and/or electric order parameters.[@Fiebig02c; @Zhao06a; @Meier09b; @Cabrera09a] In contrast, investigations of *translation domains*, i.e., domains differing in the phase but not the orientation of the order parameter (so that they are also called anti-phase domains), are extremely rare because their experimental observation is a very challenging task and their technological feasibility is questionable.[@Meier09c] However, the substantial role the walls between translation domains can play for magnetoelectric interactions was pointed out only recently.[@Choi10a; @Mostovoy10a]
In this paper we consider two complementary cases of translation domains in multiferroics that demonstrate the extraordinary scope of manifestations: a split-order-parameter multiferroic with commensurate order and a joint-order-parameter multiferroic with incommensurate order. Here, h-YMnO$_3$ and MnWO$_4$ were chosen as model compounds because their magnetic and electric properties are well understood. This is a good basis for studying the formation and properties of their translation domains which are visualized using piezo-response force microscopy (PFM) and optical second harmonic generation (SHG). We discuss the associated symmetry-breaking order parameters and compare spatially resolved measurements of the domain topology in the two compounds. Our analysis shows that they can be regarded as end cases in the classification of translation domains in multiferroics. In h-YMnO$_3$ translation domains emerge due to *discrete* symmetry violations by a *commensurate* order parameter strongly coupling to the crystal lattice. In MnWO$_4$ translation domains emerge due to *continuous* symmetry violations by an *incommensurate* order parameter. Here, the translation domains are decoupled from the crystallographic structure.
Order Parameters
================
Commensurate h-YMnO$_3$
-----------------------
In h-YMnO$_3$ translation domains appear in conjunction with the ferroelectric order which emerges in two steps:[@Lonkai04a; @Fennie05a] A tripling of the paraelectric unit cell at 1350 K and emergence of a spontaneous polarization $\pm P_z$ along the hexagonal axis at 1100 K.[@Nenert07a] The reduction of the space symmetry by the two transitions is $P6_3/mmc \;
\rightarrow \; P6_3cm$.
![\[fig:Fig1\] Origin of translation domains in h-YMnO$_3$ and MnWO$_4$. (a) Schematic illustration of the three possible ferroelectric unit cells in h-YMnO$_3$ and the translations $t_1$, $t_2$, and $t_1+t_2$ lost as symmetry operations with respect to the paraelectric unit cell (inset). (b) Polar plot of the order-parameter space of the ferroelectric phase of h-YMnO$_3$. The translations lost as symmetry operations have a discrete image in the order-parameter space so that each translation domain can be identified by a specific phase $\phi_j$ ($j=1,2,3$). (c) Schematic illustration of the elliptical spin spiral in the multiferroic phase of MnWO$_4$ (left) and its dense continuation (right). (d) Polar plot of the order-parameter phase in the multiferroic state of MnWO$_4$. Here, the translations lost as symmetry operations have a dense image in the order-parameter space. Consequently, $\tilde\phi_j$ can have any value $0^{\circ}<\tilde\phi_j<360^{\circ}$.](fig1.eps)
Because of the enlargement of the unit cell, which is sketched in Fig. \[fig:Fig1\](a), the translation symmetries $t_1$, $t_2$, and $t_3:=t_1+t_2$ of the high-temperature $P6_3/mmc$ phase are violated. As a consequence, three different translation or trimerization domains denoted by $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ arise,[@Choi10a] each being represented by one of the three structurally nonequivalent unit cells depicted in Fig. \[fig:Fig1\](a). The associated two-dimensional order parameters are $$\label{comm}
\eta_j=\left(
\begin {array} {c}
\delta \mathrm{e}^{i\phi_j} \\
\delta \mathrm{e}^{-i\phi_j} \\
\end {array} \;
\right) \; (j=1,2,3)$$ with $\mathbf k=(\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3},0)$ as commensurate wave vector describing the tripling. The translation domains can be identified by their relative phase $\phi_j=\mathbf k\mathbf t_j$ with $\phi_1(\alpha)=\frac{2\pi}{3}$, $\phi_2(\beta)=\frac{4\pi}{3}$, and $\phi_3(\gamma)=0,
2\pi$. The values for $\phi_j$ are illustrated in the polar plot in Fig. \[fig:Fig1\](b). Their discreteness nicely reflects the commensurability of the translation domains in h-YMnO$_3$. Apparently, all the translation domain walls in this compound correspond to a discontinuity in the phase of the commensurate order parameter by $|\Delta\phi_{j\neq
j^{\prime}}|=|\phi_j-\phi_{j^{\prime}}|\equiv120^{\circ}$ with $j$ and $j^{\prime}$ denoting different domains.
Incommensurate MnWO$_4$
-----------------------
As illustrated by Figs. \[fig:Fig1\](c) and (d) the situation in MnWO$_4$ is quite different. Here, translation domains evolve due to incommensurate magnetic long-range order.[@Meier09a; @Meier09c; @Lautenschlaeger93a] First, a sinusoidal spin-density wave with the propagation vector $\mathbf k=(-0.214,\frac{1}{2},0.457)$ emerges at 13.5 K. It is associated to a single two-dimensional order parameter $\zeta_j$.[@Toledano10a] At 12.7 K the spin density wave turns into an elliptical spin spiral with the same propagation vector as before. The transition is driven by a second two-dimensional magnetic order parameter $$\label{inco}
\xi_j=\left(
\begin {array} {c}
\rho \mathrm{e}^{i\tilde{\phi}_j} \\
\rho \mathrm{e}^{-i\tilde{\phi}_j} \\
\end {array} \;
\right) \; (j\in\mathbb{N}).$$ Along with this, a magnetically induced polarization $P_y$ along the $y$ axis arises. Thus, the system becomes multiferroic and orientation domains with $\pm P_y$ are formed. Note that it is the *coexistence* of the order parameters $\zeta_j$ and $\xi_j$, not the presence of $\xi_j$ by itself, that breaks the inversion symmetry and induces a spontaneous polarization and, thus, multiferroicity. In addition, $\zeta_j$ and $\xi_j$ give rise to translation domains that are associated to the incommensurate spin arrangement in Figs. \[fig:Fig1\](c). Figure \[fig:Fig1\](c) shows the elliptical spin spiral of the multiferroic phase in MnWO$_4$ and its dense continuation. The incommensurate magnetic structure described by $\mathbf k$ causes a unit cell doubling along the $y$ axis and violates any translation symmetry in the $xz$ plane.[@Lautenschlaeger93a] In contrast to commensurate h-YMnO$_3$, the translation symmetries violated by the incommensurate structure in MnWO$_4$ have a dense image in the order-parameter space, see Figs. \[fig:Fig1\](b) and \[fig:Fig1\](d). This gives rise to an infinite number of translation domains enumerated by $j=1,2,3,\ldots$.[@Mettout10a] All translation domains are energetically degenerated, because the free energy is invariant under the continuous rotation of the phase mode (phason) associated with the incommensurate spin spiral. Note that the phase between $\zeta_j$ and $\xi_j$ is unique so that it is sufficient to consider the order parameter $\xi_j$ only for distinguishing and enumerating the translation domains.
In an intuitive interpretation one can say that the phase difference $\Delta\tilde{\phi}_{j\neq
j^{\prime}}=\tilde{\phi}_j-\tilde{\phi}_{j^{\prime}}$ appearing at a domain wall corresponds to a discontinuity in the spatial precession of the incommensurate spin spiral. Any value $\Delta\tilde{\phi}_{j\neq j^{\prime}}\in[0^{\circ},360^{\circ}]$ is possible due to the incommensurate nature of the magnetic order. Note that the identification of a translation domain is ambiguous. The phase $\tilde{\phi}$ changes continuously across a domain so that there is no absolute criterion for labelling it. Only the *phase difference* occurring at its boundary defines a domain wall and, thus, distinguishes different domains.
In summary, two fundamentally different types of translation domains are present in h-YMnO$_3$ and MnWO$_4$: In h-YMnO$_3$ a finite set of translation domains is generated by the commensurate order parameter and a universal phase shift of $120^{\circ}$ distinguishes different domains. The domains represent a pronounced structural discontinuity and are therefore expected to interact strongly with the underlying crystal lattice and the ferroelectric displacement. In contrast, MnWO$_4$ can develop an infinite number of translation domains caused by the continuous symmetry breaking of the associated incommensurate magnetic order parameter so that the phase shift at the domain wall can have any value $0^{\circ}<\Delta\tilde{\phi}<360^{\circ}$. Due to this continuous nature only a weak coupling between the translation domains and the crystal lattice is expected.
Domain Topology
===============
Commensurate h-YMnO$_3$
-----------------------
For investigating the translation domains in h-YMnO$_3$, flux-grown $z$-oriented platelets with a lateral extension of a few millimeters and a thickness in the order of 100 $\mu$m were used. After chemical-mechanical polishing with a silica slurry the distribution of domains was measured by PFM.
Figure \[fig:Fig2\](a) shows the $xy$ plane of h-YMnO$_3$ under ambient conditions.
 PFM image of the $xy$ plane of an as-grown h-YMnO$_3$ crystal. Bright and dark areas correspond to ferroelectric domains with $+P_z$ and $-P_z$, respectively. (b) and (c) Enlargement of the domain intersections marked by boxes in panel (a). (d) Schematic of the intersections. Note that only one type of domain wall is present because of the rigid coupling of orientation and translation domains.](fig2.eps)
The PFM image reveals domains of $\lesssim 1$ $\mu$m with two grey levels corresponding to ferroelectric domains with the polarization pointing parallel $+P_z$ (bright) or antiparallel $-P_z$ (dark) to the $z$ axis. The distribution of the domains is striking. All across the sample, a domain structure with meeting points of six domains is obtained. No exceptions are detected — whenever the ferroelectric domains approach one another the characteristic kaleidoscopic pattern is formed. The resulting topology is almost isotropic and can be observed in all three spatial dimensions.[@Jungk10a]
The kaleidoscopic pattern with its meeting points of six domains can be understood on the basis of Figs. \[fig:Fig1\](a) and \[fig:Fig1\](b): In the ferroelectric phase each of the three possible translation domains $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ can exhibit either a positive or a negative spontaneous polarization, so that six different trimerization-polarization domains are expected. As shown in Ref. meetings of different translation domains *require* a reversal of polarization in order to be stable. Therefore, when the three possible translation domains meet in one point, this can only be solved by an arrangement of all six translation-polarization domains. In Ref. it was shown that the arrangement has to be a sequence of the type shown in Fig. \[fig:Fig2\](d) where the two order parameters $\eta$ and $P_z$ of h-YMnO$_3$ change *simultaneously* at each domain wall. For instance, this allows an $\alpha^+, \beta^-, \gamma^+, \alpha^-, \beta^+, \gamma^-$ sequence of domains around the meeting point, but it forbids an $\alpha^+, \alpha^-, \beta^+, \beta^-,
\gamma^+, \gamma^-$ arrangement. As explained in Ref. the pairing of orientation and translation domain walls is due to the electrostatic discontinuity occurring at the translation domain walls. Hence, h-YMnO$_3$ is a remarkable example where translation domains, in contrast to the common belief, manifest in a very pronounced way. In fact, the translation domains *control* the distribution of the orientation domains in h-YMnO$_3$ and with this the distribution of the ferroelectric polarization. The electrostatic mechanism behind this reflects the electrostatic, rather unusual nature of the ferroelectric order in h-YMnO$_3$ which, in turn, is common to split-order multiferroics.
Incommensurate MnWO$_4$
-----------------------
We now turn to the complementary case, i.e., translation domains in an incommensurate joint-order-parameter multiferroic, namely MnWO$_4$. The domain topology of MnWO$_4$ was investigated by SHG since it is the only method allowing one to image antiferromagnetic translation domains, based on its coupling to the phase of the magnetic order parameter.[@Fiebig05a] SHG describes the induction of a dipole oscillation $\mathbf{P}(2\omega)$ by an incident electromagnetic light wave given by $\mathbf{E}(\omega)$. It is described by the equation $P_i(2\omega)=\epsilon_0\chi_{ijk}E_j(\omega)E_k(\omega)$ with $\hat{\chi}$ as nonlinear susceptibility of the material in which the optical frequency doubling occurs. The set of components $\chi_{ijk}\neq 0$ reflects the symmetry and long-range order of the material. They can couple to the orientation and phase of the order parameter and thus be used to reveal the corresponding domain structure. In the following we will focus on the discussion of the domain pattern observed in MnWO$_4$ whereas the discussion of the technical details of the SHG in MnWO$_4$ are found elsewhere.[@Meier09a; @Meier09b; @Meier09c; @Meier10a]
For the SHG measurements melt-grown MnWO$_4$ samples were prepared in the same way as the h-YMnO$_3$ samples and measured in a transmission geometry.[@Becker07; @Fiebig05a] The samples had a lateral extension of $2.6\times3.2$ mm and a thickness of 830 $\mu$m. Figure \[fig:Fig3\] displays a SHG image of the $yz$ plane exposed in the multiferroic phase at 8 K.
 Coexistence of orientation and translation domains in the $yz$ plane of zero-field-cooled MnWO$_4$. The SHG image was gained in the multiferroic phase at 8 K and shows a mixture of translation-polarization domain walls and translation-only domain walls. (b) Distribution of the ferroelectric orientation domains. (c) Schematic of the image in (a). Red solid lines denote the distribution of orientation domains of opposite polarization ($+P_y$ or $-P_y$). Black dotted lines separate different translation domains labelled by $\phi_j$, $(j=1-9)$. (d) and (e) Magnified meeting points of domains.](fig3.eps){width="45.00000%"}
The image reveals differently shaded regions separated by abrupt changes of the SHG intensity. These regions correspond to different multiferroic domains. The different brightness is caused by the dependence of the amplitude and phase of the SHG contribution on the relative orientation and phase of the order parameters $\zeta$ and $\xi$.[@Fiebig05a] Thus, Fig. \[fig:Fig3\](a) displays both orientation *and* translation domains. For disentangling them, the wavelength and polarization of the incident light in Fig. \[fig:Fig3\](b) were chosen such that only the ferroelectric orientation domains distinguished by their spontaneous polarization $\pm P_y$ were probed. This reveals two degrees of brightness corresponding to domains with $+P_y$ and $-P_y$. By comparing Figs. \[fig:Fig3\](a) and (b) two different types of domain walls in MnWO$_4$ can be distinguished: (i) polarization-translation walls, and (ii) translation-only walls.
\(i) At the domain walls marked by the red dotted lines in Fig. \[fig:Fig3\](c) the orientation of $P_y$ is reversed *and* a phase discontinuity of $\tilde\phi$ in the complex order parameter of Equation \[inco\] occurs. The latter can be concluded because the change of brightness occurring upon crossing the polarization wall is not unique so that aside from the spontaneous polarization another aspect of the order must have changed — here the phase $\tilde\phi$ is the only option.
\(ii) Figure \[fig:Fig3\](a) reveals additional domain structures within the polarization domain denoted by $-P_y$. Here, the abrupt changes in the SHG yield correspond to translation-only walls at which only the phase $\tilde\phi$ of $\xi$ changes. The domains are distinguishable by SHG because of the aforementioned correspondence between the phase shifts of the SHG wave and the order parameter $\xi$.[@Meier09c; @Meier10a] As sketched in Fig. \[fig:Fig3\](c) more than six translation domains are resolved in Fig. \[fig:Fig3\](a). This observation is consistent with the effective continuous symmetry breaking by the associated incommensurate order parameter giving rise to an unlimited number of translation domains.
In order to point out peculiar features of the topology of the translation domains Figs. \[fig:Fig3\](d) and (e) show magnifications of regions revealing, respectively, a meeting point of three translation domains and a line separating two translation domains. The two SHG images indicate that the topology of the incommensurate translation domains is not subject to such rigid constraints as in the case of the commensurate split-order-parameter multiferroic h-YMnO$_3$. In the joint-order-parameter multiferroic MnWO$_4$ the number of translation domains that can meet in one point is not limited from the point of view of symmetry. The evolution of an arbitrary number of translation domains is a specific property of incommensurate systems, clearly separating them from commensurate matter, where a well-defined number of translation domains emerges in the ordered state. In addition, translation domains in incommensurate systems expand the established concept of translation domains by involving translations *exceeding* the expansion of the unit cell. Finally, as pointed out earlier,[@Mettout10a] incommensurabilities do not only increase the number of allowed domain states — they can also have a strong impact on the thermodynamic features related to the incommensurate phase transition.
Conclusion
==========
A violation of the three-dimensional translation symmetry by magnetic, electrical, or structural degrees of freedom gives rise to different types of translation in multiferroics. In contrast to orientation domains with a unique orientation of the corresponding order parameter the translation domains were largely ignored in literature so far because of their “hidden” nature. Here we demonstrated two end cases on the range of translation domains: commensurate ferroelectric translation domains in the split-order-parameter multiferroic h-YMnO$_3$ and incommensurate magnetic translation domains in the joint-order-parameter multiferroic MnWO$_4$. The type of translation domain and the type of multiferroicity in these two compounds are intricately related. However, two basic scenarios become obvious: Translation symmetries can either be broken by *commensurate* or *incommensurate* long-range order with fundamental consequences regarding the number of possible domain states and the formation of domain walls.
Our results show that in spite of their generally subtle nature, translation domains can be associated to pronounced structural discontinuities. Consequently, the formation of translation domains must not be neglected when discussing the physical properties of multiferroics or other materials allowing the formation of translation domains. Moreover, the low symmetry at the site of the domain walls can be the origin of new correlation effects. Here, the manipulation of translation domains may even provide a handle for controlling the functionality of materials.
**Acknowledgments:** This work was supported by the DFG through the SFB 608 and the Deutsche Telekom AG. The authors thank Pièrre Tolédano for many fruitful discussions.
[21]{}
S.-W. Cheong and M. Mostovoy, [*Multiferroics: a magnetic twist for ferroelectricity*]{}, Nature Mat. 6 (2007), pp. 13 – 20.
Y. Tokura, [*Multiferroics – toward strong coupling between magnetization and polarization in a solid*]{}, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 310 (2007), pp. 1145 – 1150.
B.B. van Aken, T.T.M. Palstra, A. Filippetti, and N.A. Spaldin, [*The origin of ferroelectricity in magnetoelectric YMnO$_3$*]{}, Nature Mat. 3 (2004), pp. 164 – 170.
Th. Lottermoser, Th. Lonkai, U. Amann, D. Hohlwein, J. Ihringer, and M. Fiebig, [*Magnetic phase control by an electric field*]{}, Nature 430 (2004), pp. 541 – 544.
G. Lawes et al., [*Magnetically driven ferroelectric order in [Ni$_3$V$_2$O$_8$]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005), 087205.
M. Fiebig, Th. Lottermoser, D. Fröhlich, A.V. Goltsev, and R.V. Pisarev, [*Observation of coupled magnetic and electric domains*]{}, Nature 419 (2002), pp. 818 – 820.
T. Zhao et al., [*Electrical control of antiferromagnetic domains in multiferroic BiFeO$_3$ films at room temperature*]{}, Nature Mat. 5 (2006), pp. 823 – 829.
D. Meier, N. Leo, M. Maringer, Th. Lottermoser, P. Becker, L. Bohatý, and M. Fiebig, [*Topology and manipulation of multiferroic domains in [MnWO$_4$]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. B 80 (2009), 224420.
I. Cabrera et al., [*Coupled Magnetic and Ferroelectric Domains in Multiferroic Ni$_3$V$_2$O$_8$*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009), 087201.
D. Meier, N. Leo, Th. Lottermoser, P. Becker, L. Bohatý, and M. Fiebig, [*Imaging of hybrid-multiferroic and translation domains in a spin-spiral ferroelectric*]{}, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 1199 (2010), 1199-F02-07.
T. Choi, Y. Horibe, H.T. Yi, Y.J. Choi, W. Wu, and S.-W. Cheong, [*Insulating interlocked ferroelectric and structural antiphase domain walls in multiferroic YMnO$_3$*]{}, Nature Mat. 9 (2010), pp. 253 – 257.
M. Mostovoy, [*A whirlwind of opportunitues*]{}, Nature Mat. 9 (2010), pp. 188 – 190.
Th. Lonkai, D.G. Tomuta, U. Amann, J. Ihringer, R.W.A. Hendrikx, D.M. Többens, and J.A. Mydosh, [*Development of the high-temperature phase of hexagonal manganites*]{}, Phys. Rev. B 69 (2004), 134108.
C.J. Fennie and K.M. Rabe, [*Ferroelectric transition in YMnO$_3$ from first principles*]{}, Phys. Rev. B 72 (2005), 100103(R).
G. Nénert, M. Pollet, S. Marinel, G.R. Blake, A. Meetsma, and T.T.M. Palstra, [*Experimental evidence for an intermediate phase in the multiferroic YMnO$_3$*]{}, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 19 (2007), 466212.
D. Meier, M. Maringer, Th. Lottermoser, P. Becker, L. Bohatý, and M. Fiebig, [*Observation and coupling of domains in a spin-spiral multiferroic*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009), 107202.
G. Lautenschläger, H. Weitzel, T. Vogt, R. Hock, A. Böhm, M. Bonnet, and H. Fuess, [*Magnetic phase transitions of [MnWO$_4$]{} studied by the use of neutron diffraction*]{}, Phys. Rev. B 48 (1993), pp. 6087 – 6098.
P. Tolédano, B. Mettout, W. Schranz, and G. Krexner, [*Directional magnetoelectric effects in MnWO$_4$: magnetic sources of the electric polarization*]{}, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 22 (2010), 065901.
B. Mettout, P. Tolédano, and M. Fiebig, [*Symmetry replication and toroidic effects in the multiferroic pyroxene NaFeSi$_2$O$_6$*]{}, Phys. Rev. B 81 (2010), 214417.
T. Jungk, Á. Hoffmann, M. Fiebig, and E. Soergel, [*Electrostatic topology of ferroelectric domains in YMnO$_3$*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97 (2010), 012904.
M. Fiebig, V.V. Pavlov, and R.V. Pisarev, [*Second-harmonic generation as a tool for studying electronic and magnetic strucutres of crystals*]{}, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 22 (2005), pp. 96 – 118.
D. Meier, N. Leo, G. Yuan, Th. Lottermoser, P. Becker, L. Bohatý, and M. Fiebig, [*Second harmonic generation on incommensurate structures: The case of MnWO$_4$*]{}, preprint: arXiv:1008.2864 (2010).
P. Becker, L. Bohatý, H. J. Eichler, H. Rhee, and A. A. Kaminskii, [*High-gain raman induced multiple stokes and anti-stokes generation in monoclinic multiferroic MnWO$_4$ single crystals*]{}, Laser Phys. Lett. 4 (2007), pp. 884 – 889.
[^1]: $^\ast$Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Chih-Hao Li'
- 'Andrew J. Benedick'
- Peter Fendel
- 'Alexander G. Glenday'
- 'Franz X. K${\rm \ddot{a}}$rtner'
- 'David F. Phillips'
- Dimitar Sasselov
- Andrew Szentgyorgyi
- 'Ronald L. Walsworth'
title: 'A laser frequency comb that enables radial velocity measurements with a precision of 1 cm s$^{-1}$'
---
[**Searches for extrasolar planets using the periodic Doppler shift of stellar spectral lines have recently achieved a precision of $60~cm~s^{-1}$ (ref 1), which is sufficient to find a 5-Earth-mass planet in a Mercury-like orbit around a Sun-like star. To find a 1-Earth-mass planet in an Earth-like orbit, a precision of $\sim 5~cm~s^{-1}$ is necessary. The combination of a laser frequency comb with a Fabry-P${\bf \rm \acute{e}}$rot filtering cavity has been suggested as a promising approach to achieve such Doppler shift resolution via improved spectrograph wavelength calibration$\bf ^{2-4}$, with recent encouraging results$\bf ^5$. Here we report the fabrication of such a filtered laser comb with up to 40-$GHz$ ($\bf \sim 1$-${\bf \AA}$) line spacing, generated from a 1-$GHz$ repetition-rate source, without compromising long-term stability, reproducibility or spectral resolution. This wide-line-spacing comb, or ‘astro-comb’, is well matched to the resolving power of high-resolution astrophysical spectrographs. The astro-comb should allow a precision as high as $1~cm~s^{-1}$ in astronomical radial velocity measurements.**]{}
The accuracy and long-term stability of state-of-the-art astrophysical spectrographs are currently limited by the wavelength-calibration source$^{6,7}$, typically either thorium-argon lamps or iodine absorption cells$^8$. In addition, existing calibration sources are limited in the red-to-near-IR spectral bands most useful for exoplanet searches around M stars$^9$ and dark matter studies in globular clusters$^{10}$. Iodine cells have very few spectral lines in the red and near-IR spectral bands, while thorium-argon lamps have limited lines and unstable bright features that saturate spectrograph detectors. Recently, laser frequency combs$^{11}$ have been suggested as potentially superior wavelength calibrators$^{2,3}$ because of their good long-term stability and reproducibility, and because they have useful lines in the red-to-near-IR range. The absolute optical frequencies of the comb lines are determined by $f = f_{ceo} + m \times f_{rep}$, where $f_{rep}$ is the repetition rate, $f_{ceo}$ is the carrier-envelope offset frequency and $m$ is an integer. Both $f_{rep}$ and $f_{ceo}$ can be synchronized with radio-frequency oscillators referenced to atomic clocks. For example, using the generally available Global Positioning System (GPS), the frequencies of comb lines have long-term fractional stability and accuracy of better than $10^{-12}$. For the calibration of an astrophysical spectrograph, fractional stability and accuracy of $3 \times 10^{-11}$ are sufficient to measure a velocity variation of $1~cm~s^{-1}$ in astronomical objects. In addition, using GPS as the absolute reference allows the comparison of measurements at different observatories.
For existing laser combs, $f_{rep}$ is usually $<1~GHz$ (ref. 12), which would require a spectrograph with a resolving power of $R =
\lambda / \delta \lambda \gg 10^5$ to resolve individual comb lines (here $\delta \lambda$ is the smallest difference in wavelengths that can be resolved at wavelength $\lambda$). In practice, astrophysical spectrographs tend to have a resolving power of $R \sim 10^4-10^5$ owing to physical limitations on the instruments, including the telescope aperture, the grating collimator diameter and the grating blaze. Thus, a laser comb must have line spacing $>10~GHz$ to serve as a practical wavelength calibrator. Therefore, we augmented a 1-$GHz$-repetition-rate laser comb with a stable broadband Fabry-P${\rm \acute{e}}$rot (FP) cavity to increase the comb line spacing to $40~GHz$ over a range $>1,000~{\rm \AA}$. This novel$^2$, wide-line-spacing ‘astro-comb’ can provide improved wavelength calibration for a wide range of existing and planned astrophysical spectrographs.
The astro-comb set-up is shown schematically in Fig. 1. An octave-spanning optical frequency comb with a 1-$GHz$ repetition rate (‘source-comb’) is generated by a mode-locked Ti:sapphire femtosecond laser$^{13}$. The linewidth of each comb line is $<1~kHz$, with both $f_{rep}$ and $f_{ceo}$ stabilized using low-noise frequency synthesizers, which can be referenced to an atomic clock. The stabilized source-comb light passes through an FP cavity that filters out unwanted comb lines and increases the line spacing. The FP cavity is stabilized by an injected diode laser signal that is itself stabilized to the Rb D1 line (7,947 ${\rm
\AA}$) using a dichroic-atomic-vapour laser lock (DAVLL$^{14}$).
{width="7.2in"}
To realize an astrophysical wavelength calibrator, the FP cavity must filter comb lines over a broad spectral range. The mirrors used in the plane-parallel FP cavity have 99$\%$ reflectivity and optimized group delay dispersion (GDD) ($<10~fs^2$) in the range of 7,700 ${\rm \AA}$ to 9,200 ${\rm \AA}$. We measured the finesse of the FP cavity to be 250 at 7,947 ${\rm \AA}$, which is consistent with the theoretical limit estimated from the mirror reflectivity and Fresnel losses. The GDD-optimized mirrors enable the generation of a filtered comb spanning a bandwidth of $\sim 1,000~{\rm \AA}$. With straightforward adjustment of the free spectral range of the FP cavity to approximately equal an integer multiple of $f_{rep}$, we realized such comb-line filtering. For example, Fig. 2 shows the measured astro-comb output spectrum spanning a bandwidth of $\sim
1,000~{\rm \AA}$, with 37-$GHz$ line spacing and power $\sim
10-100~nW$ in each comb line. If the ratio of free spectral range to $f_{rep}$ is not an integer, the span of the filtered comb lines is narrower and groups of filtered comb lines appear repeatedly within the bandwidth of the mirrors (Fig. 2c). This ‘Vernier-like’ pattern can be shifted in wavelength and modified by varying the source-comb $f_{ceo}$ and $f_{rep}$ or the free spectral range of the FP cavity. The adjustability of the astro-comb-line pattern may assist the calibration of spectrographs over the bandwidth of the mirrors.
![[**Example astro-comb output spectrum with 37-$GHz$ line spacing. a**]{}, The astro-comb is tuned to span a bandwidth of $1,000~{\rm \AA}$ . The resolution of the figure is not high enough to show individual lines. The observed amplitude variation is primarily due to the amplitude variation of the source-comb, with a minor contribution from ‘mismatch’ of the source-comb lines and the transmission resonances of the FP cavity caused by the residual GDD of the mirrors ( $0-5~fs^2$). Small line shifts due to residual mirror GDD can be determined experimentally to high precision ($<1~cm~s^{-1}$). For the TiO$_2$/SiO$_2$ multi-layer mirrors used in the FP cavity, line stability $\sim 1~cm~s^{-1}$ is expected on timescales of several years. [**b**]{}, A small portion of the full output spectrum, showing individual filtered comb lines. The width of the lines is set by the optical spectrum analyzer’s resolution ($
8~GHz$). [**c**]{}, Intentional mismatch between source-comb spacing $f_{rep}$ and FP cavity free spectral range causes groups of filtered comb lines to appear repeatedly within the bandwidth of the mirrors. The prominent line at $7,947~{\rm \AA}$ is the injected diode laser signal used to stabilize the FP cavity.](astrocomb_fig_2.pdf){width="3.5in"}
In addition to tunable line spacing up to $40~GHz$, appropriate for use with astrophysical spectrographs, the astro-comb exhibits the stability and extraneous-line suppression necessary in an improved wavelength calibrator. By comparisons with a hydrogen maser, we determined the frequency fractional stability of the source-comb (characterized by $f_{rep}$ and $f_{ceo}$) to be better than $10^{-12}$ on timescales of seconds to hours. Ideally, the FP cavity changes only the amplitude of the astro-comb’s output lines, and not their frequency. Thus, the required stability of the FP cavity is much less stringent than that of the source-comb. However, several source-comb lines lie inside the resolution bandwidth of a typical astrophysical spectrograph. Although the FP cavity has finite suppression of neighbouring comb lines, instability in it leads to changes in the line shape of the astro-comb output spectrum as measured by an astrophysical spectrograph. In Fig. 3, we show a direct measurement of the suppression of extraneous lines of the astro-comb. The measured single-sided suppression of extraneous comb lines of more than 25 dB is consistent with the measured FP cavity finesse of 250. The FP cavity is stabilized by locking one transmission resonance maximum to a DAVLL-stabilized diode laser. The DAVLL-stabilized FP cavity is quite robust, remaining locked for periods of days. The absolute uncertainty in the DAVLL stabilized system is below $0.5~MHz$, which is more than sufficient to maintain a sensitivity of $1~cm~s^{-1}$. (As noted above, the required FP cavity stability is much less stringent than the required 10-$kHz$ source-comb stability.) Residual frequency noise in the DAVLL is $<300~kHz~Hz^{-1/2}$; corresponding to an amplitude fluctuation of $<0.1\%$ for the suppressed (extraneous) comb lines. The resultant frequency noise in the desired astro-comb line spacing is $<3~kHz~Hz^{-1/2}$. Taking advantage of the ultrastable source-comb lines, the astro-comb output spectrum measured by the spectrograph is more stable than the FP cavity by more than two orders of magnitude. Consequently, the stability of the astro-comb is more than adequate for wavelength calibration of astrophysical spectrographs to $1~cm~s^{-1}$ sensitivity.
![[**Suppression of extraneous source-comb lines for the astro-comb.**]{} Here, the FP cavity is tuned such that the astro-comb has a 25-$GHz$ line spacing. A fast photo-diode and spectrum analyzer are used to measure the power in the 24-$GHz$ and 25-$GHz$ beatnotes from the 1-$GHz$ source-comb [**(a)**]{} and the 25-$GHz$ astro-comb [**(b)**]{} in the band $8,150-8,450~{\rm \AA}$. The 22-dB suppression of the 24-$GHz$ beatnote in the astro-comb output signal corresponds to a 25-dB single-sided suppression of extraneous comb lines, consistent with the FP cavity finesse of 250. When the astro-comb is used as a wavelength calibrator for an astrophysical spectrograph, the extraneous-line suppression will be regularly monitored.](astrocomb_fig_3.pdf){width="3.5in"}
In May 2008, we will deploy an astro-comb wavelength calibrator at the Multiple Mirror Telescope (MTT) on Mt Hopkins, Arizona. We will demonstrate the ability of the astro-comb to calibrate the Hectochelle multi-object echelle spectrograph$^{15}$ in a 150-${\rm
\AA}$ bandwidth around $8,500~{\rm \AA}$, which will be especially useful for the study of dark matter and other phenomena in globular clusters. Here we estimate the expected wavelength calibration precision of the astro-comb over a typical 10-hour MMT/Hectochelle measurement. The 1-$GHz$ source-comb, referenced to GPS, will have spectral lines with accuracy and long-term fractional stability better than $10^{-12}$. The FP cavity will use mirrors (Lambda Research) with 99$\%$ reflectivity and minimal GDD ($<1~fs^2$ over the 150-${\rm \AA}$ bandwidth of one Hectochelle order). The free spectral range of the FP cavity will be set to $\sim 25~GHz$, which maximizes the calibration sensitivity$^2$. Residual FP cavity mirror GDD and fluctuations of the FP cavity resonance$^{16}$ (width $\sim
150~MHz$) will lead to changes in the extraneous-line suppression, which is typically $\sim 4 \times 10^{-3}$ (that is, 25 dB), of up to 0.2$\%$. Therefore, an upper-limit estimate of the uncertainty of astro-comb-line centres is $(4 \times 10^{-3}) \times 0.2\% \times
1~GHz \sim 8~kHz$. This uncertainty results in a systematic error in astrophysical velocity measurements of approximately $(8~kHz/377~THz) \times (3 \times 10^{10}~cm~s^{-1}) < 1~cm~s^{-1}$. In practice, the precision of Doppler-shift/redshift measurements will also be affected by telescope instability and astronomical light-source fluctuations$^6$.
Beyond our first demonstration, astro-combs should enable many observations that have previously been considered technically unachievable. One example is the search for a 1-Earth-mass planet in an Earth-like orbit around a Sun-like star, which requires a sensitivity of $5~cm~s^{-1}$ and stability on at least a 1-year timescale. In 2009 or 2010, we will deploy an astro-comb at the HARPS-NEF (High-Accuracy Radial-velocity Planet Searcher of the New Earths Facility) spectrograph ($R = 120,000$) being built by the Harvard Origins of Life Initiative for the William Herschel telescope to search for exoplanets. We will use broadband mirrors with 99$\%$ reflectivity and optimal GDD in the FP cavity to generate stable calibration lines in appropriate spectral bands, which we expect will make the HARPS-NEF spectrograph sensitive enough to find Earth-like planets. Additional wavelength coverage can also be realized by frequency doubling the source-comb. Another possible application of the astro-comb is the Sandage-Loeb test$^{17,18}$, a direct measurement of the decelerating expansion of the early Universe. This test requires an observation period of $>10$ years with existing wavelength calibrators, but should be feasible with an observation period of $\sim 3$ years using astro-combs. Thus, by enabling a velocity-shift precision of $\sim
1~cm~s^{-1}$, broad wavelength coverage and reproducibility over many years and between telescopes, astro-combs should revolutionize astrophysical spectroscopy.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This project is supported by the Harvard University Origins of Life Initiative, the Smithsonian Institution, and DARPA.
[99]{}
Lovis, C. et al. An extrasolar planetary system with three Neptune-mass planets. [*Nature*]{} [**441**]{}, 305-309 (2006).
Murphy, M. T. et al. High-precision wavelength calibration with laser frequency combs. [*Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**380**]{}, 839-847 (2007).
Schmidt, P. O., Kimeswenger, S. and Kaeufl, H. U. A new generation of spectrometer calibration techniques based on optical frequency combs. [*In Proc. 2007 ESO Instrument Calibration Workshop*]{} (ESO Astrophysics Symposia series, Springer, in the press); preprint at (http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0763v1).
Araujo-Hauck, C. et al., Future wavelength calibration standards at ESO: the laser frequency comb. [*ESO Messenger*]{} [**129**]{}, 24-26 (2007).
Osterman, S. et al. A proposed laser frequency comb based wavelength reference for high resolution spectroscopy. [*Proc. SPIE*]{} [**6693**]{}, 66931G-1-9 (2007).
Lovis, C. et al. The exoplanet hunter HARPS: unequalled accuracy and perspectives toward 1 $cm~s^{-1}$ precision. [*Proc. SPIE*]{} [**6269**]{}, 62690P-1-23 (2006).
Udry, S. et al. The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets. XI. Super-Earths (5 and 8 M$_\oplus$ ) in a 3-planet system. [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{} [**469**]{}, L43-L47 (2007).
Butler, R. P. et al. Attaining Doppler precision of 3 $m~s^{-1}$. [*Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif.*]{} [**108**]{}, 500-509 (1996).
Tarter, J. et al. A reappraisal of the habitability of planets around M dwarf stars. [*Astrobiology*]{} [**7**]{}, 30-65 (2007).
Storm, J., Carney, B. W. and Latham, D. W. Distances and luminosities for RR Lyrae stars in M5 and M92 from a Baade-Wesselink analysis. [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{} [**290**]{}, 443-457 (1994).
Udem, Th., Holzwarth, R. and H${\rm \ddot{a}}$nsch, T. W. Optical frequency metrology. [*Nature*]{} [**416**]{}, 233-237 (2002).
Bartels, A., Gebs, R., Kirchner, M. S. and Diddams, S. A. Spectrally resolved optical frequency comb from a self-referenced 5 GHz femtosecond laser. [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**32**]{}, 2553-2555 (2007).
Benedick, A., Birge, J., M${\rm \ddot{u}}$cke, O. D., Sander, M. and K${\rm \ddot{a}}$rtner, F. X. Octave spanning 1 GHz Ti:sapphire oscillator for HeNe CH4-based frequency combs and clocks. [*In CLEO/Europe 2007 (Munich, 17-22 June, 2007)*]{} (IEEE, 2007). doi:10.1109/CLEOEIQEC. 2007.4386249.
Corwin, K. L., Lu, Z.-T., Hand, C. F., Epstein, R. J. and Wieman, C. E. Frequencystabilized diode laser with the Zeeman shift in an atomic vapor. [*Appl. Opt.*]{} [**37**]{}, 3295-3298 (1998).
Szentgyorgyi, A. et al. Hectochelle: a multi-object echelle spectrograph for the converted MMT. [*Proc. SPIE*]{} [**3355**]{}, 242-252 (1998).
Reeves, J. M., Garcia, O. and Sackett, C. A. Temperature stability of a dichroic atomic vapor laser lock. [*Appl. Opt.*]{} [**45**]{}, 372-376 (2006).
Sandage, A. The change of redshift and apparent luminosity of galaxies due to the deceleration of selected expanding universes. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**136**]{}, 319-333 (1962).
Loeb, A. Direct measurement of cosmological parameters from the cosmic deceleration of extragalactic objects. [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**499**]{}, L111-L114 (1998).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Why is space 3-dimensional? The first answer to this question, entirely based on Physics, was given by Ehrenfest, in 1917, who showed that the stability requirement for $n$-dimensional two-body planetary system very strongly constrains space dimensionality, favoring 3-d. This kind of approach will be generically called “stability postulate" throughout this paper and was shown by Tangherlini, in 1963, to be still valid in the framework of general relativity as well as for quantum mechanical hydrogen atom, giving the same constraint for space-dimensionality. In the present work, before criticizing this methodology, a brief discussion has been introduced, aimed at stressing and clarifying some general physical aspects of the problem of how to determine the number of space dimensions. Then, the epistemological consequences of Ehrenfest’s methodology are critically reviewed. An alternative procedure to get at the proper number of dimensions, in which the stability postulate (and the implicit singularities in three-dimensional physics) are not an essential part of the argument, is proposed. In this way, the main epistemological problems contained in Ehrenfest’s original idea are avoided. The alternative methodology proposed in this paper is realized by obtaining and discussing the $n$-dimensional quantum theory as expressed in Planck’s law, de Broglie relation and the Heisenberg uncertainty relation. As a consequence, it is possible to propose an experiment, based on thermal neutron diffraction by crystals, to directly measure space dimensionality. Finally the distinguished role of Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory in the determination of space dimensionality is stressed.'
author:
- 'Francisco Caruso & Roberto Moreira Xavier'
title: |
On the Physical Problem of Spatial Dimensions:\
An Alternative Procedure to Stability Arguments
---
Introduction {#int}
============
In this paper we discuss the dimensionality of space as a physical problem.
At first sight this problem could be approached, in a fruitful way by simply asking the question: why is space three-dimensional? However, on second thought, it is clear that this formulation is narrow minded since the three-dimensionality of space is assumed as something given [*a priori*]{} perhaps by our sense organs, especially vision. We shall come back to this point later, but now it suffices to say that our interaction with the external world (via our vision) is essentially electromagnetic and that Electromagnetism implies a three-dimensional world, as we will see below. Now, in Physics we are not restricted to our direct experience of the external world, [*i.e.*]{}, to our sensory perception. So we can investigate the problem in a much more profound way by freeing ourselves from our sensory prejudices and trying to answer the following complementary questions: [*i)*]{} How does it become manifest in the fundamental laws of Physics that space [*has*]{} 3 dimensions? [*ii)*]{} How do the fundamental laws of Physics [*entail*]{} space dimensionality? These two questions will be discussed throughout this paper both by critically reviewing the existing literature and by proposing new approaches to this problem.
Some readers may find somewhat “unpleasant" in this paper the several digressions and some apparently “unnecessary" repetitions. We hope that this feeling will disappear by the time we come to the conclusions, with the realization that these digressions and footnotes are indeed necessary and that, often, they are there to clarify points which would, otherwise, remain somewhat obscure. In this perspective, they are, in fact, fundamental to our final discussion.
Before proceeding and entering more deeply into our subject we must first clarify some points which more plainly define our conceptual framework. We begin by considering that the dimensionality of space [*is not a contingent feature*]{}. To accept this means that one must search for a general methodology capable of determining it. A fundamental ingredient is necessarily the possibility of thinking about higher dimensional space, which is provided by the works of Lobacevskij, Bolyai, Gauss, Cayley, Grassmann, and Riemann \[[@Jammer]\], but as we will see below this is not sufficient. Although at early times the physical soundness of this kind of generalizations was continuously questioned,[^1] there is nowadays a kind of general consensus that theories in higher dimensions ([*when supplemented*]{} with dimensional reduction) may provide a promissing framework for a deeper understanding of very high-energy physics. However, it is clear that the very fact of [*imposing*]{} the process of dimensional reduction in a given higher dimensional theory is equivalent to assuming [*a priori*]{} the dimension number 3 as a [*natural*]{} property of space, which is just what we are querying. To the best of our knowledge, there is as yet no satisfactory and unambiguous answer to the problem of dimensional reduction in the framework of these theories, even when the so called spontaneous compactification process is taken into account.[^2] Thus we need to propose some physical argument to introduce another fundamental ingredient which, together with the former, will allow us to [*start*]{} the discussion of whether this number is indeed 3 – but not necessarily to [*determine*]{} it. This ingredient will be provided by the realization that a particular physical law is intimately dependent on the number of space dimensions. Historically, Kant’s conjecture \[[@Handyside]\] that the three-dimensionality of space may, in some way, be related to Newton’s inverse square law has, indeed, opened a new way for the study of the problem of space dimensions. The main contribution of this conjecture to this problem is thus the suggestion that it can also be treated as a [*physical*]{} problem and does not belong exclusively to the domain of mathematics. It is relevant to stress here that, in spite of the importance of this conjecture, its physical support (if any) is yet to be understood.
Usually a third (and decisive) ingredient is always required to suggest a method which effectively connects the number of dimensions to some physical property. This is the most delicate part of any method one can propose for discussing the problem of spatial dimensions, which will be carefully examined throughout this paper. Here, only the physical aspects of this problem are discussed and, in particular, epistemological consequences of Ehrenfest’s methodology aimed at fixing the number of space dimensions base on the so called “stability postulate" (see Section \[learn\]) are critically discussed. Some of the fundamental ideas related to the physical nature of this problem and to the question of the physical relevance of spatial dimension – treated from different points of view \[[@Poincare]\], \[[@Buchel]\], \[[@Grunbaum]\], \[[@Barrow]\] – will also be briefly reviewed in Section \[learn\] but, before discussing any principle that could be used to determine space dimensionality, we would like to say that we are convinced that it is impossible to disentangle questions concerning this subject from some kind of formalism representing a physical law. As Jammer put it \[[@Jammer2]\],
> “[*... Hence it is clear that the structure of the space of physics is not, (...), anything given in nature or independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme.*]{}"
This means that we accept that the physical concepts and the concept of reality itself acquire sense only within a theoretical construction where they can be discussed and realized. When the problem of space dimensions is considered, we must carefully examine the consequences of this fundamental point. Although this point has, in fact, motivated several works on the problem of spatial dimensions, it is in itself, at the same time, one of the main difficulties for the discussion of the problem, because the three-dimensionality of space is not questioned [*a priori*]{} when a physical law is established. This essential difficulty would be bypassed if we are able to prove the validity of the physical law in question whatever the number of spatial dimensions under consideration, rather than simply postulating it. The main aim of this paper is exactly to develop this point.
Concerning the origin of the results one may arrive at by discussing the [*problem of the number of dimensions*]{} in the way prescribed above, there is a straightforward and very important consequence we would like to emphasize, namely: [*the mathematical structure of the formalism*]{} one is considering (or simply a given physical equations) is the [*causa formalis*]{} of the constraint obtained on the number of space dimensions. Actually we tend to consider this as the [*unique*]{} approach to start discussing the problem of space dimensionality and this is essentially related to Jammer’s idea recalled above. Thus this epistemological limitation seems to be inherent to this problem (so far as we understand it) and, in a certain sense, is well illustrated by Grassmann’s words \[[@Grassmann]\]:
> [*“The concept of space can in no way be produced by thought, but always stands over against it as a given thing. He who tries to maintain the opposite must undertake the task of deducing the necessity of the three dimensions of space from the pure laws of thought, a task whose solution presents itself as impossible."*]{}
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[learn\] the present status of what we can learn from the formal extension of the number of space dimensions is discussed. Particular attention is given to Ehrenfest’s and Weyl’s contributions to this subject. A brief comment on the reality criterion associated with the “extra dimensions" in theories at higher dimensions is also presented in this Section \[learn\]. As a result of the criticism of the use of the “stability postulate", carried out in Section \[criticism\], an alternative approach to get at the proper dimensionality of space is presented in this same Section. In Section \[black\] it is shown how the task proposed in Section \[criticism\] can be carried out by considering a particular transition $\Re^3 \rightarrow \Re^n$ for the case of the black body phenomenology. This enable us to “demonstrate" the validity of the de Broglie relation for any $\Re^n$. This is the basis of Section \[thermal\], where thermal neutrons diffraction by crystals is presented as an example that completes the procedure proposed in Section \[criticism\]. An upper limit for the dimensionality of space is therefore obtained. Some conclusions are drawn in Section \[conclusion\].
What one expects to learn from the transition $\Re^3 \rightarrow \Re^n$ {#learn}
========================================================================
As a first example, we can quote Ehrenfest’s fundamental papers \[[@Ehrenfest17]\], \[[@Ehrenfest20]\]. There, several physical phenomena, where qualitative differences between three-dimensional $(\Re^3)$ and other $n$-dimensional $(\Re^n)$ spaces were found, have been discussed. These aspects, which distinguish the $\Re^3$ Physics from the $\Re^n$ one, are called by him “singular aspects" and his works were aimed at stressing them. A crucial assumption is built in the main ideas contained in \[[@Ehrenfest17]\], \[[@Ehrenfest20]\], namely, that it is possible to make the formal extension $\Re^3 \rightarrow \Re^n$ for a certain law of Physics and, then, find one or more principles which, in conjunction with this law, can be used to single out the proper dimensionality of space. For this approach to be carried out, in general, the form of a differential equation – which usually describes a physical phenomenon in a three-dimensional space – is maintained and its validity for an arbitrary number of dimensions is [*postulated*]{}. For example, the Newtonian gravitational potential for a $\Re^n$-space, $V(r) \propto r^{2-n}$, is the solution of the Laplace-Poisson equation,
$$\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1} = {{\partial^2 V}\over {\partial x_i^2} }= k \rho,$$
in an $n$-dimensional space. Based on this general solution, Ehrenfest has used the postulate of the stability of orbital motion under central forces to get at the proper number of dimensions. In Ehrenfest’s approach this additional postulate acts, therefore, as the [*causa efficiens*]{} of the dimensionality of space. It is just this part of his method the object of the criticism in Section 3.
This general procedure is also followed in the work of Whithrow \[1955, 1959\]. The importance of this approach was noted by Tangherlini \[1963, 1986\] who proposed that, for the Newton-Kepler (N.K.) problem generalized to $\Re^n$ space the principle to determine the spatial dimensionality could be summarized in the postulate that there should be stable bound states orbits or “states" for the equation of motion governing the interaction of bodies, treated as material points. This will be generically called from now on, the [*stability postulate*]{}. In his first paper \[1963\], Tangherlini showed that the essential results of the Ehrenfest-Whitrow investigation are unchanged when Newton’s gravitational theory is replaced by general relativity. In this same paper, the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom in $n$ dimensions is also considered. The above postulate, in conjunction with the assumption that the fields produced by the nucleus asymptotically approach a constant value at “large distances", gives $n=3$ in both cases. Thus the three-dimensionality of space discussed within the framework of Newtonian mechanics \[[@Ehrenfest17]\], \[[@Ehrenfest20]\], \[[@Whitrow]\] or general relativity \[[@Tangherlini63]\], and also quantum mechanics \[[@Tangherlini63]\] (using a Coulombian potential), seems to be a result valid for a very large range of spatial scale – we will return to this point in Section \[conclusion\]. This briefly reviews how the “stability postulate" is used to throw some light on the problem of spatial dimensions.
From another point of view, these attempts based on stability arguments belong to a class of arguments epistemologically different from that contained in the work of Weyl \[1918, 1919, 1952\], which we shall briefly review here. His basic approach was to construct a new unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism based on a gauge-invariant non-Riemannian geometry. In this scheme, Weyl pointed out that there is a strong relation between the metric structure of space-time and physical phenomena, which could lead to a deeper understanding of Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory as well as of the four-dimensionality of space-time. Weyl showed that only in a (3+1)-dimensional space-times can Maxwell’s theory be derived from a simple gauge-invariant integral form of the action, having a Lagrangean density which is conformally invariant. This could be considered as an example of how a set of physical phenomena, here synthesized by Maxwell’s theory, could be used to impose some restrictions on the dimensionality of space.[^3] The structure of Maxwell equations and the gauge principle are, respectively, the [*causa formalis*]{} and the [*causa efficiens*]{} of the four-dimensionality of space-time. The two essentially different (although complementary) features of Ehrenfest’s and Weyl’s methodology can be summarized as the difference between the two following questions: (i) How does it become manifest in the fundamental laws of Physics that space has three-dimensions, and (ii) How do the fundamental laws of Physics entail spatial dimensionality? All work based on the “stability postulate" hinges on the former question because the constraint on $n$ is reached as a consequence of a “singular aspect" of a physical law that is [*supposed to be still valid*]{} under the transition $\Re^3 \rightarrow \Re^n$. The latter is implicit in Weyl’s work where the structure of Maxwell theory [*cannot*]{} be maintained[^4] if $n \not= 3$. The second question can be well illustrated by the concluding paragraph of Tangherlini’s paper \[1963\], where he says: [*with further work, we may come to regard $n=3$ as an eigenvalue*]{}.
However, even from a classical point of view, Weyl’s demonstration of the four dimensionality of space-time is not complete: the gravitational law should also be derived from the same requirements of invariance as for electromagnetism. The point is that although Weyl’s unified theory is a good place for giving ans answer to the problem of spatial dimensions, it should be mentioned that this theory has been criticized in the literature \[[@Bergmann]\], \[[@Dirac]\]. In any case, in order to consider complete such kind of demonstration, today we must clearly take into account also [*strong*]{} and [*weak*]{} interactions. We will turn later to this point at the end of this Section.
Other attempts to create a geometry in which the gravitational and electromagnetic potentials together would determine the structure of space were carried out. An example is Kaluza-Klein theory \[[@Kaluza]\], \[[@Klein]\] – which is presently enjoying a great revival of popularity in connection with the modern theories of supergravity – where the number of components of the metric tensor was increased by changing the number of spatial dimensions. A fifth dimension was added to the usual four dimensions of physical space-time. In the work of Kaluza, the [*a priori*]{} four-dimensional character of the physical world is assumed when the author looks for a suitable choice of coordinates, in such a way that the components of the metric tensor be independent of the fifth coordinate. In other words, this coordinate has no direct physical significance. Thus it is quite clear that this kind of approach to a unification program could not lead to a satisfactory answer to the problem of spatial dimensions.[^5] However it should be said that an argument aimed at showing that a necessary condition for a unified field-theoretic description of gravity and electromagnetism implies that the world be four-dimensional, as discussed by Penney \[1965\]. The four dimensionality of space-time is also required by Schönberg \[1971\]. In this interesting work and electromagnetic foundation for the geometry of the world-manifold is proposed. Einstein’s gravitational equation appears as complementing the set of Maxwell equations, giving rise to a natural fusion of the electromagnetic and gravitational theory. The electromagnetic theory is formulated in a differentiable manifold devoid of any metric and affine structure. In this formulation there is no [*a priori*]{} relation between $F_{\mu\nu}$ and $F_{\mu\nu}^\ast$, involved in the homogeneous and non-homogeneous Maxwell equations, respectively. The foundation of the four-dimensionality of the world-manifold (space-time) is given by the structure of the Maxwell equations in terms of two basic tensors $F_{\mu\nu}$ and $F_{\mu\nu}^\ast$, which are both antisymmetric covariant of the same order. It is important to stress that, in this approach, the four-dimensionality of the space-time is essentially associated to the differential electromagnetic equations, without any consideration about the relation between $F_{\mu\nu}$ and $F_{\mu\nu}^\ast$ and without requiring a metric-space as in Weyl’s work.
There are other attempts to unify not only electromagnetic and gravitational forces but all the fundamental forces, considering space-time with a high number of dimensions as, for example, supergravity or the ten-dimensional space-time superstring theory \[[@Niewenhuysen]\], \[[@Schwarz]\]. But, whenever the problem of space-time dimensionality is considered in the framework of these (super-) theories, we face the problem of the physical reality of these “extra" dimensions. Independently of any particular theory, as pointed out by Mansouri and Witten \[1985\],
> [*“if we wish to take the physical existence of the extra dimensions seriously, we must develop a systematic method for studying the effects of the extra dimensions (...) Since there is no evidence for the existence of the extra dimensions at the shortest distance which can be probed at present, it \[any such method\] must explain how this can be attributed to some intrinsic property of a higher dimensional theory. It must \[also\] provide a quantitative method for studying the consequences of the dependence on the extra dimensions."*]{}
Complementing this picture we can always ask whether the ten-dimensional superstring theory, for example, can tell us, in a straightforward and unambiguous way, that we are living in a (“almost flat") four dimensional space-time. The fundamental question is: [*why*]{} dimensional reduction? Up to now, the answer to this question, [*i.e.*]{}, the four-dimensionality of the physical world-manifold, is yet, in the last analysis, an [*ad hoc*]{} ingredient in these theories.
On the other hand, it was shown \[[@Barrow]\] that only for space-time dimensionality greater than four, the fundamental constants of electromagnetism ($e$), quantum theory ($\hbar$), gravity ($G$) and relativity ($c$) are all included in a single dimensionless constant – which should have, in a unified theory, a similar rôle to that played by the Sommerfeld constant $e^2/\hbar c$ in the quantum electrodynamic theory. Thus the apparent necessity of going to a high dimensional space-time, in order to carry out the unification program, brings with itself the problem of how to explain all the well-known phenomenological manifestations of the four-dimensionality of space-time in the framework of this new theory, and the question of the reality of the “extra-dimensions": both are clearly still open questions in Physics.
Criticism of the use of stability postulate {#criticism}
===========================================
We can ask if the “stability postulate" – applied to the N.K. problem or hydrogen atom – is actually a good choice for deriving the spatial dimensionality or not; or more specifically, if we can really [*prove*]{} that $n=3$. We understand that the use of this postulate enables us only to exclude the possibility of having a class of natural phenomena in a space other than our own, with an arbitrary dimension, as pointed out by Poincaré \[[@Poincare17]\]. Then, when we consider the example of the hydrogen atom, as described in Section \[learn\], the results obtained from that postulate must be stated as follows: there is no $\Re^n$ [*other than*]{} $\Re^3$ where the phenomenon under study is described by a generalized Schrödinger equation that has the same form as in the case $n=3$, and whose solution is [*also*]{} stable – and that is all. Indeed, when Ehrenfest used the Bohr atomic model for the hydrogen atom, the stability of matter in three dimensions was [*already*]{} assured by the postulate of angular momentum quantization, and this justifies the term [*also*]{} underlined above. The fact is that he could not have used Rutherford’s model – which is clearly unstable in $\Re^3$ – plus the stability postulate to derive the number of dimensions as being just 3. Thus $n=3$ is [*a priori*]{} favored in this case. Apart this feature, it is clear that it is only when the formalism, previously generalized to an $n$-dimensional space, presents a singular behavior under this generalization, that the “stability postulate" can be used as a method to fix the proper dimensionality of space. The range of applicability of the “stability postulate" is therefore strongly restricted to a very particular class of formalisms. Moreover, these two intrinsic characteristics of this method clearly do not solve the essential difficulty discussed in Section 1 and, from the epistemological point of view, show that the use of the “stability postulate" to fix $n$ is not satisfactory.
We can now ask if we cannot imagine a phenomenon or a physical state that could only be stable in an $\Re^n$ with $n > 3$, but described by an equation having the same form as in $\Re^3$, and analyze the consequences of this assumption. For example, we can ask why we do not observe in a Stern-Gerlach \[1922\] experiment the dissociation of a beam od spin 1/2 particles in more than two lines. Or, in other words, is the stability of these particles ([*e.g.*]{} electrons), described by a Dirac equation, a manifestation of a particular space dimensionality? Particles having higher spin must be unstable in $\Re^3$, while stable in some $\Re^n
\not= \Re^3$ and so, having a mean lifetime so small in three dimensions, this kind of experiment could not be carried out. This conjecture could indicate that if the “stability postulate" were applied to the evolution of a massive spin 3/2 particle, described by a (hypothetical) Dirac-like equation, the number of spatial dimensions derived could be greater than 3! This is an example where the results obtained by using the “stability postulate" do not depend on the form of the equation but, instead, on what kind of object this equation describes.
The alternative principle we want to propose may be stated as follows: “Given a formalism in a certain dimension, (usually three) we must, based upon its fundamental equations, ask whether other forms (or equations) are valid in a higher $n$-dimensional space for [*all*]{} $n$, rather than simply postulating the validity of the same formalism in a different dimension". In other words we shall not be concerned only with formalisms which are singular in a certain $n$ (usually three). On the contrary, we shall look for situations which do not present those singularities. Then this alternative principle could be used to discuss the spatial dimensionality (Section \[black\]). It will certainly describe several phenomena and their observability could not be used for that purpose. It is clear, however, that in this case, the constraints obtained will be weaker than those obtained when the “stability postulate" or the search for singular aspects of the transition $\Re^3 \rightarrow \Re^n$ are considered. Nevertheless, this procedure has the advantage that we can guarantee [*a priori*]{} that the fundamental law, used to describe a certain kind of phenomenon, is valid for any $\Re^n$, which is not possible in other procedures as pointed out in Section \[int\]. Then, when this alternative procedure is applied we can conclude: the dimensionality of space [*is*]{} a number included in a certain range – 3 need not [*a priori*]{} be favored.
Black body phenomenology: a non singular aspect of the transition $\Re^3 \rightarrow \Re^n$ {#black}
===========================================================================================
There are several physical laws in which the dimensionality of space affects the results, but the transition $\Re^3 \rightarrow \Re^n$ does not have a “singular" behavior, and thus these laws were not discussed in the works of Ehrenfest \[1917, 1920\]. An example is Wien’s law which, in its generalized form,[^6] becomes $\rho = \nu^n F(\nu/T)$. However, we would like to point out that, although this transition has no “singularity", the black body phenomenology extended to $\Re^n$ contains an important feature that must be emphasized. Indeed we can use it in order to “demonstrate" the validity of the de Broglie relation in other $\Re^n$, as will be shown now.
If we assume Planck’s energy quantization to determine the explicit form of the function $F$, we still find that the energy of a quantum is $\epsilon_0 = h \nu$, for any $\Re^n$. This is easily seen if we remember that the energy eigenvalue of the Schrödinger equation for the harmonic oscillator gives Planck’s result up to the ground state energy. The transition to $\Re^n$ only changes this energy value from $3h\nu/2$ to $nh\nu/2$, and then Planck’s hypothesis is still valid, [*i.e.*]{}, the quantum energy is proportional to the [*first*]{} power of the frequency $\nu$. We note that this result clearly depends on the classical potential energy $V=kx^2/2$ used in the Schrödinger equation, and a brief digression about it is necessary.
When a spring is displaced for the equilibrium position, we learn from the experiment that, for small displacements, the restoring force is proportional to the displacement, and that is all. It does not matter in which direction the displacement takes place and the problem can be called a quasi one-dimensional problem. The result is the same in one, two or three dimensions and this is quite different from the Newtonian-Keplerian potential, for which a qualitative difference among $\Re^3$ and $\Re^n$ exists \[[@Ehrenfest17]\], \[[@Ehrenfest20]\]. Thus we can expect from induction that the form of Hooke’s potential could be the same for all $\Re^n$. However, even if this is not true, but if the generalized potential has a minimum, we can always approximate it by the harmonic potential, in the case of small oscillations, whatever $\Re^n$ is considered (a particular case of Morse theorem). After this note, we can turn back to the original problem.
We can still assume that the energy trapped in a cavity (a model for a black body) corresponds to the energy of a collection of “photons" which must satisfy Einstein’s relation $M^2=g_{\mu\nu} p^\mu p^\nu$, generalized to $\Re^n$ – it is the same kind of generalization made for the potential energy, where only the number of components of the metric (the scalar product) was increased. By imposing that a quantum must also satisfy the above relation, it follows immediately that the de Broglie relation $\lambda = h/p$ is valid in [*any*]{} $\Re^n$, because Planck’s quantization law did not change. Thus we can also conclude that, as the de Broglie relation is exact in [*any*]{} $\Re^n$, the momentum $p$ of the particle cannot be a function of its coordinate $x$, and so we should expect that Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations are also valid \[[@Blokhintsev]\]. This result, in a certain sense, properly supports the initial generalization of the Schrödinger equation, a sit should be expected that the equivalence between Heisenberg’s and Schrödinger’s pictures must be maintained for other $\Re^n$. This feature is a self-consistency test for this generalization, which, to our knowledge, has not been used in the past literature.
So, it has been shown in this Section that even though the transition $\Re^3 \rightarrow \Re^n$ does not show “singular" aspects, there is a case in which we can still perform it (justified [*a posteriori*]{}) and conclude something about the validity of other physical law in $\Re^n$. The advantage of this procedure was already discussed in Section 3.
We will now apply the result of this Section to a particular physical effect – the possibility of having thermal neutron diffraction by crystals in a $\Re^n$ space. It is essentially explained by the de Broglie hypothesis and then an upper limit for spatial dimensionality will be obtained, based on the general arguments presented in Section 3.
Thermal neutron diffraction by crystals as a means for obtaining an upper limit for spatial dimensionality {#thermal}
==========================================================================================================
It is well known that a thermal neutron beam falling onto a crystal lattice gives rise to diffraction phenomena \[[@Dunning]\], \[[@Mitchell]\] – known as “neutron diffraction" – analogous to those observed when we use incident $X$-ray beams. The passage of thermal neutrons through matter gives rise to scattering processes which are most readily understood in terms of the wave properties of the neutrons \[[@Goldberger]\], \[[@Bacon]\], \[[@Wilkinson]\]. We define as “thermal" a neutron whose kinetic energy corresponds to the mean energy of thermal agitation at temperature $T$. Usually we can write $p^2/2m \simeq 3K_BT/2$, where the factor 3 arises when we consider $\Re^3$-space and only 3 degrees of freedom, corresponding to translational motion, are assumed for the neutron, [*i.e.*]{}, by hypothesis, one does not take into account any internal degree of freedom. Therefore, if we assume the energy equipartition theorem to be still valid for an $\Re^n$-space, each degree of freedom will contribute with $K_BT/2$ and the factor 3 should be replaced by[^7] $n$.
Since the classical thermodynamics laws do not show singular aspects concerning the $\Re^3 \rightarrow \Re^n$ transition[^8] it is still possible to thermalize a neutron beam in an $\Re^n$-space. Thus the de Broglie wavelength associanted to the neutron is $\lambda = h/p$, where $p \simeq (nmk_BT)^{1/2}$. From now on $\lambda$ will be considered as a function of both the dimensionality of space and neutron velocity (“temperature"), with $n$ being a parameter to be determined. The starting point is, therefore, that neutron thermalization may occur in a $n$-dimensional space. The subsequent process – neutron diffraction – simply acts as the [*detection*]{} of something that has happened inside a nuclear reactor, for example. To measure $\lambda$ use will be made of Bragg’s law \[[@Bragg]\].
If $d$ represents the grating spacing the condition for coherent reflection is given by Bragg’s law
$$2d \sin \theta = \ell \lambda, \ \ \ell = 1,2,3, ...$$
For diffraction patterns to be observed, the wavelength must be of the order of magnitude of the mean distance between crystallographic Bragg planes (which in $\Re^3$-space are given by the so called Miller indexes \[[@Phillips]\], easily generalized to $\Re^n$), but [*cannot exceed*]{} $2d$. In this case Bragg’s law has no solution for integer $\ell$ and there in no diffraction pattern.
The distance $d$ can be measured by using $X$-ray techniques and thus is independent of the dimensionality of space, [*i.e.*]{}, for $X$-rays the relation $p \simeq (nmk_BT)^{1/2}$, valid for massive particles (as neutrons, helium atoms, hydrogen molecules [*etc.*]{}), is obviously not valid any longer.
We can then conclude that, in an $\Re^n$-space, diffraction gratings \[[@Jenkins]\] do exist – the spacing grating being independent of $n$ – and it is possible to thermalize a neutron beam. However, it is still possible to “measure" $n$ even in the limiting case where a “one-dimensional crystal" is used as a “rod" because $\lambda$ is, by definition, “one dimensional" and the knowledge of $n$ comes through the measure os $\lambda$. Thus the above requirement that diffraction gratings exist in $\Re^n$ seems to be superfluous. In any case, the 3-dimensionality of the macroscopic crystal does not necessarily say anything about the space dimensionality of the microscopic characteristic length of thermal neutron production. This information is carried out by the neutron and will be revealed by the crystal lattice. To make the point, we are taking into account the possibility that the space dimensionality may be dependent on the spatial scale (or energy scale) we are probing.
In its application to solid state problems, neutron diffraction is similar in theory and experiment to $X$-ray diffraction but, in fact, regarding some particular aspects, they could be considered as two complementary techniques \[[@Goldberger]\], \[[@Bacon]\], \[[@Wilkinson]\]. The experimental apparatus we will consider consists of a monochromatic neutron beam (obtained with usual techniques \[[@Bacon]\], \[[@Wilkinson]\]) and a crystal. The mean distances between the Bragg’s planes are measured by using $X$-ray techniques. Given a certain crystal one tries to determine the larger value of these distances which, in general, lies on an axis of symmetry of the crystal. The neutron beam is then sent on the crystal in such a way that it will be diffracted by the parallel planes having as relative distance the aforementioned value. The advantage of this procedure will be soon understood.
It is well known from optics that, even when the number of slits in a diffraction grating is not very large, the intensity of secondary maxima in the diffraction pattern is much reduced, compared with the intensity of principal maxima \[[@Jenkins]\]. In the case of neutron diffraction by a crystal one has a very large number of “slits" – the mean intervals between atoms – which, clearly, renders difficult the experimental observation of a high order spectrum. But this does not mean that they could not be observed in principle. From Bragg’s law it follows that to have a second order spectrum we must have $\lambda \le d$; for a third order one we need $\lambda \le 2d/3$, and so one. The condition for having a diffraction pattern with [*only*]{} the $\ell$-th. order spectrum is, therefore, $2/(\ell +1) \le \lambda/d \le 2/\ell$. The possible ranges for the neutron wavelength are then always different and this is an important point, as we will see now.
Suppose one can vary (increase) the number of spatial dimensions for a given constant temperature; for example from $n=3$ to $n=12$. As $\lambda$ is proportional to $1/\sqrt {n}$, this corresponds to dividing the wavelength by a factor 2 and, therefore, it is equivalent to going from a spectrum of order $\ell$ to one of order $2\ell$. This fact, naturally, strongly suggests that one should observe the [*first*]{} order spectrum, as far as one is looking for an upper limit for $n$. We can, thus, perform a [*gedanken*]{} experiment where it is possible to prepare a monochromatic neutron beam satisfying the condition $d\le \lambda \le 2d$, by varying the neutron velocity and, consequently, $\lambda$, which assures us that no higher order spectra are presented in the diffraction pattern other than the first one. Only if one can change $\lambda$ by a factor 2 and still have the same order diffraction pattern is one sure that it is the first order spectrum that is observed, because we must remember that we are taking $n$ as an unknown quantity. After being sure that this is the case, we can then use the relation $\lambda = h (nmK_BT)^{-1/2}$ for determining $n$. Therefore, we can conclude that the observation of thermal neutrons diffraction, under the condition $d\le \lambda \le 2d$, can be used to measure[^9] $n$.
We shall now analyze the available experimental data. It is known from $X$-ray measurements that a typical value for $d$ in a crystalline solid is $d \gtrsim 10^{-10}$ m and the characteristic temperature is $T
\approx 300$ K. For neutron beams, from what has been said above, both values are independent of space dimensionality. This is the fundamental fact that allows us to use $d\le \lambda \le 2d$, which gives us the approximate limit $n \lesssim 5$. For a fixed value of the temperature, one may ask whether a particular crystal whose $d$ value is such as to test $n=3$ does exist.
The wave aspect of the phenomenon discussed in this Section might lead to supplementary restrictions on the value of $n$.
In classical physics, diffraction effects can be explained on the basis of a wave theory by the application of Huygens’ construction together with the principle of interference. In $\Re^{2n}$-space it is well known that Huygens’ principle does not hold \[[@Hadamard]\]. It should also be noted that Hadamard \[[@Hadamard23]\] has shown that the transmission of wave impulses in a reverberation-free fashion is possible only in space with an [*odd*]{} number of spatial dimensions[^10] and, in these cases, Huygens’ principle is valid for single differential equations of second order with constant coefficients. However, Hadamard’s conjecture states that this theorem holds even if the coefficients are not constant \[[@Courant]\]. The Huygens’ principle in then expected to be valid in any $\Re^n$-space where $n$ is odd. Now we shall assume that the classical results discussed in this paragraph remain valid when we consider the diffraction of matter by crystals – traditionally explained by de Broglie’s hypothesis within quantum mechanics.[^11] This point is far from trivial and is now under investigation. The difficulty comes from the fact that Hadamard’s results apply to d’Alembert equation, of hyperbolic type, while Scrhödinger equation is parabolic. So, within the above assumption, we can conclude that thermal neutron diffraction gives an upper limit for spatial dimensionality which is an odd integer less than or of the order of five.
We hope the [*gedanken*]{} experiment performed here, may, in practice, be carried out in the near future.
Concluding remarks {#conclusion}
==================
In this paper we have discussed the validity of applying the “stability postulate" to the problem of spatial dimensions. It was shown that this kind of approach naturally favor [*a priori*]{} $n=3$. An alternative approach is proposed where, basically, it is suggested that one must first demonstrated that the ultimate law used to derive spatial dimensionality is valid in generic $\Re^n$, rather than simply postulating the validity of the same equation for an arbitrary $\Re^n$. From this approach one finds that the constraint obtained on the spatial dimensions are not only weaker (upper limits) than those obtained by using stability arguments, but have also a different nature, which we consider more appropriate to this problem. The main advantage of our methodology is that it is able to bypass an essential difficulty inherent to the problem to the problem of the number of spatial dimensions, namely: $n=3$ is never questioned [*a priori*]{} when a physical law is established. Clearly it is not our scope to deduce the number of dimensions of space from a pure conceptual law \[[@Grassmann]\], but provide a constructive scheme to get at it. As stated in the Introduction, we believe that the structure of physical space – in particular its dimensionality – is a function of our conceptual scheme but it does not seem possible to deduce the spatial dimensionality from it. In the last analysis, one should resort to phenomenology to determine it.
In this paper, the fundamental equations generalized to $\Re^n$ were the Schrödinger equation and the Einstein energy-mass relation. The validity of the de Broglie relation for any $\Re^n$ properly supports the initial generalization of the Schrödinger equation (Section \[black\]) and, at the same time, gives a justification for it, in general not found in other cases. Then, using this result, we have suggested the phenomenon of thermal neutron diffraction by crystals as a means to determine the number of spatial dimensions. As a consequence, we have found an upper limit for $n$, which is an odd integer (by assumption) less than or of the order of five. We consider the [*gedanken*]{} experiment performed in Section \[thermal\] an [*experimentum crucis*]{} for the problem of spatial dimensions and hope it may, in practice, be carried out in the near future.
Let us now make some comments about the nature of the different approaches, considering the physical problem of spatial dimensions, quoted in this paper. We can divide them into two distinct classes. The first one corresponds to topological arguments: to this class belong Whitrow’s bio-topological argument \[[@Whitrow]\] and Poincaré’s argument, based on the [*analysis situs*]{} \[[@Poincare17]\]. The kind of constraints obtained from it is a lower limit for spatial dimensionality, [*e.g.*]{}, $n\ge 3$. In the second class, we group all other arguments where it is necessary to introduce a metric space and this seems to restrict the range of possible values of $n$. A metric space is introduced whenever we consider the existence of an interacting system as the starting-point in the discussion of the problem of spatial dimensions. It is clear to begin with an interacting system, knowledge of the form of the interaction – the physical law describing the phenomenon in a space-time manifold – is a necessary condition. This renders the class of “metric arguments" more “complete" [*a priori*]{}, in the sense that it contains more information than the class of “purely topological arguments". The difference can be considered as the cause of the difference between the two types (or classes) of constraints for $n$. There is, however, an exception to this general picture that should be emphasized: the Maxwell electromagnetic theory. We would like to point out here its distinguished rôle in the physical problem of space dimensions. All the attempts to obtain the space dimensionality which are based upon the structure of Maxwell’s equations (no matter whether they belong to the class of metric approach or not) give $n=3$.
It is not perhaps out of place to present now some almost obvious remarks about time (and space) “scale" of the arguments previously discussed. Ehrenfest’s stability argument is valid for distances of the order of the solar system and in a time scale large enough to make the evolution of life possible on Earth (as mentioned by Whitrow[^12]). Tangherlini’s work about the stability of $H$ atoms can be invoked here to suggest the validity of chemistry in the same time scale as a necessary, although not sufficient, condition – at least chemical thermodynamics of irreversible process should be also valid. The presence of atomic spectra in remote stars may also indicate that space has had the same dimensionality at cosmic scale. To have such a cosmic constraint on space dimensionality is very interesting and we hope to treat this point in a future communication.
It is also interesting to note that all the arguments presented up to now that depend ion the presence of matter are essentially metric. This is the case of Ehrenfest-Tangherlini-Whitrow. Topological arguments are basically related to the idea of a field – this is the case of Maxwell’s theory, as mentioned before, and Wien’s law, which involves, essentially, the equilibrium of radiation.
As for most physical arguments used to obtain the spatial dimensionality it is necessary to introduce a metric space, our two last critical comments are dedicated to clarify some aspects involving it.
Firstly, in \[[@Tangherlini63]\] the author was led to conclude that the stability postulate, applied to the N.K. problem, fixes the dimensionality of space and, at the same time, is an absolute prerequisite for a comparison of relative distances between bodies to be physically possible. However, taking into account the analysis we have done and the example we have proposed in the preceding Sections. we are led to conclude that, in fact, it is the physical interaction between two bodies, or two systems, that necessarily leads to the introduction of a metric-space in order to be able to obtain the number of spatial dimensions in these cases; but neither the stability postulate nor a metric-space \[[@Schonberg]\] are indeed [*necessary*]{} to fix the dimensionality of space.
Secondly, we would like to point out that the necessity to have a metric-space for most physical arguments concerning the problem of spatial dimensions, brings with itself the notion of distance, traditionally based on the differential homogeneous quadratic form, $ds^2 = g_{\mu\nu} dx^\mu
dx^\nu$, which, in the last analysis, is an arbitrary choice – indeed there is no logical argument for excluding other forms for the line element as $ds^4$, $ds^6$, $ds^8$ [*etc*]{}. In spite of this (up to now) logical impossibility the importance of investigating the nature of the exponent 2 was emphasized in an early work by Ehrenfest \[1920\]. His conjecture that this 2 could be related to the dimensionality of space is, however, yet to be demonstrated. Nevertheless, so far as the formula for a line element in a manifold of $n$ dimensions is viewed as arbitrary, some care must clearly be exercised in advancing Ehrenfest’s conjecture. If, on the contrary, this conjecture is shown to be actually true, we can ask whether it can be related in some way to Fermat’s last theorem.
In conclusion, we would like to say that although some epistemological difficulties concerning the use of “stability arguments" are bypassed by the methodology proposed in this paper, there remains, somehow, a certain incompleteness since a physical event takes place not only in space, but in [*space-time*]{}. Thus the problem of the number of space dimensions and that of time dimensions are probably not independent. One can then ask whether it is possible to propose a more general methodology which could be able to constrain not only the number of spatial dimensions but also, simultaneously, time dimensionality. Are these numbers actually related? Is it possible to prove time to be one-dimensional by disclosing space dimensionality and/or vice-versa? It is our conviction that, in the future, further efforts should be made trying to answer these questions, whether or not a deeper comprehension on the problem of space dimensionality is to be reached. 0.5 true cm
[*Acknowledgments:*]{} One of us (F.C.) would like to thank Prof. Enrico Predazzi for his kind hospitality at the Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica dell’Univerisità do Torino where this work was completed. We are also grateful to him – as well as to Dr. Leonardo Castellani – for a critical reading of the manuscript, for lively discussions and useful suggestions. We wish to thank Dr. Eduardo Valadares for the translation of Ehrenfest’s German paper and fruitful discussions, and Dr. Roberto Nicolsky for useful comments concerning Sec. \[thermal\]. The authors are indebted to Mrs. Regina Moura, Profs. João dos Anjos and Erasmo Ferreira for providing them with copies of several references. F.C. thanks the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) of Brazil for financial support.
[**Résumé**]{} – Pourquoi l’espace a-t-il trois dimensions? La première réponse à cette question, complètement fondée sur des raisons physiques, fut donée par Ehrenfest en 1917, qui montra que la condition de stabilité pour un système planétaire à deux corps à $n$-dimensions pose des contraintes très puissantes sur la dimensionalité de l’espace et favorise 3-d. Cette approche du problème sera dénommée “postulat de stabilité" dans cet article et, comme le montra Tangherlini en 1963, elle est ancore valable dans le domaine de la relativité générale ausi bien que pour l’atome d’hydrogène quantique, en donnant toujours la même contrainte pour la dimensionalité de l’espace. Dans ce travail, avant de faire une analyse critique de la méthodologie rappelée ci-dessus, nous faisons une brève discussion pour souligner et clarifier quelques aspects physique généraux du problème relatif à la determination de la dimensionalité de l’espace. Ensuite, les conséquences épistémologiques de la méthodologie d’Ehrenfest seront revues de façon critique. On propose un procédé alternatif pour arriver à déterminer le nombre de dimensions correct, dans lequel le postulat de stabilité (et les singularités implicites dans la physique à trois dimensions) ne constitue pas une partie essentielle de l’argumentation. De cette manière, les principaux problèmes épistémologiques contenus dans l’idée originale d’Ehrenfest sont évités. La méthodologie alternative proposée dans ce travail est bâtie sur la réalisation et la discussion de la théorie quantique à $n$-dimensions exprimée par la loi de Planck, la formule de de Broglie et la relation d’incertitude de Heisenberg. Par conséquent, il est possible de proposer une expérience, basée sur la diffraction des neutrons thermiques par des cristaux, pour mesurer directement la dimensionalité de l’espace. Finalement, le rôle particulier joué par la théorie électromagnétique de Maxwell pour la détermination de la diménsionalité de l’espace est souligné.
Jammer, M., 1954 - For a brief historical discussion of these works see the book [*Concepts of Space: the History of Theories of Space in Physics*]{}. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, Chapter 5.
Kant, I., 1747 - [*Gedanken von der wahren Schätzung der lebendigen Kräfte und Beurtheilung der Beweise, deren sich Herr von Leibniz und andere Mechaniker in dieser Streitsache bedient haben, nebst einigen vorhergehenden Betrachtungen, welche die Kraft der Körper überhaupt betreffen*]{}, Königsberg, 1747; reprinted in: Kant [*Werke*]{}, Band 1, [*Vorkritische Schriften*]{}, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt, 1983. English translation of part of this work was done by J. Handyside and published as part of the book [*Kant’s inaugural dissertation and the early writings on space*]{}. Chicago: Open Court, 1929, reprinted by Hyperion Press, 1979, pp. 11-15.
Poincaré, H., 1913 - [*La valeur de la Science*]{}, Paris, Flammarion, pp. 96-136.
Büchel W., 1963 - “Warun hat der Raum drei Dimensionen?", [*Physikalische Blätter*]{} [**19**]{}, No. 2, pp. 547-49, translated and adapted by Freeman I.M., “Why is Space Three-Dimensional?", [*American Journal of Physics*]{} [**37**]{} (1969) pp. 1222-1224.
Grünbaum, A., 1974 - [*Philosophical Problems of Space and Time*]{}, second, enlarged edition. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publ. Co., pp. 330-37, pp. 833-34, and refs. therein.
Barrow, J.D., 1983 - “Dimensionality", [*Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London*]{} [**A310**]{}, pp. 337-346; [*Cf.*]{} also Barrow J.D. and Tipler F., [*The Anthropic Cosmological Principle*]{}, Oxford, Claredon Press, 1986, Chapter IV.
Jammer, M., 1954 - [*op. cit.*]{}, p. 171.
Grassmann, H., 1878 - [*Die Ausdehnungslehre*]{}, 2nd. ed., Leipzig, p. XXIII, as quoted by Jammer M., [*op. cit.*]{} p. 184.
Ehrenfest, P., 1917 - “In what way does it become manifest in the fundamental laws of physics that space has three dimensions?", [*Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW)*]{} [**20**]{}, pp. 200-209; reprinted in Klein, M.J. (ed.), [*Paul Ehrenfest - Collected Scientific Papers*]{}. Amsterdam: North Holland Publ. Co., 1959, pp. 400-409.
Ehrenfest, P., 1920 - “Welche Rolle spielt die Dreidimensionalität des Raumes in den Grundgesetzen der Physik?", [*Annalen der Physik*]{} [**61**]{}, pp. 440-446.
Whitrow G.J., 1955 - “Why Physical Space has Three Dimensions?", [*Brit. J. Phil. Sci.*]{} [**6**]{}, pp. 13-31. See also [*The Structure and Evolution of the Universe*]{}, New York, Harper and Row, 1959.
Tangherlini F.R., 1963 - “Schwarzschild Field in $n$ Dimensions and the Dimensionality of Space Problem", [*Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**27**]{}, pp. 636-651.
Tangherlini F.R., 1986 - “Dimensionality of Space and the Pulsating Universe", [*ibid*]{} [**91B**]{}, pp. 209-217.
Weyl H., 1918 - “Gravitation und Elektrizität", [*Sitzungsberichte d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. Berlin*]{}, **26**, pp. 465-480; “Eine neue Erweiterung der Relativitätstheorie", [*Ann. Physik*]{} [**59**]{} (1919) pp. 101-133; See also his [*Space, Time, Matter*]{}, transl. by H.L. Brose, New York, Dover, 1952, pp. 282-285.
Bergmann P.G., 1942 - [*Introduction to the Theory of Relativity*]{}, New York, Prentice-Halll; “Unitary Field Theory", [*Physics Today*]{}, march 1979, pp. 44-51.
Dirac P.A.M., 1973 - “Fundamental Constants and their Development in Time", [*in*]{} J. Mehra (ed.), [*The Physicist’s Conception of Nature*]{}, Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publ. Co., pp. 52-53, where it is argued that there is no objection to Weyl’s theory.
Kaluza, Th., 1921 - “Zum Unitätsproblem der Physik", [*Sitzungsber. d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., Berlin, Math. Physik*]{} [**1**]{}, pp. 966-972.
Klein O., 1926 - “Quantum Theory and the Five-Dimensional Relativity Theory", [*Zeit. für Physik*]{} [**37**]{}, pp. 895-906.
Penney R., 1965 - “On the Dimensionality of the Real World", [*Journ. Math. Phys.*]{} [**6**]{}, pp. 1607-1611.
Schönberg M., 1971 - “Electromagnetism and Gravitation", [*Revista Brasileira de Física*]{} [**1**]{}, p. 91 and refs. therein. See also Schönberg’s book [*Pensando a Física*]{}. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1985, pp. 89-91.
See, for example, the review article of Van Niewenhuysen P., 1985 - “Supergravity", [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**C68**]{} (4), pp. 189-398. We thank Dr. M. Gasperini for pointing out to us this reference.
Schwarz, J.H., 1985 - “Introduction to superstrings", [*in*]{} [*Superstrings and Supergravity – Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Scottish Univ. Summer School in Phys.*]{}, A.T. Davies and D.G. Sutherland (Eds.), Oxford, Univ. Printing House, 1985, pp. 95-124.
Mansouri F. and Witten L., 1985 - “Can isometries tell us about the extra dimensions", [*in Symposium on Anomalies, Geometry, Topology*]{}, W.A. Bardeen and A.R. White (eds.), Singapore, World Scientific Publ. Co., pp. 509-10.
Poincaré H., 1917 - [*Dernières Pensées*]{}. Paris: Flammarion. See also \[[@Poincare]\].
Stern, O. and Gerlach, W., 1922 - “Experimental Determination of the Magnetic Moment of Silver Atom", [*Zeitschrift für Physik*]{} [**8**]{}, pp. 110-111; “Experimental Test of the Applicability of the Quantum Theory to the Magnetic Field", [*idem*]{} [**9**]{}, pp. 349-352, and “Magnetic Moment of Silver Atom" [*id.*]{} [**9**]{}, pp. 353-355.
Blokhintsev, D., 1981 - [*Principes de Mécanique Quantique*]{}, Moscow, Mir Publ.; [*Quantum Mechanics*]{}. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1964, par. 15, pp. 44-45, translated from the third and fourth Russian editions by J.B. Sykes and M.J. Kearsley.
See, for example, Dunning, J.R.; Pegram, G.B.; Fink, G.A.; Whitehall, D.P. and Segrè, E., 1935 - “Velocity of Slow Neutrons by Mechanical Velocity Selector", [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**48**]{}, p. 704.
Mitchell, D.P. and Powers, P.N., 1936 - “Bragg Reflection of Slow Neutrons", [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**50**]{}, pp. 486-487.
Goldberger M. and Seitz F., 1947 - “Theory of the Refraction and the Diffraction of Neutrons by Crystals", [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**71**]{}, pp. 294-310.
Bacon G.E., 1962 - [*Neutron Diffraction*]{}. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Wilkinson, M.K.; Wollan, E.O. and Koehler, W.C., 1961 - “Neutron Diffraction", [*Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci.*]{} [**11**]{}, pp. 303-348 and refs. therein.
Bragg, W.L., 1913 - “The Diffraction of Short Electromagnetic Waves by a Crystal", [*Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc.*]{} [**17**]{}, pp. 43-57; Bragg, W.H. and Bragg, W.L., “The Reflection of $X$-rays by Crystals", [*Proc. Royal Soc. London*]{} [**A88**]{}, pp. 428-438.
Phillips, F.C., 1946 - “An Introduction to Crystallography". London: Longman.
Jenkins, F.A. and White, H.E., 1937 - [*Fundamentals of Physical Optics*]{}, first ed., twelfth impression. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1937, chap. 7, p. 146.
See, for example, Hadamard, J., 1903 - [*Leçons sur la propagation des Ondes*]{}. Paris: Hermann, chap. VII, par. 3; “Les problèmes aux limites dans la théorie des équations aux dérivées partielles", [*Bull. Soc. Franc. de Phys.*]{}, 1906, pp. 276-315, and references therein; “Théories des équations aux dérivées partielles linéaires hyperbolique et du problème de Cauchy", [*Acta Math.*]{} [**31**]{} (1908) 333.
Hadamard, J., 1923 - [*Lectures on Cauchy’s problem in linear partial differential equations*]{}. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1923, pp. 53-54, 175-77 and 235-36.
Courant, R. and Hilbert, D., 1962 - [*Methods of Mathematical Physics*]{}, vol. II. New York: Interscience Publ., p. 765 and notes therein.
[^1]: An example of criticism where the three-dimensionality of space is considered as a contingent feature can be found, for example, in Mach E., [*Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt*]{}, Leipzig, 1883, Italian Transl., by A. D’Elia, [*La Meccanica nel suo sviluppo storico-critico*]{}, Torino, Boringhieri, 1977, pp. 479-80.
[^2]: It is shown that spontaneous dimensional reduction in any Kaluza-Klein theory always yields a compactified extra space. However, without and adjustable cosmological constant, the scale of the ordinary four-dimensional space-time is the same order of magnitude as that of the compactified space. [*Cf.*]{} Tosa, Y., “Spontaneous dimensional reduction in Kaluza-Klein theories", [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D30**]{} (1984) 339; See also Cremmer, E. and Scherk, J., “Spontaneous compactification of space in an Einstein-Yang-Mills-Higgs model", [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B108**]{} (1976) 409. Now for illustrating the present difficulties on this subject, concerning superstring theory, we can quote Ferrara’s words: “[*Superstring are 10-dimensional theories of one-dimensional extended objects, so their relation to the physical world is only possible if they undergo a mechanism of spontaneous compactification fron $D=10$ to $D=4$ dimensions. The study of spontaneous compactification of the fully fledged superstring theory is a formidable task to achieve, since it requires the knowledge of the full second-quantized version of the interacting theory.*]{}" [*Cf.*]{} Ferrara, S. “Matter Coupling in Supergravity", [*in*]{} [*Superstring and Supergravity – Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Scottish Univ. Summer School in Physics*]{}, A.T. Davies and D.G. Sutherland (eds.), Oxford, Univ. Printing House, 1985, p. 381.
[^3]: Indeed, this result is based on classical arguments and one can argue that this is not the only example. In fact, one gets the some constraint on $n$ when extending Weyl’s approach to classical Yang-Mills theory – Yang, C.N and Mill, R.L., “Conservation of Isotopic Spin and Isospin Gauge Invariance", [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**96**]{} (1954) 191.
[^4]: [*What inner peculiarities distinguish the case $n=3$ among all others? If God, in creating the world, chose to make space 3-dimensional, can a reasonable explanation of this fact be given by disclosing such peculiarities?*]{}, [*cf.*]{} Weyl, H. in [*Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science*]{}, revised and augmented English transl., by O. Helmer, Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, 1949, p. 70. Weyl has shown that electromagnetism plays such a particular rôle; [*cf.*]{} [*ibid.*]{} pp. 136-37 and ref. \[[@Weyl]\].
[^5]: See footnote 2.
[^6]: It should be noted that this generalization follows purely from the validity of thermodynamics in $\Re^n$, leaving the explicit form of $F(\nu/T)$ open. See also footnote 8.
[^7]: Here we are identifying space dimensionality with its number of translational degrees of freedom.
[^8]: Assuming time to be one-dimensional (as always assumed in this work) and “flowing" in a definite direction. However, the statement made in the text seems to be no longer true if one tries to develop a thermodynamical theory in the framework of general relativity. [*Cf.*]{} Stueckelberg, E.C.G., “Thermodynamique dans un continu, riemannien par domaines, et théorème sur le nombre de dimensions $(d\le 3)$ de l’espace", [*Helv. Phys. Acta*]{} [**26**]{} (1953) 417; Stueckelberg, E.C.G. and Wanders, G., “Thermodynamique en Relativité Générale", [*ibid*]{} [**26**]{} (1953) 307. We thank Dr. M.O. Calvão for pointing out to us these references.
[^9]: Another recent proposal for measuring the number of dimensions of space-time, which leads to a fractional dimension, can be found in: Zeilinger, A. and Svozil, K., “Measuring the Dimension of Space-Time", [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**54**]{} (1985) 2553. [*Cf.*]{} also Müller B. and Schäfer A., “Improved Bounds on the Dimension of Space-Time", [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**56 (1986) 1215; “Bounds for the Fractal Dimension of Space**]{}, [*preprint n.*]{} UFTP 147/1986 (to be published in [*J. Phys. A*]{}. Some consequences of a modification of Newton’s and Coulomb’s laws, introduced by assuming a non integer value for the spatial number of dimensions, are examined in: Jarlskog C. and Ynduráin F.J., “Is the Number of Spatial Dimensions and Integer?", [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**1**]{} (1986) 51. There, it is inquired how large can the deviations from the “standard" $n=3$ value be. Also the recent work by Grassi A., Sironi G. and Strini, G., “Fractal Space-Time and Blackbody Radiation", [*Astrophys. Space Sci.*]{} [**124**]{} (1986) 203, is aimed at setting upper limits to such deviations. It should also be mentioned that in a recent paper of Gasperini, M., “Broken Lorentz symmetry and the dimension of space-time", [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B180**]{} (1986) 221 it is shown that the modification of Newtonian potential – deviation from the $1/r$ gravitational potential – following from a deviation of the number of spatial dimensions from the integer value of $3$, can [*also*]{} be obtained in the usual four-dimensional context, provided the $SO(3,1)$ gauge symmetry of gravity is broken. Thus this result gives rise to the possibility of ambiguous interpretations for small deviations of the Newtonian gravitational law, but does not affect Coulomb’s law.
[^10]: Further, for the transmission of a wave signal to be free of distortion it can be shown that $n=1$ and $n=3$ are the only possibilities.
[^11]: Furthermore Bragg’s law has been obtained in an alternative way, without using matter waves and, therefore, independently of Huygens’ construction. Indeed, it has been argued by Bush, R.T., [*in:*]{} “The de Broglie wave derivation for material particle diffraction re-examined: a rederivation without matter waves", [*Lett. Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**44**]{} (1985) 683; “A theory of particle interference based upon the uncertainty principle, II. Additional consequences", [*ibid*]{} [**36**]{} (1983) 241, that a direct particle interpretation based on Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be given to the interference pattern produced by a regular grating.
[^12]: One may add the following remark to Whitrow’s argument about this subject \[[@Whitrow]\]. It is not sufficient that the intensity of solar radiation on Earth’s surface should not have fluctuated greatly for still having life on Earth. The fact that Sun’s spectra of radiation did not fluctuate very much is also required.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Function space topologies are developed for $EC(Y,Z)$, the class of equi-continuous mappings from a topological space $Y$ to a uniform space $Z$. Properties such as splittingness, admissibility etc. are defined for such spaces. The net theoretic investigations are carried out to provide characterizations of splittingness and admissibility of function spaces on $EC(Y,Z)$. The open-entourage topology and point-transitive-entourage topology are shown to be admissible and splitting respectively. Dual topologies are defined. A topology on $EC(Y,Z)$ is found to be admissible (resp. splitting) if and only if its dual is so.'
address: |
$^1$Department of Mathematics, University of Delhi, Delhi 110007, India.\
Email : [email protected] $^2$Department of Mathematics, Rajdhani College $($University of Delhi$)$, Delhi 110015, India.\
Email : ratna\[email protected]
author:
- Ankit Gupta$^1$ and Ratna Dev Sarma$^2$
title: 'A study of topological structures on equi-continuous mappings'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Investigations of topological aspects of the collections of continuous mappings from a topological space $Y$ to another topological space $Z$ has been an area of active research in topology. Intrinsic properties of function space topologies have also been investigated in depth by several researchers. The relationship between convergence and topologies of $\mathcal{C}(X,\mathbb{R})$ and that of the hyperspaces $\mathcal{C}(X,\$)$ of open subsets of $X$ has been studied in [@u]. Dual topologies for function space topologies and existence of a greatest splitting topology have been investigated in [@g04] and [@g08] respectively. Conditions under which compact-open, Isbell or natural topologies etc. on $\mathcal{C}(X, \mathbb{R})$ may coincide have been explored in [@J]. In the recent years, several research papers have come up dealing with certain particular as well as some more general cases of this study. For example, for the particular case $Z = \mathbb{R}$, bounded-open topology and pseudo-compact-open topologies are discussed in [@B] and [@BB]. In [@j] and [@jj], function space topologies arising from strong uniform continuity have been studied. On the other hand in [@A] and [@AA], topologies on $Y$ and $Z$ are replaced by fuzzy topologies, which provide a more general set up for topological properties. Similarly, function space topologies for generalized topological spaces have been discussed in [@ank]. In this present paper, we investigate the same for equi-continuous mappings from $Y$ to $Z$, where $Y$ has a topology while $Z$ is equipped with a uniformity. With the help of examples, we have shown that several such topologies do exist really on $EC(Y,Z)$, the collection of equi-continuous mappings from $Y$ to $Z$. As the uniform spaces are positioned between the metric spaces and the topological spaces, there is a tendency to discount their investigations as particular cases of topology. However, through our study, we have shown here that uniform structures and in particular, the equi-continuous mappings need not to be studied from that point of view. Rather the inherent aesthetics and intricacies, arising out of uniformities are best revealed, when the related notions are studied directly, not as by product of topology. In fact, we have also introduced function space topology for the family of $_pEC(Y,Z)$ of pseudo-dislocated equi-continuous mappings. In this case, $Z$ has pseudo-dislocated uniformity, which unlike uniformity, does not generate any topology. We have introduced admissibility and splittingness for $EC(Y,Z)-$ two important features for any function space topology. Using net-theory, we have developed the concept of equi-continuous convergence of nets of equi-continuous functions. Splittingness and admissibility are characterized using the notion of equi-continuous convergence. These characterizations are used to prove that open-entourage topology on $EC(Y,Z)$ is admissible whereas point-transitive-entourage topology is splitting. In the last section, we have introduced the concept of dual topology on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$, the collection of open sets of $Y$ obtained in relation to the equi-continuous mappings. Interesting relationships are observed between the topologies on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ and that of $EC(Y,Z)$. For example, a topology on $EC(Y,Z)$ is admissible (resp. splitting) if and only if its dual on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ is admissible (resp. splitting). Similarly, a topology on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ is admissible (resp. splitting) if and only if its dual on $EC(Y,Z)$ is so.
Equi-Continuity, Pseudo-dislocated equi-continuity and Convergence
==================================================================
In this section, we develop the net convergence criterion for equi-continuousas well as pseudo-dislocated-equi-continuity mappings.
\[Def:1\] A *uniform structure* or *uniformity* on a non-empty set $X$ is a family $\mathcal{U}$ of subsets of $X \times X$ satisfying following properties:
1. if $U \in \mathcal{U}$, then $\Delta X \in U$;\
here $\Delta X= \{(x,x)\in X \times X$ for all $ x\in X\}$;
2. if $U \in \mathcal{U}$, then $U^{-1} \in \mathcal{U}$;\
here, $U^{-1}$ is called *inverse relation* of $U$ and defined as
$U^{-1}=\{(x,y)\in X\times X\,|\,(y,x)\in U\}$
3. if $U \in \mathcal{U}$, then there exists some $V \in \mathcal{U}$ such that $V \circ V \subseteq U$;\
here the composition $U \circ V =\{(x,z)\in X \times X\,|\, $ for some $y \in X$, $(x,y)\in V$ and $(y,z)\in U\}$.
4. if $U,V \in \mathcal{U}$, then $U \cap V \in \mathcal{U}$;
5. if $U \in \mathcal{U}$ and $U\subseteq V \subseteq X \times X$, then $V \in \mathcal{U}$.
The pair $(X, \mathcal{U})$ is a *uniform space* and the members of $\mathcal{U}$ are called *entourages*.
Let $(X, \tau)$ and $(Y, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. A function $f\,:(X,\tau) \to (Y, \mathcal{U})$ is said to be *equi-continuous* at $x \in X$, if for each entourage $U \in \mathcal{U}$, there exists an open neighbourhood $V$ of $x$ such that $f(V) \subseteq U[f(x)]$, where $U[f(x)] = \{y \in Y\,|\,((f(x),y))\in U\}$.
If $f$ is equi-continuous for all $x \in X$, then $f$ is called *equi-continuous*.\
The collection of all equi-continuous functions from $X$ to $Y$ is denoted by $EC(X,Y)$ respectively.
Let $\{x_n\}_{n \in D}$ be a net in a uniform space $(X, \mathcal{U})$ . Then $\{x_n\}_{n \in D}$ is said to be *convergent* to $x\in X$, if for each entourage $U \in \mathcal{U}$, there exists an $m \in D$, such that $(x, x_n)\in U$ for all $n \geq m$.
In our next theorem, we provide the net convergence criteria for equi-continuous functions.
Let $(X, \tau)$ and $(Y, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. Then a function $f\,:(X,\tau) \to (Y, \mathcal{U})$ is equi-continuous at $x \in X$ if and only if whenever a net $\{x_n\}_{n \in D}$ converges to $x$ in $X$, its image net $\{f(x_n)\}_{n \in D}$ converges to $f(x)$ in $Y$.
Let $\{x_n\}_{n \in D}$ be any convergent net in $X$, which converges to $x \in X$ and let $f\,:X \to Y$ be equi-continuous at $x \in X$. We have to show that the net $\{f(x_n)\}_{n \in D}$ converges to $f(x)$ in $Y$. Let $U \in \mathcal{U}$ be any entourage. Since $f$ is equi-continuous at $x \in X$, therefore there exists an open neighbourhood $V$ of $x$ such that $f(V) \subseteq U[f(x)]$. Since the net $\{x_n\}_{n \in D}$ converges to $x$, $x_n \in V$ eventually. Hence $f(x_n)\in f(V)\subseteq U[f(x)]$ eventually which implies that $(f(x),f(x_n)) \in U$ eventually. Therefore the image net $\{f(x_n)\}_{n \in D}$ converges to $f(x)$ in $Y$.\
Conversely, let the hypothesis hold. Let if possible $f$ be not equi-continuous at $x \in X$. Then there exists an entourage $U \in \mathcal{U}$ such that there is no open neighbourhood $V$ of $x \in X$ such that $f(V) \subseteq U[f(x)]$. That is, for each open neighbourhood $V$ of $x$, there exists some $x_V \in V$ such that $f(x_V)\notin U[f(x)]$. Let $D$ be a collection of all open neighbourhoods of $x$. Then $(D,\ge)$ is a directed set under the inverse set inclusion $\ge$, that is, $V \ge U$ if $V \subseteq U$. Then $\{x_V\}_{V \in D}$ is a net in $X$ which converges to $x$. But the image net $\{f(x_V)\}_{V \in D}$ does not converge to $f(x)$, because for $U \in \mathcal{U}$, we have $f(x_V)\notin U[f(x)]$ for all $V \in D $. Thus we get a contradiction. Therefore $f$ is equi-continuous at $x \in X$.
Next we provide few results regarding the pseudo-dislocated uniform space and pseudo-dislocated equi-continuous mappings. The importance of these spaces lies in the fact that they do not generate any topology like the uniform spaces do.
[@kumari16] A *pseudo-dislocated uniformity* on a non-empty set $X$ associated with a subset $A$ of $X$ is a family $\mathcal{U}_A$ of subsets of $X \times X$ which satisfies $(\mathcal{U}_2), (\mathcal{U}_3), (\mathcal{U}_4), (\mathcal{U}_5)$ of Definition \[Def:1\] together with the following property: ($\mathcal{U}_1')\;$ Every member of $\mathcal{U}_A$ contains $\Delta_A = \{(x,x)\,|\,x \in A\}$.
The pair $(X, \mathcal{U}_A)$ is called *pseudo-dislocated uniform space*.
Let $(X, \tau)$ and $(Y, \mathcal{U}_A)$ be a topological space and a pseudo-dislocated uniform space respectively. A function $f\,:(X,\tau) \to (Y, \mathcal{U}_A)$ is said to be *pseudo-dislocated equi-continuous* at $x \in X$, if for each entourage $U \in \mathcal{U}_A$, there exists an open neighbourhood $V$ of $x$ such that $f(V) \subseteq U[f(x)]$, where $U[f(x)] = \{y \in Y\,|\,((f(x),y))\in U\}$.
If $f$ is pseudo-dislocated equi-continuous for all $x \in X$, then $f$ is called *pseudo-dislocated equi-continuous* and the collection of all pseudo-dislocated equi-continuous functions from $X$ to $Y$ is denoted by $_pEC(X,Y)$ respectively.
Let $\{x_n\}_{n \in D}$ be a net in a pseudo-dislocated uniform space $(X, \mathcal{U}_A)$ . Then $\{x_n\}_{n \in D}$ is said to be *convergent* to $x\in X$, if for each entourage $U \in \mathcal{U}_A$, there exists an $m \in D$, such that $(x, x_n)\in U$ for all $n \geq m$.
We can show that the following net convergence criteria result holds good for pseudo-dislocated equi-continuous mappings
Let $(X, \tau)$ and $(Y, \mathcal{U}_A)$ be a topological space and a pseudo-dislocated uniform space respectively. Then a function $f\,:(X,\tau) \to (Y, \mathcal{U}_A)$ is pseudo-dislocated equi-continuous at $x \in X$ if and only if whenever a net $\{x_n\}_{n \in D}$ converges to $x$ in $X$, its image net $\{f(x_n)\}_{n \in D}$ converges to $f(x)$ in $Y$.
Topologies on $EC(Y,Z)$
========================
In this section, we introduce few topologies on $EC(Y,Z)$ and $_pEC(Y,Z)$.\
Let $(Y,\tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. Then for $z\in Z$, $V \in \tau$ and $U \in \mathcal{U}$, we define:
$(V,U)_z=\{f \in EC(Y,Z)\,|\, f(V) \subseteq U[z]\,\,\}$
Let $\mathcal{S}_{\tau, \mathcal{U}}=\{(V,U)_z\,|\,z\in Z,\,\,V \in \tau\text{ and } U \in \mathcal{U}\}$.
\[lem:3.1\] $\mathcal{S}_{\tau, \mathcal{U}}$ is a subbasis for a topology on $EC(Y,Z)$.
Let $f \in EC(Y,Z)$. Then for $y \in Y$ and $U \in \mathcal{U}$, there exists some open neighbourhood $V_0$ of $y\in Y$ such that $f(V_0) \subseteq U[f(y)]$. Consider $f(y)=z\in Z$. Then we have $f \in (V_0,U)_z$. Therefore $EC(Y,Z)\subseteq \bigcup \mathcal{S}_{\tau, \mathcal{U}}$.
The topology generated by this subbasis will be called the *open-entourage topology* for $EC(Y,Z).$\
Similarly, for $y \in Y$, $V\in \tau$ and $U \in \mathcal{U}$, let us consider $(V,U)_y =\{f \in EC(Y,Z)\,|\, f(V) \subseteq U[f(y)]\,\, \}$. Then it can be shown that the collection $\{(V,U)_y\,|\,y\in Y, V \in \tau\text{ and } U \in \mathcal{U}\}$ also forms a subbasis for a topology on $EC(Y,Z)$.\
The topology generated by this subbasis is called the *open-entourage topology of Type-I* for $EC(Y,Z)$.\
Clearly, the open-entourage topology is finer than the open-entourage topology of Type-I.\
Similarly, let $(Y,\tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively and $y\in Y$, $z \in Z$ and for $U \in \mathcal{U}$.\
We define:
$(y,U)_z=\{f \in EC(Y,Z)\,|\, f(y) \in U[z]\,\,\}$.
Let $\mathcal{S}_{\tau, \mathcal{U}}^{p}=\{(y,U)_z\,|\,z\in Z,\,\,y \in Y \text{ and } U \in \mathcal{U}\}$.
$\mathcal{S}_{\tau, \mathcal{U}}^p$ is a subbasis for a topology on $EC(Y,Z)$.
Let $f \in EC(Y,Z)$, then for $y \in Y$ and for $U \in \mathcal{U}$ we have $\left(f(y),f(y)\right)\in U$. Consider $f(y)=z\in Z$, then we have $f(y) \in U[z]$. Hence $f \in (y,U)_z$ and therefore $EC(Y,Z)\subseteq \bigcup \mathcal{S}_{\tau, \mathcal{U}}^p$.
The topology generated by this subbasis will be called the *point-entourage topology* for $EC(Y,Z).$\
Now, for $y\in Y$, $z \in Z$. Let $U_t \in \mathcal{U}$ be a transitive entourage of $\mathcal{U}$, that is $U_t \circ U_t \subset U_t$.\
We define:
$(y,U_t)_z=\{f \in EC(Y,Z)\,|\, f(y) \in U_t[z]\,\,\}$.
For each uniform space $(Z,\mathcal{U})$, we have $Z \times Z \in \mathcal{U}$. Then $U_t = Z \times Z$ satisfies the property $U_t \circ U_t \subseteq U_t$. Therefore there always exists entourages of the type $U_t\in \mathcal{U}$.\
Let $\mathcal{S}_{\tau, \mathcal{U}}^{t,p}=\{(y,U_t)_z\,|\,z\in Z,\,\,y \in Y, U_t \in \mathcal{U} \text{ such that } U_t \circ U_t\subseteq U_t\}$.\
It may be verified that $\mathcal{S}_{\tau, \mathcal{U}}^{t,p}$ is a subbasis for a topology on $EC(Y,Z)$.\
The topology generated by this subbasis will be called the *point-transitive-entourage topology* for $EC(Y,Z).$\
Now, we introduce a topological structure on the class of pseudo-dislocated equi-continuous function $_pEC(Y,Z)$.
Let $(Y,\tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U}_A)$ be a topological space and a pseudo-dislocated uniform space respectively. Then for $z\in Z$, $V \in \tau$ and $U \in \mathcal{U}_A$, we define
$(V,U)_z = \{f\in _pEC(Y,Z)\,|\,f(V)\subseteq U[z]\}$
Let $\mathcal{S}(\tau, \mathcal{U}_A)=\{(V,U)_z\,|\,z \in Z, V \in \tau \text{ and }U \in \mathcal{U}_A\}$.
$\mathcal{S}(\tau, \mathcal{U}_A)$ is a subbasis for a topology on $_pEC(Y,Z)$.
Similar to Lemma \[lem:3.1\].
The topology generated by this subbasis will be called the *open-dislocated-entourage* for $_pEC(Y,Z)$.\
In the following section, we provide investigations of the function spaces on $EC(Y,Z)$. The development for $_pEC(Y,Z)$, being similar, is not shown in the paper to avoid repetition.
Admissibility and Splittingness on $EC(Y,Z)$
============================================
In this section, we introduce few topologies on $EC(Y,Z)$ and investigate some of their properties. Admissibility and splittingness for such spaces are defined and their characterizations are also provided in this section.\
Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. Let $(X, \mu)$ be another topological space. Then for a map $g\,: X \times Y \to Z$, we define a map $g^*\,:X \to EC(Y,Z)$ by $g^*(x)(y)=g(x,y)$.
These mappings $g$ and $g^*$ are called *associated maps*.
Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. A topology $\mathfrak{T}$ on $EC(Y,Z)$ is called
1. *admissible* if the evaluation map $e\,:EC(Y,Z) \times Y \to Z$ defined by $e(f,y)=f(y)$ is equi-continuous.
2. *splitting* if for each topological space $(X, \mu)$, equi-continuity of the map $g\,: X \times Y \to Z$ implies continuity of the map $g^*\,:X \to EC(Y,Z)$, where $g^*$ is the associated map of $g$.
The following results show that equi-continuity at times behaves like continuity only.
Let $(X, \tau)$ and $(Y, \mu)$ be two topological spaces and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a uniform space. Let $f\,:X \to Y$ and $g\,:Y \to Z$ be continuous and equi-continuous functions at $x \in X$ and $f(x) \in Y$ respectively. Then the composition map $g \circ f\,: X \to Z$ is equi-continuous at $x \in X$.
Let $U \in \mathcal{U}$ be any entourage in $\mathcal{U}$. Since the map $g$ is equi-continuous at $f(x)$, therefore there exists an open neighbourhood $V$ of $f(x)$ in $Y$, such that $g(V)\subseteq U[g(f(x))]$. We have $f(x)\in V$ and $f$ is continuous at $x$, thus there exists an open neighbourhood $W$ of $x$ in $X$ with $f(W)\subseteq V$. Hence, we have $g(f(W))\subseteq g(V) \subseteq U[g(f(x))]$, that is, $(g\circ f)(W) \subseteq U[(g\circ f)(x)]$. Therefore the composition map $g\circ f$ is equi-continuous at $x$.
In the light of the above result, now we provide a characterization of admissibility.
\[thm: a\] Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. Let $(X, \mu)$ be any topological space. Then a topology $\mathfrak{T}$ on $EC(Y,Z)$ is admissible if and only if continuity of the map $g^*\,:X \to EC(Y,Z)$ implies equi-continuity of the map $g\,:X \times Y \to Z$, where $g^*$ and $g$ are the associated maps.
Let the topology $\mathfrak{T}$ on $EC(Y,Z)$ be admissible, that is, the evaluation map $e\,:EC(Y,Z)\times
Y \to Z$ be equi-continuous. Let $g^*\,:X \to EC(Y,Z)$ be any continuous map. We have to show that its associated map $g$ is equi-continuous. Since the map $g^*$ is continuous, therefore the map $h\,:X \times Y \to EC(Y,Z) \times Y$, defined by $h(x,y) = (g^*(x),y)$ is also continuous. Hence, by the last proposition, the composition map $e \circ h$ is equi-continuous. Now, for $(x, y) \in X \times Y$, consider $e\circ h(x,y) = e(h(x,y))= e(g^*(x),y)=g^*(x)(y)=g(x,y)$. Hence $e \circ h \equiv g$. Therefore the map $g$ is equi-continuous.\
Conversely, let the condition hold. Consider $X = EC(Y,Z)$ with the topology $\mathfrak{T}$. We define $g^*\,: EC(Y,Z)\to EC(Y,Z)$ as the identity map. Hence $g^*$ is continuous. Thus by the given hypothesis, its associated map $g\, : EC(Y,Z) \times Y \to Z$ is also equi-continuous. For any $(f,y) \in EC(Y,Z) \times Y$, consider $g(f,y)=g^*(f)(y)=f(y)=e(f,y)$, where $e$ is the evaluation map. Therefore $g \equiv e$ and hence equi-continuous. Thus the topology $\mathfrak{T}$ on $EC(Y,Z)$ is admissible.
In the next set of theorems, we provide characterizations of admissibility and splittingness of the topologies on $EC(Y,Z)$ using net theory. We extend the concept of continuous convergence of continuous mappings [@An] for this purpose. But before that we quote a result about directed sets, which we shall use in our proof.\
Let $\Delta$ be a directed set. We add a point $\infty$ to $\Delta$ satisfying $\infty\geq n$ for all $n \in \Delta$ and write $\Delta_0=\Delta\cup \{\infty\}$. A topology $\mathcal{T}_0$ may be generated on $\Delta_0$ by declaring every singleton of $\Delta$ as open and neighbourhoods of $\infty$ being of the form $U_{n_0}=\{n\,\,:\,\,n \ge n_0\}$, $n_0 \in \Delta$.
[@s] Let $(Y, \tau)$ be a topological space and $\{y_n\}_{n \in D}$ be a net in $Y$. Then the net $\{y_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $y$ in $Y$ if and only if the function $f\,:\Delta_0 \to Y$ defined by $f(n)=y_n$ for $n \in \Delta$ and $f(\infty)=y$ is continuous at $\infty$.
From this lemma we have the following remark:
Let $(Y, \tau)$ be a topological space and $\{y_n\}_{n \in D}$ be net in $Y$. Then the net $\{y_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $y$ in $Y$ if and only if the function $f\,:\Delta_0 \to Y$ defined by $f(n)=y_n$ for $n \in \Delta$ and $f(\infty)=y$ is continuous.
Now we come to our main results of this section.
Let $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ be a net in $EC(Y,Z)$. Then $\{f_n\}_{n\in \Delta}$ is said to *equi-continuously converge* to $f \in EC(Y,Z)$ if for each net $\{y_m\}_{m \in \sigma}$ in $Y$ converging to $y$, $\{f_n(y_m)\}_{(n,m)\in \Delta \times \sigma}$ converges to $f(y)$ in $Z$.
Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. Let $(X, \mu)$ be any topological space. Then a topology $\mathfrak{T}$ on $EC(Y,Z)$ is splitting if and only if for each net $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ in $EC(Y,Z)$, equi-continuous convergence of $\{f_n\}_{n\in \Delta}$ to $f$ implies that $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $f$ under $\mathfrak{T}$.
Let $\mathfrak{T}$ be splitting and $\{f_n\}_{n \in\Delta}$ equi-continuously converge to $f$. Let $\Delta_0=\Delta\cup \{\infty\}$ be equipped with the topology as described after Theorem $\ref{thm: a}$. Define $g$ $:$ $\Delta_0 \times Y \to Z$ by $g(n,y) = f_n (y)$ for all $n \in \Delta$ and $g(\infty, y) =f(y)$. We show that the map $g$ is equi-continuous. Now, the only non-constant convergent net in $\Delta_0$ is $\{n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ which converges to $\infty$. Hence if $\mathcal{S}$ is a convergent net in $\Delta_0 \times Y$, then $\mathcal{S} = S_1 \times S_2$, where $S_1 = \{n\}$ and $S_2 = \{y_m\}_{m \in \sigma}$, where $\{y_m\}_{m \in \sigma}$ is any convergent net in $Y$, which converges to some $y$ in $Y$. Then $\mathcal{S}$ converges to $\{\infty\} \times \{y\}$ for some $y \in Y$ and $g(\mathcal{S}) = \{f_n(y_m)\}_{(n,m)\in \Delta\times \sigma}$. By equi-continuous convergence of $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$, $g(\mathcal{S})$ converges to $f(y) = g(\infty, y)$. Hence, by the net theoretic characterization of equi-continuity, $g$ is equi-continuous at $(\infty,y)$. Now, consider any $(n ,y)\in \Delta \times Y$, and let $U$ be any entourage in $\mathcal{U}$. We have, $g(n,y)=f_n(y)$. Since $U\in \mathcal{U}$ and $f_n$ is equi-continuous, there exists an open neighbourhood $V$ of $y$ such that $f_n(V) \subseteq U[f_n(y)]$. Thus, we get an open neighbourhood $\{n\} \times V$ of $(n,y)$ such that $g(\{n\}\times V)=f_n(V)\subseteq U[f_n(y)]$. That is, $g(\{n\} \times V) \subseteq U[g(n,y)]$. Therefore the map $g$ is equi-continuous at $(n,y)$, for all $(n,y) \in \Delta\times Y$. As $\mathfrak{T}$ is splitting, this implies that the associated map $g^*\,:\Delta_0 \to EC(Y,Z)$ is continuous. Since $\{n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $\infty$ in $\Delta_0$, we have, $\{g^*(n)\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $g^*(\infty)$. Now $g^*(n)(y) = g(n,y) = f_n(y)$ and $g^*(\infty)(y) = g(\infty, y) = f(y)$. That is, $g^*(n) = f_n$, $g^*(\infty) = f$. Hence $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $f$ in $EC(Y,Z)$.
Conversely, suppose equi-continuous convergence implies convergence. Let $g$ $:$ $X \times Y \to Z$ be equi-continuous. We need to show that its associated map $g^*$ is continuous. Let $\{x_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ be any convergent net in $X$ which converges to $x \in X$. We have to show that the image net $\{g^*(x_n)\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $g^*(x)$ in $EC(Y,Z)$. We define, $g^*(x_n) =f_n$ and $g^*(x) = f$. Now, we show that $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $f$ in $EC(Y,Z)$. This follows if the net $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ equi-continuously converges to $f$. Let us consider, a net $\{y_m\}_{m \in \sigma}$ in $Y$ which converges to some $y$ in $Y$. Then $\{(x_n,y_m)\}_{(n,m)\in \Delta\times \sigma}$ converges to $(x,y)$ in $X \times Y$. As $g$ is equi-continuous, the image net $\{g(x_n,y_m)\}_{(n,m)\in \Delta\times \sigma}$ converges to $g(x,y)$ in $Z$. But $g(x_n,y_m) =g^*(x_n)(y_m)=f_{n}(y_m)$ and $g(x,y) =g^*(x)(y)=f(y)$. That is, $\{f_n(y_m)\}_{(n,m)\in \Delta\times \sigma}$ converges to $f(y)$ in $Z$. Hence $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ equi-continuously converges to $f$ in $EC(Y,Z)$. Thus by the hypothesis, we have $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $f$ in $EC(Y,Z)$. That is, $\{g^*(x_n)\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $g^*(x)$ in $EC(Y,Z)$. Hence $g^*$ is continuous. Therefore, $\mathfrak{T}$ is splitting.
On a similar line, characterization of admissibility is also provided below.
\[thm:3.10\] Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. Let $(X, \mu)$ be any topological space. Then a topology $\mathfrak{T}$ on $EC(Y,Z)$ is admissible if and only if for each net $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ in $EC(Y,Z)$, convergence of $\{f_n\}_{n\in \Delta}$ to $f$ in $EC(Y,Z)$ implies equi-continuous convergence of $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ to $f$.
Let $\mathfrak{T}$ be admissible and $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ be any net in $EC(Y,Z)$ such that $\{f_n\}_{n \in\Delta}$ converges to $f$. Let us define $ g^* : \Delta_0 \to EC(Y,Z)$ as $g^*(n) = f_n$ and $g^*(\infty) = f$, where $\Delta_0$ is generated by $\Delta$. Now the only non constant convergent net in $\Delta_0$ is $\{n\}$ which converges to $\infty$ and $\{g^*(n)\}_{n \in \Delta} = f_n$ converges to $f = g^*(\infty)$, by the given hypothesis. Hence $g^*$ is continuous. Therefore the associated map $g : \Delta_0 \times Y \to Z$ is equi-continuous. Let $\{y_m\}_{m \in \sigma}$ be any net in $Y$ such that $\{y_m\}_{m \in \sigma}$ converges to $y$ in $Y$. Then $\{(n, y_m)\}_{(n,m)\in \Delta\times \sigma}$ is a convergent net in $\Delta_0 \times Y$ which converges to $(\infty, y)$. Therefore $\{g(n, y_m)\}_{(n,m)\in \Delta\times \sigma}$ converges to $g(\infty, y)$. That is, $\{g^*(n)(y_m)\}_{(n,m)\in \Delta\times \sigma}$ converges to $g^*(\infty)(y)$, which implies $\{f_n(y_m)\}_{(n,m)\in \Delta\times \sigma}$ converges to $f(y)$. Hence $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ equi-continuously converges to $f$.
Conversely, let $g^*$ be continuous. We have to show that its associated map $g$ is equi-continuous. Let $\{x_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ and $\{y_m\}_{m \in \sigma}$ be two convergent nets in $X$ and $Y$ respectively such that $\{(x_n, y_m)\}_{(n,m)\in \Delta\times \sigma}$ converges to $(x,y)$. Since $\{x_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $x$ and $g^*$ is continuous, therefore the image net $\{g^*(x_n)\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $g^*(x)$. Let us define $g^*(x_n) = f_{x_n}$ and $g^*(x) = f_x$. Then, we have $\{f_{x_n}\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $f_x$ in $EC(Y,Z)$. Thus by the given hypothesis, $\{f_{x_n}\}_{n \in \Delta}$ equi-continuously converges to $f_x$. Then for the convergent net $\{y_m\}_{m \in \sigma}$ which converges to $y$, we have $\{f_{x_n}(y_m)\}_{(n,m)\in \Delta\times \sigma}$ converges to $f_x(y)$, that is $\{g(x_n , y_m)\}_{(n,m)\in \Delta\times \sigma}$ converges to $g(x,y)$. Hence $g$ is equi-continuous. Therefore $\mathfrak{T}$ is admissible.
Below, we mention a lemma without proof which is valid for function spaces of continuous functions as well as of continuous multifunctions[@s]. Here $\mu \geq \tau$, means $\tau \subseteq \mu$.
Let $\tau$ and $\mu$ be two topologies on $EC(Y,Z)$ and $\mu \geq \tau$. Then admissibility of $\tau$ implies admissibility of $\mu$. On the other hand, if $\mu$ is splitting, then $\tau$ is also splitting.
Easy and left for the readers.
Now we provide examples of admissible and splitting topologies using the results obtained so far.\
In our next pair of theorems, we show that open-entourage topology is admissible whereas point-transitive-entourage topology is splitting.
Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. Then the open-entourage topology on $EC(Y,Z)$ is admissible.
Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. We have to show that the open-entourage topology on $EC(Y,Z)$ is admissible, that is, for each net $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ in $EC(Y,Z)$, convergence of $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ to $f$ in $EC(Y,Z)$ implies equi-continuous convergence of $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ to $f$.\
Let $\{y_m\}_{m \in \sigma}$ be any convergent net in $Y$ which converges to $y$. We have to show that the net $\{f_n(y_m)\}_{(n,m) \in \Delta\times \sigma}$ converges to $f(y)$ in $(Z, \mathcal{U})$.\
Let $U$ be any entourage in $\mathcal{U}$. Then there exists some $U_0 \in \mathcal{U}$ such that $U_0 \circ U_0 \subset U$. As $f$ is equi-continuous at $y_m$ and $U_0 \in \mathcal{U}$, therefore there exists an open neighbourhood $V_0 \in \tau$ of $y_m$ such that $f(V_0)\subseteq U_0[f(y_m)]$, which implies $f \in (V_0,U_0)_{f(y_m)}$. Since the net $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $f$ in $EC(Y,Z)$ and $(V_0,U_0)_{f(y_m)}$ is a subbasic open neighbourhood of $f$, therefore $f_n \in (V_0,U_0)_{f(y_m)}$ eventually. We have $f_n(V_0)\subseteq U_0[f(y_m)]$, whence $f_n(y_m)\in U_0[f(y_m)]$ eventually. Hence we have $(f_n(y_m),f(y_m))\in U_0$ eventually.\
Now, consider the net $\{y_m\}_{m \in \sigma}$ converging to $y$ in $Y$. As $f \in EC(Y,Z)$, the image net $\{f(y_m)\}_{m \in \sigma}$ converges to $f(y)$, that is, for $U_0^{-1} \in \mathcal{U}$, we have $(f(y),f(y_m))\in U_0^{-1}$, which implies $(f(y_m),f(y))\in U_0$ eventually. Hence $(f_n(y_m),f(y_m))\circ (f(y_m),f(y)) \in U_0 \circ U_0 \subset U$ eventually. Thus we have $(f_n(y_m),f(y))\in U$ eventually and therefore the net $\{f_n(y_m)\}_{(n,m) \in \Delta\times\sigma}$ converges to $f(y)$ in $Z$. Therefore by Theorem \[thm:3.10\], the open-entourage topology on $EC(Y,Z)$ is admissible.
In the next theorem, we show that the point-transitive-entourage topology on $EC(Y,Z)$ is splitting.
Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. Then the point-transitive-entourage topology on $EC(Y,Z)$ is splitting.
Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. We have to show that the point-transitive-entourage topology on $EC(Y,Z)$ is splitting, that is for each net $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ in $EC(Y,Z)$, equi-continuous convergence to $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ to $f$ implies convergence of $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ to $f$ in $EC(Y,Z)$.\
Let $(y, U_t)_z$ be any subbasic open neighbourhood of $f$ in $EC(Y,Z)$. Then, $f(y)\in U_t[z]$, that is, $(f(y),z)\in U_t$. Let $\{y_m\} = y$ for each $m \in \sigma$, be a constant net. Then $\{y_m\}_{m \in \sigma}$ converges to $y$ in $Y$. Since the net $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ equi-continuously converges to $f$, the net $\{f_n(y_m)\}_{(n,m) \in \Delta\times\sigma}$ converges to $f(y)$ in $Z$, that is, net $\{f_n(y)\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $f(y)$. Then for $U_t \in \mathcal{U}$, we have $U_t^{-1}\in \mathcal{U}$, which implies $(f(y),f_n(y)) \in U_t^{-1}$ eventually. Thus we have $(f_n(y),f(y))\in U_t$ eventually. Accordingly, we have $(f_n(y),f(y))\circ (f(y),z) \in U_t \circ U_t \subset U_t$. Therefore $(f_n(y),z)\in U_t$ eventually which implies $f_n\in (y,U_t)_z$ eventually. Hence net $\{f_n\}_{n \in \Delta}$ converges to $f$ in $EC(Y,Z)$. Thus point-transitive-entourage topology on $EC(Y,Z)$ is splitting.
Dual Topology For Equi-Continuous Functions
===========================================
In this section, we introduce the notion of dual topology for the topologies on $EC(Y,Z)$. We provide here interesting relationships regarding the splittingness and admissibility of a topology on equi-continuous functions and its dual.\
For a topological space $(Y, \tau)$ and a uniform space $(Z, \mathcal{U})$, let $f \in EC(Y,Z)$, $U \in \mathcal{U}$ and $y \in Y$. Then by the definition of equi-continuity, there exists $V \in \tau$ of $y$ such that $f(V) \subseteq U[f(y)]$. We denote the open set $V$ obtained this way by $U(f,y)$. Now we define :
$\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)= \{U(f,y)\,:\, U \in \mathcal{U}\,\,, f\in EC(Y,Z), y \in Y\}$.
Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. Let $EC(Y,Z)$ be the set of all equi-continuous functions from $Y$ to $Z$. Then for subsets $\mathbb{H}\subseteq \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$, $\mathcal{H}\subseteq EC(Y,Z)$ and $U \in \mathcal{U}$, we define:\
$(\mathbb{H},U)= \{f\in EC(Y,Z)$ $|$ $U(f,y)\in \mathbb{H}$ for each $y \in Y$ $\}$\
$(\mathcal{H},U)=\{U(f,y)$ $|$ $f\in \mathcal{H}$, $y \in Y$ $\}.$
Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively and $f \in EC(Y,Z)$, $U \in\mathcal{U}$. Then for each $y \in Y$, there exists $V \in \tau$ such that $f(V) \subseteq U[f(y)]$. Then $\mathbb{H} = \{U(f,y)$ $|$ $y \in Y\}$ is a subset of $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$, such that $f \in (\mathbb{H},U)$. Therefore one can always define the sets of the form $(\mathbb{H},U)$ and $(\mathcal{H},U)$ which are non empty and well defined.
Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. Let $\mathbb{T}$ be a topology on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$. Then we define:
$\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{T}) =\{(\mathbb{H},U)$ $|$ $\mathbb{H}\in \mathbb{T}, U \in \mathcal{U}\}$.
$\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{T})$ is a subbasis for a topology on $EC(Y,Z)$.
Let $f \in EC(Y,Z)$. Then for $y\in Y$, $U\in \mathcal{U}$, there exists $V_y \in \tau$ such that $f(V_y)\subseteq U[f(y)]$. Consider $V_y = U(f,y)$. As $V_y \in \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ and $\mathbb{T}$ is a topology on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$, therefore there exists an open set $\mathbb{H}_y$, such that $V_y = U(f,y) \in \mathbb{H}_y$. Let $\mathbb{H}=\displaystyle{\bigcup_{y \in Y}}\mathbb{H}_y$. Then $f \in (\mathbb{H},U)$. Hence $EC(Y,Z) = \bigcup \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{T})$. Therefore $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{T})$ is a subbasis for a topology on $EC(Y,Z)$.
Now, we provide a topology on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ using the topology on $EC(Y,Z)$.
Let $\mathfrak{T}$ be a topology on $EC(Y,Z)$. Then
$\mathcal{S}(\mathfrak{T}) = \{(\mathcal{H},U)$ $|$ $\mathcal{H}\in \mathfrak{T}$, $U \in \mathcal{U}\}$
is a subbasis for a topology on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$.
Let $U(f,y) \in \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$. Clearly $f \in EC(Y,Z)$ and hence $f \in \mathcal{H}$ for some $\mathcal{H}\in \mathfrak{T}$. Then $U(f,y)\in (\mathcal{H},U)$. Therefore $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y) =\bigcup (\mathcal{H},U)$. Hence $\mathcal{S}(\mathfrak{T})$ is a subbasis for a topology on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$.
The topologies defined above on $EC(Y,Z)$ and $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ are denoted by $\mathfrak{T}(\mathbb{T})$ and $\mathbb{T}(\mathfrak{T})$ respectively. We shall refer these topologies as *dual* to $\mathbb{T}$ and $\mathfrak{T}$ respectively.\
Now we define the splittingness and admissibility on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ and investigate the possible relationships between a topology on $EC(Y,Z)$ and its dual and vice-versa.
Let $(X, \tau)$ and $(Y, \mu)$ be two topological spaces. A multifunction $F : X \to Y$ is called
1. *upper semi continuous* (or $u.s.c.$, in brief) at $x \in X$ if for each open set $V \subseteq Y$ with $F(x) \subseteq V$, there exists an open set $U$ of $X$ such that $x \in U$ and $F(U) \subseteq V$;
2. *lower semi continuous* (or $l.s.c$, in brief) at $x \in X$ if for each open set $V \subseteq Y$ with $F(x) \cap V \neq \emptyset$, there exists an open set $U$ of $X$ such that $x \in U$ and $F(u) \cap V \neq \emptyset$ for every $u \in U$;
3. *continuous* at $x \in X$, if it is both $u.s.c.$ and $l.s.c.$ at $x$;
4. *continuous* (resp. $u.s.c.$, $l.s.c.$) if it is continuous (resp. $u.s.c.$, $l.s.c.$) at each point of $X$.
Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. Let $(X, \mu)$ be another topological space. Let $g\,:X \times Y \to Z$ and $g^*\,:X \to EC(Y,Z)$ be two associated maps. . Then we define a multifunction $\overline{g}\,:X \times \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ by $\overline{g}(x, U)=\{ U(g^*(x),y)\,|\,y \in Y\}=\{U(g_x, y)\,|\,y \in Y\}$, for every $x \in X$ and $U \in \mathcal{U}$.
Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. Let $(X, \mu)$ be another topological space. A multifunction $M\,:X \times \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ is called *upper semi continuous with respect to the first variable* if the map $M_U\,:X \to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ defined by $M_U(x) = M(x,U)$ is upper semi continuous for every $x \in X$ and for a fixed $U \in \mathcal{U}$.
Now, we are in position to define the admissibility and splittingness of the topological space $(\mathcal{O}_Z(Y),\mathbb{T} )$.
Let $(Y, \tau)$ and $(Z, \mathcal{U})$ be a topological space and a uniform space respectively. Let $(X, \mu)$ be another topological space. Then topology $\mathbb{T}$ on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ is called
1. *splitting* if equi-continuity of the map $g\,:X \times Y \to Z$ implies upper semi continuity with respect to the first variable of the map $\overline{g}\,:X \times \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$;
2. *admissible* if for every map $g^*\,: X \to EC(Y,Z)$, upper semi continuity with respect to the first variable of the map $\overline{g}\,:X \times \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ implies equi-continuity of the map $g\,:X \times Y \to Z$.
In the remaining part of this section, we investigate how duality links the admissibility and splittingness of a topology on $EC(Y,Z)$ and that on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$.
A topology $\mathbb{T}$ on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ is splitting if and only if its dual topology $\mathfrak{T}(\mathbb{T})$ on $EC(Y,Z)$ is splitting.
Let $(\mathcal{O}_Z(Y), \mathbb{T})$ be splitting, that is, for every topological space $(X, \mu)$, equi-continuity of the map $g\,:X \times Y \to Z$ implies upper semi continuity with respect to the first variable of the map $\overline{g}\,:X \times \mathcal{U}\to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$. We have to show that the topology $\mathfrak{T}(\mathbb{T})$ on $EC(Y,Z)$ is splitting, that is for every topological space $X$, equi-continuity of the map $f: X \times Y \to Z$ implies continuity of the associated map $f^*: X \to EC(Y,Z)$. Therefore, it is sufficient to show that upper semi continuity with respect to the first variable of the map $\overline{g} : X \times \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ implies continuity of the associated map $g^*: X \to EC(Y,Z)$.\
Let $x \in X$ and $(\mathbb{H}, U)\in \mathfrak{T}(\mathbb{T})$ be a subbasic open neighbourhood of $g^*(x)$. Then $g^*(x)\in (\mathbb{H},U)$, which implies $U(g^*(x),y) \in \mathbb{H}$ for each $y \in Y$. Therefore $U(g_x,y)\in \mathbb{H}$ and hence $\overline{g}(x,U)\subseteq \mathbb{H}$. Now $\overline{g}: X \times \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ is upper semi continuous with respect the first variable and $\mathbb{H}$ is an open neighbourhood of $\overline{g}_U(x)$. Hence there exists an open neighbourhood $V$ of $x$ such that $\overline{g}_U(V) \subseteq \mathbb{H}$. Now, for an element $x' \in V$, we have $\overline{g}_U(x') \subseteq \mathbb{H}$. Therefore $\overline{g}(x',U) \subseteq \mathbb{H}$ and hence $U(g_{x'}, y) \in \mathbb{H}$ for each $y \in Y$. That is, $U(g^*(x'), y)\in \mathbb{H}$ for every $x' \in V$, which implies $g^*(x')\in (\mathbb{H}, U)$ for every $x' \in V$. Thus $g^*(V)\subseteq (\mathbb{H},U)$. Therefore the map $g^*$ is continuous.\
Conversely, let $\mathfrak{T}(\mathbb{T})$ be splitting, we have to show that the topology $\mathbb{T}$ is splitting. For this, it is sufficient to show that $\overline{g}:X \times \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ is upper semi continuous with respect to the first variable provided that the map $g^*\,: X \to EC(Y,Z)$ is continuous. Let, for a fixed $U \in \mathcal{U}$ and $x \in X$, $\mathbb{H} \in \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ be an open neighbourhood of $\overline{g}(x,U)$. That is $\overline{g}(x,U) \subseteq \mathbb{H}$ which implies $U(g_x, y) \in \mathbb{H}$ for each $y \in Y$. Therefore $U(g^*(x),y) \in \mathbb{H}$ for each $y \in Y$. Thus we have $g^*(x) \in (\mathbb{H}, U)$. Now the map $g^*$ is given to be continuous and $(\mathbb{H},U)$ is an open neighbourhood of $g^*(x)$. Thus there exists an open neighbourhood $V$ of $x$ such that $g^*(V) \subseteq (\mathbb{H},U)$. Now for, any $x' \in V$, we have $g^*(x') \in (\mathbb{H},U)$. Therefore, $U(g^*(x'),y) = U(g_{x'}, y) \in \mathbb{H}$ for every $x' \in V$. Hence, we have $\overline{g}_U(x') \subseteq \mathbb{H}$, for all $x' \in V$. Hence $\overline{g}_U(V) \subseteq \mathbb{H}$. Hence the map $\overline{g}$ is upper semi continuous with respect to the first variable. Thus, the topology $\mathbb{T}$ is a splitting.
A topology $\mathbb{T}$ on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ is admissible if and only if its dual topology $\mathfrak{T}(\mathbb{T})$ on $EC(Y,Z)$ is admissible.
Let the topology $\mathbb{T}$ on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ be admissible, that is, for every topological space $(X, \mu)$ and for every map $g^*: X \to EC(Y,Z)$, upper semi continuity of the map $\overline{g}: X \times \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ with respect the first variable implies equi-continuity of the map $g: X \times Y \to Z$. We have to show that the topology $\mathfrak{T}(\mathbb{T})$ is admissible, that is continuity of $g^*: X \to EC(Y,Z)$ implies equi-continuity of its associated map $g\,:X \times Y \to Z$. Thus it is sufficient to prove that $\overline{g}: X \times \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ is upper semi continuous with respect to the first variable provided the map $g^*:X \to EC(Y,Z)$ is continuous.\
Let us have, for fixed $U \in \mathcal{U}$ and $x \in X$, a subbasic open neighbourhood $\mathbb{H}$ of $\overline{g}(x,U)$. Therefore $\overline{g}(x, U) \subseteq \mathbb{H}$. That is, $\overline{g}_U(x) \subseteq \mathbb{H}$ which implies $U(g_x, y)\in \mathbb{H}$ for each $y \in Y$. Thus $g^*(x) \in (\mathbb{H},U)$. Since the map $g^*$ is given to be continuous and $(\mathbb{H},U)$ is a subbsaic open neighbourhood of $g^*(x)$, therefore there exists an open neighbourhood $V$ of $x$ such that $g^*(V) \subseteq (\mathbb{H},U)$. Now, for $x' \in V$, we have $g^*(x') \in (\mathbb{H},U)$, that is $U(g^*(x'),y)=U(g_{x'},y) \in \mathbb{H}$ for each $y \in Y$. Thus $\overline{g}_U(x') \subseteq \mathbb{H}$ for all $x' \in V$. Hence, $\overline{g}_U(V) \subseteq \mathbb{H}$. Therefore the map $\overline{g}$ is upper semi continuous with respect to the first variable. Hence the topology $\mathfrak{T}(\mathbb{T})$ is admissible.\
Conversely, let $\mathfrak{T}(\mathbb{T})$ be admissible , we have to show that the topology $\mathbb{T}$ on $\mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ is admissible. For this, it is sufficient to show that upper semi continuity with respect to the first variable of the map $\overline{g}:X \times \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ implies continuity of the map $g^*:X \to EC(Y,Z)$.\
Let $x \in X$ and $(\mathbb{H}, U)$ be a subbasic open neighbourhood of $g^*(x)$, that is $g^*(x) \in (\mathbb{H},U)$. Thus $U(g^*(x),y) \in \mathbb{H}$ for every $y \in Y$. Hence $\overline{g}_U(x) \subseteq \mathbb{H}$. Now the map $\overline{g}$ is given to be upper semi continuous with respect to the first variable and $\mathbb{H}$ is a subbaisc open neighbourhood of $ \overline{g}_U(x)$. Thus there exists an open neighbourhood $V$ of $x$ such that $\overline{g}_U(V) \subseteq \mathbb{H}$. Hence for $x' \in V$, we have $\overline{g}_U(x') \subseteq \mathbb{H}$, which implies $\overline{g}(x',U)\subseteq \mathbb{H}$. Hence $U(g_{x'},y) = U(g^*(x'),y) \in \mathbb{H}$ for each $y \in Y$. Therefore $g^*(x') \in (\mathbb{H},U)$ for all $x' \in V$. Therefore $g^*(V) \subseteq (\mathbb{H},U)$. Thus the topology $\mathbb{T}$ is admissible.
In our next set of theorems, we investigate the relationship between a topology on $EC(Y,Z)$ and its dual.
A topology $\mathfrak{T}$ on $EC(Y,Z)$ is splitting if and only if its dual topology $\mathbb{T}(\mathfrak{T})$ is splitting.
Let $\mathfrak{T}$ be a splitting topology on $EC(Y,Z)$. We have to show that its dual topology $\mathbb{T}(\mathfrak{T})$ is also splitting. For this, it is sufficient to prove that continuity of the map $g^*: X \to EC(Y,Z)$ implies upper semi continuity of the map $\overline{g}:X \times \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ with respect to the first variable.\
Let $x \in X$ and $\mathcal{H} \in \mathfrak{T}$ be an open neighbourhood of $g^*(x)$. Then for any fixed $U \in \mathcal{U}$, $(\mathcal{H},U)\in \mathbb{T}(\mathfrak{T})$ is an open neighbourhood of $\overline{g}(x,U)$. That is, $\overline{g}(x,U) \subseteq (\mathcal{H},U)$. Now $\overline{g}(x, U) = \{U(g_x, y) \,|\,y\in Y\}\subseteq (\mathcal{H},U)$, hence $U(g_x,y)\in (\mathcal{H},U)$ for each $y \in Y$ by definition. This implies $g^*(x) \in \mathcal{H}$. Since the map $g^*$ is given to be continuous and $\mathcal{H}$ is an open neighbourhood of $g^*(x)$, therefore there exists an open neighbourhood $V$ of $x$ such that $g^*(V) \subseteq \mathcal{H}$. Now, consider an element $x' \in V$, we have $g^*(x') \in \mathcal{H}$, that is $U(g_{x'},y) \in (\mathcal{H},U)$ for each $y \in Y$. Hence $\overline{g}(x',U)\subseteq (\mathcal{H},U)$, for all $x' \in V$. Therefore $\overline{g}_U( V) \subseteq (\mathcal{H},U)$ and the map $\overline{g}$ is upper semi continuous with respect to the first variable. Hence the result.\
Conversely, let the topology $\mathbb{T}(\mathfrak{T})$ be a splitting topology. We have to show that the topology $\mathfrak{T}$ on $EC(Y,Z)$ is splitting. It is equivalent to show that the map $g^*:X \to EC(Y,Z)$ is continuous provided the map $\overline{g}:X \times \mathcal{U} \to \mathcal{O}_Z(Y)$ is upper semi continuous.\
Let $x \in X$ and $\mathcal{H}$ be an open neighbourhood of $g^*(x)$, that is, $g^*(x) \in \mathcal{H}$. For any fixed $U \in \mathcal{U}$, we have $U(g_x,y) \in (\mathcal{H},U)$ for each $y \in Y$. Therefore $\overline{g}(x,U)\subseteq (\mathcal{H},U)$ for a fixed $U \in \mathcal{U}$. Since the map $\overline{g}$ is given to be continuous with respect to the first variable, there exists an open neighbourgood $V$ of $x$ such that $ \overline{g}_U(V)\subseteq (\mathcal{H},U)$. Now, for $x' \in V$, we have $\overline{g}_U(x') \subseteq (\mathcal{H},U)$ which implies $U(g_{x'},y) \in (\mathcal{H},U)$ for each $y \in Y$. Therefore $g^*(x') \in \mathcal{H}$ for every $x' \in V$. That is, $g^*(V)\subseteq \mathcal{H}$. Hence the map $g^*$ is continuous.
A topology $\mathfrak{T}$ on $EC(Y,Z)$ is admissible if and only if its dual topology $\mathbb{T}(\mathfrak{T})$ is admissible.
Left for the reader.
In this paper, we have studied topological structures on the family of equi-continuous mappings between a topological space and a uniform space. Important properties such as splittingness, admissibility etc. are introduced for such spaces and their characterizations are provided using net-theory. We have shown that similar studies can be carried out for pseudo-dislocated equi-continuous mappings also. It will be interesting to investigate the existence of the greatest splitting topology for such spaces. At the same time, the effect of duality on the existence of the greatest splitting topology needs to be investigated.
[45]{} R. Arens, J. Dugundji, Topologies for Function Spaces, *Pacific J. Math.*, 1 (1951) 5–-31. G. Beer, S. Levi, Strong uniform continuity, *J. Math. Anal. Appl.*, 350 (2009), 568-–589. Jiling Cao, Artur H. Tomita, Bornologies, topological games and function spaces, *Topology Appl.*, 184 (2015), 16–28. S. Dolecki, F. Mynard, A Unified Theory of Function Spaces and Hyperspaces: Local Properties, *Houston J. Math.*, 40(1), 2014, 285– 318. D.N. Georgiou, S.D. Iliadis, B. K. Papadopoulos, On Dual Topologies, *Topology Appl.*, 140 (2004) 57–-68. D.N. Georgiou, S.D. Iliadis, On the Greatest Splitting Topology, *Topology Appl.*, 156 (2008) 70-–75. Ankit Gupta, R. D. Sarma, Function Space Topologies for Generalized Topological Spaces, *J. adv. res. pure math.*, 7 (2015),4, 103–112. Ankit Gupta, R. D. Sarma, A study of Function Space Topologies for MultiFunctions, *Appl. Gen. Topol.*, 18(2) (2017), 331–344. F. Jordan, Coincidence of Function Space Topologies, *Topology Appl.*, 157 (2010) 336–351. J. K. Kohli, A. R. Prasannan, Fuzzy topologies on function spaces, *Fuzzy Sets and Systems* 116 (2000), 3, 415-–420. J. K. Kohli, A. R. Prasannan, Starplus-compactness and starplus-compact open fuzzy topologies on function spaces. *J. Math. Anal. Appl.*, 254 (2001), 1, 87–-100. P. S. Kumari, I. R. Sarma, J. M. Rao, Metrization theorem for a weaker class of uniformities. *Afr. Mat.*, 27 (2016), 667–-672. S. Kundu, A. B. Raha, The bounded-open topology and its relatives. *Rend. Istit. Mat. Univ. Trieste* 27 (1995), 1-2, 61-–77. S. Kundu, P. Garg, The pseudocompact-open topology on $C(X)$, *Topology Proc.* 30 (2006), 1, 279-–299.
[^1]: Corresponding author $:$ Ankit Gupta\
This paper was prepared during a sabbatical leave of the second author.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In recent years $L$-functions and their analytic properties have assumed a central role in number theory and automorphic forms. In this expository article, we describe the two major methods for proving the analytic continuation and functional equations of $L$-functions: the method of integral representations, and the method of Fourier expansions of Eisenstein series. Special attention is paid to technical properties, such as boundedness in vertical strips; these are essential in applying the converse theorem, a powerful tool that uses analytic properties of $L$-functions to establish cases of Langlands functoriality conjectures. We conclude by describing striking recent results which rest upon the analytic properties of $L$-functions.'
author:
- 'Stephen S. Gelbart[^1] and Stephen D. Miller[^2]'
title: 'Riemann’s Zeta Function and Beyond'
---
*Dedicated to Ilya Piatetski-Shapiro, with admiration*
Introduction {#Intro}
============
In 1859 Riemann published his only paper[^3] in number theory, a short ten-page note which dramatically introduced the use of complex analysis into the subject. Riemann’s main goal was to outline the eventual proof of the Prime Number Theorem
$$\pi(x) \ \ = \ \ \#\,\{\hbox{primes }p \le x \} \ \sim \
{\frac}{x}{\log{x}}~,\ \ \ \ ~x\rightarrow\infty \, ,$$ $$\hspace{-1.8 cm}\text{\it{i.e.}}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty} \, \pi(x)\ {\frac}{\log{x}}{x} \ \ = \ \ 1
\, ,$$ by counting the primes using complex integration (the proof was completed half a century later by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin). Along this path he first shows that his $\zeta$-function, initially defined in the half-plane ${\mbox{Re~}}(s)>1$ by $$\zeta (s) \ \ = \ \ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\,\frac{1}{n^{s}}
\ \ = \ \ \prod_{p
\text{~(prime)}}
{\frac}{1}{1-{\frac}{1}{p^s}} \, ,$$ has a meromorphic continuation to ${{\mathbb{C}}}$. Secondly, he proposes what has remained as perhaps the most-famous unsolved problem of our day:
. For more on the history of $\zeta$ and Riemann’s work, the reader may consult [@Cartier; @Daven; @Edwards; @Weil-history]. Our role here is not so much to focus on the [*zeroes*]{} of $\zeta(s)$, but in some sense rather on its [*poles*]{}. In particular, our emphasis will be on explaining how we know that $\zeta(s)$ extends meromorphically to the entire complex plane, and satisfies the functional equation $$\xi(s)\ :=\ \pi^{-\frac{s}{2}}\, \Gamma
\, \left(\frac{s}{2}\right)\, \zeta(s)
\ =\ \xi(1-s)\,.$$ It is one purpose of this paper to give two separate treatments of this assertion. We want also to characterize the $\zeta$-function as satisfying the following three classical properties (which are simpler to state in terms of $\xi(s)$, the [*completed*]{} $\zeta$-function).
- [[**E**]{}ntirety ([**E**]{}): $\xi(s)$ has a meromorphic continuation to the entire complex plane, with simple poles at $s=0$ and 1.]{}
- [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quation ([**FE**]{}): $\ \xi(s) \ = \ \xi(1-s)$.
- [**B**]{}oundedness in [**V**]{}ertical strips ([**BV**]{}): $\ \xi(s)\,+\,{\frac}1s \,+\, {\frac}{1}{1-s} \ $ is bounded in any strip of the form $-\infty<a<{\mbox{Re~}}(s)<b<\infty$ (i.e. $\xi(s)$ is bounded in vertical strips away from its two poles).
A second purpose is to overview how these treatments and properties extend to $L$-functions assigned to more general groups such as $GL(n)$, the group of invertible $n\times n$ matrices (the function $\zeta(s)$ is attached, we shall see, to $GL(1)$). A major motivating factor for studying these analytic conditions (especially the technical [**BV**]{}) is that they have become crucial in applications to the Langlands Functoriality Conjectures, where they are precisely needed in the “Converse Theorem,” which relates $L$-functions to automorphic forms (see Theorems \[heckecon\], \[weilthm\], and [Section \[jpss\]]{}). More to the point, the study and usefulness of $L$-functions has pervaded many branches of number theory, wherein complex analysis has become an unexpectedly-powerful tool. In [Section \[la\]]{} we discuss the connections with some of the most dramatic recent developments, including the modularity of elliptic curves, progress towards the Ramanujan conjectures, and the results of Kim and Shahidi. The two treatments we describe are, in fact, the major methods used for deriving the analytic properties of $L$-functions.
The Two Methods {#the-two-methods .unnumbered}
---------------
A first method ([Section \[Rie\]]{}) of analytic continuation is Riemann’s, initiated in 1859. In fact, it was one of several different, though similar, proofs known to Riemann; Hamburger, and later Hecke, moved the theory along remarkably following this line of attack. Almost a century later, Tate ([Section \[Tate\]]{}) recast this method in the modern language of adeles in his celebrated 1950 Ph.D. thesis [@Tate], another famous and important treatment of $\zeta$-functions. The second – and lesser known – method is via Selberg’s “constant term” in the theory of Eisenstein series ([Section \[Sel\]]{}). This theory, too, has an important expansion: the Langlands-Shahidi method ([Section \[LaSh\]]{}).
As we shall see, both methods take advantage of various (and sometimes hidden) group structures related to the $\zeta$-function. They also suggest a wide generalization of the methods: first to handle Dirichlet $L$-functions, $\zeta$-functions of number fields, and then quite general $L$-functions on a wide variety of groups. In [Section \[modsec\]]{} we begin by explaining this through the connection between modular forms and $L$-functions. In fact, this nexus has been fundamentally important in resolving many classical problems in number theory. After surveying the classical theory of Hecke, we turn to the modern innovations of Langlands. We have in mind ideas of Weil, Langlands, Jacquet, Godement, Piatetski-Shapiro, Shalika, Shahidi, and others. For broader and deeper recent reports on the nature of $L$-functions and the application of their analytic properties, see, for example, [@Iw-Sar; @Sar-balt].
The reader will notice that we have left out many important properties of the Riemann $\zeta$-function, some related to the most famous question of all, the Riemann Hypothesis, which can be naturally restated in terms of $\xi$ as $$\hbox{All $\rho$ such
that $\xi(\rho)=0$ have ${\mbox{Re~}}\rho=1/2$.}$$ This is because we are primarily interested in results related to the three properties [**E, BV**]{}, and [**FE**]{}. As indicated above, we are also only following the development of a few approaches (see [@Titch] for many more, though which mainly follow Riemann). Also, to lessen the burden on the reader unfamiliar with adeles, we will more or less describe the historical development in chronological order, first treating the classical results of Riemann, Hecke, Selberg, and Weil, before their respective generalizations to adele groups.
To wit, the paper is organized in three parts. The first, Sections 2-4, gives the background on the classical theory: Section 2 discusses Riemann’s theory of the $\zeta$-function and its analytic properties; Section 3 focuses on Hecke’s theory of modular forms and $L$-functions; and Section 4 centers on Selberg’s theory of non-holomorphic Eisenstein series. The second part of the paper redescribes these topics in more modern, adelic terms. Section 5 leads off with a short introduction to the adeles. Sections 6, 7, and 8 then give a parallel discussion of the respective topics of Sections 2, 3, and 4, but in a much more general context. Finally, the last part of the paper is Section 9, where we recount some recent results and applications of the analytic properties of $L$-functions. Sections 8 and 9 are quite linked, in that many of the recent developments and analytic properties used in section 9 come from the Langlands-Shahidi method, the topic of Section 8. However, the latter is quite technical, and we have made an attempt to make Section 9 nonetheless accessible without it.
A word is in order about what we [*don’t*]{} cover. Because our theme is the analytic properties of $L$-functions, we have left out a couple of important and timely topics that lie somewhat outside our focus. Chiefly among these are some developments towards the Langlands conjectures, for example the work of Lafforgue [@lafforgue] over function fields. This is mainly because the analytic properties of $L$-functions in the function field setting were long ago established by Grothendieck (see [@katz]), and are of a significantly different nature. Some resources to learn more about these additional topics include [@MR92j:11045; @arthur; @MR98d:22017; @edfrenkel; @laumon; @MR2003c:11051; @MR2002e:22024; @MR99c:11140; @knapp; @Rogawski; @Bernstein-Gelbart].
Before starting, we wish to thank J. Bernstein, J. Cogdell, A. Cohen, K. Conrad, W. Duke, H. Dym, E. Lapid, A. Lubotzky, B. Mazur, S.J. Miller, A. Reznikov, B. Samuels, P. Sarnak, G. Schectman, F. Shahidi, and the referee for many very helpful comments.
Riemann’s Integral Representation (1859) {#Rie}
========================================
As we mentioned in the introduction, Riemann wrote only a single, ten-page paper in number theory [@Riem]. In it he not only initiated the study of $\zeta(s)$ as a function of a complex variable, but also introduced the Riemann Hypothesis and outlined the eventual proof of the Prime Number Theorem! At the core of Riemann’s paper is the [*Poisson summation formula*]{} $$\label{psf}
\sum_{n \, \in \, {{\mathbb{Z}}}} \, f(n) \ \ = \ \
\sum_{n\, \in \, {{\mathbb{Z}}}}\,\widehat{f}(n) \ ,$$ which relates the sum over the integers of a function $f$ and its Fourier transform $$\label{fhatdef}
\widehat{f}(r) \ \ = \ \
\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}}\,f(x)\,e^{-2\, \pi \, i\, r\,
x} \,dx\,.$$ The Poisson summation formula is valid for functions $f$ with suitable regularity properties, such as Schwartz functions: smooth functions which, along with all their derivatives, decay faster than any power of ${\frac}{1}{|x|}$ as $|x|\rightarrow\infty.$ However, by temporarily neglecting such details, one can in fact quickly see why the Poisson summation formula implies the functional equation for $\zeta(s)$, at least on a formal level. Indeed, let $f(x)\ =\ |x|^{-s}$, so that $$\label{powerft} \aligned
\widehat{f}(r) \ \ :=& \ \ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\, |x|^{-s} \, e^{-2 \, \pi \,i\,
r\, x}\,dx \\
\ \ =& \ \ \ |r|^{s-1}\,G(s)\, ,
\endaligned$$ where $$\label{Gdef}
G(s) \ \ = \ \ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\,|x|^{-s} \,e^{-2 \,\pi \, i \,
x}\,dx\,.$$ Using the convention that $|0|^s =0$, we can already see from the Poisson Summation Formula that $$\label{fakefe}
2\, \zeta(s)\ \ =\ \ 2 \,G(s)\, \zeta(1-s)\,,$$ a functional equation relating $\zeta(s)$ to $\zeta(1-s)$. In fact the integral (\[Gdef\]) is a variant of the classical ${\Gamma}$-integral $$\label{gammaintdef}
{\Gamma}(s) \ \ = \ \ \int_0^\infty \,e^{-x}\,x^{s-1}\,dx\ ,\ \ \ \
\ {\mbox{Re~}}{s}>0$$ and can be shown to equal $$\label{Gformula}
G(s) \ \ = \ \ {\frac}{\pi^{(s-1)/2}\,{\Gamma}({\frac}{1-s}{2})}{\pi^{-s/2}\,{\Gamma}({\frac}s2)}\ ,$$ at least in the range $0<{\mbox{Re~}}{s}< 1$ (see [@GR] or [@Daven p.73]). Thus the functional equation (\[fakefe\]) is formally identical to Riemann’s functional equation $$\label{riemannfe}
\xi(s) \ \ = \ \
\pi^{-s/2}\,{\Gamma}(\textstyle{{\frac}{s}{2}})\,\zeta(s) \ \ = \ \
\xi(1-s)\, .$$
Of course, neither sum defining $\zeta(s)$ in (\[fakefe\]) converges when the other does, much less in the range $0<{\mbox{Re~}}{s}<1$ where we computed $G(s)$. Indeed, the functional equation cannot be proven in the absence of some form of analytic continuation beyond the region where $\sum_{n=
1}^\infty n^{-s}$ converges. The argument sketched here for the functional equation seems to have been first considered by Eisenstein, who succeeded in proving the functional equation not for $\zeta(s)$ itself, but for a closely related Dirichlet $L$-function (for these, see (\[dirlfuncdef\]) and [@Daven]). André Weil has written historical accounts [@Weil-history; @Weil-eisen] which suggest that Riemann was himself motivated by Eisenstein’s papers to analyze $\zeta(s)$ by Poisson summation. The rigorous details omitted from the above formal summation argument can be found in [@ms-inforder §5].
Mellin Transforms of Theta Functions {#mellthet}
------------------------------------
Riemann’s own, rigorous argument proceeds by applying the Poisson summation formula (\[psf\]) to the Gaussian $f(x)=e^{-\pi\, x^2
\, t}$, $t>0$, whose Fourier transform is $$\widehat{f}(r)\ \ = \ \ {\frac}{1}{\sqrt{t}}\ e^{-\,\pi\, r^2/t}\,.$$ The Gaussian is a Schwartz function, and can be legitimately inserted in the Poisson summation formula. Its specific choice is not absolutely essential, but rather a matter of convenience, as we will see in [Section \[Tate\]]{}. However, it was an inspired selection by Riemann, in that it is connected to the theory of modular forms (see [Section \[Hecke II\]]{}). Thus Riemann’s contribution to the functional equation went far beyond simply making a formal argument rigorous – it launched the link between modular forms and $L$-functions that remains at the forefront of much mathematical activity a century and a half later.
By applying Poisson summation to $f(x)=e^{-\pi\,x^2\,t}$ one thus obtains Jacobi’s transformation identity $$\label{jacid}
\theta(i\,t) \ \ =\ \ {\frac}{1}{\sqrt{t}}\
\theta(\textstyle{\frac{i}{t}})\, ,$$ where $$\theta(\tau) \ \ = \ \ {\frac}12 \,\sum_{n\, \in \, {{\mathbb{Z}}}} e^{\,
\pi\, i\, n^2\, \tau} \ \ = \ \ {\frac}12 \ +\ \sum_{n\,=\,1}^\infty
e^{\,\pi\, i\, n^2 \, \tau}$$ (more later in [Section \[Hecke II\]]{} on $\theta$ as a function of a complex variable for ${\mbox{Im~}}{\tau}>0$). Riemann then obtained an integral representation for $\xi(s)\,=\,\pi^{-s/2}{\Gamma}({\frac}s2)\zeta(s)$ as follows: $$\aligned{\Gamma}(s) \ \ & = \ \ \int_{0}^{\infty} \,t^{s-1} \,e^{-t}
\,
\,dt \, ,& {\mbox{Re~}}{s}>0 \\
\pi^{-s}\,\Gamma(s)\,\zeta(2s) \ \
& = \ \ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \
\int_{0}^{\infty}({\pi} \, {n^2})^{-s}
\, t^{s-1}\,
e^{-t} \,dt\,,& \ \ \ \ {\mbox{Re~}}{s}>1/2 \\
& = \ \ \int_{0}^{\infty} t^{s-1}\ (\theta(it)-
\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}) \ dt&
\endaligned$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&=&\int_{1}^{\infty} t^{\,s-1}\,(\theta(it) -
{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}) \ dt \left.\, \ \ + \ \ \int_{0}^{1}
t^{s-1}\,\theta(it) \, dt \ \ - \ \
\,\frac{t^s}{2s}\,\right|_{0}^{1}
\\
&=&\int_{1}^{\infty} t^{s-1}\,(\theta(it) -
{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}) \, dt \ \ + \ \ \int_{1}^{\infty}
t^{-s-1}\,\theta(\textstyle{\frac{i}{t}}) \ dt \ \ - \ \ \frac{1}{2s}
\\
&=&\int_{1}^{\infty} (t^{s-1}\,+\, t^{1/2-s-1})\,(\theta(it)
-{\textstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}) \ dt \ \ - \ \ \frac{1}{2s} \ \ -
\ \ \frac{1}{1-2s}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, replacing $s$ by $s/2$, the above expression reads $$\label{riemannintegral}
\pi^{-\frac{s}{2}}\,\Gamma({\textstyle \frac{s}{2}})\,\zeta(s)
\ \ = \ \ \int_{1}^{\infty} (t^{s/2-1}+t^{(1-s)/2-1})
(\theta(it)-\frac{1}{2}) \ dt \ \ - \ \ {\frac}1s \ \ - \ \ {\frac}1{1-s}\, .$$ The integral representation (\[riemannintegral\]) allows us to conclude the main analytic properties mentioned in the introduction:
\[zetaebvfe\] The function $$\xi(s) \ = \ \pi^{-\frac{s}{2}}\, \Gamma({\textstyle \frac{s}{2}}
)\, \zeta(s)$$ satisfies properties [**E, BV**]{}, and [**FE**]{} of [Section \[Intro\]]{}.
[**Proof:**]{} We first note that $$\label{thetbd}
\theta(it)\,- \,{\frac}12 \ \ = \ \ \sum_{n=1}^\infty e^{-\pi \,
n^2 \, t} \ \ \le \ \ \sum_{n=1}^\infty e^{-\pi \, n \, t} \ \
= \ \ {\frac}{e^{-\pi \, t}}{1-e^{-\pi \, t}} \ \ = \ \ O(e^{-\pi \,
t}) \ \,$$ for $t\ge 1$.[^4] Since $$\,\int_1^\infty |\, t^{\,s} \, e^{-\pi\, t} \, |\ dt \, \
\ \le \ \
\int_1^\infty t^{\,b} \, e^{-\pi \, t}\,dt \ \ < \ \ \infty$$ for ${\mbox{Re~}}{s} \le b$, the integral in (\[riemannintegral\]) converges – for [*any*]{} value of $s$ – to an entire function which is bounded for $s$ in vertical strips. Thus $\xi(s)$ is meromorphic with only simple poles at $s=0$ and 1, demonstrating properties [**E**]{} and [**BV**]{}. Having established that (\[riemannintegral\]) gives an analytic continuation, we may conclude that $\xi(s)=\xi(1-s)$ (property [**FE**]{}) because of the symmetry present in (\[riemannintegral\]). [$\square$]{}
Hecke’s Treatment of Number Fields (1916) {#Hecke I}
-----------------------------------------
In this section we shall briefly describe Hecke’s generalization [@Hecke] of Riemann’s work to certain zeta functions associated to number fields (that is, finite extensions of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$). These subsume Riemann’s $\zeta$-function, as well as the related Dirichlet $L$-functions. The latter are simply Dirichlet series $$\label{dirlfuncdef}
L(s , \chi ) \ \ = \ \ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \, {\frac}{\chi(n)}{n^{s}}\
.$$ Here $\chi$ is a “Dirichlet character”, meaning a non-trivial function $\chi:\, {{\mathbb{Z}}}\rightarrow {{\mathbb{C}}}$ which: (i) is periodic modulo some integer $N$; (ii) obeys $\chi(nm)=\chi(n)\chi(m)$ (“complete multiplicativity”); and (iii) vanishes on integers sharing a common factor with $N$. A Dirichlet character can equally be thought of as a homomorphism from $({{\mathbb{Z}}}/N{{\mathbb{Z}}})^*$ to ${{\mathbb{C}}}^*$, extended to ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ as a periodic function that vanishes on $\{n \mid
(n,N)>1\}$. The Dirichlet $L$-functions $L(s,\chi)$ satisfy the properties [**E, BV,**]{} and [**FE**]{} analogous to those of $\zeta(s)$ (which corresponds to the trivial character); for a complete discussion and precise analog of [Theorem \[zetaebvfe\]]{}, see [@Daven].
Our goal here is to describe the generalizations of $\zeta(s)$ and $L(s,\chi)$ that are the objects of Hecke’s work, in some sense following the earlier exposition in [@Gel-langlandssurvey]. This will necessitate some algebraic background; accordingly this section requires some familiarity with the concepts involved. However, it is not essential to the rest of the paper, and readers may wish to skip directly to [Section \[ham\]]{}, or instead to consult [@Lant; @ramval] for definitions and examples.
To describe Hecke’s accomplishment, we need to recall some of the local and global terminology involved. Let $F$ be a number field, and ${\mathcal O}_F$ its ring of integers. We will refer to a non-archimedean place $v$ of $F$ as a prime ideal $\mathfrak{P}
\subset {\mathcal O}_F$. A fractional ideal of ${\mathcal O}_F$ is an ${\mathcal O}_F$-submodule $\mathfrak{U}$ such that $x\mathfrak{U} \subset {\mathcal O}_F$ for some $x \in F^*$. All fractional ideals are invertible (i.e. there exists a fractional ideal ${\mathfrak{P^{-1}}}$ such that ${\mathfrak{P}}{\mathfrak{P^{-1}}} ={\mathcal O}_F$), and all fractional ideals factor uniquely into products of positive and negative powers of prime ideals. We let $ord_{\mathfrak{P}}(x)$ denote the exponent of $\mathfrak{P}$ occurring in the unique factorization of the principal ideal $x {\mathcal O}_F$, and set $$|x|_v \ \ = \ \ |x|_{\mathfrak{P}} \ \ = \ \
( N{\mathfrak{P}})^{\,-{ord}_{{\mathfrak{P}}}(x)}\,,$$ where $N{\mathfrak{P}}$ is the number of elements in the finite field ${{\mathcal O}_F}/\mathfrak{P}$. Any real embedding $\sigma:F\rightarrow {{\mathbb{R}}}$ of $F$ gives rise to a “real” infinite place via the norm $|x|_v = |\sigma(x)|$; complex places are defined analogously, and the real and complex places together comprise the archimedean places of $F$. For each place of $F$, the norm $|\cdot|_v$ gives a different completion $F_v$ of $F$. For example, when $F={{\mathbb{Q}}}$, $F_\infty={{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $F_p={{\mathbb{Q}}}_p$, the $p$-adic numbers (see [Section \[adelesec\]]{} for much more on this theme).
We now come to the generalization of a Dirichlet character to the number field setting: a Hecke character (also known as a [*Grössencharacter*]{}). We shall think of one as the product of family of homomorphisms $\chi_v: F_v^*\rightarrow {{\mathbb{C}}}^*$, one for each place of $F$: $$\chi(x) \ \ = \ \ \prod_v \, \chi_v(x) \, .$$ Two constraints must be made on the family: firstly that $\chi$ be trivial on $F^*$, i.e. for any $x \in F \subset F_v^*$ $$\chi(x) \ \ = \ \ \prod_{ v} \, \chi_v(x) \ \ = \ \ 1 \, ,$$ and secondly that all but a finite number of the $\chi_v$ be [*unramified*]{}, i.e. trivial on $\{ x \in F_v^* \mid |x|_v = 1 \}$. If $v$ is such an unramified place, corresponding to a prime ideal $\mathfrak{P}$, $\chi(\mathfrak{P})$ is defined as $\chi_v(\varpi_v)$, where $\varpi_v$ is an element of $F_v$ such that $|\varpi_v|_v = N{\mathfrak{P}}^{-1}$ (a “uniformizing parameter” for $F_v$). This definition can of course be extended to ordinary ideals $\mathfrak{U}$ of ${\mathcal O}_F$, provided they are products of prime ideals corresponding to places where $\chi_v$ is unramified. Hecke’s (abelian) $L$-series for the character $\chi$ is then defined as the Dirichlet series $$\label{heckeslseries}
L(s,\chi) \ \ = \ \ \sum {\frac{\chi(\mathfrak{U})}{(N\mathfrak{U})^{s}}}
\ \ = \ \ \prod_{\mathfrak{P}} \left( \, 1 \ - \
{\chi}(\mathfrak{P})\,
(N{\mathfrak{P}})^{-s} \, \right)^{-1}.$$ Here ${\mathfrak{U}}$ is summed over these ordinary ideals of ${\mathcal O}_F$ just mentioned, and the product is only over the prime ideals corresponding to these unramified places.
When $\chi$ is the trivial character, i.e., $\chi_v=1$ for all $v$, then $L(s,\chi)$ specializes to be the *Dedekind zeta-function* $\sum (N\mathfrak{U})^{-s}$ of $F$. For $F={{\mathbb{Q}}}$ this reduces to $\zeta(s)$, and if $\chi$ is instead of finite order, $L_F(s,\chi)$ becomes the Dirichlet $L$-function (\[dirlfuncdef\]). Using very clever and intricate arguments, Hecke was able to express his $L$-series in terms of generalized “$\theta$-functions”, and to then derive their analytic continuation, functional equation, and boundedness in vertical strips, [*a la*]{} Riemann.
Hamburger’s Converse Theorem (1921) {#ham}
-----------------------------------
Now let us return to the Riemann $\zeta$-function. The next point of the theory is that the [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quation for $\zeta(s)$ nearly characterizes it. Indeed, Hamburger [@Ham] showed in 1921 that any Dirichlet series satisfying $\zeta$’s functional equation *and suitable regularity conditions* is necessarily a constant multiple of $\zeta(s)$. We state Hamburger’s [Theorem \[hamthm\]]{} at the end of this section, but first begin by describing these conditions, which are closely related to [**B**]{}oundedness in [**V**]{}ertical strips. In fact, our main motivation in describing Hamburger’s theorem here is to explain the role of [**BV**]{} and the related “finite order” conditions; in the modern picture, these are crucial for applications involving the Converse Theorem (see Sections \[Hecke II\], \[Weil\], and \[jpss\]).
Recall that property [**BV**]{} was stated earlier in terms of the function $\xi(s)=\pi^{-s/2}{\Gamma}({\frac}s2)\zeta(s)$. One may ask how the individual factors themselves behave as $|{\mbox{Im~}}{s}|\rightarrow\infty$. Clearly $$\label{piasym}
|\pi^{-s/2}| \ \ = \ \ \pi^{-\text{Re}(s)/2} \, ,$$ while Stirling’s formula states that $$\label{stirup}
\gathered
|{\Gamma}(\sigma+it)| \ \ \sim \ \ \sqrt{2\pi}\, |t|^{\sigma-1/2} \,
e^{-\pi\,
|t|/2}\,, \\ \hbox{uniformly for }a \, \le \, \sigma \, \le \,
b, \ \ \ |t| \rightarrow \infty.
\endgathered$$ Yet the size of $|\zeta(s)|$ in the critical strip is quite difficult to pin down. In fact, one of the central unsolved problems in analytic number theory is the following and its generalizations.\
[*[**The Lindelöf Hypothesis:**]{} For any fixed ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $\sigma\ge 1/2$, $$\label{lindl} \,\zeta(\sigma\, +\, i\,t)\, \ \ = \ \ O( |t|^{{\varepsilon}})\
\ \ \ \ \hbox{ as } \ \ \ \ \ |t|\rightarrow \infty.$$*]{} The implied constant in the $O$-notation here depends implicitly on the value of ${\varepsilon}$. In particular, $|\zeta(1/2+it)|=O(|t|^{\varepsilon})$ for $|t|$ large (this case turns out to be equivalent to (\[lindl\]) via the Phragmen-Lindelöf Principle, [Proposition \[phrag\]]{}). The Lindelöf Hypothesis is implied by the Riemann Hypothesis, and conversely implies that very few zeros disobey it (see [@Titch §13]).
Note that by (\[piasym\]), (\[stirup\]), and the [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quation, the behavior for ${\mbox{Re~}}(s)\le 1/2$ is given by $$\label{fnbd}
|\zeta(\sigma+it)| \ \sim \ |\zeta(1-\sigma-it)|
\left|{\frac}{t}{2\pi}\right|^{1/2-\sigma}, \ \ \ \sigma \text{ fixed},
~~~|t| \text{ large.}$$ The Lindelöf conjecture is far out of reach, but we can easily prove (weaker) polynomial bounds.
\[trivzetabd\] $\zeta(s)-{\frac}{1}{s-1}=O(|s|)$ for ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}\ge 1/2$.
[**Proof:**]{}
For ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}>1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta(s) \ - \ {\frac}{1}{s-1} &\ = \ \ & \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-s} \ -
\ \int_1^\infty
x^{-s}dx \\
&\ = \ \ &\sum_{n=1}^\infty \int_n^{n+1} (n^{-s}-x^{-s})\,dx\, .
\label{firstline}\end{aligned}$$ The integrand in (\[firstline\]) is bounded by $$|n^{-s}-x^{-s}| \ \ = \ \
\left|\, \int_n^x s\,t^{-s-1}\, dt \, \right|
\ \ \le \ \ |s|\ n^{-\,\scriptstyle{\text{Re}}{\,s}\,-\,1}\,.$$ We conclude that $$\left|\, \zeta(s)\, - \, {\frac}{1}{s-1}\, \right| \ \ \le
\ \ \ |s|\ \zeta({\mbox{Re~}}s+1)\, ,$$ and so (\[firstline\]) gives an analytic continuation of $\zeta(s)-{\frac}{1}{s-1}$ to the region ${\mbox{Re~}}s > 0$. In particular, $|\zeta(s)-{\frac}{1}{s-1}| \,\le \,|s|\,
\zeta(3/2)$ for ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}\ge 1/2$. [$\square$]{}
[**Definition:**]{} An entire function $f(s)$ is [*of order $\rho$*]{} if $$\label{entdef}
f(s) \ \ = \ \ O({e}^{{|s|}^{\rho+{\epsilon}}}) \ \ \ \ \hbox{
for any $\epsilon>0$.}$$ It will turn out that the $\zeta$-function and (conjecturally) all $L$-functions connected to automorphic forms have order 1. However, many other generalizations of zeta functions (such as Selberg’s Zeta functions) in fact have order greater than 1.
The function $$s \, (s-1) \, \pi^{-\frac{s}{2}}\,
\Gamma({\textstyle \frac{s}{2}} ) \, \zeta(s)$$ is (entire and) of order $1$.
[**Proof:**]{} By the [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quation, it suffices to consider ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}\ge 1/2$. We have already seen this function is [**E**]{}ntire in [Theorem \[zetaebvfe\]]{}. Another form of Stirling’s Formula gives that
$$\label{bigstir}
{\Gamma}(s) \ \sim \ \sqrt{2\pi} \, e^{-s}\,s^{\,s-{\frac}12}\ = \
\sqrt{2\pi}\,e^{-s+(s-{\frac}12)\log{s}}\, , \ \ \ \ {\mbox{Re~}}{s}\ge 1/2,\
|s|\rightarrow \infty,$$
and hence ${\Gamma}(s)=O(e^{\,M |s|\log|s|})$ for some $M>0$. Thus by (\[piasym\]), (\[bigstir\]), and [Proposition \[trivzetabd\]]{} $$s \, (s-1)\, \pi^{-s/2}\, {\Gamma}({\textstyle {\frac}s2})\,\zeta(s)\
=\ O(|s|^3 e^{{\frac}M2 |s|\log|s|}).$$ Since for any ${\varepsilon}>0$, ${\frac}{\log|s|}{|s|^{{\varepsilon}}}\rightarrow 0$ as $|s|\rightarrow \infty$, we conclude $$s\,(s-1)\,\pi^{-s/2}\,{\Gamma}({\textstyle {\frac}s2})\,\zeta(s)
\ = \ O(e^{|s|^{1+{\varepsilon}}}).$$[$\square$]{}
We note that $s\,(s-1)\,\xi(s)$ is not of any order $\rho<1$, as can be seen from (\[piasym\]) and (\[bigstir\]) as $s\rightarrow\infty$ along the real numbers – where $\zeta(s)$ is always greater than 1.
\[hamthm\](Hamburger’s Converse Theorem[^5])
Let $h(s)\, = \, \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\ a_n \,n^{-s}$ and $g(s)\, = \, \sum_{n=1}^\infty b_n \, n^{-s}$ be absolutely convergent for ${\mbox{Re~}}s >1$, and suppose that both $(s-1)h(s)$ and $(s-1)g(s)$ are entire functions of finite order. Assume the functional equation $$\label{hamfe}
\pi^{-\frac{s}{2}}\, \Gamma({\textstyle \frac{s}{2}}) \, h(s) \ \
= \ \ \pi^{-\frac{1-s}{2}} \, \Gamma({\textstyle
\frac{1-s}{2}})\, g(1-s)\,.$$ Then in fact $h(s) \, = \, g(s) \, = \, a_1\,\zeta(s)$.
This is the theorem which says that $\zeta(s)$ is *uniquely* determined by its functional equation (subject to certain regularity conditions). Hamburger’s theorem was greatly generalized and enlightened by Hecke approximately 15 years later. We will in fact later show how to derive [Theorem \[hamthm\]]{} from Hecke’s method (see the discussion after [Theorem \[heckecon\]]{}.) See also [@psrag; @rag].
The original proof of Hamburger’s Theorem relies on the *Mellin transform* and [*inversion formulas*]{}; that is, if $$\label{MT}
\pi^{-s}\,\Gamma(s)\,\zeta(2s) \ \ = \ \
\int_{0}^{\infty} t^{s-1}\,
(\theta(it)-\frac{1}{2}) \, dt \, ,$$ then $$\label{MTinv}
\theta(it)\,-\,\frac{1}{2} \ \ = \ \
\frac{1}{2{\pi}i} \, \int_{Re(s)\, = \, c}
t^{-s}\,{\left(}\, \pi^{-s}\, \Gamma(s)\, \zeta(2s)\, {\right)}\, ds$$ for sufficiently large $c>0$. Using the Phragmen-Lindelöf principle ([Proposition \[phrag\]]{}), *plus* the regularity conditions of $g(s)$ and $h(s)$, one can fairly directly show that every $a_k$ is equal to $a_1$; that is, $h(s)=a_1{\zeta(s)}$. By the way, it is of course known that $(s-1)\zeta(s)$ is entire and of order 1. This is because both $s(s-1)\pi^{-s/2}{\Gamma}(s/2)\zeta(s)$ and ${\frac}{1}{s{\Gamma}(s/2)}$ are entire and of order 1 ([Theorem \[zetaebvfe\]]{}).
The Phragmen-Lindelöf Principle and Convexity Bounds {#frag}
----------------------------------------------------
A standard fact from complex analysis, the [*Phragmen-Lindelöf Principle*]{}, can be used to obtain estimates on $\zeta(s)$ in vertical strips from ones on their edges:
\[phrag\](Phragmen-Lindelöf). Let $f(s)$ be meromorphic in the strip $U=\{s \, | \, a\le {\mbox{Re~}}(s) \le b\}$, $a,b\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$, with at most finitely-many poles. Suppose that $f(s)$ satisfies the finite order inequality $$f(s) \ \ = \ \
O{\left(}e^{|s|^A}{\right)}\, , \ \ \ \hbox{for some~}A
> 0 \, ,$$ on $U$ for $|{\mbox{Im~}}s|$ large, and obeys the estimate $$f(\sigma+it) \ \ = \ \ O(|t|^M) \ \ \ \text{ for }~{\mbox{Re~}}s
=a,b, \ \
|t|\rightarrow \infty.$$ Then $$f(\sigma+it) \ \ = \ \ O(|t|^M) \ \ \ \text{ for }~a\le {\mbox{Re~}}{s}\le
b, \ \ |t|\rightarrow
\infty$$ as well.
See [@Laca] for a detailed exposition and proof of [Proposition \[phrag\]]{}. An immediate application of the Phragmen-Lindelöf Principle is to provide a standard bound for $\zeta(s)$ and other $L$-functions in the critical strip. As an example, let us note the following bound towards the Lindelöf conjecture:
\[convex\] For any ${\varepsilon}>0$, $$\label{coneq}\zeta(1/2\,+\,i\,t) \ \
= \ \ O_{\varepsilon}(t^{1/4+{\varepsilon}})\ ,
~~~ \ \ \ \ \ |t|\rightarrow\infty$$ where the implied constant depends on ${\varepsilon}$.
Note that this a sizeable improvement on the trivial bound in [Proposition \[trivzetabd\]]{} towards (\[lindl\]).
[**Proof of [Lemma \[convex\]]{}:**]{} First we observe that $$|\, \zeta(1+{\varepsilon}+it) \, | \ \ \le \ \ \sum_{n=1}^\infty |
\,n^{-1\,-\,{\varepsilon}\,-i\,t}\,| \ \ = \ \ \zeta(1+{\varepsilon})\, ,$$ which is a positive constant. By (\[fnbd\]), which comes from the functional equation, $$| \, \zeta(-{\varepsilon}-it) \, |\ \ = \ \ O_{\varepsilon}(|t|^{1/2+{\varepsilon}})\, , \ \ \ \ \ \
|t|\rightarrow\infty \, .$$ Now, set $f(s)=\zeta(s)\zeta(1-s)$, $a=-{\varepsilon}$, $b=1+{\varepsilon}$, and $M=1/2+{\varepsilon}$. Because of the discussion at the very end of [Section \[ham\]]{}, the conditions of [Proposition \[phrag\]]{} are met; we conclude $|\zeta(1/2+it)\zeta(1/2-it)|=O_{\varepsilon}(|t|^{1/2+{\varepsilon}})$ as $|t|\rightarrow\infty$. To finish the proof we replace ${\varepsilon}$ by $2{\varepsilon}$, and observe that $\zeta(\bar{s})=\overline{\zeta(s)}$ because of the Schwartz reflection principle ($\zeta(s)=\sum n^{-s}$ is real for $s>1$). [$\square$]{}
The estimate (\[coneq\]) for $\zeta(s)$ has been improved many times over; however, for general $L$-functions, the bounds given by the above argument are usually the best known. Because (\[coneq\]) interpolates between the bounds at ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}=-1-{\varepsilon}$ and ${\varepsilon}$, results given by this argument are known as the [*convexity bounds*]{} for $L$-functions. A very important problem is to improve these by [*breaking convexity*]{}; even slight improvements to the convexity bounds for more general $L$-functions – still falling far short of Lindelöf’s conjecture – have had many profound applications. Let’s consider, for example, the possible ways of writing a positive integer as the sum of three squares. Gauss’ famous condition asserts that the equation $$\label{3squares}
x^2\ + \ y^2\ + \ z^2\ \ = \ \ n$$ is solvable by some $(x,y,z)\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^3$ if and only if $n$ is not of the form $4^a(8b+7)$ for some integers $a,b\ge 0$ (see, for example, [@Serre]). Linnik conjectured that the solutions to (\[3squares\]) are randomly distributed in the sense that the sets $$\label{Dn}
{\mathcal D}_n \ \ = \ \ \left\{\left. {\frac}{(x,y,z)}{\sqrt{n}}\,
\right|\ x^2+y^2+z^2\,=\,n \ ,
\ \ \ ~~~x,\,y,\, z \, \in \, {{\mathbb{Z}}}\right\}$$ become equidistributed in the sphere $S^2\subset {{\mathbb{R}}}^3$ as $n\neq
4^a(8b+7)$ increases. This was in fact proven by W. Duke (see [@Duke; @I1; @Duke-Rankin]), and can be shown to follow quite directly from subconvexity estimates on automorphic $L$-functions ([@DFI]), although this was not Duke’s original argument. For a survey of recent results on sub-convexity bounds, see [@Iw-Sar].
The proof of [Lemma \[convex\]]{} shows the strength of the finite-order condition. For it allows us to conclude that $\xi(s)$ decays rapidly as $|{\mbox{Im~}}s|\rightarrow\infty$ (and uniformly so in vertical strips), given only the functional equation and the absolute convergence of $\zeta(s)$ for ${\mbox{Re~}}\!(s)$ large. This will be useful in the proofs of Theorems \[hamthm\] and \[heckecon\]. To wrap up this section, let’s formally state this for future use.
\[fogetsbv\] Assume the conditions of [Theorem \[hamthm\]]{} (notably [**E**]{}ntirety, [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quation, and the finite order hypothesis). Then both sides of (\[hamfe\]) are [**B**]{}ounded in [**V**]{}ertical strips.
We remark that the conclusion of the Lemma does not depend particularly on the exact form of the [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quation (\[hamfe\]); similar conclusions follow when the functional equation involves different configurations of ${\Gamma}$-functions and powers of $\pi$.
[**Proof:**]{} The assumption of absolute convergence implies that $$|h(\sigma+it)| \ \ \le \ \ \sum_{n=1}^\infty
|a_n|\,n^{-\sigma} \ \, < \ \ \infty \ ,~~~\ \ \ \ \ \
\sigma>1.$$ Then for any ${\varepsilon}>0$, $|h(s)|$ is uniformly bounded in the range ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}\ge 1+{\varepsilon}$, as is $|g(s)|$ by symmetry. Using the [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quation, we see that both $$|h(\sigma+it)| \ , \ \ |g(\sigma+it)| \ \ = \ \ O(|t|^{1/2-\sigma})\ ,~~~
\ \ \ \ \ \ |t|\rightarrow\infty$$ for $\sigma<-{\varepsilon}$, and uniformly so in vertical strips (see (\[fnbd\])).
We are assuming that $(s-1)g(s)$ and $(s-1)h(s)$ are of finite order, so the Phragmen-Lindelöf Principle ([Proposition \[phrag\]]{}) applies. This shows that $$|g(\sigma+it)| \ , \ \ |h(\sigma+it)|
\ \ = \ \ O(|t|^{1/2+{\varepsilon}}) \, , \ \ \ \ \ \ ~~~\hbox{for }
-{\varepsilon}<\sigma<1+{\varepsilon}.$$ Thus we have shown that in any vertical strip $a\le {\mbox{Re~}}{s} \le b$, both $g(s)$ and $h(s)$ are bounded by $|{\mbox{Im~}}{s}|^M$ for some $M>0$, as $|{\mbox{Im~}}{s}|\rightarrow\infty$. Stirling’s estimate (\[stirup\]) shows that (\[hamfe\]) decays rapidly as $|{\mbox{Im~}}{s}|\rightarrow\infty$ in the strip $a\le
{\mbox{Re~}}{s} \le b$, and hence is bounded there. [$\square$]{}
Modular Forms and the Converse Theorem {#modsec}
======================================
Hecke (1936) {#Hecke II}
------------
As already suggested, Hamburger’s Converse Theorem did not become completely understood until greatly generalized by Hecke in 1936 ([@Hecke paper \#33], [@Heckenotes]); to describe it, we thus encounter the notion of the space of modular forms to which functions like $\theta$ belong. Note that
$$\theta(\tau) \ \ = \ \ \frac{1}{2}\, \sum_{n\,= \, -\infty}^{\infty}
e^{\, {\pi}\, i\, {{n}^2}\, \tau}$$ is holomorphic in the upper half plane ${\mbox{Im~}}\!(\tau)>0$; moreover, because it satisfies (\[jacid\]) (when ${\mbox{Re~}}{\tau}=0$), clearly $$\label{thetmod}
\theta{\left(}{\frac}{-1}{\tau}{\right)}\ \ = \ \ {\left(}{\frac}{\tau}{i}{\right)}^{1/2} \,
\theta(\tau) \ , \ \ \ \ \ \theta(\tau + 2) \ \ = \ \
\theta(\tau)\, .$$ These two equations say that $\theta(\tau)$ is a *modular form of weight $\frac{1}{2}$* for the group generated by $\tau \mapsto \tau + 2$ and $\tau
\mapsto -\frac{1}{\tau}$. More generally, a *modular form of weight $k>0$* and [*multiplier condition $C$*]{} for the group of substitutions generated by $\tau \mapsto \tau
+\lambda$ and $\tau \mapsto -{\frac{1}{\tau}}$ is a holomorphic function $f(\tau)$ on the upper half plane satisfying
- \(i) $f(\tau + \lambda) \ = \ f(\tau)$,
- \(ii) $f(-\frac{1}{\tau}) \ = \ C\,({\frac{\tau}{i}})^k \,
f(\tau)$, and
- \(iii) $f(\tau)$ has a Taylor expansion in $e^{\frac{2\, {\pi} \, i \, {\tau}}{\lambda}}$ (cf. (i)): $f(\tau)
= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n\, {e^{\frac{\, 2\, {\pi} \, i \, n \,
{\tau}}{\lambda}}}$, i.e., $f$ is “holomorphic at $\infty$”.
We denote the space of such $f$ by $M(\lambda, k, C)$; $f$ is a [*cusp form*]{} if $a_0=0$. For example, the space $M(2,{\frac}12, 1)$ is one dimensional, and consists of multiples of the $\theta$-function.
Now, given a sequence of complex numbers $a_0, a_1, a_2,\ldots$ with $a_n= O(n^d)$ for some $d>0$, and given $\lambda > 0, k>0,
C=\pm 1$, set $$\phi(s) \ \ = \ \ \sum _{n=1}^{\infty} \ \frac{a_n}{n^{s}}\, ,$$ $$\Phi(s) \ \ = \ \ {\left(}\frac{2{\pi}}{\lambda}{\right)}^{-s} \, \Gamma(s)
\,\phi(s) \, ,$$ and $$\label{fdef}f(\tau) \ \ = \ \
\sum _{n=0}^{\infty} \,
a_n\,
{e^{\frac{\,2\,{\pi}\, i \, n \,
{\tau}}{\lambda}}}.$$ (The $O$-condition on the $a_n$ ensures that $\phi(s)$ converges for ${\mbox{Re~}}s >d+1$, and that $f(s)$ is holomorphic in the upper half plane. In fact, $f(\tau)-a_0=O(e^{-{\frac}{2\pi}{{\lambda}}\scriptstyle{\text{ Im~}}{\tau}})$ – see (\[thetbd\]).)
(Hecke’s Converse Theorem)\[heckecon\] The following two conditions are equivalent:
\(A) ${\Phi(s)} \, + \, \frac{a_0}{s} \, + \, \frac{{C}a_0}{k-s}$ is an entire function which is bounded in vertical strips [ **(EBV)**]{}, and satisfies $\Phi(s) \ = \ C \, {\Phi(k-s)}$ [**(FE)**]{};
\(B) $f$ belongs to $M(\lambda, k, C)$.
We will come to the proof [Theorem \[heckecon\]]{} shortly, but first wish to explain the connection to the results of Riemann and Hamburger. Riemann’s [Theorem \[zetaebvfe\]]{} is an example of the direction (B)$\Rightarrow$(A). In the other direction, set $$\gathered \phi(s) \ \ = \ \ \zeta(2s)
\ \ = \ \ \sum_{n\ge
1}\ (n^2)^{-s} \, , \\ \ C=1 \, , \ k=1/2 \, , \ a_0=1/2 \,
, \, \ \text{and }\, \lambda=2 \,. \endgathered$$ In this special case, the direction (A)$\Rightarrow$(B) of [Theorem \[heckecon\]]{} asserts that $\theta(\tau)$ obeys the modular relations (\[thetmod\]). Similarly, [Theorem \[hamthm\]]{} can be derived from this direction of [Theorem \[heckecon\]]{} as well. For simplicity, suppose that the coefficients $a_n$ and $b_n$ in the statement are equal (these are not the same $a_n$ involved here). Then assumptions of [Theorem \[hamthm\]]{} actually match the properties of $\zeta$ and $\xi$ needed in (A). They guarantee that $\Phi({\frac}s2)=\pi^{-s/2}{\Gamma}({\frac}s2)h(s)$ is holomorphic in ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}>0$, except perhaps for a simple pole at $s=1$. By the functional equation (\[hamfe\]), $\Phi(s)$ has an analytic continuation to ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ except for potential simple poles at $s=0$ and $1/2$. Because of (\[hamfe\]) the residues of $\Phi(s)$ at those points are negatives of each other, and thus ${\Phi(s)}+\frac{a_0}{s}+\frac{a_0}{k-s}$ is [**E**]{}ntire, where $a_0$ is the residue of $\Psi(s)$ at $s=k$. [Lemma \[fogetsbv\]]{} shows the finite order assumption implies that $\Phi(s)$ satisfies the [**BV**]{} condition of (A) as well. [Theorem \[heckecon\]]{} therefore produces a modular form $f$ in $M(2,1/2,1)$, which is a one-dimensional space spanned by $\theta(\tau)$. So $f$ must in fact be a multiple of the $\theta$-function, and we conclude that the original Dirichlet series in [Theorem \[hamthm\]]{} are multiples of $\zeta$.
[**Proof of [Theorem \[heckecon\]]{}:**]{} As in Hamburger’s proof of [Theorem \[hamthm\]]{}, the proof begins by using Mellin inversion (see (\[MTinv\])): $$\label{hamstart}
f(ix) \, - \, a_0 \ \ = \ \ \frac{1}{{2}{\pi}i} \,
\int_{{\sigma} \, = \, c} \ x^{-s} \, \Phi(s) \, ds \, ,$$ for $x>0$, where ${\sigma}={\mbox{Re~}}(s)$, and $c$ is chosen large enough to be in the domain of absolute convergence of $\phi(s)$ (since we are assuming that $a_n=O(n^d)$, we may take any $c>d+1$).
Assume now (A). We first want to first argue that we can push the line of integration to the left, past $\sigma = 0$, picking up residues of $ C\,a_0\,x^{-k}$ at $s=k\le c$ and $-a_0$ at $s=0$: $$\label{ham2}
f(ix) \ - \ C \,{a_0}\,{x^{-k}} \ \ =
\ \ \frac{1}{{2}\,{\pi}\,i} \,
\int_{{\sigma} \, = \, k \, - \, c \, < \,0}
\ x^{-s} \, \Phi(s) \, ds \, .$$
To see this, we need to show that the integral of $\Phi(s)$ over the horizontal paths $[k-c\pm ir, c\pm ir]$ tend to zero as $r
\rightarrow \infty$. We shall use the [**B**]{}oundedness in [**V**]{}ertical strips assumption to prove the integrand decays rapidly there; in fact, this contour shift here is the primary importance of the [**BV**]{} property. The assumption that $a_n=O(n^d)$ implies that $\phi(s)$ converges absolutely for ${\mbox{Re~}}{s} \ge c > d+1$, where $$\label{phiest}
|\phi(s)| \ \ \le \ \ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \,
|a_n| \, n^{-c} \ \ = \ \ O(1) \, .$$ Stirling’s asymptotics (\[bigstir\]) show that $\Phi(s)$ satisfies the order-one estimate $O(e^{|s|^{1+{\varepsilon}}})$ in the region ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}\ge c$. By the functional equation, $\Phi(s)$ does as well in the reflected region ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}\le k-c$, and the [**BV**]{} assumption from (A) handles the missing strip: therefore $\Phi(s)+{\frac}{a_0}{s}+{\frac}{Ca_0}{k-s}$ is of order one on ${{\mathbb{C}}}$. Since ${\frac}{1}{s{\Gamma}(s)}$ is entire and of order 1, $(s-k)\phi(s)=(s-k)({\frac}{2\pi}{{\lambda}})^s{\Gamma}(s){^{-1}}\Phi(s)$ is also entire and of order 1 (cf. the end of [Section \[ham\]]{}). The functional equation $$\phi(s) \ \ = \ \
C{\left(}{\frac}{2 \, \pi}{\lambda}{\right)}^{2s-k}{\frac}{{\Gamma}(k-s)}{{\Gamma}(s)} \, \phi(k-s)$$ shows that $$\label{phiest2}
|\phi(\sigma+it)| \ \ = \ \ \ O(t^{2c-k}) \, , \ \ \ \sigma
\, = \, k \, - \, c \, < \, 0$$ just as in the proof of [Lemma \[convex\]]{}. We conclude from the Phragmen-Lindelöf Principle ([Proposition \[phrag\]]{}) that $\phi(s)$ is $O(|{\mbox{Im~}}{s}|^K)$ for some $K$, uniformly as $|{\mbox{Im~}}{s}|\rightarrow
\infty$ in the strip $k-c \le {\mbox{Re~}}{s} \le c$. Since this growth is at most polynomial, the exponential decay from Stirling’s formula (\[stirup\]) gives us that $\Phi(\sigma+it)$ decays faster than any polynomial in $|t|$ as $|t|\rightarrow \infty$, uniformly for $\sigma$ in the interval $[k-c,c]$. Thus the integrals $$\int_{k-c+ir}^{c+ir} \, x^{-s} \, \Phi(s) \, ds \ , \
\int_{k-c-ir}^{c-ir} \, x^{-s} \, \Phi(s) \, ds \ \ \
\longrightarrow \, 0 \hbox{ , as }r\rightarrow \infty \, ,$$ and the contour shift between (\[hamstart\]) and (\[ham2\]) is valid.
Now, let us resume from (\[ham2\]) and apply the functional equation from (A): $$\aligned
f(ix) \ - \ C \,a_o \, x^{-k} \ \ & = &
\frac{C}{{2}{\pi}i} &\int_{{\sigma} \, = \, k \, - \,
c \, < \, 0}
\ x^{-s} \, \Phi(k-s) \, ds & \\
\ \ & = &
\frac{C}{{2}{\pi}i}& \int_{{\sigma} \, = \, c \, > \, k}
\ x^{s-k} \, \Phi(s) \, ds &
(\hbox{upon }s\mapsto k-s) \qquad\qquad \\
\ \ & = & C\,{x^{-k}} &\, (f(\frac{i}{x})\, -\,
{a_0})
& \hbox{ by (\ref{hamstart})}\, , \qquad\qquad
\endaligned$$ or $$f(ix) \ \ = \ \ C\, {x^{-k}}\, f(\frac{i}{x}) \, ,$$ which is property (ii) of the definition of $M({\lambda},k,C)$. Properties (i) and (iii) are immediate from the definition of $f(\tau)$ in (\[fdef\]), and we conclude the proof that (B) follows from (A).
Now suppose (B). We will essentially follow Riemann’s original argument from [Section \[mellthet\]]{}, using the integral representation (cf. (\[MT\])) $$\Phi(s) \ \ = \ \ \int_{0}^{\infty} \ t^{s-1}
\, (f(it) \, - \, a_0) \, dt
\, .$$ Then
$$\int_{0}^{1} \ t^{s-1} \, (f(it) \, - \, a_0) \, dt \ \
= \ \ \int_{1}^{\infty}
t^{-s-1} \, f(\frac{i}{t}) \, dt
\ \, - \, \
\left. {a_0} \, \frac{t^s}{s}\, \right|_{0}^{1}
\ \ \ $$
$$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ = \ \ C { \int_{1}^{\infty}}
t^{k-s-1} \, (f(it)\,-\, a_0) \, dt \ - \ {\frac}{a_0}{s} \ - \ \frac{C\, {a_0}}{k-s}\,.$$ Thus
$$\Phi(s) \ + \ \frac{a_0}{s} \ + \ \frac{C\,{a_0}}{k-s} \ \ =
\ \ \int_{1}^{\infty} [ t^{s-1}\,(f(it) \, - \, a_0)
\ + \ t^{k-s-1} \, C(f(it)\, - \, a_0)] \ dt\,.$$ This expression is clearly [**EBV**]{}, and $\Phi(s)\,=\,C\,\Phi(k-s)$ (just as in the proof of [Theorem \[zetaebvfe\]]{}), whence (A).[$\square$]{}
By reducing a question about Dirichlet series to one about modular forms, [Theorem \[heckecon\]]{} represents a great step forward from Riemann’s treatment of $\zeta$. In particular, it puts his original argument into a very useful and fruitful context. Note that a specified type of Dirichlet series is connected to any modular form satisfying $$f{\left(}{\frac}{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}{\right)}=(c\tau+d)^kf(\tau)$$ for
$$\label{sl2zdef}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{a} & {b} \\ {c} & {d} \end{array} \right)} \ \ \in \ \ SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}}) \ \ = \ \
\left\{\left .{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{a} & {b} \\ {c} & {d} \end{array} \right)} \, \right| \ ~a,\, b,\, c,\, d \in {{\mathbb{Z}}}\, , \
a\,d\,-\,b\,c\,=\,1\,
\right\}\, ,$$
the group of substitutions generated by $\tau \rightarrow {\tau} + 1$ and $\tau \rightarrow
\frac{-1}{\tau}$.
Weil’s Converse Theorem (1967) {#Weil}
------------------------------
A. Weil in 1967 completed Hecke’s theory by similarly characterizing modular forms for [*congruence*]{} subgroups, such as $$\label{gammandef}
\Gamma_0(N) \ \ = \ \
\left\{ \left .\left( \begin{array}{cc} a & b \\
c & d
\end{array} \right) \in SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}}) \, \right| \ c \, \equiv 0 \!\!\!\!\pmod{N}
\, \right\}.$$ (These subgroups in general have many generators, whereas Hecke’s Theorem deals with modular forms only for the groups generated by $\tau \mapsto \tau + \lambda$ and $\tau \mapsto -
\frac{1}{\tau}$.) Weil’s breakthrough was to [*twist*]{} the series $\phi(s)$ by [*Dirichlet characters*]{}. Recall from [Section \[Hecke I\]]{} that a Dirichlet character modulo $r$ is a periodic function $\chi:{{\mathbb{Z}}}\rightarrow {{\mathbb{C}}}$ which is completely multiplicative (i.e. $\chi(nm)=\chi(n)\chi(m)$), and satisfies $$\chi(1) \ \ = \ \ 1 \, , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \chi(n) \ \ = \ \ 0,
\ \hbox{ if }(n,r)>1.$$ Given a Dirichlet character $\chi$ modulo $r$ and a proper multiple $r'$ of $r$, one may form a Dirichlet character $\chi'$ modulo $r'$ by setting $$\chi'(n) \ \ = \ \
\begin{cases}
\, \chi(n) & ,~(n,r')\, = \, 1, \\
\, 0 & ,~\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Such a character $\chi'$ obtained this way is termed [*imprimitive*]{}, and one which is not, [*primitive*]{}. The importance of primitive characters is that their functional equations are simpler (see [@Daven]). Weil’s converse theorem gives a condition for modularity under ${\Gamma}_0(N)$ in terms of the functional equations of Dirichlet series twisted by primitive characters:
\[weilthm\](Weil [@Weil]) Fix positive integers $N$ and $k$, and suppose $L(s) \, = \, \sum_{n=1}
^{\infty} \ a_{n} \,n^{-s}$ satisfies the following conditions:
- [(i)]{} $L(s)$ is absolutely convergent for ${\mbox{Re~}}s$ sufficiently large;
- [(ii)]{} for each primitive character $\chi$ of modulus $r$ with $(r,N)=1,$ $${\Lambda}(s,\chi) \ \ = \ \ (2{\pi})^{-s}\ {\Gamma(s)}\
\sum_{n=1} ^{\infty} \ a_{n}\,\chi(n)\,n^{-s}$$ continues to an [**E**]{}ntire function of $s$, [**B**]{}ounded in [**V**]{}ertical strips;
- [(iii)]{} Each such ${\Lambda}(s,\chi)$ satisfies the [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quation $$\label{weilcondiii}
{\Lambda}(s,\chi) \ \ = \ \ w_\chi \ r^{-1} \ (r^{2}N)^{\frac{k}{2}-s}
\ {\Lambda}(k-s,\bar\chi) \, ,$$ where $$w_\chi \ \ = \ \ i^k\,\chi(N)\,g(\chi)^{\,2}$$ and the [*Gauss sum*]{} $$g(\chi) \ \ = \ \
\sum_{n\!\!\! \pmod r}\chi(n)\ e ^{\,2\,\pi\, i \,n/r}\,.$$
Then $f(z) \, = \, \sum_{n=1}^\infty \ a_n \, e^{\,2\,\pi\, i \,
n \, z}$ belongs to the space of modular forms for $\Gamma_0(N)$ (i.e. $$f{\left(}{\frac}{a\, z+b}{c\, z+d}{\right)}\ \ = \ \ (c\, z+d)^k \ f(z) \ ,~~~ \ \
\text{for all} \ \ \left( \begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ c & d
\end{array} \right) \, \in \, {\Gamma}_0(N) \ ,$$ and satisfies a holomorphy condition at its “cusps” analogous to property (iii) in the definition of $M({\lambda},k,C)$ in [Section \[Hecke II\]]{}).
Note that the trivial character (with $\chi(n)\equiv 1$) is primitive, so the statement includes the $L$-functions used in [Theorem \[heckecon\]]{}. Property (iii) is certainly satisfied if $L(s)$ is the $L$-function of a modular form, as can be shown using a slight variant of Hecke’s argument used in proving [Theorem \[heckecon\]]{}. For the obvious reason, we refer to this Theorem as “Weil’s converse to Hecke Theory”. For a proof, see [@Bump], [@Iwaniec], or [@Ogg].
Maass Forms (1949) {#maass sec}
------------------
In addition to the holomorphic modular forms on the complex upper half plane ${{\mathbb{H}}}$, there are the non-holomorphic modular forms introduced by Maass [@maass]. These are equally important, but far more mysterious. The literature has slight differences in the terminology, but for us a Maass form will be a non-constant eigenfunction of Laplace operator ${\Delta}=-y^2{\left(}{\frac}{d^2}{dx^2} + {\frac}{d^2}{dy^2}{\right)}$ in $L^2({\Gamma}\backslash
{{\mathbb{H}}})$, where ${\Gamma}$ is a discontinuous subgroup of $SL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$, e.g. a congruence subgroup. The laplacian condition replaces the holomorphy condition here. In contrast to the holomorphic modular forms, all of which have constructions and geometric interpretations, the vast majority of Maass forms lack constructions or identification. Their mere existence is so subtle that Selberg invented the trace formula [@sel1956] simply to show that they exist for ${\Gamma}=SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$! In fact, deformation results such as those of Phillips-Sarnak and Wolpert [@philsar1; @philsar2; @philsar3; @sarps; @wolp1; @wolp2] demonstrate that Maass forms are scarce for the generic discrete subgroup ${\Gamma}\subset SL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$. For this reason we shall stick to congruence subgroups ${\Gamma}$ for the rest of this exposition.
For now, consider a Maass form $\phi$ for ${\Gamma}={\Gamma}_0(N)$ (for simplicity the reader may take $N=1$ and ${\Gamma}=SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$). The Fourier expansion of $\phi$ is given by $$\label{intmaass}
\phi(x+iy) \ \ = \ \ \sum_{n\neq 0}
a_n\ \sqrt{y}\ K_\nu( \, 2\,\pi\,|n|\,y \, )\ e^{2\, \pi\,i\,n\,x} \, ,$$ where $a_n$ are coefficients and $K_\nu(t)$ is the $K$-Bessel function $$\label{kdef}
K_s(z) \ \ =
\ \ \frac{\pi}{2} \, \frac{{I_{-s}(z)}- I_{\, s}(z)}{\sin{\pi s}}
\ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I_s(z) \ \ = \ \ \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \
\frac{({\frac{z}{2}})^{\,s+2m}}
{m! \ \Gamma(s \, + \, m \, + \, 1)} \, .$$ The parameter $\nu$ is related to the Laplace eigenvalue of $\phi$ by ${\lambda}=1/4-\nu^2$, where ${\Delta}\phi={\lambda}\phi$. Hecke’s method was extended by Maass to obtain the analytic continuation and functional equations of the $L$-functions $L(s,\phi)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n n^{-s}$ of Maass forms on ${\Gamma}_0(N)$ through the integral $\int_0^\infty
\phi(i\,y)\,y^{s-1/2}\,{\frac}{dy}{y}$. When ${\Gamma}=SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$, for example, this integral is unchanged by the substitution $s\mapsto
1-s$. Maass also proved a converse theorem for his Maass forms for ${\Gamma}=SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$; see the comments at the end of the section.
Hecke Operators {#heckopsec}
---------------
The Euler product structure of the Riemann $\zeta$-function has an analog for modular form $L$-functions through Hecke operators. For any positive integer $n$, the Hecke operator $$\label{tndef}
T_n(f)(z) \ \ = \ \ {\frac}{1}{n} \ \sum_{a \,d \ = \ n } \ a^k
\sum_{0 \, \le \, b \, < \, d} \ f{\left(}{\frac}{a\, z+\,b}{d}{\right)}$$ preserves the space of modular forms of weight $k$ for ${\Gamma}_0(N)$, so long as $n$ and $N$ are relatively prime. The same formula applies to Maass forms when $k=0$ and the prefactor ${\frac}1n$ is replaced by ${\frac}{1}{\sqrt{n}}$. A few other operators are used as well, to take into account symmetries of ${\Gamma}_0(N)$ by which modular forms can be “diagonalized.” In addition to being eigenfunctions of a differential operator (i.e. either the Cauchy-Riemann operator $\bar{\partial}$ or the laplacian ${\Delta}$), a basis of modular forms or Maass forms can be chosen among eigenfunctions of the Hecke operators as well. As a result, identities amongst the coefficients can be proven. These are nicely expressed as factorizations of the $L$-functions of modular forms. For example, when ${\Gamma}=SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ the $L$-series of a holomorphic form of weight $k$ factors as $$\label{eulerholom}
L(s) \ \ = \ \ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \,a_n\, n^{-s} \ \ = \ \
\prod_{p} {\left(}1 \, - \, a_p \, p^{-s} \, + \, p^{\,k-1-2s}{\right)}{^{-1}}\, ,$$ a formula which remains valid for Maass forms if $k$ is taken to be 1.
We end this section with some remarks about the Converse Theorem \[weilthm\]. Maass observed that Hecke’s argument for [Theorem \[heckecon\]]{} applies to his Maass forms for ${\Gamma}=SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ as well, but this method does [*not*]{} prove a converse theorem for ${\Gamma}_0(N)$ for $N$ large. The reason for this is that the group ${\Gamma}_0(N)$ can have many generators, which are not accounted for by simply one functional equation alone. Interestingly, Conrey and Farmer [@conreyfarm] have found that by using Hecke operators, a converse theorem can be proved for a surprisingly large range of $N$ using only a single functional equation. In another direction, Booker [@Booker] has recently discovered that the converse theorem requires only a single functional equation when it is specialized to the $L$-functions coming from [*Galois representations*]{}, regardless of how large $N$ is. It is an open question whether or not Weil’s argument applies to Maass forms. A key point for Weil is that radially symmetric holomorphic functions are necessarily constant; this is not true in the non-holomorphic case because there are spherical functions (formed by radially-symmetrizing ${\mbox{Im~}}\!\!(z)^s$), and so Weil’s argument does directly apply. However, there is nevertheless an applicable converse theorem due to Jacquet and Langlands, which we will come to in [Section \[JL\]]{}.
$L$-functions from Eisenstein Series (1962-) {#Eisen I}
============================================
In the last section we saw the Mellin transform provided a connection between holomorphic modular forms, and certain Dirichlet series generalizing $\zeta(s)$. Another quite different connection comes from a family of non-cuspidal modular forms, the Eisenstein series $$\label{Gkdef}
G_k(z) \ \ = \ \
\sum_{(m,n)\,\in\,{{\mathbb{Z}}}^2-\{0,0\}}
{\frac}{1}{(m\,z+n)^{k}}\,, \ \ \ \ \ k\text{~even}, ~\ge 2.$$ It is not difficult to show that $G_k(z)$ is a holomorphic modular form of weight $k$ for $SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. Via a Poisson summation argument over $m$ one can obtain the Fourier expansion $$\label{Gkexp}
G_k(z) \ \ = \ \ 2\, \zeta(k) \ + \
{\frac}{2\, ( \, 2\, \pi \, i\, )^{\,k}}{(k-1)!}\
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \,
\sigma_{k-1}(n)\ e^{2\,\pi \,i\, n\, z}\, ,$$ where $\sigma_{k-1}(n)$ is defined in terms of the divisors of $n$ by $$\sigma_{t}(n) \ \ = \ \ \sum_{d|n} \, d^{\,t}$$ (see [@Serre Section 7.5.5] for details). The appearance of $\zeta(k)$ here is the first example of a very general phenomena, which ultimately leads to the Langlands-Shahidi method ([Section \[LaSh\]]{}). In the next section, we will describe the generalized [*non-holomorphic*]{} Eisenstein series considered by Selberg, and their connection to the analytic properties of the Riemann $\zeta$-function throughout the complex plane – not just at special integral values alone.
Selberg’s Analytic Continuation {#Sel}
-------------------------------
Selberg’s method [@Sel] can be used to obtain the analytic continuation and functional equations of the $L$-functions that arise in the “constant terms” of Eisenstein series. We shall sketch a form of it in the classical case of the upper half plane ${{\mathbb{H}}}=\left \{z=x+iy \mid y>0 \right \}$, and the simplest-possible Eisenstein series. Here we shall summarize the main steps involved; the details can be found in [@Ku; @Borel]. We will turn to the general case in [Section \[LaSh\]]{}.
Define $$\label{ezsdef}
\aligned
E(z,s)\ = \ \ & \ \
{\frac}1{2}~~~~
\sum_{\stackrel{\scriptstyle (m,n)={{\mathbb{Z}}}^2-\{0\}}{\scriptstyle gcd(m,n)=1}}
\ \frac {y^s}{|m\,z+n|^{2s}} \ \\ = \ \ & \ {\frac}12 \, {\frac}{1}{\zeta(2\,s)}
\sum_{(m,n)={{\mathbb{Z}}}^2-\{0\}}\frac {y^s}{|m\,z+n|^{2s}} \,
,
\endaligned$$ for $z \in {{\mathbb{H}}}$ and $\sigma={\mbox{Re~}}{s}>1.$ This series converges absolutely and uniformly in any compact subset of the region ${\mbox{Re~}}s >1$, and is the first example of a non-holomorphic Eisenstein series. Very importantly, $E(z,s)$ is unchanged by the substitutions $z\mapsto {\frac}{az+b}{cz+d}$ coming from any matrix in (\[sl2zdef\]). Selberg considers the problem of analytically continuing $E(z,s)$ with respect to $s$ to obtain another functional equation, as we shall now explain. (Actually, Selberg had several different arguments to do this, but they mainly appeal to spectral theory to obtain the important properties of analytic continuation and functional equation of Eisenstein series.)
To motivate the statement of the functional equation, let us first consider the Fourier expansion of $E(z,s)$. It is given by
$$\label{eisfourexp}
E(z,s) \ = \ E(x \, + \, i \, y \, , \, s) \ = \ \sum_{m\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}} \
a_m(y,s)\,e^{\,2\,\pi \, i \, m \, x}$$
where $e(x)=e^{\,2\,{\pi}\,i\,x}$, and
$$a_m(y,s) \ = \ \int_{0}^{1} \ E(x+iy,s)\,
e^{-2\,\pi \, i \, m \, x} \, dx\, .$$ We shall need here only the coefficients $a_0$ and $a_1$. If one computes directly for ${\mbox{Re~}}s>1,$ using the “Bruhat decomposition”[^6] for $SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ and recalling (\[kdef\]), one obtains
$$\label{a0}
a_0(y,s) \ \ = \ \ y^s \ + \ \phi(s)\,y^{1-s}$$
and $$\label{a1}a_n(y,s) \ \ = \ \ 2\ {\frac}{\sqrt{y} \
K_{s-\scriptstyle{\frac{1}{2}}}\,(2\,\pi\,|n|\,y)}{\pi^{-s}\,
{\Gamma}(s)\,\zeta(2s)}\ |n|^{s-1}\ \sigma_{1\,-\,2\,s}(n) \, ,$$ with
$$\phi(s) \ \ = \ \
{\pi}^{1/2}\,\frac{\Gamma(s-\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(s)}
\frac{\zeta(2s-1)}{\zeta(2s)}
\ \ = \ \ {\frac}{\xi(2s-1)}{\xi(2s)}$$ (see [@Bump] for details). In general, $\phi(s)$ is called the “constant term” or “scattering” matrix of $E(z,s)$.
Having described the Eisenstein series $E(z,s)$, we now state and prove Selberg’s theorem:
\[eisfe\](Selberg – see [@Sel]) $E(z,s)$ has a meromorphic continuation to the whole complex s-plane, and satisfies the functional equation $$\label{eisesfe}
E(z , s) \ \ = \ \ \phi(s) \ E( z, 1-s)\,.$$
[**(A Misleading) Proof:**]{} [Theorem \[zetaebvfe\]]{} and (\[a0\]-\[a1\]) can then be applied to show that each term in the Fourier expansion $$E(z,s) \ \ = \ \
\sum_{n\in {{\mathbb{Z}}}} \, a_n(y,s)\,e^{\, 2\, \pi \, i \, n \, x}$$ is meromorphic and satisfies the functional equation (\[eisesfe\]). The sum converges rapidly because $K_s(y)$ decays exponentially as $y\rightarrow \infty$. Hence the whole sum is meromorphic on ${{\mathbb{C}}}$, and satisfies (\[eisesfe\]). [$\square$]{}
We wrote that the above proof is “misleading” because, although it demonstrates a connection to [Theorem \[zetaebvfe\]]{}, in practice it has turned out to be much more fruitful to reverse the logic – and conclude properties of $L$-functions from those of Eisenstein series! Indeed, [Theorem \[eisfe\]]{} can be proven using spectral theory, and even in a very non-arithmetic setting (see [@Borel; @Cohen-Sarnak; @Ku] for more details). The reader may already have noticed a similarity between the Fourier expansion of Eisenstein series in (\[eisfourexp\]-\[a1\]), and those of Maass forms in (\[intmaass\]). In fact, the Eisenstein series $E(x+iy,s)$ is an eigenfunction of the Laplace operator ${\Delta}=
-y^2{\left(}{\frac}{d^2}{dx^2} + {\frac}{d^2}{dy^2}{\right)}$, with eigenvalue $s(1-s)$. A main point in arguing the functional equation is [*Maass’ lemma*]{}, which ultimately implies that because $E(z,s)$ and $E(z,1-s)$ share the Laplace eigenvalue $s(1-s)$, the two must be multiples of each other. The ratio can be found to be $\phi(s)$ by the inspecting the constant term $a_0(y,s)$, and so the functional equation (\[eisesfe\]) can be proven without knowing $\zeta$’s functional equation $\xi(s) =
\xi(1-s)$.
Of course, Selberg proved his [Theorem \[eisfe\]]{} in much greater generality than we have stated. Our point is that the analytic continuation and functional equation for the Eisenstein series furnish an analytic continuation and functional equation for the Riemann $\zeta$-function. To analytically continue $\zeta(s)$, basically “the constant term” is enough: reading through the spectral proof of the analytic continuation of $\phi(s)$ for $E(z,s)$, one demonstrates that $\xi(s)$ is holomorphic everywhere, save for simple poles at $s=0$ and 1. To get the functional equation, we need to consider the *non-trivial* Fourier coefficient $a_1(y,s)$. [Theorem \[eisfe\]]{} yields $$\label{zfefromeis}
\aligned
{\frac}{2\sqrt{y}\,K_{s-1/2}(2\,\pi \,y)}{\xi(2s)}\ \ = & \ \ a_1(y,s) & \ \
\\= \ &
\frac{\xi(2s-1)}{\xi(2s)} \, a_1(y,1-s) \ = \
{\frac}{\xi(2s-1)}{\xi(2s)}
{\frac}{2\sqrt{y}\,K_{1/2-s}(2\,\pi \,y)}{\xi(2-2s)}\, ;
\endaligned$$ then, using $K_s= K_{-s}$ and setting $s=\frac{1+s'}{2}$, we have
$$\xi(s') \ \ = \ \ \xi(1-s')\, ,$$ exactly the [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quation for $\zeta(s')$. Incidentally, the same analysis applied to the general Fourier coefficient $a_n(y)$ from (\[a1\]) does not give any additional information (this is because the extra factor $|n|^{s-1}\sigma_{1-2s}(|n|)$ already obeys the functional equation). [**B**]{}oundedness in [**V**]{}ertical strips is another matter, which we will return to in [Section \[eisbvsec\]]{}. Selberg’s work on $GL(2)$ was extended by Langlands [@La1; @La2] to cover Eisenstein series on general groups, where the analysis is much more difficult. This forms the basis of the Langlands-Shahidi method, the topic of [Section \[LaSh\]]{}.
Generalizations to Adele Groups {#adelesec}
===============================
In the remaining sections of the paper, we will revisit the techniques and topics of the earlier sections, but in the expanded setting of automorphic forms on groups over the adeles. The adeles themselves enter as a language to keep track of the arithmetic bookkeeping needed for complicated expressions, such as the computations over general number fields in [Section \[Hecke I\]]{}. They are convenient even in the simplest examples when the ground field is ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$. For instance, we shall see in the next section how Tate’s thesis naturally produces the Euler product formula for the Riemann $\zeta$-function: $$\zeta(s) \ \ = \ \ \prod_{p}{\left(}1-p^{-s}{\right)}{^{-1}}\ \ = \ \ \prod_p
{\left(}1+p^{-s}+p^{-2s}+\cdots{\right)},$$ a formula which itself is a restatement of the unique factorization theorem for integers. They will be useful in [Section \[LaSh\]]{} for computations involving the Eisenstein series for $SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ from [Section \[Eisen I\]]{}. In general, they are extremely valuable on general groups, where they give clues for how to structure terms in large sums into an “Eulerian" form.
The adeles and their notable features are perhaps better explained later on, within the context of the arguments in which they are used. Nevertheless we give the basic definitions before proceeding. Given a rational number $x$, let $$\label{pval}
|x|_p \ := \ p^{-\textstyle{{\scriptstyle{\hbox{ord}}}_p(x)}},$$ where $\hbox{ord}_p(x)$ denotes the exponent of $p$ occurring in the unique factorization of $x\in{{\mathbb{Q}}}$. This $p$-adic valuation defines a metric on ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ by $d_p(x,y)=|x-y|_p$, and its completion is ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_p$, the field of $p$-adic numbers. More concretely, ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_p$ may be viewed as the formal Laurent series in $p$ $$\label{padicform}
x \ \ = \ \ c_k \, p^{\,k} \, + \,
c_{k+1} \, p^{\,k+1} \,+ \, \cdots \ , \ \ \ \ \ c_k \neq 0\, , \ \
\ \ \ k \ \in \ {{\mathbb{Z}}}$$ with integral coefficients $0 \le c_j < p$; alternatively it may be thought of as consisting of base-$p$ expansions with only finitely many digits to the right of the “decimal” point, but perhaps infinitely many to the left. Within ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_p$ lies its ring of integers, ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_p$, which is the completion of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ under $|\cdot|_p$. It may instead be viewed as the elements of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_p$ as in (\[padicform\]) which have $k \ge 0$, or those with no digits to the right of the decimal point in their base-$p$ expansion. The $p$-adic valuation of course extends to ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_p$: the absolute value of $x$ given in (\[padicform\]) is $p^{-k}$, and ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_p = \{x\in{{\mathbb{Q}}}_p \, \mid \, |x|_p \le 1\}$. Similarly, the multiplicative subgroups are ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_p^*
= {{\mathbb{Q}}}_p\,-\,\{0\}$ and ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_p^* =\{x\in{{\mathbb{Q}}}_p \, \mid \, |x|_p = 1\}$.
The adeles are formed by piecing together all ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_p$ along with ${{\mathbb{R}}}$, which may be viewed as ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_\infty$, the completion of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ under the usual archimedean absolute value. Concretely, the adeles ${{\mathbb{A}}}$ are the restricted direct product of the ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_p$ with respect to the ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_p$; that means the adeles are infinite-tuples of the form $$\label{adeledef}
a \ \ = \ \ (a_\infty;\,a_2,\,a_3,\,a_5,\,a_7,\,a_{11},\,\ldots)\,, \ \
\ a_p \, \in \, {{\mathbb{Q}}}_p \ \ \text{for all} \ \ p\, \le \, \infty$$ such that all but finitely many $a_p$ lie in ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_p$. Similarly the ideles ${{\mathbb{A}}}^*$ are the restricted direct product of all ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_p^*$ with respect to ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_p^*$. Addition and multiplication are defined componentwise in ${{\mathbb{A}}}$ and ${{\mathbb{A}}}^*$. The rational numbers embed diagonally into the ring ${{\mathbb{A}}}$ and play a fundamental role, which will become apparent shortly when it appears in Tate’s thesis. The adeles, or more properly the ideles, themselves have an absolute value; its value on $a$ in (\[adeledef\]) is $$|a|_{{\mathbb{A}}}\ \ = \ \ \prod_{p\le \infty} |a_p|_{p}.$$ Note that this is actually a finite product, because almost all $a_p$ have absolute value equal to one, a theme which underlies many adelic concepts. The diagonally-embedded ${{\mathbb{Q}}}^*$ consists of the ideles with $|a|_{{\mathbb{A}}}= 1$.
The above construction can be generalized to an arbitrary number field – or even “global field” – $F$ to obtain its adele ring ${{\mathbb{A}}}_F$ (see [@Lant; @ramval]). Most constructions involving ${{\mathbb{A}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}}$ generalize to ${{\mathbb{A}}}_F$, though we will mainly focus on $F={{\mathbb{Q}}}$ for expositional ease. Adeles are usually viewed much more algebraically and with much greater emphasis on their topology (which we have hardly touched); our intention here is rather to give enough background to illuminate their effectiveness in analysis.
Tate’s Thesis (1950) {#Tate}
====================
In his celebrated 1950 Ph.D. thesis [@Tate], J. Tate reinterpreted the methods of Riemann and Hecke in terms of harmonic analysis on the ideles ${{\mathbb{A}}}^*$ of a number field $F$. Tate’s method succeeded in precisely isolating and identifying the contribution to the functional equation from each of the ramified prime ideals $\mathfrak P$ not treated in the product (\[heckeslseries\]), a delicate problem which appeared complicated from the perspective of Hecke’s classical method. At the same time, Tate’s method is powerful enough to uniformly reprove the analytic continuation and functional equations of Hecke’s $L$-functions. For this local precision, uniformity, and flexibility, Tate’s method has influenced the many adelic methods at the forefront today. In this section we explain Tate’s construction and the role of the devices he employs, via a comparison with Riemann’s argument in [Section \[Rie\]]{}.
Let us recall Riemann’s integral from [Section \[Rie\]]{}, after a harmless change of variables: $$\label{riemannsintegral}
\xi(s) \ = \ \pi^{-s/2}\,{\Gamma}({\textstyle {\frac}s2})\,\zeta(s) \ =
\ \, \int_{0}^\infty x^s\,\sum_{n\neq 0} e^{-\pi \,n^2\,
x^2}\,d^*x \, .$$ Tate instead considers the sum over ${{\mathbb{Z}}}-\{0\}$ as an integral over a disconnected group. In order to keep the flexibility of treating more general sums, he instead essentially integrates the characteristic function of ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$ over a much larger set in his generalized [*$\zeta$-integral*]{} $$\label{tatesintegral}
\zeta(f,c) \ \ = \ \ \int_{{{{\mathbb{A}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}}}^*} f(a)\,c(a) \, d^* {a} \, .$$ Here $c(a)$ is any quasi-character of ${{\mathbb{A}}}^*$ – that is, a continuous homomorphism from ${{\mathbb{A}}}^*$ to ${{\mathbb{C}}}^*$ – which is trivial on ${{\mathbb{Q}}}^*$ (for example, we saw before that $|a|_{{\mathbb{A}}}$ is trivial on ${{\mathbb{Q}}}^*$); $d^*a$ is the multiplicative Haar measure on ${{\mathbb{A}}}^*$ pieced together as a product of the local Haar measures $d^*x_{\infty}={\frac}{dx}{|x|}$ and $d^*x_p$. The latter is normalized so that ${{\mathbb{Z}}}_p^*$ has measure 1. Finally, the function $f$ is taken to be a product $$\label{tatefdef}
f(a_\infty;\,a_2, \, a_3, \, a_5,\ldots) \ \ = \ \ \prod_{p\le
\infty} f_p(a_p)$$ of functions $f_p$ on ${{\mathbb{Q}}}_p$, which may depend on the quasi-character $c$. In the simplest possibility, which is that $c(a)=|a|_{{\mathbb{A}}}^s$, let us choose $$f_p(x) \ \ = \ \ \chi_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}_p}(x) \
\ = \ \
\begin{cases}
\,1 &,~ |x|_p \leq 1\,, \\
\,0 &,~ \text{otherwise}\,,
\end{cases}$$ and $f_{\infty}(x)=e^{-{\pi}\,x^2}$; then the integral $\zeta(f,|\cdot|_{{\mathbb{A}}}^s)$ actually recovers Riemann’s integral. This can be seen as follows: first we may “fold” the integral to one over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}^*\backslash {{\mathbb{A}}}^*$: $$\label{tatefold}
\int_{{{\mathbb{A}}}^*} f(a)\, |a|^s_{{{\mathbb{A}}}}\,d^*a \ \ = \ \
\int_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}^* \backslash {{\mathbb{A}}}^*}|a|_{{\mathbb{A}}}^s
\,{\left(}\sum_{q\in{{\mathbb{Q}}}^*} f(qa) {\right)}\, d^*a \, .$$ The [*strong approximation principle*]{} states that $(0,\infty)\times \widehat{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}^*$ is a fundamental domain for ${{\mathbb{Q}}}^*\backslash {{\mathbb{A}}}^*$, where $ \widehat{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}^* = \prod_{p<\infty}
{{\mathbb{Z}}}_p^*$. It is easy to see that $f(qa)\equiv 0$ on this fundamental domain unless the rational $q$ is actually an integer, for otherwise, the $p$-adic valuation $|qa|_p =|q|_p > 1$ for any prime $p$ in the denominator of $q$. Thus the role of the $f_p$ is to select the integers amongst ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$, and (\[tatefold\]) becomes $$\label{tatefold2}
\int_{(0,\infty)\times \widehat{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}^*}|a|_{{\mathbb{A}}}^s
\,{\left(}\sum_{n\neq 0} f(na) {\right)}\, d^*a \, .$$ Now $f_p((na)_p)\equiv 1$ for all $p<\infty$, and so the integrand is independent of the $\widehat{{{\mathbb{Z}}}}^*$ factor, which has volume 1 under the Haar measure. Now (\[tatefold2\]) amounts to $$\label{tatefold3}
\int_0^\infty |a_\infty|^{\,s} \,\sum_{n\neq 0}
e^{-\pi \, n^2\,a_\infty^2} \,\ d^*a_{\infty} \, ,$$ i.e. (\[riemannsintegral\]). Thus Tate’s and Riemann’s integrals match for $\zeta(s)$.
At the same time, the global integral on the lefthand side of (\[tatefold\]) factors as a product $$\label{tateprod}
\prod_{p\le \infty} \, \int_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_p^*} f_p(x)\ |x|_p^s\ d^*x_p \ \
=
\ \ \left(\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}} e^{-{\pi}|x|^2} |x|^{s} \ {\frac}{dx}{|x|}
\right) \, \cdot \, \prod_{p}\, \int_{{{\mathbb{Z}}}_p}
{ |x_p|_p^{s}} \ d^*x_p \, .$$ The integral over ${{\mathbb{R}}}$ gives $\pi^{-s/2}{\Gamma}({\frac}s2)$, and the $p$-adic integral may actually be broken up over the “shells” $p^k\,{{\mathbb{Z}}}_p^*=\{|x_p|_p = p^{-k}\}$, $k\ge 0$, to give the geometric series $\sum_{k=0}^\infty p^{-k\,s} = (1-p^{-s}){^{-1}}$. This gives the Euler product formula for $\zeta(s)$, along with its natural companion factor $\pi^{-s/2}{\Gamma}({\frac}s2)$ for $p=\infty$ – in other words, the completed Riemann $\xi$-function.
We should note that the role of the adelic absolute value (and in particular that its value is 1 on ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$) corresponds to the change of variables $x\mapsto x/n$ in the classical picture. In general for a global field $F$, we may write the quasi-character $c(a)$ in the form $c_0(a)|a|^s$, where $c_0: {{{\mathbb{A}}}^*} \rightarrow {{\mathbb{C}}}^*$ is a character of modulus 1. Then $c_0(a)$ corresponds to $\chi$, a “Hecke character” for $F$ ([Section \[Hecke I\]]{}), and $\zeta(f,c)$ differs from
$$L_F(s,\chi) \ \ = \ \ \prod_{{\mathfrak P}}
{\left(}1\,-\,{\chi}({\mathfrak P})\,(N{\mathfrak P})^{-s}{\right)}^{-1}$$ (where ${\mathfrak P}$ now runs over [*all*]{} prime ideals of $F$) by only a finite number of factors.
In this idelic setting, Tate uses a Fourier theory and Poisson summation formula on the ring of adeles ${{\mathbb{A}}}$, and proves the elegant functional equation $$\label{tatelegent}
\zeta(\, f\, , \, c\, ) \ \ = \ \ \zeta( \, \widehat{f} \, ,\, \widehat{c}\,)\, ,$$ where $\widehat{f}$ is the “adelic Fourier transform” of $f$ and ${\widehat{c}}(a)={\overline{c_0(a)}}{|a|^{1-s}}$. The functional equation for $L_F(s,\chi)$ may be extracted from this. To illustrate with our example of the Riemann $\zeta$-function, recall that we had taken $c_0$ to be identically equal to 1, and in fact our $f=\widehat{f}$, so that $$\zeta(f_0,|\cdot|^s) \ \ = \ \
\pi^{-\frac{s}{2}}\, \Gamma({\textstyle \frac{s}{2}})\,
\prod_{p}\,(1-p^{-s}){^{-1}}\ \ = \ \ \xi(s)\, .$$ The functional equation [**FE**]{} is then immediate from (\[tatelegent\]). Tate’s method of course also yields the [**E**]{}ntirety and [**B**]{}oundedness in [**V**]{}ertical strips.
Automorphic forms on $GL(n)$ {#glnautsec}
============================
Thus far we have seen two types of $L$-functions: The Riemann $\zeta$-function and its cousins that are treated in the Riemann-Hecke-Tate theory ([Section \[Rie\]]{}), and the $L$-functions of modular forms in Hecke’s (other) theory ([Section \[Hecke II\]]{}). We now understand these $L$-functions to be part of a family, the $L$-functions of automorphic forms on $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}})$. The integrals in Tate’s thesis are over ${{\mathbb{A}}}^*$, which is just $GL(1,{{\mathbb{A}}})$, and the quasi-characters are viewed as automorphic forms on $GL(1,{{\mathbb{Q}}})\backslash GL(1,{{\mathbb{A}}})$. We shall now explain how to view the modular forms we saw in [Section \[Hecke II\]]{} as automorphic forms on $GL(2,{{\mathbb{Q}}})\backslash GL(2,{{\mathbb{A}}})$. This leads to two major generalizations: first to a general number field (or indeed even a global field) $F$ instead of ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$, and second to an arbitrary reductive algebraic group $G$ instead of $GL(1)$ or $GL(2)$.
To recap from [Section \[Hecke II\]]{}, a holomorphic modular form of weight $k$ for ${\Gamma}=SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})\subset SL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ is a holomorphic function on the complex upper half plane ${{\mathbb{H}}}$ such that
- $f{\left(}{\frac}{az+b}{cz+d}{\right)}\ = \ (cz+d)^k\,f(z)$ for all ${\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{a} & {b} \\ {c} & {d} \end{array} \right)} \in {\Gamma}$
- $f(z)$ has a Fourier expansion $f(z)=\sum_{n\ge
0} c_n\,e^{2\, \pi \, i \, n \, z}$. In addition $f$ is a cusp form if $c_{\,0}=0$.
The above definition of course extends to more general groups ${\Gamma}$, such as the congruence subgroups in (\[gammandef\]). Before considering $f$ as a function on $GL(2,{{\mathbb{A}}})$, we must first explain how to consider $f$ as a function on $GL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$, or even $SL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$. Indeed, there is a correspondence between holomorphic modular forms $f$ of weight $k$ for ${\Gamma}\backslash {{\mathbb{H}}}$, and certain functions $F$ on ${\Gamma}\backslash SL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ defined via the following relations: $$\label{htosl2relation}
\gathered
F{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{a} & {b} \\ {c} & {d} \end{array} \right)} \ \ = \ \
f{\left(}{\frac}{a\,i+b}{c\,i+d}{\right)}(c\,i+d)^{-k}\, ,
\\
f(x+i\,y) \ \ = \ \ y^{-k/2}\,F{\left(}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{1} & {x} \\ {} & {1} \end{array} \right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\sqrt{y}} & {} \\ {} & {1/\sqrt{y}} \end{array} \right)}{\right)}\, .
\endgathered$$ (We leave matrix entries blank if they are zero.) The key reason for this correspondence is that ${{\mathbb{H}}}$ is isomorphic to the quotient $SL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})/SO(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$. For more details and a precise characterization of $F$, see [@Bump] or [@gelborange].
Aside from the holomorphic modular forms, the most significant automorphic forms on ${{\mathbb{H}}}$ are the non-holomorphic Maass forms: non-constant, $L^2$ Laplace eigenfunctions on the quotient ${\Gamma}\backslash {{\mathbb{H}}}$. We described these in [Section \[maass sec\]]{}. Because of the identification ${{\mathbb{H}}}$ $\cong$ $SL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})/SO(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$, Maass forms can directly be viewed as functions on ${\Gamma}\backslash
SL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$.
Now that we view the holomorphic and Maass modular forms on the group $G=SL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$, wide generalizations are possible, and techniques from representation theory may be applied. The group $G$ acts on $L^2({\Gamma}\backslash G)$ by the right regular representation, which is translation on the right: $$\label{rrr}
[\rho(g)f](h) \ \ = \ \ f(hg) \, .$$ The study of automorphic forms on ${\Gamma}\backslash G$ now becomes understanding the decomposition of the very large (and highly reducible) representation $\rho$ into irreducible components. This is the starting point for the notion of “automorphic representation," but for that we first need to delve more into the arithmetic nature of ${\Gamma}$, and consider $G$ adelically.
In addition to the action on the right, left-translation by rational matrices is very important in many constructions in automorphic forms. We have, therefore, also the left regular representation: $$\label{lrr}
[{\lambda}(g)f](h) \ \ = \ \ f(g{^{-1}}h)\, ,$$ which maps $L^2({\Gamma}\backslash G)$ to $L^2 (g{\Gamma}g{^{-1}}\backslash G)$. In general this moves automorphic forms for one congruence subgroup ${\Gamma}$ to those on a conjugate, which may be wildly different. For this reason it is natural to act on the left only by rational matrices $g$, so that the conjugate of ${\Gamma}$ is still closely related to a congruence subgroup.[^7] In fact, many fundamental constructions (such as Hecke operators) require action by rational matrices $g$ which lie in $GL(2,{{\mathbb{Q}}})$, but not $SL(2,{{\mathbb{Q}}})$. It is for this reason that we will consider adelic automorphic forms on $GL(2,{{\mathbb{A}}})$, not $SL(2,{{\mathbb{A}}})$, though a theory exists for that group as well. Because $GL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ is one dimension larger than $SL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$, we technically need to consider $L^2_\omega(Z {\Gamma}\backslash GL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}}))$ where $Z$ is the center of $GL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ (=scalar multiples of the identity matrix). Here $\omega$ is a central character (that is, a character of $Z$) and this $L^2$ space consists of functions on $G$ which transform by $Z$ according to $\omega$, but which are otherwise square-integrable on the quotient $Z {\Gamma}\backslash GL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$. As a minor technicality, we will now consider ${\Gamma}=GL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ instead of $SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ to make the picture more uniform. The setup of this paragraph works equally well for ${\Gamma}=GL(n,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ and $G=GL(n,{{\mathbb{R}}})$.
Finally we now come to the adeles. The adelic group $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}})$ is the product of $GL(n,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ with $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}}_f)$, the direct product of all $GL(n,{{\mathbb{Q}}}_p)$ with respect to their integral subgroups $GL(n,{{\mathbb{Z}}}_p)$. We have already seen – at least in the case $n=2$ – that the first factor, $GL(n,{{\mathbb{R}}})$, acts on automorphic functions on $Z{\Gamma}\backslash G$ on the right, and that rational matrices act on the left. Just as with ${{\mathbb{A}}}^*=GL(1,{{\mathbb{A}}})$ in Tate’s thesis, there is a version of the strong approximation theorem for $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}})$. It states that $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}}) = GL(n,{{\mathbb{Q}}}) GL(n,{{\mathbb{R}}}) K_f$, where $K_f = \prod_{p<\infty} GL(n,{{\mathbb{Z}}}_p)$. We now define an action of $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}}_f)$ on the left that extends the action of $GL(n,{{\mathbb{Q}}})$: $$\label{adelicleftaf}
[{\lambda}(g_f)F](h) \ \ = \ \
[{\lambda}({\gamma})F](h) \ \ = \ \ F({\gamma}{^{-1}}h) \, ,$$ where ${\gamma}\in GL(n,{{\mathbb{Q}}})$ is the factor guaranteed by the strong approximation theorem in writing $g_f \in GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}}_f)\subset
GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}})$ as a product. This definition is well defined, because any two close “approximants” ${\gamma}$ must be related by a multiple of an integral matrix, and $F$ is presumed to be invariant under $GL(n,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. Roughly speaking, the topology on the adeles is given in terms of a basis of products of $GL(n,{{\mathbb{Z}}}_p)$ and finite index subgroups, which are related to congruence groups. Thus the adelic topology aligns with the invariance of $F$ under matrices in a congruence subgroup.
Unifying these actions leads to the notion of adelic representations and adelized automorphic forms, where $F$, instead of being a function on $GL(n,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ alone, is padded with extra variables. Namely, we have an adelic function $$\label{paddedF}
F_{{\mathbb{A}}}(g_\infty\,;\, g_2\, ,g_3\, ,g_5\,\ldots)$$ such that almost all $g_p$ lie in $GL(n,{{\mathbb{Z}}}_p)$, and $$\label{FAdef}
F_{{\mathbb{A}}}(g_\infty \, ; \, g_2\, ,g_3\, ,g_5\,\ldots) \ \ = \ \
[{\lambda}(g_2)\,{\lambda}(g_3)\,{\lambda}(g_5)\,\cdots{\lambda}(g_p)\,\cdots
F](g_\infty) \, ,$$ where the number of ${\lambda}(g_p)$’s that act in an nontrivial way is finite, and their actions for various $p$’s commute with each other. The adelized function $F$ has the properties $$\label{Fprops}
F(g_\infty) \ \ = \ \ F_{{\mathbb{A}}}(g_\infty \, ; \, 1,1,1,\cdots)
\ \ \ \ \ \
\text{and}\ \ \ \ F_{{\mathbb{A}}}({\gamma}\,g) \ \ = \ \ F_{{\mathbb{A}}}(g) \, ,$$ for any diagonally embedded rational matrix ${\gamma}$. The center $Z$ and central character $\omega$ have analogous adelic versions, which are related to automorphic forms on $GL(1,{{\mathbb{A}}})$, in fact. The right regular representation now acts on $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}})$ by the formula (\[rrr\]), but note that this right action of the factor $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}}_f)$ is really a left action on $GL(n,{{\mathbb{R}}})$.
This leads us to our final version of automorphic representation: an irreducible subrepresentation of the action of the right regular representation $\rho$ on $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}})$ on $L^2_\omega(Z_{{\mathbb{A}}}\,
GL(n,{{\mathbb{Q}}})\backslash GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}}))$. The constituents of these subspaces are generalizations of the automorphic forms we encountered previously. All have classical counterparts as functions with transformation properties for various congruence subgroups ${\Gamma}$ of $GL(n,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$, but the adelic version provides a uniform framework. The role of ${\Gamma}$ itself is replaced by right-invariance under finite index subgroups $K_f'$ of $K_f =
\prod_{p<\infty} GL(n,{{\mathbb{Z}}}_p)$; here ${\Gamma}= \{{\gamma}_{{\mathbb{R}}}\mid {\gamma}\in
GL(n,{{\mathbb{Q}}}),{\gamma}_f \in K_f'\}$, where ${\gamma}_{{\mathbb{R}}}$ and ${\gamma}_f$ denote the projections of ${\gamma}\in GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}})$ to the factors $GL(n,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ and $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}}_f)$, respectively. We note that forms for various conjugate subgroups all fall into the same irreducible adelic automorphic representation, as do “newforms.” More importantly, the theory of Hecke operators ([Section \[heckopsec\]]{}) for powers of a prime $p$ (e.g. the $T_{p^k}$ from [Section \[heckopsec\]]{}) can be recast as the study of the action of $GL(n,{{\mathbb{Q}}}_p)$, which allows the powerful representation theory of this $p$-adic group to be used. In general, the adelic framework unifies many constructions in automorphic forms, and explains their effectiveness. Better yet, it provides insight for new constructions which would seem very difficult to uncover using only the classical perspective.
Jacquet-Langlands (1970) {#JL}
------------------------
In 1970, a remarkable book was published: [*“Automorphic Forms on $GL(2)$”*]{}, by H. Jacquet and R. Langlands [@JL]. The irreducible unitary representations $\pi$ of $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}})$ discussed above factor into restricted tensor products $\pi \cong \otimes_{p\le \infty}
\pi_p$, where $\pi_p$ is a “local representation” of $GL(n,{{\mathbb{Q}}}_p)$. One can treat the case of a number field, or even an arbitrary global field in a similar way. For $n=2$, Jacquet and Langlands rephrase Hecke’s theory from [Section \[Hecke II\]]{} using adelic machinery, much in the way Tate reworked Riemann and Hecke’s classical arguments. In particular, they attach a global $L$-function ${\Lambda}(s,\pi)$ (a Dirichlet series times a product of gamma factors, such as the $\pi^{-s/2}{\Gamma}(s/2)$ that differentiates $\xi(s)$ from $\zeta(s)$) to each automorphic representation of $GL(2)$. They prove that ${\Lambda}(s,\pi)$ is “nice,” meaning that it satisfies the standard properties of [**E**]{}ntirety, [**B**]{}oundedness in [**V**]{}ertical strips, and [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quation that Hecke’s method yields. Secondly they give a criteria for any “nice” $L$-function of this type to come from an automorphic representation; that is, a converse theorem.
Although the methods of group representations are new, the underlying technique of Jacquet-Langlands is fundamentally Hecke’s method, as we shall briefly describe. However, neither the statement nor proof of their converse theorem is really Weil’s [Theorem \[weilthm\]]{}. For example, let us return to the discussion concluding [Section \[modsec\]]{}. Weil’s proof of his converse theorem demonstrates that only a finite number of Dirichlet characters are required in his twisting hypothesis (ii). In fact, Piatetski-Shapiro [@psbolnoi], carefully examining this point, discovered an important simplifying feature in the early 1970s which has become one of the most important technical devices in today’s applications. He found that Jacquet-Langlands’ proof also requires only a finite number of twists by characters – but a completely disjoint set of characters from the ones Weil needed! For a classical treatment, see [@razar].
Recall how in [Section \[Hecke II\]]{} we considered the $L$-functions of modular forms for $SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. The first example of a modular form whose $L$-function is entire is [*Ramanujan’s ${\Delta}$ form*]{} $$\label{ramformdef}
{\Delta}(z) \ \ = \ \ e^{2\,\pi \,i \, z} \ \prod_{n\ge 1}
\,(1-e^{2\, \pi \,
i \, n \, z})^{\,24}\,,$$ which has weight $k=12$. (See [@Serre] for a beautiful exposition of ${\Delta}$ in the context of Hecke theory.) Expand the product as ${\Delta}(z)=\sum_{n\ge 1}\tau(n)e^{\,2\,\pi\, i \,n\,z}$ and normalize the coefficients by setting $a_n={\frac}{\tau(n)}{n^{11/2}}$; in this normalization, the Ramanujan conjecture (established by Deligne [@Deligne]) can be stated uniformly as $|a_p|\le 2$ for all primes $p$. Ramanujan also conjectured[^8] that the “standard” (i.e. Hecke) $L$-series associated to ${\Delta}$ has an [*Euler product*]{} over primes, much like $\zeta$: $$\label{lsdelta}
L(s,{\Delta}) \ \ = \ \ \sum_{n\ge 1}a_n\,
n^{-s} \ \ = \ \ \prod_{p}\,(1\,-\,a_p\,p^{-s}\,+\,p^{-2s}){^{-1}}.$$ This was proven by Mordell [@mordell], and nowadays we understand the factorization as being equivalent to the assertion that ${\Delta}$ is an eigenfunction of the [*Hecke operators*]{} (\[tndef\]) from [Section \[heckopsec\]]{} – in particular, this is (\[eulerholom\]).
Let us now explain the connection between the arguments of Jacquet-Langlands and of Hecke. Our starting point is the Fourier expansion of a modular or Maass form $\phi(x+iy)$ in the variable $x$, in which it is periodic (with period 1 in the case of $SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$, as we shall now consider). Recall that if $\phi$ is a holomorphic cusp form of weight $k$, $$\label{cnholom}
\phi(z) \ \ = \ \ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \, c_n\,e^{\,2\, \pi \, i \, n
\,z}.$$ Similarly for a Maass form we have the Fourier expansion (\[intmaass\]). Up to constants (and a factor of $y^{k/2}$ in the holomorphic case, like in (\[htosl2relation\])), we may write these expansions as $$\label{firstwhit}
\sum_{n\neq 0} {\frac}{a_n}{|n|^{1/2}} \,W(2\,\pi \, n\, y)\,
e^{2\,\pi\,i\,n\,x} \, ,$$ where as before $a_n={\frac}{c_n}{n^{(k-1)/2}}$ in the holomorphic case, and $$\label{firstwhitdef}
W(y) \ \ = \ \ \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
y^{k/2}\,e^{-y} \, , & \phi \hbox{~holomorphic,} \\
\sqrt{|y|}\,K_\nu(|y|) \, , & \phi \hbox{~a Maass form.} \\
\end{array}\right.$$ In [Section \[glnautsec\]]{} we saw how both holomorphic and Maass forms can be viewed as functions on $GL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$. With this point of view we can write the corresponding function, up to constants, as $$\label{FfromWexpn}
F(g) \ \ = \ \ \sum_{n\neq 0} \,{\frac}{a_n}{|n|^{1/2}}\,W{\left(}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{n} & {} \\ {} & {1} \end{array} \right)} g{\right)}\, ,$$ where $$\label{iwawhit}
W{\left(}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{1} & {x} \\ {} & {1} \end{array} \right)} {\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{y_1} & {} \\ {} & {y_2} \end{array} \right)} k{\right)}\ \ = \ \
e^{2\,\pi\,i\,n\,x}\,W(2\,\pi\,y_1/y_2) \, .$$ (Here the matrix $k$ on the lefthand side is orthogonal; all matrices in $GL(2)$ can be written in that form according to the [*Iwasawa decomposition*]{}.) This $W(g)$ is called a “Whittaker” function in connection with the special functions it is related to. It satisfies a transformation law on the left: $$\label{whitleft}
W{\left(}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{1} & {u} \\ {} & {1} \end{array} \right)} g{\right)}\ \ = \ \ e^{2\,\pi\,i\,u}\,W(g)\, ,$$ and thus can be obtained from the integral $$\label{whitint}
W(g) \ \ = \ \ \int_{0}^1 F{\left(}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{1} & {u} \\ {} & {1} \end{array} \right)} g {\right)}\,
e^{-2\,\pi\,i\,u} \, du\,.$$
The adelic method of Jacquet and Langlands involves incorporating the coefficient $a_n$ into a cognate Whittaker function which generalizes the properties (\[whitleft\]) and (\[whitint\]). Consider now the adelized version $F_{{\mathbb{A}}}$ of $F$ defined in (\[paddedF\]-\[Fprops\]), and define its adelic Whittaker function $$\label{adelwhitdef}
W_{{\mathbb{A}}}(g_{{\mathbb{A}}}) \ \ = \ \ \int_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}\backslash {{\mathbb{A}}}} F_{{\mathbb{A}}}{\left(}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{1} & {u} \\ {} & {1} \end{array} \right)}
g_{{\mathbb{A}}}{\right)}\,\psi(-u)\, du \, ,\ \ \ g_{{\mathbb{A}}}\,\in\,GL(2,{{\mathbb{A}}}) \, ,$$ where $\psi$ is a non-trivial character of ${{\mathbb{A}}}$ that is trivial on the subgroup ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$ (which we recall is diagonally embedded into ${{\mathbb{A}}}$). The measure $du$ is normalized to give ${{\mathbb{Q}}}\backslash {{\mathbb{A}}}$ measure 1. The definition depends on the precise choice of character, but all non-trivial characters can be written as $\psi(qu)$ for some $q\in{{\mathbb{Q}}}^*$, and this $q$ can be absorbed into $g_{{\mathbb{A}}}$ via the matrix ${\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{q} & {} \\ {} & {1} \end{array} \right)}$; changing variables does not affect the measure since the adelic absolute value $|q|_{{\mathbb{A}}}=1$. The result is that $F_{{\mathbb{A}}}$ can be reconstructed from $W_{{\mathbb{A}}}$ via the succinct formula $$\label{FfromW}
F_{{\mathbb{A}}}(g_{{\mathbb{A}}}) \ \ = \ \ \sum_{q\, \in \, {{\mathbb{Q}}}^*} W_{{\mathbb{A}}}{\left(}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{q} & {} \\ {} & {1} \end{array} \right)}
g_{{\mathbb{A}}}{\right)}\, ,$$ much like (\[FfromWexpn\]).
Now we shall make a tacit assumption that our original modular form is a Hecke eigenform (see [Section \[heckopsec\]]{}). Our Whittaker function here, like many adelic functions, can be expressed as a product of [*local*]{} Whittaker functions $W_p$ on $GL(2,{{\mathbb{Q}}}_p)$: $$\label{localwhit}
W_{{\mathbb{A}}}( g_{{\mathbb{A}}}) \ \ = \ \ \prod_{p\le \infty} W_p(g_p)\, ,
\ \ \ g_{{\mathbb{A}}}\, = \, (g_\infty\,;\, g_2\, , g_3\, , g_5\, , g_7\,
\ldots)\,,$$ where each $W_p$ obeys a transformation law similar to (\[whitleft\]). In fact, just as with the Iwasawa decomposition in (\[iwawhit\]), the local Whittaker functions depend only on diagonal matrices, and actually their value there is related to the original Fourier coefficient by $W{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{p^k} & {} \\ {} & {1} \end{array} \right)} = a_{p^k}$. This last fact underlies the connection between (\[firstwhit\]) and (\[FfromW\]): the extra adelic variables encode the value of the Fourier coefficients; these are very often zero, notably when $k<0$ and the subscript is no longer an integer. This is why the sum over ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$, which appears to be much larger, actually corresponds to the sum over ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
Jacquet and Langlands use this theory beautifully to write the global $L$-function as $$\label{jlintegral}
{\Lambda}(s) \ \ = \ \ \int_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}^*\backslash {{\mathbb{A}}}^*} F_{{\mathbb{A}}}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{a} & {} \\ {} & {1} \end{array} \right)} \, |a|_{{\mathbb{A}}}^{s-1/2}
\, d^*a\, .$$ This has a functional equation $s\mapsto 1-s$, owing to the invariance of $W$ under ${\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{} & {-1} \\ {1} & {} \end{array} \right)}$, just as in Hecke’s argument. Now by substituting (\[FfromW\]) and collapsing the common ${{\mathbb{Q}}}^*$ from the quotient and sum together (“unfolding”), the integral $$\label{jlintegral2}
{\Lambda}(s) \ = \ \int_{{{\mathbb{A}}}^*} W_{{\mathbb{A}}}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{a} & {} \\ {} & {1} \end{array} \right)}\, |a|_{{\mathbb{A}}}^{s-1/2}\,
d^*a \ = \ \prod_{p\le \infty} \int_{{{\mathbb{Q}}}_p^*}
W_p{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{a_p} & {} \\ {} & {1} \end{array} \right)} \, |a_p|_p^{s-1/2}\,d^*a_p$$ splits as a product of local integrals. The ones for $p<\infty$ separately give the local factors of an Euler product which represents the Dirichlet series for Hecke’s $L$-function $L(s)$, and the integral for $p=\infty$ gives the corresponding ${\Gamma}$-functions $L(s)$ must be multiplied by in order to have a clean functional equation. This is entirely analogous to the situation in Tate’s thesis after (\[tateprod\]), and the computations are deep down identically those needed for the classical treatment in [Section \[modsec\]]{}. Details can be found in [@JL; @Godemondsnotes; @Bump].
We should emphasize that the method is far more general and has strong advantages in its local precision, in that it gives a very satisfactory treatment of the contribution to the functional equation by each prime. Also the technique works for congruence subgroups, as well as over general global fields. Just as Tate’s thesis understood Riemann’s $\zeta$-function in terms of ${{\mathbb{A}}}^* =
GL(1,{{\mathbb{A}}})$, Jacquet-Langlands subsumed the theory of modular forms and their $L$-functions through $GL(2,{{\mathbb{A}}})$. Subsequently, efforts were underway to provide a similar theory for general groups, most notably $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}})$.
Godement-Jacquet (1972) {#JaGo}
-----------------------
Tate (see [Section \[Tate\]]{}) redid Hecke ([Section \[Hecke I\]]{}) by using adeles, developing a Poisson summation formula, and working with
$${\zeta(f,c)} \ \ = \ \ \int_{{{\mathbb{A}}}^*} \ f(a)\,c(a) \, d{^*}a \, .$$ R. Godement and H. Jacquet [@God-Jac] generalized Tate by working with $GL(n)$ for arbitrary $n$ instead of $GL(1)$. In particular, they proved that the global, completed $L$-functions of automorphic forms on $GL(n)$ satisfy properties [**E, BV**]{} and [**FE**]{} of [Section \[Intro\]]{} (actually their integral representation for $GL(2)$ is completely different than Jacquet-Langlands and Hecke).
We shall not pursue this avenue here, but will briefly describe the $L$-functions of cusp forms on $GL(n)$. Recall how after (\[ramformdef\]) we renormalized the coefficients of Ramanujan’s ${\Delta}$-form by a factor of $n^{(k-1)/2}$. This can be carried out for any holomorphic cusp form $f$ of weight $k$ for $SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$, resulting in an Euler product of the same form as (\[lsdelta\]). Writing $a_p={\alpha}_p+{\alpha}_p{^{-1}}$, the Euler product factors further as $$\label{firstlsfeul}
L(s,f)\ \ = \ \ \prod_{p} \, (1-{\alpha}_p \,p^{-s}){^{-1}}\, (1-{\alpha}_p{^{-1}}p^{-s}){^{-1}}.$$ The preceding expression is called a [*degree two*]{} Euler product because of its two factors, in comparison with the degree one Euler product $\zeta(s)\ = \ \prod_p(1-p^{-s}){^{-1}}$.
The $L$-functions of cusp forms $\phi$ for $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}})$ are Euler products of degree $n$, $$\label{degreen}
L(s,\phi) \ \ = \ \ \prod_{p}\prod_{j=1}^n \,(1 \, - \,
{\alpha}_{p,j}\,p^{-s}){^{-1}}.$$ To form their global, completed $L$-functions, they must be multiplied by a product of $n$ ${\Gamma}$-factors, $$\label{glngam}
L_\infty(s,\phi) \ \ = \ \ \prod_{j=1}^n \, {\Gamma}_{{\mathbb{R}}}(s \,+ \,\mu_j)\,
,$$ where the $\mu_j$ are special complex parameters related to $\pi$ (for example, the $\nu$ from Maass forms in (\[intmaass\])), and ${\Gamma}_{{\mathbb{R}}}(s)=\pi^{-s/2}{\Gamma}(s/2)$ is again the factor which distinguishes $\xi(s)$ from $\zeta(s)$. The completed $L$-function, $$\label{completedgln}
{\Lambda}(s,\phi) \ \ = \ \ L_\infty (s,\phi) \ L(s,\phi)$$ is [**E**]{}ntire (unless $n=1$ and ${\Lambda}(s,\phi)=\zeta(s)$), [**B**]{}ounded in [**V**]{}ertical strips, and satisfies the [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quation $$\label{completedglnfe}
{\Lambda}(s,\phi) \ \ = \ \ w \ Q^{1/2\, - \, s} \
{\Lambda}(1-s,\tilde{\phi})\, .$$ Here $w$ is a complex number of modulus one, the “conductor” $Q$ is a positive integer (related to the congruence subgroup $\phi$ comes from), and $\tilde{\phi}$ is the “contragredient” automorphic form to $\phi$ (coming from the automorphic representation dual to $\phi$’s). The notion of contragredient does not really rear its head in the previous topics we have covered, but is a feature of the more general functional equations.
Jacquet-Piatetski-Shapiro-Shalika (1979) {#jpss}
----------------------------------------
Another proof of the analytic properties of the standard $L$-functions of cusp forms on $GL(n)$ is a generalization of Hecke’s method ([Section \[Hecke II\]]{}). In the 1970s Piatetski-Shapiro and Shalika [@PS; @Shal] independently developed their “Whittaker” expansions on $GL(n)$ in order to generalize the expansion (\[FfromW\]) of Jacquet-Langlands. The Whittaker function on $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}})$ is given by the integral $$\label{glnwhit}
W_{{\mathbb{A}}}{\left(}g_{{\mathbb{A}}}{\right)}\ \ = \ \ \int_{N({{\mathbb{Q}}})\backslash N({{\mathbb{A}}})} F_{{\mathbb{A}}}{\left(}{\left(}\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & u_{12} & u_{13} & \cdots & u_{1n} \\
{} & 1 & u_{23} & \cdots & u_{2n} \\
{}& & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
{} & & & 1 & u_{\,n-1\,n} \\
{} & {} & {} & {} & 1
\end{smallmatrix}{\right)}g_{{\mathbb{A}}}{\right)}\,\overline{\psi(u_{12} + u_{23}
+ u_{\, n-1\,n})}\,du \, ,$$ with the integration over the subgroup $N$ of unit upper triangular matrices. The expansion of $F_{{\mathbb{A}}}$ in terms of $W_{{\mathbb{A}}}$ is given by $$\label{glnFfromW}
F_{{\mathbb{A}}}(g_{{\mathbb{A}}}) \ \ = \ \ \sum_{{\gamma}\in N({{\mathbb{Q}}})\backslash P({{\mathbb{Q}}})}
W_{{\mathbb{A}}}({\gamma}\, g),$$ where $P$ is the subgroup of $G$ consisting of matrices whose bottom row is $(0 \ 0 \ \cdots \ 0 \ 1)$. This also has an explicit, classical version (“neoclassical,” in the terminology of Jacquet), which can be found in [@Bumpblue; @jacquetindia] – both of which are excellent references for this section.
In a series of papers, Jacquet, Piatetski-Shapiro, and Shalika used these expansions to generalize Hecke’s construction to $L$-functions of automorphic forms on $GL(n)$ (including properties [**E, BV**]{}, and [**FE**]{}), and prove a converse theorem for $GL(3)$ (see [@Bump-GL3; @Bumpblue; @jacquetindia; @JPSS; @JPSSrs], and [@ms-voronoi; @ms-expos] for a different treatment). This is a big advantage over the method of Godement-Jacquet, whose integral is over the large group $GL(n)$. The integrals of Jacquet, Piatetski-Shapiro, and Shalika instead involve integration over one dimensional subgroups, matching the one complex variable of the $L$-functions $L(s)$. In later papers of Cogdell and Piatetski-Shapiro, a powerful converse theorem has been established for $GL(n)$ (see [@C-PS] and [Section \[la\]]{}). These techniques lie close to the heart of the “Rankin-Selberg” method, which uses integral representations to generate a wide variety of the Langlands $L$-functions we will come to in Sections \[LaSh\] and \[la\] (see [@Bumpblue] for a thorough, though slightly out of date, survey). While the statement of the converse theorem is quite technical, it is similar in form to Weil’s [Theorem \[weilthm\]]{}, in that it involves the assumptions of [**E**]{}ntirety, [**B**]{}oundedness in [**V**]{}ertical strips, and [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quation; as in the above proof of Hecke’s theorem [Theorem \[heckecon\]]{}, these are used to shift a contour integral which reconstructs an automorphic form using Mellin inversion. However, an important difference is that their converse theorem typically involves twisting by automorphic forms on $GL(m)$, not merely Dirichlet characters (which, we have seen, correspond to automorphic forms on $GL(1)$). This is an important topic in [Section \[la\]]{}, where we state a typical version in [Theorem \[ncrossn-2\]]{}; a general account can be found in [@Cogdell].
Langlands-Shahidi (1967-) {#LaSh}
=========================
This section is meant for readers having some familiarity with Lie groups, but it can be skipped without loss of continuity. References include [@ShahKore; @Gel-Sha; @book; @HC; @Borel; @Moe-Wal; @BernsteinPCMI; @ShahidiPCMI]. Our purpose here is to describe the general method of obtaining analytic properties of $L$-functions from Eisenstein series, generalizing Selberg’s method for $\zeta(s)$ in [Section \[Sel\]]{}. Many of the applications in [Section \[la\]]{} are based upon properties yielded by the Langlands-Shahidi method.
The theory of Eisenstein series was widened by Langlands to more general Lie groups in [@La1; @La2]; in particular Langlands proved the analytic continuation and functional equations that were useful in Selberg’s proof of the analytic properties of $\zeta(s)$. In his Yale monograph [@Yale], Langlands considered the constant terms of the completely general Eisenstein series. This time, a wide variety of (generalized) $L$-functions appeared; his analysis gives their meromorphic continuation. The calculations involved are quite complicated and are performed adelically; they led Langlands to define the $L$-group and ultimately to the formulation of his functoriality conjectures.
Recall the example of $GL(2)$ from [Section \[Sel\]]{} (which we will reconsider through group representations and adeles in [Section \[lashgl2ex\]]{}). There, analysis of the constant term and first Fourier coefficient already sufficed for the analytic continuation and functional equation of $\zeta(s)$ via Selberg’s method. Langlands proposed studying the non-trivial Fourier coefficients in general, and Shahidi has now worked that theory out ([@shaduke; @MR89h:11021; @shannals; @shahidi-ajm; @ShahST; @ShahKore; @ShahidiPCMI; @shahidi-icm]) along with Kim and others. In general it has been a difficult challenge to prove the $L$-functions arising in the constant terms and Fourier coefficients are entire. The analytic continuation of Eisenstein series typically gives the meromorphic continuation to ${{\mathbb{C}}}$, except for a finite number of poles on the real axis between $0$ and $1$; these come from points where the Eisenstein series themselves are not known to be holomorphic. A recent breakthrough came with a clever observation of H. Kim: the residues of the Eisenstein series at these potential singularities are $L^2$, non-cuspidal automorphic forms, and – as in [Section \[glnautsec\]]{} – give rise to unitary representations that can be explicitly described by the Eisenstein series they came from. Kim remarked that results about the classification of irreducible unitary representations show that many of these potential representations do not exist, thus allowing one to conclude the holomorphy of the Eisenstein series at these points in question! When combined with [@shaduke; @shannals], this has recently led to new examples of entire $L$-functions (more on this in [Section \[la\]]{}).
An Outline of the Method
------------------------
The following is a brief sketch of the main points of the method; a fuller introduction with more definitions and detailed examples can be found in [@ShahKore]. Detailed examples of constant term calculations can be found in many places, e.g. [@Gel-Shabook; @Yale; @Blue; @mil]. Though it is possible to describe the method without adeles (as was done in [Section \[Sel\]]{}), their use is key in higher rank for factoring infinite sums and product expansions into $L$-functions. Because the Langlands-Shahidi method utilizes various algebraic groups, we will have to assume some familiarity with the basic concepts. For this reason we include an example of the $GL(2)$ case in [Section \[lashgl2ex\]]{}.
Let $F$ be a global field, ${{\mathbb{A}}}={{\mathbb{A}}}_F$ its ring of adeles, and $G$ a split algebraic group over $F$. Much carries over to quasi-split case as well, and we will highlight the technical changes needed for this at the end. Fix a Borel (= a maximal connected solvable) subgroup $B\subset G$, and a standard maximal parabolic $P\supset
B$ defined over $F$.[^9] Decompose $B=TU,$ where $T$ is a maximal torus. The parabolic can be also decomposed as $P=MN$, where the unipotent radical $N\subset U$, and $M$ is the unique Levi component containing $T$. Denote by $^LG,^LM,^LN,$ etc. the Langlands dual $L$-groups (see [@ShahKore] for definitions).
One of the key aspects of this method is that it uses many possibilities of parabolics of different groups $G$, especially exceptional groups. This is simultaneously a strength (in that there is a wide range of exotic possibilities) and a limitation (in that there are only finitely many exceptional groups).
### Cuspidal Eisenstein Series
Recall that an automorphic form in $L^2(\Gamma\backslash G)$ is associated to a (unitary) automorphic representation of $G$. Let $\pi=\otimes_v\pi_v$ be a cuspidal automorphic representation of $M({{\mathbb{A}}})$; we may assume that almost all components $\pi_v$ are spherical unitary representations (meaning that they have a vector fixed by $G(O_v)$, where $O_v$ is the ring of integers of the local field $F_v$). For these places $v$ the equivalence class of the unitary representation $\pi_v$ is determined by a semisimple conjugacy class $t_v \in \, ^LG$, the $L$-group. This conjugacy class is used to define the $L$-functions below in (\[lfuncdef\]). The finite number of exceptional places are where $\pi$ [*ramifies*]{}.
A maximal parabolic subgroup $P$ has a modulus character ${\delta}_P$, which is the ratio of the Haar measures on $M\cdot N$ and $N\cdot
M$. It is related to the simple root of $G$ which does not identically vanish on $P$. For any automorphic form $\phi$ in the representation space of $\pi$, we can define the Eisenstein series
$$\label{eisdef}
E(s,g,\phi) \ \ = \ \ \sum_{{\gamma}\in P(F)\backslash G(F)}
\phi({\gamma}g)\,{\delta}_P({\gamma}g)^s$$
and their constant terms $$\label{constdef}
c(s,g,
\phi) \ \ = \ \ \int_{N'(F)\backslash N'({{\mathbb{A}}})} E(s,ng,\phi)\, dn
\, ,$$ where $N'$ is the unipotent radical of the [*opposite*]{} parabolic $P'$ to $P$ (it is related by the longest element in the Weyl group). One can view the constant term as an automorphic form on $M$, and we will shortly relate it to $\phi$ and $\pi$. The measure $dn$ is normalized to give the quotient $N'(F)\backslash
N'({{\mathbb{A}}})$ volume 1. The notion of constant term applies to any parabolic, but $P'$ is the most useful one for our purposes.
### Langlands $L$-functions {#rhoborn}
If $\rho$ is a finite-dimensional complex representation of $^LM$, and $S$ is a finite set including the archimedean and ramified places of $F$ and $\pi$, then the partial Langlands $L$-function is
$$\label{lfuncdef}
L_S(s,\pi,\rho) \ \ = \ \ \prod_{v \notin S} \,
\det(I\, - \, \rho(t_v)\,q_v^{-s}){^{-1}}\, .$$
Here $q_v$ is the cardinality of the residue field of $F_v$, a prime power. The full, [*completed*]{}, $L$-function involves extra factors for the places in $S$, whose definition is technical and in general difficult. This is connected to the local Langlands correspondence, proven recently by Harris and Taylor for $GL(n)$ and by Jiang and Soudry for $SO(2n+1)$ (see [@harris-taylor; @MR1947454; @jiang-soudry; @langlandsreal; @harris-icm; @MR2002f:11178; @MR2001i:11136; @MR2001e:11052]). When $\rho$ is the standard representation of $^LGL(n)=GL(n)$ and $F={{\mathbb{Q}}}$, the Euler factors in (\[lfuncdef\]) agree with those in (\[degreen\]); in general the degree of $L_S(s,\pi,\rho)$ equals the dimension of $\rho$.
### The Constant Term Formula
The constant term formula involves the sum of two terms. The first, which only occurs when the parabolic $P$ is its own opposite $P'$, is $\phi(g){\delta}_P(g)^s$ – simply the term in (\[eisdef\]) for ${\gamma}= $ the identity matrix. Langlands showed that the map from $\phi$ to the second term is described by an operator $$\label{consttermformula}
M(s,\pi) \ \ = \ \ {\left(}\prod_{j=1}^m {\frac}{L(a_j\, s\, , \, \tilde{\pi}
\, , \, r_j)}{L(1\, + \, a_j \, s \, , \, \tilde{\pi} \, , \,
r_j)}{\right)}\otimes_{v\in S} A(s,\pi_v) \, ,$$ where the $A(s,\pi_v)$ are a finite collection of operators, $r$ the adjoint action of $^LM$ on the lie algebra of $^LN$, $r_1,\ldots,r_m$ the irreducible representations it decomposes into, and $a_j$ integers which are multiples of each other (coming from roots related to the $r_j$). The variety of decompositions of $r$ is what gives this method much of its power for treating complicated $L$-functions. See [@ShahKore] for a fuller discussion, along with an example for the Lie group $G_2$ and the symmetric cube $L$-function. Tables listing Lie groups and the representations $r_j$ occurring for them can be found in [@Yale] and [@MR89h:11021], for example.
### The Non-Constant Term: Local Coefficients
We must now make a further restriction on the choice of $\pi$ involved, namely that it be [*generic*]{}, i.e. have a Whittaker model. This means that if $\psi$ is a generic unitary character of $U(F)\backslash U({{\mathbb{A}}})$, we need to require
$$W(g,\psi) \ \ = \ \ \int_{U_M(F)\backslash U_M({{\mathbb{A}}})}
\phi(ng)\ \overline{\psi(n)} \ dn \ \ \neq \ \ 0 \ , \ \ \ \
U_M \ = \ U \cap M$$ for some $\phi$ and $g$ (we have already seen this notion in (\[adelwhitdef\]) and (\[glnwhit\])).
Shahidi’s formula uses the Casselman-Shalika formula for Whittaker functions (see [@cass-shal; @shintani]) to express the following non-constant term at the identity $g=e$ as
$$\label{nonconstform}
\int_{N'(F)\backslash N'({{\mathbb{A}}})}E(s,ne,\phi)\, \overline{\psi(n)}\,dn \ \ =
\ \
\prod_{j=1}^m{\frac}{1}{L(1\,+\,a_j\,s\, ,\, \tilde{\pi}\, , \, r_j)}
\,
\cdot \, \prod_{v\in
S}W_v(e) \, ,$$
for a certain choice of $\phi$. Applying the functional equation of the Eisenstein series (which has the constant-term ratio involved), one gets the “crude” functional equation for the product of $m$ $L$-functions
$$\label{bigprod}
\prod_{j=1}^m L_S(a_j \,
s \, , \, \tilde{\pi} \, ,\, r_j) \ \ = \ \
\prod_{j=1}^mL_S(1\,-\,a_j\, s\, ,\, \pi\, ,\, r_j)
\, \cdot \, \prod_{v\in S}{\left(}\mbox{local
factors}{\right)}\,.$$
Shahidi’s papers [@shaduke] and [@shannals] match all the local factors above to the desired $L$-functions (cf. the remark after (\[lfuncdef\])). This gives the full functional equation for these $m$ $L$-functions, but only when multiplied together. His 1990 paper [@shannals] uses an induction argument to isolate the functional equation of each of the above $m$ factors separately.
### Analytic Properties and the Quasi-Split Case
It still remains to prove that the $L$-functions are entire, except perhaps at $s=0$ and 1 (where the order of the poles is understood, like for $\xi(s)$). The theory of Eisenstein series provides this full analyticity for the $L$-functions arising in the constant term unless $\pi$ satisfies a self-duality condition; even in this case, it can be shown that the $L$-functions have only a finite number of poles, all lying on the real axis between $0$ and 1. Kim’s observation of using the unitary dual has worked in many cases to eliminate this possibility. It is also always possible to remove the potential poles by twisting by a highly-ramified $GL(1)$ character of ${{\mathbb{A}}}_F$; this has been crucial for applications to functoriality through the converse theorem [@C-PS; @MR95m:22009; @MR97d:22019], which we come to in [Section \[la\]]{}.
The main difference in the quasi-split case is that the action of the Galois group $G_F$ is no longer trivial. The $L$-groups are potentially disconnected, inasmuch as they are semi-direct products of a connected component with $G_F$. Also, the representation $\rho$ used to define the Langlands $L$-functions in (\[lfuncdef\]) may also depend on the place $v$.
$GL(2)$ Example {#lashgl2ex}
---------------
Here we reconsider the $\zeta$-function example from [Section \[Sel\]]{}, but in the framework of the Langlands-Shahidi method. In this setting, the Eisenstein series on $G=GL(2)$ is defined by $$\label{eisgldef}
E(s,g,f) \ \ = \ \ \sum_{\gamma \in {B({{{\mathbb{Q}}}}) \backslash G({{{\mathbb{Q}}}})}}\
f({\gamma}g) \, ,$$ where $M=P=P'=B= \left\{ \left(\begin{array}{cc} a& x\\
{}& b\end{array} \right) \right\} \subset G$ is the Borel subgroup/minimal parabolic ($GL(2)$ is too small a group to afford other interesting choices). The Eisenstein series formed from $\pi$ are related to the representations [*induced*]{} from $\pi$, from $M({{\mathbb{A}}})$ to $G({{\mathbb{A}}})$. In (\[eisgldef\]) we may absorb the factor ${\delta}_P^{\ s}$ into $f$ by taking a vector in the [*induced*]{} representation $I(s)=Ind_{B({{{\mathbb{A}}}})}^{G({{\mathbb{A}}})} \ |a|^s $, which roughly speaking is the space of functions $$\left\{ f:G({{\mathbb{A}}}) \rightarrow {{\mathbb{C}}}\, \left| \, f{\left(}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{a} & {x} \\ {} & {a{^{-1}}} \end{array} \right)}
g{\right)}=|a|^{s+1}f(g) \right. \right\}.$$ The Eisenstein series (\[eisgldef\]) converges for ${\mbox{Re~}}\!\!(s)$ sufficiently large. In fact, we may choose our $f\in I(s)$ so that $E(s,g,f)$ reduces to just the classical Eisenstein series $E(z,{\frac}{1+s}{2})$ considered in [Section \[Sel\]]{}. To do this, we take $f$ to be identically 1 on $\widehat{K}=O(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})\times
\prod_{p<\infty} GL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}}_p)$, and use the fact $B({{\mathbb{Q}}})\backslash
G({{\mathbb{Q}}}) \simeq B({{\mathbb{Z}}}) \backslash G({{\mathbb{Z}}})$[^10]; this, in view of the Iwasawa decomposition $G=B\widehat{K}$, is the simplest choice. It corresponds to (\[eisgldef\]), taking $\pi$ to be the trivial representation of $M({{\mathbb{A}}})$. In general, Eisenstein series are always induced from automorphic forms on smaller groups, which in the example here is just the constant function on the factors $M({{\mathbb{A}}})=GL(1,{{\mathbb{A}}})\times
GL(1,{{\mathbb{A}}})\subset B$.
To compute the constant term, we appeal to the Bruhat decomposition $$\label{bru}
\gathered
G \ \ = \ \ B \ \sqcup \ BwB \ \ = \ \ B
\ \sqcup\ B wN\, , \\ w={\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{} & {-1} \\ {1} & {} \end{array} \right)}\ \ , \ \ \ \ \
N=\left\{{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{1} & {\star} \\ {} & {1} \end{array} \right)} \right\}\subset G
\endgathered$$ which is valid over any field. When applied to ${\gamma}\in B({{\mathbb{Q}}})
\backslash G({{\mathbb{Q}}})$, it allows us to compute the constant term integral over $N$ : $$\label{gl2intoverNbru}
\aligned
c(s,g,f) \ \ = \ \
\int_{N({{\mathbb{Q}}})\backslash N({{\mathbb{A}}})} E(s,ng,f)\, dn \ \ &=&f(g)& \ + \
\sum_{{\gamma}\in N({{\mathbb{Q}}})} \int_{N({{\mathbb{Q}}})\backslash N({{\mathbb{A}}})} f(w\, {\gamma}\, n \,
g) \,dn
\\
&=&f(g)& \ + \ [M(s)f](g) \,,
\endaligned$$ where $M(s)$ is the [*intertwining operator*]{} $$\label{intertwine}
M(s)f(g) \ \ = \ \ \int_{N({{\mathbb{A}}})} \ f(w \, n \, g) \ dn$$ from $I(s)$ to $I(-s)$. If $f$ is chosen to be a product $f(g)=\prod_p f_p(g_p)$, then the integral (\[intertwine\]) factors further to give an Euler product, in analogy to (\[tatefold\]) and (\[tateprod\]). For the details of this example, see Langlands’ article [@Blue]; in general, his constant term method [@Yale] gives similar integrals for constant terms over general groups. In any event, for our example here where $f$ is trivial on $\widehat{K}$ (i.e. so that $E(s,f,g)$ recovers the classical Eisenstein series), $[M(s)f](e)={\frac}{\xi(s)}{\xi(s+1)}$.
To complete our discussion let us again compute the $\psi$-th Fourier coefficient of $E(s,g,f)$, where $\psi$ is a non-trivial additive character of $N({{\mathbb{A}}})$ trivial on $N({{\mathbb{Q}}})$ (or, equivalently, a non-trivial additive character of ${{\mathbb{A}}}$ trivial on ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$). Afterwards we will use the functional equation of $E(s,g,f)$ to get the functional equation of $\zeta(s)$.
We find $$\label{psithcoeffofE}
\aligned
E_{\psi}(s,e,f) \ \ &:= \ \ \int_{N({{{\mathbb{Q}}}}) \backslash N({{\mathbb{A}}})}\
E(s,n,f) \ \overline{{\psi(n)}} \ dn \\
&= \ \ {\frac{c(s)}{\xi(s+1)}}\, ,
\endaligned$$ and $$E_{\psi}( \, -s \, , \, e \, , \, M(s)f \, ) \ \ = \ \
\frac{\xi(s)}{\xi(s+1)} \ \frac{c(-s)}{\xi(1-s)}\, ,$$ where $c(s)=c(-s)$ is non-zero (it is related to the $K$-Bessel function appearing in (\[a1\])). So using the functional equation
$$E(s,\, e,\, f) \ \ = \ \ E(-s,\, e\, , M(s)f)\, ,$$ it follows that $$\xi(\,s\,) \ \ = \ \ \xi(\,1-s\,)\, .$$
Boundedness in Vertical Strips and Non-vanishing {#eisbvsec}
------------------------------------------------
We have just seen how the functional equation and several analytic properties of $L$-functions can be obtained via Langlands’ analytic continuation of Eisenstein series, which itself relies on spectral theory. Through (\[psithcoeffofE\]) and the known holomorphy of $E(s,f,g)$ on the line ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}=0$ (which follows from the general spectral analysis), one also obtains a new proof of the famous result that $\zeta(s)$ never vanishes along the line ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}=1$ (see [@Jacquet-vanishing; @sar-shalfest; @moreno; @shahidi-ajm]). Among other things, this result is the key to the standard proof of the Prime Number Theorem – as was originally outlined by Riemann himself in [@Riem]! In fact, this proof of the non-vanishing of $L$-functions on the line ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}=1$ using Eisenstein series turns out to be the most general method available at present, in some cases working far inside the known range of absolute convergence of certain $L$-functions.
Intriguingly, it is possible to prove [**B**]{}oundedness in [**V**]{}ertical strips using the Langlands-Shahidi method. This is striking, because our other examples (Riemann, Hecke, and Tate, e.g. [Theorem \[zetaebvfe\]]{}) all acquire [**BV**]{} through an integral representation of an $L$-function; here the $L$-function’s analytic properties are obtained very indirectly. Not surprisingly, the argument is more round-about and subtle, but pays off in that it turns out – again – to extend to more general $L$-functions than treated by other methods alone (see [@Gel-Sha; @bdness; @sar-shalfest]). This has been very important for applications to the Langlands functoriality conjectures through the converse theorem (see [Section \[la\]]{} for further discussion).
Recall that our [**BV**]{} assertion is that $s(s-1)\xi(s)$ is bounded for $s$ in any vertical strip. In our situation, the *fact* that $$r(s)\, = \, \frac{\xi(s)}{\xi(s+1)}$$ satisfies the finite order estimate $O(e^{|s|^\rho})$ in ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}
\geq \frac{1}{2}$ is possible to prove using spectral theory. We recall that $\xi(s)$ satisfies that finite order inequality in the region ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}\ge 3/2$; this is because $|\zeta(s)|\le
\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-3/2} =\zeta(3/2)$ is bounded there, and Stirling’s formula (\[bigstir\]) shows that ${\Gamma}(s/2)=O(e^{|s|^{1+{\varepsilon}}})$ there. Thus $\xi(s)=r(s)\xi(s+1)$ obeys the finite order inequality in ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}\ge 1/2$, and the functional equation shows this is true for ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}\le 1/2$ as well – giving a new proof that $\xi(s)$ is of finite order. For $\zeta$ and the general $L$-functions considered in [@Gel-Sha; @bdness], additional Eisenstein series and group representations, along with some results of [@HC] and [@Mu], are required. In particular, more is needed than mere meromorphicity of the Eisenstein series alone. One also needs an estimate on the growth rate of Eisenstein series in vertical strips going beyond the original work of Langlands, which here is not being used as simply a “black box." For a different, though related, method of obtaining [**BV**]{} and the non-vanishing of $\xi(s)$ on the line ${\mbox{Re~}}\!\!(s)=1$ through Eisenstein series, see [@Sarlet].
The Langlands Program (1970-) {#la}
=============================
Many articles have been addressed to the “Langlands program” (e.g. [@arthur; @Gel-langlands; @survey] and the references in the introduction), and it is not our desire to add to these. However, one part of the program is closely connected to our discussion: namely, it “explains” why the analytic continuation and functional equation of the $L$-functions of automorphic forms on $GL(n)$ *probably* suffice to ensure that *any* $L$-series in arithmetic has an analytic continuation and functional equation!
The Converse Theorem of Cogdell-Piatetski-Shapiro (1999) {#cps1999}
--------------------------------------------------------
Let’s see why: many arithmetic objects, such as elliptic curves, have an $L$-series attached to them which are conjectured to be entire, and have functional equations similar to those possessed by our $L$-functions. Some very interesting examples, which we will not touch on here directly, involve the Artin conjecture (which involves $L$-series of Galois representations); see [@MR2001j:11026; @MR98j:11106].
For an elliptic curve $E$ defined over the rational numbers, this $L$-series, called the [*Hasse-Weil*]{} $L$-function $L(s,E)$, is defined by counting points on $E$ over varying finite fields. Here $1+p-a_p$ is the number of points on the reduced curve modulo $p$, and $L(s,E)$ is defined by the Euler product in (\[eulerholom\]) with $k=2$, except for a finite number of exceptional prime factors (see [@Silverman]). The resemblance to the $L$-functions of holomorphic modular forms of weight 2 is the springboard for the celebrated “Modularity Conjecture” of Taniyama, Shimura, and Weil, which was recently proven in [@Wiles], [@Taylor-Wiles], and [@BCDT]. It asserts that $L(s,E)=L(s,f)$, the $L$-function of some holomorphic cusp form $f$ of weight 2 on ${\Gamma}_0(N)$, where $N$ is a subtle invariant (the “conductor”) calculable from the arithmetic of the curve.[^11] Since the $L$-functions of modular forms are known to be entire through Hecke’s theory ([Section \[Hecke II\]]{}), we therefore now know that the Hasse-Weil $L$-functions of rational elliptic curves are entire. Among other things, this gives a definition of $L(s,E)$ at the center of its critical strip, where the Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture asserts deep relations with arithmetic ([@BSD; @gross-zagier; @kolylog]).
One might ask if the modularity of an elliptic curve might be proved using Weil’s Converse [Theorem \[weilthm\]]{}. Unfortunately, this route requires one to know that the Hasse-Weil $L$-functions are entire beforehand, which at present seems far beyond reach. Thus the prospect of proving entirety and applying the Converse Theorem to these arithmetic $L$-functions seems to be begging the question. However, it is an interesting fact the Converse Theorem on $GL(3)$ (proven in 1979 by Jacquet, Piatetski-Shapiro, and Shalika) [@JPSS] [*does*]{} enter into the proof of the Modularity Conjecture, as it had been earlier used to establish a key step: the Langlands-Tunnell Theorem [@LT; @Tun].
Furthermore the Converse Theorem (in the form developed by Piatetski-Shapiro and Cogdell, e.g. [@C-PS], [Theorem \[ncrossn-2\]]{}) has had remarkable success towards the Langlands Program in a different aspect. Roughly speaking, the Langlands conjectures assert correspondences between automorphic forms on different groups. When starting with an automorphic form, it is often possible to prove the [**E**]{}ntirety, [**B**]{}oundedness in [**V**]{}ertical strips, and [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quations of the (twisted) $L$-functions the Converse Theorem requires. This has led to very significant progress, especially on liftings of automorphic forms on $GL(n)$ to $GL(m)$, $n<m$. In particular, the recent breakthroughs of Kim and Shahidi (cf. [@Kim-Sha3; @KS-CR; @Kim-Sha4; @Kim-Sha; @C-K-PS-S] and [Section \[LaSh\]]{}), and also of Lafforgue ([@lafforgue; @edfrenkel; @laumon]), have proven many important new examples of Langlands “Functoriality”, by showing certain $L$-functions are entire and then appealing to the Converse Theorem of Cogdell and Piatetski-Shapiro ([@C-PS]). Unfortunately the precise statements connected to the use of the Converse Theorem are quite technical and complicated, and so we will just make do with a less-technical (but still very useful) version of the Converse Theorem in [Theorem \[ncrossn-2\]]{}. We will then summarize the main applications in [Section \[recent\]]{}. In short the basic idea, which can also been see through the standard functoriality conjectures of Langlands, is the following: any Langlands $L$-function (\[lfuncdef\]) – of any automorphic form, on any group, over any field – should itself be the $L$-function of an automorphic form on $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}})$. So $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}})$ is speculated to the mother of all automorphic forms, and its offspring $L$-functions are already known to have an analytic continuation and functional equation.
Examples of Langlands $L$-functions: Symmetric Powers {#examplesectionoflanglandslfunctions}
-----------------------------------------------------
To get the full statements of the Langlands conjectures, one requires even more than the definitions of the Langlands $L$-functions from (\[lfuncdef\]). For simplicity and the benefit of readers who have skipped [Section \[LaSh\]]{}, we will explain the relevant $L$-functions here in the [*everywhere-unramified*]{} case, which corresponds to cusp forms on $GL(n,{{\mathbb{R}}})$ invariant under $GL(n,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$.
Recall the Euler product for the $L$-function of a modular form $f$ from (\[firstlsfeul\]); this formula is also valid for the Maass forms from [Section \[maass sec\]]{}, of course provided they are eigenforms of all the Hecke operators $T_p$. To better highlight the symmetries involved (as well as to allow for more generality), let us introduce the parameter ${\beta}_p={\alpha}_p{^{-1}}$ and rewrite (\[firstlsfeul\]) as $$\label{secondlsfeul}
L(s,f)\ \ = \ \ \prod_{p} \, (1-{\alpha}_p \,p^{-s}){^{-1}}\, (1-{\beta}_p\,
p^{-s}){^{-1}}.$$ Langlands has defined higher degree Euler products from $L(s,f)$ called the [*symmetric $k$-th power*]{} $L$-functions:
$$\label{symk}
L(s,Sym^k\,f) \ \ =\ \ \prod_p \prod_{j=0}^k (1- \, {\alpha}_p^{\,j}\
{\beta}_p^{\,k-j}\,
p^{-s}){^{-1}}.$$
The definition of the symmetric power $L$-functions is a general example of Langlands’ method of creating new Dirichlet series out of Euler products. The major challenge, as we shall see, is to derive important analytic properties of these Dirichlet series, and thereby put them on the same footing as the other $L$-functions we have come across. His formulation is in terms of finite dimensional representations, which in this case of $GL(2)$ is the $k+1$-dimensional representation on homogeneous polynomials of degree $k$. Other examples give rise to Euler products which are very symmetric, like this one on the righthand side of (\[symk\]). In general, one starts by factoring the $L$-function of an automorphic form on $GL(n)$ as $$\label{lspifact}
L(s,\pi) \ \ = \ \ \prod_{p}\prod_{j=1}^n \,(1 \, - \,
{\alpha}_{p,j}\,p^{-s}){^{-1}}.$$ New Euler products may be taken using symmetric combinations of the ${\alpha}_{p,j}$ above (the individual ${\alpha}_{p,j}$ chiefly have meaning only in the context of their aggregate $\{{\alpha}_{p,j}\}_{1\le
j \le n}$). In addition to the symmetric powers for $GL(2)$, there are symmetric and exterior powers for $GL(n)$: $$\label{symgln}
L(s,\pi,Sym^k) \ \ = \ \ \prod_p \prod_{i_1 \le i_2 \le \cdots \le
i_k} (1 - {\alpha}_{p,i_1}\,{\alpha}_{p,i_2}\cdots {\alpha}_{p,i_k}\,p^{-s}){^{-1}}$$ $$\label{extgln}
L(s,\pi,Ext^k) \ \ = \ \ \prod_p \prod_{i_1 < i_2 < \cdots <
i_k} (1 - {\alpha}_{p,i_1}\,{\alpha}_{p,i_2}\cdots
{\alpha}_{p,i_k}\,p^{-s}){^{-1}}\,.$$ Given another $L$-function on $GL(m)$ $$\label{lspiprime}
L(s,\pi') \ \ = \ \ \prod_p \prod_{k=1}^m\,(1 \, - \,
{\beta}_{p,k}\,p^{-s}){^{-1}}\, ,$$ Langlands forms the “Rankin-Selberg” tensor product $$\label{lspipi'}
L(s,\pi\otimes \pi') \ \ = \ \ \prod_p \prod_{j=1}^n
\prod_{k=1}^m \, (1 \, - \, {\alpha}_{p,j}\,{\beta}_{p,k}\,p^{-s}){^{-1}}\, ,$$ in analogy with the classical constructions [@rankin; @selberg-rs] for $GL(2)$ (see [@Bumpblue]). There is a complementary theory for ${\Gamma}$-factors and completed, global Langlands $L$-functions as well. The general Langlands construction is in terms of finite dimensional representations of $L$-groups ([Section \[rhoborn\]]{}); in particular, they can be repeated in various configurations. Now, thanks to the recent proof of the local Langlands correspondence by Harris and Taylor for $GL(n)$ [@harris-taylor; @MR1947454; @langlandsreal; @harris-icm; @MR2002f:11178; @MR2001i:11136; @MR2001e:11052], the definitions at the ramified places can be made also. Langlands’ deep conjectures, in these cases here, assert that each of the $L$-functions defined above is in fact the $L$-function of some automorphic form on some $GL(d)$, where $d$ is the degree of the Euler product in each case (i.e. the number of factors occurring for each prime). Or, in other words, if his symmetric-looking Euler products look like the Euler product of an automorphic form as in (\[lspifact\]), they probably are!
Recent Examples of Langlands Functoriality (2000-) {#recent}
--------------------------------------------------
To continue, we now wish to focus on the examples of Langlands’ lifting mentioned above. We will describe various lifts which start with automorphic forms on $GL(n)$, and create automorphic forms on some $GL(m)$, $m>n$. Though many examples of Langlands functoriality are known in various types of cases, this class is very analytic and has largely been unapproachable without using the types of analytic properties of $L$-functions that we have come across in this paper. When considered as correspondences between eigenfunctions one space and another, the lifts below are quite stunning theorems in harmonic analysis, made possible by a deep use of the arithmetic of $GL(n,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$.
Having explained the tensor product $L$-function (\[lspipi’\]), we can now state a version of the converse theorem (in practice, slightly weaker assumptions are often used, as well as analogs over different number fields):
\[ncrossn-2\]($GL(n)\times GL(n-2)$ Converse Theorem – [@C-PS])
Consider the Euler product $L(s,\pi)$ (\[lspifact\]), and assume that it is convergent for ${\mbox{Re~}}\!{s}$ sufficiently large. Suppose that $L(s,\pi)$ along with all possible tensor product $L$-functions $L(s,\pi \otimes \tau)$, for $\tau$ an arbitrary cuspidal automorphic form on $GL(m,{{\mathbb{A}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}})$, $1\le m \le n-2$, satisfy [**E**]{}ntirety, [**B**]{}oundedness in [**V**]{}ertical strips, and the [**F**]{}unctional [**E**]{}quation. Then $L(s,\pi)$ is in fact the $L$-function of a cuspidal automorphic form on $GL(n,{{\mathbb{A}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}})$.
Of course, in this statement we have not described the global $L$-function (e.g. ${\Gamma}$-factors) whose analytic properties we are describing, but it is similar to the ones from [Section \[Hecke II\]]{}. Needless to say, [Theorem \[ncrossn-2\]]{} is a generalization of [Theorem \[weilthm\]]{}. When $n=3$, it is an earlier theorem of Jacquet-Piatetski-Shapiro-Shalika [@JPSS]. To use the Converse Theorem to establish lifting to $GL(n)$, one still needs to show that various tensor product $L$-functions obey the analytic conditions it requires. Such properties are themselves very difficult assertions in their own right, and progress has been hard won. We shall now describe the established lifts from $GL(n)$ to $GL(m)$ that were mentioned at the end of the last subsection.
The first such example is the symmetric square lift $Sym^2: GL(2)\rightarrow GL(3)$, the so-called Gelbart-Jacquet lift [@gel-jaclift]. Because it is the simplest of these to explain, we will spend a moment to go over how it is proved. A central role is played by Shimura’s integral representation of the symmetric square $L$-function [@shimurasymsq]; one obtains the necessary analytic properties of $L(s,Sym^2\pi \otimes \chi)$, where $\chi$ is a Dirichlet character (recall that these are automorphic forms on $GL(1)$). Then the Converse Theorem of [@JPSS] (i.e. [Theorem \[ncrossn-2\]]{} with $n=3$) implies the existence of a cuspidal automorphic representation $\Pi$ whose $L$-function $L(s,\Pi)=L(s,Sym^2\pi)$ – i.e., the Langlands functorial symmetric square lift from $GL(2)$ to $GL(3)$.
Examples on $GL(n)$ for $n\ge 4$ require the Cogdell-Piatetski-Shapiro versions of the Converse theorem, and are quite technical, even in description. Fortunately, many have been achieved in the last few years, mainly as a consequence of new analytic properties from the Langlands-Shahidi method ([Section \[LaSh\]]{}), mined from various configurations of parabolic subgroups in exceptional groups such as $E_8$. Here is a summary of the recent lifts:
\[recent lifts\]
The following instances of Langlands functoriality are known. That is, in each case there are automorphic forms on the target $GL(n)$ whose standard $L$-functions agree with the Langlands $L$-functions on the source group (cf. [Section \[examplesectionoflanglandslfunctions\]]{}):
- Gelbart-Jacquet [@gel-jaclift]. $Sym^2: GL(2)
\rightarrow GL(3)$.
- Ramakrishnan [@ramlift]. Tensor Product: $GL(2) \times
GL(2) \rightarrow GL(4)$.
- Kim-Shahidi [@Kim-Sha3; @KS-CR]. Tensor product: $GL(2)\times GL(3) \rightarrow GL(6)$.
- Kim-Shahidi [@Kim-Sha3; @KS-CR]. $Sym^3: GL(2)
\rightarrow GL(4)$.
- Kim [@KS-CR; @Kim-Sha4]. $Ext^2: GL(4)\rightarrow GL(6)$ weakly automorphic (bad at 2 and 3).
- Kim [@KS-CR; @Kim-Sha4]. $Sym^4: GL(2)\rightarrow GL(5)$.
- Cogdell-Kim-Piatetski-Shapiro-Shahidi [@C-K-PS-S; @C-K-PS-S2]: Weak functoriality to $GL(n)$ for generic cusp forms on split classical groups.
The notion of “weak” automorphy means that an automorphic form on the target $GL(n)$ exists whose $L$-function matches the desired Euler product – but [*except*]{} perhaps for a finite number of factors. Much more about these results can be found in these references, and also the ICM lectures [@shahidi-icm; @cogdell-icm]. Ramakrishnan’s result used an integral representation for a triple-product $L$-function ([@garrett-annals-1987; @ikeda; @ps-rallis-triple; @harris-kudla]), but can also now be proven using the Langlands-Shahidi method ([@Kim-Sha4]). The last example mentioned here is a lift from generic cuspidal automorphic forms on $SO(n)$ or $Sp(2n)$ to some $GL(m)$ (see [@cogdell-icm; @shahidi-icm; @C-K-PS-S; @C-K-PS-S2]). A differing “descent method” (i.e. studying the opposite direction of the lift) of Ginzburg, Rallis, and Soudry [@MR2002g:11065] can be used to establish the lifts of [@C-K-PS-S; @C-K-PS-S2] in strong form; in other words, the adjective “weak” can be removed from the last assertion of [Theorem \[recent lifts\]]{}.
Of course Langlands’ conjectures go far beyond these examples involving only $GL(n)$ over a number field. Other routes, through theta liftings (see [@MR2003c:11051; @MR92j:11045]) and the Arthur-Selberg trace formula (see [@arthur; @MR98d:22017; @MR98j:11105]), have also provided many instances of Langlands Functoriality. In particular, the trace formula is in some sense the most successful when successful, in that it gives a very complete description and characterization of the lifts it treats. Nevertheless, the full force of Langlands’ Conjectures seem absolutely beyond current technology (see [@beyondendoscopy] for intriguing comments by Langlands on the limitations of the trace formula). We shall not describe these nor the exact formulations of the Converse Theorem here, though we hope we have transmitted the flavor of the arguments and technical analytic properties such as [**EBV**]{} which have put these recent results in grasp.
Applications to Number Theory (2001-)
-------------------------------------
The coefficients of modular forms on the complex upper half plane ${{\mathbb{H}}}$ play a fundamental role in many problems in number theory. For example, the coefficients of holomorphic modular forms $\phi(z)=\sum_{n\ge 0} c_n\,e^{\,2\,\pi\, i \, n \, z}$ can be related to various counting problems, such as the number of ways to represent a number as a sum of squares, or the number of points on an elliptic curve ([Section \[cps1999\]]{}). The coefficients $a_n$ of the non-holomorphic Maass forms in (\[intmaass\]) are also related to number theory as well, ranging for example from Galois theory to the properties of Kloosterman sums $\sum_{x\bar{x}\equiv
1\pmod p} e^{2\,\pi \, i \,{\frac}{a x + b \bar{x}}{p}}$ [@sel1965; @Sarbook; @greeniwaniec; @Iw-Sar; @goldfeldsarnak]. The sizes of the $a_n$ and eigenvalue parameter $\nu$, along with their distributions, are very important in many instances; in the remainder of this section, we will describe the role of the analytic properties of $L$-functions in gleaning some of this information.
### Progress towards the Ramanujan and Selberg conjectures
Recall Ramanujan’s ${\Delta}$ form, defined in (\[ramformdef\]). We mentioned that Ramanujan conjectured a bound on the normalized coefficients $a_n$ of his ${\Delta}$ form, a bound which has a natural generalization to the coefficients of modular forms of any weight, and to Maass forms as well.
\[ramanujan\](Ramanujan Conjecture) Let $\phi(x+iy)$ be either a holomorphic cusp form of weight $k$ with Fourier coefficients $c_n = a_n n^{(k-1)/2}$ as in (\[cnholom\]), or a Maass form with Fourier coefficients $a_n$ as in (\[intmaass\]). Then $a_n = O(|n|^\varepsilon)$ for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ (of course the implied constant in the $O$-notation here may depend on $\varepsilon$). When $\phi$ is a Hecke eigenform and $a_1$ is normalized to be 1, then equivalently $|a_p|\le 2$.
This conjecture was proven in the holomorphic case by Deligne [@Deligne] in 1974, but remains open for Maass forms.
Years later after Ramanujan, Selberg made a separate conjecture about the size of the parameter $\nu$ that enters into the Fourier expansion of Maass forms. It is related to the Laplace eigenvalue by ${\lambda}=1/4-\nu^2$. Selberg conjectured
(Selberg, 1965 [@sel1965])\[selconj\] Let ${\lambda}>0$ be the Laplace eigenvalue of a Maass form for ${\Gamma}\backslash {{\mathbb{H}}}$, where ${\Gamma}$ is a congruence subgroup of $SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. Then ${\lambda}\ge {\frac}14$ (equivalently, $\nu$ is purely imaginary).
Selberg was originally motivated by questions involving cancellation in sums of Kloosterman sums, but his question is a deep one about the nature of the Riemann surfaces ${\Gamma}\backslash {{\mathbb{H}}}$. Their volumes grow to infinity as their index increases, and one would naively expect an accumulation of small Laplace eigenvalues. However, Selberg predicts a barrier at ${\lambda}={\frac}14$. This has implications for the geometry of ${\Gamma}\backslash {{\mathbb{H}}}$: intuitively, small eigenvalues are a measure of how close a surface is to being disconnected, since, after all, the multiplicity of the eigenvalue ${\lambda}=0$ is the number of disconnected components. These ideas have played a crucial role in the development of [*expander graphs*]{}: discrete combinatorial networks which have relatively few edges connecting their vertices, but which are extremely difficult to disconnect by removing only a moderate number of edges. See [@LPS; @Margulis; @Lbook; @Sarbook; @sarnotices; @Murty]. By the way, Maass forms with eigenvalue exactly equal to ${\frac}14$ are known to exist, and in fact they will play a role later at the end of this section. So Selberg’s conjecture, if true, is sharp!
Not long after Selberg’s conjecture, Satake observed a unifying reformulation of both the Ramanujan and Selberg conjectures, in terms of representation theory (more specifically, tempered representations). Suppose $\phi$ is a Hecke eigenform. A key idea was the parametrization of the Hecke eigenvalues (which are also Fourier coefficients) $a_p$, for $p$ prime, as $a_p={\alpha}_p+{\alpha}_p{^{-1}}$, ${\alpha}_p \in {{\mathbb{C}}}$ (cf. (\[firstlsfeul\])). This has meaning from the representation theory of the group $GL(2,{{\mathbb{Q}}}_p)$, and is analogous to the convention of writing the Laplace eigenvalue ${\lambda}={\frac}14 - \nu^2$. The statement that $|a_p|\le 2$ is equivalent to proscribing that the complex modulus satisfy $|{\alpha}_p| = 1$. Writing ${\alpha}_p$ as $p^{\mu_p}$, the connection between Ramanujan’s and Selberg’s conjectures becomes even more clear: both $\nu$ and all $\mu_p=\log_p ({\alpha}_p)$ should be purely imaginary.
The generalized Ramanujan-Selberg conjecture asserts this phenomenon holds for $GL(n)$:
\[genramconj\] If $\pi$ is a cusp form on $GL(n)$ which is unramified at the prime $p$, the quantities ${\alpha}_{p,j}$ appearing in the Euler product (\[lspifact\]) obey $|{\alpha}_{p,j}| = 1$.
All but a finite number of primes are ramified for $\pi$, and none of them are when ${\Gamma}=GL(n,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. A similar statement for the archimedean case $p=\infty$ is conjectured to be true for the parameters $\mu_{\infty,j}$, generalizing $\nu$, that appear in the ${\Gamma}$-factors that multiply the $L$-function in its global, completed form (see (\[glngam\])). For the cognoscenti we will note that the Ramanujan conjecture \[genramconj\] has a statement in terms of representation theory which covers the ramified places as well: the associated local representations $\pi_p$ of $GL(n,{{\mathbb{Q}}}_p)$ should all be [*tempered*]{}.
Though the generalized conjecture for $GL(n)$ is of course no easier than it was for $GL(2)$, this added perspective has been crucial for two reasons. The first is that we know a “trivial” or “local bound” coming from representation theory [@jacquet-shalika] that $|{\mbox{Re~}}{\mu_{p,j}}| < 1/2$ for all places $p\le \infty$. For $GL(2)$ this is quite trivial indeed: it states, for example, that the Laplace eigenvalue is merely positive, and that the corresponding bound on the Hecke eigenvalue $a_p$ comes directly from the boundedness of a cusp form. However, for $GL(n)$, $n>2$, this bound actually becomes quite deep, due to a separation feature between the trivial and non-trivial unitary irreducible representations of $GL(n)$.
The second reason is that the Langlands program connects automorphic forms on different $GL(n)$’s, for example through symmetric powers. Notably, the factors $(1-{\alpha}_p^{n-1} p^{-s}){^{-1}}$ and $(1-{\alpha}_p^{1-n}p^{-s}){^{-1}}$ occur in the Euler product for the $n-1$-st symmetric power from $GL(2)$ to $GL(n)$ (formula (\[symk\])). If this symmetric power $L$-function was indeed the $L$-function of a cusp form, we would conclude that $p^{-1/2}<|{\alpha}_p^{n-1}| < p^{1/2}$ from the “trivial bounds” above. This gives an improved bound towards the Ramanujan-Selberg conjectures for any $n$ for which the symmetric power lifting can be established – a bound which approaches the conjecture $|{\alpha}_p|=1$ itself as $n\rightarrow \infty$. A similar magnification can be performed with the archimedean parameters $\mu_{\infty,j}$.
Thus the Langlands program (in particular, the symmetric power functorial liftings) implies both the Ramanujan and Selberg conjectures, and their generalizations to $GL(n)$! It should be noted that this strategy is different from Deligne’s and other arguments coming from algebraic geometry – which themselves have been successful for certain [*cohomological*]{} forms, but do not apply to Maass forms, for example. (Actually Deligne’s argument uses the “magnification” mechanism of the previous paragraph, but in a different context.) Anytime a new lift is proven or a new bound on the $|{\alpha}_{p,j}|$ of cusp forms on $GL(n)$ is established, it results in a bound towards the Ramanujan and Selberg conjectures. Using results of [@LRS1], an analytic technique of [@Duke-Iwaniec], and the recent progress of Kim-Shahidi described in the previous subsection, the following bounds have been proven:
(Kim-Sarnak [@Kim-Sha4 Appendix 2]) If $\pi$ is a cusp form on $GL(2,{{\mathbb{A}}}_{{\mathbb{Q}}})$ then $$\label{ks-localp}
p^{-7/64} \ \le \ |{\alpha}_p| \ \le \ p^{\,7/64}, \ \ \ \text{~if $\pi$ is
unramified at $p$,}$$ and $$\label{ks-localinfty}
{\lambda}\ \ge \ \ {\frac}{975}{4096} \ \ = \ \ {\frac}14 \
-\ {\left(}{\frac}{7}{64}{\right)}^2 \ \ \approx \ \ .238037 \ , \ \ \ \text{~if $\pi$
comes from a Maass form}.$$
This theorem is for ${{\mathbb{Q}}}$, but results are also possible over general number fields. A weaker estimate (with ${\frac}{7}{64}$ replaced by ${\frac}19$) is established by Kim-Shahidi in [@Kim-Sha], using their recent progress and techniques from [@MR89h:11021].
### The distribution of the Hecke eigenvalues, Sato-Tate
Having seen that the Hecke eigenvalue parameters ${\alpha}_p$ for a $GL(2)$ modular, Hecke eigenform should lie on the unit circle in the complex plane, we now turn to their distribution over this circle as $p$ varies. The question has its origin in conjectures and investigations made independently by Sato and Tate [@tatewoodshole] for the $a_p$ of rational elliptic curves ([Section \[cps1999\]]{}). Namely, if we consider the phase of ${\alpha}_p$, i.e. the angle $\theta_p$ such that $a_p=2\cos\theta_p$, the $\theta_p \in [0,\pi]$ should be equidistributed with respect to the measure ${\frac}{2}{\pi} \sin^2\theta \, d\theta$. This means that $$\label{satotate}
\lim_{X\rightarrow \infty} \ {\frac}{\#\{ \, {\alpha}< \theta_p < {\beta}\,
\mid \, p\le X \} }{\#\{ \, p\le X
\}} \ \ = \ \ \int_{{\alpha}}^{\beta}\, \left[ {\frac}{2}{\pi} \sin^2\theta
\right]d\theta \,;$$ when viewed in terms of the $a_p$ themselves, the conjecture states that a histogram of the $a_p$ is governed by the distribution ${\frac}{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{4-x^2}$, which looks like a semi-circle (really, semi-ellipse) between $-2$ and $2$ of area 1. The Sato-Tate semi-circle measure occurs in many contexts; here it is related to the Weyl integration formula, which weighs the relative sizes of conjugacy classes in $SL(2,{{\mathbb{R}}})$. This conjecture is not meant to be valid for [*all*]{} elliptic curves (nor, by extension, to all modular forms via Wiles et al), but instead only for the “typical” (i.e. non-CM) elliptic curve. In the other cases, the distribution is much simpler and the desired results are known (see [@serrelad]). Regardless, the Sato-Tate conjecture is expected to also hold for most modular and Maass forms, as we shall see shortly. See [@marchen p.210] for a generalization to $GL(n)$.
As in nearly all distributional questions in number theory, an equivalent formulation of the Sato-Tate conjecture can be made in terms of the [*moments*]{} $$\label{stmoment1}
S_m(X) \ \ := \ \ \sum_{p\le X} a_p^m\,.$$ Conjecturally $S_m(X)/\pi(X)$ should tend to the constant $$\label{stmoment2}
\lim_{X\rightarrow\infty} \ {\frac}{S_m(X)}{\pi(X)} \ \
= \ \ {\frac}1{2\,\pi}
\int_{-2}^2 x^m\,\sqrt{4 -x^2}\,dx$$ ($\pi(X)$, as in the introduction, refers to the number of primes $p\le X$). In fact, the truth of (\[stmoment2\]) for all $m\ge 0$ implies the Sato-Tate conjecture (\[satotate\]).
In view of the connection with the powers of $a_p = {\alpha}_p+{\alpha}_p{^{-1}}$, and symmetric power $L$-functions in the previous subsection, it is not surprising that symmetric power $L$-functions play a role in the Sato-Tate conjecture as well. In fact, the non-vanishing and holomorphy of the $m$-th symmetric power $L$-function $L(s,Sym^m\,\pi)$ in the region ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}\ge 1$ implies the $m$-th moment (\[stmoment2\]) (see [@serrelad; @ShahST], and also Ogg’s paper [@ogg2], which shows the holomorphy actually implies non-vanishing). Kim and Shahidi have now established this for $m\le 9$ ([@Kim-Sha]). Actually the nonvanishing of $\zeta(s)$ in the region ${\mbox{Re~}}{s}\ge 1$ is essentially what Riemann observed implies the prime number theorem $\pi(X)=\sum_{p\le X}1
\sim X/\log X$, so it is natural to see this analytic condition appear in a counting problem. This is a typical way exotic $L$-functions enter into analytic number theory.
Though the formulation of (\[satotate\]) here implicitly assumed the Ramanujan conjectures, (\[stmoment2\]) is more general. It can be viewed as saying that the Ramanujan conjecture is true on average – and much more. We note in passing that various on-average results can be proven using the theory of $L$-functions. The Rankin-Selberg method [@rankin; @selberg-rs] has its origin in this issue for $GL(2)$; the generalization of the Rankin-Selberg method to $GL(n)$ ([@JPSSrs; @shaduke]) also gives a weaker on-average version of Ramanujan. One can also give a relatively large lower bound on the percentage of primes $p$ such that the Ramanujan conjecture holds for $p$ ([@rama-lowerbd; @Kim-Sha; @Ramakrishnan]).
Finally, we conclude by describing a result of Sarnak [@sarint]. We had mentioned before that the Maass forms for $SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})\backslash {{\mathbb{H}}}$ – the non-holomorphic $L^2$-eigenfunctions of the Laplacian – are quite mysterious in nature, and none has been explicitly described. However Maass, in his original paper [@maass], constructed some examples for ${\Gamma}\backslash {{\mathbb{H}}}$, where ${\Gamma}$ is a congruence subgroup of $SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. These, and generalizations coming from Galois theory through the Artin conjecture, are very special types of Maass forms, and come from algebraic constructions. In particular, several give fascinating examples of Maass forms (\[intmaass\]) whose coefficients $a_n$ are relatively small integers – bounded in absolute value by the number of divisors of $n$. This is remarkable because of the discreteness and limitation of the possible coefficients. In [@sarint] Sarnak considers hypothetical Maass forms with integral coefficients that are [*not*]{} examples of the known constructions from Galois theory. In these cases, the results of Kim and Shahidi [@Kim-Sha] on the non-vanishing and holomorphy of $L(s,Sym^m \pi)$ on the line ${\mbox{Re~}}{s} = 1$ give the asymptotics of the $m$-th moment, i.e. (\[stmoment2\]), for $m\le 9$. If the coefficients are indeed integral, the Ramanujan conjecture asserts that the $a_p$ should only assume one of the five values $\{-2,-1,0,1,2\}$. This constraint makes it difficult to match the predicted moments, and in fact with $m=6$ it is possible to show the impossibility of all the $a_p$ being integral. Indeed, even without the Ramanujan conjecture, the assumption that all $a_p\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ can be ruled out simply by taking linear combinations of (\[stmoment2\]), and concluding that $$\label{}
\lim_{X\rightarrow \infty} \,{\frac}{1}{\pi(X)} \, \sum_{p\le X}
P(a_p) \ \ =
\ \ {\frac}{1}{2\pi} \, \int_{-2}^2 P(x) \, \sqrt{4-x^2}\, dx \ \
= \ \ 1\,.$$ Here $P(x)=x^2(4-x^2)(x^2-1)$, a sixth degree polynomial which vanishes at the integers $\{-2,-1,0,1,2\}$, and is negative at all others; a contradiction arises because the righthand side is positive. As a result, one obtains the first algebraicity result in the subject of Maass forms:
(Sarnak [@sarint])\[sarnakstheorem\] Let $\phi$ be a Maass form for ${\Gamma}\backslash {{\mathbb{H}}}$ as in (\[intmaass\]) with integral coefficients. Assume $\phi$ is a Hecke eigenform. Then $\phi$ arises from a Galois representation, and in particular the Laplace eigenvalue of $\phi$ is ${\frac}14$ (i.e. $\nu=0$).
A generalization has been established by Brumley [@Brumley]. We leave the reader with a some open conjectures – both widely believed to be true and supported by numerical evidence – on which the ideas of functoriality and $L$-functions have brought an interesting perspective.
(See [@cass-gln]) Let $\phi$ be a Maass form which has Laplace eigenvalue ${\frac}14$. Does $\phi$ necessarily arise from a Galois representation?
(Cartier, [@cartier-numeric]) Is the Laplace spectrum of Maass forms for $SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})\backslash {{\mathbb{H}}}$ simple? In other words, can there be two linearly-independent Maass forms on $SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})\backslash {{\mathbb{H}}}$ sharing the same eigenvalue?
[99]{}
--------------------------------------------- -- -----------------------------
Stephen S. Gelbart Stephen D. Miller
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Department of Mathematics
Nicki and J. Ira Harris Professorial Chair Hill Center-Busch Campus
The Weizmann Institute of Science Rutgers University
Rehovot 76100 110 Frelinghuysen Rd
Israel Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019
[[email protected]]{} [[email protected]]{}
--------------------------------------------- -- -----------------------------
[^1]: Partially supported by the Minerva Foundation.
[^2]: Supported by NSF grant DMS-0122799.
[^3]: See [@Riem], and [@Edwards], for translations.
[^4]: The notation $A=O(B)$ indicates that there exists some absolute constant $C>0$ such that $|A|\le C\cdot B$.
[^5]: Actually Hamburger proved a more general statement, allowing for an arbitrary, finite number of poles (see [@Ham],[@Titch p.31]).
[^6]: The Bruhat decomposition states that all matrices ${\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{a} & {b} \\ {c} & {d} \end{array} \right)} \in SL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ with $c\neq 0$ may be written as products ${\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{1} & {r} \\ {0} & {1} \end{array} \right)}
{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{{\alpha}} & {{\beta}} \\ {{\gamma}} & {{\delta}} \end{array} \right)}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{1} & {s} \\ {0} & {1} \end{array} \right)}$, where: $r$ and $s$ range over ${{\mathbb{Z}}}$; ${\gamma}$ over ${{\mathbb{Z}}}-\{0\}$; ${\delta}$ over $({{\mathbb{Z}}}/{\gamma}{{\mathbb{Z}}})^*$; and ${\alpha}$ and ${\beta}$ are any two integers (which depend on ${\gamma}$ and ${\delta}$, of course) satisfying ${\alpha}{\delta}-{\beta}{\gamma}=1$.
[^7]: See [@margulisbook] for a thorough explanation.
[^8]: though not in the language of $L$-functions.
[^9]: The theory has an extension to non-maximal parabolic subgroups, but this does not yield any extra information about $L$-functions. This matches the fact that the Eisenstein series for maximal parabolic subgroups depend on one complex variable, as do $L$-functions.
[^10]: Classically speaking, this isomorphism comes from the decomposition of any rational matrix $g\in GL(2,{{\mathbb{Q}}})$ as $g=bu$, $b\in B({{\mathbb{Q}}})$, $u\in
GL(2,{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. The resulting indexing of $B({{\mathbb{Z}}})\backslash G({{\mathbb{Z}}})$ via rational matrices gives powerful insight into how to arrange the summands of the Eisenstein series into a computationally-useful form.
[^11]: Weil’s contribution [@Weil] to the conjecture is closely related to [Theorem \[weilthm\]]{}: in fact his prediction of modularity on ${\Gamma}_0(N)$, $N$ being the conductor of $E$, comes from a comparison of the expected functional equations of Hasse-Weil $L$-functions with the exact form of (\[weilcondiii\]) in [Theorem \[weilthm\]]{}.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We prove existence of solutions to continuity equations in a separable Hilbert space. We look for solutions which are absolutely continuous with respect to a reference measure $\gamma$ which is Fomin–differentiable with exponentially integrable partial logarithmic derivatives. We describe a class of examples to which our result applies and for which we can prove also uniqueness. Finally, we consider the case where $\gamma$ is the invariant measure of a reaction–diffusion equation and prove uniqueness of solutions in this case. We exploit that the gradient operator $D_x$ is closable with respect to $L^p(H,\gamma)$ and a recent formula for the commutator $D_xP_t-P_tD_x$ where $P_t$ is the transition semigroup corresponding to the reaction–diffusion equation, [@DaDe14]. We stress that $P_t$ is not necessarily symmetric in this case. This uniqueness result is an extension to such $\gamma$ of that in [@DaFlRoe14] where $\gamma$ was the Gaussian invariant measure of a suitable Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process.
[Résumé]{}. On démontre l’existence d’une solution de quelques équations de continuité dans un espace de Hilbert séparable. On s’interesse aux solutions absolument continues par rapport à une mesure de reference $\gamma$ que l’on suppose dérivable au sens de Fomin et ayant les derivées partielles logarithmiques exponentiellement intégrables. On décrit une classe d’exemples a qui nos résultats s’ appliquent et dont on peut aussi montrer l’unicité. Finalment on considère le cas où $\gamma$ est la mesure invariante d’une équation de réaction–diffusion dont l’on prouve l’unicité des solutions. On utilise le fait que le gradient $D_x$ est fermable dans $L^p(H,\gamma)$ et aussi une récente formule pour le commutateur $D_xP_t-P_tD_x$, $P_t$ étant le sémigroupe de transitions qui corréspond à l’équation de réaction–diffusion considerée [@DaDe14]. On souligne que dans ce cas $P_t$ n’est pas nécessairement symétrique. Ce résultat d’unicité est une extension de celui obtenu dans [@DaFlRoe14] ou $\gamma$ été la mesure invariante Gaussienne d’un processus de Ornstein–Uhlenbeck approprié.
address:
- |
Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, 56126 Pisa\
Italy
- |
Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, 56126 Pisa\
Italy
- |
Bielefeld University, Universitätstrasse 25, 36615 Bielefeld\
Germany\
and Academy of Mathematics and Systems Sciences, CAS, Bejing, China
author:
- Giuseppe Da Prato
- Franco Flandoli
- Michael Röckner
title: '**Absolutely continuous solutions for continuity equations in Hilbert spaces**'
---
Introduction
============
We are given a separable Hilbert space $H$ (norm $|\cdot|_H$, inner product $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$), a Borel vector field $F:[0,T]\times H\to H$ and a Borel probability measure $\zeta$ on $H$. We are concerned with the following continuity equation, $$\label{e1.1}
\int_0^T\int_H\left[D_tu(t,x)+\langle D_xu(t,x),F(t,x) \rangle\right]\,\nu_t(dx)\,dt=-\int_Hu(0,x)\,\zeta(dx),\quad \forall\;u\in \mathcal F C^1_{b,T},$$ where the unknown $\mbox{\boldmath}\,\nu=(\nu_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ is a probability kernel such that $\nu_0=\zeta$. Moreover, $D_x$ represents the gradient operator and $\mathcal F C^1_{b,T}$ is defined as follows: let $\mathcal F C^k_{b}$ and $\mathcal F C^k_{0}$, for $k\in\N\cup\{\infty\}$, denote the set of all functions $f:H\to\R$ of the form $$f(x)=\widetilde f(\langle h_1,x \rangle,\cdots, \langle h_N,x \rangle),\quad x\in H,$$ where $N\in\N$, $\widetilde f\in C^k_b(\R^N)$, $ C^k_0(\R^N)$ respectively (i.e. $ \widetilde f$ has compact support) and $h_1,\cdots, h_N\in Y,$ where $Y$ is a dense linear subspace of $H$ to be specified later. Then $\mathcal F C^k_{b,T}$ is defined to be the $\R$–linear span of all functions $u:[0,T]\times H\to\R$ of the form $$u(t,x)=g(t)f(x),\quad (t,x)\in[0,T]\times H,$$ where $g\in C^1([0,T];\R)$ with $g(T)=0$ and $f\in \mathcal F C^k_{b}$. Correspondingly, let $\mathcal V\mathcal F C^k_{b,T}$ be the set of all maps $G:[0,T]\times H\to H$ of the form $$\label{e1.3m}
G(t,x)=\sum_{i=1}^Nu_i(t,x)h_i,\quad (t,x)\in[0,T]\times H,$$ where $N\in\N$, $u_1,\cdots,u_N\in \mathcal F C^k_{b,T}$ and $h_1,\cdots, h_N\in Y$. Clearly, $\mathcal F C^\infty_{b,T}$ is dense in $L^p([0,T]\times H,\nu)$ for all finite Borel measures $\nu$ on $[0,T]\times H$ and all $p\in[1,\infty)$. $\mathcal V\mathcal F C^k_{b}$ denotes the set of all $G$ as in with $u_i\in \mathcal F C^k_{b,T}$ replaced by $u_i\in \mathcal F C^k_{b}.$ Of course, all these spaces $\mathcal F C^k_{b}$, $\mathcal F C^k_{0}$, $\mathcal F C^k_{b,T}$, $\mathcal V\mathcal F C^k_{b}$, $\mathcal V\mathcal F C^k_{b,T}$ depend on $Y$. But since $\gamma$ in Hypothesis \[h1\] below will be fixed and hence the corresponding $Y$ defined there will be fixed we do not express this dependence in the notation.
It is well known that problem in general admits several solutions even when $H$ is finite dimensional. So, it is natural to look for well posedness of within the special class of measures $(\nu_t)_{t\in[0,T]}$ which are absolutely continuous with respect to a given [*reference measure*]{} $\gamma$. In this case, denoting by $\rho(t,\cdot)$ the density of $\nu_t$ with respect to $\gamma$, $$\nu_t(dx)=\rho(t,x)\gamma(dx),\quad
t\in[0,T],$$ equation becomes $$\begin{array}{l}
\label{e1.2}
\ds\int_0^T\int_H\left[D_tu(t,x)+\langle D_xu(t,x),F(t,x) \rangle\right]\,\rho(t,x)\,\gamma(dx)\,dt\\
\\
\ds =-\int_Hu(0,x)\,\rho_0(x)\gamma(dx),\quad \forall\;u\in\mathcal F C^1_{b,T}.
\end{array}$$ Here $\rho_0:=\rho(0,\cdot)$ is given and $\rho(t,\cdot),\;t\in[0,T],$ is the unknown.
In this paper we prove existence and uniqueness results for solutions to .
Our basic assumption on $\gamma$ is the following
\[h1\] $\gamma$ is a nonnegative measure on $(H,\mathcal B(H))$ with $\gamma(H)<\infty$ such that there exists a dense linear subspace $Y\subset H$ having the following properties:
For all $h\in Y$ there exists $\beta_h:H\to\R$ Borel measurable such that for some $c_h>0$ $$\int_H e^{c_h|\beta_h|}\,d\gamma<\infty$$ and $$\int_H\partial_h u\,d\gamma=-\int_Hu\beta_h\,d\gamma,$$ where $\partial_hu$ denotes the partial derivative of $u$ in the direction $h$.
Assume from now on that $\gamma$ satisfies Hypothesis \[h1\].
\[r1.1\] It is well known that the operator $D_x=$ Fréchet–derivative with domain $\mathcal FC^1_b$ is closable in $L^p(H,\gamma)$ for all $p\in[1,\infty)$, see e.g. [@AlRoe90]. Its closure will again be denoted by $D_x$ and its domain will be denoted by $W^{1,p}(H,\gamma)$.
Let $D_x^*:dom(D_x^*)\subset L^2(H,\gamma;H)\to L^2(H,\gamma)$ denote the adjoint of $D_x$.
\[l1.2\] $\mathcal V\mathcal FC^1_b\subset dom(D_x^*)$ and for $G\in \mathcal V\mathcal FC^1_b$, $G=\sum_{i=1}^Nu_ih_i$ we have $$D_x^*G=-\sum_{i=1}^N(\partial_{h_i}u_i+\beta_{h_i}u_i).$$
For $v\in \mathcal FC^1_b$ we have $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\int_H \langle D_xv,G \rangle_H\,d\gamma=\sum_{i=1}^N\int_H\partial_{h_i}v\,u_i
\,d\gamma\\
\\
\ds=\sum_{i=1}^N\int_H\partial_{h_i}(v\,u_i)
\,d\gamma-\sum_{i=1}^N\int_Hv\,\partial_{h_i}u_i
\,d\gamma\\
\\
\ds=-\int_H v\,\sum_{i=1}^N(\partial_{h_i}u_i+\beta_{h_i}u_i)\,d\gamma.
\end{array}$$
We stress that if $H$ is infinite dimensional, $\beta_h$ is typically not bounded and not continuous. Here are some examples. For $G$ as in Lemma \[l1.2\], below we sometimes use the notation $$\mbox{\rm div}\;G:=\sum_{i=1}^N\partial_{h_i}u_i.$$
\[ex1.3\] *(i) Let $Q$ be a symmetric positive definite operator of trace class on $H$ and $\gamma:=N(0,Q),$ i.e. the centered Gaussian measure on $H$ with covariance operator $Q$. Assume that ker $Q=\{0\}$ and let $Y$ be the linear span of all eigenvectors of $Q$. Then Hypothesis \[h1\] is fulfilled with this $Y$ and for $h\in Y$, $h=a_1h_1+\cdots +a_Nh_N$ with $Qh_i=\lambda_i^{-1}h_i,$ we have $$\beta_h(x)=-\sum_{i=1}^Na_i\lambda_i \langle h_i,x \rangle_H,\quad x\in H.$$ This, in particular, covers the case studied in [@DaFlRoe14], where only uniqueness of solutions to was studied.*
\(ii) Let $H:=L^2((0,1),d\xi)$ and $A:=\Delta$ with zero boundary conditions.
We recall that $N(0,\tfrac12(-A)^{-1})((C([0,1];\R))=1$. Define for $p\in(2,\infty)$ and $\alpha\in[0,\infty)$ $$\gamma(dx):=\frac1{Z}\;e^{-\frac\alpha{p}\int_0^1|x(\xi)|^pd\xi}\;N(0,\tfrac12\,(-A)^{-1})(dx),$$ where $$Z:=\int_H e^{-\frac\alpha{p}\int_0^1|x(\xi)|^pd\xi}\;N(0,\tfrac12\,(-A)^{-1})(dx).$$ Then with $Y$ as in (i) for $Q=\frac12\,(-A)^{-1}$ we find for $h=a_1h_1+\cdots +a_Nh_N$ as in (i) $$\label{e1.3a}
\beta_h(x)=-\sum_{i=1}^Na_i\left(\lambda_i \langle h_i,x \rangle_H+\alpha\int_0^1h_i(\xi)\,|x(\xi)|^{p-2}\,x(\xi)\,d\xi\right) \quad\mbox{\rm for $N(0,\tfrac12\,(-A)^{-1})$--a.e. $x\in H$}$$ and obviously also the exponential integrability condition holds in Hypothesis \[h1\].
\(iii) Let $H$ and $A$ be as in (ii) and let $\gamma$ be the invariant measure of the solution to $$\label{e3.1bis}
\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
dX(t)=[AX(t)+p(X(t))]dt+BdW(t),\\
\\
X(0)=x,\quad x\in H,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $p$ is a decreasing polynomial of odd degree equal to $N>1$, $B\in L(H)$ with a [*bounded inverse*]{} and $W$ is an $H$–valued cylindrical Wiener process on a filtered probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal F, (\mathcal F_t)_{t>0},\P)$ (see [@DaDe17]). Then it was proved in [@DaDe17 Proposition 3.5] that Hypothesis \[h1\] holds with $Y:=D(A)$, where $A$ is as in (ii) above except that each $\beta_h$ was only proved to be $L^p(L^2(0,1),\gamma)$ for every $p\ge 1$. More precisely, it was proved (see [@DaDe17 eq. (3.17)] ) that for all $h\in D(A)$ $$\left( \int_{L^2(0,1)} |\beta_h|^p\,d\gamma \right)^{\frac1p} \le C_p|Ah|,\quad \forall\;p\ge 2,$$ where $C_p$ is the constant of the Burkholder–Davis–Gundy inequality for $p\ge 2$ which (when proved by Itô’s formula) can easily be seen to be smaller than $12\,p$ if $p\ge 4$. For the reader’s convenience we include a proof in Appendix B below. Hence, because for all $n\in\N$ by Stirling’s formula $$\left(\frac1{n!}12^n\,n^n \right)^{\frac1n}\le 12n\left( \frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}}\,n^{-n-\frac12} \,e^n \right)^{\frac1n}=12e\left( \frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}}\right)^{\frac1n}e^{-\frac1{2n}\ln n}\to 12e\quad\mbox{\rm as}\;n\to\infty,$$ we have for all $\epsilon\in(0,(12e|Ah|)^{-1}), h\in D(A)\setminus \{0\}$, $$\int_{L^2(0,1)} e^{\epsilon|\beta_h|}\,d\gamma\le \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac1{n!}\epsilon^n12^n\,n^n |Ah|^n<\infty.$$ So, for any $c_h\in (0,(12e|Ah|)^{-1})$, exponential integrability holds for $|\beta_h|$ and Hypothesis \[h1\] is satisfied.
Define for an orthonormal basis $\{e_i,\,i\in\N\}$ of $H$ consisting of elements in $Y$ and $N\in\N$ $$H_N:=\mbox{\rm lin span}\,\{e_1,...,e_N\}$$ and let $\Pi_N:H\to E_N$ be the orthogonal projection onto $E_N:=H_N^\perp$, where $H_N^\perp$ is the orthogonal complement of $H_N$, i.e. $$\label{e2.9n}
H=H_N\oplus E_N\equiv \R^N\times E_N,$$ hence, for $z\in H,$ $z=(x,y)$ with unique $x\in\R^N$, $y\in E_N$.
Letting $\nu_N:=\gamma\circ \Pi^{-1}_N$ be the image measure on $(E_N,\mathcal B(E_N))$ of $\gamma$ under $ \Pi_N$. Then we have the following well known disintegration result for $\gamma$:
\[l2.2n\] There exists $\Psi_N:\R^N\times E_N\to [0,\infty)$, $\mathcal B(\R^N\times E_N)$–measurable such that $$\label{e2.10n}
\gamma(dz)=\gamma(dx\,dy)=\Psi_N^2(x,y)dx\,\nu_N(dy),$$ where $dx$ denotes Lebesgue measure on $\R^N$. Furthermore, for every $y\in E_N$ $$\label{e2.11n}
\Psi_N(\cdot,y)\in H^{1,2}(\R^N,dx),$$ i.e. the Sobolev space of order $1$ in $L^2(\R^N,dx)$.
See [@AlRoeZh93 Proposition 4.1].
We have by Hypothesis \[h1\] that for all $1\le i\le N$ there exists $c_i\in (0,\infty)$ such that $$\label{e1.8primo}
\begin{array}{lll}
\ds\infty&>&\ds\int_H e^{c_i|\beta_{e_i}|}\,d\gamma=\int_{E_N}\int_{\R^N}e^{c_i|\beta_{e_i}(x,y)|}\,\Psi_N^2(x,y)\,dx\,\nu_N(dy)\\
\\
&=&\ds
\int_{E_N}\int_{\R^N}\exp\left[c_i\,\left|\frac{\partial }{\partial x_i}\,\Psi_N^2(x,y)/\Psi_N^2(x,y)\right|\right]\,\Psi_N^2(x,y)dx\,\nu_N(dy),
\end{array}$$ where we used that for $1\le i\le N$ $$\label{e2.12n}
\beta_{e_i}(x,y)=\frac{\partial }{\partial x_i}\,\Psi_N^2(x,y)/\Psi_N^2(x,y),\quad (x,y)\in \R^N\times E_N=H,$$ which is an immediate consequence of the disintegration , and the right hand side of is defined to be zero on $\{\Psi_N=0\}$. Hence $$\label{e2.13n}
\int_{\R^N}\exp\left[c_i\left|\frac{\partial }{\partial x_i}\,\Psi_N^2(x,y)/\Psi_N^2(x,y)\right|\right]\,\Psi_N^2(x,y)dx<\infty\quad\mbox{\rm for $\nu_N$-a.e., $y\in E_N$}$$
Define for $M,l\in\N$ and $(x,y)\in \R^N\times E_N(=H)$ $$\Psi_{N,M,l}(x,y)=\Psi_N(x,y)\quad\mbox{\rm if}\,\,\Psi_N^2(\cdot,y)\,\mbox{\rm is $C^2$, strictly positive and bounded}$$ and otherwise $$\label{e2.15n}
\Psi_{N,M}(x,y):=\left( \Psi_N^2(x,y)\wedge M\vee M^{-1} \right)^{1/2},$$ $$\label{e2.16n}
\Psi_{N,M,l}(x,y):=\left( \Psi^2_{N,M}(\cdot,y)*\delta_l \right)^{1/2}(x),$$ where $\delta_l (x)=l^N\eta(lx),$ $x\in\R^N$, $\eta\in C^\infty_0(\R^N)$ with support in the unit ball, $\eta\ge 0$, $\eta(x)=\eta(-x)$, $x\in\R^N,$ and $\int_{\R^N}\eta\,dx=1$). We note that then clearly $\Psi_{N,M,l}(x,y)\ge M^{-1}$ for all $x\in\R^N$. Obviously, $$\label{e2.15'}
\frac{\partial _{x_i}\,\Psi^2_{N,M,l}(\cdot,y)}{\Psi^2_{N,M,l}(\cdot,y)}
\to \frac{\partial _{x_i}\,\Psi^2_{N,M}(\cdot,y)}{\Psi^2_{N,M}(\cdot,y)}\quad\mbox{\rm in}\, L^1_{loc}(\R^N,dx)\; \mbox{\rm as}\;l\to\infty,\;\forall\;y\in E_N,\;1\le i\le N.$$
Concerning $F$ in we assume for $\gamma$ and $Y$ given as in Hypothesis \[h1\].
\[h2\] (i) $F:[0,T]\times H\to H$ is Borel measurable and bounded.
\(ii) There exists an orthonormal basis $\{e_n,\,n\in\N\}$ of $H$ consisting of elements in $Y$ such that for every $N\in\N$ and $\nu_N$ a.e. $y\in E_N$ $$\label{e1.14m}
\frac{\partial _{x_i}\,\Psi^2_{N}(\cdot,y)}{\Psi^2_{N}(\cdot,y)}\in L^1_{loc}(\R^N,dx)$$ (which e.g. is always satisfied if $\Psi^2_{N}(\cdot,y)$ is continuous and strictly positive on $\R^N$).
\(iii) There exist $F_j:[0,T]\times H\to H,$ $j\in\N$, such that for some $N_j\in\N$ increasing in $j$, $$F_j(t,x)=\sum_{i=1}^{N_j}f_{ij}(t,x)e_i,\quad (t,x)\in[0,T]\times H,$$ (with $e_i$ as in (ii)), where for $1\le i\le N_j$ $$f_{ij}(t,x)=\widetilde f_{ij}(t,( \langle x,e_1 \rangle,..., \langle x,e_{N_j} \rangle ))$$ with $\widetilde f_{ij}\in C_b([0,T]\times\R^{N_j};\R)$ and $\widetilde f_{ij}(t,\cdot)\in C^2_b (\R^{N_j};\R)$ for all $t\in [0,T]$ such that all first and all second partial derivatives are in $C([0,T]\times\R^{N_j};\R)$, $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\ds \lim_{j\to\infty} F_j=F\quad dt\otimes\gamma\mbox{\rm-a.e.}\\\\
\ds\sup_{j\in\N}\,\|F_j\|_\infty<\infty,\\
\\
\ds \exists\,\delta>0\;\mbox{\it such that}\, M:= \sup_{j\in\N}\,C_{F_j}(\delta)<\infty,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $C_{F_j}(\delta):=\int_{E_{N_j}}C_{F_j}(\delta,y)\,\nu_{N_j}(dy)$ and $$C_{F_j}(\delta,y):=\sup_{M,l\in\N}\int_0^T\left(\int_{\R^{N_j}}e^{\delta(D^*_{N_j,M,l}F_j(t,x,y))^+}-1\right)\,\Psi_{N_j,M,l}^2(x,y)\,dx\,dt,$$ with $$\label{e2.18n}
D^*_{N_j,M,l}F_j(r,(x,y)):=-\sum_{i=1}^{N_j} \left( \partial_{e_i}f_{ij}(t,x)+f_{ij}(t,x)\,\frac{\partial }{\partial x_i}\,\Psi_{N_j,M,l}^2(x,y)/\Psi_{N_j,M,l}^2(x,y) \right).$$
\[r1.5primo\] *We shall see in Example \[ex2.10\] below that Hypothesis \[h2\](ii) is trivially fulfilled in Examples \[ex1.3\](i) and (ii). Whether it holds in Example \[ex1.3\](iii) is an open problem (see Remark \[r3.12primo\] below) and will be a subject of further study.*
Here is an abstract condition which ensures Hypothesis \[h2\]. Some concrete examples will be given later.
\[p1.6\] Let $\gamma$ be a nonnegative measure satisfying Hypothesis 1; let $\Psi
_{N}\left( x,y\right) $ be defined by (1.7). Let $\Lambda:H\rightarrow H$ be a positive selfadjoint Hilbert-Schmidt operator with $\Lambda e_{n}=\epsilon_{n}e_{n}$, for a sequence $\left\{ \epsilon_{n}\right\} $ such that $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\epsilon_{n}^{2}<\infty$. Let $F:\left[ 0,T\right]
\times H\rightarrow H$ satisfying the conditions below. Assume:
i\) $\Psi_{N}\left( \cdot,y\right) $ is of class $C^{2}\left( \mathbb{R}^{N}\right) $, bounded and strictly positive for all $y\in E_{N}$
ii\) $F=\Lambda F_{0}$, where $F_{0}:\left[ 0,T\right] \times H\rightarrow H$ is uniformly continuous and bounded
iii\) (divergence bounded from below) for some constant $C\geq0$ $$\sum_{n=1}^{N}\partial_{e_{n}}\left\langle F\left( t,x\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle \geq-C\qquad\text{for every }N\text{ and }x\in H$$
iv\) for some constants $\delta>0$ $$\int_{H}e^{\delta\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\epsilon_{n}\left\vert \beta_{e_{n}}\left( x\right) \right\vert }\nu\left( dx\right) <\infty.$$
Then Hypothesis 2 is fulfilled.
**Step 1** (definition of $F_{N}$). In the verification of Hypothesis 2 we shall take $N_{j}=j$ hence, for simplicity of notations, we use $N$ in place of $j$. For every $n,N\in\mathbb{N}$ with $n\leq N$ define $\widetilde{f}_{n,N}^{0},\widetilde{f}_{n,N}:\left[ 0,T\right]
\times\mathbb{R}^{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ as$$\widetilde{f}_{n,N}^{0}\left( t,x_{1},...,x_{N}\right) =\left\langle
F_{0}\left( t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}x_{i}e_{i}\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle$$$$\widetilde{f}_{n,N}\left( t,x_{1},...,x_{N}\right) =\left\langle F\left(
t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}x_{i}e_{i}\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle =\epsilon
_{n}\widetilde{f}_{n,N}^{0}\left( t,x_{1},...,x_{N}\right) .$$ For every $N\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\theta^{N}:\mathbb{R}^{N}\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ be a smooth probability density with support in the unit ball of center zero and for every $\delta>0$ set$$\theta_{\delta}^{N}\left( x\right) =\delta^{-N}\theta^{N}\left( \delta
^{-1}x\right) .$$ Let $\left( \delta_{N}\right) $ be an infinitesimal sequence. Define $f_{n,N}^{0},f_{n,N}:\left[ 0,T\right] \times\mathbb{R}^{N}\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ as$$f_{n,N}^{0}\left( t,x_{1},...,x_{N}\right) =\left( \theta_{\delta_{N}}^{N}\ast\widetilde{f}_{n,N}^{0}\left( t,\cdot\right) \right) \left(
x_{1},...,x_{N}\right) .$$ $$f_{n,N}\left( t,x_{1},...,x_{N}\right) =\left( \theta_{\delta_{N}}^{N}\ast\widetilde{f}_{n,N}\left( t,\cdot\right) \right) \left( x_{1},...,x_{N}\right) =\epsilon_{n}f_{n,N}^{0}\left( t,x_{1},...,x_{N}\right) .$$ Then define$$F_{N}\left( t,x\right) =\sum_{n=1}^{N}f_{n,N}\left( t,\left\langle
x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right) e_{n}.$$ The structure and regularity of $F_{N}\left( t,x\right) $ are obviously satisfied.
**Step 2** (convergence of $F_{N}$). We prove here that the sequence of functions $F_{N}\left( t,x\right) $ converges pointwise to $F\left(
t,x\right) $. Let $\left( t,x\right) \in\left[ 0,T\right] \times H$ be given. From the inequalities$$\begin{aligned}
& \left| \sum_{n=1}^{N}f_{n,N}\left( t,\left\langle x,e_{1}\right\rangle
,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right) e_{n}-\sum_{n=1}^{\infty
}\left\langle F\left( t,x\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle e_{n}\right|
_{H}^{2}\\
& \leq2\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left( f_{n,N}\left( t,\left\langle x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right) -\left\langle
F\left( t,x\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle \right) ^{2}+2\sum_{n=N+1}^{\infty
}\left\langle F\left( t,x\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle ^{2}\\
& \leq2\sum_{n=1}^{N}\epsilon_{n}^{2}\left( f_{n,N}^{0}\left( t,\left\langle
x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right)
-\left\langle F_{0}\left( t,x\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle \right)
^{2}+2\left\Vert F_{0}\right\Vert _{\infty}^{2}\sum_{n=N+1}^{\infty}\epsilon_{n}^{2}$$ and the convergence of $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\epsilon_{n}^{2}<\infty$ we see that it is sufficient to prove$$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{n\leq N}\left( f_{n,N}^{0}\left(
t,\left\langle x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle
\right) -\left\langle F_{0}\left( t,x\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle \right)
^{2}=0.$$ Since (a priori we have to write $\lim\sup$ instead of $\lim$)$$\begin{aligned}
& \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{n\leq N}\left( \left\langle F_{0}\left(
t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left\langle x,e_{i}\right\rangle e_{i}\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle -\left\langle F_{0}\left( t,x\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle
\right) ^{2}\\
& \leq\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left\langle F_{0}\left(
t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left\langle x,e_{i}\right\rangle e_{i}\right) -F_{0}\left(
t,x\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle ^{2}\\
& \leq\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\left|F_{0}\left( t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left\langle x,e_{i}\right\rangle e_{i}\right) -F_{0}\left( t,x\right)
\right| _{H}^{2}=0\end{aligned}$$ because of the uniform continuity of $F_{0}$, we see it is sufficient to prove that $$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left( f_{n,N}^{0}\left(
t,\left\langle x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle
\right) -\left\langle F_{0}\left( t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left\langle
x,e_{i}\right\rangle e_{i}\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle \right) ^{2}=0.$$ Denote $\left\langle F_{0}\left( t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left\langle x,e_{i}\right\rangle e_{i}\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle $ by $h_{n,N}\left(
t,x\right) $. We have $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{n=1}^{N}\left\vert f_{n,N}^{0}\left( t,\left\langle x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right) -h_{n,N}\left(
t,x\right) \right\vert ^{2}\\
& =\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left\vert \left( \theta_{\delta_{N}}^{N}\ast\widetilde{f}_{n,N}^{0}\left( t,\cdot\right) \right) \left( \left\langle x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right) -h_{n,N}\left(
t,x\right) \right\vert ^{2}\\
& \leq\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\theta_{\delta_{N}}^{N}\left( ...,\left\langle
x,e_{j}\right\rangle -x_{j}^{\prime},...\right) \sum_{n=1}^{N}\left\vert
\left\langle F_{0}\left( t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}x_{i}^{\prime}e_{i}\right)
,e_{n}\right\rangle -h_{n,N}\left( t,x\right) \right\vert ^{2}dx_{1}^{\prime}...dx_{N}^{\prime}\\
& \leq\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\theta_{\delta_{N}}^{N}\left( ...,\left\langle
x,e_{j}\right\rangle -x_{j}^{\prime},...\right) \left\Vert F_{0}\left(
t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}x_{i}^{\prime}e_{i}\right) -F_{0}\left( t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left\langle x,e_{i}\right\rangle e_{i}\right) \right\Vert ^{2}dx_{1}^{\prime}...dx_{N}^{\prime}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\theta^{N}$ has support in the unit ball of center zero, $\theta
_{\delta_{N}}^{N}$ has support in the ball or radius $\delta_{N}$ and center zero. Denoting by $\eta_{N}$ the numbers (related to modulus of continuity)$$\eta_{N}=\sup_{\left| \sum_{i=1}^{N}x_{i}^{\prime}e_{i}-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left\langle x,e_{i}\right\rangle e_{i}\right|_H \leq\delta_{N}}\left| F_{0}\left( t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}x_{i}^{\prime}e_{i}\right)
-F_{0}\left( t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left\langle x,e_{i}\right\rangle e_{i}\right)
\right|$$ we have$$\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left\vert f_{n,N}^{0}\left( t,\left\langle x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right) -h_{n,N}\left(
t,x\right) \right\vert ^{2}\leq\eta_{N}^{2}.$$ Since $\delta_{N}\rightarrow0$ and $F_{0}$ is uniformly continuous, we deduce $\eta_{N}^{2}\rightarrow0$ and the proof is complete. The proof of the equi–boundedness of the family $F_{N}\left( t,x\right) $ is similar (we only sketch the main steps):$$\begin{aligned}
\left|F_{N}\left( t,x\right) \right|_{H}^{2} & =\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left( f_{n,N}\left( t,\left\langle x,e_{1}\right\rangle
,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right) \right) ^{2}\\
& =\sum_{n=1}^{N}\epsilon_{n}^{2}\left( f_{n,N}^{0}\left( t,\left\langle
x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right) \right)
^{2}\leq\left\Vert F_{0}\right\Vert _{\infty}^{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\epsilon_{n}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
**Step 3** (exponential bound). Finally, let us check the last condition of Hypothesis 2. Since $\Psi_{N}\left( \cdot,y\right) $ is of class $C^{2}\left( \mathbb{R}^{N}\right) $ and bounded, we can take $\Psi_{N,M,l}\left( x,y\right) =\Psi_{N}\left( \cdot,y\right) $. If $G_{N}\left( x\right) =\sum_{n=1}^{N}u_{n}\left( x\right) e_{n}$, then, with the notations used above, $$D_{N,M,l}^{\ast}G_{N}\left( x,y\right) =-\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left(
\partial_{e_{n}}u_{n}\left( x\right) +u_{n}\left( x\right) \beta_{e_{n}}\left( x,y\right) \right) .$$ Hence$$\begin{aligned}
& D_{N,M,l}^{\ast}F_{N}\left( t,\left( x,y\right) \right) \\
& =-\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left( \partial_{e_{n}}f_{n,N}\left( t,\left\langle
x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right)
+f_{n,N}\left( t,\left\langle x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle
x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right) \beta_{e_{n}}\left( x,y\right) \right)\end{aligned}$$$$\leq-\left( \theta_{\delta_{N}}^{N}\ast\sum_{n=1}^{N}\partial_{e_{n}}\widetilde{f}_{n,N}\left( t,\cdot\right) \right) \left( \left\langle
x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right)
+\sum_{n=1}^{N}\epsilon_{n}\left\vert f_{n,N}^{0}\left( t,\left\langle
x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right)
\right\vert \left\vert \beta_{e_{n}}\left( x,y\right) \right\vert .$$ But$$\sum_{n=1}^{N}\partial_{e_{n}}\widetilde{f}_{n,N}\left( t,x_{1},...,x_{N}\right) =\sum_{n=1}^{N}\partial_{e_{n}}\left\langle F\left(
t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}x_{i}e_{i}\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle \geq-C$$ hence$$-\left( \theta_{\delta_{N}}^{N}\ast\sum_{n=1}^{N}\partial_{e_{n}}\widetilde{f}_{n,N}\left( t,\cdot\right) \right) \left( \left\langle
x,e_{1}\right\rangle ,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right) \leq C.$$ And$$\left\vert f_{n,N}^{0}\left( t,\left\langle x,e_{1}\right\rangle
,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right) \right\vert \leq\left\vert
\left( \theta_{\delta_{N}}^{N}\ast\widetilde{f}_{n,N}^{0}\left(
t,\cdot\right) \right) \left( \left\langle x,e_{1}\right\rangle
,...,\left\langle x,e_{N}\right\rangle \right) \right\vert$$$$\leq\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\theta_{\delta_{N}}^{N}\left( ...,\left\langle
x,e_{j}\right\rangle -x_{j}^{\prime},...\right) \left\vert \left\langle
F_{0}\left( t,\sum_{i=1}^{N}x_{i}e_{i}\right) ,e_{n}\right\rangle
\right\vert dx_{1}^{\prime}...dx_{N}^{\prime}\leq\left\Vert F_{0}\right\Vert
_{\infty}.$$ Summarizing,$$D_{N,M,l}^{\ast}F_{N}\left( t,\left( x,y\right) \right) \leq C+\left\Vert
F_{0}\right\Vert _{\infty}\sum_{n=1}^{N}\epsilon_{n}\left\vert \beta_{e_{n}}\left( x,y\right) \right\vert$$ and thus, finally,$$\begin{aligned}
& \sup_{N\in\mathbb{N}}\int_{E_{N}}\sup_{M,l\in\mathbb{N}}\left( \int_{0}^{T}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}e^{\delta D_{N,M,l}^{\ast}F_{N}\left( t,\left(
x,y\right) \right) }\Psi_{N,M,l}^{2}\left( x,y\right) dxdt\right) \nu
_{N}\left( dy\right) dt\\
& \leq T\int_{H}e^{\delta\left[ C+\left\Vert F_{0}\right\Vert _{\infty}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\epsilon_{n}\left\vert \beta_{e_{n}}\left( x\right)
\right\vert \right] }\nu\left( dx\right) <\infty\end{aligned}$$ for some $\delta>0$.
Let $\rho_0\in L^1(H,\gamma))$. A [*solution*]{} of the continuity equation is a function $\rho\in L^1(0,T; L^1(H,\gamma)$ such that $\rho(0,\cdot)=\rho_0$ and is fulfilled.
If $\rho_0\ln\rho_0\in L^1(H,\gamma)$, in Section 2, we shall prove existence of a solution of by introducing the following approximating equation, where $F$ is replaced by $(F_j)$ (fulfilling Hypothesis \[h2\]) and $\rho_0$ by $\rho_{j,0}$, where $(\rho_{j,0})$ is a sequence in $\mathcal F C^1_b$, converging to $\rho_0$ in $L^1(H,\gamma)$: $$\label{e1.4.a}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds\int_0^T\int_H\left[D_tu(t,x)+\langle D_xu(t,x),F_j(t,x) \rangle\right]\,\rho_j(t,x)\,\gamma(dx)\,dt\\
\\
\ds=-\int_Hu(0,x)\,\rho_{j0}(x)\gamma(dx),\quad \forall\;u\in\mathcal F C^1_{b,T},
\end{array}$$ which has a solution $\rho_j$ since $F_j$ is regular. Then we shall show that a subsequence of $(\rho_{j})$ converges weakly to a solution of . In Section 3 we prove uniqueness of solutions to for a whole class of (non–Gaussian) reference measures $\gamma$ based on an infinite dimensional analogue of DiPerna–Lions type commutator estimates (see [@DiLi89]).
We present a whole explicit class of examples to which our results apply, i.e. for which we have both existence and uniqueness of solutions to (see Example \[ex2.10\] below).
To our knowledge, earliest existence (and uniqueness) results for equation concern the case where $H$ is finite dimensional and the reference measure is the Lebesgue measure, see the seminal papers [@DiLi89] and [@Am04]. If $H$ is infinite dimensional and $\gamma$ is a Gaussian measure, problem has been studied in [@AmFi09], [@FaLu10] and[@DaFlRoe14]. In [@KoRoe14] also non–Gaussian measures, $\gamma$, e.g. Gibbs measures were studied. However, only in the case where $F$ does not depend on $t$. A very general approach in metric spaces has been presented in [@AmTr14], but under the assumption div$_\gamma F$ is bounded. Our assumptions for getting existence of solutions, however, do not require div$_\gamma F$ to be bounded and our uniqueness results include cases where the reference measure $\gamma$ is not Gaussian and not even Gibbsian, i.e. the smoothing semigroup $P_\epsilon$ is not symmetric on $L^2(H,\gamma)$.
We finish this section with some notations and preliminaries. $\mathcal B(H)$ denotes the set of all Borel subsets and $\mathcal P(H)$ the set of all Borel probabilities on $H$. A [*probability kernel*]{} in $[0,T]$ is a mapping $ [0,T]\to\mathcal P(H),\; t\mapsto \mu_t,$ such that the mapping $
[0,T]\to \R,\; t\mapsto \mu_t(I) $ is measurable for any $I\in\mathcal B(H)$. $L(H)$ is the set of all linear bounded operators in $H$, $C_b(H)$, $C_b(H;H)$ the space of all real continuous and bounded mappings $\varphi\colon H\to \R$ and $\varphi\colon H\to H$ respectively, endowed with the sup norm $$\|\varphi \|_{\infty}=\sup_{x\in H}\,|\varphi(x)|,$$ whereas $C^k_b(H)$, $k>1,$ will denote the space of all real functions which are continuous and bounded together with their derivatives of order less or equal to $k$. $ B_b(H)$ will represent the space of all real, bounded and Borel mappings on $H$. Moreover, we shall denote by $\|\cdot\|_p$ the norm in $L^p(H,\gamma)$, $p\in[1,\infty]$. For any $x,y\in H$ we denote either by $\langle x,y\rangle$ or by $x\cdot y$ the scalar product between $x$ and $y$. Finally, if $(e_h)$ is an orthonormal basis in $H$ we set $x_h=\langle x,e_h\rangle$ for all $x\in H$ and $G_h=\langle G,e_h \rangle,\;h\in\N,$ for all $G\in L^2(H,\nu;H)$. Finally, we state a lemma, needed in what follows, whose straightforward proof is left to the reader.
\[l1.4\] Assume, besides Hypothesis \[h1\], that $F\in$ dom $(D_x^*)$ and $\varphi\in C^1_b(H)$. Then $\varphi F\in$ dom $(D_x^*)$ and we have $$\label{e}
D_x^*(\varphi F)= \varphi \,D_x^*(F)-\langle D_x\varphi, F\rangle.$$
The main existence result
=========================
First we notice that if $F\in \mbox{\rm dom}\,(D^*_x)$ then a regular solution $\rho$ to solves the equation $$\label{e2.4a}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\ds D_t\rho+\langle F,D_x\rho \rangle-D_x^*F\,\rho=0,\\
\\
\rho(0,\cdot)=\rho_0,
\end{array}\right.$$ and vice-versa. In fact, since for all $u\in \mathcal FC^1_{b,T}$ $$\label{e2.1a}
\int_0^TD_tu(t,x)\,\rho(t,x)\,dt=-\int_0^Tu(t,x)\,D_t\rho(t,x)\,dt-u(0,x)\rho(0,x),\quad x\in H,$$ and (thanks to Lemma \[l1.4\]) $$\label{e2.2a}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_H\langle D_xu(t,x),F(t,x) \rangle\,\rho(t,x)\,\gamma(dx)=\int_H\langle D_xu(t,x),\rho(t,x)F(t,x) \rangle\, \gamma(dx)\\
\\
\ds=\int_H u(t,x)\,D_x^*(\rho F)(t,x) \, \gamma(dx)=
\int_H u(t,x)\,\rho(t,x)\,D_x^*F(t,x) \, \gamma(dx)\\
\\
\ds
-\int_H u(t,x)\, \langle D_x\rho(t,x),F(t,x) \rangle\, \gamma(dx).
\end{array}$$ Clearly and imply that is equivalent to $$\label{e2.3a}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\ds\int_0^T\int_H u(t,x)\left[- D_t\rho(t,x)+ D^*_xF(t,x)\rho(t,x)
-\langle D_x\rho(t,x),F(t,x) \rangle\,\right]\gamma(dx)\,dt=0,\\
\\
\rho(0,\cdot)=\rho_0,
\end{array}\right.$$ for all $u\in \mathcal FC^1_{b,T}.$ By the density of $\mathcal V \mathcal FC^1_{b,T}$ in $L^2([0,T]\times H,dt\otimes d\gamma)$ we obtain .
\[t2.1n\] Assume that Hypotheses \[h1\] and \[h2\] hold. Let $\zeta:=\rho_0\cdot\gamma$ be a probability measure on $(H,\mathcal B(H))$ such that $$\label{e2.5n}
\int_H\rho_0\,\ln \rho_0\,d\gamma<\infty.$$ Then there exists $\rho: [0,T]\times H\to \R_+$, $\mathcal B([0,T]\times H)$–measurable such that $\nu_t(dx)=\rho(t,x)\gamma(dx)$, $t\in[0,T]$, are probability measures on $(H,\mathcal B(H))$ such that (equivalently ) holds. In addition, $$\label{e2.6n}
\int_0^T\int_H\rho(t,x)\,\ln \rho(t,x)\,\gamma(dx)\,dt<\infty.$$
By disintegration we shall reduce the proof to the case $H=\R^N$ and by regularization to Corollary \[cA2\] in Appendix A. Let $\{e_n,\,n\in\N\}$ be the orthonormal basis from Hypothesis \[h2\](ii)
[**Case 1**]{}. Suppose first that $F:[0,T]\times H\to H $ is as an $F_j$ from Hypothesis \[h2\](iii), $ \rho_0\in \mathcal FC^1_{0}$, $\rho_0\ge 0$.
Hence for some $N\in\N$ (which we fix below and shall no longer explicitly express in the notation below, i.e. write $\Psi_{N,M,l}$ as $\Psi_{M,l}$, $E$ instead of $E_N$, etc.) $$\label{e2.7n}
F(t,x)=\sum_{i=1}^Nf_i(t,x)\,e_i,\quad (t,x)\in[0,T]\times H,$$ where for $1
\le i\le N$, $$f_i(t,x)=\widetilde{f_i}(t,\langle e_1,x \rangle,...,\langle e_N,x \rangle)$$ and $$\rho_0(x)=\widetilde{\rho_0}(\langle e_1,x \rangle,...,\langle e_N,x \rangle)$$ with $\widetilde{\rho_0}\in C^1_0(\R^N)$ and $\widetilde f_i$ as in Hypothesis \[h2\](iii).
Then by Corollary \[cA2\] applied with $\Psi=\Psi^2_{M,l}(\cdot,y)$, we know that $$\label{e2.17}
\rho_{M,l}(t,(x,y)):=\rho_0(\xi(T,T-t,x))\,e^{\int_0^tD^*_{M,l}\,F(T-u,(\xi(T-u,T-t,x),y))\,du},\quad (t,x)\in[0,T]\times \R^N,$$ where (see Lemma\[l1.2\] and ) $$\label{e2.18nn}
D^*_{M,l}F_j(r,(x,y)):=-\sum_{i=1}^N \left( \partial_{e_i}f_{ij}(t,x)+f_{ij}(t,x)\,\frac{\partial }{\partial x_i}\,\Psi_{M,l}^2(x,y)/\Psi_{M,l}^2(x,y) \right),$$ $r\in[0,T],\;x\in\R^N$, solves $$\label{e2.19n}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\ds D_t\rho_{M,l}(t,(x,y))+ \langle F(t,x),D_x\rho_{M,l}(t,(x,y)) \rangle-D^*_{M,l}F(t,(x,y))\rho_{M,l}(t,(x,y))=0,\\
\\
\rho_{M,l}(0,(x,y))
=\rho_0(x).
\end{array}\right.$$ Since $\widetilde\rho_0$ has compact support in $\R^N$ and since $F$ is bounded, we see from that there exists a closed ball $K_R\subset\R^N$, centred at zero and radius $R\ge 1$, such that $$\label{e2.10primo}
\rho_{M,l}(t,(\cdot,y))=0\quad\mbox{\rm on}\, \R^N\setminus K_R\;\mbox{\rm for all}\,(t,y)\in [0,T]\times E;\,M,l\in\N.$$ Furthermore, rewriting as one easily sees that for all $t\in[0,T]$ $$\label{e2.18'}
\int_{\R^N}\rho_{M,l}(t,(x,y))\,\Psi^2_{M,l}(x,y)\,dx=\int_{\R^N}\rho_{0}(x)\,\Psi^2_{M,l}(x,y)\,dx.$$ Below all statements are claimed to hold for $\nu$-a.e., $y\in E$.
We need a few further lemmas of which the first is the most crucial, to prove Case 1.
\[l2.3n\] Let $\epsilon>0.$ Then for all $1 \le i\le N,$ $l,M\in\N$ $$\label{e2.20n}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_{\R^N}\left(\exp\left[\epsilon\left| \left( \frac{\partial \Psi_{M,l}^2}{\partial x_i}\,/\Psi_{M,l}^2 \right)(x,y) \right| \right]-1\right)\,\Psi_{M,l}^2(x,y)\,dx\\
\\
\ds \le \int_{\R^N}\left(\exp\left[\epsilon\left| \left(\frac{\partial \Psi_{M}^2}{\partial x_i}/\Psi_{M}^2\right)(x,y) \right| \right]-1\right)\,\Psi_{M}^2(x,y)\,dx\\
\\
\ds \le \int_{\R^N}\left(\exp\left[\epsilon\left| \beta_{e_i}(x,y) \right| \right]-1\right)\,\Psi^2(x,y)\,dx.
\end{array}$$
Obviously, the left hand side of is equal to $$\label{e2.21n}
\int_{\R^N}\left(\exp\left[\epsilon\left|\int_{\R^N}\left( \frac{\partial \Psi_{M}^2}{\partial x_i}\, /\Psi_{M}^2\right)(\tilde x,y) \,\Psi_{M}^2(\tilde x,y)\,\delta_l(x-\tilde x)\,d\tilde x \,(\Psi_{M,l}^2(x,y))^{-1}\right|\right]-1\right) \Psi_{M,l}^2(x,y))dx.$$ Taking the modulus under the integral and applying Jensen’s inequality for fixed $x\in\R^N$ to the probability measure $$\Psi_{M,l}^2(x,y))^{-1}\,\Psi_{M}^2(\tilde x,y) \,\delta_l(x-\tilde x)\,d\tilde x$$ and the convex function $r\mapsto e^{\epsilon r}-1,\,r\ge 0$, we obtain that is dominated by $$\int_{\R^N}\int_{\R^N}\left(\exp\left[\epsilon\left(\left| \frac{\partial \Psi_{M}^2 }{\partial x_i}\,\right| /\Psi_{M}^2\right)(\tilde x,y)\right]-1\right) \,\Psi_{M}^2(\tilde x,y)\,\delta_l(x-\tilde x)\,d\tilde x \,dx.$$ By Young’s inequality and since $\|\delta_l\|_{L^1(\R^N)}=1,$ the latter is dominated by $$\label{e2.22n}
\int_{\R^N}\left( \exp\left[\epsilon\left(\left| \frac{\partial \Psi_{M}^2}{\partial x_i}\, \right| /\Psi_{M}^2\right)( x,y)\right] -1\right) \,\Psi_{M}^2(x,y) \,dx.$$ Hence the fist inequality in is proved. To show the second we note that $$\frac{\partial \Psi_{M}^2 }{\partial x_i}(\cdot,y) ={\mathds 1}_{\{M^{-1}<\Psi^2(\cdot,y)<M\}}\,\frac{\partial \Psi^2}{\partial x_i}(\cdot,y),\quad dx\mbox{\rm--a.s.}.$$ Hence the integral in is dominated by $$\int_{\R^N} {\mathds 1}_{\{M^{-1}<\Psi^2(\cdot,y)<M\}}\left(\exp\left[\epsilon \left(\left| \frac{\partial \Psi^2 }{\partial x_i}\,\right| /\Psi^2\right)( x,y)\right]-1\right) \,\Psi^2(x,y) \,dx,$$ which in turn by is dominated by the last integral in .
\[l2.4n\] For $\delta>0$ let $C_F(\delta)$ and $C_F(\delta,y)$ be as in Hypothesis \[h2\](iii). Then for $$\delta:=\inf_{1\le i\le N}\,\frac{c_i}{N( \|f_i\|_\infty+1)},$$ we have $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds C_F(\delta,y)\le\sup_{M,l\in\N}\int_0^T\int_{\R^N} \Bigg(\exp\left[-\delta\sum_{i=1}^N \partial_{e_i} f(t,x)\right] ^+\\
\\
\ds\times \exp \left[\delta\sum_{i=1}^N \|f_i\|_\infty\left(\left| \frac{\partial \Psi_{M,l}^2}{\partial x_i}\, \right| \Psi_{M,l}^2\right)( x,y)\right] -1\Bigg) \,\Psi_{M,l}^2(x,y) \,dx\,dt<\infty
\end{array}$$ and $C_F(\delta)<\infty$.
By , and convexity of the function $r\mapsto be^{ar}-1,\,r\ge 0$, for $a,b>0$, this follows immediately from Lemma \[l2.3n\] and .
\[l2.5n\] (i) We have for all $M\in\N$, $t\in[0,T]$ $$\lim_{l\to\infty}D^*_{M,l}F(t,(x,y))=-\sum_{i=1}^N\left[\partial_{e_i}f_i(t,x)+f_i(t,x)\left( \frac{\partial \Psi_{M}^2}{\partial x_i}\, /\Psi_{M}^2\right)( x,y) \right] =:D^*_{M}F(t,(x,y)),$$ and $$\lim_{M\to\infty}D^*_{M}F(t,(x,y))=-\sum_{i=1}^N \left[\partial_{e_i}f_i(t,x)+f_i(t,x)\beta_{e_i}( x,y) \right] =D^*_{x}F(t,(x,y)),$$ in $L^1_{loc}(\R^N,dx)$.
\(ii) Let $\rho_M$ and $\rho$ be defined as $\rho_{M,l}$ with $D^*_{M,l}F$ replaced by $D^*_{M}F$ and $D^*_{x}F$ respectively.
Then there exist subsequences $(l_k)_{k\in\N}$, $(M_k)_{k\in\N}$ such that we have for $dx$–a.e. $x\in \R^N$, for all $M\in \N$ $$\lim_{k\to\infty}\rho_{M,l_k}(t,(x,y))=\rho_{M}(t,(x,y)),\quad\forall\;t\in[0,T]$$ and $$\lim_{k\to\infty}\rho_{M_k}(t,(x,y))=\rho(t,(x,y)),\quad\forall\;t\in[0,T].$$
\(i) Obviously, for all $M\in\N$ by $$\lim_{l\to\infty}D^*_{M,l}F(t,(\cdot,y))=D^*_{M}F(t,(\cdot,y)),\quad\mbox{\rm in $L^1_{loc}(\R^N,dx)$},\,\forall\;t\in[0,T].$$ The second assertion follows, because $$\label{e2.21'}
\left( \frac{\partial \Psi_{M}^2}{\partial x_i}\, /\Psi_{M}^2\right)( x,y) ={\mathds 1}_{(M^{-1},M)} \, (\Psi^2( x,y))\left( \frac{\partial \Psi^2}{\partial x_i}\, /\Psi^2\right)( x,y) .$$
\(ii) Fix $t\in[0,T]$. Then for all $u\in[0,t]$ $$x\mapsto \xi(T-u,T-t,x)$$ is a $C^1$–diffeomorphism on $\R^N$. Let $\phi_{u,t}:\R^N\to\R^N$ be its inverse (i.e. just the corresponding backward flow). Then for every $K\subset\R^N$, $K$ compact, and $\Delta D^*_{M,l}F:=|D^*_{M}F-D^*_{M,l}F|$ we have $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_K\int_0^t\Delta D^*_{M,l}F(T-u,(\xi(T-u,T-t,x),y)\,du\,dx\\
\\
\ds= \int_0^t\int_{\xi(T-u,T-t,K)}\Delta D^*_{M,l}F(T-u, (x,y))\,|\det D\phi_{u,t}(x)|\,dx\,du.
\end{array}$$ Since $F$ is bounded, there exists a ball $B_R(0)$ so that for large enough $R>0,$ $\xi(T-u,T-t,K)\subset B_R(0)$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Hence by Fubini’s Theorem the above integral is dominated by $$\label{e2.15bis}
\int_{B_R(0)} \int_0^t |\det D\phi_{u,t}(x)| \Delta D^*_{M,l}F(T-u, (x,y))\,\,dx\,du.$$ The specific dependence of $F$ on $T-u$ and the well known explicit formula of $\det D\phi_{u,t}$ (recall $\phi_{u,t}$ is a flow) implies that $$x\mapsto \int_0^t |\det D\phi_{u,t}(x)| \,\widetilde f_i(T-u,x)\,du$$ is locally bounded on $\R^N$, so that can be applied to show that the term in converges to zero as $l\to\infty$ . So, the first assertion follows. Then also the second assertion follows by , and the same arguments.
\[l2.6n\] Let $l,M\in\N$. Then for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $\delta>0$ $$\label{e2.24n}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_{\R^N}\rho_{M,l}(t,(x,y))\left( \ln \rho_{M,l}(t,(x,y))-1 \right) \Psi^2_{M,l}(x,y)\,dx\\
\\
\ds\le e^{t/\delta}\Bigg[\int_{\R^N}\rho_0(x)|\ln \rho_0(x)-1|\Psi^2_{M,l}(x,y)\,dx
\ds +C_F(\delta,y)\\
\\
\ds+\frac{t}\delta|\ln \delta|\int_{\R^N}\rho_0(x) \Psi^2_{M,l}(x,y)\, \,dx +\frac{t}{M}|K_{R+1}|+t\int_{\R^N}\Psi^2(x,y)\,dx\Bigg]
\end{array}$$ where $C_F(\delta,y)$ is as defined in Hypothesis \[h2\](iii) and $|K_{R+1}|$ denotes the Lebesgue measure of the ball $K_{R+1}\subset \R^N$, centred at $0$ and radius $R+1$, where $R$ is as in .
Since $\rho_{M,l}(t,(\cdot,y)$ has compact support in $\R^N$ for all $(t,y)\in [0,T]\times E$ by the regularity properties of $\rho_{M,L}$ stated in Corollary \[cA2\] of Appendix A, all integrals below are well defined. Since $M,l\in\N$ and $y\in E$ are fixed, for simplicity of notation we denote the maps $ x\mapsto \rho_{M,l}(t,(x,y))$ and $ x\mapsto \Psi_{M,l}(x,y)$ by $\rho(t)$, $\Psi$ respectively.
Then for $t\in[0,T]$, $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_{\R^N}\rho(t)(\ln \rho(t)-1)\, \Psi^2dx\\
\\
\ds= \int_{\R^N}\rho_0(\ln \rho_0-1)\, \Psi^2dx+\int_{\R^N}\int_0^t\tfrac{d}{ds}[\rho(s)(\ln \rho(s)-1)]\,ds\, \Psi^2dx\\
\\
\ds=\int_{\R^N}\rho_0(\ln \rho_0-1)\, \Psi^2dx+\int_{\R^N}\int_0^t\ln \rho(s)D_s\rho(s)\,ds\, \Psi^2dx\\
\\
\ds= \int_{\R^N}\rho_0(\ln \rho_0-1)\, \Psi^2dx -\int_0^t\int_{\R^N} \langle F(s,x),D_x(\rho(s)(\ln\rho(s)-1)) \rangle \, \Psi^2dx\,ds\\
\\
\ds+\int_0^t\int_{\R^N} D^*_{M,l}\,F(s,(\cdot,y))\rho(s)\,\ln\rho(s) \,\Psi^2dx\,ds\\
\\
\ds=\int_{\R^N}\rho_0(\ln \rho_0-1)\,\Psi^2dx+\int_0^t\int_{\R^N} D^*_{M,l}\,F(s,(\cdot,y))\rho(s) \,\Psi^2dx\,ds\\
\\
\ds\le \int_{\R^N}\rho_0(\ln \rho_0-1)\, \Psi^2dx+\int_0^t\int_{\R^N} \left[ e^{\delta(D^*_{M,l}\,F(s,(\cdot,y))^+}-1 +\tfrac1\delta\,\rho(s)\,(\ln (\tfrac1\delta\, \rho(s))-1)\right] \,\Psi^2dx\,ds\\
\\
\ds +t\int_{K_R}\Psi^2(x,y)\,dy,
\end{array}$$ where in the third equality we used , in the fourth equality we used Fubini’s theorem and the definition of $D^*_{M,l}$ and finally, in the last inequality we used and that $ab\le e^a+b(\ln b-1)$ for $a,b\ge 0$. Now the assertion follows by Gronwall’s lemma, since by $$\label{e2.25n}
\int_{\R^N}\rho_{M,l}(t,(x,y))\,\Psi_{M,l}^2(x,y)\, dx=\int_{\R^N}\rho_0(x)\,\Psi_{M,l}^2(x,y)\, dx,\quad \forall\; \in[0,T],$$ and since $$\int_{K_R} \Psi_{M,l}^2(x,y)\,dx\le \frac1{M}\,|K_{R+1}|+\int_{\R^N} \Psi^2(x,y)\,dx.$$
\[l2.7n\] Let $M\in\N$, $\rho_{M,l,y}(t,x):=\rho_{M,l}(t,(x,y)),\; t\in [0,T]$, $x\in\R^N$, and $\Psi_{M,l,y}(x):=\Psi_{M,l}(x,y)$, $x\in\R^N$. Then $\{\rho_{M,l,y}\cdot \Psi^2_{M,l,y}:\,l\in\N \}$ is uniformly integrable with respect to the measure $\chi(x)\,dx\,dt$, where $\chi$ is the indicator function of an arbitrary compact set in $\R^N$.
Let $c\in(1,\infty)$. Then for all $l\in\N$ and $\rho_{l}:=\rho_{M,l,y}$, $\Psi_{l}:=\Psi_{M,l,y}$, $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_0^T\int_{\R^N}{\mathds 1}_{\{\rho_l\Psi_l^2\ge c\}}\,\rho_l\Psi_l^2\,\chi\,dx\,dt\le \tfrac1{\ln c} \int_0^T\int_{\R^N}{\mathds 1}_{\{\rho_l\Psi_l^2\ge c\}}\,(\ln \rho_l+\ln\Psi_l^2)\rho_l\Psi_l^2\,\chi\,dx\,dt\\
\\
\ds\le \tfrac1{\ln c} \int_0^T\int_{\R^N} |\rho_l\ln \rho_l|\Psi_l^2\, dx\,dt+\tfrac{\ln(M+1)}{\ln c} \int_0^T\int_{\R^N}\rho_l\Psi_l^2\, dx\,dt.
\end{array}$$ Since $r\ln r-r\ge -1$, $r\in[0,\infty)$, it follows by Lemma \[l2.6n\] and , that both integrals on the right hand side of the last inequality are uniformly bounded in $l$ and the assertion follows.
Now we proceed with the proof of Case 1 of Theorem \[t2.1n\]. It follows by (analogously to – above) that for all $$\label{e2.26n}
u(t,x):=g(t)f(x),\quad t\in [0,T],\, x\in \R^N,$$ $g\in C^1([0,T];\R)$ with $g(T)=0$ and $f\in C^1_0(\R^N)$ that $$\label{e2.27n}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_0^T\int_{\R^N} \left[D_tu(t,x)+
\langle D_xu(t,x), F(t,x) \rangle
\right]\rho_{M,l}(t,(x,y))\,\Psi_{M,l}^2(x,y)\,dx\,dt\\
\\
\ds=-\int_{\R^N}u(0,x)\rho_0(x)\,\Psi_{M,l}^2(x,y)\,dx.
\end{array}$$ By Lemma \[l2.5n\](ii) and Lemma \[l2.7n\] we can pass to the limit in along the subsequence $(l_k)_{k\in\N}$ from Lemma \[l2.5n\] to conclude that for such $u$ $$\label{e2.28n}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_0^T\int_{\R^N} \left[D_tu(t,x)+
\langle D_xu(t,x), F(t,x) \rangle
\right]\rho_{M}(t,(x,y))\,\Psi_{M}^2(x,y)\,dx\,dt\\
\\
\ds=-\int_{\R^N}u(0,x)\rho_0(x)\,\Psi_{M}^2(x,y)\,dx.
\end{array}$$ We can also pass to the limit in to get $$\label{e2.29n}
\int_{\R^N}\rho_M(t,(x,y))\,\Psi_M^2(x,y)\, dx=\int_{\R^N}\rho_0(x)\,\Psi_M^2(x,y)\, ,dx,\quad \forall\; t\in[0,T].$$ Furthermore, by Lemma \[l2.5n\](ii) and Lemma \[l2.6n\] we deduce from by Fatou’s lemma that for all $t\in[0,T]$, $\delta>0$ $$\label{e2.30n}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_{\R^N}\rho_M(t,(x,y))(\ln \rho_M(t,(x,y))-1)\,\Psi_M^2(x,y)\,dx\\
\\
\ds\le e^{t/\delta}\Big[\int_{\R^N}\rho_0(x)|\ln \rho_0(x)-1|\,\Psi_M^2(x,y)\,dx+C_F(\delta,y)+\tfrac{t}\delta|\ln \delta|\int_{\R^N}\rho_0(x) \,\Psi_M^2(x,y)\,dx\\
\\
\ds+ \frac{t}{M}\,|K_{R+1}|+t\int_{\R^N} \Psi^2(x,y)\,dx\Big].
\end{array}$$
Taking now the subsequence $(M_k)_{k\in\N}$ from Lemma \[l2.5n\] instead of $M$ and using exactly analogous arguments as above, we can pass to the limit in , and to obtain that for all $u$ as in $$\label{e2.31n}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_0^T\int_{\R^N} \left[D_tu(t,x)+
\langle D_xu(t,x), F(t,x) \rangle
\right]\rho(t,(x,y))\,\Psi^2(x,y)\,dx\,dt\\
\\
\ds=-\int_{\R^N}u(0,x)\rho_0(x)\,\Psi^2(x,y)\,dx,
\end{array}$$ and for all $t\in[0,T]$ $$\label{e2.32n}
\int_{\R^N}\rho(t,(x,y))\,\Psi^2(x,y) \,dx=\int_{\R^N}\rho_0(x)\,\Psi^2(x,y)\,dx,$$ and for all $t\in[0,T]$, $\delta>0$ $$\label{e2.33n}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_{\R^N}\rho(t,(x,y))(\ln \rho(t,(x,y))-1)\,\Psi^2(x,y)\, dx\\
\\
\ds\ds\le e^{t/\delta}\Big[\int_{\R^N} \rho_0(x)|\ln \rho_0(x)-1|\,\Psi^2(x,y) \,dx+C_F(\delta,y)+\tfrac{t}\delta|\ln \delta|\int_{\R^N}\rho_0(x) \,\Psi^2(x,y)\,dx\\
\\
\ds + t\int_{\R^N} \Psi^2(x,y)\,dx \Big].
\end{array}$$ Taking the special $\delta$ from Lemma \[l2.4n\] and $C_F(\delta,y)$ as in Lemma \[l2.5n\] in the situation of Case 1 the assertion of Theorem \[t2.1n\] now follows easily from the disintegration formula , integrating with respect to $\nu$ and by approximating the functions $u$ in in the obvious way. From we get after integrating over $y$ with respect to $\nu$.
\[r2.8\] *(i) We here emphasize that in the situation of Case 1 we have an explicit formula for the solution density in given by $$\label{e2.34n}
\rho(t,(x,y))=\rho_0 (\xi(T,T-t,x))e^{-\int_{0}^{t}D_x^*F(T-u
,\xi(T-u ,T-t,y))du }$$ for $t\in[0,T]$ and $dx$–a.e. $x\in \R^N$ with $\xi$ given as in Corollary \[cA2\] of Appendix A.*
\(ii) Integrating over $y\in E$ with respect to $\nu$, from Lemma \[l2.2n\] we obtain that for all $t\in[0,T]$, $\delta>0$ $$\label{e2.35n}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_{H}\rho(t,x)(\ln \rho(t,x)-1)\,\gamma(dx) \le e^{t/\delta}\left[\int_{H} \rho_0|\ln \rho_0-1|\,d\gamma+C_F(\delta)+\tfrac{t}\delta|\ln \delta|\int_{H}\rho_0\,d\gamma+t\gamma(H)\right]
\end{array}$$ and likewise from that for all $t\in[0,T]$ $$\label{e2.35'n}
\int_{H}\rho(t,x)\,\gamma(dx)=\int_{H}\rho_0(x)\,\gamma(dx) =1.$$
[**Case 2**]{}. Let $F_j,\,j\in\N,$ be as in Hypothesis \[h2\]. Choose nonnegative $\rho_{0,j}\in \mathcal FC^1_0$ such that $$\label{e2.36n}
\lim_{j\to\infty}\rho_{0,j}=\rho_{0}\quad\mbox{\rm in}\;L^1(H,\gamma)$$ and $$\label{e2.37n}
\sup_{j\in\N}\int_H\rho_{0,j}\,\ln \rho_{0,j}\,d\gamma<\infty.$$ For existence of such $\rho_{0,j},\,j\in\N,$ see Corollary \[cC3\] in Appendix C below.
Let $\rho_j$ be the corresponding solutions to with $F_j$ replacing $F$ and $\zeta:=\rho_0\cdot \gamma$, which exist by Case 1. Then by with $\rho_j, F_j, \rho_{0,j}$ replacing $\rho, F$ and $\rho_0$ respectively, Hypothesis \[h2\] and imply that $$\label{e2.38n}
\sup_{j\in \N}\,\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\int_H\rho_j(t,x)\,\ln \rho_j(t,x)\,\gamma(dx)<\infty.$$
By Case 1 we have for all $u\in \mathcal FC^1_{b,T}$ $$\begin{array}{l}
\label{e2.8m}
\ds\int_0^T\int_H\left[\frac{d}{dt}\,u(t,x)+\langle D_xu(t,x),F_j(t,x) \rangle_H\right]\,\rho_j(t,x)\,\gamma(dx)\,dt\\
\\
\ds =-\int_Hu(0,x)\,\rho_{0,j}(x)\gamma(dx).
\end{array}$$ So, by we only have to consider the convergence of the left hand side of , more precisely only the part of it involving $F_j$. But $$\label{e2.9m}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \left|\int_0^T\int_H (\langle D_xu,F_j \rangle_H\,\rho_j-\langle D_xu,F \rangle_H\,\rho)\,d\gamma\,dt\right|\\
\\
\ds\le \|Du\|_\infty\int_0^T\int_H|F_j-F|_H\,\rho_j\,d\gamma\,dt+
\left|\int_0^T\int_H \langle F,Du \rangle\,(\rho_j-\rho) \,d\gamma\,dt\right|
\end{array}$$ Because of the boundedness of $ \langle F,Du \rangle$ the second term on the right hand side of converges to $0$ if $j\to\infty$. Let $\epsilon>0$. Then, by Young’s inequality, the first term on the right hand side of is up to a constant dominated by $$\int_0^T\int_H e^{\frac1\epsilon|F_j-F|_H} \,d\gamma\,dt+\epsilon
\int_0^T\int_H \rho_j\ln(\epsilon\rho_j)\,d\gamma\,dt,$$ of which the first summand converges to zero as $j\to\infty$, since $F_j,F$ are uniformly bounded, while the second summand is dominated by $$\epsilon
\int_0^T\int_H \rho_j\ln\rho_j\,d\gamma\,dt+\epsilon\ln\epsilon,$$ which can be made arbitrarily small uniformly in $j$ because of . Hence putting all this together we conclude that the right hand side of converges to $0$ as $j\to\infty.$ then follows by weak lower semi–continuity. Finally from and it follows that $\nu_t(dx):=\rho(t,x)\,\gamma(dx)$ is a probability measure for all $t\in[0,T]$. Thus Theorem \[t2.1n\] is completely proved.
\[r2.9\] *Though the finite entropy condition in the initial measure $\rho_0$ s crucial in the proof of Theorem \[t2.1n\], it could be replaced by a corresponding assumption with $r\mapsto r( \ln r-1)$ replaced by another Young fnction (see Appendix C below) and adjusting Hypothesis \[h2\](ii) accordingly. In particular, we can take e. g. $r\mapsto r^p, \,r\ge 0,\,p>1$. Then the exponential integrability condition on $D^*_xF$ in Hypothesis \[h2\](iii) can be replaced by an $L^{p'}$-integrability condition with $p'=\tfrac{p}{p-1}.$ Hence the solution $\rho$ to would be in $L^p([0,T]\times H,dt\otimes \gamma)$, provided $\rho_0\in L^p(H,\gamma)$. Therefore, we get existence of solutions also in the situation of Section 3, provided $B$ in is the identity operator (see Corollary \[c3.11primo\] below). Likewise, e.g. for the Young $r\to r^p,\,r\ge 0,\, p>1,$ one can relax the assumption on exponential integrability on $\beta_h,\,h\in Y$, in Hypothesis \[h1\] by $L^p(H,\gamma)$ integrability.*
\[ex2.10\] *Let us discuss Hypothesis \[h2\](ii) for $\gamma$ as in Example \[ex1.3\](ii). In this case we choose $\{e_n:\,n\in\N\}$ to be the eigenbasis of $A$ given by $$e_n(\xi):=\sqrt{\frac2\pi}\,\sin(n\pi \xi),\quad\xi\in[0,1],\;n\in\N.$$ Then for $A_ne_n=-\lambda_n e_n$ with $\lambda_n:=\pi^2\,n^2$, $n\in \N$. Now consider the corresponding disintegration . Then $N(0,\tfrac12\,(-A)^{-1})$ is by independence equal to the convolutions of his projections on $H_N$ and $E_N$ respectively. Hence $$\Psi_N^2(x,y)=\frac1{(2\pi\lambda_1\cdots\lambda_N)^{N/2}Z}\,\exp\left( -\frac{\alpha}{p}\,\int_0^1|x(\xi)+y(\xi)|^p\, d\xi\, -\frac14\sum_{i=1}^N\lambda_i^{-1} \langle e_i,x \rangle^2 \right)$$ where $y\in E_N$ and $x(\xi)= \langle x,e_1\rangle e_1(\xi)+\cdots+ \langle x,e_n \rangle e_n(\xi)$. So, obviously for $\nu_N$–a.e. $y\in E_N$, $x\mapsto\Psi_N^2(x,y)$ is continuous and strictly positive on $H_N$, since $x+y\in L^p(0,1)=:L^p$, because $N(0,\tfrac12(-A)^{-1})(C([0,1];\R))=1.$ Thus holds. Unfortunately so far we do not know whether holds in case of $\gamma$ as in \[ex1.3\]–(iii). Now consider again the situation of \[ex1.3\]–(ii). We are now going to present a class $F:[0,T]\times H\to H$ for which Theorem \[t2.1n\] applies: Let $f\in C_b([0,T]\times\R;\R)$ such that $ f(t,\cdot)\in C^1(\R;\R)$ for every $t\in[0,T]$ and there exist $K\in(0,\infty)$, $\delta\in (0,p)$ such that for $f'(t,r)=f_r(t,r)$ $$f'(t,r)\ge-K(1+|r|^2+\alpha|r|^{p-\delta}),\quad\forall\;(t,r)\in [0,T]\times\R.$$ Define $F_0: [0,T]\times L^2(0,1)\to L^2(0,1)$ by $$F_0(t,x)(\xi):=f(t,x(\xi)),\quad \xi\in (0,1),\;t\in [0,T]]$$ and $F: [0,T]\times L^2(0,1)\to L^2(0,1)$ by $$\label{e*}
F(t,x):=(-A)^{-1}F_0(t,x),\quad x\in L^2(0,1),\;t\in [0,T].$$ Now we want to check Hypothesis \[h2\] for this type of $F$.*
[*Claim 1*]{}. For every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $C_\epsilon\in(0,\infty)$ such that $$\sum_{i=1}^N\partial_{e_i}F^i(t,x)\ge-C_\epsilon-\epsilon(|x|^2_{L^2}+\alpha |x|^p_{L^p]}),\quad x\in L^p(0,1),\;t\in [0,T],\;N\in\N,$$ where $$F^i(t,x):= \langle e_i, F(t,x) \rangle.$$ [*Proof of Claim 1*]{}. Let $x\in L^p(0,1),\;t\in [0,T]$. Then $$\begin{array}{lll}
\ds \sum_{i=1}^N\partial_{e_i}F^i(t,x)&=&\ds
\sum_{i=1}^N\lambda_i^{-1}\partial_{e_i}\int_0^1e_i(\xi)\,f(t,x(\xi))\,d\xi\\
\\
&=&\ds
\sum_{i=1}^N\lambda_i^{-1} \int_0^1e_i^2(\xi)\,f'(t,x(\xi))\,d\xi\\
\\
&\ge&\ds-K
\sum_{i=1}^\infty\lambda_i^{-1} \int_0^1e_i^2(\xi)\,(1+|x(\xi)|^2+\alpha|x(\xi)|^{p-\delta})\,d\xi\\
\\
&\ge&\ds-C_\epsilon-\epsilon(|x(\xi)|_{L^2}^2+\alpha|x(\xi)|_{L^p}^p)
\end{array}$$ by YoungÕs inequality.$\Box$
[*Claim 2*]{}. For every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $C_\epsilon\in(0,\infty)$ such that $$\sum_{i=1}^N\beta_i(x)F^i(t,x)\ge -C_\epsilon-\epsilon(|x(\xi)|_{L^2}^2+\alpha|x(\xi)|_{L^p}^p),\quad \forall\,x\in L^p(0,1),\,t\in[0,T],\,N\in\N.$$ [*Proof of Claim 2*]{}. Let $x\in L^p(0,1),\;t\in [0,T]$. Then by $$\begin{array}{lll}
\ds\sum_{i=1}^N\beta_i(x)F^i(t,x)&\ge&\ds -\sum_{i=1}^N\int_0^1e_i(\xi)\,x(\xi)\,d\xi\,\int_0^1e_i(\xi)\,f(t,x(\xi))\,d\xi\\
\\
&&\ds-\alpha\sum_{i=1}^N\lambda_i^{-1}\int_0^1e_i(\xi)\,|x(\xi)|^{p-2}\,x(\xi)\,d\xi\,\int_0^1e_i(\xi)\,f(t,x(\xi))\,d\xi\\
\\
&\ge&\ds -\langle P_NF_0(t,x),P_Nx\rangle- \alpha\sum_{i=1}^\infty\lambda_i^{-1}\,|f|_\infty\,\sqrt{\tfrac2\pi}\,|e_i|_{L^p}\,\big||x|^{p-1}\big|_{L^{p/(p-1)}} \\
\\
&\ge&\ds - |F_0(t,x)|_{L^2}\,|x|_{L^2}- \alpha\sum_{i=1}^\infty\lambda_i^{-1}\,|f|_\infty\,\tfrac2\pi|x|^{p-1}_{L^p} \\
\\
&\ge&\ds-C_\epsilon-\epsilon(|x|^2_{L^2}+\alpha |x|^p_{L^p}),
\end{array}$$ where $P_N$ denotes the orthogonal projection in $L^2(0,1)$ onto $H_N$, i.e. the linear span of $\{e_1,...,e_N\}$. $\Box$
We note that $C_\epsilon$ can be taken in both claims to be a function only on $\delta, K$ and $|f|_\infty$ which is increasing in $K$ and $|f|_\infty$, while decreasing in $\delta$.
Now let us prove that by Claim 1 and Claim 2 that Hypothesis \[h2\] is satisfied. To avoid a further regularization procedure let us additionally assume that $f(t,\cdot)\in C^2(\R)$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ and $\frac{\partial}{dr}\,f(t,\cdot), \frac{\partial^2}{dr^2}\,f(t,\cdot)\in C([0,T]\times \R)$. Define for $j\in\N,\,x\in H,$ $t\in [0,T]$ $$\label{e**}
F_j(t,x):=P_jF(t,P_jx)=\sum_{i=1}^j\left(\lambda_i^{-1}\int_0^1e_i(\xi)\,f(t,(P_jx)(\xi))\,d\xi \right)\,e_i,$$ where $P_j$ is the orthogonal projection onto the linear span of $\{e_1,...,e_j\}$ in $H=L^2(0,1)$. Then obviously $F_j$ is as in Hypothesis \[h2\](iii) with $N_j=j$ and $$\widetilde f_i(t,x_1,...,x_j)=\lambda_i\int_0^1e_i(\xi)f\left(t,\sum_{l=1}^j x_le_l(\xi)\right)\,d\xi,$$ for $(x_1,...,x_j)\in\R^j.$ Now let us consider the corresponding $C_{F_j}(\delta)$ from Hypothesis \[h2\](iii) and $\Psi_N$ defined in Lemma \[l2.4n\]. Note that $\Psi_N^2(\cdot,y)$ above is $C^2$ and strictly positive on $H_j=\R^j$ for $\nu_N$-a.e. $y\in E.$ Hence by definition $\Psi_{N,M,l}^2=\Psi_N^2$ for all $M,l\in\N$. Hence for $(x,y)\in H_j\oplus H^\perp_j$, $t\in [0,T]$ by Claim 1 and Claim 2 $$D^*_{N_j,M,l}F_j(t,(x,y))\le C_\epsilon+\epsilon(|(x,y)|^2_{L^2}+\alpha |(x,y)|^p_{L^p}).$$ Here we used that $\|P_j\|_{L^p\to L^p}\le c_p\in(0,\infty) $ which is independent of $j$ (see e.g. [@LiTr79 Section 2C16]). Hence obviously for $\delta\in (0,1)$ $$\sup_{j\in\N} C_{F_j}(\delta)<\infty.$$ Hence by Theorem \[t2.1n\] we have a solution $$\nu_t(dx)=\rho(t,x)\gamma(dx),\quad t\in[0,T],$$ with $\gamma$ as above, for equation for $F$ as above with initial condition $\rho_0\,\gamma$ with $\rho_0$ in $L\log L$ with respect to $\gamma$.
Now we shall prove that this solution is also unique provided $\alpha>0$, so $\gamma$ is not Gaussian. We shall, however, apply a uniqueness result for the Gaussian reference measure $N(0,\tfrac12(-A)^{-1})$ proved in [@DaFlRoe14], because $\nu_t$ has the density $$\bar\rho(t,x)=\rho(t,x)\tfrac1{Z}\,e^{-\frac\alpha{p}|x|^p_{L^p}},\quad (t,x)\in [0,T]\times H$$ with respect to $N(0,\tfrac12(-A)^{-1})$. Let us first show that $\bar\rho$ is bounded in $(t,x)$. To this end we first note that because $\sum_{i=1}^\infty \lambda_i^{-1}<\infty$, $$R:=\sup_{j\in\N}\,\left\||F_j|_{L^p}\right\|_\infty<\infty.$$ Hence the corresponding flows $\xi_j$ from with $F_j$ replacing $F$ will all stay in the $L^p$ ball $B^p_{TR}(x)$ for all times in $[0,T]$ when started at $x$ in $L^p(0,1)$. This implies by Claim 1 and 2 that the exponent of the density $\rho^j $ in with $F_j$ replacing $F$ will also have an upper bound of type $$C_\epsilon+\epsilon(|x|_{L^2}^2+\alpha|x|_{L^p}^p),\quad \forall\,x\in L^p(0,1)$$ independent of $j$. Hence it follow that $$\bar\rho^j(t,x):=\rho^j(t,x)\tfrac1{Z}\,e^{-\frac\alpha{p}|x|^p_{L^p}},\quad (t,x)\in [0,T]\times H$$ is $N(0,\tfrac12(-A)^{-1})$–essentially bounded, uniformly in $j$, hence so is its a.e. limit $\bar\rho$.
Now we can apply Theorem 2.3 in [@DaFlRoe14] for $p=\infty$ (which by a misprint there, seems to be excluded, but is in fact included in that theorem) to conclude uniqueness if we can prove the following properties (a)–(c) of $F$ defined above. For this we additionally assume: $$\label{e***}
\mbox{\it There exists $C,M\in(0,\infty)$ such that}\; |f'(t,r)|\le C(1+|r|^M),\quad r\in \R.$$
\(a) $F([0,T]\times H)\subset (-A)^{-1/2}(H)$.
\(b) There exists $s\in (1,\infty)$ such that $$\int_0^T\int_H|(-A)^{1/2}F(t,x)|_H^s\,\gamma_0(dx)\,dt<\infty,$$
\(c) $F\in L^2(0,T;W^{1,s}(H;H,\gamma_0)$, which is defined as the closure of all vector fields $F([0,T]\times H)\to H$ of type with respect to the nom $$\|F\|_{1,s,T}:=\left(\int_0^T\int_H(\|DF(t,x)\|^s_{\mathcal L_2(H)} +|F(t,x)|_H^2 ) \, \gamma_0(dx)\,dt\right)^{1/s},$$ where $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal L_2(H)}$ denotes the Hilbert–Schmidt norm and $\gamma_0=N(0,\tfrac12(-A)^{-1})$.
By the definition of $F$ in property (a) obviously holds. (b) holds for all $s\in (1,\infty)$ since $$|(-A)^{1/2}F(t,x)|_H= |(-A)^{-1/2}F_0(t,x)|_H\le const. \|f\|_\infty.$$ So, let us check (c): Let $F_N$ be as in . Then for $1\le i,j\le N$ $$\partial_{e_j} \langle e_i, F_N(t,x) \rangle =\frac1{\lambda_i}\int_0^1e_i(\xi)\,e_j(\xi) f'(t,(P_Nx)(\xi))\,d\xi,\quad (t,x)\in [0,T]\times H.$$ Hence by for some constant $c_1\in (0,\infty)$ $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds\|DF_N(t,x)\|_{\mathcal L_2(H)}^2=\sum_{i=1}^N\frac1{\lambda_i}\int_0^1e^2_i(\xi)\,|f'(t,(P_Nx)(\xi))|^2\,d\xi\\
\\
\ds\le C_1\sum_{i=1}^\infty\frac1{\lambda_i}\,\sup_{N\in\N}\,\|P_N\|^{2M}_{L^{2M}\to L^{2M}}\,\left( 1+|x|^{2M}_{L^{2M}} \right).
\end{array}$$ Hence $F_N(t,x)),\,N\in \N,$ is bounded in the norm $\|\cdot\|_{1,2,T}$. Since $\sup_{n\in\N}\|F_N\|_\infty<\infty$ and $F_N\to F$ $dt\otimes \gamma_0$–a.e., (c) follows for $s=2$, because the operator $D$ is closable.
Uniqueness
==========
In Example \[ex2.10\] of previous section we proved uniqueness for using the uniqueness result from [@DaFlRoe14] for Gaussian reference measures $\gamma$. For non–Gaussian, reference measures $\gamma$ uniqueness for is much more difficult to prove. In this section we do that for a whole class of non Gaussian, reference measures $\gamma$.
Notations and preliminaries
---------------------------
In this section, we take as reference measure $\gamma$ the invariant measure of the following reaction–diffusion equation in $H:=L^2(0,1)$, $$\label{e3.1}
\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
dX(t)=[AX(t)+p(X(t))]dt+BdW(t),\\
\\
X(0)=x,\quad x\in H,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $A$ is the realisation of the Laplace operator $D^2_\xi $ equipped with Dirichlet boundary conditions, $$Ax=D^2_\xi x,\quad x\in D(A),\quad D(A)=H^2(0,1)\cap H^1_0(0,1),$$ $p$ is a decreasing polynomial of odd degree equal to $N>1$, $B\in L(H)$ with a [*bounded inverse*]{} and $W$ is an $H$–valued cylindrical Wiener process on a filtered probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal F, (\mathcal F_t)_{t>0},\P)$. Let us recall the definition of solution of .
\[d4.5\] (i). Let $x\in L^{2N}(0,1);$ we say that $X\in C_W([0,T];H)$ $\footnote{By $C_W([0,T];H)$ we mean the set of $H$--valued stochastic processes continuous in mean square and adapted to the filtration $(\mathcal F_t)$ .}$ is a [*mild*]{} solution of problem if $X(t)\in L^{2N}(0,1)$ for all $t\ge 0$ and fulfills the following integral equation $$\label{e4.8}
X(t)=e^{tA}x+\int_0^te^{(t-s)A}p(X(s))ds+\int_0^te^{(t-s)A}dW(s),\quad t\ge 0.$$
(ii). Let $x\in H;$ we say that $X\in C_W([0,T];H)$ is a [*generalized*]{} solution of problem if there exists a sequence $(x_n)\subset L^{2N}(0,1),$ such that $$\lim_{n\to \infty}x_n=x\quad\mbox{\rm in}\;L^{2}(0,1),$$ and $$\lim_{n\to \infty}X(\cdot, x_n)=X(\cdot,x)\quad\mbox{\rm in}\;C_W([0,T];H).$$
It is convenient to introduce the following approximating problem $$\label{e4.9}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
dX_\alpha (t)=(AX_\alpha (t)+p_\alpha (X_\alpha (t))dt+B\,dW(t),\\
\\
X_\alpha (0)=x\in H,
\end{array}\right.$$ where for any $\alpha \in(0,1],$ $p_\alpha$ are the Yosida approximations of $p$, that is $$p_{\alpha }(r)= \frac{1}{\alpha }
\;(r-J_{\alpha}(r)),\;J_{\alpha }(r)=(1-\alpha p(\cdot))^{-1}(r),\quad r\in \R.$$ Notice that, since $p_{\alpha }$ is Lipschitz continuous, then for any $\alpha >0,$ and any $x\in H,$ problem $(\ref{e4.9})$ has a unique solution $X_\alpha (\cdot,x)\in C_W([0,T];H)$.
The following result is proved in [@Da04 Theorem 4.8]
\[p4.8\] Let $T>0$, then
1. If $x\in L^{2N}(0,1),$ problem $(\ref{e3.1})$ has a unique mild solution $X(\cdot,x)$.
2. If $x\in L^{2}(0,1),$ problem $(\ref{e3.1})$ has a unique generalized solution $X(\cdot,x).$
In both cases $\ds{\lim_{\alpha \to 0}X_\alpha (\cdot,x)=X(\cdot,x)}$ in $C_W([0,T];H).$
Let us introduce now the transition semigroups $P_t$ and $P_t^\alpha$, setting $$\label{e1}
P_t\varphi(x)=\E[\varphi(X(t,x))],\quad \varphi\in B_b(H)$$ and $$P_t^\alpha\varphi(x)=\E[\varphi(X_\alpha(t,x))],\quad \varphi\in B_b(H).$$
This definition extends to vector fields: if $G:H\rightarrow H$ is measurable bounded, we call $\left( \mathbf{P}_{t}G\right) \left( x\right) $ the element of $H$ such that $$\left\langle \left( \mathbf{P}_{t}G\right) \left( x\right)
,h\right\rangle _{H}=\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\langle G\left( X\left(
t,x\right) \right) ,h\right\rangle _{H}\right]$$ for every $h\in H$. It exists since $$\left\vert \mathbb{E}\left[ \left\langle G\left( X\left( \epsilon,x\right)
\right) ,h\right\rangle _{H}\right] \right\vert \leq\mathbb{E}\left[
|G(t,x)|
_{H}\right] \left |h\right|_{H}\leq C_{G}\,|h|
_{H}$$ where $C_{G}$ bounds $G$. In the sequel we shall use the notation $$\left( \frac{I-\mathbf{P}_{t}}{t}\right) G\left( t,x\right)$$ for $\frac{G\left( t,x\right) -\left( \mathbf{P}_{t}G\left(
t,\cdot\right) \right) \left( x\right) }{t}$ and for analogous expressions. We shall use similar notations for the semigroups associate to the Yosida regularizations, $P_{t}^{\alpha}$ and $\mathbf{P}_t^{\alpha}$.
Denote by $L_{2}\left( H\right) $ (resp. $\mathcal{L}\left( H\right)
$) the Hilbert-Schmidt norm (resp. operator norm) of operators in $H$.
The sequence $(e_j)$ $$\label{e3.2d}
e_j(\xi)=\sqrt{\tfrac2\pi}\;\sin(j\pi\xi),\quad \xi\in[0,1],\; j\in\N,$$ is an orthonormal basis in $H$ and it results $$\label{e3.3d}
Ae_j=-\alpha_j e_j,\quad\forall\;j\in\N,$$ where $$\alpha_j:=\pi^2\,j^2,\quad\forall\;j\in\N.$$
\[l3.3j\] For every $\theta_{0}>1/4$ we have $(-A)^{-\theta_{0}}\in L_2(H)$.
We have in fact $$|( -A) ^{-\theta_{0}}|_{L_{2}\left(
H\right) }^{2}=\sum_{j\in\mathbb{N}}|(-A)^{-\theta_{0}}e_{j}| _{H}^{2}=\sum_{j\in\mathbb{N}}\left\vert
j\right\vert ^{-4\theta_{0}}<\infty.$$
In the sequel we denote by $\theta_{0}$ any number in $(\tfrac14,\tfrac12)$. We need $\theta_{0}<\tfrac12$ for the results on stochastic convolution.
*When $B$ is equal to the identity, is a gradient system and the corresponding transition semigroup $P_t$ is symmetric whereas if $B\neq I$, $P_t$ is not symmetric.*
For $P^\alpha_t$ the following Bismut-Elworthy-Li formula holds, see [@ElLi94] and [@DaZa14]. $$\label{e4.10}
\langle D_xP^\alpha _t\varphi(x),h \rangle=\frac1t\;\E\left[\varphi(X_\alpha (t,x))\int_0^t\langle
B^{-1}\eta_\alpha^h(s,x),dW(s) \rangle \right],\quad h\in H,$$ where for any $h\in H$, $\eta_\alpha^h(t,x)=:D_xX_\alpha(t,x)\cdot h$ is the differential of $X_\alpha(t,x)$ with respect to $x$ in the direction $h$. $\eta_\alpha ^{h}(t,x)$ is the solution of the following equation with random coefficients $$\label{e5b}
D_t\eta_\alpha ^{h}(t,x)=A\eta_\alpha ^{h}(t,x)+D_xp_\alpha(X_\alpha(t,x))
\eta_\alpha^{h}(t,x),\quad \eta_\alpha^{h}(0,x)=h.$$ The proof of the following lemma is a straightforward consequence of the dissipativity of $p(\cdot)$.
\[l3.1a\] It results $$\label{e3.10c}
|\eta^h_{\alpha}(t,x)|_H\le |h|_H,\quad\forall\;t\ge 0,\,x,h\in H,\,\alpha\in(0,1].$$
\[p4.16\] Semigroups $P_t$ and $P^\alpha_t$ have unique invariant measures $\gamma, \gamma^\alpha$ respectively. Moreover $ \gamma^\alpha$ is weakly convergent to $\gamma$ and for any $N\in\N$ there exists $c_N>0$ such that $$\label{e4.11}
\int_H|x|_{L^{2N}(0,1)}^{2N}\gamma^\alpha(dx)\le c_N,\quad \int_H|x|_{L^{2N}(0,1)}^{2N}\gamma (dx)\le c_N.$$
(see [@Da04 Proposition 4.20] and [@DaDe14 Proposition 15]).
\[c3.6\] Let $h(x)\in D(A)$–$\nu$–a.e. $x\in H,$ and $Ah\in L^4(H),\gamma)$. Then there exists $K>0$ such that $$\label{e3.11a}
\int_H|Dp_\alpha(x)h(x)|^2\,\gamma(dx)\le K\|Ah\|^2_{L^4(H,\gamma)} ,\quad\forall\;\alpha\in(0,1].$$
Let $h(x)\in D(A)$. Then there is $K_1>0$ such that $$|p'(x)h(x)|^2\le K_1 |x^{N-1}|^2\,|h(x)|^2_{D(A)}
\le K_1 |x|^{2N-2}_{L^{2N-2}}\,|h(x)|^2_{D(A)}.$$ Integrating with respect to $\gamma$ over $H$ and using Hölder’s inequality, yields $$\begin{array}{lll}
\ds\int_H|p'(x)h(x)|^2\,\gamma(dx)&\le&\ds K_1\int_H|x|^{2N-2}_{L^{2N-2}}\,|Ah(x)|^2\,\gamma(dx)\\
\\
&\le&\ds
K_1\int_H|x|^{4N-4}_{L^{2N-2}}\,\gamma(dx)\,\|Ah\|^2_{L^4(H,\gamma)}.
\end{array}$$ Now the conclusion follows from .
Let us finally recall the elementary identity, see [@DaDe14] $$\label{e3.9aa}
\langle P^{\alpha}_tD_x\varphi,h \rangle=\langle D_xP^{\alpha}_t\varphi,h \rangle-\int_0^t P^{\alpha}_{t-s}[\langle Ah+ D_xp^{\alpha}(x)h,D_xP^\alpha_s\varphi\rangle] \,ds.$$ where $h\in D(A)$ and $\varphi\in C^1_b(H)$.
The range condition
-------------------
Let us consider the Kolmogorov operator $$\label{e3.6}
\mathcal K u(t,x)=D_tu(t,x)+\langle F(t,x),D_xu(t,x) \rangle,$$ defined for all $u\in \mathcal F C^1_{b,T},$ the space of all functions $u$ defined in Section 1 with $Y=D(A)$.
Now the continuity equation can be written as $$\label{e3.7}
\int_0^T\int_H\mathcal K u(t,x)\,\rho(t,x)\,\gamma(dx)dt=-\int_Hu(0,x)\rho_0(x)\,\gamma(dx),\quad u\in \mathcal F C^1_{b} .$$
The following result has be proven in [@DaFlRoe14].
\[p3.1\] Assume that for $p\in[1,\infty)$ the following range condition is fulfilled $$\label{e3.8}
\mathcal K (\mathcal FC^1_{b,T}) \;\mbox{\rm is dense in}\;L^{p}([0,T]; L^p(H,\gamma)).$$ Then if $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ are two solutions of in $L^{p'}([0,T]; L^{p'}(H,\gamma))$, with $p'=\tfrac{p}{p-1},\;pÕ=\tfrac{p}{p-1}$, we have $\rho_1 =\rho_2$.
Let now consider the approximating equation $$\label{e3.11}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
D_tu_j(t,x)+ \langle F_j(t,x), D_xu_j(t,x) \rangle=f(t,x),\\
\\
u_j(T,\cdot)=0,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $(F_j)$ where defined in Hypothesis \[h2\] and $f\in \mathcal F C^1_{b,T}$. Problem has a unique classical solution given by $$\label{e3.12}
u_j(t,x)=-\int_t^{T} f(s,\xi_j(s,t,x))ds.$$ where $\xi_j$ is the solution to $$\label{e3.13}
\frac{d}{dt}\,\xi_j(t)=F_j(t,\xi_j(t)),\quad \xi_j(s)=x.$$
Let us consider a further approximation $P_\epsilon u_j(t,x)$ of $u(t,x)$, where $P_\epsilon$ is the transition semigroup defined in and $\epsilon\in(0,1]$. Applying $P_\epsilon$ to both sides of equation we have $$D_t (P_\epsilon u_j)+ \langle F,D_xP_\epsilon u_j \rangle=P_\epsilon f+ \langle F-F_j,D_xP_\epsilon u_j \rangle+B_\epsilon(F_j,u_j),$$ where $B_\epsilon(F_j,u_j)$ is the [*DiPerna–Lions*]{} commutator defined for $\epsilon\in(0,1]$ as $$\label{e3.22c}
B_\epsilon(u,F)(t,x):=\langle D_xP_\epsilon u(t,x),F(t,x)\rangle -P_\epsilon(\langle D_xu(t,x),F(t,x)\rangle) ,\quad \forall\;u\in \mathcal F C^1_{b,T}\,,F\in\mathcal V\mathcal F C^1_{b,T}.$$ Now the range condition follows provided $$\label{er}
\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\lim_{j\to\infty}B_\epsilon(u_j,F_j)=0\quad \mbox{\rm in}\;u\in L^1([0,T], L^1(H,\gamma)).$$
As shown in [@DaFlRoe14], the basic tool to show is provided by an estimate for the integral $$\int_0^T \int_H |B_\epsilon(u,F)|\,dt\,d\gamma,\quad \epsilon\in(0,1],\quad \forall\;u\in \mathcal F C^1_{b,T} \,,F\in\mathcal V\mathcal F C^1_{b,T} ,$$ in terms of $\|u\|_\infty$ independent of $\epsilon$.
Main result
-----------
To express the main result of this section we need some definitions.
We call $\mathcal{V}\left( H,\gamma\right) $ the space of all measurable functions $\phi:H\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that $$\left\Vert \phi\right\Vert _{\mathcal{V}\left( H,\gamma\right) }^{2}:=\sup_{\epsilon\in\left( 0,1\right) }\int_{H}\phi\left( x\right) \left(
\frac{I-P_{\epsilon}}{\epsilon}\right) \phi\left( x\right) \gamma\left(
dx\right)$$ is finite and we endow $\mathcal{V}\left( H,\gamma\right) $ by the norm $\left\Vert \phi\right\Vert _{\mathcal{V}\left( H,\gamma\right) }$. Similarly we call $\mathcal{V}\left( H,H,\gamma\right) $ the space of all measurable vector fields $G:H\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that $$\left\Vert G\right\Vert _{\mathcal{V}\left( H,H,\gamma\right) }^{2}:=\sup_{\epsilon\in\left( 0,1\right) }\int_{H}\left\langle \left(
\frac{I-\mathbf{P}_{\epsilon}}{\epsilon}\right) G\left( x\right) ,G\left(
x\right) \right\rangle _{H}\gamma\left( dx\right)$$ is finite and we endow $\mathcal{V}\left( H,H,\gamma\right) $ by the norm $\left\Vert G\right\Vert _{\mathcal{V}\left( H,H,\gamma\right) }$.
We note that in the symmetric case ($B=I$), $\mathcal{V}\left( H,\gamma\right) $ coincides with $D((-\mathcal L)^{1/2})$.
\[lemma after def new norm\]The space $\mathcal{F}C_{b}^{2}(H)$ is contained in $\mathcal{V}\left( H,\gamma\right) $. Similar result holds for every vector field $G$ of the form $G=\sum_{h=1}^{n}G_{h}e_{h}$, with $G_{h}\in\mathcal{F}C_{b}^{2}$ for all $h=1,...,n$.
We have$$\left( I-P_{\epsilon}\right) \phi\left( x\right) =\int_{0}^{\epsilon}P_{s}\mathcal{L}\phi\left( x\right) ds$$ where $\mathcal{L}$ is the infinitesimal generator of $P_{t}$. One can check that $\mathcal{L}\phi$ is a bounded continuous function; in particular this is true for the term $\left\langle p\left( x\right) ,D_{x}\phi\left( x\right)
\right\rangle $ because the argument of $\phi$ is in the space of continuous functions. Hence $\left( \frac{I-P_{\epsilon}}{\epsilon}\right) \phi$ is also bounded and thus $\phi\in\mathcal{V}\left( H,\gamma\right) $.
Finally, we have our main estimate. Given $\theta_0\in(\tfrac14,\tfrac12)$ and $\theta \in\left( \theta_{0},\frac{1}{2}\right)$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{p,q,\gamma,T} & :=\left\Vert \left( -A\right)
^{\theta_{0}}F\right\Vert _{L^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\left( 0,T;\mathcal{V}\left(
H,H,\gamma\right) \right) }\\
& +\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{1/2+\theta}F\right\Vert _{L^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\left( 0,T;L^{q}\left( H,\gamma\right) \right) }+\left\Vert
\operatorname{div}F\right\Vert _{L^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\left( 0,T;L^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\left( H,\gamma\right) \right) }.\end{aligned}$$
\[tmain\] For every $p,q$ satisfying $$p \in(2,\infty), \quad \frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q} <1,$$ for every vector field $F:\left[ 0,T\right] \times H\rightarrow
D\left( \left( -A\right) ^{1/2+\theta}\right) $ such that $\left\Vert
F\right\Vert _{p,q,\gamma,T}$ is finite, there is at most one solution of the continuity equation in $L^{q'}([0,T]; L^{p'}(H,\gamma))$, with $p'=\tfrac{p}{p-1},\;q'=\tfrac{q}{q-1}$.
The conclusion of the theorem follows from the rank condition proved in Theorem \[trank\] below, and Proposition \[p3.1\].
\[c3.11primo\] If $B$ in is the identity, then under the conditions of Theorem \[tmain\] there exists a unique solution of the continuity equation in $L^{q'}([0,T];L^{q'}(H,\gamma))$
The existence follows by Theorem \[t2.1n\] and Remark \[r2.9\].
\[r3.12primo\] *As already mentioned in Remark \[r1.5primo\], so far we cannot prove whether Hypothesis \[h2\](ii) holds for $\gamma$ as in Example \[ex1.3\](iii), if $B$ in , is not the identity operator. In this case it was proved in [@BoDaRoe96], [@DaDe04] that $\gamma$ has a density $f$ with respect to $\gamma_0:=N(0,\tfrac12\,(-A)^{-1})$ such that $\sqrt f\in W^{1,2}(H,\gamma_0)$, i.e. the Sobolev space of order $1$ in $L^2(H,\gamma_0)$. To verify Hypothesis \[h2\](ii) it would be enough to show that $x\mapsto f(x,y), (x,y)\in H_N\oplus E_N$, is continuous and strictly positive on $H_N$, for all $N\in\N$ and $\nu_N$–a.e. $y\in E_N$, where $A,\,H_N,\,E_N$ and $\nu_N$ are as in Example \[ex2.10\]. However, so far we did not succeed to prove this. If this could be shown, Corollary \[c3.11primo\] would hold for any $B$ in , .*
Estimating the commutator
-------------------------
We first express the DiPerna–Lions commutator $ B_\epsilon(u,F) $ using the identity . It is convenient to introduce the approximating commutator $$\label{e3.22cc}
B^\alpha_\epsilon(u,F)(t,x):=D_xP^\alpha_\epsilon u(t,x)\cdot F(t,x)-P^\alpha_\epsilon(D_xu(t,x)\cdot F(t,x)),\quad \forall\;u\in \mathcal F C^1_{b,T}(H)\,,F\in\mathcal V\mathcal F C^1_{b,T}(H)$$ for any $\alpha\in(0,1]$.
\[l3.10\] Assume that $ F=\sum_{h=1}^n F^h e_h, $ with $F^h \in \mathcal V\mathcal F C^1_{b,T}(D(A))$, $h=1,...,n$. Then we have $$\label{e3.29k}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds B^\alpha_\epsilon(u,F)=\frac1\epsilon\,\E \left [u(t,X_\alpha(\epsilon,x))(F(t,x)-F(t,X_\alpha(\epsilon,x))\cdot \int_0^\epsilon (D_xX_\alpha(\eta,x))^* \pi_n(B^{-1})^*dW(\eta)\right]\\
\\
\ds+ \int_0^\epsilon P^\alpha_{\epsilon-\eta}\Bigg\{\frac1\eta \E\Big[u(t,X_\alpha(\eta,x))\,\\
\\
\ds\hspace{20mm} \times \Big< F(t,X_\alpha(\eta,x)),\int_0^\eta (A+Dp_\alpha(x)))(D_xX_\alpha(\lambda,x))^*\pi_n(B^{-1})^*\,dW(\lambda) \Big>\Big]\Bigg\}d\eta\\
\\
\hspace{20mm}+P^\alpha_\epsilon(u\,\mbox{\rm div}\,F),
\end{array}$$ where $\pi_n$ is the orthogonal projector on $(e_1,...,e_n)$.
Taking into account , we write $$\label{e3.29c}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds P^\alpha_\epsilon(Du\cdot F)=\ds\sum_{h=1}^nP^\alpha_\epsilon(D_hu\,F^h)=
\sum_{h=1}^n P^\alpha_\epsilon(D_h(uF^h))- P^\alpha_\epsilon(u\,\mbox{\rm div}\,F)\\
\\
\ds=\sum_{h=1}^n D_hP^\alpha_\epsilon(uF^h)- \sum_{h=1}^n\int_0^\epsilon P^\alpha_{\epsilon-\eta}\left[D_x P^\alpha_\eta(uF_h)\cdot(Ae_h+Dp_\alpha e_h)\right]d\eta-
P^\alpha_\epsilon(u\,\mbox{\rm div}\,F).
\end{array}$$ Therefore $$\label{e3.29d}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds B^\alpha_\epsilon(u,F)=\sum_{h=1}^n[D_hP^\alpha_\epsilon(u)F_h-D_h(P^\alpha_\epsilon(uF_h)]\\
\\
\ds+\sum_{h=1}^n\int_0^\epsilon P^\alpha_{\epsilon-\eta}[D_xP^\alpha_\eta(uF_h)\cdot(Ae_h+D_xp_\alpha(x)e_h)]d\eta+P^\alpha_\epsilon(u\,\mbox{\rm div}\,F)\\
\\
=:I_1+I_2+I_3.
\end{array}$$ Let us write $I_1$ and $I_2$ in a more compact way. Recalling the Bismut-Elworthy-Li formula we have $$\label{e3.29e}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds I_1=\frac1\epsilon\,\sum_{h=1}^n\E \left [u(t,X_\alpha(\epsilon,x))(F_h(t,x)-F_h(t,X_\alpha(\epsilon,x))\int_0^\epsilon D_xX_\alpha(\eta,x)e_h)\cdot \pi_n(B^{-1})^*dW(\eta)\right]\\
\\
\ds=\frac1\epsilon\,\E \left [u(t,X_\alpha(\epsilon,x)(F(t,x)-F(t,X_\alpha(\epsilon,x))\cdot \int_0^\epsilon (D_xX_\alpha(\eta,x))^* \pi_n(B^{-1})^*dW(\eta)\right]
\end{array}$$ (the last integral is well defined because obviously $\pi_n(B^{-1})^*(X_x(\eta,x))^*$ is Hilbert–Schmidt.) As for $I_2$ we have, using again $$\label{e3.29l}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds I_2= \sum_{h=1}^n\int_0^\epsilon P^\alpha_{\epsilon-\eta}[D_xP^\alpha_\eta(uF_h)\cdot(Ae_h+D_xp_\alpha(x)e_h)]d\eta\\
\\
\ds=\sum_{h=1}^n\int_0^\epsilon P^\alpha_{\epsilon-\eta}\Bigg\{\frac1\eta \E\Big[u(t,X_\alpha(\eta,x))\,F_h(t,X_\alpha(\eta,x)))\\
\\
\ds\hspace{20mm} \times\int_0^\eta\langle B^{-1}D_xX_\alpha(\lambda,x)(A\pi_ne_h+D_xp_\alpha \pi_ne_h),dW(\lambda)\rangle\Big]\Bigg\}d\eta\\
\\
\ds= \int_0^\epsilon P^\alpha_{\epsilon-\eta}\Bigg\{\frac1\eta \E\Big[u(t,X_\alpha(\eta,x))\, F(t,X_\alpha(\eta,x)))\\
\\
\ds\hspace{20mm} \cdot\int_0^\eta (A+D_xp_\alpha (x))( (D_xX_\alpha(\eta,x))^*\,\pi_n(B^{-1})^*dW(\lambda) \Big]\Bigg\}d\eta.
\end{array}$$ So, follows.
The following corollary is a consequence of Lemma \[l3.10\] taking into account the invariance of $\gamma_\alpha$.
\[c3.10\] Assume that $ F=\sum_{h=1}^n F^h e_h, $ with $F^h \in \mathcal F C^1_b(D(A))$, $h=1,...,n$. Then we have, $$\label{e3.29h}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_H|B^\alpha_\epsilon(u,F)|d\gamma_\alpha\\
\\
\ds\le\frac1\epsilon\,\int_H\E \left |u(t,X_\alpha(\epsilon,x))(F(t,x)-F(t,X_\alpha(\epsilon,x))\cdot \int_0^\epsilon (D_xX_\alpha(\eta,x))^* \pi_n(B^{-1})^*dW(\eta)\right|\,d\gamma_\alpha\\
\\
\ds+\int_H \int_0^\epsilon \frac1\eta \E\Big|u(X_\alpha(\eta,x))\, F(X(\eta,x)))\\
\\
\ds\hspace{20mm}\cdot \int_0^\eta (A+D_xp_\alpha(x)))(D_xX_\alpha(\eta,x))^*\pi_n(B^{-1})^*dW(\lambda)\Big|d\eta\,d\gamma_\alpha\\
\\
\ds+\int_H|u\,\mbox{\rm div}\,F|\,d\gamma_\alpha=:J_1+J_2+J_3.
\end{array}$$
To estimate $\int_H|B_\epsilon(u,F)|\,d\gamma$ we need some preliminary results.
\[prop prima stima\]For every $p\in(2,\infty]$ there is a constant $C_{p}>0$, independent of $\alpha$ and $\epsilon$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{\epsilon}\int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\vert u\left( t,x\right)
\left\langle F\left( t,x\right) -F\left( t,X_{\alpha}\left( \epsilon
,x\right) \right) ,\int_{0}^{\epsilon}\left( D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left(
\eta,x\right) \right) ^{\ast}\left( B^{-1}\right) ^{\ast}dW\left(
\eta\right) \right\rangle \right\vert \right] \gamma_{\alpha}\left(
dx\right) \\
& \leq C_{A,B,p}\left( \int_{H}\left\langle \left( \frac{I-\mathbf{P}_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}}{\epsilon}\right) \left( -A\right) ^{\theta_{0}}F\left( t,x\right) ,\left( -A\right) ^{\theta_{0}}F\left( t,x\right)
\right\rangle _{H}\gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right) ^{1/2}\left(
\int_{H}\left\vert u\left( t,x\right) \right\vert ^{p}\gamma_{\alpha}\left(
dx\right) \right) ^{1/p}$$ where $C_{A,B,p}=C_{p}\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{-\theta_{0}}\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( H\right) }\left\Vert B^{-1}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}\left(
H\right) }$ for some constant $C_{p}>0$.
Call $I$ the integral we have to estimate. To shorten the notations, call $I^{\prime}$ the stochastic integral$$I^{\prime}:=\int_{0}^{\epsilon}\left( -A\right) ^{-\theta_{0}}\left(
D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left( \eta,x\right) \right) ^{\ast}\left( B^{-1}\right)
^{\ast}dW\left( \eta\right) .$$ We have$$\begin{aligned}
I & =\frac{1}{\epsilon}\int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ u\left( t,x\right)
\left\langle \left( -A\right) ^{\theta_{0}}F\left( t,x\right) -\left(
-A\right) ^{1/2}F\left( t,X_{\alpha}\left( \epsilon,x\right) \right)
,I^{\prime}\right\rangle \right] \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \\
& \leq\frac{1}{\epsilon}\left( \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\Vert \left(
-A\right) ^{\theta_{0}}F\left( t,x\right) -\left( -A\right) ^{\theta_{0}}F\left( t,X_{\alpha}\left( \epsilon,x\right) \right) \right\Vert _{H}^{2}\right] \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right) ^{1/2}\\
& \cdot\left( \int_{H}\left\vert u\left( t,x\right) \right\vert ^{p}\gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right) ^{1/p}\left( \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\Vert I^{\prime}\right\Vert _{H}^{r\left( p\right)
}\right] \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right) ^{1/r\left( p\right) }$$ with $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{r\left( p\right) }=1$ namely $r\left( p\right) =\frac{p-2}{2p}$ and in particular with the condition $$p\in(2,\infty].$$ By the Burkholder-Davies–Gundy inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}\left[ \left| I^{\prime}\right| _{H}^{r\left( p\right)
}\right] \leq C_{p}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \int_{0}^{\epsilon}\left\Vert
\left( -A\right) ^{-\theta_{0}}\left( D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left( \eta,x\right)
\right) ^{\ast}\left( B^{-1}\right) ^{\ast}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left(
H\right) }^{2}d\eta\right) ^{r\left( p\right) /2}\right] \\
& \leq C_{p}\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{-\theta_{0}}\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( H\right) }^{r\left( p\right) }\left\Vert B^{-1}\right\Vert
_{\mathcal{L}\left( H\right) }^{r\left( p\right) }\mathbb{E}\left[
\left( \int_{0}^{\epsilon}\left\Vert D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left( \eta,x\right)
\right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}\left( H\right) }^{2}d\eta\right) ^{r\left(
p\right) /2}\right] \\
& \leq C_{p}\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{-\theta_{0}}\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( H\right) }^{r\left( p\right) }\left\Vert B^{-1}\right\Vert
_{\mathcal{L}\left( H\right) }^{r\left( p\right) }\left( \sqrt{\epsilon
}\right) ^{r\left( p\right) }$$ because, by dissipativity of the reaction diffusion system, $$\left\Vert D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left( \eta,x\right) \right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}\left( H\right) }\leq1.$$ Therefore$$I\leq\frac{C}{\sqrt{\epsilon}}\left( \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left|
\left( -A\right) ^{\theta_{0}}F\left( t,x\right) -\left( -A\right)
^{\theta_{0}}F\left( t,X_{\alpha}\left( \epsilon,x\right) \right)
\right |_{H}^{2}\right] \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right)
^{1/2}\left( \int_{H}\left\vert u\left( t,x\right) \right\vert ^{p}\gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right) ^{1/p}$$ where $C=C_{p}^{1/r\left( p\right) }\left\Vert \left( -A\right)
^{-\theta_{0}}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( H\right) }\left\Vert B^{-1}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}\left( H\right) }$. Finally, writing $G\left(
t,x\right) =\left( -A\right) ^{\theta_{0}}F\left( t,x\right) $,$$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left| \left( -A\right) ^{1/2}F\left(
t,x\right) -\left( -A\right) ^{1/2}F\left( t,X_{\alpha}\left(
\epsilon,x\right) \right) \right|_{H}^{2}\right] \gamma_{\alpha
}\left( dx\right) \\
& =\int_{H}\left( \left| G\left( t,x\right) \right| _{H}^{2}-2\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\langle G\left( t,x\right) ,G\left(
t,X_{\alpha}\left( \epsilon,x\right) \right) \right\rangle _{H}\right]
+\mathbb{E}\left[ \left| G\left( t,X_{\alpha}\left( \epsilon,x\right)
\right) \right| _{H}^{2}\right] \right) \gamma_{\alpha}\left(
dx\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Now$$\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\langle G\left( t,x\right) ,G\left( t,X_{\alpha
}\left( \epsilon,x\right) \right) \right\rangle _{H}\right] =\left\langle
G\left( t,x\right) ,\mathbb{E}\left[ G\left( t,X_{\alpha}\left(
\epsilon,x\right) \right) \right] \right\rangle _{H}=\left\langle G\left(
t,x\right) ,\left( \mathbf{P}_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}G\left( t,\cdot\right)
\right) \left( x\right) \right\rangle _{H}$$$$\begin{aligned}
\int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left| G\left( t,X_{\alpha}\left(
\epsilon,x\right) \right) \right|_{H}^{2}\right] \gamma_{\alpha
}\left( dx\right) & =\int_{H}\left( P_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}\left|
G\left( t,\cdot\right) \right|_{H}^{2}\right) \left( x\right)
\gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \\
& =\int_{H}\left| G\left( t,x\right) \right | _{H}^{2}\gamma
_{\alpha}\left( dx\right)\end{aligned}$$ because $\gamma_{\alpha}$ is invariant for $P_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}$, hence$$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left|\left( -A\right) ^{1/2}F\left(
t,x\right) -\left( -A\right) ^{1/2}F\left( t,X_{\alpha}\left(
\epsilon,x\right) \right) \right|_{H}^{2}\right] \gamma_{\alpha
}\left( dx\right) \\
& =2\int_{H}\left( \left|G\left( t,x\right) \right|_{H}^{2}-\left\langle G\left( t,x\right) ,\left( \mathbf{P}_{\epsilon}^{\alpha
}G\left( t,\cdot\right) \right) \left( x\right) \right\rangle
_{H}\right) \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \\
& =2\int_{H}\left\langle G\left( t,x\right) ,G\left( t,x\right) -\left(
\mathbf{P}_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}G\left( t,\cdot\right) \right) \left(
x\right) \right\rangle _{H}\gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Collecting these facts, we have proved the proposition.
\[prop B alpha\]Under the assumptions of Theorem \[tmain\] there exist constants $C_{A,B,p}$ (given by Proposition \[prop prima stima\]) and $C_{A,B,p,q,\theta}$, both independent of $\alpha$ and $\epsilon$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{H}\left\vert B_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}\left( u,F\right) \left(
t,x\right) \right\vert \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \\
& \leq C_{A,B,p}\left\Vert u\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{p}\left( H,\gamma_{\alpha}\right) }\left( \int_{H}\left\langle \left(
\frac{I-\mathbf{P}_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}}{\epsilon}\right) \left( -A\right)
^{\theta_{0}}F\left( t,x\right) ,\left( -A\right) ^{\theta_{0}}F\left(
t,x\right) \right\rangle _{H}\gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right)
^{1/2}\\
& +C_{A,B,p,q,\theta}\left\Vert u\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{p}\left( H,\gamma_{\alpha}\right) }\left\Vert \left( -A\right)
^{1/2+\theta}F\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{q}\left(
H,\gamma_{\alpha}\right) }\\
& +\left\Vert u\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{p}\left(
H,\gamma_{\alpha}\right) }\left\Vert \operatorname{div}F\left(
t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\left( H,\gamma_{\alpha
}\right) }$$ for all functions $u\in\mathcal{F}C_{b,T}^{1}(H)$ and vector field $F$ of the form $F=\sum_{h=1}^{n}F_{h}e_{h}$, with $F_{h}\in\mathcal{F}C_{b,T}^{2}(H)$ for all $h=1,...,n$.
**Step 1**. We know$$\int_{H}\left\vert B_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}\left( u,F\right) \left(
t,x\right) \right\vert \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \leq J_{1}+J_{2}+J_{3}$$ where$$J_{1}=\frac{1}{\epsilon}\int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\vert u\left(
t,x\right) \left\langle F\left( t,x\right) -F\left( t,X_{\alpha}\left(
\epsilon,x\right) \right) ,\int_{0}^{\epsilon}\left( D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left(
\eta,x\right) \right) ^{\ast}\left( B^{-1}\right) ^{\ast}dW\left(
\eta\right) \right\rangle \right\vert \right] \gamma_{\alpha}\left(
dx\right)$$$$J_{2}=\int_{H}\int_{0}^{\epsilon}\frac{1}{\eta}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\vert
u\left( t,X_{\alpha}\left( \eta,x\right) \right) \left\langle F\left(
t,X_{\alpha}\left( \eta,x\right) \right) ,J_{2}^{\prime}\right\rangle
\right\vert \right] d\eta d\gamma_{\alpha}\left( x\right)$$$$J_{3}=\int_{H}u\left( t,x\right) \operatorname{div}F\left( t,x\right)
\gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) .$$ where for shortness we wrote$$J_{2}^{\prime}=\int_{0}^{\eta}\left( A+D_{x}p_{\alpha}\left( x\right)
\right) ^{\ast}\left( D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left( \lambda,x\right) \right)
^{\ast}\left( B^{-1}\right) ^{\ast}dW\left( \lambda\right) .$$ The estimate for $J_{1}$ has been made above and the estimate for $J_{3}$ is trivial. We need only to estimate $J_{2}$. Let $r>0$ be such that $$\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}+\frac{1}{r}=1.$$ Then$$\begin{aligned}
J_{2} & \leq\int_{0}^{\epsilon}\frac{1}{\eta}d\eta\left( \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left\vert u\left( t,X_{\alpha}\left( \eta,x\right)
\right) \right\vert ^{p}\right] \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right)
^{1/p}\\
& \cdot\left( \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left| \left( -A\right)
^{1/2+\theta}F\left( t,X_{\alpha}\left( \eta,x\right) \right) \right|_{H}^{q}\right] \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right) ^{1/q}\left(
\int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left|J_{2}^{\prime}\right| _{H}^{r}\right] \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right) ^{1/r}$$$$\begin{aligned}
& \leq\int_{0}^{\epsilon}\frac{1}{\eta}d\eta\left( \int_{H}\left( P_{\eta
}^{\alpha}\left( \left\vert u\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\vert ^{p}\right)
\right) \left( x\right) \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right) ^{1/p}\\
& \cdot\left( \int_{H}\left( P_{\eta}^{\alpha}\left( \left| \left(
-A\right) ^{1/2+\theta}F\left( t,\cdot\right) \right| _{H}^{q}\right)
\right) \left( x\right) \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right) ^{1/q}\\
& \cdot\left( \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( \int_{0}^{\eta}\left\Vert
\left( -A\right) ^{-1/2-\theta}\left( A+D_{x}p_{\alpha}\left( x\right)
\right) ^{\ast}\left( D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left( \lambda,x\right) \right)
^{\ast}\left( B^{-1}\right) ^{\ast}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( H\right)
}^{2}d\lambda\right) ^{r/2}\right] \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right)
\right) ^{1/r}$$ and using invariance of $\gamma_{\alpha}$ for $P_{\eta}^{\alpha}$ and the fact that $B^{-1}$ is bounded, $$J_2 \leq\left\Vert B^{-1}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}\left( H\right) }C\left(
\epsilon,\theta,r\right) \left\Vert u\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{p}\left( H,\gamma_{\alpha}\right) }\left\Vert \left( -A\right)
^{1/2+\theta}F\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{q}\left(
H,\gamma_{\alpha}\right) }$$ where $C\left( \epsilon,\theta,r\right)$ and $g(x)$ are given respectively by: $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{0}^{\epsilon}\frac{1}{\eta}d\eta\left( \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[
\left( \int_{0}^{\eta}\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{-1/2-\theta}\left(
A+D_{x}p_{\alpha}\left( x\right) \right) ^{\ast}\left( D_{x}X_{\alpha
}\left( \lambda,x\right) \right) ^{\ast}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left(
H\right) }^{2}d\lambda\right) ^{r/2}\right] \gamma_{\alpha}\left(
dx\right) \right) ^{1/r}\\
& \leq\int_{0}^{\epsilon}\frac{1}{\eta}d\eta\left( \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[
\left( \int_{0}^{\eta}\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{1/2-\theta}\left(
D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left( \lambda,x\right) \right) ^{\ast}\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( H\right) }^{2}d\lambda\right) ^{r/2}\right] g\left(
x\right) \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right) ^{1/r}$$$$g\left( x\right) :=\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{-1/2-\theta}\left(
A+D_{x}p_{\alpha}\left( x\right) \right) ^{\ast}\left( -A\right)
^{-1/2+\theta}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}\left( H\right) }^{r}.$$ It remains to estimate $C\left( \epsilon,\theta,r,\theta\right) $ (which a priori may be infinite).
**Step 2**. From [@DaDe17 Corollary 2.3], we have, for $\delta\in\left(
0,1-\alpha\right) $,$$\int_{0}^{\eta}\left| \left( -A\right) ^{\left( 1-\alpha-\delta\right)
/2}D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left( t,x\right) h\right|_{H}^{2}dt\leq C\left(
T\right) \Delta_{T}\left( x\right) \eta^{\delta}\left\Vert h\right\Vert
_{D\left( \left( -A\right) ^{-\alpha/2}\right) }^{2}$$ where$$\Delta_{T}\left( x\right) =1+\sup_{t\in\left[ 0,T\right] }\left\Vert
D_{x}p_{\alpha}\left( X_{\alpha}\left( t,x\right) \right) \right\Vert
_{\infty}^{2}$$ (it is a random variable). In particular, choosing $\delta$ very small and $\alpha=1-2\delta<1-\delta$, since the $H$ norm is bounded by any $D\left(
\left( -A\right) ^{\varepsilon}\right) $-norm for $\varepsilon>0$, we get $$\int_{0}^{\eta}\left| D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left( t,x\right) h\right|
_{H}^{2}dt\leq C\left( T\right) \Delta_{T}\left( x\right) \eta^{\delta
}\left| h\right| _{D\left( \left( -A\right) ^{-1/2+\delta}\right)
}^{2}.$$ Hence, for $\delta=\theta-\theta_{0}$ (all constants denoted by $C,C\left(
T\right) $ below, different from line to line, may depend on $T$ but not on $\alpha$), $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{0}^{\eta}\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{1/2-\theta}\left(
D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left( \lambda,x\right) \right) ^{\ast}\right\Vert
_{L_{2}\left( H\right) }^{2}d\lambda\\
& =\int_{0}^{\eta}\left\Vert D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left( \lambda,x\right) \left(
-A\right) ^{1/2-\theta}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( H\right) }^{2}d\lambda\\
& =\sum_{k}\int_{0}^{\eta}\left|D_{x}X_{\alpha}\left( \lambda,x\right)
\left( -A\right) ^{1/2-\theta}e_{k}\right|_{H}^{2}d\lambda\\
& \leq C\left( T\right) \Delta_{T}\left( x\right) \eta^{2\left(
\theta-\theta_{0}\right) }\sum_{k}\left|\left( -A\right) ^{1/2-\theta
}e_{k}\right|_{D\left( \left( -A\right) ^{-1/2+\left( \theta
-\theta_{0}\right) }\right) }^{2}\\
& =C\left( T\right) \Delta_{T}\left( x\right) \eta^{\theta-\theta_{0}}\sum_{k}\left|\left( -A\right) ^{-\theta_{0}}e_{k}\right| _{H}^{2}\\
& =C\left( T\right) \Delta_{T}\left( x\right) \eta^{\theta-\theta_{0}}\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{-\theta_{0}}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left(
H\right) }^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence$$\begin{aligned}
C\left( \epsilon,\theta,r\right) & \leq\int_{0}^{\epsilon}\frac{1}{\eta
}d\eta\left( \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \left( C\left( T\right) \Delta
_{T}\left( x\right) \eta^{\theta-\theta_{0}}\left\Vert \left( -A\right)
^{-\theta_{0}}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( H\right) }^{2}\right)
^{r/2}\right] g\left( x\right) \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right)
^{1/r}\\
& =C\left( T\right) ^{1/2}\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{-\theta_{0}}\right\Vert _{L_{2}\left( H\right) }\int_{0}^{\epsilon}\frac{\eta^{r\left(
\theta-\theta_{0}\right) /2}}{\eta}d\eta\left( \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[
\Delta_{T}\left( x\right) ^{r/2}\right] g\left( x\right) \gamma_{\alpha
}\left( dx\right) \right) ^{1/r}$$ It remains to bound $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \Delta_{T}\left( x\right) ^{r/2}\right]
g\left( x\right) \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \\
& =\int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \Delta_{T}\left( x\right) ^{r/2}\right]
\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{-1/2-\theta}\left( A+D_{x}p_{\alpha}\left(
x\right) \right) ^{\ast}\left( -A\right) ^{-1/2+\theta}\right\Vert
_{\mathcal{L}\left( H\right) }^{r}\gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \\
& \leq C\int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \Delta_{T}\left( x\right) ^{r/2}\right]
\left( 1+\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{-1/2+\theta}D_{x}p_{\alpha}\left(
x\right) \left( -A\right) ^{-1/2-\theta}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}\left(
H\right) }^{r}\right) \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \\
& \leq C\left( \int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \Delta_{T}\left( x\right)
^{r}\right] \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \right) ^{1/2}\cdot\\
& \cdot\left( \int_{H}\left( 1+\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{-1/2+\theta
}D_{x}p_{\alpha}\left( x\right) \left( -A\right) ^{-1/2-\theta}\right\Vert
_{\mathcal{L}\left( H\right) }^{2r}\right) \gamma_{\alpha}\left(
dx\right) \right) ^{1/2}$$ renaming the constants. We have$$\Delta_{T}\left( x\right) \leq1+C\sup_{t\in\left[ 0,T\right] }\left\Vert
X_{\alpha}\left( t,x\right) \right\Vert _{\infty}^{N-1}$$ and thus, by [@DaDe17 Theorem 4.8 (iii)], $$\mathbb{E}\left[ \Delta_{T}\left( x\right) ^{r}\right] \leq C+C\left|
x\right| _{H}^{r\left( N-1\right) }$$ which implies$$\int_{H}\mathbb{E}\left[ \Delta_{T}\left( x\right) ^{r}\right]
\gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \leq C.$$ Finally, since$$\left( D_{x}p_{\alpha}\left( x\right) h\right) \left( \xi\right)
= p'(J_\alpha(x(\xi)))h(\xi)$$ we have$$\left|D_{x}p_{\alpha}\left( x\right) h\right| _{H}\leq C\left\Vert
x\right\Vert _{\infty}^{N-1}\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{H}$$ namely$$\left\Vert D_{x}p_{\alpha}\left( x\right) \right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}\left(
H\right) }\leq C\left\Vert x\right\Vert _{\infty}^{N-1}$$ and therefore, being both $\left( -A\right) ^{-1/2+\theta}$ and $\left(
-A\right) ^{-1/2-\theta}$ bounded in $H$ (recall that $\theta<\frac{1}{2}$), $$\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{-1/2+\theta}D_{x}p_{\alpha}\left( x\right)
\left( -A\right) ^{-1/2-\theta}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}\left( H\right)
}\leq\left\Vert D_{x}p_{\alpha}\left( x\right) \right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}\left( H\right) }\leq C\left\Vert x\right\Vert _{\infty}^{N-1}$$ which implies$$\int_{H}\left( 1+\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{-1/2+\theta}D_{x}p_{\alpha
}\left( x\right) \left( -A\right) ^{-1/2-\theta}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}\left( H\right) }^{2r}\right) \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \leq C.$$
\[corollary est\] Under the assumption of Theorem \[tmain\] there exist constants $C_{A,B,p}$, $C_{A,B,p,q,\theta}$, independent of $\epsilon$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{H}\left\vert B_{\epsilon}\left( u,F\right) \left( t,x\right)
\right\vert \gamma\left( dx\right)
\leq C_{A,B,p}\left\Vert u\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{p}\left( H,\gamma\right) }\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{\theta_{0}}F\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert _{\mathcal{V}\left( H,H,\gamma\right)
}\\
& +C_{A,B,p,q,\theta}\left\Vert u\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{p}\left( H,\gamma\right) }\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{1/2+\theta
}F\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{q}\left( H,\gamma\right) }
+\left\Vert u\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{p}\left(
H,\gamma\right) }\left\Vert \operatorname{div}F\left( t,\cdot\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\left( H,\gamma\right) }$$ for all functions $u\in\mathcal{F}C_{b,T}^{1}$ and vector field $F$ of the form $F=\sum_{h=1}^{n}F_{h}e_{h}$, with $F_{h}\in\mathcal{F}C_{b,T}^{2}$ for all $h=1,...,n$.
Let us consider term by term the main inequality of Proposition \[prop B alpha\]. Since $x\mapsto u\left( t,\cdot\right) $ is bounded continuous function, $$\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow0}\left\Vert u\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{p}\left( H,\gamma_{\alpha}\right) }^{p}=\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow0}\int_{H}\left\vert u\left( t,x\right) \right\vert ^{p}\gamma_{\alpha}\left(
dx\right) =\int_{H}\left\vert u\left( t,x\right) \right\vert ^{p}\gamma\left( dx\right)$$ because $\gamma_{\alpha}$ converges weakly to $\gamma$. The same argument applies to the terms $\left\Vert \left( -A\right) ^{1/2+\theta}F\left(
t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{q}\left( H,\gamma_{\alpha}\right) }$ and $\left\Vert \operatorname{div}F\left( t,\cdot\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\left( H,\gamma_{\alpha}\right) }$.
We have to prove that $$\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow0}\int_{H}\left\vert B_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}\left(
u,F\right) \left( t,x\right) \right\vert \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right)
=\int_{H}\left\vert B_{\epsilon}\left( u,F\right) \left( t,x\right)
\right\vert \gamma\left( dx\right) .$$ We have$$\left\vert \int_{H}\left\vert B_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}\left( u,F\right) \left(
t,x\right) \right\vert \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) -\int_{H}\left\vert
B_{\epsilon}\left( u,F\right) \left( t,x\right) \right\vert \gamma\left(
dx\right) \right\vert \leq I_{1}+\left\vert I_{2}\right\vert$$ where$$\begin{aligned}
I_{1} & =\int_{H}\left\vert \left\vert B_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}\left(
u,F\right) \left( t,x\right) \right\vert -\left\vert B_{\epsilon}\left(
u,F\right) \left( t,x\right) \right\vert \right\vert \gamma_{\alpha}\left(
dx\right) \\
I_{2} & =\int_{H}\left\vert B_{\epsilon}\left( u,F\right) \left(
t,x\right) \right\vert \gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) -\int_{H}\left\vert
B_{\epsilon}\left( u,F\right) \left( t,x\right) \right\vert \gamma\left(
dx\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $\phi$ bounded continuous implies $x\mapsto\left( P_{\epsilon
}^{\alpha}\phi\right) \left( x\right) $ continuous and bounded by $\left\Vert \phi\right\Vert _{\infty}$. One can prove that when $\phi$ has also bounded continuous derivatives, $x\mapsto\left( D_{x}P_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}\phi\right) \left( x\right) $ is also continuous and uniformly bounded in $\alpha$. The same is true without $\alpha$. Then $\left\vert B_{\epsilon}\left( u,F\right) \left( t,x\right)
\right\vert $ is bounded continuous. It follows that $\left\vert
I_{2}\right\vert \rightarrow0$ as $\alpha\rightarrow0$, because $\gamma
_{\alpha}$ converges weakly to $\gamma$. Moreover, since the family $\left\{
\gamma_{\alpha}\right\} $ is tight, given $\eta>0$ there is a compact set $K_{\eta}\subset H$ such that $\gamma_{\alpha}\left( K_{\eta}\right)
\geq1-\eta$ for all $\alpha$; and for what we have just said, outside $K_{\eta}$ we may use the fact that $\left\vert B_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}\left(
u,F\right) \left( t,x\right) \right\vert $ is uniformly bounded in $\alpha
$. Then we rewrite$$I_{1}\leq\int_{K_{\eta}}\left\vert \left\vert B_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}\left(
u,F\right) \left( t,x\right) \right\vert -\left\vert B_{\epsilon}\left(
u,F\right) \left( t,x\right) \right\vert \right\vert \gamma_{\alpha}\left(
dx\right) +C\eta.$$ Recall that, when $\phi$ is bounded continuous, $P_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}\phi$ converges to $P_{\epsilon}\phi$ as $\alpha\rightarrow0$ uniformly on bounded sets of $H$; and when $\phi$ has also bounded continuous derivatives, also $D_{x}P_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}\phi$ converges to $D_{x}P_{\epsilon}\phi$ as $\alpha\rightarrow0$, uniformly on bounded sets of $H$. Hence $\left\vert
\left\vert B_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}\left( u,F\right) \left( t,x\right)
\right\vert -\left\vert B_{\epsilon}\left( u,F\right) \left( t,x\right)
\right\vert \right\vert $ converges to zero uniformly on $K_{\eta}$.
With the same argument, given $\phi\in\mathcal{F}C_{b}^{2}$, for every $\epsilon$, we have $$\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow0}\int_{H}\phi\left( x\right) \left( \frac
{I-P_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}}{\epsilon}\right) \phi\left( x\right)
\gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) =\int_{H}\phi\left( x\right) \left(
\frac{I-P_{\epsilon}}{\epsilon}\right) \phi\left( x\right) \gamma\left(
dx\right) .$$ Then, for every $\epsilon$, $$\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow0}\int_{H}\phi\left( x\right) \left( \frac
{I-P_{\epsilon}^{\alpha}}{\epsilon}\right) \phi\left( x\right)
\gamma_{\alpha}\left( dx\right) \leq\left\Vert \phi\right\Vert
_{\mathcal{V}\left( H,\gamma\right) }^{2}.$$ We apply this inequality in the vector case to $\left( -A\right)
^{\theta_{0}}F\left( t,\cdot\right) $.
Finally, we have our main estimate.
\[trank\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[tmain\] there exist constants $C_{A,B,p}$,$C_{A,B,p,q,\theta}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{T}\int_{H}\left\vert B_{\epsilon}\left( u,F\right) \left(
t,x\right) \right\vert \gamma\left( dx\right) dt
\leq C_{A,B,p,\theta}\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{L^{p}\left( 0,T;L^{p}\left( H,\gamma\right) \right) }\left\Vert F\right\Vert _{p,q,\gamma,T}$$ for all functions $u\in L^{p}\left( 0,T;L^{p}\left( H,\gamma\right)
\right) $ and vector fields $F:\left[ 0,T\right] \times H\rightarrow
D\left( \left( -A\right) ^{1/2+\theta}\right) $ such that $\left\Vert
F\right\Vert _{p,q,\gamma,T}$ is finite. Moreover, for such $\left(
u,F\right) $, $$\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow0}\int_{0}^{T}\int_{H}\left\vert B_{\epsilon}\left(
u,F\right) \left( t,x\right) \right\vert \gamma\left( dx\right) dt=0.$$ Under these conditions, the rank condition follows.
The proof is similar to [@DaFlRoe14].
Deterministic Feynman–Kac formula and the solution of for sufficiently regular $F$
==================================================================================
Consider the equation $$\label{eA1}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\ds\frac{d}{dt}\,\xi(t) =\widetilde F(t,\xi(t)) , \\
\\
\xi(s)=x,\quad x\in \R^d,
\end{array} \right.$$ with $\widetilde F$ regular, namely it belongs to the class $\mathcal V \mathcal F C^1_b(H)$. Let $V\colon [0,T] \times \R^d\to \R$ be also regular. We want to solve $$\label{eA2}
\left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
v_{s}(s,x)&+&\displaystyle{\langle D_xv(s,x), \widetilde F(s,x) \rangle +V(s,x)v(s,x)=0, \quad 0\leq s< T, }\\
\\
v(T,x)&=&\varphi (x), \quad x \in H.
\end{array} \right.$$ The following result is well known, see e.g. [@Ma07]. We present, however, a proof for the reader’s convenience.
\[pA1\] Assume $\widetilde F\in C_b([0,T]\times \R^d;\R^d)$ such that $\widetilde F(t,\cdot)\in C^1(\R^d,\R^d)$ for all $t\in [0,T]$ and let $V\in C([0,T]\times \R^d)$ such that $V(t,\cdot)\in C^1(\R^d)$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ such that $D_xV:[0,T]\times \R^d\to \R^d$ is continuous. Let $\varphi\in C^1(\R^d)$. Then the solution to is given by $$\label{eA3}
v(s,x)= \varphi (\xi(T,s,x))e^{\int_{s}^{T}V(u
,\xi(u ,s,x))du }, \qquad (s,x)\in [0,T]\times \R^d,$$ where for $s\le t$, $\xi(t,s,x)$ denotes the solution to at time $t$ when started at time $s$ at $x\in\R^d$. In particular, $v(\cdot,x)\in C^1([0,T])$ for every $x\in\R^d$ and $D_tv\in C([0,T]\times \R^d)$.
We only present the main steps. We shall check that $v$ defined by is a solution to .
For any decomposition $\{s=s_0<s_1<\cdots <s_n=T\} $ of $[s,T]$ we write $$v(s,x)-\varphi (x)=-\sum_{k=1}^{n}[v(s_{k},x)-v(s_{k-1},x)],$$ which is equivalent to, $$\label{eA4}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{v(s,x)-\varphi (x)}=\ds{-\sum_{k=1}^{n}[v(s_{k},x)-v(s_{k},\xi(
s_{k},s_{k-1},x))]}\\
\\
\displaystyle{-\sum_{k=1}^{n}[v(s_{k},\xi(s_{k},s_{k-1},x))-v(s_{k-1},x)]=:J_1-J_2.
}
\end{array}$$ Concerning $J_1$ we write thanks to Taylor’s formula $$\label{eA5}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds J_1\sim \sum_{k=1}^{n}\langle D_{x}v(s_{k},x),\xi(s_{k},s_{k-1},x)-x \rangle\sim
\sum_{k=1}^{n}\langle D_{x}v(s_{k},x),\widetilde F(s_k,x) \rangle (s_{k}-s_{k-1})\\
\\
\ds\to \int_s^T \langle D_{x}v(r,x),\widetilde F(r,x) \rangle dr.
\end{array}$$
Concerning $J_2$ we write [^1] $$\label{eA6}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds J_2=\sum_{k=1}^nv(s_{k},\xi(s_{k},s_{k-1},x))-v(s_{k-1},x))\\
\\
\ds=\sum_{k=1}^n\varphi (\xi(T,s_k,\xi(s_{k},s_{k-1},x)))e^{\int_{s_k}^{T}V(u ,\xi(u ,s_k,\xi(s_{k},s_{k-1},x)))du
}\\
\\
\ds-\sum_{k=1}^n\varphi (\xi(T,s_{k-1},x))e^{\int_{s_{k-1}}^{T}V(u ,\xi(u ,s_{k-1},x))du }\\
\\
\ds=\sum_{k=1}^n\varphi (\xi(T,s_{k-1},x))\left[e^{\int_{s_k}^{T}V(u ,\xi(u ,s_{k-1},x))du}-e^{\int_{s_{k-1}}^{T}V(u ,\xi(u ,s_{k-1},x))du
}\right]\\
\\
\ds=\sum_{k=1}^n v(s_{k-1},x))
\left( e^{-\int_{s_{k-1}}^{s_k}V(u ,\xi(u ,s_{k-1},x))du }-
1 \right)\\
\\
\ds\sim - \sum_{k=1}^nv(s_{k-1},x)V(s_{k-1},x)(s_{k}-s_{k-1})\to-\int_s^T v(r,x)V(r,x)dr.
\end{array}$$
Replacing $J_1$ and $J_2$ given by and respectively in , yields $$v(s,x)=\varphi(x)+\int_s^T \langle D_{x}v(r,x),\widetilde F(r,x) \rangle dr+\int_s^T v(r,x)V(r,x)dr$$ and the claim is proved.
As a trivial consequence we obtain
\[cA2\] Let $\Psi\in C^2(\R^d)$, $\Psi$ bounded and strictly positive. Let $F\in C_b([0,T]\times \R^d;\R^d)$ such that $F(t,\cdot)\in C^1(\R^d;\R^d)$ and define $$D^*_xF(t,\cdot):=-\mbox{\rm div}\,F(t,\cdot)-\langle F(t,\cdot), D_x\Psi/\Psi\rangle_{\R^d}.$$ Assume that $D^*_xF(t,\cdot)\in C^1(\R^d)$ for all $t\in[0,T]$, and $D^*_xF\in C([0,T]\times \R^d)$, $D_xD^*_xF\in C([0,T]\times \R^d;\R^d)$. Then for every $\rho_0\in C^1(\R^d),\,\rho_0\ge 0,$ $$\rho(t,x):= \rho_0 (\xi(T,T-t,x))e^{\int_{0}^{t}D_x^*F(T-u
,\xi(T-u ,T-t,x))du }$$ is a solution of , where $\xi(\cdot,s,x)$ is the solution to started at time $s$ at $x\in\R^d$, with $\widetilde F(t,x):=-F(T-t,x),\; (t,x)\in[0,T]\times \R^d$. Furthermore, $\rho(\cdot,x)\in C^1([0,T])$ for every $x\in\R^d$ and $D_t\rho\in C([0,T]\times \R^d).$
Apply Proposition \[pA1\] with $\widetilde F$ as in the assertion above, $$V(t,x)=D_x^* F(T-t,x),\quad (t,x)\in[0,T]\times\R^d$$ and $\varphi:=\rho_0$.
A remark on the Burkholder–Davis–Gundy inequality
=================================================
Our aim in this section is to prove the following proposition.
\[pB1\] Let $p\ge 4$. Then for every $t\ge 0,$ $$\label{eB1}
\E\sup_{s\in [0,t]}\left|\int_0^t\Phi(s)dW(s) \right|^p \le
c_p\left[\E\left(\int_0^t\|\Phi(s)\|^2_{L_2^0}\,ds\right)^{p/2} \right],$$ where $c_p:=12^p\,p^p$.
Set $$Z(t)=\int_{0}^{t}\Phi (s)dW(s), \quad
t\geq 0,$$ and apply Itô’s formula to $f(Z(\cdot ))$ where $f(x)=|x|^{p}, \; x \in H$. Since $$f_{xx}(x)=p(p-2)|x |^{p-4}x \otimes x+p|x |^{p-2}I,\quad x \in H,$$ we have $$\|f_{xx}(x)\|\leq p(p-1)|x|^{p-2},$$ therefore $$|\mbox{\rm Tr}\;\Phi ^{*}(t)f_{xx}(Z(t))\Phi (t)Q| \leq p(p-1) |Z(t)|^{p-2}\|\Phi (t)\|^{2}_{L_{2}^{0}}.$$ By taking expectation in the identity $$|Z(t)|^p=p \int_0^t |Z(s)|^{p-2}\langle Z(s),dZ(s)\rangle+\frac12\;\int_0^t\mbox{\rm Tr}\;[\Phi ^{*}(s)f_{xx}(Z(s))\Phi (s)Q]ds,$$ we obtain by the Burkholder–Davis–Gundy inequality for $p=1$ $$\label{eB2}
\begin{array}{l}
\ds\E\sup_{s\in[0,t]}|Z(s)|^{p}\le \frac{p(p-1)}2\;\E\left( \int_{0}^{t}|Z(s)|^{p-2}\|\Phi (s)\|^{2}_{L_{2}^{0}}\,ds \right)\\
\\
\ds+3p\E\left[\left( \int_{0}^{t}\|\Phi (s)\|^{2}_{L_{2}^{0}}\,|Z(s)|^{2p-2}ds \right)^{1/2} \right]\\
\\
\ds\le \frac{p(p-1)}2\;\E\left( \sup_{s \in [0,t]}|Z(s)|^{p-2} \int_{0}^{t}\|\Phi (s)\|^{2}_{L_{2}^{0}} ds \right)\\
\\
\ds+3p\E\left[ \sup_{s \in [0,t]}|Z(s)|^{p-1} \left( \int_{0}^{t}\|\Phi (s)\|^{2}_{L_{2}^{0}} ds \right)^{1/2} \right]\\
\\
\ds \le \frac{p(p-1)}2\;\left[\E\left( \sup_{s \in [0,t]}\,|Z(s)|^p \right) \right]^{\frac{p-2}{p}} \;\left[\E\left(\int_{0}^{t}\|\Phi (s)\|^{2}_{L_{2}^{0}} ds \right)^{\frac{p}{2} } \right]^{\frac2p}\\
\\
\ds+3p\E\left[ \sup_{s \in [0,t]}\,|Z(s)|^p \right]^{\frac{p-1}{p}}\;\left[\E\left(\int_{0}^{t}\|\Phi (s)\|^{2}_{L_{2}^{0}} ds \right)^{\frac{p}{2} } \right]^{\frac1p}\\
\\
:=J_1+J_2.
\end{array}$$ For $J_1$ we use Young’s inequality with exponents $\tfrac{p}{p-2}$ and $\tfrac{p}{2}$ and find $$J_1\le \frac{1}4\,\E\left[ \sup_{s \in [0,t]}\,|Z(s)|^p \right]+2^{p-1}p^p\,\E\left(\int_{0}^{t}\|\Phi (s)\|^{2}_{L_{2}^{0}} ds \right)^{\frac{p}2}$$ For $J_2$ we use Young’s inequality with exponents $\tfrac{p}{p-1}$ and $p$ and find $$J_2\le \frac14\,E\left[ \sup_{s \in [0,t]}\,|Z(s)|^p \right]+\frac12\,12^p\,p^p\, \E\left(\int_{0}^{t}\|\Phi (s)\|^{2}_{L_{2}^{0}} ds \right)^{\frac{p}2}.$$ Now with $c_p:=12^p\,p^p$ follows.
Density of $\mathcal FC^1_b$ in Orlicz spaces
=============================================
Let $N:\R\to [0,\infty)$ be continuous and a Young function, i.e. convex, even and $N(0)=0$.
Consider the measure space $(H,\mathcal B(H),\gamma)$, where $H$ is as before a separable real Hilbert space with Borel $\sigma$–algebra $\mathcal B(H)$ and $\gamma$ a nonnegative finite measure on $(H,\mathcal B(H))$. We recall that the Orlicz space $L_N$ corresponding to $N$ is defined as $$L_N:=L_N(H, \gamma):=\{f:H\to\R:\, f \mbox{\it is $ \mathcal B(H)$--measurable and }\;\int_HN(af)d\gamma<\infty\; \mbox{\it for some}\; a>0 \}$$ or equivalently $$L_N: =\{f:H\to\R:\, f\;\mbox{\it is $\mathcal B(H)$--measurable and }\;\|f\|_{L_N}<\infty \},$$ where $$\|f\|_{L_N}:=\inf\left\{\lambda>0:\,\int_HN(f/\lambda)\,d\gamma\le 1\right\}.$$ $(L_N,\,\|\cdot\|_{L_N})$ is a Banach space (see e.g. [@RaRe02]).
\[pC1\] $\mathcal F C^1_b$ is dense in $((L_N,\,\|\cdot\|_{L_N})$, where $\mathcal F C^1_b$ is defined as in Section 1. Furthermore, if $f\in L_N$, $f\ge 0$, then there exist nonnegative $f_n\in \mathcal F C^1_b,\;n\in\N$, such that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\|f-f_n\|_{L_N}=0.$$ Both assertions remain true, if $\mathcal F C^1_b$ is replaced by $\mathcal F C^1_0$
We need the following lemma whose proof is straightforward, see e.g. [@Le Lemma 1.16]
\[lC2\] Let $f_n\in L_N,\,n\in\N.$ Then the following assertions are equivalent:
\(i) $\ds\lim_{n\to\infty} \|f_n\|_{L_N}=0$
\(ii) For all $a\in(0,\infty)$ $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\int_HN(af_n)\,d\gamma\le 1$$
\(iii) For all $a\in(0,\infty)$ $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_HN(af_n)\,d\gamma=0.$$
[**Proof of Proposition \[pC1\]**]{}.
We shall use a monotone class argument. Define $$\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal M:=\Big\{ f:H\to\R:\,f\,\mbox{\it bounded, $\mathcal B(H)$--measurable such that} \\
\\
\ds \hspace{10mm}\lim_{n\to\infty} \|f-f_n\|_{L_N}=0 ,\;\mbox{\it for some}\; f_n\in \mathcal FC^1_b,\,n\in\N\Big\}.
\end{array}$$ Obviously, $\mathcal M$ is a linear space, $ \mathcal FC^1_b\subset \mathcal M$ and $ \mathcal FC^1_b$ is closed under multiplication and contains the constant function $1$. Furthermore, if $0\le u_n\in \mathcal M,$ $n\in \N,$ such that $u_n\uparrow u$ as $n\to \infty$ for some bounded $u:H\to [0,\infty)$, then for each $n\in\N$ there exists $ f_n\in \mathcal FC^1_b$ such that $$\label{eC1}
\|u_n-f_n\|_{L_N}\le \frac1n.$$ But since $N$ is continuous on $\R$, hence locally bounded, we have that for every $a\in (0,\infty)$, $N(a(u-u_n)),\,n\in\N,$ are uniformly bounded. Consequently, by Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem and Lemma \[lC2\], we conclude that $$\label{eC2}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|u-u_n\|_{L_N}=0.$$ and imply that $u\in \mathcal M$, and therefore $\mathcal M$ is a monotone vector space and thus by the monotone class theorem $\mathcal M$ is equal to the set of all bounded $\sigma(\mathcal F C^1_b)$–measurable functions on $H$. But $\sigma(\mathcal F C^1_b)=\mathcal B(H)$, since the weak and norm–Borel $\sigma$–algebra on a separable Banach space coincide. Hence $\mathcal M$ is equal to all bounded $\mathcal B(H)$–measurable functions on $H$. Since by Lemma \[lC2\] and the same arguments as above every $f$ in $L_N$ can be approximated in the norm $\|\cdot\|_{L_N}$ by bounded $\mathcal B(H)$–measurable functions, the first assertion of the proposition is proved.
Now let $f\in L_N,\,f\ge 0.$ By the argument above we may assume that $f$ is bounded. Then by what we have just proved we can find $f_n\in \mathcal F C^1_b$ such that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\|f-f_n\|_{L_N}=0.$$ Since $|f-f_n^+|=|f^+-f_n^+|\le |f-f_n|$ for all $n\in\N$ and $N$ is even and increasing on $[0,\infty)$ (because $N$ is convex and $N(0)=0$), Lemma \[lC2\] immediately implies that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\|f-f_n^+\|_{L_N}=0.$$ Fix $n\in\N$ and for $\epsilon>0$ take an increasing function $\chi_\epsilon\in C^1(\R)$, $\chi_\epsilon(s)=s,\,\forall \,s\in[0,\infty)$ and $\chi_\epsilon(s)=-\epsilon$ if $s\in(-\infty,-2\epsilon)$. Then for each $n\in\N$ $$\lim_{m\to\infty}\left\|f_n^+-\left(\chi_{\frac1m}(f_n)+\frac1m\right)\right\|_{\infty}=0.$$ So, again by Lemma \[lC2\] and Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem it follows that $$\lim_{m\to\infty}\left\|f_n^+-\left(\chi_{\frac1m}(f_n)+\frac1m\right)\right\|_{L_N}=0.$$ But obviously, $\chi_{\frac1m}(f_n)+\frac1m\in \mathcal F C^1_b$, $m\in\N$, and each such function is nonnegative. Hence the second part of the assertion follows. The third part of the assertion then follows by similar arguments and multiplying by a sequence of suitable localizing functions.
\[cC3\] Let $\rho\ge 0$, $\mathcal B(H)$–measurable such that $$\int_H\rho\,\log\rho\,d\gamma<\infty.$$ Then there exist nonnegative $\rho_n\in \mathcal F C^1_b,$ $n\in\N,$ such that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\rho_n=\rho\quad\mbox{\it in}\;L^1(H,\gamma)$$ and $$\sup_{n\in\N}\int_H\rho_n\,\log\rho_n\,d\gamma<\infty.$$
Let $N(s):=(|s|+1)\,\ln(|s|+1)-|s|,\, s\in\R$. Then it is easy to check that $N$ is a continuous Young function. Hence by Proposition \[pC1\] we can find $\rho_n\in \mathcal F C^1_b$, $\rho_n\ge 0$, $n\in\N,$ such that $$\label{eC3}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\|\rho-\rho_n\|_{L_N}=0.$$ Since $L_N\subset L^1(H,\gamma)$ continuously (see [@Le Proposition 1.15]), the first assertion follows. Furthermore, we have for all $s\in(0,\infty)$ $$s\ln s-s\le s\ln(s+1)\le (s+1)\ln(s+1)-s=N(s)$$ and hence for $n\in\N$ by the convexity of $N$ and every $a\in(0,\infty)$ $$\begin{array}{l}
\ds \int_H\rho_n\,\ln \rho_n
\,d\gamma=\frac1a\int_H a\rho_n\,\ln(a \rho_n)\,\,d\gamma-\ln a\int_H\rho_n\,d\gamma\\
\\
\ds\le \frac1a\int_H N(a\rho_n)\,\,d\gamma+|1-\ln a|\int_H\rho_n\,d\gamma\\
\\
\ds\le \frac1{2a}\int_H N(2a(\rho_n-\rho))\,\,d\gamma+ \frac1{2a}\int_H N(2a\rho)\,\,d\gamma+|1-\ln a|\int_H\rho_n\,d\gamma.
\end{array}$$ Hence by the first part of the assertion, and Lemma \[lC2\], it follows that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\int_H\rho_n\,\ln \rho_n\,d\gamma\le \frac1{2a}\int_H N(2a\rho)\,\,d\gamma+|1-\ln a|\int_H\rho\,d\gamma.$$ But since $\rho\in L_N$ we can find $a>0$ such that the right hand side is finite. Hence the second part of the assertion also follows.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
G. Da Prato and F. Flandoli are partially supported by GNAMPA from INDAM.
M. Röckner is supported by SFB 1283 through the DFG.
We also would like to thank an anonymous referee for his comments which led to an improvement of this paper.
[99]{}
S. Albeverio, M. Röckner, [*Classical Dirichlet forms on topological vector spaces–closability and a Cameron-Martin formula.*]{} J. Funct. Anal. [**88**]{}, no. 2, 395–436, 1990.
S. Albeverio, M. Röckner, T. Zhang, [*Markov uniqueness for a class of infinite-dimensional Dirichlet operators.*]{} Stochastic processes and optimal control (Friedrichroda, 1992), 1–26, Stochastics Monogr., 7, Gordon and Breach, Montreux, 1993.
L. Ambrosio, [*Transport equation and Cauchy problem for BV vector fields*]{}, Invent. Math., [**158**]{}, no. 2, 227–260, 2004.
L. Ambrosio, A. Figalli, [*On flows associated to Sobolev vector fields in Wiener spaces: an approach à la Di Perna - Lions*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. [**256**]{}, no. 1, 179–214, 2009.
L. Ambrosio, G. Savaré and L. Zambotti, [*Existence and stability for Fokker-Planck equations with log-concave reference measure.*]{} Probab. Theory Related Fields [**145**]{}, no. 3-4, 517–564, 2009.
L. Ambrosio and D. Trevisan, [*Well posedness of Lagrangian flows and continuity equations in metric measure spaces*]{}, Anal. PDE 7, no. 5, 1179–1234, 2014.
V.Bogachev, G. Da Prato, and M. Röckner, [*Regularity of invariant measures for a class of perturbed Ornstein–Uhlenbeck operators,*]{} Nonlinear Differential Equations and Applications, [**3**]{}, no. 2, 261–268, 1996.
G. Da Prato, [*Kolmogorov equations for stochastic PDEs*]{}, Birkäuser 2004.
G. Da Prato and A. Debussche, [*Absolute continuity of the invariant measures for some stochastic PDEs*]{}, Journal of Statistical Physics, [**115**]{}, no. 112, 451–468, 2004.
G. Da Prato and A. Debussche, [*Existence of the Fomin derivative of the invariant measure of a stochastic reaction–diffusion equation*]{}, Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences), Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan, 121–134, 2014, arXiv:1193405.
G. Da Prato and A. Debussche, [*Estimate for $P_tD$ for the stochastic Burgers equation,*]{} Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat. [**52**]{}, no. 3, 1248–1258, 2016.
G. Da Prato and A. Debussche, [An integral inequality for the invariant measure of a stochastic reaction–diffusion equation]{}, J. evol. equ. 17(1), 197–214, 2017.
G. Da Prato, F. Flandoli and M. Röckner, [ *Uniqueness for continuity equations in Hilbert spaces with weakly differentiable drift,*]{} Stoch. PDE: Anal. Comp., [**2**]{}, 121–145, 2014.
G. Da Prato and M. Röckner, [*Singular dissipative stochastic equations in Hilbert spaces,*]{} Probab. Theory Relat. Fields, [**124**]{}, no. 2, 261–303, 2002.
G. Da Prato and J. Zabczyk, [*Stochastic equations in infinite dimensions*]{}, second edition, Cambridge, 2014.
R. J. Di Perna, P. L. Lions, [*Ordinary differential equations, transport theory and Sobolev spaces,*]{} Invent. Math., [**98**]{}, 511Ð-547, 1989.
K. D. Elworthy and X.-M. Li, [*Formulae for the derivatives of heat semigroups,*]{} J. Funct. Anal., [**125**]{}, no.1, 252–286, 1994.
S. Fang, D. Luo, [*Transport equations and quasi-invariant flows on the Wiener space*]{}, Bull. Sci. Math., [**134**]{}, 295–328, 2010.
A.V. Kolesnikov and M. Röckner, [*On continuity equations in infinite dimensions with non-Gaussian reference measure.* ]{} J. Funct. Anal. [**266**]{}, no. 7, 4490–4537, 2014.
C. Leonard, [*Orlicz spaces*]{}, unpublished notes, available in Internet.
J. Lindestrauss and L.Trafiri, [*Classical Banach spaces*]{}, Springer, 1979. S. Maniglia, [*Probabilistic representation and uniqueness results for measure-valued solutions of transport equations*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl. [**87**]{}, no.6, 601–626, 2007.
M. M. Rao and Z. D. Ren, [*Applications of Orlicz spaces*]{}, Dekker, 2002.
[^1]: In the second line below we use that $\xi(T,s_k,\xi(s_{k},s_{k-1},x))=\xi(T,s_{k-1},x)$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Let $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ be the projective toric variety corresponding to a finite set of lattice points ${\mathcal{A}}$. We show that irreducible components of the Fano scheme ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ parametrizing $k$-dimensional linear subspaces of $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ are in bijection to so-called *maximal Cayley structures* for ${\mathcal{A}}$. We explicitly describe these irreducible components and their intersection behaviour, characterize when ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ is connected, and prove that if $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth in dimension $k$, then every component of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ is smooth in its reduced structure. Furthermore, in the special case $k=\dim X_{\mathcal{A}}-1$, we describe the non-reduced structure of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$. Our main result is closely related to concurrent work done independently by Furukawa and Ito.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby BC V5A1S6, Canada'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby BC V5A1S6, Canada'
author:
- Nathan Ilten
- Alexandre Zotine
bibliography:
- 'toric-fano.bib'
title: On Fano Schemes of Toric Varieties
---
Introduction
============
Given an embedded projective variety $X\subset {\mathbb{P}}^n$, its $k$th Fano scheme ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X)$ is the fine moduli space parametrizing $k$-dimensional projective linear subspaces of $X$. Such Fano schemes have been extensively studied when $X$ is a generic (or at least smooth) hypersurface, see e.g. [@altman:77a; @barth:81a; @langer:97a; @harris:98a], or more generally when $X$ is a complete intersection [@debarre:98a]. Only several isolated cases of Fano schemes have been studied for varieties $X$ which are not generic (or at least smooth) complete intersections, see for example [@ilten:15a; @larsen:14a].
In this article, we consider the Fano scheme ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ when $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is the projective toric variety associated to a finite set of lattice points ${\mathcal{A}}$, see §\[sec:toric\]. Our main result is a complete description of the irreducible components of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ in their reduced structure, which we now summarize. A *face* of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the intersection of ${\mathcal{A}}$ with a face of its convex hull. A *Cayley structure* for such a face $\tau$ is an affine-linear surjective map $\pi$ from $\tau$ to the set $\Delta_l$ of standard basis vectors in ${\mathbb{Z}}^{l+1}$. In §\[sec:cayley\] we define a natural partial order on the set of Cayley structures for faces of ${\mathcal{A}}$.
There is a bijection between irreducible components of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ and maximal Cayley structures $\pi:\tau\to\Delta_l$ where $\tau$ is a face of ${\mathcal{A}}$ and $l\geq k$.
We give an explicit description of the component $Z_{\pi,k}$ of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ corresponding to a Cayley structure $\pi$ in §\[sec:comps\]. These components are locally toric, and if a general $k$-plane parametrized by $Z_{\pi,k}$ does not extend to a $k+1$-plane in $X_{\mathcal{A}}$, the component is (globally) a toric variety. We say that such components are *components of maximal $k$-planes*; they correspond to maximal Cayley structures $\pi:\tau\to \Delta_l$ for $l=k$. In Theorem \[thm:polytope\], we describe the set of lattice points ${\mathcal{A}}_{\pi}$ such that a component $Z_{\pi,k}$ of maximal $k$-planes is given by the projective toric variety $X_{{\mathcal{A}}_\pi}$ with respect to the Plücker embedding of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_A)$. We also give a simple formula for the dimension of all components $Z_{\pi,k}$ (Proposition \[prop:dim\]).
Our explicit understanding of the irreducible components of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ allows us to give a combinatorial characterization of the connected components of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ (Theorem \[thm:connected\]). Furthermore, we show that if $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is non-singular in dimension $k$, then every component of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ is smooth (in its reduced structure), see Corollary \[cor:regular\]. Finally, we are able to explicitly describe the intersection behaviour of the components (Theorem \[thm:intersect\]).
In [@casagrande:08a], Casagrande and Di Rocco show that a ${\mathbb{Q}}$-factorial normal projectively embedded toric variety $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is covered by lines if and only if there is a Cayley structure $\pi:{\mathcal{A}}\to \Delta_1$. Ito generalizes this in [@ito:15a] to show that a polarized normal toric variety $(X,{\mathcal{L}})$ is covered by $k$-planes if and only if the set of lattice points ${\mathcal{A}}$ corresponding to eigensections of ${\mathcal{L}}$ admits a Cayley structure $\pi:{\mathcal{A}}\to \Delta_k$. As a corollary of our main theorem, we recover Ito’s result in the case that ${\mathcal{L}}$ defines an embedding (i.e. is very ample). While Ito uses an ingenious degeneration argument to produce a Cayley structure, our argument constructs the Cayley structure directly by considering the columns of a $(k+1)\times\#{\mathcal{A}}$ matrix whose rowspan is a $k$-dimensional linear space of $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ intersecting the torus, see Remark \[rem:cover\].
The key step in proving our main theorem (Theorem \[thm:main\]) is to prove that for any linear subspace $L\subset X_{\mathcal{A}}$, there is a corresponding Cayley structure $\pi$ such that $[L]$ is contained in $Z_{\pi,k}$. This statement has been proven concurrently by Furukawa and Ito in independent work using a different argument, see [@furukawa:16a Theorem 3.2]. They make use of this result to describe the dual defect of a toric variety.
As a first step towards understanding the (potentially) non-reduced structure of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$, we locally give a combinatorial description of the scheme structure of ${\mathbf{F}}_{k}(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ when $k=\dim X_{\mathcal{A}}-1$ and $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth in codimension one, see §\[sec:mult\]. In particular, we give formulas for the multiplicities of isolated hyperplanes in $X_{\mathcal{A}}$. This generalizes the results of the first author concerning the Fano scheme of lines on a toric surface [@ilten:14a]. This codimension-one case is particularly amenable to study since in this situation, each toric fixed point of ${\mathbf{F}}_{k}(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ is contained in a single irreducible component.
Our study of Fano schemes is partially motivated by a number of recent applications. Kiraly and Larsen use Fano schemes to solve an identifiability problem in stationary subspace analysis [@larsen:14a]. Results on the Fano schemes for determinantal and permanental hypersurfaces have found applications in geometric complexity theory, leading to new components of the boundary of the orbit closure of the determinant [@landsberg §5] and to a quadratic lower bound on the determinantal complexity of the permanent [@landsberg:13a]. Furthermore, recent work by the first author and Teitler used results on certain Fano schemes to determine the product or Chow rank of the $3\times 3$ permanent and determinant polynomials [@ilten:16a]. In fact, the key calculation of [@ilten:16a Proposition 3.2] is closely related to the toric case, see Remark \[rem:chow\]. We hope that our results here may lead to further similar applications.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The first author was partially supported by an NSERC discovery grant. The second author was partially supported by an SFU-VPR undergraduate student research award. We thank Dustin Cartwright, Christian Haase, and Atsushi Ito for helpful conversations.
Background and Notation {#sec:background}
=======================
Toric Varieties {#sec:toric}
---------------
For details on toric varieties, see e.g. [@CLS]. Throughout this article, we work over an algebraically closed field ${\mathbb{K}}$. Let $M$ be lattice, and ${\mathcal{A}}$ a finite set of elements of $M$. By $M_{\mathcal{A}}$ we denote the lattice generated by $u-v$ for $u,v\in {\mathcal{A}}$, and by $S_{\mathcal{A}}$ we denote the semigroup in $M\times{\mathbb{Z}}$ generated by $(u,1)$ for $u\in{\mathcal{A}}$. The projective toric variety associated to ${\mathcal{A}}$ is $$X_{\mathcal{A}}=\operatorname{Proj}{\mathbb{K}}[S_{\mathcal{A}}].$$ Here, ${\mathbb{K}}[S_{\mathcal{A}}]$ is the semigroup algebra associated to $S_{\mathcal{A}}$, and the ${\mathbb{Z}}$ grading of this algebra is given by projection onto the final ${\mathbb{Z}}$-factor. More concretely, $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is the subvariety of the projective space ${\mathbb{P}}^{\#{\mathcal{A}}-1}$ with coordinates $x_u$ for $u\in {\mathcal{A}}$ cut out by binomial equations of the form $$\prod x_u^{a_u}=\prod x_u^{b_u}$$ for $a_u,b_u\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$ satisfying the affine relation $$\sum a_uu=\sum b_uu,\qquad \sum a_u=\sum b_u.$$
We denote by $\chi^w$ the element of ${\mathbb{K}}[S_{\mathcal{A}}]$ corresponding to $w\in S_{\mathcal{A}}$. The *dimension* of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the dimension of the smallest affine subspace of $M\otimes {\mathbb{R}}$ containing it, which is equivalently the rank of $M_{\mathcal{A}}$ and the dimension of $X_{\mathcal{A}}$. The variety $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ comes equipped with a faithful action by the torus $T=\operatorname{Spec}{\mathbb{K}}[M_{\mathcal{A}}]$ induced by the $M\times {\mathbb{Z}}$-grading of ${\mathbb{K}}[S_{\mathcal{A}}]$.
A *face* $\tau$ of ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a set of the form ${\mathcal{A}}\cap F$, where $F$ is a face of the convex hull of ${\mathcal{A}}$. If $\tau$ is a face of ${\mathcal{A}}$, we write $\tau\prec {\mathcal{A}}$. For $\tau\prec {\mathcal{A}}$, there is a natural closed embedding $$X_\tau\hookrightarrow X_{\mathcal{A}}$$ given by setting $\chi^{(u,1)}=0$ for $u\notin \tau$. This induces a bijection between faces of ${\mathcal{A}}$ and orbits of $X_{\mathcal{A}}$: the orbit corresponding to a face $\tau\prec {\mathcal{A}}$ is given by the orbit of a general point of $X_\tau\subset X_{\mathcal{A}}$ [@CLS Corollary 3.A.6].
\[ex:surface1\] Consider the set ${\mathcal{A}}$ whose elements in ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$ are given by the columns of $$\left(\begin{array}{c c c c}
0& 0& 1& 1\\
0& 1& 0& 2
\end{array}\right).$$ This collection of lattice points is pictured in Figure \[fig:ex\]. The corresponding projective variety is a non-normal hypersurface cut out by the single binomial $xy^2=zw^2$. ${\mathcal{A}}$ has four $1$-dimensional faces, all of which are empty simplices.
\[ex:birkhoff1\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be the subset of ${\mathbb{Z}}^{3\times 3}$ consisting of the six $3\times 3$ permutation matrices. Then ${\mathcal{A}}$ is $4$-dimensional, and its convex hull is known as the Birkhoff polytope $B_3$. If we label the elements of ${\mathcal{A}}$ by $u_0,u_1,u_2,v_0,v_1,v_2$ with $u_i$ representing an even permutation and $v_j$ representing an odd one, the projective variety $X_{{\mathcal{A}}}$ is cut out by the single binomial $$x_{u_0}x_{u_1}x_{u_2}=x_{v_0}x_{v_1}x_{v_2}.$$ The set ${\mathcal{A}}$ has exactly nine $3$-dimensional faces, given by omitting exactly one of the $u_i$ and one of the $v_j$.
Fano Schemes {#sec:fano}
------------
Let $X\subset {\mathbb{P}}^n$ any projective ${\mathbb{K}}$-scheme. For any natural number $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, the *$k$th Fano scheme* ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X)$ is the fine moduli space parametrizing $k$-planes of ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ contained in $X$, see e.g. [@eisenbud:00a §IV.3] for a detailed description. The scheme ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X)$ is a subscheme of the Grassmannian ${\mathbb{G}}(k,n)$ parametrizing $k$-planes of ${\mathbb{P}}^n$. For all of this article except for §\[sec:mult\], the reader may forget the scheme structure of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X)$ and simply think of it as the subvariety of ${\mathbb{G}}(k,n)$ whose points correspond to $k$-planes of ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ contained in $X$. Given a $k$-plane $L\subset X$, we denote the corresponding point of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X)$ by $[L]$.
The Plücker embedding of ${\mathbb{G}}(k,n)$ induces an embedding of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X)$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^{{n+1}\choose {k+1}}$. We will call the corresponding affine charts of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X)$ the *Plücker charts*. Concretely, these Plücker charts may be thought of as follows. Any $k$-plane of ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ may be represented non-uniquely as the rowspan of a $(k+1)\times(n+1)$ matrix $P$ of full rank. The ${n+1}\choose{k+1}$ Plücker charts are obtained by choosing some $(k+1)\times(k+1)$ square submatrix and imposing the condition that it be invertible. On this chart, any $k$-plane may be represented uniquely as the rowspan of a $(k+1)\times(n+1)$ matrix, where we impose the condition that the chosen square submatrix is just the identity matrix. Coordinate functions on this chart are given by the remaining entries of the matrix.
If $G$ is an algebraic group acting on ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ which fixes $X$, then the Fano schemes ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X)$ inherit a $G$-action. In particular, the Fano scheme ${\mathbf{F}}_k({\mathcal{A}})$ has a natural torus action. The torus fixed points of the Fano schemes ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ are easy to describe. By an *empty $k$-simplex* we mean $k+1$ lattice points whose affine span is $k$-dimensional.
\[prop:fixed\] The torus fixed points of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ are in bijection with the set of faces of ${\mathcal{A}}$ which are empty $k$-simplices.
Any fixed point of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ must be the closure of a $k$-dimensional $T$-orbit in $X_{\mathcal{A}}$, which are in bijection to the set of $k$-dimensional faces of ${\mathcal{A}}$. Given a face $\tau\subset {\mathcal{A}}$, the corresponding orbit closure as a subvariety of ${\mathbb{P}}^n$ is simply $X_\tau$ sitting inside of a linear subspace of ${\mathbb{P}}^n$. But $X_\tau$ is a linear space if and only if there are no affine relations among the elements of $\tau$, that is, $\tau$ is an empty $k$-simplex.
We denote by $L_\sigma$ the $k$-plane of $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ corresponding to an empty $k$-simplex $\sigma$.
Cayley Structures and Main Result {#sec:cayley}
=================================
We denote by $\Delta_l\subset {\mathbb{Z}}^{l+1}$ the standard basis vectors $e_0,\ldots,e_{l}$. Fix a finite set of lattice points ${\mathcal{A}}\subset M$.
Let $\tau$ be a face of ${\mathcal{A}}$. A *Cayley structure* for $\tau$ is a surjective map $\pi:\tau\to \Delta_l$ which preserves affine relations.
If ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the set of lattice points of a lattice polytope $P$, then the existence of a Cayley structure $\pi:{\mathcal{A}}\to\Delta_l$ means that $P$ can be written as a Cayley polytope of length $l+1$.
\[ex:surface2\] Considering the set ${\mathcal{A}}$ from Example \[ex:surface1\], the map ${\mathcal{A}}\to \Delta_1$ sending $\{(0,0),(0,1)\}$ to $e_0$ and $\{(1,0),(1,2)\}$ to $e_1$ is a Cayley structure, see Figure \[fig:ex2\]. On the other hand, the map ${\mathcal{A}}\to \Delta_1$ sending $\{(0,0),(1,0)\}$ to $e_0$ and $\{(0,1),(1,2)\}$ to $e_1$ is not a Cayley structure, since it does not preserve the affine relation $$2\cdot (0,0)+(1,2)=(1,0)+2\cdot(0,1).$$
A Cayley structure on a face $\tau$ of ${\mathcal{A}}$ determines a toric subvariety $Z_\pi$ of ${\mathbf{F}}_l(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ as follows. Indeed, since $\tau$ is a face of ${\mathcal{A}}$, we have a closed embedding $X_\tau\hookrightarrow X_{\mathcal{A}}$, see §\[sec:toric\]. On the other hand, a Cayley structure $\pi:\tau\to \Delta_l$ induces a surjection $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{K}}[S_\tau]&\to {\mathbb{K}}[y_{e_0},\ldots,y_{e_l}]\\
\chi^{(u,1)}&\mapsto y_{\pi(u)}\end{aligned}$$ leading to a closed embedding ${\mathbb{P}}^l\hookrightarrow X_\tau$, and thus an $l$-plane $L_\pi\subset X_{\mathcal{A}}$ and corresponding point $[L_{\pi}]\in {\mathbf{F}}_l(X_{\mathcal{A}})$. The variety $Z_\pi$ is defined to be the torus orbit closure of $[L_{\pi}]$ in ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$. By construction, it is a (potentially non-normal) toric variety.
Given a Cayley structure $\pi:\tau\to \Delta_l$, we also construct a subvariety $Z_{\pi,k}$ of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ for any $k\leq l$. Indeed, we take $Z_{\pi,k}$ to be the subvariety of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ whose points correspond to those $k$-dimensional linear spaces which are contained in any $l$-dimensional linear space $L'$ parameterized by $Z_\pi$. This set $Z_{\pi,k}\subset {\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ is indeed a variety: consider the pullback ${\mathcal{U}}$ to $Z_\pi$ of the universal bundle on ${\mathbf{F}}_l(X_{\mathcal{A}})$. Then the Grassmann bundle ${\mathbb{G}}(k,{\mathcal{U}})$ parametrizing projective $k$-planes in the fibers of ${\mathcal{U}}$ has a natural proper map to ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$. Its image is closed, and it exactly $Z_{\pi,k}$ as described above.
In order to state our main theorem, we define a partial order on the set of Cayley structures. We define $\pi:\tau \to \Delta_l$ to be greater than or equal to $\pi':\tau'\to \Delta_{l'}$ (written $\pi{\succeq}\pi'$) if
1. $\tau'$ is a face of $\tau$; and
2. There is a surjection $\rho:\Delta_{l}\to\Delta_{l'}$ such that $(\rho\circ\pi)_{|\tau'}=\pi'$.
In other words, $\pi{\succeq}\pi'$ if there exists a map $\rho$ making the diagram commute: $$\xymatrix{
\tau' \ar[r]^{\pi'}\ar@{^{(}->}[d] &\Delta_{l'}\\
\tau \ar[r]^{\pi} & \Delta_{l} \ar@{-->}[u]^{\rho}}.$$ Note that when considering Cayley structures $\pi:\tau\to\Delta_l$ and $\pi':\tau\to\Delta_l$, we do not differentiate between $\pi$ and $\pi'$ if $\pi{\succeq}\pi'{\succeq}\pi$, that is, they differ by a permutation of $\Delta_l$. We call such Cayley structures equivalent.
\[thm:main\] For $k\geq 1$, the irreducible components of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ with their reduced structure are exactly the varieties $Z_{\pi,k}$, as $\pi$ ranges over all maximal Cayley structures $\pi:\tau\to \Delta_l$ for $\tau\prec {\mathcal{A}}$ and $l\geq k$.
We will prove this theorem in §\[sec:proof\]. First, we need to better understand the varieties $Z_{\pi,k}$, which we do in the next section.
\[ex:birkhoff2\] Consider the set ${\mathcal{A}}$ from Example \[ex:birkhoff1\] whose convex hull is the Birkhoff polytope $B_3$. There are exactly six Cayley structures (up to equivalence) of the form $\pi:{\mathcal{A}}\to\Delta_2$, given by by projecting a permutation matrix in ${\mathbb{Z}}^{3\times 3}$ onto a single row or a single column. These Cayley structures are all maximal. On the other hand, the nine facets $\tau\prec {\mathcal{A}}$ described in Example \[ex:birkhoff1\] are all empty $3$-simplices, so they naturally give Cayley structures $\pi:\tau\to\Delta_2$. These Cayley structures are also maximal. In fact, every maximal Cayley structure for ${\mathcal{A}}$ is of the above form. By Theorem \[thm:main\], we conclude that ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ has $15$ irreducible components for $k=1,2$ and ${\mathbf{F}}_3(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ has $9$ irreducible components.
Geometry of $Z_{\pi,k}$ {#sec:comps}
=======================
Let $\pi:\tau\to \Delta_l$ be a Cayley structure. The $l$-plane $L_\pi$ arises as the rowspan of the $(l+1)\times \# {\mathcal{A}}$ matrix $P=(p_{iu})$ where $$p_{iu}=
\begin{cases}
1 & u\in \tau \ \textrm{and}\ \pi(u)=e_i\\
0 & \textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Here, the rows of $P$ are indexed by $i=0,\ldots,l$ and the columns by $u\in {\mathcal{A}}$. Given $t\in T$, we then have that $t\cdot L_\pi$ is the rowspan of the matrix $t\cdot P$ where $T$ acts on column $u$ by multiplication with $\chi^u$, that is, $$t\cdot P=(\chi^u(t) p_{iu}).$$
We now describe the local structure of $Z_\pi$ on the Plücker charts of ${\mathbf{F}}_l(X_{\mathcal{A}})$. Choose some subset $\sigma\subset {\mathcal{A}}$ of size $l+1$ for which the corresponding minor of $P$ is non-vanishing. This occurs if and only if $\sigma\subset \tau$ and $\sigma$ contains exactly one element from each fiber $\pi^{-1}(e_i)$.
Fixing $\sigma\subset\tau$ as above, for each $u\in \tau$ we define $\lambda(u)$ to be the unique $v\in\sigma$ such that $\pi(v)=\pi(u)$.
Setting the Plücker coordinate corresponding to $\sigma$ equal to one, $t\cdot L_\pi$ is expressed uniquely as the rowspan of the matrix $(p_{vu}(t))$, with $$\begin{aligned}
p_{vu}(t)=\begin{cases}
\chi^{u-\lambda(u)}(t)& u\in \tau\ \textrm{and}\ \pi(u)=\pi(v)\\
0 & \textrm{else}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the rows and columns of $(p_{vu}(t))$ are labeled respectively by elements of $\sigma$ and ${\mathcal{A}}$.
On the Plücker chart corresponding to $\sigma$, $Z_\pi$ is thus isomorphic to the affine toric variety whose coordinate ring is $${\mathbb{K}}[S(\pi,\sigma)]$$ where $S(\pi,\sigma)$ is the semigroup generated by the lattice elements $u-\lambda(u)$ for $u\in\tau$. If $\sigma$ is a face of ${\mathcal{A}}$, then the semigroup $S(\pi,\sigma)$ is pointed. Indeed, let $w\in M^*$ be such that $\sigma$ is the face of ${\mathcal{A}}$ on which $w$ is minimized. Then $w(u-\lambda(u))\geq 0$, with equality if and only if $u\in\sigma$. Hence, every non-trivial element $s$ of $S(\pi,\sigma)$ satisfies $w(s)>0$, so $S(\pi,\sigma)$ is pointed. In such situations, this chart of $Z_\pi$ has a unique torus fixed point [@CLS Proposition 1.3.2], which is exactly the fixed point corresponding to $\sigma$ under Proposition \[prop:fixed\]. We thus have
The torus fixed points of $Z_\pi$ are in bijection with empty simplicial $l$-faces of $\tau$ surjecting onto the vertices of $\Delta_l$.
We also need to understand the local structure of $Z_{\pi,k}$ for a Cayley structure $\pi:\tau\to \Delta_l$, $l\geq k$. Similar to above, the Plücker charts containing $Z_{\pi,k}$ correspond to choosing some subset $\sigma\subset {\mathcal{A}}$ of size $k+1$ for which the corresponding submatrix of $P$ has full rank. This is the same as requiring that $\sigma$ surjects onto $k+1$ elements of $\Delta_l$.
To locally describe $Z_{\pi,k}$, we first restrict to a local chart of $Z_\pi$ corresponding to some $\widetilde\sigma\subset \tau$ as above with $\widetilde\sigma$ in bijection with the vertices of $\Delta_l$. On this chart of $Z_\pi$, the universal bundle ${\mathcal{U}}$ trivializes by means of the matrix $(p_{vu}(t))$ from above. The projective $k$-planes parametrized by the restriction of ${\mathbb{G}}(k,{\mathcal{U}})$ to this chart are thus the $k$-dimensional subspaces of the $l$-dimensional rowspan of $(p_{vu}(t))$ in projective space. The local Plücker charts of this relative Grassmannian correspond to choosing a $k$-face $\sigma$ of $\widetilde\sigma$. On such a chart, a parametrization of the corresponding linear spaces is given by the rowspan of the matrix $(q_{vu}(t))$ where $$q_{vu}(t)=\begin{cases}
\chi^{u-\lambda(u)}(t) & u\in \tau\ \textrm{and}\ v=\lambda(u)\in\sigma\\
\lambda_{v\lambda(u)}\chi^{u-\lambda(u)}(t) & u\in \tau\ \textrm{and}\ \lambda(u)\notin\sigma\\
0 & \textrm{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ for parameters $\lambda_{vw}$ with $v\in\sigma$, $w\in \widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma$. This matrix looks like $$\label{eqn:matrix}
\begin{blockarray}{cccccc}
& \lambda(u)=v_0 & \lambda(u)=v_1 & \lambda(u)=v_k & \lambda(u)=w\notin\sigma' & u\notin \tau \\
\begin{block}{c(c|c|c|c|c)}
v_0 & \chi^{u-v_0} &0 &0&\lambda_{v_0w}\chi^{u-w} & 0 \\
v_1 & 0& \chi^{u-v_{1}} &0&\lambda_{v_1w}\chi^{u-w} & 0 \\
& \vdots & &&\vdots & \vdots \\
v_k & 0&0& \chi^{u-v_{k}} &\lambda_{v_kw}\chi^{u-w} & 0 \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}$$ where $\sigma=\{v_{0},\ldots,v_{k}\}$. Note that to obtain this matrix, we have simply taken the $k+1$ rows of $(p_{vu}(t))$ corresponding to the elements of $\sigma$, and then added on generic linear combinations of the remaining rows.
Let $S(\pi,\widetilde\sigma,\sigma)$ be the semigroup of $M\times {\mathbb{Z}}^{\sigma\times(\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma)}$ generated by the lattice elements $$\label{eqn:gens}
\begin{aligned}
\gamma(u):=&u-\lambda(u) &\qquad u\in \tau\ \textrm{and}\ \lambda(u)\in\sigma\\
\gamma(v,u):=&e_{v\lambda(u)}+u-\lambda(u) &\qquad v\in\sigma,\ u\in \tau\ \textrm{and}\ \lambda(u)\notin\sigma\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $e_{v\lambda(u)}$ are the standard basis vectors of ${\mathbb{Z}}^{\sigma\times(\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma)}$. Then the closure of the image of ${\mathbb{G}}(k,{\mathcal{U}})$ in the Plücker chart of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ corresponding to $\sigma$ is the affine toric variety whose coordinate ring is $${\mathbb{K}}[S(\pi,\widetilde\sigma,\sigma)].$$ In other words, on this Plücker chart, $Z_{\pi,k}$ is the above affine toric variety. Note that different choices of $\widetilde\sigma$ lead to isomorphic semigroups $S(\pi,\widetilde\sigma,\sigma)$.
If $\sigma$ is a face of ${\mathcal{A}}$, this chart of $Z_{\pi,k}$ has a (unique) torus fixed point, which is exactly the fixed point corresponding to $\sigma$ under Proposition \[prop:fixed\]. We thus have
\[prop:fixed2\] The torus fixed points of $Z_{\pi,k}$ are in bijection with empty simplicial $k$-faces $\sigma$ of $\tau$ mapping to $k+1$ vertices of $\Delta_l$.
\[ex:birkhoff3\] Using the above local description of $Z_{\pi,k}$, we get explicit local descriptions for the irreducible componenets of ${\mathbf{F}}_2(X_{\mathcal{A}})$, where ${\mathcal{A}}$ is as in Examples \[ex:birkhoff1\] and \[ex:birkhoff2\]. Indeed, for Cayley structures of the form $\pi:\tau\to\Delta_3$, $\tau$ a facet of ${\mathcal{A}}$, $Z_\pi$ is just the single point $[L_\pi]$, and $Z_{\pi,2}$ is thus isomorphic to the Grassmannian $G(3,4)\cong{\mathbb{P}}^3$.
On the other hand, consider one of the maximal Cayley structures $\pi:{\mathcal{A}}\to\Delta_2$, for example, $\pi(u_i)=\pi(v_i)=e_i$. If we choose $\sigma=\{v_0,u_1,u_2\}$, the corresponding matrix $p_{vu}(t)$ has the form $$\begin{blockarray}{ccccccc}
& v_0&u_1&u_2&u_0&v_1&v_2\\
\begin{block}{c(cccccc)}
v_0 & 1 &0 &0&t_1t_2 & 0 & 0\\
u_1 & 0& 1 &0& 0& t_1& 0 \\
u_2 & 0&0& 1 &0 & 0 & t_2\\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}$$
for appropriate choice of parameters $t_1,t_2$. Hence, the component $Z_\pi$ is covered by copies of ${\mathbb{A}}^2$.
\[rem:chow\] A central computation of [@ilten:16a] involves understanding those $5$-planes of ${\mathbb{P}}^{11}$ which are not contained in a coordinate hyperplane, yet are contained in the hypersurface $X$ on which $$f=x_0x_1x_2+x_3x_4x_5+x_6x_7x_8+x_9x_{10}x_{11}$$ vanishes. Setting $f_1=x_0x_1x_2+x_3x_4x_5$ and $f_2=x_6x_7x_8+x_9x_{10}x_{11}$, clearly if a $5$-plane $L$ is contained in the variety $V(f_1,f_2)=V(f_1)\cap V(f_2)$ on which $f_1$ and $f_2$ vanish, it is contained in $X$. But since $V(f_i)$ is just the cone over the variety $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ from Example \[ex:birkhoff3\], it is straightforward to see that any $5$-plane $L$ contained in $V(f_1,f_2)$ but not in a coordinate hyperplane comes in a $4$-dimensional family (up to certain permutations of the variables).
Somewhat surprisingly, after allowing for different choices of $f_1$ and $f_2$ by permuting the terms of $f$, all $5$-planes of $X$ not contained in a coordinate hyperplane arise in this fashion [@ilten:16a Proposition 3.2]. It would be interesting to provide a non-computational proof of this fact, and understand more generally in what situations linear spaces of a special (yet non-toric) hypersurface arise in this toric fashion.
\[prop:contain\] Let $\pi:\tau \to \Delta_{l}$ and $\pi':\tau'\to \Delta_{l'}$ be Cayley structures for $l,l'\geq k\geq 1$. Then $Z_{\pi,k}$ contains $Z_{\pi',k}$ if and only if $\pi{\succeq}\pi'$.
It is straightforward to check from the construction of $Z_{\pi,l}$ that $\pi{\succeq}\pi'$ implies $Z_{\pi',k}\subset Z_{\pi,k}$. On the other hand, suppose that $Z_{\pi',k} \subset Z_{\pi,k'}$. Since every $k$-plane of $L_{\pi'}$ must be contained in $X_{\tau}\subset X_{\mathcal{A}}$, we see that $\tau'\subset \tau$, so $\tau'$ is in fact a face of $\tau$.
To construct a map $\rho:\Delta_{l}\to\Delta_{l'}$ such that $(\rho\circ\pi)_{|\tau'}=\pi'$, define $\rho(e_i)$ to be $e_0$ if $e_i\notin \pi(\tau')$. Otherwise, choose some $u\in \tau'$ such that $\pi(u)=e_i$ and set $\rho(e_i)=\pi'(u)$. We must show that for $u,u'\in \tau'$, if $\pi(u)=\pi(u')$, then $\pi'(u)=\pi'(u')$.
If $\pi'(u)\neq \pi'(u')$, note that for any matrix parametrizing a sufficiently general $k$-plane of $L_{\pi'}$, the two columns corresponding to $u$ and $u'$ will be linearly independent. On the other hand, consider any empty simplicial $k$-face $\sigma$ of $\tau'$ such that $\pi(\sigma)$ contains $\pi(u)$. By inspecting the matrix $(q_{iu}(t))$ parametrizing $Z_{\pi,k}$ on the local chart corresponding to $\sigma$, we note that the two columns corresponding to $u$ and $u'$ will be linearly dependent. Hence, we must have $\pi'(u)=\pi'(u')$.
Proof of Main Result {#sec:proof}
====================
Let $L$ be a $k$-dimensional linear subspace of $X_{\mathcal{A}}$. We will show that $[L]$ is a point of $Z_{\pi,k}$ for some Cayley structure $\pi$. Hence, every point of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ is contained in some $Z_{\pi,k}$, so Theorem \[thm:main\] will then follow from Proposition \[prop:contain\].
We can represent $L$ as the rowspan of a full-rank $((k+1)\times \#{\mathcal{A}})$-matrix $(\alpha_{iu})$ with $i=0,\ldots,k$ and columns indexed by $u\in {\mathcal{A}}$. We let $$y_u=\sum_{i=0}^k\alpha_{iu}y_i$$ be a linear form in indeterminates $y_0,\ldots,y_k$. The criterion that $L$ be contained in $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is exactly the condition that for any any relation $$\sum_{u\in{\mathcal{A}}} a_u u=\sum_{u\in{\mathcal{A}}} b_u u$$ with $a_u,b_u\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$ and $\sum a_u=\sum b_u$, we have $$\label{eqn:key}
\prod_{u\in{\mathcal{A}}} y_u^{a_u} =\prod_{u\in{\mathcal{A}}} y_u^{b_u}.$$ Indeed, the defining equations of $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ are binomials corresponding to such affine relations above.
Let $\tau$ consist of those $u\in{\mathcal{A}}$ such that $y_u$ is non-zero.
The set $\tau$ is a face of ${\mathcal{A}}$.
Considering a generic point $\eta$ of $L$ with coordinates $\eta_u$ for $u\in{\mathcal{A}}$, the set $\tau$ consists of exactly those $u$ with $\eta_u\neq 0$. On the other hand, $\eta$ is contained in a torus orbit ${\mathfrak{o}}$ of $X_{\mathcal{A}}$. Such an orbit ${\mathfrak{o}}$ correspond to a face $\widetilde\sigma$ of ${\mathcal{A}}$, see §\[sec:toric\]. The points $\zeta=(\zeta_u)$ contained in the orbit ${\mathfrak{o}}$ are precisely those points for which $\zeta_u\neq 0$ if and only if $u\in \widetilde\sigma$. The claim now follows.
Let $V$ be the vector space of linear forms in ${\mathbb{K}}[y_0,\ldots,y_k]$. Then we have a map $$\begin{aligned}
\rho:\tau&\to {\mathbb{P}}(V)\\
u&\mapsto \langle{y_u}\rangle\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle{y_u}\rangle$ is the line in ${\mathbb{P}}(V)$ spanned by $y_u$. Composing $\rho$ with a bijection between $\rho(\tau)$ and the elements of $\Delta_l$ for $l=\#\rho(\tau)-1$, we obtain a map $\pi:\tau\to\Delta_l$. Note that since the rank of $(\alpha_{iu})$ is $k+1$, we must have $l\geq k$.
\[lemma:Cayley\] The map $\pi$ is a Cayley structure.
Consider any affine relation $$\sum_{u\in\tau} a_u u=\sum_{u\in\tau} b_u u$$ with $a_u,b_u\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$ and $\sum a_u=\sum b_u$. Then by equation and the fact that ${\mathbb{K}}[y_0,\ldots,y_k]$ is a unique factorization domain, we must have $$\sum_{\rho(u)=v} a_u =\sum_{\rho(u)=v} b_u$$ for each $v\in\rho(\tau)$. But this implies that $$\sum_{u\in\tau} a_u \pi(u)=\sum_{u\in\tau} b_u \pi(u).$$ Hence, $\pi$ is a Cayley structure.
\[rem:cover\] Lemma \[lemma:Cayley\] provides a straightforward proof that $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is covered by $k$-planes if and only if there is a Cayley structure $\pi:{\mathcal{A}}\to \Delta_k$. Indeed, if $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is covered by $k$-planes, there is a $k$-plane $L$ containing a point in the dense torus orbit of $X_{\mathcal{A}}$. For this plane $L$, the set $\tau$ as above must be all of ${\mathcal{A}}$, and by the lemma we obtain a Cayley structure $\pi:{\mathcal{A}}\to\Delta_l$ for some $l\geq k$. We can compose this with any affine surjection $\Delta_l\to\Delta_k$ to get the desired Cayley structure. On the other hand, if $\pi:{\mathcal{A}}\to\Delta_k$ is a Cayley structure, the set of $k$-planes parametrized by $Z_{\pi}$ clearly covers $X_{\mathcal{A}}$. We thus recover [@ito:15a Theorem 1.2] for polarized normal toric varieties $(X,{\mathcal{L}})$ in the special case that ${\mathcal{L}}$ is ample.
Returning to our proof of Theorem \[thm:main\], we claim now that the point $[L]\in{\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ lies in $Z_{\pi,k}\subset{\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$. Choose $\sigma\subset \tau$ such that the $(k+1)\times (k+1)$ matrix $(\alpha_{iv})_{v\in \sigma}$ is invertible. We can thus represent $L$ by a matrix $(\alpha_{vu})$ with rows and columns indexed by $v\in \sigma,u\in {\mathcal{A}}$ such that the square submatrix $(\alpha_{vu})_{v,u\in\sigma}$ is the identity matrix. Similarly, the forms $y_v$, $v\in \sigma$ are a basis of the vector space $V$ and we have $y_u=\sum_{v\in\sigma} \alpha_{vu}y_v$.
Consider any $\widetilde\sigma\subset \tau$ such that $\sigma\subset \widetilde\sigma$ and $\pi$ gives a bijection between $\widetilde\sigma$ and the vertices of $\Delta_l$. As we saw in §\[sec:comps\], the choice of $\sigma$ gives an affine chart $U$ of $Z_{\pi,k}$. This chart $U$ is the toric variety corresponding to the semigroup $S(\pi,\widetilde\sigma,\sigma)$ generated by $\gamma(u)$ and $\gamma(v,u)$ as in Equation . Equivalently, this chart is the affine toric variety parametrized by the entries of the matrix from equation .
We will show that $[L]$ is a point in this chart. Now, all relations among these parametrizing functions are generated from those binomial equations $f=0$ corresponding to relations of the form $$\label{eqn:general}
\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\lambda(u)\in\sigma} a_u \gamma(u)
+\sum_{\substack{\lambda(u)\notin\sigma\\v\in\sigma}} a_u \gamma(v,u)
=\sum_{\lambda(u)\in\sigma} b_u \gamma(u)
+\sum_{\substack{\lambda(u)\notin\sigma\\v\in\sigma}} b_u \gamma(v,u)
\end{aligned}$$ in $M\times{\mathbb{Z}}^{\sigma\times(\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma)}$. Here, $a_u,b_u\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$. We need to show that all such binomials $f$ vanish at the point $[L]=(\alpha_{vu})$, that is, that $$\label{eqn:firstsat}
\prod_{\lambda(u)\in\sigma} \alpha_{\lambda(u)u}^{a_u}\prod_{\substack{\lambda(u)\in\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma\\v\in\sigma}} \alpha_{vu}^{a_u}=
\prod_{\lambda(u)\in\sigma} \alpha_{\lambda(u)u}^{b_u}\prod_{\substack{\lambda(u)\in\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma\\v\in\sigma}} \alpha_{vu}^{b_u}.$$
Fix an order $<$ on the elements of $\sigma$. We define a map $\kappa:\widetilde{\sigma}\setminus\sigma\to\sigma$ as follows: for any $v\in \widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma$, let $\kappa(v)$ be the smallest element of $\sigma$ such that $\alpha_{\kappa(v)v}\neq 0$. For any $u$ with $\lambda(u)=v\in\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma$, we set $\kappa(u)=\kappa(\lambda(u))$. Our conditions on $\kappa(u)$ imply that for any set of natural numbers $a_u$, the coefficient of $$\prod_{\lambda(u)\in\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma}y_{\kappa(u)}^{a_u} \qquad
\mathrm{in}
\prod_{\lambda(u)\in\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma}y_{u}^{a_u}$$ is $$\label{eqn:monomial}
\prod_{\lambda(u)\in\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma}\alpha_{\kappa(u)u}^{a_u}.$$
Some special affine relations are those of the form $$\gamma(v,u)+\gamma(\kappa(u), \lambda(u))=
\gamma(\kappa(u),u)+\gamma(v,\lambda(u))$$ for $v\in\sigma$ and $u\in\tau$ with $\lambda(u)\notin\sigma$. The corresponding binomial evaluated at $[L]$ is exactly $$\alpha_{vu}\alpha_{\kappa(u)\lambda(u)}-\alpha_{\kappa(u) u}\alpha_{v\lambda(u)}.$$ This expression is indeed zero: $\pi(u)=\pi(\lambda(u))$ implies that $y_u$ and $y_{\lambda(u)}$ are linearly dependent.
Since $\alpha_{\kappa(v) \lambda(u)}\neq 0$, we can rewrite $$\alpha_{vu}=\frac{\alpha_{\kappa(u) u}\alpha_{v\lambda(u)}}{\alpha_{\kappa(u)\lambda(u)}}.$$ Thus, it suffices to consider relations where the only $\gamma(v,u)$ terms appearing are those with either $v=\kappa(u)$ or $u=\lambda(u)$. Indeed, if is satisfied for such relations, we obtain equality for arbitrary relations by repeated substitutions using the above expressions for $\alpha_{vu}$. Furthermore, for such a relation, the only terms containing an $e_{v\lambda(u)}$ component for $v\neq \kappa(u)$ are $\gamma(v,\lambda(u))$. We can cancel these from both sides of the relation to assume that the only $\gamma(v,u)$ terms appearing are those with $v=\kappa(u)$.
We can thus reduce our general relations to $$\label{eqn:special}
\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\lambda(u)\in\sigma} a_u \gamma(u)
+\sum_{\substack{\lambda(u)\notin\sigma}} a_u \gamma(\kappa(u),u)
=\sum_{\lambda(u)\in\sigma} b_u \gamma(u)
+\sum_{\substack{\lambda(u)\notin\sigma}} b_u \gamma(\kappa(u),u).
\end{aligned}$$ We must then show that $$\label{eqn:want}
\prod_{\lambda(u)\in\sigma} \alpha_{\lambda(u)u}^{a_u}\prod_{\lambda(u)\in\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma} \alpha_{\kappa(u)u}^{a_u}=
\prod_{\lambda(u)\in\sigma} \alpha_{\lambda(u)u}^{b_u}\prod_{\lambda(u)\in\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma} \alpha_{\kappa(u)u}^{b_u}.$$
Projecting to ${\mathbb{Z}}^{\sigma\times(\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma)}$, we obtain that for any $v\in\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma$, $$\sum_{\lambda(u)=v} a_u=\sum_{\lambda(u)=v} b_u.$$ Indeed, for such $v$, the coefficient of $e_{\kappa(v)v}$ in the left hand side of the projection of is $\sum_{\lambda(u)=v} a_u$, and a similar claim holds for the right hand side. Thus, $$\prod_{\lambda(u)\notin\sigma} \alpha_{\kappa(u)\lambda(u)}^{a_u}=\prod_{\lambda(u)\notin\sigma} \alpha_{\kappa(u)\lambda(u)}^{b_u}.$$ We denote this quantity by $c$; note that by our construction of $\kappa$, $c\neq 0$.
On the other hand, rearranging and projecting to $M$, we have the affine relation $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{u\in\tau} a_u u+b_u \lambda(u)
=\sum_{u\in\tau} b_u u+a_u\lambda(u)\end{aligned}$$ among the elements of $\tau\subset {\mathcal{A}}$. Passing to the induced relation on the $y_u$ from equation gives $$\prod_{u\in\tau} y_u^{a_u}\prod_{u\in\tau} y_{\lambda(u)}^{b_u}=\prod_{u\in\tau} y_{\lambda(u)}^{a_u} \prod_{u\in\tau} y_u^{b_u}.$$ We view both sides of this equation as polynomials in the $y_v$, $v\in\sigma$. Consider the coefficients on both sides of this equation for the monomial $$\prod_{v\in\sigma}y_v^{d_v}\cdot\prod_{v\in\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma} y_{\kappa(v)}^{d_v}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
d_v=\sum_{\pi(u)=\pi(v)} a_u+b_u.\end{aligned}$$ But by these are just $c$ times the left and right hand sides of Equation . We conclude that $[L]$ satisfies the necessary binomial equations and is thus contained in $Z_{\pi,k}$.
We have now seen that ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})=\bigcup Z_{\pi,k}$, where the union is taken over all maximal Cayley structures $\pi$. But then each $Z_{\pi,k}$ must be an irreducible component by Proposition \[prop:contain\]. This completes our proof of Theorem \[thm:main\].
Dimension and Global Description
================================
Having now understood the component structure of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$, we begin to study some properties of the components. We begin with a description of the dimension of the varieties $Z_{\pi,k}$.
\[prop:dim\] Let $\tau$ be an $m$-face of ${\mathcal{A}}$ and $\pi:\tau\to\Delta_l$ a Cayley structure for some $l\geq k$. Then the subvariety $Z_{\pi,k}$ of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ has dimension $m-l+(k+1)(l-k)$.
Let $\widetilde \sigma$ be any $l$-face of $\tau$ surjecting onto $\Delta_l$, and $\sigma$ any $k$-face of $\widetilde \sigma$. By the local description of $Z_{\pi,k}$ from \[sec:comps\], its dimension is given by the dimension of the semigroup $S(\pi,\widetilde\sigma,\sigma)$ contained in $M\times {\mathbb{Z}}^{\sigma\times(\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma)}$. The projection $\overline S$ of this semigroup to the $M$ factor is generated by $u-\lambda(u)$ for $u\in \tau$. The dimension of $\overline S$ is $m-l$, since $\pi$ is an affine linear map, which when extended to a map from the affine span of $\tau$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^{l+1}$ has $(m-l)$-dimensional fibers.
We thus see that the dimension of $S(\pi,\widetilde\sigma,\sigma)$ is at most $$m-l+\#(\sigma\times(\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma)=
m-l+(k+1)(l-k).$$ But this dimension is actually achieved, since in the projection $S(\pi,\widetilde\sigma,\sigma)\to\overline S$ the fiber over $0$ consists of the $(k+1)(l-k)$ linearly independent $e_{vu}$ for $v\in\sigma$, $u\in\widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma$.
For a Cayley structure $\pi:\tau\to\Delta_l$, $Z_\pi$ is the $T$-orbit closure of the point $[L_\pi]$ in the Fano scheme ${\mathbf{F}}_l(X_{\mathcal{A}})$. As such, it is a (potentially non-normal) toric variety. Embedding in ${\mathbf{F}}_l(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ in projective space by the Plücker embedding we arrive at an equivariant embedding of $Z_\pi$. This can be described globally as follows. Let ${\mathcal{A}}_\pi\subset M$ be $${\mathcal{A}}_\pi=\{u_0+\ldots+u_l\in M\ |\ u_i\in\pi^{-1}(e_i)\}$$
\[thm:polytope\] In its Plücker embedding, $Z_\pi$ is the toric variety $X_{A_\pi}$.
We simply consider the action of $T$ on each Plücker coordinate. As noted in §\[sec:comps\], the non-zero Plücker coordinates for $Z_\pi$ correspond to choosing one element from each fiber $\pi^{-1}(e_i)$, that is, exactly the tuples $(u_0,\ldots,u_l)$ appearing in the construction of ${\mathcal{A}}_\pi$. Taking into account the action of $T$ on $L_\pi$ as described in §\[sec:comps\], we see that $T$ acts on the coordinate corresponding to the tuple $(u_0,\ldots,u_l)$ with weight $u_0+\ldots+u_l$.
Note that the action of $T$ on $Z_\pi$ is not faithful: a faithful action is given by the torus $\overline T$ whose characters are generated by the kernel of $\pi$. However, the canonical embedding of $Z_\pi$ in projective space does not possess a canonical $\overline T$-equivariant structure.
Although the components $Z_{\pi,k}$ are locally toric, they are in general not globally toric.
Continuing Example \[ex:birkhoff3\], we see had already seen that ${\mathbf{F}}_3(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ has $6$ $2$-dimensional components, and $9$ $3$-dimensional components, which agrees with the contents of Proposition \[prop:dim\]. As noted before, the $3$-dimensional components are all isomorphic to ${\mathbb{P}}^3$. We may apply Theorem \[thm:polytope\] to determine that for one of the $2$-dimensional components, ${\mathcal{A}}_\pi$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&u_0+u_1+u_2\qquad &u_0+u_1+v_2 \qquad &u_0+v_1+u_2\qquad &u_0+v_1+v_2&\\
&v_0+u_1+u_2\qquad &v_0+u_1+v_2 \qquad &v_0+v_1+u_2\qquad &v_0+v_1+v_2&\end{aligned}$$ up to some permutation of the $v_j$. This configuration of lattice points is isomorphic to the set of lattice points in ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$ given by the columns of $$\left(\begin{array}{c c c c c c c c}
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1\\
0 & 1 & -1& 0 & 1 & 0 & -1
\end{array}\right).$$ The corresponding toric variety is just $\operatorname{Bl}_3{\mathbb{P}}^2$, the blowup of ${\mathbb{P}}^2$ in $3$ points, embedded by its anticanonical divisor.
Smoothness of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$
================================================
\[defn:smooth\] Let $\sigma$ be an empty simplicial $k$-face of ${\mathcal{A}}$. We say that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is *smooth at $\sigma$* if the semigroup generated by ${\mathcal{A}}-\sigma$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}^{k}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq0}^{n-k}$, where $n$ is the dimension of ${\mathcal{A}}$.
\[rem:regular\] The set ${\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth at $\sigma$ if and only if $X_\sigma\subset X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is not contained in the singular locus of $X$. Indeed, $X_\sigma$ is the orbit closure of the distinguished point $\eta$ (cf. [@CLS §3.2]) of the affine patch $U=\operatorname{Spec}{\mathbb{K}}[{\mathbb{N}}\cdot ({\mathcal{A}}-\sigma)]$, so it suffices to check if the point $\eta$ is in the singular locus of $X_{\mathcal{A}}$. Furthermore, $U$ is the smallest torus invariant open set containing $\eta$. Since the singular locus of $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is torus invariant, $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth at $\eta$ if and only if $U$ is smooth. This is equivalent to ${\mathbb{N}}\cdot({\mathcal{A}}-\sigma)$ being isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}^{k}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq0}^{n-k}$, see [@CLS §1.3].
\[thm:regular\] Let $\sigma$ be an empty simplicial $k$-face of ${\mathcal{A}}$. Suppose that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth at $\sigma$. Then any component $Z$ of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ containing the point $[L_\sigma]$ corresponding to $\sigma$ is smooth at $[L_\sigma]$.
We know by Theorem \[thm:main\] and Proposition \[prop:fixed2\] that the component $Z$ is of the form $Z_{\pi,k}$ for some Cayley structure $\pi:\tau\to \Delta_{l}$, $l\geq k$ with $\sigma$ a face of $\tau$ mapping to $k$ vertices of $\Delta_l$. Let $m$ denote the dimension of $\tau$. Note that the set of all $u\in\tau$ with $\lambda(u)\in\sigma$ is a $m+k-l$-dimensional face $\omega$ of $\tau$. Since ${\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth at $\sigma$, we find $u_1,\ldots,u_{n-k}\in{\mathcal{A}}$ such that every $u\in{\mathcal{A}}$ can be written uniquely as $$\label{eqn:u}
u=\sum_i a_i u_i+\sum_{v\in\sigma} b_vv$$ with $a_i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq0}$, $b_v\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, and $\sum_i a_i+\sum_v b_v=1$. After reordering the $u_i$, we can assume that exactly $u_1,\ldots,u_{m-k}$ are in $\tau$, and $u_1,\ldots,u_{m-l}$ are in $\omega$. This follows from the fact that both sets are faces of ${\mathcal{A}}$. Furthermore, $u$ is in $\tau$ (respectively $\omega$) if and only if the representation , has $a_i=0$ for $i>m-k$ (respectively $i>m-l$).
To study the Plücker chart of $Z_{\pi,k}$ containing $[L_\sigma]$, we consider the set $\widetilde\sigma=\sigma\cup\{u_{m-l+1},\ldots,u_{m-k}\}$. This has exactly $l+1$ elements and surjects (via $\pi$) onto the vertices of $\Delta_l$. Indeed, consider any $u\in\tau$ with $\pi(u)=e_j\notin\pi(\sigma)$. Then since $\pi$ is affine, using we have $$e_j=\sum_{i\leq m-k} a_i\pi(u_i)+\sum_{v\in\sigma}b_v\pi(v).$$ The only way this can happen is if $\pi(u_i)=e_j$ for some $i$, since $a_i\geq 0$. Thus, as in §\[sec:comps\], the Plücker chart of $Z_{\pi,k}$ containing $x_\sigma$ is the toric variety associated to the semigroup $S(\pi,\widetilde\sigma,\sigma)$.
We will show that $S(\pi,\widetilde\sigma,\sigma)$ is generated by $\gamma(u_i)=u_i-\lambda(u_i)$ for $i<m-l$, and $e_{vw}$ for $w\in \widetilde\sigma\setminus\sigma$, $v\in\sigma$. If this claim is true, we are done, since these generators are linearly independent; this implies the smoothness of $U$.
Since is an affine relation, we have that $$\pi(u)=\sum_i a_i \pi(u_i)+\sum_{v\in\sigma} b_v\pi(v)$$ for any $u\in\tau$. But the relations among the points of $\sigma$ are exactly the same as those among the points of $\Delta_l$, hence $$\lambda(u)=\sum_i a_i \lambda(u_i)+\sum_{v\in\sigma} b_vv$$ and we obtain $$u-\lambda(u)=\sum_{i\leq l-k} a_i(u_i-\lambda(u_i))+\sum_{i > l-k} a_i(u_i-u_i)=\sum_{i\leq l-k} a_i(u_i-\lambda(u_i)).$$ In particular, if $u\in \omega$, then $\gamma(u)$ is generated by the $\gamma(u_i)$, $i=1,\ldots,m-l$. Furthermore, if $u\in\tau\setminus\omega$, then $\gamma(v,u)$ is generated by $e_{v\lambda(u)}$ along with the $\gamma(u_i)$, $i=1,\ldots,m-l$.
To complete the proof, we note that our desired generators are indeed in $S(\pi,\widetilde\sigma,\sigma)$: $\gamma(u_i)$ obviously so, and $e_{v\lambda(u)}$ since $\gamma(v,\lambda(u))=e_{v\lambda(u)}$.
\[cor:regular\] Suppose that the dimension of the singular locus of $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is at most $k-1$. Then in its reduced structure, each component of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ is smooth.
A component $Z_{\pi,k}$ is smooth if and only if it is smooth at its toric fixed points. The claim now follows from Theorem \[thm:regular\] and Remark \[rem:regular\].
Intersections and Connectedness
===============================
We can also completely describe the intersection behaviour of the subvarieties $Z_{\pi,k}$ of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$.
\[thm:intersect\] Let $\pi_1:\tau_1\to\Delta_{l_1}$, $\pi_2:\tau_\to\Delta_{l_2}$ be Cayley structures with $l,l'\geq k$. Then $$Z_{\pi_1,k}\cap Z_{\pi_2,k}=\bigcup_{\substack{\pi\preceq \pi_i\\i=1,2}} Z_{\pi,k}.$$
By Proposition \[prop:contain\], the right hand side is clearly contained in the left. On the other hand, consider some linear space $L$ such that $[L]\in Z_{\pi_1,k}\cap Z_{\pi_2,k}$. We may construct a Cayley structure $\pi:\tau\to\Delta_l$ as in §\[sec:proof\] such that $[L]\in Z_{\pi,k}$. Using notation as in §\[sec:proof\], $u\in\tau$ only if $y_u\neq 0$, but since $[L]\in Z_{\pi_1,k}\cap Z_{\pi_2,k}$ this can only happen if $\tau\subset \tau_1\cap\tau_2$. Hence, $\tau$ is a face of $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$. Furthermore, $\pi(u)\neq \pi(v)$ if and only if $y_u$ and $y_v$ are not linearly dependent. But again since $[L]$ is contained in the left hand side above, we must also have $\pi_i(u)\neq \pi_i(v)$. Hence, we can find maps $\rho_i:\Delta_{l_i}\to\Delta_l$ such that $(\rho_i\circ\pi_i)_{\tau}=\pi$, so $Z_{\pi,k}$ contains $[L]$ and appears on the right hand side above.
To describe the connected components of ${\mathbf{F}}_k({\mathcal{A}})$, we construct a graph $\Gamma_{\mathcal{A}}$ based on the combinatorics of ${\mathcal{A}}$, with the property that its connected components are in bijection with those of ${\mathbf{F}}_k({\mathcal{A}})$. The vertex set of $\Gamma_{\mathcal{A}}$ consists of the set of maximal Cayley structures $\pi:\tau\to\Delta_{l}$ for $\tau\prec {\mathcal{A}}$ and $l\geq k$. We connect vertices $\pi:\tau\to \Delta_l$ and $\pi':\tau'\to\Delta_{l'}$ by an edge in $\Gamma_{\mathcal{A}}$ if there exists an empty simplicial $k$-face $\sigma\prec\tau\cap\tau'$ such that $\pi$ and $\pi'$ are injective on $\sigma$.
\[thm:connected\] Irreducible components of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ are in bijection with vertices of $\Gamma_{\mathcal{A}}$. Two components intersect if and only if the corresponding vertices are connected by an edge. Two components are in the same connected component if and only if the corresponding vertices are in the same connected component of $\Gamma_{\mathcal{A}}$. In particular, the number of connected components of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ equals the number of connected components of $\Gamma_{\mathcal{A}}$.
The first claim is just a restatement of Theorem \[thm:main\]. For the second claim, note that if two components intersect, the intersection is $T$-invariant and projective, and thus must contain a torus fixed point. The claim now follows from Proposition \[prop:fixed2\]. Two components $Z,Z'$ are in the same connected component if and only if there is a sequence of components $Z=Z_0,Z_1,\ldots,Z_j=Z'$ with $Z_i$ and $Z_{i+1}$ intersecting; the remaining claims follow.
Continuing Example \[ex:birkhoff3\], it is easy to check via Theorem \[thm:connected\] that ${\mathbf{F}}_2(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ is connected. Perhaps more interestingly, we may observe how the irreducible components intersect using Theorem \[thm:intersect\]. Each ${\mathbb{P}}^3$ component intersects $4$ other ${\mathbb{P}}^3$ components in a point, missing the other $4$. Each ${\mathbb{P}}^3$ component intersects $4$ $\operatorname{Bl}_3 {\mathbb{P}}^2$ components in a ${\mathbb{P}}^1$, and misses the other $2$. The $\operatorname{Bl}_3 {\mathbb{P}}^2$ components do not pairwise intersect.
Scheme Structure and Multiplicities {#sec:mult}
===================================
In this section, we will completely describe the scheme structure of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ locally around toric fixed points in the special case that $k=\dim X_{\mathcal{A}}-1$ and $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth in codimension one.
We now fix notation for the rest of this section. Assume that $k=\dim X_{\mathcal{A}}-1$. Recall from Proposition \[prop:fixed\] that the fixed points of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ correspond to faces of ${\mathcal{A}}$ which are empty $k$-simplices. Let us fix such a facet $\sigma=\{v_0,\ldots,v_k\}$ of ${\mathcal{A}}$. Assume that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth at $\sigma$ (cf. Definition \[defn:smooth\]). This is certainly satisfied if $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth in codimension one. We will proceed to describe the coordinate ring $R_\sigma$ of the Plücker chart containing the fixed point corresponding to $\sigma$.
By the smoothness assumption, there exists some $w\in{\mathcal{A}}$ such that every $u\in {\mathcal{A}}$ can be written uniquely as $$\label{eqn:c}
u=v_0+h\cdot (w-v_0)-\sum_{i=1}^k c_i (v_i-v_0)$$ for $h\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$, $c_i\in {\mathbb{Z}}$. We fix such an element $w$, and call $h$ the *height* of $u$. We then set $$c_0=h-1-\sum_{i>0} c_i.$$ To stress the dependence of $c_i$ and $h$ on $u$, we will sometimes write $c_i(u)$ and $h(u)$. Note that $c_i(\cdot)$ and $h(\cdot)$ preserve affine relations among elements of ${\mathcal{A}}$.
Let $R={\mathbb{K}}[z_0,\ldots,z_k]$. For each element $u\in {\mathcal{A}}\setminus (\sigma\cup\{w\})$, we will describe a set of elements $S_u$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^{k+1}$ such that a basis for $R_\sigma$ is given by $z^\alpha$ for $\alpha\in \bigcap S_u$. Let $e_0\ldots,e_k$ be the standard basis of ${\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^{k+1}$. For $\alpha=(\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_k)\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}^{k+1}$, set $|\alpha|=\sum_i \alpha_i$. Define $S_{<h}$ by $S_{<h}=\{\alpha\ ;\ |\alpha|<h\}$.
\[defn:S\] Fix $u\in {\mathcal{A}}\setminus (\sigma\cup\{w\})$ and let $h,c_i$ be as in . We define $S_u$ as follows:
1. If for some $j\neq l$, $c_i=0$ for all $i\neq j,l$ and $c_j=-1$ then $$S_u=\{\alpha\ |\ \alpha_i=0\ (i\neq l)\}\cup S_{<h};$$ \[case:simplex\]
2. If for some $j$, $0\leq c_i<h$ for all $i\neq j$ and $c_j=-1$, then $$S_u=\{c+e_j \}\cup S_{<h};$$
3. If for some $j$, $c_i=0$ for all $i\neq j$, then $$S_u=\{\alpha\ |\ \sum_{i\neq j} \alpha_i \leq 1\}\cup S_{<h};$$
4. If for some $j\neq l$, $c_i=0$ for all $i\neq j,l$ and $c_j,c_l>0$, then $$S_u= \{c+e_0,\ldots,c+e_k,c+e_j+e_l\}\cup S_{<h};$$\[case:middle\]
5. If $c_i\geq 0$ for all $i\neq j,l$ with at least three non-zero, then $$S_u= \{c+e_0,\ldots,c+e_k\}\cup S_{<h};$$
6. Otherwise, $S_u=S_{<h}$.\[case:other\]
See Figure \[fig:cases\] for the hyperplane slice $h(u)=4$ illustrating in coordinates $c_0,c_1,c_2$ the possible cases when $k=2$.
We can now completely describe the local structure of the scheme ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ in combinatorial terms.
\[thm:scheme\] With notation as above, a basis for the coordinate ring $R_\sigma$ is given by $z^\alpha$ for $\alpha\in \bigcap_{u\in{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\sigma} S_u$. Multiplication is defined by $z^\alpha\cdot z^\beta=z^{\alpha+\beta}$, where we set $z^{\alpha+\beta}=0$ if $\alpha+\beta\notin \bigcap S_u$.
In order to prove the theorem, we first set up some further notation. Let $y_0,\ldots,y_k$ be indeterminates, and for any $u\in{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\sigma$ and any $i=0,\ldots k$, let $z_{iu}$ be an indeterminate. We set $y_u=\sum z_{iu}y_i$, where if $u=v_j\in \sigma$, $z_{iu}$ is $0$ for $i\neq j$ and $1$ for $i=j$. Locally, the coordinate ring of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ may be expressed as a quotient of ${\mathbb{K}}[z_{iu}]$ by the ideal obtained from the conditions on the $z_{iu}$ necessary to satisfy $$\label{eqn:rel}
\prod y_u^{a_u}=\prod y_u^{b_u}.$$ for any affine relation $\sum a_uu=\sum b_uu$ on the elements of ${\mathcal{A}}$. For any $i=0,\ldots,k$, set $z_i=z_{iw}$.
\[lemma:mon\] The monomials $y^{\alpha}$ appearing in $$y_u \prod_{i\geq 0}y_i^{c_i}$$ (viewed as a polynomial in the $y_i$ with coefficients $z_{ju}$) are exactly those for which $\alpha\in S_u$ and $|\alpha|=h$.
The above expression is homogeneous of degree $h$, so clearly we must have $|\alpha|=h$. The lemma may be easily verified from Definition \[defn:S\] case by case.
\[lemma:span\] The monomials $z^\alpha$ for $\alpha\in \bigcap_{u\in{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\sigma} S_u$ span the ring $R_\sigma$ as a ${\mathbb{K}}$-vector space.
Considering any $u\in{\mathcal{A}}$, the affine relation derived from imposes the condition $$y_u=y_w^h \prod_{i\geq 0}y_i^{-c_i}.$$ Hence, each $z_{iu}$ can be expressed linearly in terms of the $z_j$. Furthermore, by Lemma \[lemma:mon\], this same condition imposes that $z^\alpha=0$ if $\alpha\notin S_u$. Indeed, for $|\alpha|\leq h$ this follows directly from the lemma. For $|\alpha|>h$, one may verify case by case that each $S_u$ is the set of exponent vectors for the standard monomials of a monomial ideal generated in degree $h$, and the claim follows.
From Lemma \[lemma:span\], we see that $R_\sigma$ is a quotient of the ${\mathbb{K}}$-algebra $R_\sigma'$ with basis $z^\alpha$ for $\alpha\in \bigcap_{u\in{\mathcal{A}}\setminus\sigma} S_u$, with multiplication as defined in the statement of the theorem. To show the equality of $R_\sigma$ and $R_\sigma'$, it suffices to verify the following: For any affine relation $\sum a_uu=\sum b_uu$, the equality is satisfied in $R_\sigma'$, where we have written each $z_{iu}$ as a ${\mathbb{K}}$-linear combination of the $z_i$ as in Lemma \[lemma:span\].
Now, our construction of $S_u$ ensures that $$y_u=y_w^{h(u)} \prod_{i\geq 0}y_i^{-c_i(u)}$$ holds in $R_\sigma'$, see the proof of Lemma \[lemma:span\]. But then for the above affine relation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\prod y_u^{a_u}&=\prod_u\left( y_w^{a_uh(u)} \prod_{i\geq 0}y_i^{-a_uc_i(u)}\right)=
y_w^{\sum_u a_uh(u)}\prod_{i\geq 0} y_i^{-\sum_u a_uc_i(u)}\\
\\
&=y_w^{\sum_u b_uh(u)}\prod_{i\geq 0} y_i^{-\sum_u b_uc_i(u)}
=\prod y_u^{b_u}\end{aligned}$$ in $R_\sigma'$, exactly as desired.
Assume that the fixed point corresponding to $\sigma$ is an isolated point of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$. Then the corresponding $k$-plane $L_\sigma$ of $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ has multiplicity equal to $$\#\bigcap_u S_u.$$
The multiplicity of $L_\sigma$ is just the degree of the isolated point $[L_\sigma]$ of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$. But this equals the dimension of $R_\sigma$ as a ${\mathbb{K}}$-vector space, and the result follows from Theorem \[thm:scheme\].
\[cor:two\] Assume that the fixed point of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ corresponding to $\sigma$ is an isolated point, and assume that ${\mathcal{A}}$ contains some $w'\neq w$ in height one. Then the multiplicity of $L_\sigma$ in $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is equal to the smallest natural number $m$ for which the set $$\{ u\in{\mathcal{A}}\ |\ \textrm{height of}\ u\leq m\}$$ is contained in $\sigma+{\mathbb{N}}\cdot (w-v_i)$ for some $i$.
Let $w'\neq w$ be another element of ${\mathcal{A}}$ in height one. If $w'$ is not contained in $\sigma+(w-v_i)$ for some $i$, then for $u=w'$ we are in case \[case:other\] of Definition \[defn:S\], and it follows that $\#\bigcap S_u=1$, as desired.
If instead $w'$ is contained in $\sigma+(w-v_i)$ for some $i$, then for $u=w'$ we are in case \[case:simplex\], and so $S_{w'}$ consists of those $\alpha$ of the form $\alpha=\lambda\cdot e_i$. Hence, the multiplicity of $L_\sigma$ is the smallest number $m$ for which $m e_i\notin \bigcap S_u$. But this is easily seen to be the $m$ from above.
Our Theorem \[thm:scheme\] implies the results of [@ilten:14a Theorem 2.2], in which the scheme structure of ${\mathbf{F}}_1(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ for projectively normal toric surfaces $X_{\mathcal{A}}$ is completely determined. Indeed, if there are at least two elements in height one over $\sigma$, then the argument from the proof of Corollary \[cor:two\] applies and the result is straightforward. If there is only a single lattice point in height one and ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the set of lattice points of a polytope $P$, a straightforward argument from [@ilten:14a] shows that either ${\mathcal{A}}$ is contained in a prism over $\sigma$, ${\mathcal{A}}$ contains a point in height two, or ${\mathcal{A}}$ contains a point in height three satisfying case \[case:middle\] of Definition \[defn:S\]. An analysis in each case using Theorem \[thm:scheme\] yields the result.
As we will see in the following example, the Fano scheme ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ may have embedded components.
Consider the set ${\mathcal{A}}$ from Example \[ex:surface1\] and Figure \[fig:ex\]. Let $\sigma=\{(0,0),(1,0)\}$. Then ${\mathcal{A}}$ is smooth at $\sigma$, so we may apply Theorem \[thm:scheme\] to obtain the scheme structure of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ around $[L_\sigma]$.
Here, $w=(0,1)$, so the only other point we have is $u=(1,2)$. This $u$ is in case \[case:simplex\] of Definition \[defn:S\], and $S_u=\{(1,0)\}\cup \{\lambda\cdot (0,1)\}_{\lambda\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}}$. Hence, ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ is locally an affine line with a fat point at the origin.
While it seems rather challenging to give a palatable combinatorial description of the scheme structure of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ for $k<\dim X_{\mathcal{A}}-1$, a good first step would be to describe exactly what the embedded components of ${\mathbf{F}}_k(X_{\mathcal{A}})$ are. Conjecturally, these are all of the form $Z_{\pi,k}$ where $\pi$ is some non-maximal Cayley structure.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Experimental tests of the newtonian inverse square law at short range, one at Indiana University and the other at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology, have been used to set limits on Lorentz violation in the pure gravity sector of the nonminimal Standard-Model Extension. In the nonrelativistic limit, the constraints derived for the 14 independent SME coefficients for Lorentz violation acting simultaneously are of order $\ke\sim
10^{-9}$ m$^{2}$.
address: 'Physics Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA'
author:
- 'J. Long'
title: 'Search for Lorentz Violation using Short-Range Tests of Gravity'
---
Introduction
============
Local Lorentz invariance is at the foundation of both the Standard Model and General Relativity, but is not as well tested for the latter theory. Violation of Lorentz symmetry would break the isotropy of spacetime, permitting the vacuum to fill with “background” fields with a preferred direction. Interaction of the masses in a terrestrial gravity experiment with these fields could result in sidereal modulations of the force between the masses, providing a test of Lorentz invariance in gravity.
A quantitative description of Lorentz violation consistent with local field theory is given by the Standard-Model Extension (SME), which has been expanded to include gravitational effects by introducing a Lagrange density containing the usual Einstein-Hilbert term, plus an infinite series of operators of increasing mass dimension $d$ representing corrections to known physics at attainable scales.[@ak04] To date, the minimal ($d=4$) and nonminimal cases have been investigated theoretically up to $d=6$.[@Bailey] In the nonrelativistic limit, the expression for the $j$th component of the force between two point masses $m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$ in the nonminimal SME is given by: $$F^{j} = -Gm_{1}m_{2}\left(\frac{\hat{R}^{j}}{R^{2}}-\frac{\overline{k}_{j}(\hat{R},T)}{R^{4}}\right),
\label{eq:LVgrav}$$ where the first term is newtonian gravity and the second is an SME correction. Here, $\vec{R}$ is the vector separating $m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$, and $\hat{R}^j$ is the projection of the unit vector along $\vec{R}$ in the $j$th direction. The SME correction term is $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{k}_{j}(\hat{R},T)&=&\frac{105}{2}\ke_{klmn}\hat{R}^{j}\hat{R}^{k}\hat{R}^{l}\hat{R}^{m}\hat{R}^{n}-45\ke_{klmn}\hat{R}^{j}\hat{R}^{k}\hat{R}^{l}
\nonumber \\&& +\frac{9}{2}\ke_{klkl}\hat{R}^{j}-30\ke_{jklm}\hat{R}^{k}\hat{R}^{l}\hat{R}^{m}+18\ke_{jkll}\hat{R}^{k},\end{aligned}$$ where $\ke_{jklm}$ contains 14 independent coefficients for Lorentz violation with units m$^{2}$ in the standard laboratory frame. Motivated by Ref. , this report presents a test of Eq. [(\[eq:LVgrav\])]{} in laboratory gravity experiments.
The Indiana short-range experiment
==================================
The Indiana experiment is optimized for sensitivity to macroscopic forces beyond gravity at short range, which in turn could arise from exotic elementary particles or even extra spacetime dimensions. It is described in detail elsewhere;[@Long03; @Yan14] here we concentrate on the essential features.
The experiment is illustrated in Fig. 1 of Ref. . The test masses consist of 250 $\mu$m thick planar tungsten oscillators, separated by a gap of 100 $\mu$m, with a stiff conducting shield in between them to suppress electrostatic and acoustic backgrounds. Planar geometry concentrates as much mass as possible at the scale of interest, and is nominally null with respect to $1/r^{2}$ forces. This is effective in suppressing the newtonian background relative to exotic short-range effects, and would be expected to be ideal for testing Eq. [(\[eq:LVgrav\])]{}, in which the SME correction term varies as $1/r^{4}$. The force-sensitive “detector” mass is driven by the force-generating “source” mass at a resonance near 1 kHz, placing a heavy burden on vibration isolation. The 1 kHz operation is chosen since at this frequency it is possible to construct a simple vibration isolation system. This design has proven effective for suppressing all background forces to the extent that the only effect observed is thermal noise due to dissipation in the detector mass.[@Yan14] After a run in 2002, the experiment set the strongest limits on forces beyond gravity between 10 and 100 $\mu$m.[@Long03] The experiment has since been optimized to explore gaps below 50 $\mu$m, and new force data were acquired in 2012.
Analysis of the 2002 and 2012 data for evidence of Lorentz violation requires a theoretical expression for the Lorentz violating force for the particular geometry. Equation [(\[eq:LVgrav\])]{} is evaluated by Monte Carlo integration with the geometrical parameters listed in Refs. and . The result can be expressed as a Fourier series of the time dependence, $$F=C_{0}+\sum_{m=1}^{4}S_{m}\sin(m\omega_{\oplus}T)+C_{m}\cos(m\omega_{\oplus}T),
\label{eq:LVF}$$ where $C_{m}, S_{m}$ are functions of the SME coefficients and test mass geometry (and the laboratory colatitude angle). In Eq. [(\[eq:LVF\])]{}, the SME coefficients are expressed in the Sun-centered celestial equatorial frame, which are related to the laboratory-frame coefficients by $\ke_{jklm}=M^{jJ}M^{kK}M^{lL}M^{mM}\ke_{JKLM}$, where the matrix $M$ is given by Eq. (10) of Ref. . The term $\omega_{\oplus}$ is the Earth’s sidereal rotation frequency, and the time $T$ is measured in the Sun-centered frame. The result for the constant term is: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{0}&=&[-(1.8\pm 2.3)\ke_{XXXX}-(1.8\pm 2.3)\ke_{YYYY} \nonumber \\
&&-(3.6\pm 4.7)\ke_{XXYY}+(13.5\pm 7.5)\ke_{XXZZ} \nonumber \\
&&-(13.5\pm 7.5)\ke_{YYZZ}]~\mathrm{nN/m^{2}}.
\label{eq:c0}\end{aligned}$$ Each term is quite sensitive to uncertainties in the test mass geometry (which determine the errors); in fact the means are smaller than might be expected for a simple $1/r^{4}$ force for planar geometry.
Some insight can be gained from examination of the force in Eq. [(\[eq:LVgrav\])]{} for the case of a point mass $m$ suspended a distance $d$ above the center of a circular plate of radius $\rho$, which can be solved analytically. The result can be expressed as $1/d^{2}$ times a linear combination of oscillatory angular functions $\Gamma^{jklm}(\theta,\phi)$, each function weighted by an SME laboratory-frame coefficient. Here, $\theta$ and $\phi$ are the polar and azimuthal angles of the vector between $m$ and a mass element $dm$ in the plate. In particular, nine of the $\Gamma$ vanish upon integration of $\phi$ over $2\pi$ radians. The remaining terms vanish upon integration of $\theta$ from 0 to $\pi/2$ (the case of an infinite plate), and are strongly suppressed for $\rho /d > 8$, as the oscillatory structure of the $\Gamma$ averages out. Thus, the force in Eq. [(\[eq:LVgrav\])]{} is suppressed in geometries with high symmetry and which subtend large solid angles; both are characteristics of the geometry of the IU experiment.
Limits on Lorentz violation coefficients
========================================
Analysis of the 2002 and 2012 data sets for signals of Lorentz violation has been completed, following Ref. . Time stamps in the data are extracted and offset relative to the effective $T_{0}$ in the Sun-centered frame (taken to be the 2000 vernal equinox). Discrete Fourier transforms of the data at each frequency component of the signal ($0, \omega_{\oplus},
2\omega_{\oplus}, 3\omega_{\oplus}, 4\omega_{\oplus}$) are computed, with errors, and corrected for discontinuous time data. Results, shown in Table I of Ref. , are consistent with zero with errors of order $\sim$10 fN. Gaussian probability distributions at each signal frequency component are constructed, using the difference between the Fourier transforms and the predicted signals (e.g., Eq. [(\[eq:c0\])]{}) as the means. A global probability distribution is constructed from the product of the 18 component distributions. Means and errors of particular $\ke_{JKLM}$ (for example, $\ke_{XXXX}$) are then computed by integration of the distribution over all $\ke$ except $\ke_{XXXX}$. Results are of order $\ke \le 10^{-5}$ m$^{2}$.
Results improve significantly on inclusion of data from the short-range experiment at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology, a torsion balance with planar test masses separated by $\sim 300$ $\mu$m.[@Tan16] Terms in the Lorentz-violating torque for this experiment (the analog of Eq. [(\[eq:c0\])]{}) are of order 10 nNm/m$^{2}$, while measured torque Fourier components have errors $\sim 10$ aNm. Improvement in sensitivity by a factor of $\sim$10$^{3}$ would be expected; the resulting constraints on the $\ke$ are typically $10^{-9}$ m$^{2}$.[@Shao16] The $\ke$ are derived from the 336 coefficients $\ko$ and $\kt$ in the fully relativistic SME; the simultaneous constraints on $\ke$ translate into comparable constraints on 131 fundamental coefficients taken one at a time.
Further study of Eq. [(\[eq:LVgrav\])]{} reveals that (i) the total force between point masses contains six components (each weighted by a separate $\ke$) directed along the vector between the masses with the remaining components directed [*orthogonally*]{}, (ii) variation of the force in a terrestrial experiment is maximized when the sensitive axis is orthogonal to the Earth’s rotation axis, and (iii) the point-plate force tends to a maximum when the separation of the masses is on the order of the plate radius. Future experiments taking advantage of these features are expected to have greater sensitivity.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author thanks R. Xu, A. Kostelecký, and H.-O. Meyer for essential discussions of Eq. [(\[eq:LVgrav\])]{}, and E. Weisman for help with numerical calculations. This work was supported in part by the Indiana University Center for Spacetime Symmetries.
[x]{}
V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 105009 (2004).
Q.G. Bailey, V.A. Kostelecký, and R. Xu, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 022006 (2015).
J.C. Long , Nature [**421**]{}, 922 (2003); arXiv:hep-ph/0210004.
H. Yan , Class. Quantum Grav. [**31**]{}, 205007 (2014).
J.C. Long and V.A. Kostelecký, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 092003 (2015).
W.-H. Tan , Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 131101 (2016).
C.-G. Shao , arXiv:1607.06095.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The spatial distribution of star formation within galaxies strongly affects the resulting feedback processes. Previous work has considered the case of a single, concentrated nuclear starburst, and also that of distributed single supernovae (SNe). Here, we consider ISM structuring by SNe originating in spatially distributed clusters having a cluster membership spectrum given by the observed region luminosity function. We show that in this case, the volume of cleared per SN is considerably greater than in either of the two cases considered hitherto.
We derive a simple relationship between the “porosity” of the ISM and the star formation rate (SFR), and deduce a critical ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$, at which the ISM porosity is unity. This critical value describes the case in which the SN mechanical energy output over a timescale $t_e$ is comparable with the ISM “thermal” energy contained in random motions; $t_e$ is the duration of SN mechanical input per superbubble. This condition also defines a critical gas consumption timescale $t_{\rm exh}$, which for a Salpeter IMF and random velocities of $\simeq 10\ {\rm km\ s}^{-1}$ is roughly $10^{10}$ years.
We draw a link between porosity and the escape of ionising radiation from galaxies, arguing that high escape fractions are expected if ${{\rm SFR }}\simgreat {{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$. The Lyman Break Galaxies, which are presumably subject to infall on a timescale $<t_{\rm exh}$, meet this criterion, as is consistent with the significant leakage of ionising photons inferred in these systems. We suggest the utility of this simple parameterisation of escape fraction in terms of SFR for semi-empirical models of galaxy formation and evolution and for modeling mechanical and chemical feedback effects.
author:
- |
Cathie Clarke$^1$ and M. S. Oey$^2$\
$^1$Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA\
$^2$Lowell Observatory, 1400 W. Mars Hill Rd., Flagstaff, AZ, 86001, USA
date: '19 August 2002; Accepted to MNRAS'
title: Galactic porosity and a star formation threshold for the escape of ionising radiation from galaxies
---
\[firstpage\]
stars: formation — ISM: structure — galaxies: evolution — galaxies: high-redshift — diffuse radiation — early universe
Introduction
============
Feedback from supernovae (SNe) is a major ingredient of most contemporary models for galaxy formation and evolution. One of the main motives for its inclusion is the need to reconcile the predictions of CDM cosmology with the observed galaxy luminosity function (e.g. Cole et al 1994, 2000; Efstathiou 2000): the overproduction of dwarf galaxies in CDM models can be alleviated if star formation is inefficient in low mass systems, and the explosive energy input from SNe provides an obvious mechanism for ejecting gas from the shallow potentials of dwarf galaxies. SNe also return metals to the ISM, and if this process is coupled with the strong outflows posited above, can also provide a mechanism for enriching the IGM (e.g., Dekel & Silk 1986; Madau, Ferrara and Rees 2001). Another aspect of SN-driven feedback that has received rather less attention is its possible relation to the escape of ionising radiation from star forming galaxies. It is currently unclear whether stellar sources or quasars are mainly responsible either for the re-ionisation of the Universe at high redshift or for the present day ultraviolet background (Madau, Haardt and Rees 1999), the answer depending critically on the assumed fraction of Lyman continuum photons that are able to escape star forming galaxies (Giallongo et al 1997; Madau and Shull 1996; Bianchi et al 2001). The simplest parameterisation of this problem involves assuming a constant escape fraction for all galaxies, but there are obvious reasons for supposing that in reality the escape fraction should depend on galactic parameters. In particular, the escape fraction, which depends on the distribution of neutral hydrogen along the line of sight, is likely to be strongly affected by the the re-structuring of the ISM effected by SN explosions. At a qualitative level, it would seem evident that higher escape fractions should be expected in systems with a higher star formation rate, since the disintegration of interacting SN-driven bubbles can in principle open up lines of sight through which Lyman continuum photons can leak. Some observational support for the notion is provided by the recent detection of Lyman continuum emission in the composite spectra of Lyman Break Galaxies (Steidel et al 2001), which include systems undergoing vigorous star formation.
To date, however, calculations of escape fractions in star forming galaxies do not exhibit a strong dependence of escape fraction on star formation rate (SFR); in the case of photoionisation calculations in a smoothly stratified ISM (Dove and Shull 1994; Ricotti and Shull 2000; Wood and Loeb 2000) the derived low escape fractions are not strongly dependent on the SFR, provided this exceeds the threshold value at which the resulting regions cease to be ionisation bounded. Recent calculations by Ciardi et al (2001), demonstrate an even weaker dependence of escape fraction on SFR in the case of an inhomogeneous, fractal ISM. In all these calculations, however, the assumed ISM structure is independent of star formation activity. The effects of mechanical feedback on the escape of ionising radiation have so far only been considered in the case of a coeval burst of star formation, where the source of ionising radiation and SN energy originate in the same region (Tenorio-Tagle et al 1999; Dove, Shull and Ferrara 1999): here the temporary trapping of the ionisation front in the wall of the SN-driven bubble and the steep temporal decline of the ionising radiation from the burst combine to also produce a low escape fraction.
In this paper, we consider the case where the photons from each OB association impact on an ISM that has been structured by SN-blown superbubbles, reflecting its star formation history over the last $10^7-10^8$ years. We thus draw a link between the [*[porosity]{}*]{} of the ISM, i.e., the fraction of the ISM that is devoid of due to the expansion of SN-driven bubbles, and the resulting escape fraction of ionising radiation. In order to quantify this link in more detail, one requires both 3D hydrodynamic calculations, which model the break up of bubble walls following the interaction of adjoining bubbles, and radiative transfer calculations, which calculate the escape of ionising radiation from the resulting distribution of HI (see Fujita et al 2002). Here, we attempt neither of these exercises but instead, having posited that the escape fraction should rise steeply as the porosity of the ISM approaches unity, set up a model of the ISM which allows the porosity to be readily calculated as a function of SFR and galactic parameters.
In this work, we focus on the [*volume,*]{} $V_{\rm sn}$ of the ISM that is cleared of neutral hydrogen per unit SN explosion. This value depends strongly on the spatial distribution and clustering properties of the SN progenitors. Since superbubbles expand to the point that they are in rough pressure equilibrium with the ISM, it follows that an upper limit to this quantity is $V_{\rm max}$, the volume of ISM originally containing a thermal energy equal to the SN energy ($\sim 10^{51}$ ergs). Note that in this work, we consider “thermal energy” to refer to both macroscopic and microscopic random motions in the ISM.
To date, most previous analyses have made either one of two extreme assumptions regarding the distribution of SN progenitors: either they are distributed singly throughout the galaxy (Larson 1974; McKee and Ostriker 1977; Dekel and Silk 1986; Efstathiou 2000) or else, as in more recent studies (De Young & Heckman 1994; Suchkov et al 1994; Mac Low and Ferrara 1999; Strickland & Stevens 2000) they are concentrated in a single coeval, cospatial burst of star formation. Each of these assumptions however predicts a volume cleared per SN that is much less than $V_{\rm max}$, though for different reasons in the two cases. In the case of single SNe, the limiting factor is the cooling of the shocked ISM (Cox 1972; Chevalier 1974; Goodwin et al 2002), following which the bubble expands as a pressure driven snow plough. Due to these radiative losses, the final bubble encloses a volume of ISM that is a few per cent of $V_{\rm max}$ (Cioffi et al 1988). In the case of clustered SN progenitors, the effect of multiple SNe may be modeled as a continuous input of mechanical energy, analogous to a stellar wind (McCray & Kafatos 1987; Mac Low & McCray 1988), and in this case it is found that cooling is of marginal importance. However, in the case of a luminous starburst in a disc galaxy, the superbubble blows out when its size is between one and two disc scale heights. The bubble interior is consequently de-pressured by the loss of hot gas normal to the disc plane, and again the resulting cavity in the ISM implies a volume cleared per SN that is much less than $V_{\rm max}$.
In this paper we examine the case in which SNe are distributed according to the observed distribution of OB stars in galaxies. Specifically, we consider spatially distributed OB associations and superclusters whose membership numbers are inferred from the observed luminosity function of regions and OB associations (Oey and Clarke 1998; McKee and Williams 1997). The OB association membership function is such that the number of associations having numbers of stars between $N_*$ and $N_* + dN_*$ is $ \propto N_*^{-2}$. This distribution is similar in functional form to the observed mass distribution of clumps within molecular clouds and the membership number function for all types of stellar clusters (Blitz 1991; Elmegreen and Clemens 1985; Harris and Pudritz 1994; Elmegreen & Efremov 1997; Meurer et al. 1995). In a previous paper (Oey and Clarke 1997), we quantified the distribution of hole sizes predicted by such a model and found it to be in excellent agreement with the observed distribution of holes in the Magellanic Clouds (Oey & Clarke 1997; Kim et al. 1999). This empirical success encourages us to assume that this scale-free distribution of OB association richness is a universal characteristic of the ISM on all scales and in all environments. With such a prescription we can compute the fraction of the ISM that is cleared of for a given SFR (Oey et al. 2001), and also follow the evolution of this quantity during an episode of star formation. As we show in Section 2.1, this model implies that the volume of ISM swept up per SN is considerably larger than in either of the two limits that have been considered to date, and may be a significant fraction of $V_{\rm max}$.
Our analysis expands on the premise introduced by Oey et al. (2001), of a critical ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$, such that lower rates produce a volume filling factor of holes that is considerably less than unity. Under these circumstances, we surmise that the escape fraction of ionising radiation will be low, as found in photoionisation calculations based on a smoothly stratified ISM. If the star formation rate exceeds this value, the ISM becomes filled with hot bubbles and we speculate that the escape fraction from the ISM may rise considerably at this point, as the widespread merging of bubbles leads to the break up of shell walls through a variety of instabilities. Disc systems may be able to continue to produce stars at such a rate, but in spheroidal systems, such as molecular clouds or proto-globular clusters, this seems unlikely, as the energy input into the gas from SNe at this point is comparable with the self-gravitational binding energy of the system. We investigate, in a crude analysis, how the finite time required to clear the star forming region of affects the number of ionising photons that can escape from the system, taking into account the rapid temporal decline of the ionising luminosity produced by a stellar population. Our approach is thus especially useful in providing estimates of escape fractions and star formation efficiencies for regions that may be below the resolution limit for numerical simulations of galaxies.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we set out the model for the growth of superbubbles and derive an expression for the porosity of the galaxy as a function of time, SFR, and ISM parameters, including an analysis of how the results are modified in disc systems, and establish the existence for a [*critical star formation threshold*]{}. In Section 3 we assess the consequences of the model for the star formation efficiency and escape of ionising photons from galaxies. In Section 4 we apply the results of the foregoing sections to a variety of star forming regions, including Lyman break galaxies, starbursts and giant molecular clouds. Section 5 summarises our conclusions.
Porosity related to star formation: an analytical approach
==========================================================
Oey & Clarke (1997; hereafter OC97) estimate galactic porosity as the volume of superbubbles generated by OB associations relative to the simple geometric volume of the host galaxy. Here, we examine the porosity in more detail and relate it specifically to the ISM thermal energy and mass.
The volume of hot gas generated by star formation: steady state
---------------------------------------------------------------
We take the mechanical luminosity function (MLF) for the SN energies of the OB associations to be, $$\label{MLF}
\phi(L) = A L^{-2} \quad ,$$ where $\phi(L)$ is the fraction of clusters with mechanical luminosity in the range $L$ to $L+dL$. The power-law slope of –2 is empirically well-determined from the region luminosity function and stellar cluster mass function, as described above. Such a distribution implies that equal decades in cluster luminosity contribute equally to the total integrated mechanical luminosity, or, equivalently, SFR, of the galaxy. Thus the total SFR is dominated neither by very populous nor very sparse clusters. We furthermore assume that this luminosity function extends over a range of luminosities corresponding to a supernova membership number in the range $N_{\rm min}$ ($\geq 1$) to $N_{\rm max}$.
Following OC97, the lifetime of all superbubbles is assumed to be roughly equal to the main-sequence lifetime of the lowest mass SN progenitor, $t_e \sim 40$ Myr for Population I stars. Therefore, if constant star-forming conditions are sustained for periods in excess of $t_e$, the differential superbubble size distribution attains a steady state, as derived by OC97: $$\label{size_s}
N(R) = A\psi L_e^{-1} R_e^{-1}\ \Bigl(\frac{R}{R_e}\Bigr)^{-3}\
\Bigl[2(t_e + t_s) - \frac{3}{4}\ t_e\ \Bigl(\frac{R}{R_e}\Bigr)\Bigr]
\ ,\ R \leq R_e$$ and $$\label{size_g}
N(R) = 5A\psi\ L_e^{-1} R_e^{-1}\ \Bigl(\frac{R}{R_e}\Bigr)^{-6}\
\Bigl[\frac{t_e}{4} + t_s\Bigr] \ , \ R > R_e$$ where $\psi$ is the creation rate of the superbubbles, $L_e$ is the luminosity of a bubble that comes into pressure equilibrium with the ambient medium after time $t_e$ and $R_e$ is the corresponding radius of such a bubble at that time. It is assumed that the growth of bubbles with $L < L_e$ stall by pressure confinement at the point that they come into pressure balance with the ambient medium. After $t_e$, the SN energy stops, and the object is presumed to survive at constant radius for another increment of time $t_s$.
For this steady-state size distribution and constant MLF, the total volume of superbubbles depends only on $\psi$, or equivalently SFR, and the interstellar conditions that determine $R_e$. The total volume of the superbubbles in a steady state is $$V_{\rm tot,ss} = \int_{{R_{\rm min}}}^{{R_{\rm max}}} \frac{4}{3}\pi R^3\ N(R)\ dR \quad ,$$
where $R_{\rm min}$ is the stall radius of a bubble containing $N_{\rm min}$ supernovae and $R_{\rm max}$ is the size of a bubble containing $N_{\rm max}$ supernovae at time $t_e$. Thus integrating equations \[size\_s\] and \[size\_g\] gives a total volume, $$V_{\rm tot,ss} \simeq 3\pi A\psi L_e^{-1} R_e^3\ (t_e + 2t_s)
\quad .$$ Equation \[MLF\] is a probability distribution, so its integral is unity, and therefore $A \simeq L_{\rm min}$, yielding,
$$\label{Vtot}
V_{\rm tot,ss} \simeq 3\pi N_{\rm tot} \Bigl(\frac{L_{\rm min}}{L_e}\Bigr)\
R_e^3 \quad ,$$
where $N_{\rm tot}$ is the total number of superbubbles in the steady state.
The total number of supernovae contained in this population of bubbles is (from equation \[MLF\])
$$\label{Nsn}
N_{\rm sn} \simeq N_{\rm tot} N_{\rm min} {\rm ln} \Bigl(\frac{N_{\rm max}}{N_{\rm min}}\Bigr)\
\quad ,$$
so that the [*mean volume of ISM cleared per supernova*]{}, $V_{\rm sn}$ is
$$\label{Vsn}
V_{\rm sn} \simeq \frac{3 \pi}{{\rm ln} \Bigl(\frac{N_{\rm max}}{N_{\rm
min}}\Bigr)} \frac{R_e^3}{N_e}
\quad ,$$
where we have used the fact that $ L \propto N$, and we define $N_e$ as the number of SNe corresponding to mechanical luminosity $L_e$. We will use these expressions for SN-cleared volume in deriving the interstellar porosity below.
Equation \[Vsn\] shows that $R_e$ dominates $V_{\rm sn}$. Note that since $R_e$ is the radius at which a bubble containing $N_e$ supernovae comes into pressure balance with the ISM, one can roughly equate the thermal energy of the ISM contained within $R_e$ with the total energy input from $N_e$ supernovae:
$$\label{therm}
N_e E_{\rm sn} \simeq \frac{4\pi}{3} R_e^3 u
\quad ,$$
where $E_{\rm sn} \sim 10^{51}$ erg is the SN energy and $u$ is the thermal energy density in the ISM[^1] . We thus deduce that $V_{\rm sn}$ is within a factor of order unity of $V_{\rm max}$:
$$\label{vmax}
V_{\rm max} \sim {{E_{\rm sn}}\over{u }} \quad .$$
which, as discussed in §1, is the mean volume per supernova for the adiabatic evolution of individual SNe.
The finding that $V_{\rm sn} \simeq V_{\rm max}$ contrasts with the two scenarios considered by previous authors, namely, either distributed individual SNe, or else all SNe concentrated in a single bubble. The difference may readily be traced to the fact that when one considers a realistic spectrum of cluster richness (i.e. a MLF) there is an important volumetric contribution from bubbles with $L \simeq L_e$. Such bubbles, which stall after a time $t_e$, remain in the adiabatic expansion phase over their entire SN-producing lifetime and thus represent optimal coupling between the supernova energy and clearing of the ISM. Note also that $V_{\rm sn}$ is insensitive to any upper cut-off in the richness of OB associations, provided that the MLF extends well beyond $L_e$, since the volumetric contribution of bubbles with $L\gg L_e$ is small (equation \[size\_g\]).
Non-steady star formation
-------------------------
The above analysis may readily be modified to model an episode of star formation that proceeds at constant rate over a timescale $t <t_e$. Such a situation is only relevant to star forming systems that can switch on their star formation on timescales $\ll t_e$ and thus applies to compact systems with short dynamical timescales, such as molecular clouds and globular clusters, as discussed in §4.1.
At time $t (<t_e)$, the transition from the size distribution given by equation \[size\_s\] to that of equation \[size\_g\] occurs at radius $R_t$ instead of $R_e$, where $R_t$ is the radius of a bubble that just stalls at time $t$. Consequently, the total volume of superbubbles after time $t$ is given by:
$$\label{vtt}
V_{\rm tot,ns} (t) = 3 \pi N_{\rm tot}(t) R_{\rm min}^2 R_t
\quad .$$
$N_{\rm tot}(t)$, the total number of superbubbles produced in time $t$, is proportional to $t$, whereas one may readily show (OC97) that $R_t \propto t$. Consequently, the volume of hot gas created varies [*quadratically*]{} with time, so that one may write
$$\label{vtt2}
V_{\rm tot,ns} (t) = V_{\rm tot,ss} \Bigl(\frac{t}{t_e}\Bigr)^2
\quad .$$
Effect of cooling and finite scale of ISM
-----------------------------------------
The above analysis is appropriate to an infinite ISM where the bubble evolution remains adiabatic until it comes into pressure equilibrium with the ISM.
We verify the approximate validity of the adiabatic assumption by comparison of the bubble stall radius with the cooling radius given by Mac Low and McCray (1988). The former may be written (e.g. see OC97) in the form: $$R_f = 300\ {\rm pc}\ L_{38}^{1/2} P_{\rm MW}^{-3/4} n_{\rm MW}^{1/4} \quad ,$$ where $L_{38}$ is the luminosity normalised to $10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (equivalent to an OB association with $\sim100$ SN progenitors), $P_{\rm MW}$ and $n_{\rm MW}$ are respectively the pressure and number density of the ISM normalised to their values in the Milky Way ($3 \times 10^{-12}$ dyne cm$^{-2}$ and $0.5$ cm$^{-3}$). The corresponding expression for the cooling radius of freely expanding bubbles, using a cooling function appropriate to solar metallicity gas, is (Mac Low and McCray 1988): $$R_c \simeq 540 \ {\rm pc}\ L_{38}^{4/11} n_{\rm MW}^{-7/11} \quad .$$
These expressions imply that even in the case of solar metallicity gas, cooling is of marginal importance before the point is reached where the counter-pressure of the ISM is significant in slowing the expansion; for lower metallicity systems, cooling would be of still less importance. This hence justifies our treatment of the evolution prior to stalling as approximately adiabatic.
We now consider how the above analysis is modified when one takes into account the finite extent of the ISM. In general, bubbles evolve as described above, provided their sizes remain less than the density scale length of the ISM. Once they grow to larger radii, their evolution is modified by the ambient density gradient: in particular, a decreasing gradient causes the bubble expansion to accelerate due to the decreasing inertia of the newly swept up material. In disc-like density distributions, for example, a number of authors have performed hydrodynamical simulations of bubbles that demonstrate that bubbles ‘break out’ of the disc when they grow to a height between one and two disc scale heights (e.g., Mac Low and McCray 1988). At this point, the contents of the hot bubble interior are vented normal to the disc plane. Thereafter, the bubble evolution in the disc plane is no longer adiabatically driven, but evolves in a momentum-conserving fashion. We now calculate how the volume of ISM occupied by bubbles is reduced if one takes this into account.
It is convenient to divide the bubble population into low luminosity objects having $ L< L_H$, which stall at sizes less than the disk scale height $H$, and higher luminosity objects that break out of the disc. >From integration of equation \[size\_s\] it can be seen that the total volume of bubbles contained in objects with radius less than $R$ is roughly proportional to $R$, and the total volume contained in bubbles that never break out of the disc is a factor $\simeq H/R_e $ times the total volume of bubbles that would be created in an infinite medium for a given SFR.
We now estimate the total volume swept out by bubbles with $L > L_H$. Such bubbles evolve adiabatically prior to breakout and hence the kinetic energy of the bubbles walls is proportional to the number of supernovae that have gone off at that point. Since bubbles attain a fixed size scale on a timescale $t_H$ that scales as $L^{-1/3}$ (OC97), the kinetic energy of bubbles at breakout scales as $L \times t_H \propto L^{2/3}$. All bubbles with $L > L_H$ break out when the volume of ISM swept up is $\sim H^3$, so that the mass of ISM swept up at breakout is independent of $L$. Hence the [*momentum*]{} of bubbles at breakout scales simply as the square root of the energy, i.e. as $L^{1/3}$. Thereafter, the bubbles evolve in an approximately momentum-conserving fashion and then stall when their expansion velocities become of order the thermal speed in the ISM. Thus, it follows that the final volume of the bubble is proportional to the momentum at breakout, and hence also scales as $L^{1/3}$. We can obtain the normalisation by noting that objects that just stall at size scale $H$ are by definition not going to undergo further momentum-conserving expansion, because their velocity has already declined to thermal values.
Thus we find that the final volume of a bubble of size $L > L_H$ is given by $H^3 (L/L_H)^{1/3}$ (see also Koo & McKee 1992), as compared with the final bubble volume in an infinite medium which can be written as $H^3 (L/L_H)^{3/2}$ (OC97). By integrating each of these expressions over the MLF (equation \[MLF\]), we find that bubbles that have broken out contribute a total volume that is a factor $\simeq H/R_{\rm e}$ times the total volume filled in the case of an infinite medium. \[Note that this analysis does not account for any continued driving by remaining SNe, which, following breakout from the disk, could contribute power following a momentum-conserving shell evolution (Steigman 1975). It can be shown, using the corresponding relations from OC97, that in this case the bubbles with $L>L_H$ then contribute a volume fraction that exceeds the above estimate by only a logarithmic factor ($\ln\frac{R_{\rm max}}{H}$). The effect of continued SN driving is thus not expected to be large, and we therefore do not consider it further for the purpose of the rough estimates considered here.\]
Thus adding together the total contributions from bubbles that do and do not break out, and taking $R_{\rm max} \simeq R_e$, we find that the volume of bubbles produced is reduced by a factor $$\label{fd}
$$ f_d \sim 2 H/R_e $$$$ In forthcoming sections, we shall apply this correction factor where necessary in order to reduce the volume of bubbles produced per unit SFR in disc galaxies.
Calculation of galactic porosity
--------------------------------
In order to compute the porosity of the ISM, it is necessary to divide the volume of hot gas produced by star formation by the effective volume of the star forming system, $V$. Thus from equations \[Vtot\] and \[therm\], the steady state porosity can be written
$$\label{qss}
Q_{\rm ss} \simeq \frac {f_d V_{\rm tot,ss}}{V} \simeq \frac{9}{4}\ \frac{f_d N_{\rm tot} N_{\rm min} E_{\rm sn}}{uV}
\quad ,$$
where $f_d$ is the factor (equation \[fd\]) that takes rough account of the reduction in galactic porosity in the case of disc systems. If the mean mass of stars produced per bubble is $m_*$, then $N_{tot}$ is related to the star formation rate by:
$$\label{Ntot}
N_{\rm tot} = \frac{{{\rm SFR }}\ t_e}{m_*}
\quad ,$$
whilst the product $uV$ is, by definition, the total thermal energy contained in the ISM of the system, $E_{\rm ISM}$:
$$\label{EISM}
uV = E_{\rm ISM} = \frac{1}{2} M_{\rm ISM}\ \tilde v^2
\quad ,$$
where $M_{\rm ISM}$ is the total mass in the ISM and $\tilde v$ is the ‘thermal’ velocity dispersion. Thus \[qss\] becomes
$$\label{qss2}
Q_{\rm ss} \simeq \frac{9}{2}\ \frac{f_d N_{\rm min} {\rm SFR}\ t_e E_{\rm sn}}{m_* M_{\rm ISM}\ \tilde v ^2}
\quad .$$
For a Salpeter IMF and $N_{\rm min} =1 $, the mean mass of stars per bubble can be written $m_* = 150\ {\rm ln}(N_{\rm max})\ M_\odot$ and is thus weakly (logarithmically) sensitive to any upper cutoff in the MLF. Here we adopt $N_{\rm max} \sim
7000$, which corresponds to the largest OB associations in the Milky Way (McKee and Williams 1997), and which is, incidentally about twice $N_e$ for Milky Way ISM parameters (OC97). In this case the mean number of supernovae per bubble is $ \simeq 9 $ and $m_* \simeq 1350\ M_\odot$. (We note that if $N_{\rm max}$ was an order of magnitude greater than this, $m_*$ would only increase by $25 \%$). Taking $E_{\rm sn} \simeq 10^{51} $ ergs, we obtain:
$$\label{qss3}
Q_{\rm ss} \simeq \frac { 7 f_d\ {\rm SFR_\odot} }{M_{\rm ISM,{10}}\ \tilde v_{10}^2}
\quad ,$$
where $\rm SFR_\odot$ is the star formation rate in solar masses per year, $M_{\rm ISM,{10}}$ is the mass of the ISM in units of $10^{10} M_\odot$ and $\tilde v_{10}$ is the thermal velocity of the ISM normalised to $10$ km s$^{-1}$. In a system where star formation has been ongoing for a time $t < t_e$, the porosity is given by (equation \[vtt2\]):
$$\label{qt}
Q(t) = Q_{\rm ss} \Bigl(\frac{t}{t_e}\Bigr)^2
\quad ,$$
Equation \[qss3\] implies that there is a critical star formation rate, ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$ such that the porosity of the ISM is unity, i.e.
$$\label{SFRc}
{{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit} = 0.15 \biggl(\frac{ M_{\rm ISM,{10}}\ \tilde v_{10}^2}{f_d}\biggr)\ M_\odot {\rm yr}^{-1}
\quad ,$$
We stress that [*${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$ is the SFR such that the energy output from SNe, over a timescale $t_e$, is comparable with the energy of the ISM contained in random motions.*]{} The normalisation of equation \[SFRc\] thus depends only on the assumed IMF and the stellar astrophysics contained in the value of $t_e$ and the energy delivered per SN. (We note, however, that in reality equation \[SFRc\] should be regarded as a very rough guide, since its derivation suffers from the obvious over-simplification that results from approximating the ISM of a galaxy as a smooth homogeneous entity characterised by a single set of physical parameters. In practice, we will find equation \[SFRc\] useful below in dividing highly porous regimes from the marginal case and from situations where the porosity is very low).
If ${{\rm SFR }}< {{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$, then such a SFR can be sustained indefinitely, provided the gas supply is large; star formation can proceed at such a rate over timescales $\gg t_e$, with the porosity attaining a steady state value of $Q_e < 1$.
If ${{\rm SFR }}> {{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$, then the system attains unit porosity after a time $t_Q$:
$$\label{tq}
t_Q = t_e \biggl({{{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}\over{{{\rm SFR }}}}\biggr)^{1/2} \quad .$$
We discuss below the consequences of achieving unit porosity, but first note that the [*maximum*]{} rate of star formation achievable in a star forming system is $$\label{SFRd}
{{\rm SFR }}_{\rm dyn} \sim {{M_{\rm ISM}}\over{t_{\rm dyn}}} \quad ,$$ where $t_{\rm dyn}$ is the dynamical timescale of the star forming region.
Consequences for star formation efficiency and escape of ionising radiation
===========================================================================
Star formation efficiency
-------------------------
We have shown that the porosity of a star forming system becomes of order unity at the point that the input of mechanical energy into the ISM (over time $t_e$, or the duration of the burst, whichever is the shorter) is comparable with the [*thermal energy content*]{} of the ISM, where we take ‘thermal’ to denote random ISM motions. The critical SFR that must be sustained over a timescale $t_e$ in order to attain unit porosity is given by ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$ (equation \[SFRc\]).
For a bound spheroidal system, the thermal energy content of the ISM is always of order its gravitational binding energy, whether the gravitational potential derives from the gas itself or is a background potential of dark matter and/or stars. Consequently, when the porosity attains a value $\sim 1$, the energy input into the ISM is comparable with its gravitational binding energy. As a result, one would not expect spheroidal systems to be able to sustain star formation rates much in excess of ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$ over timescales $> t_e$.
In the case of compact systems with dynamical timescale $<t_e$, it is however possible for the SFR to exceed this limit temporarily. If, in this case, we consider the star formation event to be self-terminated after time $t_Q$ (equation \[tq\]), when the volume filling factor of superbubbles reaches unity, we can use equations (19) and (23) to derive the fraction of gas converted into stars during the event as: $$\label{eps1}
\epsilon = {{2 m_* \tilde v^2}\over{9 E_{\rm sn}}}
\biggl({{{{\rm SFR }}}\over{{{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}}}\biggr)^{1/2} \quad .$$ so that $$\label{eps}
\epsilon = 6 \times 10^{-4} \tilde v_{10}^2
\biggl({{{{\rm SFR }}}\over{{{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}}}\biggr)^{1/2} \quad .$$ The maximum fraction of the ISM that can be turned into stars increases with the square root of the SFR, and is thus limited by the upper, dynamical, limit to the SFR implied by equation \[SFRd\], to the value:
$$\label{epsmax1}
\epsilon_{\rm max} = \biggl({{2 m_* \tilde v^2}\over{9 E_{\rm sn}}}\biggr)^{1/2}
\biggl({{t_{\rm dyn}}\over{t_e}}\biggr)^{-1/2} \quad .$$
from which
$$\label{epsmax}
\epsilon_{\rm max} = 0.02 \tilde v_{10}
\biggl({{t_{\rm dyn}}\over{t_e}}\biggr)^{-1/2} \quad .$$
In a disc system, by contrast, the thermal energy content of the ISM is $\ll$ its gravitational binding energy. Consideration of hydrostatic equilibrium normal to the disc plane demonstrates that the ratio of energy in random motions to gravitational binding energy is of order $(H/R)$ if the vertical gravity mainly derives from the disc’s local self-gravity, or $(H/R)^2$ if it instead derives from the vertical component of the gravity of a central mass concentration. Thus, star formation rates in excess of ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$ do not imply the wholesale unbinding of the ISM and may not be ruled out on these grounds.
Whether or not $SFR_{crit}$ represents a maximum to the star formation rate in discs systems, or else a point of transition to star formation in a highly porous state, depends on conditions in the cool gas component once $Q \sim 1$ (i.e., equivalently, whether feedback operates positively or negatively on the cool gas). Several pieces of evidence suggest that star formation may well continue in this state. We will see below (Section 4.3) that some systems, notably Lyman Break Galaxies, apparently sustain star formation rates well in excess of $SFR_{\rm
crit}$ over prolonged periods ($10^8-10^9$ years; Shapley et al 2001). A more local example is provided by the LMC. Although the porosity of this system is around unity (Oey et al 2001), continuous vigorous star formation has been ongoing in the LMC disk for at least $10^9$ year, and possibly up to 15 Gyr (e.g., Smecker-Hane 2002; Dolphin 2000). Inspection of the LMC reveals how this situation is achieved: although the bulk of the system volume is filled with hot gas, chiefly in the halo, the bulk of the [*mass*]{} is in the cool component in the disc plane, where a high star-formation rate is maintained. This system shows little evidence for negative feedback effects on star formation, but is well-known to provide examples where star formation appears to be actively triggered in the cool gas constituting bubble walls (e.g., Yamaguchi 2001; Oey & Smedley 1996; Oey & Massey 1995; Walborn & Parker 1992). The specific example of the supergiant shell LMC-4, which is the largest and most studied case of LMC triggered star formation (e.g., Dopita et al. 1985; Braun et al. 1997; Olsen et al. 2001) clearly shows a massive ring of H I and star formation 1.4 kpc in diameter surrounding a large complex of young blue stars. However, the morphology is clearly ring-like, rather than shell-like, suggesting that mechanical feedback on these large scales does not remove the majority of shell gas from the low galactic latitudes, and does promote continued star formation. In what follows, therefore, we assume that in disc systems star formation can in principle continue in the cool component at rates in excess of $SFR_{\rm crit}$.
We note that the characteristic gas exhaustion timescale for a system in a marginally porous state is given by: $$\label{texh}
t_{\rm exh} = \frac{M_{\rm ISM}}{{{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}} = 7 \times 10^{10} {{ f_d }\over{\tilde v_{10}^2}}\ {\rm years} \quad ,$$ where the value of $t_{\rm exh}$ depends on the same assumptions about stellar astrophysics and IMF as detailed for ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$ (equation \[SFRc\]).
Implications for the escape of ionising radiation
-------------------------------------------------
We have here presented a model of the ISM structured by SN explosions located in spatially distributed clusters, a model that has been successfully tested in the case of nearby galaxies. Our discussion of ionising photon escape from such a a medium is necessarily more speculative, pending detailed hydrodynamic and photoionisation calculations. Here we explore the consequences of such a model by the following crude parameterisation of ionising photon escape: we assume that when the porosity of the ISM is $< 1$, no ionising photons can escape and that when the porosity is high ($>1$) all ionising photons can escape.
It is easy to see why these assumptions are wrong in detail. For example, pure photoionisation codes of disc galaxies, i.e. calculations that assume a smoothly stratified initially neutral medium, suggest escape fractions of a few per cent even in the absence of mechanical energy input from SNe. Likewise, it is well established that populous clusters can create local chimneys in the ISM, thereby launching galactic superwinds and it is reasonable to expect some photon leakage in this case (see, however, Tenorio-Tagle et al 1999; Dove, Shull and Ferrara 1999) even when the global star formation rate is $\ll {{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$. It is also unlikely that the escape fraction is as high as unity even when the ISM is highly porous. Although most of the volume of the ISM is cleared of neutral material in this case, most of its [*mass*]{} is contained in neutral bubble walls. We here assume that a variety of hydrodynamical instabilities break up the bubble walls once the bubbles start to overlap strongly, thus opening up lines of sight through which ionising photons can escape the disc. In order to escape the galaxy, however, such photons also have to propagate through low density material in the halo without encountering significant opacity from neutral hydrogen. Detailed hydrodynamic/radiative transfer calculations are required, which model the input of ionising photons and mechanical energy into the halo from spatially dispersed, non-coeval star formation events in the disc, in order to assess whether the halo can be maintained in a state of sufficient transparency.
Despite the above caveats, we argue that this simple prescription captures an important dependence of the escape fraction of ionising radiation on SFR. Systems maintaining a steady state star formation rate on timescales greater than $t_e$ can exist in two states: if ${{\rm SFR }}<{{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$ the escape fraction is low and star formation can in principle proceed at such a rate until all the gas is exhausted. On the other hand, disc systems which are re-supplied on a timescale less than $t_{\rm exh}$ (equation \[texh\]) may sustain SFRs in excess of ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$, in which case the escape fraction would be high.
For star-forming systems in which the dynamical timescale is less than $t_e$, the SFR can vary on a timescale less than $t_e$, offering the possibility that the SFR may temporarily exceed ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$. During such a star formation episode, the porosity of the system rises, attaining unity at time $t_Q$. We have argued that in spheroidal systems, star formation is self-limited at this point. Ionising photons from the population created prior to this can then escape the immediate vicinity relatively easily; the above crude model posits escape with unit probability. Given an IMF and relationships between ionising luminosity, mass and lifetime, one may readily calculate an upper limit to the number of ionising photons escaping the region. Specifically, if the number of ionising photons emitted by the population prior to time $t$ is ${\cal{ N}}_{\rm ion}(t)$, then this upper limit is given by: $$\label{fesc}
f_{\rm esc} = 1 - {{{\cal {N}}_{\rm ion}(t_Q)}\over{{\cal {N}}_{\rm ion}(\infty)}}
\quad .$$ Note that, whereas escape fractions are conventionally defined in terms of rates, in the case of a finite episode, it makes sense to define the escape fraction in terms of [*numbers*]{} of ionising photons.
![\[fesc\] Escape fraction (defined by equation \[fesc\] ) as a function of the time, $t_b$, at which the burst of star formation is terminated. The solid and dashed curves are for Population III and Population I stars, with a Salpeter IMF (extending up to $100 M_\odot$) in both cases. ](clarkeoeyf1.ps){width="3.5truein" height="3.5truein"}
Figure 1 illustrates the dependence of $f_{\rm esc}$, as defined above, on the duration of a star formation burst ($t_b$) under the simple assumption that ionising photons escape only if emitted at times $> t_b$. The two lines denote stars of Population I and III, with an assumed Salpeter IMF in both cases. Note that star formation is assumed to continue at constant rate until $t_b$, unlike other recent studies of escape of ionising radiation from ageing populations (Dove, Shull and Ferrara 1999; Tenorio Tagle et al 1999) where all the star formation is concentrated in a burst at time $t=0$. Stellar data for Population I stars is taken from Maeder 1990 and Díaz-Miller et al 1998, whilst for Population III stars, models have kindly been supplied by Chris Tout in advance of publication. The curve for Population II stars would be almost indistinguishable from that for Population I, since the main dependence of ionising luminosity on metallicity occurs for stars of sufficiently low mass that they make a rather small contribution to the total ionising output of the cluster. The Population III curve is rather different, however, since lower mass stars are considerably hotter in this case and make a significantly larger contribution to the total ionising output than for the Population I case. Consequently, a higher fraction of the ionising photons can escape at late times in the Population III case. The effect, however, is not enormous: for bursts terminated after $\sim 20$ Myr the escape fraction (equation \[fesc\]) for Population III stars is $\sim 25 \%$ compared with a value that is roughly a factor of two lower for Population I stars.
Application to star forming systems
===================================
Compact systems
---------------
The basic building block of star formation at the present epoch is the Giant Molecular Cloud, and we here apply our simple model to assess the internal self-destruction of GMCs through the action of SNe and stellar winds (see Franco and Cox 1983 for an assessment of the effects of winds from [*low mass*]{} stars on the dispersal of molecular clouds). For typical parameters ($M_{\rm ISM}=2 \times 10^5 M_\odot, \tilde v_{10} \sim 0.2$) it follows from equation \[SFRc\] that ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$ is a tiny $ 10^{-7} M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, which is many orders of magnitude less than the observed SFR in GMCs. The dynamical timescale of GMCs is short (a few Myr; i.e $\sim 0.1 t_e$) so that if the SFR is dynamically limited (equation \[SFRd\]), the maximum fraction of the cloud that can be turned into stars is $\epsilon_{\rm max}
\sim 0.02$ (equation \[epsmax\]). This low value is similar to the fraction that is generally inferred in molecular clouds (Larson 1988; Hunter 1992).
Following Whitworth (1979; see also Franco et al 1984, Yorke et al 1989), it is generally assumed that it is photoionisation that limits the efficiency of star formation in GMCs, prior to the first SN explosions on a timescale of several Myr; photoionisation is an effective agent of cloud disruption because of the relatively shallow potential of GMCs. Our estimate here suggests that, in solar metallicity systems, the effect of clearing by stellar winds is likely to be at least competitive with photoionisation during the first few Myr of cloud evolution. In practice, simulations are required that include both effects since the trapping of ionisation fronts in bubble walls means that photoionisation may be less effective than in the homogeneous media considered by previous authors (see discussion in Díaz-Miller et al 1999).
We may estimate the likely escape fraction from the immediate vicinity of molecular clouds by combining the empirical lifetime of molecular clouds ($\sim 10^7$ years; Leisawitz 1985; Fukui et al 1998) with Figure 1, from which we deduce that only $10-20 \%$ of the Lyman photons produced within a GMC will be emitted after the dispersal of the cloud.
In low metallicity systems, however, the role of winds is much less significant. Recent calculations of O star winds by Vink et al (2001) indicate that the mechanical luminosity delivered by winds in stars of given mass scales almost linearly with metallicity. Consequently, although in Population I systems, winds deliver a mechanical luminosity over the first few Myr that is comparable with the subsequent rate of energy input from supernovae (Shull and Saken 1995; Leitherer and Heckman 1995), in low metallicity systems the input power from winds is negligible compared with supernovae. As a result, significant feedback effects are delayed for around $2$ Myr until the explosion of the first supernova. This factor may explain the high inferred star formation efficiency in proto-globular clusters (Murray and Lin 1989; Geyer and Burkert 2001) and the compact nature of globular clusters. More speculatively, we suggest that the population of ‘faint fuzzies’ (diffuse red clusters recently discovered in early type galaxies; Larsen and Brodie 2000; Larsen et al 2001) may owe their relatively distended nature and weak gravitational binding to the stronger winds that operate in clusters whose metallicity is at the high end of the globular cluster metallicity distribution.
In Population III systems, winds are estimated to be many orders of magnitude weaker than in Population I stars (Bromm et al 2001b), so that one may effectively ignore mechanical feedback from winds in these systems. In the compact haloes that are expected to host Population III stars, the dynamical timescale is sufficiently short to allow efficient star formation prior to the explosion of the first supernovae. Since Population III stars are likely to be very massive (Bromm et al 1999, 2001a; Abel et al 2000), the further evolution then depends on the details of the resultant mass spectrum, since the energy output (and existence) of supernovae in stars more massive than $100 M_\odot$ is highly dependent on stellar mass (Bond et al 1984, Fryer et al 2001).
Milky Way
---------
For the ISM properties of the Milky Way ($n \sim 0.5$ cm$^{-3}$, $\tilde
v_{10} \sim 1$), the radius of a bubble stalling after $t_e$ is $R_e \sim 1300$ pc (OC97), so that given the disc scale height of $H \sim 100$ pc, the correction factor for disc systems ($f_d$; equation \[fd\]) is around $15 \%$. This means that the critical SFR required to achieve unit porosity is boosted by about $7$ relative to its value in an infinite medium, due to the loss of accelerative power in bubbles that break out of the disc. For an ISM mass of $\sim 10^{10} M_\odot$ in the Milky Way, the critical star formation rate (equation \[SFRc\]) is roughly a solar mass per year, that is, comparable with the observed rate in the Milky Way (McKee and Williams 1997; McKee 1989). As discussed above, we may use our model as a crude indication of escape fraction: ‘low’ or ‘high’ for SFRs that are much less than or much greater than the critical value. We would not however trust it in the transitional case where the SFR is close to critical. (See also the discussion in OC97 of the porosity of the Milky Way).
Lyman Break Galaxies
--------------------
The application of this model to Lyman Break Galaxies is currently rather uncertain, given uncertainties about the gas masses and morphologies of these objects. However, on the assumption that these are disc systems ($\tilde v_{10} \sim 1$) with gas masses comparable with their virial masses ($\sim 10^{10}\ \rm M_\odot$; Pettini et al 2001) one obtains values of ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit} \sim 1\ \rm M_\odot\ yr^{-1}$. The SFRs inferred in Lyman Break Galaxies studied to date are comfortably greater than this ($\sim 10-100\ \rm M_\odot\ yr^{-1}$; Pettini et al 2001) leading to the expectation that ionising radiation should escape rather easily from these systems. The discovery of Lyman continuum emission in the composite spectra of Lyman Break Galaxies (Steidel et al 2001) is consistent with this conclusion. The positive correlation between SFR and escape fraction that this model predicts awaits the measurement of Lyman continuum emission in individual Lyman break systems.
Starbursts at low z
-------------------
The nuclei of nearby starburst galaxies provide the best studied examples of vigorous star formation activity in the local Universe; the inferred SFRs (up to $\sim 20\ \rm M_\odot\ yr^{-1}\ kpc^{-2}$ for an assumed Salpeter IMF; Lehnert and Heckman 1996; Meurer et al 1997) are greatly in excess of ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$, leading to the expectation that the porosity of the ISM in these regions should be high. Note that this conclusion does [*not*]{} depend on the IMF, but purely on the relationship between the massive star content and ISM properties. In the absence of replenishment, therefore, one would expect a high fraction of the ionising photons to be able to escape the nuclei of such galaxies.
The situation of starburst nuclei, located at the bottom of the galactic potential well, however, means that such regions are likely to be subject to continued replenishment of gas from larger radius during the history of the starburst. The dynamical timescales in such regions are short ($\sim 10^7$ years) and indeed less than or comparable with $t_e$. Consequently, neutral material can flow into the region on timescales less than $t_e$ and the filling factor of regions devoid of may not approach unity even at the high star formation rates typical of starbursts. Currently the available observational evidence is that the escape fraction from starburst nuclei is indeed low (Heckman et al 2001; Leitherer et al 1995). We highlight here the contrast with the Lyman Break Galaxies (see above), where the more extended star formation regions do not permit re-supply on a timescale of $t_e$.
Conclusions
===========
We have developed a model where the ISM porosity, i.e., the fractional volume devoid of HI, is regulated by SN explosions. In this model, the SN progenitors are located in spatially distributed OB associations, membership numbers being dictated by the observed OB association luminosity function. This model has previously been shown to provide a good fit to the observed size distribution of holes in nearby galaxies.
We find that such a realistic distribution of SN progenitors ensures that the clearing of the ISM is more effective, per unit star formation rate, than in either the case of distributed single SNe or the case where all SNe are concentrated in a single region. This is because, given the slope of the OB association LF, the porosity in our model is dominated by bubbles that come into pressure equilibrium with the ISM on a timescale that is similar to $t_e$, where $t_e$ is the maximum lifetime of a SN progenitor and hence the timescale over which associations inject mechanical energy into the ISM. Such superbubbles evolve quasi-adiabatically and thus most of the mechanical energy of their SNe is deposited in the ISM. In consequence, for the population of bubbles as a whole, the average volume cleared per SN is within a factor of order unity of its theoretical maximum (equation \[vmax\]), although this is somewhat reduced in the case of disc galaxies (equation \[fd\]). This contrasts with the situation of single SNe, where cooling limits the volume cleared, and also single burst models, where clearing is limited by the breakout of the bubble from the galactic plane.
This model yields a simple relationship between the star formation rate and interstellar porosity. Following the arguments above, the critical star formation rate (${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$) required to attain a porosity of order unity is just that at which the energy input from SNe, over a timescale $t_e\sim 40$ Myr, is comparable with the thermal energy content of the ISM. For a given kinetic temperature of the ISM defined by the level of random motions, this implies a simple relationship between the ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$ and the mass of the ISM (equation \[SFRc\]), and hence a characteristic timescale for gas exhaustion, $t_{\rm exh}$ (equation \[texh\]). For a Salpeter IMF and ISM velocity dispersion of around $10$ km s$^{-1}$, this critical star formation timescale is roughly $10^{10}$ years.
If spheroidal galaxies form stars at ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$, the energy input into the ISM over $t_e$ is comparable with the gravitational binding energy of the ISM and one might expect wholesale expulsion of the ISM to ensue. Disc systems, by contrast, can remain in a highly porous state and still retain their ISM. Although in this case the volume fraction of is then small, the mass fraction is still large, so we assume that star formation can proceed in the shredded walls of interacting superbubbles.
We furthermore suggest that the porosity of the ISM has an impact on the escape of ionising photons from galaxies, since the disintegration of overlapping bubbles can create channels in the ISM through which ionising photons can escape. This postulate must be assessed through detailed photoionisation calculations in a medium structured by supernova explosions whose progenitor OB associations are appropriately distributed in luminosity and space. We note that the recent analysis by Elmegreen et al (2001) of the morphology of the neutral ISM in the LMC favours the filament/bubble structure that is characteristic of a supernova-structured ISM.
If we tentatively accept this postulate, we would thus expect high escape fractions in galaxies whose star formation rates exceed ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$, as would appear to be the case in Lyman Break Galaxies. Sustained star formation at such rates however requires that gas is replenished on a timescale less than $t_{\rm exh}$ (see above). At recent cosmic epochs, the timescale for gaseous infall into galaxies is long, so that one would not expect that galaxies in general should display the high SFRs required to maintain a highly porous ISM. This conclusion is consistent both with measurements of the HI hole size distributions in nearby galaxies and with the low leakage of ultraviolet photons from the Milky Way based on H$\alpha$ measurements of the Magellanic Stream (Bland-Hawthorn and Maloney 1999) During the assembly of galaxies at high redshift, however, much shorter infall timescales are expected, and we suggest that it is the continued infall of material into Lyman Break Galaxies that allows them to sustain vigorous star formation levels with a high associated escape fraction. In systems where the infall timescale falls to values less than $t_e$, however, the situation reverses, since the continual replenishment of neutral material into the star forming region can prevent the porosity from ever attaining high values. We suggest that this is why local starburst nuclei, being compact regions at the bottom of the galactic potential and thus subject to gaseous inflows on a short timescale, have a low escape fraction despite their high rates of star formation per unit gas mass.
We also consider compact systems, with dynamical timescales $< t_e$, in which the SFR may temporarily exceed ${{\rm SFR }}_{\rm crit}$ and we have estimated the maximum number of Lyman continuum photons that might be expected to escape these systems. The key factor here is the efficacy of feedback from stellar winds prior to the explosion of the first SN, which depends critically on metallicity. In Giant Molecular Clouds with near solar metallicity, we find that winds provide a very efficient means of cloud dispersal; we estimate that the maximum fraction of the cloud mass that can be converted into stars prior to their dispersal is a few per cent, close to the observationally inferred value. This suggests that stellar winds may be at least as important as photoionisation as a negative feedback mechanism in Giant Molecular Clouds. In Population III systems, by contrast, the mechanical feedback from stellar winds is negligible and clearing of the ISM is delayed until the explosion of the first SN. Supernovae are not expected for progenitors more massive than $250 M_\odot$ however, so that an extremely top heavy IMF might result in inefficient clearing and a low escape fraction of ionising radiation.
Finally, we present these calculations as a first attempt to parameterise the relationship between escape fraction and SFR in star-forming systems and suggest the utility of such a prescription in semi-empirical models of galaxy formation and evolution. The critical star formation rate may also offer a useful means to parameterize mechanical and chemical feedback.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank the referee, Andrea Ferrara, for comments that improved the paper, as well as Volker Bromm and Max Pettini for their useful input. We are indebted to Chris Tout for providing Pop. III stellar models prior to publication. MSO thanks the IoA, Cambridge for hospitality during this work.
Abel, T., Bryan, G.L., Norman, M.L., 2000. ApJ 540,39. Bianchi, S., Cristiani, S., Kim, T.-S., 2001. A&A 376,1. Blitz, L., 1991. in The Physics of STar Formation and Early Stellar Evolution, NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series C, eds. C.J. Lada, Kylafis, N.D., p.3 Bland-Hawthorn, J., Maloney, P.R., 1999. ApJ 510,L33. Bond, J.R., Arnett, W.D., Carr, B.J., 1984. ApJ 280,825. Braun, J. M., Bomans, D. J., Will, J.-M., & de Boer, K. S., 1997, A&A, 328, 167 Bromm, V., Coppi, P.S., Larson, R.B., 1999. Ap J 527,5. Bromm, V., Ferrara, A., Coppi, P.S., Larson, R.B., 2001a. MNRAS 328,969. Bromm, V., Kudritzki, R.P., Loeb, A., 2001b. ApJ 552,464. Chevalier, R.A., 1974. ApJ 188,501. Ciardi, B. Bianchi, S., Ferrara, A., 2002. MNRAS in press. Ciardi, B., Ferrara, A., Marri, S., Raimondo, G., 2001. MNRAS 324,381. Cole, S., Aragaon-Salamanca, A., Frenk, C.S., Navarro, J.F., Zepf,S.E., 1994. MNRAS 271,781. Cole, S., Lacey, C.G., Baugh, C.M., Frenk, C.S., 2000. MNRAS 319,168. David, L. P., Forman, W., & Jones, C., 1991. ApJ, 380, 39. De Young, D. S. & Heckman, T. M., 1994. ApJ, 431, 598. Díaz-Miller, R., Franco, J., Shore, S.N., 1998. ApJ 501,192. Dolphin, A. E. 2000, MNRAS, 313, 281 Dopita, M. A., Mathewson, D. S., & Ford, V. L. 1985, ApJ, 297, 599 Dove, J.B., Shull, J.M., 1994. ApJ 430,222. Dove, J.B., Shull, J.M., Ferrara, A., 2000. ApJ 531,846. Dyson, J.E., 1977. A&A 59,161. Efstathiou, G., 2000. MNRAS 317,697. Elmegreen, B.G., Clemens, C., 1985. ApJ 294,523. Elmegreen, B.G., Efremov, Y. N., 1997. ApJ, 480, 235. Elmegreen, B.G., Kim, S., Staveley-Smith, L., 2001. ApJ 548,749. Franco, J. & Cox, D.P., 1983. ApJ 273,243. Fryer, C.L., Woosley, S.E., Heger, A., 2001. ApJ 550,372. Fukui, Y. et al, 1998 in IAU Symposium 190, New Views of the Magellanic Clouds, ed. Y.-H. Chu, N. Suntzeff, J. Hesser, D. Bohlender (San Francisco: ASP), p.9 Franco, J., Shore, S.N., Tenorio-Tagle, G., 1994. ApJ 436,795. Fujita, A., Martin, C., Mac Low, M.-M., Abel, T., astro-ph/0208278 Garcia-Segura, G., Franco, J., 1996. ApJ 469,171. Geyer, M.P., Burkert, A., 2001. MNRAS 323,988 Giallongo, E., Fontana, A., Madau, P., 1997. MNRAS 289,629. Goodwin, S.P., Pearce, F.R., Thomas, P.A., astro-ph/0001180 Goodwin, S., 1997. MNRAS 286,669. Heckman,T.M., Sembach, K.R>, Meurer, G.R., Leitherer, C., Calzetti, D., Martin, C.L., 2001. ApJ 558,81. bibitem Harris, W.E., Pudritz, R.E., 1994. ApJ 429,177. Hunter, D.A., 1992. in Star Formation in Stellar Systems, ed. G. Tenorio-Tagle, M. Prieto, F. Sanchez (CUP), p.69. Kim, S., Dopita, M., Staveley-Smith, L., Bessell, M.S., 1999. AJ 118,279. Koo, B.-C., McKee, C.F., 1992. ApJ 388,93. Larsen, S.S., Brodie, J.P., 2000. AJ 120,2938. Larsen, S.S., Brodie, J.P., Huchra, J.P., Forbes, D.A., Grillmair, C.J., 2001. ApJ 121,2974. Larson, R.B., 1988, in Galactic and Extragalactic Star Formation, ed. Lehnert, M.D., Heckman, T.M., 1996. ApJ 462,651. Leisawitz, D.T., 1985. PhD Thesis, University of Texas, Austin; Millimetre Wave Observatory Technical Report 85-2. R.E. Pudritz & M. Fich (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 459 Leitherer, C., Ferguson, H.C., Heckman, T.M., Lowenthal, J.D., 1995. ApJ 454, L19. Leitherer, C., Heckman, T.M., 1995. ApJS 96,9. Loewenstein, M. & Mushotzsky, R. F., 1996. ApJ, 466, 695. Mac Low, M., Ferrara, A., 1999. ApJ 513,142. Mac Low, M., McCray, R., 1988. ApJ 324,776. Madau, P., Ferrara, A., Rees, M.J., 2001. ApJ 555,92. Madau, P., Haardt, F., Rees, M.J., 1999. ApJ 514,648. Madau, P., Shull, J.M., 1996. ApJ 457,551. Maeder, A., 1990. A&AS 84,139. McCray, R., Kafatos, M., 1987. ApJ, 317, 190. McKee, C.F., 1989. ApJ 345,782 McKee, C.F., Ostriker, J.P., 1977. ApJ 218,148. McKee, C.F., Williams, J.P., 1997. ApJ 476,144. Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M., Leitherer, C., Kinney, A., Robert, C., Garnett, D. R., 1995. AJ, 110, 2665. Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M., Lehnert, M. D., Leitherer, C., Lowenthal, J. 1997, AJ, 114, 54 Murray, S.D., Lin, D.N.C., 1989. ApJ 339,933. Oey, M.S., Clarke, C.J., 1997. MNRAS 289,570; (OC97). Oey, M.S., Clarke, C.J., 1998. AJ 115,1543 Oey, M.S., Clarke, C.J., Massey, P., 2001, in [*Dwarf Galaxies and Their Environment,*]{} eds. K. de Boer, R.-J. Dettmar, & U. Klein, (Shaker Verlag), in press. Oey, M.S., Massey, P., 1995. ApJ 452,210 Oey, M.S., Smedley, S., 1998. AJ 116,1263. Olsen, K. A. G., Kim, S., & Buss, J., 2001, AJ, 121, 3075 Pettini, M., Shapley, A.E., Steidel, C.C., Cuby, J.-G., Dickinson, M., Moorwood, A.F.M., Adelberger, K.L., Giavalisco, M., 2001. ApJ 554,981. Ricotti, M., Shull, J.M., 2000. ApJ 542,548. Shapley, A.E.,Steidel, C.C., Adelburger, K.L., Dickinson, M., Giavalisco, M., Pettini, M., 2001. ApJ 562,95 Shull, J.M., Saken, J.M., 1995. ApJ 444,663 Smecker-Hane, T. A., Cole, A. A., Gallagher, J. S., & Stetson, P. B. 2002, ApJ, 566, 239 Steidel, C., Pettini, M., Adelberger, K., 2001. ApJ 546,665 Steigman, G., Strittmatter, P.A., Williams, R.E., 1975. ApJ 198,575 Strickland, D., Stevens, I., 2000. MNRAS 314,511 Suchkov, A. A., Balsara, D. S., Heckman, T. M., Leitherer, C., 1994. ApJ, 430, 511. Tenorio-Tagle, G., Bodenheimer, P., Rozycka, M., Franco, J., 1986. A&A 170,107. Tenorio-Tagle, G., Silich, S., Kunth, D., Terlevich, E., Terlevich, R., 1999. MNRAS 309,332. Vink,J., de Koter, A., Lamers, H.J.G.L.M., 2001. A&A 369,574. Weaver, R.; McCray, R.; Castor, J., Shapiro, P.; Moore, R., 1977. ApJ 218,377. Whitworth, A.P., 1979. MNRAS 186,59. Wood, K., Loeb, A., 2000. ApJ 545,86. Yamaguchi, R., Mizuno, N., Onishi, T., Mizuno, A., & Fukui, Y., 2001, PASJ 53, 959 Yorke, H.W., Tenorio-Tagle, G., Bodenheimer, P., Rozycka. M., 1989. A& A 216,207.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: Note that throughout this paper we use the term ‘thermal’ energy to denote energy in random motions in the ISM, whether this is dominated by bulk cloud motions or by motions at a molecular (thermal) level.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
=5.0mm
[**Yuval Ne’eman and How He Influenced My Life and Career**]{}\
Shmuel Nussinov\
[email: [email protected]]{}
Tel Aviv University, Sackler School Faculty of Sciences,\
Tel Aviv 69978, Israel\
and\
Schmid Science Center Chapman University,\
Orange, California (USA)
[*(July 2005)*]{}
[**Foreword**]{}
These notes written four years ago shortly after Yuval Ne’eman’s eightieth birthday, describe a few events that happened mainly during 1961-1964.
These are very specific events pertinent to my scientific education, to some specific aspects of early theoretical high energy physics in Israel connected with the late Yuval Ne’man and the small group that worked around him at that time. Since I was away during the equally important period of 1964-1968 and missed the dramatic pre-string developments and various plans for new high energy theory centers, these notes do not pretend to present any—albeit approximate—history of theoretical high energy physics in Israel. In particular I do not address the important impact that Yuval had also on experimental high energy physics. It was because of my full realization of these shortcomings that I refrained from posting these notes. I realize, though, that while reflecting a strong personal bias some of these may be of interest to those who care not only about the final finished product, but also about the torturous ways leading to them. About three years ago, Yuval passed away. Prior to that I was in close contact with him regarding the nice biography “Soldier, Scientist and Statesman" written on him by Andrew Watson. I have finally decided on the occasion of my own seventieth birthday to post these notes.
\* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \*
In the summer of 1961, I was 22 years old. I and three members of my class had just finished our physics Master’s thesis at the Weizmann Institute. We needed special permissions to do so since only the Hebrew University in Jerusalem (HUJI) and the Technion in Haifa could grant degrees at that time.
As often the case I was a latecomer. Hearing that Joe, Haim and Arnon were going to work with Igal Talmi and Amos de-Shalit at Weizmann on theoretical nuclear physics, I wanted to do the same.
As I entered the Physics building in Weizmann I asked the first person I met there, who turned out to be Prof. Gideon Yekutieli, where the offices of Talmi and deShalit were. Gideon, who was a particle physics experimenter, told me about the interesting high energy collisions in cosmic rays that he was investigating and convinced me to work with him instead.
The four of us were good students: the impressive, witty Haim Harari (Yuval’s first cousin), the exuberant Arnon Dreiman-Dar, Joe Ditkovsky (Yossef Dothan), the most scholarly among us, and myself.
Dothan was the best student in our class graduating “Summa cum Laude". I might have been close but missed a simple question on the final oral exam with Racah, Cohen and Rechavy. The argumentative Arnon almost blew it telling Rechavy that he does not understand some basic physics, and Harari’s brilliant performance there made up for years of minimal study.
At that time I heard of an Israeli intelligence colonel, Yuval Ne’eman, who in two years finished a PhD with Abdus Salam at Imperial College and whose SU(3) group was a true revolution.[^1] I was deeply impressed and wanted to work with him.
When Ne’eman returned shortly thereafter to the Israeli AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), he tried to continue his SU(3) research. To this he was joined by Asher Gotsman, his peer from Imperial, Haim Goldberg, Racah’s ex-assistant, David Horn from the Technion, Yuval’s MSc and later PhD student, and by Joe, Haim Harari, and myself.
Relativity and other theoretical research work was being done at the Technion, Yuval’s Israeli Alma Mater, where he graduated much earlier in electrical and mechanical engineering. Yet research in nuclear physics and group theory, the disciplines closest to Yuval’s recent SU(3) work, was done mainly at the Weizmann Institute and the Hebrew University.
A recognized authority in group theory, Giulio Racah, was the senior professor at HUJI. I recall his heavy Italian accent in the courses on electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and group theory that we had with him and admired his ability to lecture with no notes (and vary from year to year!).
At the Institute of Advanced Studies (IAS), Princeton, I met in 1974-76 Tullio Regge from the Regge poles which were so crucial in my carrier. He truly admired Racah and was particularly proud of proving new relations for the “Racah Coefficients" and of convincing the community to name a lunar valley after Racah. Inspired by Majoranna’s work, Racah suggested early on a process akin to neutrino-less double beta decay—a “Holy Grail" of much research to this very day. He gave at the IAS a series of lectures on Lie algebras/groups which may have been attended by the young Murray Gell-Mann.
It would seem natural for Racah to espouse and promote Yuval the young Israeli star in the field that was his life-long passion.
Racah lectured on SU(3) in a 1962 Istanbul summer school but did not directly help Yuval’s research in Israel. I was told that at his untimely death in 1965 the thesis of Haim Harari on SU(3) of which Racah was a referee, was lying in his drawer. At that time Racah was HUJE’s president and Yuval became one of the founding fathers of the competing Tel Aviv University (TAU).
The Nuclear physics theoreticians Zvi (Harry) Lipkin, Sydney Meshkov and Carl Levinson from Weizmann were inspired by Yuval and started most intensely and successfully to apply SU(3). Indeed they were quite familiar with another version where O(3) rather than SU(2) was naturally embedded in SU(3).
In contrast I believe that initially our (Joe, Haim H., and myself) own efforts to help Yuval were not very successful.
Indeed our physics education at HUJI was lopsided and we knew nothing about scattering and field theory, a fact that I fully realized only when attending Carl Levinson’s course at Weizmann and some lectures there by S. Schweber.
What Ne’eman needed at that time were experienced researchers steeped in particle phenomenology and knowledgeable in the above areas.
I wonder if had he opted not to return right away after his PhD to the demanding post in the AEC, but rather fully devoted himself to developing and applying his SU(3), things might have been different...
In just two years at Imperial College he closed huge gaps in his physics education and learned enough to realize that SU(3) in its Eight-fold version provided the correct classification. Two extra years of intense research with access to data might have led him to full-fledged quarks and to sharing the Nobel Prize with Gell-Mann.
However, after four years abroad he and his family may have been homesick.
Also the defense ministry having given him two precious years to study for his thesis at Imperial College may have wanted him back in service.
Yuval might have hoped for a triumphant return and immediate acceptance in the Israeli academy. But, to the best of my knowledge, no Israeli institute offered him [*right away*]{} a professorship and an opportunity to build a new group around him.
Untempered by previous failures, Yuval may have been confident that he could be an administrator in the AEC and lead the research on SU(3).
Was Yuval thinking of Leibnitz, the ambassador, or of Carnot, the colonel, the co-inventors of calculus and thermodynamics?
There was a bit of these and many other physics and math greats in him. His associative memory was legendary. He had remarkable curiosity and knew more about almost everything than anyone else. He could weave a rich and (coherent!) yarn of tales about Greek and Jewish sages, about royalties, historic warfares, about evolution of creatures and ideas and about almost everything under the sun. Watching this “force of nature", this rare and unique human was an awe-inspiring experience.
Yuval was very busy and could not see us during most of the time. We would get short notes from him describing ideas he had during administrative duties and meetings or while driving around in between.
In one note he suggested that I look at a paper by Gell-Mann and Levy on “sigma models". I studied it at length, but lacking in background could not really understand it. As often the case, Yuval’s remarkable intuition was correct. A bit later, PCAC, most clearly introduced in this paper, became a powerful and useful tool–the precursor of effective chiral lagrangians.
Yuval’s powers of concentration were incredible and stayed with him for many years. I recall that about two decades later while we were both visiting the IAS, Dvora, Yuval’s wife, became seriously ill and was hospitalized for several weeks. The devoted Yuval never left her bedside—yet in the interim managed to write a physics paper.
Our physics discussions with Ne’eman were often interrupted by phone calls. After awhile a pause occurred while the other party was looking for something, Yuval would then turn to us, pick up the discussion exactly at the point we stopped and made a new observation that occurred to him while talking on the phone.
This style, reminiscent of simultaneous chess games, is adequate when playing with amateurs but not with the world class Gell-Mann. In the 1960’s Gell-Mann dominated theoretical particle physics overshadowing anyone else to an extent which is hard to imagine (except, perhaps, by string theorists, thinking of Ed Witten). This 31 year old prodigy from Caltech—several years Yuval’s junior in age—had an amazing record already as early as 1960:
He introduced strangeness (independently with Nishijima); explained K-$\bar{K}$ oscillations with Pais; suggested the renormalization group with Low and the V-A (Conserved Vector Current) theory for weak interactions with Feynman.
Gell-Mann did not have Yuval’s remarkable extracurricular career. He did not fight in real wars, contribute critically to his country’s security, initiate new universities, new political parties or channels connecting different seas. Yet he knew every bit of physics worth knowing such as the existence of an esoteric cosmic ray event seen by Yehuda Eisenberg which looked like an $\Omega^-$ production and decay.[^2]
Feynman was the charismatic person at Caltech with whom Gell-Mann fiercely competed. Still, in particle physics proper he had no equal.
The remarkable coincidence of him simultaneously suggesting the same SU(3) classification scheme helped Yuval initially.
It was not clear that SU(3) or any other scheme based on any group was correct. The fact that also Gell-Mann, too, suggested the Eight-fold" SU(3) prompted experiments looking for the missing particles predicted and verifying that these, as well as some of the known particles, have the correct spins and parities so as to fit within the multiplets to which they were assigned. A great scientific drama was unfolding: will the many new particles/resonances fit?, and will the triply-strange “$\Omega^-$ be found?
The relative rates of different 2 particles $\rightarrow$ 2 particles, if dominated by intermediate states in the s channel in specific SU(3) representations is fixed, in the SU(3) symmetry limit, just by group theoretical Clebsch-Gordan (C.G.) coefficients. Yuval, Joe and Haims G. and H. analyzed in this way various reactions of protons and anti-protons. To generalize this to 2 $\rightarrow$ 3 processes Joe and Haim computed-in what seemed to me at the time a heroic effort- relevant C.G. coefficients,
The Weizmann group of Levinson, Lipkin and Meshkov found that most SU(3) predictions follow from just U(“You") and V (“We") spin analogs of I-(iso)spin.
In a small side project with G. Yekutieli and H. Goldberg we found deviations from SU(3) predictions due to splittings of “Regge Poles", the trajectories in the angular momentum, mass$^2$ plane. These entities introduced by G.Chew and S.Frautschi following Regge’s analytic continuation of angular momenta, contain many higher spin recurrences of known particles and dictated the high energy behavior of various 2 particle $\rightarrow$ 2 particle processes.
And then in 1964 the $\Omega^-$ was discovered at Brookhaven National Lab (BNL) while Yuval was visiting Gell-Mann at Caltech for a year. The impact of this discovery at that time was monumental. It indicated the power of symmetry considerations which turned out to be—at least in this case—far superior to detailed dynamical calculations. Except for the positron and anti-proton, it was the first in a series of particles predicted jointly by symmetry and dynamics- such as the W and Z bosons, the charm c quark, the $\nu_{\tau}$ and the bottom b and the top t quarks.
For a long time the BNL team (which included Yona Oren, later at TAU) searched for the telltale decay of the $\Omega^-$ in bubble chamber pictures with no success.
It was also pointed out that dynamical effects due to the nearby kaon and the cascade baryon $K\Xi$ threshold may drastically shift the predicted value of the mass of $\Omega^-$.
As a joke, Gell-Mann was said to have gone to Japan at that time so that should the results from BNL be negative he could jump off mount Fuji...
Shortly after the discovery both were interviewed. Yuval was remarking on how fortunate he was to work with Salam rather than with Bondi (on general relativity a subject that Yuval really loved) and that this was due to the geography of London: the long travel time from the Israeli Embassy to Kings College (where Bondi was) as compared to the much shorter commute to Salam’s Imperial College. I have seen Yuval on many occasions after and before and he was never happier. It seemed like he felt that he will share the glory and the Nobel prize. In Israel he became a national hero and many popular articles explained to the layman the importance of $\Omega^-$.
However Gell-Mann got most of the credit and in 1969 a Nobel Prize all by himself. The detailed report of the Nobel Committee cited Gell-Mann’s strangeness, the quark model “Of great heuristic value" and current algebra. As for the all-important “Eight-fold" way, it was mentioned that it was conceived also by Yuval Ne’eman but his role as minimized. It would have been really nice if Yuval and Murray would have shared the prize given to a “dream team" of a brilliant professional and equally brilliant colonel turned physicist.
Yet the Nobel Committee’s decision was rightly influenced by the most relevant fact that Gell-Mann (and also Sossumo Okubo from Rochester) found a relation between masses in SU(3) multiplets embodying a simple pattern of symmetry breaking which Gell-Mann used to predict the $\Omega^-$ mass with amazing precision.
The quark model proposed by Gell-Mann and independently by George Zweig explained SU(3)and was the precursor to the present day QCD–Quantum Chromodynamics. The latter, dynamical theory, treats hadrons in the same way that QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, treats atoms.
A puzzling feature, namely, the difficulty of reconciling the naive model in which the low-lying baryons are three quarks in S wave with spins coupled to 1/2 and 3/2 (in Gell-Mann–Ne’eman’s octet and decuplet representations, respectively) led O. W. Greenberg to suggest parastatistics which was equivalent to introducing an extra internal degree of freedom which M. Y. Han and Y. Nambu suggested to be gauged. In hindsight this is simply color.
The formal abstract version of Gell-Mann’s quark model led to current algebra which, in turn, made J. D. Bjorken predict “scaling". Completing a full circuit, this and the experimental discovery of scaling in deep inelastic electron scattering by Nobel prize winners J. Freedman, H. Kendall and R. Taylor, led back to point-like quarks inside the proton.
Finally the puzzling almost free behavior of the quarks at short distances was explained by asymptotic freedom, the remarkable feature of QCD, and non-abelian gauge theories in general, and for which a recent Nobel Prize in particle physics was awarded to D. Gross, D. Politzer and F. Wilczeck.
As in many other cases, Yuval also anticipated the quark model. He and Haim Goldberg introduced in 1962—a full two years ahead of Gell-Mann and Zweig—entities carrying 1/3 baryon number belonging in the fundamental triplet representation of SU(3). Since baryons are then made of three B=1/3 entities, the direct product $3 \times 3 \times 3=10+8+8+1$ picks the eight-fold, ten-fold and singlet SU(3) representations for the baryons seen in nature. Unfortunately this simple fact is not mentioned in the rather formal paper which was not reprinted in the “Eight-fold way" book by Gell-Mann and Ne’man that came out in 1964.
Yuval went on to impressive military, academic and political careers nicely described in Yuval’s biography that Andrew Watson wrote. In addition to Horn, Harari, Dothan who were to varying formal degrees his students, Yuval had many others including Y. Achiman, M. Gronau and A. Aharony. They and their students, Yuval’s spiritual “grandchildren", constitute a major almost dominant part of Israeli high energy physicists in Israel and abroad.
Yuval founded the Physics Department at Tel Aviv hiring dozens of physicists in the space of two to three years in many areas including experimental high energy, condensed matter and astronomy and was deeply involved in building the Wise observatory in the Negev.
He played a key role in helping “Refuseniks"—Jewish scientists who refused to collaborate with the regime, expressed their desire to leave the Soviet Union, and were fired from their universities. Yuval granted them positions at TAU even while in Russia and conducted famous joint seminars by telephone. It may well in part be due to these efforts that many prominent ex-Soviet physicists and mathematicians came to TAU.
Over and above all this the fascination with fundamental physics that Yuval’s success instilled in young Israelis led many of them to theoretical physics in which Israel still excels.
Let me return then to our initial group and time. After finishing their PhD’s, Joe, David and Haim H. went on as postdocs to Caltech and to Stanford and were all remarkably successful. I believe that Yuval’s friendly and less authoritative attitude contributed to their independence and this success.
In his thesis with Yuval and Lipkin, Harari finally “proved" the eight-fold SU(3) by using better experimental data and calculational techniques. At Weizmann, which he joined after SLAC, Haim invented duality diagrams in parallel with J. Rosner (then a postdoc at TAU) and a two-component Regge + Pomeron theory for high energy collisions. He suggested the “Rishon" model—a constituent model for quarks and leptons. Unfortunately his rather elegant model suffered from “anomalies" and could not provide a consistent field theory. After further work on quark and neutrino mixings he served for a very long time as a successful president of the Weizmann institute.
In the thesis D. Horn did with Yuval he applied SU(3) to weak interactions missing the “Cabibbo theory" of weak interactions since one piece of experimental information (eventually proven wrong) conflicted with it. During his postdoc at Caltech David worked with Gell-Mann. With C. Schmid, a Swiss post doc there, he invented “finite energy sum rules". The “Horn-Schmidt duality" that eventually emerged from those became a forerunner of the Veneziano model and the all-important string theory. In TAU he worked on hadronic phenomenology, lattice gauge theory, and on the connection between statistical mechanics and field theory, and recently on neural nets and bio-informatics.
At Caltech Joe collaborated with Adler, Dashen, Gell-Mann and with Yuval who was visiting there in 1965. He was fascinated by the exact algebraic treatment of the Hydrogen atom and he and Yuval widely extended this as part of an effort to algebraize everything by introducing dynamical groups to particle physics. At TAU Joe was involved, in particular, in inventing geometric Fermions with Banks and Horn and kept learning and teaching mathematical physics in voluntary special courses, preparing the many Israeli physicists who attended those lectures for the eventual forward leap in practicing the mathematically involved string theory. Sadly Joe passed away 20 years ago.
Lipkin continued working on SU(3). Inspired by the 3:2 ratio of proton-proton and pion-proton cross sections noted by Frankfurt and Levin then at the Soviet Union (now at TAU) he espoused very early on the quark model.
He worked on these issues with Florian Scheck. With Gideon Alexander he made the important observation re the power of Zweig’s “No hair-pin quark diagram" rule in high energy reactions. He suggested the EPR-like correlation which introduces an important time structure in $\bar{b}-b$ decays.
He greatly promoted the constituent quark model becoming a famous and prolific researcher in this field in which he is active to this very day at the age of 88!.
In his thesis work with A. De-Shalit, A. Dar invented diffractive production with absorptive corrections in the nuclear context. Together with Kugler and Dothan, the four of us extended it to particle physics a subject pushed much further soon thereafter by Gottfried and Jackson. He joined the Technion at the time the rest of us joined TAU and Weizmann. Later he switched to astroparticle physics making original important suggestions in connection with neutrinos from supernovae.
He remained as argumentative as ever, strongly promoting at present together with A. De-Rujula a model where emission of “cannon balls" from supernovae is the source of both Gamma ray bursts and high energy cosmic rays.
Carl Levinson became effectively my PhD mentor after I worked with his brilliant student, Moshe Kugler, on Regge poles. However, Carl fell in love with a young tour guide at Weizmann. Not being sure wether he wanted to continue in physics, he suggested that I continue my thesis with Ivan Muzinich, his collaborator in Seattle. After finishing my thesis, I had a two-year postdoc in Princeton, missing the excitements of SU(6), and early dual models that the other young Israelis enjoyed. In 1968 I came back to TAU which Joe and David already joined. I did not work on the quark model/QCD until the $J/\psi$ charm quark composite was discovered in 1974, barely in time to get a piece of the action.
After writing the influential Eight-fold Way review with Gell-Mann, Yuval continued physics research in between his many other jobs. He suggested algebraic schemes for Regge residues with Nicola Cabibbo and Lawrence Horowitz . Far more daring was the suggestion with Jan Thiery Mieg predicting the top, W/Z and Higgs boson masses using “Graded" Lie algebras; a theme that he kept coming back to, e.g., in a review he wrote with D. Fairlie and S. Sternberg. Yuval collaborated with Gell-Mann and with Regge on supergravity and supersymmetry. He made the profound observation that a flat metric can be a “Higgs-like" phase of a more general theory of space-time. He extended the Cartan classification of Lie algebras and representations to a new infinite spinorial representation. He also suggested a lagging core model which effectively is a multi-big-bang scenario.
He also wrote books on the algebraic approach to particle physics and on strings and membranes long before these became a hot topic. He wrote popular books on particle physics, on evolution and on the inflationary universe.
\* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \*
It was a tiring Monday with the Yuval eightieth birthday fest lectures in the morning and afternoon at TAU, a long dinner at the Israeli Academy in Jerusalem, and many after-dinner talks lauding Yuval’s many-fold talents and contributions. I kept watching Yuval sitting at the next table amidst his close family.
He surely enjoyed most of it, but his head kept drooping. When finally he got up and hesitantly made his way towards the microphone I sensed some tension. Would Yuval live up to this moment? Or would age, tiredness and the Parkinson’s disease that he had for some time get the better of him?
Yuval had a slow start–mentioned the influence of his aunt, the math teacher, and Haim’s mother, and reminisced about an early discovery of compounded operations yielding gigantic numbers which in his typical prophetic style, he termed “Googleplexes".
But then he picked up and I could feel the good old Yuval shining through. He recalled an amusing incident where a newsman wrote after an interview that Yuval had academic, military, civil and aeronautical (?) careers. The puzzle finally resolved when he recalled being asked,“How do you manage to do so many things?" to which he responded: “I work also on planes..."
He closed by recounting meeting Churchill’s daughter who told him about an amusing interview Churchill had on his 80’th birthday. In answering a question about a water level-like mark on the lower parts of the walls in the big hall at 10 Downing St., Churchill said that it is due to the champagne spilled at each of his previous birthdays and, pointing towards the ceiling he concluded, “and so much more to go."
After the long applause some one at our table noted that on such occasions the honored person usually thanks colleagues, students and institutions. The only people Yuval thanked there or in the conclusion the next day were his wife and his devoted secretary, Matilda.
Realizing that this hardly surprised me motivated these notes and the following closing apologetica.
The curious and remarkable fact was that while so many of us benefited from Yuval’s knowledge, wisdom and influence there were very few, like the late Abdus Salam, whom he should have been thankful to...
The Israeli academia did not espouse him early on offering him a university position right away helping him to proceed with his promising research.
Whoever pressured him to accept the AEC position had, in effect, robbed him of the chance he had to go for the gold when the time was right. Also notwithstanding our honest desire, at first we did not push forward much his SU(3) research.
With QCD’s hindsight, Gell-Mann–Ne’eman’s “flavor" SU(3) is an accident due to the “up", “down" and “strange" quarks having the same color coupling and similar masses.
Yet SU(3) played a crucial role comparable to the Mendeleev periodic table. Both put some order in the jumble of elements/particles classifying them in nice groups and predicting new elements/particles with specific prescribed properties just so as to fill “gaps".
Also in both cases an underlying composite structure (nucleus and quantum mechanical electrons–or quarks) and binding dynamics (QED or QCD), eventually emerged. However, the explanation of the periodic table was found only after half a century whereas the quark model came in less than four years after flavor SU(3).
There is a famous Hebrew saying which I’ll distort to “never put yourself in other’s position". Ignoring it let me imagine myself in Yuval’s place which is highly presumptuous. Independent of any formal recognition, the knowledge that I have seen the light that others failed to see, that nature allowed me to place a few pieces in its puzzle thus bringing order where chaos was before, and that I have touched greatness and eternity, would make me happy beyond words.
The very inkling of such things potentially happening nearby was a source of great excitement for me. The three years I spent with Ne’eman’s group shaped my attitude for the rest of my career.
While I do most of the time routine research, I still hope for some inspiration and revelation. And I keep missing opportunities, though none close to the great opportunities we missed then...
And I wonder if notwithstanding Yuval’s many collaborators over so many years and despite all our shortcomings, we were some of the very best he ever had. And I am proud of it.
\* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \* \*
About a year later on April 26, 2006 Yuval passed away.
During the last weeks preceding this sad and unexpected event, I was in touch with him and with Andrew Watson, the biographer. Fighting to the last moment Yuval was trying to convince him to phrase more clearly the importance of the paper he had with H. Goldbergon’s 1/3 integral baryon number and I was trying to help as much as I possibly could.
Having discussed this issue with several eminent physicists Andrew finally wrote something very reasonable.
Still I am deeply saddened when in a new, low level, particle physics text both SU(3) flavor and the quark model are attributed to Gell-Mann only with no mention of either Yuval or Zweig.
But then I console myself thinking that as long as physicists will discuss hadrons, Yuval’s name will live—as (I believe) that he is the one who introduced this name.
[^1]: SU(3) was used by Sakata and his school in Japan. They however used the fundamental, triplet representation for the known P (proton) N (neutron) nucleons and the $\Lambda$ ($\lambda$) hyperon. The idea being that all other hadrons are composed of these and/or their anti-particles. (Indeed, in the early days of the quark model we and many others used p, n and $\lambda$ instead of the (u) up, (d) down and (s) strange quarks which [*do*]{} comprise the fundamental representation.) The all-important novelty of Gell-Mann - Ne’eman’s “Eight-fold Way" was using the adjoint (octet) representation for all known baryons.
[^2]: Another revealing incident to which I can testify, took place in the Fermi Lab conference in 1972 in Chicago—the fateful period when most members of the Israeli Olympic team in Munich were murdered by terrorists. I was sitting by myself relatively early in the morning in the hotel’s lobby watching the news. I was then joined by Gell-Mann with whom I was slightly acquainted. Knowing that I may be familiar with Lenny Susskind, a co-inventer of strings, who visited and deeply influenced our group at TAU, Gell-Mann then addressed me in something like the following: “Is Mr. “Sweet-Child’s(??)“ string nothing but Schwinger’s line integral $(\int A_{mu}dx^{mu})$ along a path connecting a quark and an anti-quark??” I do not recall what I said in response. While according to Lenny, “Suskind" originated from a Spanish “Susskin" and not the German “Suse/Zis-Kind"), this comment is extremely insightful physics. It connects the strings- originally motivated by the duality of resonances and Regge poles and the Veneziano model with the field theoretic idea that Kenneth Wilson suggested two years later as the underlying reason and mechanism for quark confinement. Gell-Mann was very much acquainted with and hedging his bets, actively worked on both the S matrix and the field theoretic approaches.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The TRI$\mu$P facility, under construction at KVI, requires the production and separation of short-lived and rare isotopes. Direct reactions, fragmentation and fusion-evaporation reactions in normal and inverse kinematics are foreseen to produce nuclides of interest with a variety of heavy-ion beams from the superconducting cyclotron AGOR. For this purpose, we have designed, constructed and commissioned a versatile magnetic separator that allows efficient injection into an ion catcher, i.e., gas-filled stopper/cooler or thermal ionizer, from which a low energy radioactive beam will be extracted.
The separator performance was tested with the production and clean separation of $^{21}$Na ions, where a beam purity of 99.5% could be achieved. For fusion-evaporation products, some of the features of its operation as a gas-filled recoil separator were tested.
[*PACS: 07.55.-w; 07.55.+h; 29.30.-h; 41.85.-p; 41.75.-i; 25.70.Mn; 25.70.-z;\
*]{}
[*Keywords: Magnetic separator, Gas-filled separator, Secondary radioactive isotopes\
*]{}
address: 'Kernfysisch Versneller Instituut, Zernikelaan 25, 9747 AA Groningen, The Netherlands'
author:
- 'G.P.A. Berg'
- 'O.C. Dermois'
- 'U. Dammalapati'
- 'P. Dendooven'
- 'M.N. Harakeh'
- 'K. Jungmann'
- 'C.J.G. Onderwater'
- 'A. Rogachevskiy'
- 'M. Sohani'
- 'E. Traykov'
- 'L.Willmann'
- 'H.W. Wilschut'
title: 'Dual Magnetic Separator for TRI$\mu$P'
---
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, and
Introduction
============
Rare and short-lived radio isotopes are of interest because of their nuclear properties. They offer unique possibilities for investigating fundamental physical symmetries, for applied physics, and for nuclear structure studies [@HA04]. The main motivation for investigating fundamental symmetries is to improve limits for the validity of the Standard Model, which can be inferred from high-precision measurements. Such low energy experiments are complementary to searches for new physics in High-Energy physics experiments. In particular, high accuracy can be achieved, when suitable radioactive isotopes can be cooled and stored in atom or ion traps [@TU00; @JU02; @WI03; @JU05].
With this aim the TRI$\mu$P (Trapped Radioactive Isotopes: $\mu$icrolaboratories for fundamental Physics) facility at the Kernfysisch Versneller Instituut(KVI) in Groningen, The Netherlands, was proposed and funded in order to provide a state of the art user facility for such high-precision studies [@BE03; @BE03a]. While the magnetic separator of TRI$\mu$P is the main topic of this article, we will briefly describe the complete facility consisting of several major subsystems in order to put the use of the separator into perspective.
A heavy-ion beam with a maximum magnetic rigidity of 3.6 Tm from the superconducting cyclotron AGOR [@SC99] is used to produce a variety of short-lived isotopes using very different reaction mechanisms, such as fragmentation, charge-exchange reactions and fusion-evaporation. Primary beams ranging from protons to lead are available. In order to direct most of the reaction products into a relatively narrow forward-angle cone, the technique of inverse kinematics is used. This applies e.g. to charge-exchange reactions on a gaseous hydrogen target and fusion-evaporation on light-element solid targets. The maximum available beam energy is about 95 MeV/nucleon for fully stripped, lighter heavy ions ($N=Z$). The energy of heavy ions is restricted by the maximum charge state that can be reached with the ion source of the cyclotron. The heaviest ion accelerated with AGOR was $^{208}$Pb with an energy of 8.4 MeV/nucleon. In the various reactions, the beam and the reaction products travel together in a narrow cone in forward direction with the emittance of the products typically much larger than the beam emittance. The products and beam need to be separated efficiently, as will be described later.
At the exit of the separator, the produced isotopes have a considerable momentum corresponding to a maximum magnetic rigidity of about 3.0 Tm. Here, particles can already be stopped and measured in e.g. Si detectors to measure certain properties. For the program on fundamental physics a low-energy secondary beam must be produced. For this the particles will first be slowed in a degrader and stopped in a gas-filled ion catcher or a thermal ionizer. They will be extracted as singly charged ions and guided into a low pressure He-filled RFQ-Cooler buncher system and trapped in the last stage of the RFQ, which functions as a Paul trap. This will allow to produce a low energy bunched beam with a sufficiently small emittance and an energy of a few keV. This beam can be guided to one of several experimental setups. One of these is a Magneto-Optical Trap (MOT) assembly, where the actual measurements will take place.
The primary goal governing the design concept and the ion optics was to achieve an optimal separation of the wanted isotopes from other reaction products and the primary beam. Clearly two different types of reactions are foreseen. One involving the production of fast light isotopes from fragmentation or charge-exchange reactions, the other the production of slow heavy isotopes in fusion-evaporation reactions. The magnetic separator was designed to allow two modes, which we will refer to as the “[*Fragmentation Mode*]{}” and the “[*Gas-filled Mode*]{}” for the two types of reactions, respectively. In the first mode, fully stripped reaction products can be separated; in the second mode the charge-state distribution of partly stripped reaction products can be collapsed dynamically onto a single effective charge state with a suitable gas filling.
Design of the Dual Magnetic Separator
=====================================
At the start of the design of the magnetic separator a list of criteria was established to develop a concept for the separator and to specify the design parameters.
1. Production of a range of short-lived light (e.g. $^{21}$Na) to heavy radio isotopes (e.g. $^{213}$Ra), using heavy-ion beams from the AGOR cyclotron. The maximum energy is given by the operating diagram of the cyclotron and the maximum magnetic rigidity of 3.6 Tm of the beam line system. Beam stops should be designed for a maximum of $\approx$ 1 kW beam power dissipation.
2. In the [*Fragmentation Mode*]{} an efficient collection of all desired reaction products in an achromatic focal plane, within a beam spot of the order of 2 cm total transverse dimensions.
3. Effective separation of reaction products and beam, with a desired suppression factor $\geq 10^{7}$.
4. Rejection of undesired reaction products for a clean secondary beam, for experiments in the focal plane. (i.e. without the additional clean-up in the low energy section or in traps.)
5. Optimal and cost efficient use of the existing infrastructure of the KVI experimental facilities.
![Layout of the TRI$\mu$P dual function separator as it is located in the floorplan of the building. North is up. The notations refer to magnetic bending dipoles B, quadrupoles Q, slit systems SH and a hexapole HEX. For further details see text.[]{data-label="fig:Layout"}](./Fig1.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Based on these considerations the combined magnetic separator with the layout shown in Fig. \[fig:Layout\] was designed. It is based on concepts used in previous magnetic fragment [@AN87; @SH91; @BA02; @TA02; @KU92; @DA92; @CO92; @RO99; @AU02; @CO03] and gas-filled [@PA89] separators. It is a special feature of the TRI$\mu$P separator to combine both concepts in one single device so that it can operate in either the [*Fragmentation Mode*]{} or the [*Gas-filled Mode*]{}. The main design parameters are summarized in Table \[design parameters\].
Fragment Separator Gas-filled Separator
---------------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
Beam rigidity B$\rho$ 3.6 Tm (Beam line) 3.6 Tm ([*Section 1*]{})
Product rigidity B$\rho$ 3.0 Tm ([*Section 1*]{} and [*2*]{}) 3.0 Tm ([*Section 2*]{})
Solid angle, vert., horiz. $\pm$30 mrad $\pm$ 30 mrad
Momentum acceptance $\pm$ 2.0 % $\pm$ 2.5 %
Resolving Power p/dp $\approx$ 1000 $\approx$ 2000 (no gas filling)
Momentum dispersion 3.9 cm/$\%$ 8.0 cm/$\%$
Bending radius 220 cm 180 cm
: Design parameters of the TRI$\mu$P magnetic separator.[]{data-label="design parameters"}
The complete magnet system consists of a total of four dipole (B1 – B4) and eight quadrupole magnets (Q1 – Q9). Q3 originally foreseen between B1 and B2 in the first designs could be omitted as discussed in section 3. There are three target chambers, the one referred to as “Target T1” is the target chamber used in [*Fragmentation Mode*]{}. The chamber “Target T2” is located at the intermediate focal plane in that mode. It serves as the target chamber in the [*Gas-filled Mode*]{}. The third chamber “Focal Plane T3” is positioned at the end of the separator. It is used for measurements in the focal plane. It can be replaced by the ion catcher. We will refer to the section between T1 and T2 as [*Section 1*]{} and the section from T2 to T3 as [*Section 2*]{}. The provision of dipole doublets in each section instead of one larger single dipole has several advantages. The additional dipole edges allow for increased ion-optical control of quadrupole and higher order corrections. Access spaces are needed in the first section, between B1 and B2, for slits, scrapers and diagnostic systems and in [*Section 2*]{} for a variable hexapole (HEX) for 2$^{nd}$ order corrections.
Fragment-Separator Mode
-----------------------
In [*Fragmentation Mode*]{}, [*Section 1*]{} of the separator focuses the desired isotopes that are created in the object point (T1) in the intermediate focal plane (T2) with a momentum dispersion of 3.9 cm/$\%$. The dispersion created by dipoles B1 and B2 allows the separation of isotopes and beam with different rigidities. For this purpose slit systems SH2, 3, 4 were installed at the locations indicated, allowing to stop the beam at various positions depending on its momentum difference relative to the reaction products that enter [*Section 2*]{}. Access via additional ports to install shields and linings when the beam cannot be intercepted is also made possible. All spacers that define the gaps of the dipoles are protected from the direct beam by insulated spacers that allow current readout for monitoring purposes.
In [*Section 2*]{} the dispersion is reversed. This provides a nearly achromatic image in the final focal plane so that all accepted ions of an isotopes are focused in the entrance aperture of an ion catcher at that location and the angular dispersion at T3 is nearly zero. Although this magnetic analysis only allows the separation of particles with different rigidities, this may be sufficiently selective when further purification of the beam follows in e.g. an optical trap. When the contribution of undesired particles is too high, or in the case of decay studies with stopped particles in the focal plane, additional purification is necessary.
To separate different nuclides with the same rigidity a simple and effective method [@AN87; @SH91; @DU86; @SC87] is available that works well in our energy region. The energy loss of projectiles passing through a degrader depends on their atomic numbers Z and velocities v ($\Delta$E $\propto$ Z$^2$/v$^2$). This can be used to remove most of the ambiguities of the magnetic separation as the rigidities will differ after passing the degrader. We used a flat degrader at T2 to achieve further purification of the desired isotope and a slit system in the final focal plane. A degrader with constant thickness along the intermediate focal plane in T2, however, will perturb the achromaticity of the system. Therefore, when the accepted momentum range is large, a degrader in the form of a “wedge” can be used to maintain achromaticity. This may be done by bending the foil along an appropriate curve.
Gas-filled Separator Mode
-------------------------
The separation concept of the [*Fragmentation Mode*]{} described above does not work for heavy particles at low energies. Here ions emerge from the production target with a wide charge-state distribution. The magnetic rigidity B$\rho$, being proportional to the momentum $p$ and inversely proportional to the atomic charge $q$ is not a good measure of the momentum anymore. In particular, the charge distribution of the beam can cause serious problems. Even if a charge-state fraction is relatively small, the number of beam particles can still be orders of magnitude larger than the desired reaction product at its optimal rigidity.
A method to solve this problem may be the use of finger beam stops in the dispersive plane. This was done in the HRIBF Recoil Mass Separator [@CO92] to prevent high intensity beam components from arriving at the final focal plane.
A method that improves both the separation and increases the transmission is the [*Gas-filled Mode*]{} [@PA89]. Ions passing through such a system will undergo frequent charge-changing atomic collisions with the net effect of an average charge q$_{aver}$ and therefore an average magnetic rigidity. This can improve the transmission of ions through a magnet system at the expense of a certain but often acceptable increase of the emittance of the ion beam due to multiple scattering. This method is particularly useful in fusion reactions where the evaporation residues have a well defined velocity. Typically one uses normal kinematics in these reactions to guarantee complete separation when the fusion cross sections are extremely small. For secondary beam production, however, when clean separation is not essential and an ion catcher with large acceptance can be employed, also inverse kinematics can be used. We will come back to this discussion in section \[gas section\]. In the dual magnetic separator this mode can be realized by operating [*Section 2*]{} in [*Gas-filled Mode*]{}. The target is then located at T2.
Ion optics
==========
Extensive first order ion-optical studies were conducted to design a separator magnet system that could accommodate both [*Fragment*]{} and [*Gas-filled Mode*]{}s. This led to the specifications summarized in Table \[design parameters\]. While the system is mainly designed to accommodate the desired reaction products, also the ion optics of the separated beam had to be considered for a variety of circumstances to allow a clean separation and elimination of a high-intensity primary beam. Constraints of fixed building and shielding structures require that the separator has to be very compact without giving up flexibility for the different operational modes and production reactions.
Special effort was made to minimize the number of quadrupoles. An initially considered quadrupole (Q3) between dipoles B1 and B2 could be omitted. This was possible by adjusting the edge angles of B1 and B2. It is, however, not possible to eliminate any of the present eight quadrupoles without compromising one or the other design requirement of the facility. As an example, in the [*Fragmentation Mode*]{} quadrupole Q4 might be omitted at the cost of flexibility; however, it is absolutely necessary in the [*Gas-filled Mode*]{} where [*Section 1*]{} is used as beam line. This also requires reversing the polarity of quadrupole Q4 and Q5 to obtain a small beam spot at T2.
First-order design calculations of the beam and initial calculations of the separator were performed using the TRANSPORT code [@RO78]. The quadrupole gradients provided by the dipole edge angles, seen in Fig. \[fig:Layout\] were adjusted to reduce not only the number of quadrupoles as mentioned above, but also to minimize the quadrupole magnet strengths. This was crucial for minimizing the size and power consumption of the large quadrupoles.
Due to the large angle and momentum acceptances, higher order calculations were indispensable and were conducted using the COSY Infinity code [@BERZ]. Aberrations up to 3$^{rd}$ order were found that would have significantly affected the design parameters. They were reduced by shaping the edge curves of the eight available dipole ends as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:Layout\]. In addition a hexapole (HEX) was included between dipoles B3 and B4. This hexapole improves the optics by reducing 2$^{nd}$ order aberrations in the [*Fragmentation Mode*]{}.
Results of the final ion-optical design calculations in 3$^{rd}$ order of the [*Fragmentation Mode*]{} in horizontal (x) and vertical directions (y) along the central ray (z) are shown in Fig. \[fig:Optics\_fragm\]. The system is 9.82 m long from the target location T1 to the dispersive plane T2 (indicated by the dotted line) and 18.20 m to the achromatic plane T3. The effective field lengths (EFL) and good field regions of the four dipole magnets B1 - B4 are indicated by the rectangles. For the quadrupoles Q1 - Q9 the rectangles indicate in z direction the EFL, while the transverse boundaries given by the three lines indicate the dimensions, starting from the inside, of the pole radius, the good field region, and the physical limits of the vacuum chambers, respectively. The dashed box in front of T2 indicates a temporary horizontal limitation, which will be removed later. To elucidate the optics, twelve horizontal and six vertical rays characteristic for the separator operation are shown in Fig. \[fig:Optics\_fragm\], the starting values of the rays are listed in Table \[raylist\].
![ Ion optics of the TRI$\mu$P separator in [*Fragmentation Mode*]{}. The starting values of the rays are listed in Table \[raylist\]. The notations refer to the same elements of the layout shown in Fig. \[fig:Layout\]. For more details see text.[]{data-label="fig:Optics_fragm"}](./Fig2.eps){width="140mm"}
ray x \[mm\] $\Theta$ \[mrad\] $\Delta$E/E \[%\] y \[mm\] $\Phi$ \[mrad\]
----- ---------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------- -----------------
1 0 30 2.2 -1 30
2 0 30 0 0 30
3 0 30 -2.2 1 30
4 0 25 3.2 1 0
5 0 16 4.0 0 -30
6 0 0 4.4 1 -30
7 2 0 0
8 0 0 -4.4
9 0 -30 2.2
10 0 -30 0
11 -2 -30 0
12 0 -30 -2.2
: Starting values of the rays shown in Fig. \[fig:Optics\_fragm\][]{data-label="raylist"}
The three pairs of horizontal rays ([*1*]{}/[*9*]{}),([*2*]{}/[*10*]{}), and ([*3*]{}/[*12*]{}) show the dispersive focal plane in T2 with an energy dispersion of 1.95 cm/$\%$. The rays [*7*]{} and [*11*]{} explore the effects of a target size of $\pm$ 2 mm. The rays [*1*]{}, [*4*]{}, [*5*]{}, [*6*]{}, [*8*]{} and [*12*]{} test the energy acceptance as function of angle. At 0$^{\circ}$, particles with an energy spread of $\pm$ 4.4 $\%$ will be accepted limited by the good field region of quadrupole Q5. The accepted energy spread will gradually decline with increasing angle. At the maximum accepted angle of $\pm$ 30 mrad the maximum accepted energy spread is $\pm$ 2.2%.
All horizontal rays arrive at the focal plane T3 within a space of 20 mm, sufficiently small for the following degrader/ion catcher. This was achieved by 2$^{nd}$ order corrections built into the dipole entrances and exits and the hexapole HEX. This hexapole has an effective field length of 150 mm and an aperture radius of 90 mm with a maximum pole tip field of 0.07 T. The horizontal image size is minimized by an appropriate hexapole excitation. It will increases to about 30 mm if the hexapole magnet is switched off. The vertical ion optics is designed to keep all rays within the gaps of 50 mm of the dipoles B1 and B2 and 60 mm of B3 and B4. The focal plane angle at T2 is close to 90$^\circ$. The vertical envelop at T2 is relatively large due to the vertical magnification of -10.0 but a small vertical image of about $\pm$ 5 mm is achieved in the final focal plane T3 mainly due to the magnification of 3.4 at this location. The horizontal magnifications for Section 1 and the complete system are -0.95 and 1.8, respectively. The above calculations show that for full transmission, target spot sizes of less than $\pm$ 2 mm horizontally and $\pm$ 1 mm vertically are required.
![ Ion optics of the TRI$\mu$P separator in [*Gas-filled Mode*]{}. The starting values of the test rays are listed in Table \[raylist2\]. The notations refer to the same elements of the layout shown in Fig. \[fig:Layout\]. For more details see text.[]{data-label="fig:Optics_gas"}](./Fig3.eps){width="114mm"}
ray x \[mm\] $\Theta$ \[mrad\] $\Delta$E/E \[%\] y \[mm\] $\Phi$ \[mrad\]
----- ---------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------- -----------------
1 0 30 4.0 -1.5 30
2 2 30 0 0 30
3 0 30 0 1.5 0
4 0 0 4.0 0 -30
5 0 30 -4.0 1.5 -30
6 2 0 0
7 0 -30 4.0
8 0 -30 0
9 0 -30 -4.0
: Starting values of the rays shown in Fig. \[fig:Optics\_gas\][]{data-label="raylist2"}
In the [*Gas-filled Mode*]{}, [*Section 1*]{} serves as beam line and the target (e.g. a carbon foil) is installed at T2. A thin window (e.g. 2.5 $\mu$m HAVAR) is installed in front of the target to separate the evacuated beam line and the gas-filled section. The ion-optical design is shown in Fig. \[fig:Optics\_gas\]. This is the initial magnet setting without gas filling. The ion optics will be changed significantly when the system is gradually filled with gas for optimum separation of beam and products since the particles gradually decrease in energy along their path from T2 to T3.
The upper panel shows the magnetic elements and nine selected rays in the horizontal midplane. The lower panel shows five vertical rays. The starting values of the test rays are listed in Table \[raylist2\].
The three pairs of horizontal rays ([*1*]{}/[*7*]{}),([*3*]{}/[*8*]{}), and ([*5*]{}/[*9*]{}) show the dispersive focal plane in T3 with an energy dispersion of 4.0 cm/$\%$. The rays [*2*]{} and [*6*]{} explore the effects of a target size of $\pm$ 2 mm. Ray [*4*]{} shows a trace at 0$^{\circ}$ with an energy difference of $+4.0 $ %. All horizontal rays of a certain momentum arrive at the focal plane T3 within 10 mm. This was achieved by 2$^{nd}$ order corrections built into the dipole entrances and exits as mentioned above. The vertical ion optics is designed to keep all rays within the gaps of 60 mm of the dipoles B3 and B4. The above calculations show that for full transmission, target-spot sizes of $\pm$ 2 mm horizontally and $\pm$ 1.5 mm vertically or smaller are required. The focal plane angle at T3 is 70$^\circ$ due to the concave curvatures of the effective field boundaries of B4. This correction is not optimal for the [*Fragmentation Mode*]{}, but the hexapole between B3 and B4 can be used to minimize the beam-spot size at T3. As we will see below the image size in this mode is dominated by statistical charge-changing processes in the gas.
Magnet Design
=============
The magnets are designed to provide the good field region required in both transverse directions and the necessary field strength according to the ion-optical calculations. All magnets are operated by highly stabilized direct currents and are designed to operate at fields below 1.65 Tm where iron saturation could be kept small. All iron pole pieces and return yokes are therefore machined of solid, soft iron. All coils are normal conducting with hollow copper conductors to allow water cooling. The coil temperatures are kept below 55$^\circ$ C. All magnets including their vacuum chambers and supports were manufactured by commercial vendors with significant experience in the design and construction of similar magnet systems.
Dipole Magnets
--------------
The four dipole magnets were manufactured by the Danfysik company according to the specifications summarized in Table \[Tab2\]. All dipole magnets are H-type magnets. In order to achieve the good field region for a minimum of magnet iron, two special features are incorporated in the design:
- The radial profile has circular side profiles with modified Rose shims as shown by the measures in the upper part of Fig. \[fig:shoes\]. This allows for dipole B1 and B2 with a gap of 50 mm, a horizontal good field region of 220 mm with a pole width of only 400 mm. Dipole B3 and B4 with gaps of 60 mm have the same characteristics with a slightly larger good field region of 240 mm, as required, and a pole width of 450 mm. This pole face shaping saves some 30% of the iron compared to magnets with traditional Rose shims and homogeneous regions of the same size.
- The amount of magnet iron is further reduced by a wrap-around chamber which is precision machined and subsequently welded to the sides of the pole piece with special, thin welding lips to minimize heat effects in the magnet iron. The accuracy of the gap is maintained by precision, non-magnetic spacers that are held with bolts through the pole pieces. All spacers are protected from excessive beam and heat exposure by insulated tungsten shields that allow to monitor any beam current hitting the shields.
Parameter
------------------------------------------- ----- -------- -------- -------- --------
B1 B2 B3 B4
Bending radius mm 2200 2200 1800 1800
Max. rigidity Tm 3.6 3.6 3.0 3.0
Max. magnetic field B T 1.64 1.64 1.67 1.67
Bending angle deg 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5
Central ray arc length mm 1439.9 1439.9 1178.1 1178.1
Vertical gap, full size mm 50 50 60 60
Good field region, dB/B $< \pm$ 0.02 $\%$ mm 220 220 240 240
Pole width mm 400 400 450 450
Entrance edge angle, vert. focusing deg 18.75 10.0 0 0
Entrance edge curvature, 1/radius 1/m 0.67 -0.2 0.88 -0.2
Exit edge angle, vert. focusing deg 10.0 18.75 18.75 18.75
Exit edge curvature, 1/radius 1/m 0.0 -1.29 0.0 -1.36
Max. current for magnet A 380 380 380 380
Max. Voltage for magnet V 90 90 80 80
Weight of iron kg 11000 11000 11000 11000
Weight of coil kg 600 600 500 500
: Design parameters of the dipole magnets
\[Tab2\]
![ Cross section of the assembled dipole magnet B3 (bottom) and the pole shoe (top) with circular edges and modified Rose shims indicated by the numerical values. All dimensions are in millimeter.[]{data-label="fig:shoes"}](Fig4.eps){width="80mm"}
As shown in Fig. \[fig:Layout\], all magnets have 0$^\circ$ ports in both directions for viewing, alignment and other access needs that may arise. Additional ports are provided in the middle of the magnets through the inside return yoke. These ports were used for radial field maps with Hall probes and to obtain the magnetic flux B versus current, B(I), with NMR probes immediately after assembly. Hall probes will be installed permanently to allow setting of the fields without having to consider hysteresis and saturation that affect settings according to coil currents.
The dipole design specifications in Table \[Tab2\] include maximum current and voltage requirements to allow the use of power supplies for the dipole magnets from other KVI facilities that cannot run when the beam is used in the TRI$\mu$P facility. For this reason dipole magnets B1 and B2 are powered in series by one power supply. Small correction coils are mounted on top of the main coils allowing for tuning differences between both dipoles up to 3$\%$. The dipoles B3 and B4 are powered independently by using existing power supplies.
While 3-dimensional field calculations were performed by the manufacturer to predict the end packs for the proper edge angles and hexapole components, it was decided to machine the magnet ends so that additional shims would allow small corrections. For this purpose, the dipole magnets were assembled at first without welding the vacuum chambers onto the pole pieces for access reasons. The radial and B(I) field maps through the middle port were performed as mentioned above. Subsequently field maps in the midplane with a grid distance of 10 mm were performed in the fringe field regions and in the middle of the magnets within a section of $\pm$7$^{\circ}$ of the bend angle. In the measured homogeneous part we verified that the field did not deviate more than $2\times 10^{-4}$ from the average field. The effective field boundary shapes were verified up to 2$^{nd}$ order and for the entrance of B1 and B3 up to 3$^{rd}$ order. We required a deviation less than 0.3 mm from the design shape without field clamps. By adding shims on the end packs on either side of the central ray, corrections between 0 mm and 2 mm brought the magnet fields within specification with the exception of B4 where the deviations exceeded slightly the 0.3 mm requirement. Higher order COSY calculations were used to verify that the remaining deviations did not jeopardize the resolving power design specifications given in Table \[design parameters\]. Some of the eight end packs did not need corrections, a few needed one iteration, and only in two cases a second iteration was necessary. Final field maps for all dipole magnets were performed, documented and are available for future purposes.
After a dipole magnet was optimized with this procedure, it was disassembled and the vacuum chamber welded in place. In order to verify that this welding and reassembly procedure did not affect the original field map, we mapped one magnet again, obviously with a somewhat reduced mapping region with the vacuum chamber in place. The result showed an identical field map within the accuracy of the measuring method and well within specifications. A small but measurable deviation was found in the fringe field region where the rather thick exit port is welded in place. This deviation was within specifications.
Quadrupole Magnets
------------------
Parameter
----------------------- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Q1 Q2 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
Overall length mm 580 680 630 880 680 680 700 700
Focusing strength T 8.2 6.2 5.0 6.3 5.6 2.8 2.0 3.3
Eff. field length mm 480 550 500 780 550 420 420 500
Gradient T/m 17.0 11.3 10.0 8.1 10.2 6.7 4.8 6.7
Horiz. good field mm 120 200 220 220 180 220 220 200
Aperture diameter mm 100 167 184 184 150 184 184 167
Max.pole tip strength T 0.85 0.95 0.88 0.75 0.77 0.62 0.45 0.56
Current, magnet A 256 380 398 460 360 255 160 255
Voltage, magnet V 37 107 74 62 102 78 36 78
Power supply rating A 270 400 420 480 380 270 180 280
V 45 115 80 70 110 90 45 90
Magnet weight kg 800 3180 1550 4900 3180 1650 630 1650
Inhomogeneity 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
: Design parameters of quadrupoles.
\[Tab3\]
![ Assembly drawing of the quadrupole magnet doublet Q6, Q7 including their vacuum chamber. []{data-label="fig:Q"}](./Fig5.eps){width="120mm"}
There are eight quadrupoles in the separator system, manufactured by the company SigmaPhi according to the specifications in Table \[Tab3\]. The horizontal good field regions are required to be significantly wider than the vertical ones, reflected in the shape of the vacuum chambers. As an example this is shown in Fig. \[fig:Q\] for the quadrupole doublet Q6, Q7. All quadrupole magnets were mapped and tested at the factory and delivered including the vacuum chambers and supports. As in the case of the dipole magnets, most of the electrical specifications were determined to allow the use of existing power supplies except for two power supplies that had to be purchased.
Diagnostics and Instrumentation
===============================
For the proper setup, optimization and operation of the separator a series of diagnostic elements is needed. A variety of devices are required to tune and stop the beam, in addition standard Si solid state detectors were used in the intermediate and focal plane to observe the fragments. Some of the instrumentation is discussed below.
Beam diagnostics and stops
--------------------------
The target chambers T1 or T2 and the vacuum chamber between B1 and B2 are equipped with retractable harps. The harps consist of 24 wires that are stretched in horizontal and vertical directions with 1 mm or 2 mm spacing. Signals from the wires are individually read out and visualized as a beam profile in vertical and horizontal directions. The harps are standard equipment for beam tuning in the beam lines [@SC95]. They can be operated to tune with the full beam and viewed simultaneously in the setup phase of an experiment. In T1 and T2 target ladders are used with scintillating targets, they can be viewed by means of CCD cameras through plexiglass ports. The lifetime of these viewing targets (Zn$_2$SiO$_4$ on Al foil) is limited. They are mostly used for the final tuning. Both snapshots of the harp data and viewing targets can be stored for reference. In the commissioning phase scintillating screens were also used on a movable platform in a focal-plane chamber T3.
In anticipation of high beam currents, the beam stops in front of T1 and T2 have been designed to allow water cooling. When tuning for fragments the beam is stopped on one of the slits located at SH2, SH3, or SH4 for the [*Fragmentation Mode*]{} and SH5 or SH6 for the [*Gas-filled Mode*]{}.
At present there are three pairs of horizontally movable slits that are remotely controlled and can be installed at any of the mentioned locations depending on the requirements of the experiment. The movable slits are also used to verify the ion optics, e.g. focus conditions in conjunction with the beam or other setup conditions.
Particle identification
-----------------------
In order to optimize the separator for transport and focusing of the desired reaction products at the exit of the separator, it is important to have online particle identification. While the optimal detection system depends on particle type, we have used a 100 $\mu$m thick Si detector with a diameter of 20 mm that provided either energy E or energy loss $\Delta$E and a timing signal. As we will see below, this detection is well suited for identifying light to medium-mass particles. One detector is permanently mounted on a movable arm (horizontal plane) in T2. During the initial tests and development runs, a second Si detector was mounted on a movable table at the focal plane T3.
Gas target
----------
The [*Fragmentation Mode*]{} has been tested with the $^1$H($^{21}$Ne, $^{21}$Na)n reaction. For initial tests with low beam intensities, thin polyethylene foils as hydrogen targets were used, with carbon as the only other target component. The hydrogen content of these targets, however, will diminish rapidly with higher ionization density, i.e. when the beam current is increased or for low energy and/or heavy element beams.
For higher beam currents, a hydrogen-filled gas target is used. This target has 2.5 $\mu$m HAVAR foils as windows following a design of a target in use at Texas A&M [@GO04]. In order to increase the density by about a factor of 4, the gas cell is cooled down to liquid nitrogen temperature. The gas cell is approximately 10 cm long with windows of 1.25 cm diameter. It can be moved vertically to allow insertion of a target ladder at the object position in T1. The gas target and its accessories were designed and produced at North Carolina State University [@YO05].
Separation by differential stopping
-----------------------------------
In [*Fragmentation Mode*]{}, the separator [*Section 1*]{} provides a dispersive focal plane, where the beam - if not stopped previously - and other undesirable products can be separated by momentum selection using horizontal slits. The design momentum acceptance of $\pm$ 2$\%$ translates in a 16 cm wide focal plane due to the momentum dispersion of about 4 cm/$\%$. Magnet [*Section 2*]{} reverses the effect of the dispersive function of [*Section 1*]{} and provides an achromatic beam spot of the order of 20 mm diameter, well suited to be accepted in a following ion catcher.
However, all particles, including the undesirable ones, that pass through the momentum slits will also enter the ion catcher. For further separation a degrader can be used. Such a degrader will provide mass selection, because of the differences in energy loss. Because of the momentum acceptance of $\pm$ 2$\%$ also the desired products will be dispersed, effectively disturbing the achromaticity. This effect can be eliminated by changing the thickness of the degrader along the dispersive plane. Such a degrader is called a “wedge” and can be realized by bending a foil of constant thickness. A holder for bent foils with dimensions corresponding to the intermediate plane was made.
Installation and commissioning
==============================
In November 2003 the modifications of shielding and the installation of power and utility lines in the designated TRI$\mu$P separator hall (T-cell) was completed. At this time all major components, in particular the magnets and their support, had been delivered. Only two additional power supplies had to be purchased as most of the magnets were designed to be able to use existing power supplies not operated at the same time as the TRI$\mu$P separator.
Installation of the separator itself started in December 2003 and was completed in April 2004 followed by commissioning runs in May 2004. We tested the basic ion-optical parameters using a 43 MeV/nucleon $^{21}$Ne$^{7+}$ beam (B$\rho$ = 2.86 Tm). A nearly circular primary beam spot of about 2 mm diameter (FWHM) was achieved at T1. This beam was transmitted into the dispersive focal plane at T2 where it had dimensions of 5 mm by 8 mm in the horizontal and vertical directions. The beam was subsequently put onto a viewer at T3, where the achromatic image size was approximately 10 mm by 10 mm in both transverse directions. In order to verify the momentum dispersion and to obtain information about the momentum acceptance, copper foils of 7.5, 15, and 22.5 $\mu$m were inserted at the target location T1. The displacement at T2 was measured using a large Zn$_2$SiO$_4$ viewer marked with a centimeter scale. The momentum loss of the beam in a 22.5 $\mu$m foil was 1.0$\%$. The beam consists of fully stripped $^{21}$Ne$^{10+}$ ions after the target. The momentum dispersion measured in the dispersive focal plane (T2) was 4.2 cm/$\%$ corresponding to 2.1 cm/$\%$ energy dispersion in non-relativistic approximation. This is in agreement with the design calculations. A circular beam spot of about 20 mm diameter (FWHM) was observed in the achromatic final focal plane (T3).
The ion optics of the [*Gas-filled Mode*]{} was tested by transporting the $^{21}$Ne$^{7+}$ beam onto the target T2. Without gas filling the momentum dispersion in the final focal plane was measured by inserting the copper foils and using the method mentioned above. The resulting momentum dispersion of 6.9 cm/$\%$ is in agreement with the design calculations. After having verified the basic optical design parameter and that all separator components worked satisfactorily, we proceeded to produce $^{21}$Na isotopes required for one of the initial experiments.
Production of $^{21}$Na in *Fragmentation Mode*
===============================================
After successful commissioning and verification of ion optics and design parameters, we produced $^{21}$Na using the (p,n) reaction in inverse kinematics with a $^{21}$Ne$^{7+}$ beam at 43 MeV/nucleon. A 20 mg/cm$^2$ polyethylene (CH$_2$)$_n$ foil was used in setup runs where low beam intensity of a few nA current was sufficient. For higher beam intensities of up to 30 particle nA we used the LN$_2$ cooled hydrogen target at 1 atm. The emerging $^{21}$Ne$^{10+}$beam with a magnetic rigidity B$\rho$ approximately 9$\%$ higher than the desired $^{21}$Na$^{11+}$ isotopes is stopped in the movable beam stop SH2 between the first dipole magnets B1 and B2. The movable arm with the 100 $\mu$m thick, circular silicon detector of 20 mm diameter is installed immediately downstream of the wedge in chamber T2. A second silicon detector of 150 $\mu$m thickness was installed in the focal plane T3 also on a platform that moves along the horizontal axis.
![ Left: The production of $^{21}$Na. The time of flight vs. energy loss in a 100 $\mu$m silicon detector shows various nuclides at the intermediate plane (T2). Right: At the final focal plane (T3) there is only $^{21}$Na and a small contamination of stable $^{20}$Ne which could be reduced to below 0.5 %. []{data-label="fig:21Na"}](./Fig6.eps){width="140mm"}
The left side panel of Fig. \[fig:21Na\] shows the energy loss of particles in the detector at T2 vs. the time-of-flight (TOF) relative to the Radio-Frequency (RF) phase of the cyclotron. The RF was 32 MHz, providing a dynamic range of 31 ns for the TOF measurement, just sufficient to observe the dynamic range of particles in the Ne mass region without “wrap-around” that would complicate particle identification. Due to the nature of the reaction the $^{21}$Na products are strongly focused and most of these fragments pass through the detector, i.e. the setting of the magnetic fields in [*Section 1*]{} is adjusted to optimize the $^{21}$Na yield. The detector is left in place during the measurements at T3, functioning as a uniform degrader. In the panel on the right hand side the same spectrum is shown but this time with a gate on particles arriving in the detector at the focal plane T3 that has also a 20 mm diameter. Optimizing the rigidity of [*Section 2*]{}, one can tune for the maximum yield of $^{21}$Na. Only a small contribution of 0.5% of $^{20}$Ne is remaining while all other impurities including beam particles are reduced to insignificant contributions. Note that in this test run the left side spectrum was measured using a polyethylene foil, while the right side was measured with the cooled hydrogen target to allow higher beam and therefore higher production rates. $3.2\times 10^3$ $^{21}$Na/particle-nA /s of primary beam was already achieved. In these and other production measurements we profited greatly from using the code LISE++ of Tarasov and Bazin [@BA02; @TA02] which allows to enter the specification of the separator. Unfortunately, it does not yet work for direct reactions, so that the fragmentation or fusion-evaporation mode of the program has to be used for initial settings of the separator. Recently we produced $^{22}$Mg, $^{20}$Na, $^{19}$Ne and $^{12}$N. All using inverse (p,n) reactions except for $^{22}$Mg where a $^{23}$Na beam was used in a (p,2n) reaction at 32 MeV/nucleon. Production of $^{20}$Na and $^{19}$Ne was optimized resulting in a yield of $10^3$ and $10^4$/s/particle-nA, respectively.
For 1 kW beam the $^{21}$Ne mentioned above corresponds to 1.1 particle-$\mu$A. The maximum useful target thickness is obtained when the energy loss difference of the primary beam and the secondary beam corresponds to the energy acceptance (8 %) of the separator. Note, that using a H$_2$ target the pressure windows only affect the acceptance due to straggling but not due to energy loss. In this way using a 10 bar target one may reach 10$^8$ $^{21}$Na particles/s.
This clean secondary $^{21}$Na beam was used later in a first experiment in collaboration with a group from LPC, Caen, France [@Achouri] to study the $\beta$-decay branching ratio in the $^{21}$Na decay. This ratio is important for the interpretation of the $\beta$-$\nu$ correlation measurements [@SC04] performed as tests of the Standard Model.
Tests of *Gas-filled Mode* {#gas section}
==========================
The planned physics program [@JU05; @BE03] requires also the production of very heavy isotopes like $^{213}$Ra that may be produced by using the fusion-evaporation reaction in inverse kinematics. If the radium atom has nearly degenerate states of opposite parity, $^{213}$Ra could be a candidate for the search for a (forbidden) permanent electric dipole moment.
In an early phase of the design, calculations were made with the transport code from M. Paul [@PA89], which incorporates charge-changing atomic collisions and energy loss in a gas-filled magnetic system. In particular the reaction $^{206}$Pb on $^{12}$C was considered where one could collect all Ra residues with 100% efficiency, as the effect of the evaporated neutrons is negligible compared to broadening due to multiple scattering in the gas. The simulations were made to find whether the residues and the beam can be separated sufficiently. In this application a clean separation is not essential if the ion-catcher device can handle the additional load due to the beam contamination. In Fig. \[fig:Pb-Ra\] the result of this calculation is shown for a Pb beam of 7 MeV/nucleon on a carbon target placed at T2 with [*Section 2*]{} filled with 5 mbar Ar. Note that the separation increases with increasing pressure due to the difference in stopping power. The separation is about 13$\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is the Gaussian width of the position distribution of Pb; the separation expressed this way is not sensitive to the pressure. The Gaussian width found in the simulation shown in Fig. \[fig:Pb-Ra\] is 2.5 cm, i.e., nearly 6 cm Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM).
![Simulation of the separation of Ra produced by a 7 MeV/nucleon Pb beam impinging on a carbon target. In this mode separator [*Section 2*]{} was filled with 5 mbar Ar.[]{data-label="fig:Pb-Ra"}](./Fig7.eps){width="60.00000%"}
![ Experimental charge-state distribution of a $^{206}$Pb beam (full circles) are collected in a single 8.6 cm wide beam spot (full triangles); for further details see text. []{data-label="fig:Pb"}](./Fig8.eps){width="60.00000%"}
To test some of the results a measurement was made with a $^{206}$Pb$^{29+}$ beam of 8.4 MeV/nucleon passing through a HAVAR window of 2.5 $\mu$m thickness before impinging on a carbon target of 4.2 mg/cm$^2$ thickness. Results are shown in Fig. \[fig:Pb\]. Without gas filling the charge distribution after passing the foil and the target is given by the full circles. A total of eleven charge states with a maximum intensity estimated to be at q=60 were observed. The line through the points is a Gaussian distribution with a FWHM of 9% $\delta$p/p. A more detailed measurement over two charge states is indicated by the two dashed Gaussian curves that have each a FWHM of 0.37% $\delta$p/p. This is the overall resolution of the beam, including straggling in the entrance foil in front of the target. The triangles represent a scan over the focal plane after filling the complete system after the entrance foil with 2.5 mbar Argon gas. The eleven separated charge states are now concentrated in a single peak corresponding to an average charge state due to the statistical process of charge-state changes in the gas. For comparison of the data sets the measured setting of the data obtained with gas filling were shifted in momentum to coincide with the maximum of the charge distribution measured in vacuum. For the same reason the beam current data were scaled to obtain the same total integrated particle current. The resulting distribution is well reproduced by a Gaussian distribution, as can be observed from the fitted dotted curve. The FWHM was 1.4% $\delta$p/p or 8.6 cm in absolute width, i.e. nearly 4 times the width of a single charge state, but 6 times smaller than the full charge distribution. Also the dependence on Ar gas pressure was investigated. Since the ion optics changes due to the energy losses in the gas, after each pressure change the magnet settings had to be adjusted empirically for best resolution. The width depended little on pressure. The best resolution was found at 2.0 mbar with a FWHM of 6.4 cm. At 5 mbar, the pressure corresponding to the calculations in Fig. \[fig:Pb-Ra\], the FWHM was 7.7 cm, i.e. 30% larger than the calculated value. The low beam current (0.2 particle-nA) did not allow us to conclude anything about the radium production or distribution. However, the observations so far indicate that the calculated properties appear to apply. To collect all heavy reaction products in [*Gas-filled Mode*]{} an ion catcher of about 10 cm diameter would be required.
Summary
=======
A versatile magnetic separator for the effective collection and separation of radio isotopes produced with a variety of heavy ion beams from the AGOR superconducting cyclotron was designed, built and commissioned at the KVI as part of the TRI$\mu$P facility. The major magnetic and system components were manufactured by commercial vendors. The system consists of two sections with a total of four dipole and eight large quadrupole magnets to produce a dispersive intermediate and an achromatic final focus. By shaping the dipole edges the system is corrected to 3$^{rd}$ order and the focal plane angles could be optimized. Aberrations up to 4$^{th}$ order were calculated. It was found that orders higher than three were negligible. Special care was taken to include optimally the existing infrastructure and hardware of the laboratory.
The maximum design rigidities of the separator are given by the maximum beam rigidity of 3.6 Tm [*(Section 1)*]{} and a maximum product rigidity of 3.0 Tm [*(Section 2)*]{}. The angle acceptances are 30 mrad in both transverse directions. The momentum acceptance is $\pm$2.0$\%$. This allows to transmit a large fraction of the phase space of the reaction products of interest using the inverse reaction technique into a cooler device. Extrapolating the yields for light products up to $10^8$ particles/s appears feasible.
The system is designed to separate reaction products from light (e.g. $^{21}$Ne) to very heavy $^{208}$Pb beams with maximum beam intensities given by the power dissipation limit of about 1 kW in the cyclotron deflector. [*Section 1*]{} of the system separates beam and reaction products using B$\rho$ analysis alone. This works particularly well for light ions and high energies where beam ions and products are nearly fully stripped. After a degrader which differentiates different isotopes with similar B$\rho$, [*Section 2*]{} is used to provide a relatively small achromatic image of the secondary beam. The second part of the separator also allows gas-filled operation to collect heavy isotopes that have wide charge-state distributions emerging from the production target located between the two sections.
During commissioning the system design parameters were established and a first clean isotope separation was made in case of $^{21}$Na production. Initial tests of the [*Gas-filled Mode*]{} were made.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work was supported by the Dutch Stichting vor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM) under program 48 (TRI$\mu$P) and the EU RTD networks ION CATCHER and NIPNET, HPRI-2001-50045 and 50034 respectively. We are indebted to A. Young (TUNL) for providing a liquid nitrogen cooled hydrogen gas target. The TRI$\mu$P group would like to express their special thanks to H. Kiewiet, L. Slatius and J. Sijbring for their technical contributions. Our gratitude also goes to the members of the AGOR cyclotron group and the KVI support staff for their efforts in realizing this project.
[99]{} NuPECC Report *“NuPECC Long Range Plan 2004: Perspectives for Nuclear Physics Research in Europe in the Coming Decade and Beyond”* available from http://www.nupecc.org/pub/ J.W. Turkstra, H.W. Wilschut, D. Meyer, R. Hoekstra, and R. Morgenstern, Hyperfine Interactions [**127**]{} (2000) 533; K. Jungmann, Acta Physica Polonica [**33**]{} (2002) 2049. H.W. Wilschut, Hyperfine Interactions [**146/147**]{} (2003) 77. K. Jungmann, Nucl. Phys. A [**751**]{} (2005) 87c. G.P.A. Berg, P. Dendooven, O. Dermois, M.N. Harakeh, R. Hoekstra, K. Jungmann, S. Kopecky, R. Morgenstern, A. Rogachevskiy, R. Timmermans, L. Willmann, and H.W. Wilschut, Nucl. Instr. Meth. [**B 204**]{} (2003) 532. G.P.A. Berg, P. Dendooven, O. Dermois, M.N. Harakeh, R. Hoekstra, K. Jungmann, S. Kopecky, V. Kravchuk, R. Morgenstern, A. Rogachevskiy, L. Willmann, and H.W. Wilschut, Nucl. Phys. [**A 721**]{} (2003) 1107c. H.W. Schreuder, Proc. 15th International Conference on Cyclotrons and their Applications, Eds. E. Baron, M. Lieuvin, Caen, France, 1998 (IoP, Bristol, 1999). R. Anne, D. Bazin, A.C. Mueller, J.C. Jacmart and M. Langevin, Nucl. Inst. Meth. A [**257**]{} (1987) 215. B.M. Sherrill, D.J. Morrissey, J.A. Nolen, Jr., and J.A. Winger, Nucl. Inst. Meth. B [**56/57**]{} (1991) 1106. D. Bazin, O. Tarasov, M. Lewitowicz, O. Sorlin, Nucl. Inst. Meth. Phys. Res. A [**487**]{} (2002) 307. O. Tarasov, D. Bazin, M.Lewitowicz, and O. Sorlin, Nucl. Phys. [**A701**]{} (2002) 661c. T. Kubo, M. Ishihara, N. Inabe, H. Kumagai, I. Tanihata, K. Yoshida, T. Nakamura, H. Okuno, S. Shimoura, K. Asahi, Nucl. Inst. Meth Phys. Res. B [**70**]{} (1992) 309. C.N. Davids, B.B. Back, K. Bindra, D.J. Henderson, W. Kutschera, T. Lauritsen, Y. Nagame, P. Sugathan, A.V. Ramayya, W.B. Walters, Nucl. Inst. Meth Phys. Res. B [**70**]{} (1992) 358. J.D. Cole, T.M. Cormier, J.H. Hamilton, A.V. Ramayya, Nucl. Inst. Meth Phys. Res. B [**70**]{} (1992) 343. D. Rogalla, M. Alliotta, C.A. Barnes, L. Campajola, A. D’Onofrio, E. Fritz, L. Gialanello, U. Greife, G. Imbriani, A. Ordine, J. Ossmann, V. Roca, C. Rolfs, M. Romano, C. Sabarese, D. Schürmann, F. Schürmann, F. Strieder, S. Theis, F. Terrasi, H.P. Trauvetter, Eur. Phys. J. A [**6**]{} (1999) 471. J.M. D’Auria and DRAGON collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A [**701**]{}, 625 (2002). M. Couder, C. Angulo, W. Galster, J.-S. Graulich, P. Leleux, P. Lipnik, G. Tabacaru, and F. Vanderbist, Nucl. Inst. Meth Phys. Res. A [**506**]{} (2003) 26. M. Paul, B.G. Glagola, W. Henning, J.G. Keller, W. Kutschera, Z. Liu, K.E. Rehm, B. Schneck, and R. H. Siemssen, Nucl. Inst. Meth. A [**277**]{} (1989) 418. J.P. Dufour, R. Del Moral, H. Emmermann, F. Hubert, D. Jean, C. Poinot, M.S. Pravikoff, and A. Fleury, Nucl. Inst. Meth. A [**248**]{} (1986) 267. K.-H. Schmidt, E. Hanelt, H. Geissel, G. Münzenberg, and J.P. Dufour, Nucl. Inst. Meth. A [**260**]{} (1987) 287. PSI Graphic Transport Framework by U. Rohrer based on the CERN-SLAC-Fermilab version by K.L. Brown, D.C. Carey, C. Iselin, F. Rotacker, CERN 73-16 (1973) and CERN 80-04 (1980) M. Berz, COSY Infinity, `http://www.bt.pa.msu.edu/index_files/cosy.htm` J.M. Schippers, O.C. Dermois, K. Gerbens, H.H. Kiewiet, P.D. Kroon, J. Zijlstra, AIP proceedings [**333**]{} (1995) 217 and KVI annual report 1989, p. 124. V.Z. Goldberg, G.G. Chubarian, G. Tabacaru, L. Trache, R. Tribble, A. Aprahamian, G.V. Rogachec, B.B. Skorodumov, X.D. Tang, Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{} (2004) 31302. A.R. Young, M. Boswell, G.P. Berg, A. Rogachevskiy, M. Sohani, and E. Traykov, KVI Annual report 2004, p. 17. L. Achouri, J.-C. Angélique, G. Ban, G.P.A. Berg, B. Blank, G. Canchel, P.G. Dendooven, J. Giovinazzo, K. Jungmann, E. Liénard, I. Matea, O. Navilat-Cuncic, N. Orr, A. Rogachevskiy, M. Sohani, E. Traykov, and H.W. Wilschut, KVI experiment P01 and Annual report 2004, p. 11. N.D. Scielzo, S.J. Freedman, B.K. Fujikawa, and P.A. Vetter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{} (2004) 102501.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Various ways for decision making with imprecise probabilities—admissibility, maximal expected utility, maximality, E-admissibility, $\Gamma$-maximax, $\Gamma$-maximin, all of which are well-known from the literature—are discussed and compared. We generalize a well-known sufficient condition for existence of optimal decisions. A simple numerical example shows how these criteria can work in practice, and demonstrates their differences. Finally, we suggest an efficient approach to calculate optimal decisions under these decision criteria.'
address: 'Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Philosophy, Baker Hall 135, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, US'
author:
- 'Matthias C. M. Troffaes'
title: Decision Making under Uncertainty using Imprecise Probabilities
---
Introduction
============
Often, we find ourselves in a situation where we have to make some decision $d$, which we may freely choose from a set $D$ of available decisions. Usually, we do not choose $d$ arbitrarily in $D$: indeed, we wish to make a decision that performs best according to some criterion, i.e., an *optimal* decision. It is commonly assumed that each decision $d$ induces a real-valued gain $J_d$: in that case, a decision $d$ is considered optimal in $D$ if it induces the highest gain among all decisions in $D$. This holds for instance if each decision induces a lottery over some set of rewards, and these lotteries form an ordered set satisfying the axioms of von Neumann Morgenstern [@1944:neumann], or more generally, the axioms of for instance Herstein and Milnor [@1953:herstein:milnor], if we wish to account for unbounded gain.
So, we wish to identify the set ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{}}\left(D\right)}$ of all decisions that induce the highest gain. Since, at this stage, there is no uncertainty regarding the gains $J_d$, $d\in D$, the solution is simply $$\label{eq:optimal:simple}
{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{}}\left(D\right)}=\arg\max_{d\in D}J_d.$$ Of course, ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{}}\left(D\right)}$ may be empty; however, if the set $\{J_d\colon d\in D\}$ is a compact subset of ${{\mathbb{R}}}$—this holds for instance if $D$ is finite—then ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{}}\left(D\right)}$ contains at least one element. Secondly, note that even if ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{}}\left(D\right)}$ contains more than one decision, all decisions $d$ in ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{}}\left(D\right)}$ induce the same gain $J_d$; so, if, in the end, the gain is all that matters, it suffices to identify only one decision $d^*$ in ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{}}\left(D\right)}$—often, this greatly simplifies the analysis.
However, in many situations, the gains $J_d$ induced by decisions $d$ in $D$ are influenced by variables whose values are uncertain. Assuming that these variables can be modelled through a random variable $X$ that takes values in some set $\mathcal{X}$ (the *possibility space*), it is customary to consider the gain $J_d$ as a so-called *gamble* on $X$, that is, we view $J_d$ as a real-valued gain that is a bounded function of $X$, and that is expressed in a fixed state-independent utility scale. So, $J_d$ is a bounded $\mathcal{X}$–${{\mathbb{R}}}$-mapping, interpreted as an uncertain gain: taking decision $d$, we receive an amount of utility $J_d(x)$ when $x$ turns out to be the realisation of $X$. For the sake of simplicity, we shall assume that the outcome $x$ of $X$ is independent of the decision $d$ we take: this is called *act-state independence*. What decision should we take?
Irrespective of our beliefs about $X$, a decision $d$ in $D$ is not optimal if its gain gamble $J_d$ is *point-wise dominated* by a gain gamble $J_e$ for some $e$ in $D$, i.e., if there is an $e$ in $D$ such that $J_e(x)\ge J_d(x)$ for all $x\in\mathcal{X}$ and $J_e(x)>J_d(x)$ for at least one $x\in\mathcal{X}$: choosing $e$ guarantees a higher gain than choosing $d$, possibly strictly higher, regardless of the realisation of $X$. So, as a first selection, let us remove all decisions from $D$ whose gain gambles are point-wise dominated (see Berger [@1985:berger Section 1.3.2, Definition 5 ff., p. 10]): $$\label{eq:optimal:pointwise}
{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}:=
\{d\in D\colon (\forall e\in D)(J_e\not\ge J_d\text{ or }J_e=J_d)\}$$ where $J_e\ge J_d$ is understood to be point-wise, and $J_e\not\ge J_d$ is understood to be the negation of $J_e\ge J_d$. The decisions in ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}$ are called *admissible*, the other decisions in $D$ are called *inadmissible*. Note that we already recover Eq. if there is no uncertainty regarding the gains $J_d$, i.e., if all $J_d$ are constant functions of $X$. When do admissible decisions exist? The set ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}$ is non-empty if $\{J_d\colon d\in D\}$ is a non-empty and weakly compact subset of the set ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$ of all gambles on $\mathcal{X}$ (see Theorem \[thm:existence:admissible\] further on). Note that this condition is sufficient, but not necessary.
In what follows, we shall try to answer the following question: given additional information about $X$, how can we further reduce the set ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}$ of admissible decisions? The paper is structured as follows. Section \[sec:meu:questionmark\] discusses the classical approach of maximising expected utility, and explains why it is not always a desirable criterion for selecting optimal decisions. Those problems are addressed in Section \[sec:generalising:to:improb\], discussing alternative approaches to deal with uncertainty and optimality, all of which attempt to overcome the issues raised in Section \[sec:meu:questionmark\], and all of which are known from the literature. Finally, Section \[sec:the:right:one\] compares these alternative approaches, and explains how optimal decisions can be obtained in a computationally efficient way. A few technical results are deferred to the appendix, where we, among other things, generalize a well-known technical condition on the existence of optimal decisions.
Maximising Expected Utility? {#sec:meu:questionmark}
============================
In practice, beliefs about $X$ are often modelled by a (possibly finitely additive) probability measure $\mu$ on a field $\mathcal{F}$ of subsets of $\mathcal{X}$, and one then arrives at a set of optimal decisions by maximising their expected utility with respect to $\mu$; see for instance Raiffa and Schlaifer [@1961:raiffa:schlaifer Section 1.1.4, p. 6], Levi [@1983:levi Section 4.8, p. 96, ll. 23–26], or Berger [@1985:berger Section 1.5.2, Paragraph I, p. 17]. Assuming that the field $\mathcal{F}$ is sufficiently large such that the gains $J_d$ are measurable with respect to $\mathcal{F}$—this means that every $J_d$ is a uniform limit of $\mathcal{F}$-simple gambles—the *expected utility* of the gain gambles $J_d$ is given by: $${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_d):=\int J_d{\mathrm{d}}\mu,$$ where we take for instance the Dunford integral on the right hand side; see Dunford [@1935:dunford p. 443, Sect. 3], and Dunford and Schwartz [@1957:dunford:schwartz Part I, Chapter III, Definition 2.17, p. 112]—this linear integral extends the usual textbook integral (see for instance Kallenberg [@2002:kallenberg Chapter 1]) to case where $\mu$ is not $\sigma$-additive. Recall that we have assumed act-state independence: $\mu$ is independent of $d$.
As far as it makes sense to rank decisions according to the expected utility of their gain gambles, we should *maximise expected utility*: $$\label{eq:optimal:meu}
{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}}}\left(D\right)}:=\arg\max_{d\in{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}}{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_d).$$
When do optimal solutions exist? The set ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}}}\left(D\right)}$ is guaranteed to be non-empty if $\{J_d\colon d\in D\}$ is a non-empty and compact subset of the set ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$ of all gambles on $\mathcal{X}$, with respect to the supremum norm. Actually, this technical condition is sufficient for existence with regard to all of the optimality conditions we shall discuss further on. Therefore, without further ado, we shall assume that $\{J_d\colon d\in D\}$ is non-empty and compact with respect to the supremum norm. A slightly weaker condition is assumed in Theorem \[thm:existence\], in the appendix of this paper.
Unfortunately, it may happen that our beliefs about $X$ cannot be modelled by a probability measure, simply because we have insufficient information to identify the probability $\mu(A)$ of every event $A$ in $\mathcal{F}$. In such a situation, maximising expected utility usually fails to give an adequate representation of optimality.
For example, let $X$ be the unknown outcome of the tossing of a coin; say we *only* know that the outcome will be either heads or tails (so $\mathcal{X}=\{H,T\}$), and that the probability of heads lays between $28\%$ and $70\%$. Consider the decision set $D=\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$ and the gain gambles $$\begin{aligned}
J_1(H)&=4, & J_1(T)&=0, \\
J_2(H)&=0, & J_2(T)&=4, \\
J_3(H)&=3, & J_3(T)&=2, \\
J_4(H)&=\tfrac{1}{2}, & J_4(T)&=3, \\
J_5(H)&=\tfrac{47}{20}, & J_5(T)&=\tfrac{47}{20}, \\
J_6(H)&=\tfrac{41}{10}, & J_6(T)&=-\tfrac{3}{10}, \\\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}=\{1,2,3,4,5,6\}$, and $${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}}}\left(D\right)}
=
\begin{cases}
\{2\}, &\text{if }\mu(H)<\frac{2}{5}, \\
\{2,3\}, &\text{if }\mu(H)=\frac{2}{5}, \\
\{3\}, &\text{if }\frac{2}{5}<\mu(H)<\frac{2}{3}, \\
\{1,3\}, &\text{if }\mu(H)=\frac{2}{3}, \\
\{1\}, &\text{if }\mu(H)>\frac{2}{3}.
\end{cases}$$ Concluding, if we have *no* additional information about $X$, but still insist on using a particular (and necessarily arbitrary) $\mu$, which is only required to satisfy $0.28\le
\mu(H)\le 0.7$, we find that ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}}}\left(D\right)}$ is not very robust against changes in $\mu$. This shows that maximising expected utility fails to give an adequate representation of optimality in case of ignorance about the precise value of $\mu$.
Generalising to Imprecise Probabilities {#sec:generalising:to:improb}
=======================================
Of course, if we have sufficient information such that $\mu$ can be identified, nothing is wrong with Eq. . We shall therefore try to generalise Eq. . In doing so, following Walley [@1991:walley], we shall assume that our beliefs about $X$ are modelled by a real-valued mapping ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}$ defined on a—possibly only very small—set $\mathcal{K}$ of gambles, that represents our assessment of the *lower expected utility* ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f)$ for each gamble $f$ in $\mathcal{K}$;[^1] note that $\mathcal{K}$ can be chosen empty if we are completely ignorant. Essentially, this means that instead of a single probability measure on $\mathcal{F}$, we now identify a closed convex set $\mathcal{M}$ of finitely additive probability measures $\mu$ on $\mathcal{F}$, described by the linear inequalities $$\label{eq:credalset}
(\forall f\in\mathcal{K})({\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f)\le{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(f)).$$ We choose the domain $\mathcal{F}$ of the measures $\mu$ sufficiently large such that all gambles of interest, in particular those in $\mathcal{K}$ and the gain gambles $J_d$, are measurable with respect to $\mathcal{F}$. Without loss of generality, we can assume $\mathcal{F}$ to be the power set of $\mathcal{X}$, although in practice, it may be more convenient to choose a smaller field.
For a given $\mathcal{F}$-measurable gamble $g$, not necessarily in $\mathcal{K}$, we may also derive a lower expected utility ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(g)$ by minimising ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(g)$ subject to the above constraints, and an upper expected utility ${{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(g)=-{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(-g)$ by maximising ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(g)$ over the above constraints. In case $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{K}$ are finite, this simply amounts to solving a linear program.
In the literature, $\mathcal{M}$ is called a *credal set* (see for instance Giron and Rios [@1980:giron:rios::quasi:bayesians], and Levi [@1983:levi Section 4.2, pp. 76–78], for more comments on this model), and ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}$ is called a *lower prevision* (because they generalise the previsions, which are fair prices, of De Finetti [@1974:definetti Vol. I, Section 3.1, pp. 69–75]).
The mapping ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ obtained, corresponds exactly to the so-called *natural extension* of ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}$ (to the set of $\mathcal{F}$-measurable gambles), where ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f)$ is interpreted as a supremum buying price for $f$ (see Walley [@1991:walley Section 3.4.1, p. 136]). In this interpretation, for any $s<{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f)$, we are willing to pay any utility $s<{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f)$ prior to observation of $X$, if we are guaranteed to receive $f(x)$ once $x$ turns out to be the outcome of $X$. The natural extension then corresponds to the highest price we can obtain for an arbitrary gamble $g$, taken into account the assessed prices ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f)$ for $f\in\mathcal{K}$. Specifically, $$\label{eq:natxt}
{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(g)=
\sup\left\{
\alpha+\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f_i)
\colon
\alpha+\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i f_i\le g\right\},$$ where $\alpha$ varies over ${{\mathbb{R}}}$, $n$ over ${{\mathbb{N}}}$, $\lambda_1$, …, $\lambda_n$ vary over ${{\mathbb{R}}}^+$, and $f_1$, …, $f_n$ over $\mathcal{K}$.
It may happen that $\mathcal{M}$ is empty, in which case ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ is undefined (the supremum in Eq. will always be $+\infty$). This occurs exactly when ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}$ *incurs a sure loss* as a lower prevision, that is, if we can find a finite collection of gambles $f_1$, …, $f_n$ in $\mathcal{K}$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^n{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f_i)>\sup\left[\sum_{i=1}^n f_i\right]$, which means that we are willing to pay more for this collection than we can ever gain from it, which makes no sense of course.
Finally, it may happen that ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ does not coincide with ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}$ on $\mathcal{K}$. This points to a form of *incoherence* in ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}$: this situation occurs exactly when we can find a finite collection of gambles $f_0$, $f_1$, …, $f_n$ and non-negative real numbers $\lambda_1$, …, $\lambda_n$, such that $$\alpha+\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i f_i\le f_0,
\text{ but also }
{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f_0)
<
\alpha+\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f_i).$$ This means that we can construct a price for $f_0$, using the assessed prices ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f_i)$ for $f_i$, which is strictly higher than ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f_0)$. In this sense, ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ corrects ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}$, as is apparent from Eq. .
Although the belief model described above is not the most general we may think of, it is sufficiently general to model both expected utility and complete ignorance: these two extremes are obtained by taking $\mathcal{M}$ either equal to a singleton, or equal to the set of all finitely additive probability measures on $\mathcal{F}$ (i.e., $\mathcal{K}=\emptyset$). It also allows us to demonstrate the differences between different ways to make decisions with imprecise probabilities on the example we presented before.
In that example, the given information can be modelled by, say, a lower prevision ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}$ on $\mathcal{K}=\{I_H,-I_H\}$, defined by ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(I_H)=0.28$ and ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(-I_H)=-0.7$, where $I_H$ is the gamble defined by $I_H(H)=1$ and $I_H(T)=0$. For this ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}$, the set $\mathcal{M}$ corresponds exactly to the set of all probability measures $\mu$ on $\mathcal{F}=\{\emptyset,\{H\},\{T\},\{H,T\}\}$, such that $0.28\le \mu(H)\le 0.7$. We also easily find for any gamble $f$ on $X$ that $${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(f)=
\min\{0.28 f(H) + 0.72 f(T), 0.7 f(H) + 0.3 f(T)\}.$$
$\Gamma$-Maximin and $\Gamma$-Maximax
-------------------------------------
As a very simple way to generalise Eq. , we could take the lower expected utility ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ as a replacement for the expected utility ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}$ (see for instance Gilboa and Schmeidler [@1989:gilboa::maximin], or Berger [@1985:berger Section 4.7.6, pp. 215–223]): $${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}
:=
\arg\max_{d\in{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}}{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d);$$ this criterion is called *$\Gamma$-maximin*, and amounts to worst-case optimisation: we take a decision that maximises the worst expected gain. For example, if we consider the decision as a game against nature, who is assumed to choose a distribution in $\mathcal{M}$ aimed at minimizing our expected gain, then the $\Gamma$-maximin solution is the best we can do. Applied on the example of Section \[sec:meu:questionmark\], we find as a solution ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}=\{5\}$.
In case $\mathcal{K}=\emptyset$, i.e., in case of complete ignorance about $X$, it holds that ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(f)=\inf_{x\in\mathcal{X}}f(x)$. Hence, in that case, $\Gamma$-maximin coincides with maximin (see Berger [@1985:berger Eq. (4.96), p. 216]), ranking decisions by the minimal (or infimum, to be more precise) value of their gain gambles.
Some authors consider best-case optimisation, taking a decision that maximises the best expected gain (see for instance Satia and Lave [@1973:satia]). In our example, the “$\Gamma$-maximax” solution is ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}=\{2\}$.
Maximality
----------
Eq. is essentially the result of pair-wise preferences based on expected utility: defining the strict partial order ${{>}_{\mu}}$ on $D$ as $d{{>}_{\mu}}e$ whenever ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_d)>{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_e)$, or equivalently, whenever ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_d-J_e)>0$, we can simply write $${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}}}\left(D\right)}={\mathrm{max}_{{{>}_{\mu}}}\left({{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}\right)},$$ where the operator ${\mathrm{max}_{{{>}_{\mu}}}\left(\cdot\right)}$ selects the ${{>}_{\mu}}$-maximal, i.e., the ${{>}_{\mu}}$-undominated elements from a set with strict partial order ${{>}_{\mu}}$.
Using the supremum buying price interpretation, it is easy to derive pair-wise preferences from ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}$: define ${{>}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ as $d{{>}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}e$ whenever ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d-J_e)>0$. Indeed, ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d-J_e)>0$ means that we are disposed to pay a strictly positive price in order to take decision $d$ instead of $e$, which clearly indicates strict preference of $d$ over $e$ (see Walley [@1991:walley Sections 3.9.1–3.9.3, pp. 160–162]). Since ${{>}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ is a strict partial order, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber {{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{>}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}:=&{\mathrm{max}_{{{>}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}\left({{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}\right)}
\\ =&
\label{eq:optimal:maximality}
\{d\in{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}\colon
(\forall e\in{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)})({{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e-J_d)\le 0)\}\end{aligned}$$ as another generalisation of Eq. , called *maximality*. Note that ${{>}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ can also be viewed as a robustification of ${{>}_{\mu}}$ over $\mu$ in $\mathcal{M}$. Applied on the example of Section \[sec:meu:questionmark\], we find ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{>}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}=\{1,2,3,5\}$ as a solution.
Note that Walley [@1991:walley Sections 3.9.2, p. 161] has a slightly different definition: instead of working from the set of admissible decisions as in Eq. , Walley starts with ranking $d>e$ if ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d-J_e)>0$ or ($J_d\ge J_e$ and $J_d\neq
J_e$), and then selects those decisions from $D$ that are maximal with respect to this strict partial order. Using Theorem \[thm:existence:admissible\] from the appendix, it is easy to show that Walley’s definition of maximality coincides with the one given in Eq. whenever the set $\{J_d\colon d\in
D\}$ is weakly compact. This is something we usually assume to ensure the existence of admissible elements; in particular, weak compactness is assumed in Theorem \[thm:existence\] (see appendix). The benefit of Eq. over Walley’s definition is that Eq. is easier to manage in the proofs in the appendix.
Interval Dominance
------------------
Another robustification of ${{>}_{\mu}}$ is the strict partial ordering ${\sqsupset_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ defined by $d{\sqsupset_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}e$ whenever ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d)>{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e)$; this means that the interval $[{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d),{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d)]$ is completely on the right hand side of the interval $[{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e),{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e)]$. The above ordering is therefore called *interval dominance* (see Zaffalon, Wesnes, and Petrini [@2003:zaffalon::dementia Section 2.3.3, pp. 68–69] for a brief discussion and references). $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber {{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{\sqsupset_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}:=&{\mathrm{max}_{{\sqsupset_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}\left({{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}\right)}
\\ =&
\label{eq:optimal:intval}
\{d\in{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}\colon
(\forall e\in{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)})({{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e)\le{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d))\}\end{aligned}$$ The resulting notion is weaker than maximality: applied on the example of Section \[sec:meu:questionmark\], ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{\sqsupset_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}=\{1,2,3,5,6\}$, which is strictly larger than ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{>}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}$.
E-Admissibility
---------------
In the example of Section \[sec:meu:questionmark\], we have shown that ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}}}\left(D\right)}$ may not be very robust against changes in $\mu$. Robustifying ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}}}\left(D\right)}$ against changes of $\mu$ in $\mathcal{M}$, we arrive at $$\label{eq:eadmissible}
{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\mathcal{M}}}\left(D\right)}
:=
\bigcup_{\mu\in\mathcal{M}}
{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}}}\left(D\right)};$$ this provides another way to generalise Eq. . The above criterion selects those admissible decisions in $D$ that maximize expected utility with respect to at least one $\mu$ in $\mathcal{M}$; i.e., they select the *E-admissible* (see Good [@1952:good p. 114, ll. 8–9], or Levi [@1983:levi Section 4.8, p. 96, ll. 8–20]) decisions among the admissible ones. We find ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\mathcal{M}}}\left(D\right)}=\{1,2,3\}$ for the example.
In case $\mu$ is defined on $\wp(\mathcal{X})$ and $\mu(\{x\})>0$ for all $x\in\mathcal{X}$, then every E-admissible decision is also admissible, and hence, in that case, ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\mathcal{M}}}\left(D\right)}$ gives us exactly the set of E-admissible options.
Which Is the Right One? {#sec:the:right:one}
=======================
Evidently, it is hard to pinpoint the right choice. Instead, let us ask ourselves: what properties do we want our notion of optimality to satisfy? Let us summarise a few important guidelines.
Clearly, whatever notion of optimality, it seems reasonable to exclude inadmissible decisions. For ease of exposition, let’s assume that the inadmissible decisions have already been removed from $D$, i.e., $D={{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}$; this implies in particular that ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\mathcal{M}}}\left(D\right)}$ gives us the set of E-admissible decisions.
Now note that, in general, the following implications hold: $$\begin{diagram}
\node{\text{$\Gamma$-maximax}}\arrow{s}\arrow{se} \node{\text{$\Gamma$-maximin}}\arrow{s}\arrow{s} \\
\node{\text{E-admissible}}\arrow{r}\arrow{se} \node{\text{maximal}}\arrow{s}\\
\node{} \node{\text{interval dominance}}
\end{diagram}$$ as is also demonstrated by our example. A proof is given in the appendix, Theorem \[thm:optimality:connections\].
E-admissibility, maximality, and interval dominance have the nice property that the more determinate our beliefs (i.e., the smaller $\mathcal{M}$), the smaller the set of optimal decisions. In contradistinction, $\Gamma$-maximin and $\Gamma$-maximax lack this property, and usually only select a single decision, even in case of complete ignorance. However, if we are *only* interested in the most pessimistic (or most optimistic) solution, disregarding other reasonable solutions, then $\Gamma$-maximin (or $\Gamma$-maximax) seems appropriate. Utkin and Augustin [@2005:utkin:augustin::algorithms] have collected a number of nice algorithms for finding $\Gamma$-maximin and $\Gamma$-maximax solutions, and even mixtures of these two. Seidenfeld [@2004:seidenfeld::maximin:eadm] has compared $\Gamma$-maximin to E-admissibility, and argued against $\Gamma$-maximin in sequential decision problems.
If we do not settle for $\Gamma$-maximin (or $\Gamma$-maximax), should we choose E-admissibility, maximality, or interval dominance? As already mentioned, interval dominance is weaker than maximality, so in general we will end up with a larger (and arguably too large) set of optimal options. Assuming the non-admissible decisions have been weeded, a decision $d$ is not optimal in $D$ with respect to interval dominance if and only if $$\label{eq:optimal:elimination}
{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d)<\sup_{e\in D}{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e).$$ Thus, if $D$ has $n$ elements, interval dominance requires us to calculate $2n$ natural extensions, and make $2n$ comparisons, whereas for maximality, by Eq. , we must calculate $n^2-n$ natural extensions, and perform $n^2-n$ comparisons—roughly speaking, each natural extension is a linear program in $m$ (size of $\mathcal{X}$) variables and $r$ (size of $\mathcal{K}$) constraints, or vice versa if we solve the dual program. So, comparing maximality and interval dominance, we face a tradeoff between computational speed and number of optimal options.
However, this also means that interval dominance is a means to speed up the calculation of maximal and E-admissible decisions: because every maximal decision is also interval dominant, we can invoke interval dominance as a first computationally efficient step in eliminating non-optimal decisions, if we eventually opt for maximality or E-admissibility. Indeed, eliminating those decisions $d$ that satisfy Eq. , we will also eliminate those decisions that are neither maximal, nor E-admissible.
Regarding sequential decision problems, we note that dynamic programming techniques cannot be used when using interval dominance (see De Cooman and Troffaes [@decooman:troffaes::dynprog:impgain]), and therefore, since dynamic programming yields an exponential speedup, maximality and E-admissibility are certainly preferred over interval dominance once dynamics enter the picture.
This leaves E-admissibility and maximality. They are quite similar: they coincide on all decision sets $D$ that contain two decisions. In case we consider larger decision sets, they coincide if the set of gain gambles is convex (for instance, if we consider *randomised* decisions). As already mentioned, E-admissibility is stronger than maximality, and also has some other advantages over maximality. For instance, $\frac{1}{5}J_2+\frac{4}{5}J_3{{>}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}J_5$, so, choosing decision $2$ with probability $20\%$ and decision $3$ with probability $80\%$ is preferred to decision $5$. Therefore, we should perhaps not consider decision $5$ as optimal.
E-admissibility is not vulnerable to such argument, since no E-admissible decision can be dominated by randomized decisions: if for some $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$ it holds that ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_d-J_e)\ge 0$ for all $e\in D$, then also $${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}\left(J_d-\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i J_{e_i}\right)=\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i {{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}\left(J_d-J_{e_i}\right)\ge 0$$ for any convex combination $\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i J_{e_i}$ of gain gambles, and hence, it also holds that $${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i J_{e_i}-J_d\right)\le 0$$ which means that no convex combination $\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i J_{e_i}$ can dominate $J_d$ with respect to ${{>}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$.
A powerful algorithm for calculating E-admissible options has been recently suggested by Utkin and Augustin [@2005:utkin:augustin::algorithms pp. 356–357], and independently by Kikuti, Cozman, and de Campos [@2005:cozman:decisiontrees Sec. 3.4]. If $D$ has $n$ elements, finding all (pure) E-admissible options requires us to solve $n$ linear programs in $m$ variables and $r+n$ constraints.
As we already noted, through convexification of the decision set, maximality and E-admissibility coincide. Utkin and Augustin’s algorithm can also cope with this case, but now one has to consider in the worst case $n!$ linear programs, and usually several less: the worst case only obtains if all options are E-admissible. For instance, if there are only $\ell$ E-admissible pure options, one has to consider only at most $\ell!+n-\ell$ of those linear programs, and again, usually less.
In conclusion, the decision criterion to settle for in a particular application, depends at least on the goals of the decision maker (what properties should optimality satisfy?), and possibly also on the size and structure of the problem if computational issues arise.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
I especially want to thank Teddy Seidenfeld for the many instructive discussions about maximality versus E-admissibility. I also wish to thank two anonymous referees for their helpful comments. This paper has been supported by the Belgian American Educational Foundation. The scientific responsibility rests with its author.
Proofs
======
This appendix is dedicated to proving the connections between the various optimality criteria, and existence results mentioned throughout the paper. In the whole appendix, we assume the following:
Recall, $D$ denotes some set of decisions, and every decision $d\in D$ induces a gain gamble $J_d\in{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$, where ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$ is the set of all gambles (bounded $\mathcal{X}$–${{\mathbb{R}}}$ mappings).
${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}$ denotes a lower prevision, defined on a subset $\mathcal{K}$ of ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$. With $\mathcal{F}$ we denote a field on $\mathcal{X}$ such that all gain gambles $J_d$ and gambles in $\mathcal{K}$ are measurable with respect to $\mathcal{F}$, i.e., are a uniform limit of $\mathcal{F}$-simple gambles. $\mathcal{F}$ could be for instance the power set of $\mathcal{X}$.
${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}$ is assumed to avoid sure loss, and ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ is its natural extension to the set of all $\mathcal{F}$-measurable gambles. $\mathcal{M}$ is the credal set representing ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}$, as defined in Section \[sec:generalising:to:improb\]. We will make deliberate use of the properties of natural extension (for instance, superadditivity: ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(f+g)\ge{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(f)+{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(g)$, and hence also ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(f-g)\le{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(f)-{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(g)$). We refer to Walley [@1991:walley Sec. 2.6, p. 76, and Sec. 3.1.2, p. 123] for an overview and proof of these properties.
We use the symbol $\mu$ for an arbitrary finitely additive probability measure on $\mathcal{F}$, and ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}$ denotes the Dunford integral with respect to $\mu$. This integral is defined on (at least) the set of all $\mathcal{F}$-measurable gambles.
Connections between Decision Criteria
-------------------------------------
\[thm:optimality:connections\] The following relations hold. $$\begin{aligned}
&{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}\subseteq{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\mathcal{M}}}\left(D\right)}\subseteq{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{>}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}\subseteq{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{\sqsupset_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}\\
&{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}\subseteq{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{>}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}
\end{aligned}$$
Let $\mathcal{J}=\{J_d\colon d\in D\}$.
Suppose that $d$ is $\Gamma$-maximax in $D$: $J_d$ maximises ${{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ in $\max_{\ge}(\mathcal{J})$. Since ${{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ is the upper envelope of $\mathcal{M}$, and $\mathcal{M}$ is weak-\* compact (see Walley [@1991:walley Sec. 3.6]), there is a $\mu$ in $\mathcal{M}$ such that ${{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d)={{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_d)$. But, ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_e)\le{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e)\le{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d)={{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_d)$, for every $J_e\in\max_{\ge}(\mathcal{J})$ because $d$ is $\Gamma$-maximax. Thus, $d$ belongs to ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\mathcal{M}}}\left(D\right)}$.
Suppose that $d\in{{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\mathcal{M}}}\left(D\right)}$: there is a $\mu$ in $\mathcal{M}$ such that $J_d$ maximises ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}$ in $\max_{\ge}(\mathcal{J})$. But then, because ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ is the lower envelope of $\mathcal{M}$, ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e-J_d)\le{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_e-J_d)={{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_e)-{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_d)\le
0$ for all $J_e$ in $\max_{\ge}(\mathcal{J})$. Hence, by Eq. on p. , $d$ must be maximal.
Suppose that $d$ is maximal. Then, again by Eq. , ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e-J_d)\le 0$ for all $J_e$ in $\max_{\ge}(\mathcal{J})$. But, ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e)-{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d)\le{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e-J_d)$, hence, also ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e)\le{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d)$ for all $J_e$ in $\max_{\ge}(\mathcal{J})$, which means that $d$ belongs to ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{\sqsupset_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}$.
Finally, suppose that $d$ is $\Gamma$-maximin: $J_d$ maximises ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ in $\max_{\ge}(\mathcal{J})$. But then ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e-J_d)\le{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_e)-{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(J_d)\le
0$ for all $J_e$ in $\max_{\ge}(\mathcal{J})$; $d$ must be maximal.
Existence
---------
We first prove a technical but very useful lemma about the existence of optimal elements with respect to preorders; it’s an abstraction of a result proved by De Cooman and Troffaes [@decooman:troffaes::dynprog:impgain]. Let’s start with a few definitions.
A *preorder* is simply a reflexive and transitive relation.
Let $\mathcal{V}$ be any set, and let $\trianglerighteqslant{}$ be any preorder on $\mathcal{V}$. An element $v$ of a subset $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathcal{V}$ is called *$\trianglerighteqslant{}$-maximal* in $\mathcal{S}$ if, for all $w$ in $\mathcal{S}$, $w\trianglerighteqslant{} v$ implies $v\trianglerighteqslant{} w$. The set of $\trianglerighteqslant{}$-maximal elements is denoted by $$\label{eq:def:maximal:preorder}
{\mathrm{max}_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}\left(\mathcal{S}\right)}
:=
\Big\{
v\in\mathcal{S}\colon
(\forall w\in\mathcal{S})
(w\trianglerighteqslant{} v\implies v\trianglerighteqslant{} w)
\Big\}.$$ For any $v$ in $\mathcal{S}$, we also define the *up-set* of $v$ relative to $\mathcal{S}$ as $${{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v}}:=\{w\in\mathcal{S}\colon w\trianglerighteqslant{}v\}.$$
\[lem:preorders:maximality\] Let $\mathcal{V}$ be a Hausdorff topological space. Let $\trianglerighteqslant{}$ be any preorder on $\mathcal{V}$ such that for any $v$ in $\mathcal{V}$, the set ${{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{V}}\!\!v}}$ is closed. Then, for any non-empty compact subset $\mathcal{S}$ of $\mathcal{V}$, the following statements hold.
(i) \[lem:preorders:maximality::upset\] For every $v$ in $\mathcal{S}$, the set ${{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v}}$ is non-empty and compact.
(ii) \[lem:preorders:maximality::existence\] The set ${\mathrm{max}_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}\left(\mathcal{S}\right)}$ of $\trianglerighteqslant{}$-maximal elements of $\mathcal{S}$ is non-empty.
(iii) \[lem:preorders:maximality::dominance\] For every $v$ in $\mathcal{S}$, there is a $\trianglerighteqslant{}$-maximal element $w$ of $\mathcal{S}$ such that $w\trianglerighteqslant{}v$.
. Since $\trianglerighteqslant{}$ is reflexive, it follows that $v\trianglerighteqslant{}v$, so ${{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v}}$ is non-empty. Is it compact? Clearly, ${{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v}}=\mathcal{S}\cap{{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{V}}\!\!v}}$, so ${{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v}}$ is the intersection of a compact set and a closed set, and therefore ${{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v}}$ must be compact too.
. Let $\mathcal{S}'$ be any subset of the non-empty compact set $\mathcal{S}$ that is linearly ordered with respect to $\trianglerighteqslant{}$. If we can show that $\mathcal{S}'$ has an upper bound in $\mathcal{S}$ with respect to $\trianglerighteqslant{}$, then we can infer from a version of Zorn’s lemma [@1997:schechter (AC7), p. 144] (which also holds for preorders) that $\mathcal{S}$ has a $\trianglerighteqslant{}$-maximal element. Let then $\{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_n\}$ be an arbitrary finite subset of $\mathcal{S}'$. We can assume without loss of generality that $v_1\trianglerighteqslant{}v_2\trianglerighteqslant{}
\dots\trianglerighteqslant{}v_n$, and consequently ${{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v_1}}\subseteq{{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v_2}}
\subseteq\dots\subseteq{{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v_n}}$. This implies that the intersection $\bigcap_{k=1}^n{{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v_k}}
={{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v_1}}$ of these up-sets is non-empty: the collection $\{{{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v}}\colon v\in\mathcal{S}'\}$ of compact and hence closed ($\mathcal{V}$ is Hausdorff) subsets of $\mathcal{S}$ has the finite intersection property. Consequently, since $\mathcal{S}$ is compact, the intersection $\bigcap_{v\in\mathcal{S}'}{{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v}}$ is non-empty as well, and this is the set of upper bounds of $\mathcal{S}'$ in $\mathcal{S}$ with respect to $\trianglerighteqslant{}$. So, by Zorn’s lemma, $\mathcal{S}$ has a $\trianglerighteqslant{}$-maximal element: ${\mathrm{max}_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}\left(\mathcal{S}\right)}$ is non-empty.
. Combine and to show that the non-empty compact set ${{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v}}$ has a maximal element $w$ with respect to $\trianglerighteqslant{}$. It is then a trivial step to prove that $w$ is also $\trianglerighteqslant{}$-maximal in $\mathcal{S}$: we must show that for any $u$ in $\mathcal{S}$, if $u\trianglerighteqslant{}w$, then $w\trianglerighteqslant{}u$. But, if $u\trianglerighteqslant{}w$, then also $u\trianglerighteqslant{}v$ since $w\trianglerighteqslant{}v$ by construction. Hence, $u\in{{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v}}$, and since $w$ is $\trianglerighteqslant{}$-maximal in ${{}{\uparrow_{\trianglerighteqslant{}}^{\mathcal{S}}\!\!v}}$, it follows that $w\trianglerighteqslant{}u$.
The weak topology on ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$ is simply the topology of point-wise convergence. That is, a net $f_\alpha$ in ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$ converges weakly to $f$ in ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$ if $\lim_\alpha f_\alpha(x)=f(x)$ for all $x\in\mathcal{X}$.
\[thm:existence:admissible\] If $\mathcal{J}=\{J_d\colon d\in D\}$ is a non-empty and weakly compact set, then $D$ contains at least one admissible decision, and even more, for every decision $e$ in $D$, there is an admissible decision $d$ in $D$ such that $J_d\ge J_e$.
It is easy to derive from Eq. that $${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\ge}}\left(D\right)}=
\{d\in D\colon (\forall e\in D)(J_e\ge J_d\implies J_d\ge J_e)\}.$$ Hence, a decision is admissible in $D$ exactly when its gain gamble is $\ge$-maximal in $\mathcal{J}$. We must show that $\mathcal{J}$ has $\ge$-maximal elements.
By Lemma \[lem:preorders:maximality\], it suffices to prove that, for every $f\in{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$, the set $\mathcal{G}_f=\{g\in{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}\colon
g\ge f\}$ is closed with respect to the topology of point-wise convergence.
Let $g_\alpha$ be a net in $\mathcal{G}_f$, and suppose that $g_\alpha$ converges point-wise to $g\in{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$: for every $x\in\mathcal{X}$, $\lim_\alpha g_\alpha(x)=g(x)$. But, since $g_\alpha(x)\ge f(x)$ for every $\mathcal{X}$, it must also hold that $g(x)=\lim_\alpha g_\alpha(x)\ge f(x)$. Hence, $g\in\mathcal{G}_f$. We have shown that every converging net in $\mathcal{G}_f$ converges to a point in $\mathcal{G}_f$. Thus, $\mathcal{G}_f$ is closed. This establishes the theorem.
Let’s now introduce a slightly stronger topology on ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$. This topology has no particular name in the literature, so let’s just call it the $\tau$-topology. It is determined by the following convergence.
Say that a net $f_\alpha$ in ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$ *$\tau$-converges* to $f$ in ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$, if
(i) $\lim_\alpha f_\alpha(x)=f(x)$ for all $x\in\mathcal{X}$ (point-wise convergence), and
(ii) $\lim_\alpha{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(|f_\alpha-f|)=0$ (convergence in ${{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(|\cdot|)$-norm).
This convergence induces a topology $\tau$ on ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$: it turns ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$ into a locally convex topological vector space, which also happens to be Hausdorff. A topological basis at $0$ consists for instance of the convex sets $$\{f\in{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}\colon {{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(|f|)<\epsilon\text{ and } f(x)<\delta(x)\},$$ for $\epsilon>0$, and $\delta(x)>0$ for all $x\in\mathcal{X}$. It has more open sets and more closed sets than the weak topology, but it has less compact sets than the weak topology. On the other hand, this topology is weaker than the supremum norm topology, so it has fewer open and closed sets, and more compact sets, compared to the supremum norm topology. Note that in case $\mathcal{X}$ is finite, it reduces to the weak topology, which is in that case also equivalent to the supremum norm topology.
Note that ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$, ${{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$, and ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}$ for all $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$, are $\tau$-continuous, simply because $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(|f_\alpha-f|)&\ge
|{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(f_\alpha)-{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(f)|,\\
{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(|f_\alpha-f|)&\ge
|{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(f_\alpha)-{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(f)|,\text{ and }\\
{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(|f_\alpha-f|)&\ge
|{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(f_\alpha)-{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(f)|\end{aligned}$$ (see Walley [@1991:walley p. 77, Sec. 2.6.1(l)]). We will exploit this fact in the proof of the following theorem, generalising a result due to Walley [@1991:walley p. 161, Sec. 3.9.2].
\[thm:existence\] If $\mathcal{J}=\{J_d\colon d\in D\}$ is non-empty and compact with respect to the $\tau$-topology, then the following statements hold.
(i) \[thm:existence:mu\] ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}}}\left(D\right)}$ is non-empty for all $\mu\in\mathcal{M}$.
(ii) \[thm:existence:maximin\] ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}$ is non-empty.
(iii) \[thm:existence:maximax\] ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}$ is non-empty.
(iv) \[thm:existence:maximal\] ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{>}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}$ is non-empty.
(v) \[thm:existence:intval\] ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{\sqsupset_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}}}\left(D\right)}$ is non-empty.
(vi) \[thm:existence:eadm\] ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{\mathcal{M}}}\left(D\right)}$ is non-empty.
. Introduce the following order on ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$: say that $f\trianglerighteqslant{}g$ whenever ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(f)\ge{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(g)$. Let’s first show that, for all $f\in{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$, the set $\mathcal{G}_f=\{g\in{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}\colon g\trianglerighteqslant{} f\}$ is $\tau$-closed.
Let $g_\alpha$ be a net in $\mathcal{G}_f$, and suppose that $g_\alpha$ $\tau$-converges to $g\in{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$. Since the integral ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}$ is $\tau$-continuous, it follows that ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(g)=\lim_\alpha{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(g_\alpha)\ge{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(f)$. Concluding, $g$ belongs to $\mathcal{G}_f$. We have established that every converging net in $\mathcal{G}_f$ converges to a point in $\mathcal{G}_f$. Thus, $\mathcal{G}_f$ is $\tau$-closed.
By Lemma \[lem:preorders:maximality\], it follows that $\mathcal{J}$ has at least one $\trianglerighteqslant{}$-maximal element $J_e$, that is, $J_e$ maximises ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}$ in $\mathcal{J}$. Since any $\tau$-compact set is also weakly compact, there is a $\ge$-maximal element $J_d$ in $\mathcal{J}$ such that $J_d\ge J_e$, by Theorem \[thm:existence:admissible\]. But then, ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_d)\ge{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}(J_e)$, and hence, $J_d$ also maximises ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}$ in $\mathcal{J}$. Because $J_d$ is $\ge$-maximal in $\mathcal{J}$, it also maximises ${{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}$ in $\max_{\ge}(\mathcal{J})$. This establishes that $d$ belongs to ${{{\mathrm{opt}}_{{{{\mathbf{E}}}_{\mu}}}}\left(D\right)}$: this set is non-empty.
. Introduce the following order on ${\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{X})}$: say that $f\trianglerighteqslant{}g$ whenever ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(f)\ge{{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(g)$. Continue along the lines of , using the fact that ${{{\underline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}$ is $\tau$-continuous.
. Again along the lines of , with $f\trianglerighteqslant{}g$ whenever ${{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(f)\ge{{{\overline{\mathbf{E}}}}_{{\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}}}(g)$.
&&. Immediate, by and Theorem \[thm:optimality:connections\].
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
J. von Neumann, O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, 1944.
I. N. Herstein, J. Milnor, An axiomatic approach to measurable utility, Econometrica 21 (2) (1953) 291–297.
J. O. Berger, Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis, 2nd Edition, Springer, 1985.
H. Raiffa, R. Schlaifer, Applied Statistical Decision Theory, MIT Press, 1961.
I. Levi, The Enterprise of Knowledge. An Essay on Knowledge, Credal Probability, and Chance, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1983.
N. Dunford, Integration in general analysis, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 37 (3) (1935) 441–453.
N. Dunford, J. T. Schwartz, Linear Operators, John Wiley [&]{} Sons, New York, 1957.
O. Kallenberg, Foundations of Modern Probability, 2nd Edition, Probability and Its Applications, Springer, 2002.
P. Walley, Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities, Chapman and Hall, London, 1991.
F. J. Giron, S. Rios, Quasi-[B]{}ayesian behaviour: A more realistic approach to decision making?, in: J. M. Bernardo, J. H. DeGroot, D. V. Lindley, A. F. M. Smith (Eds.), Bayesian Statistics, University Press, Valencia, 1980, pp. 17–38.
B. De Finetti, Theory of Probability: A Critical Introductory Treatment, Wiley, New York, 1974–5, two volumes.
I. Gilboa, D. Schmeidler, Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior, Journal of Mathematical Economics 18 (2) (1989) 141–153.
J. K. Satia, J. Roy E. Lave, Markovian decision processes with uncertain transition probabilities, Operations Research 21 (3) (1973) 728–740.
M. Zaffalon, K. Wesnes, O. Petrini, Reliable diagnoses of dementia by the naive credal classifier inferred from incomplete cognitive data, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 29 (1–2) (2003) 61–79.
I. J. Good, Rational decisions, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 14 (1) (1952) 107–114.
L. V. Utkin, T. Augustin, Powerful algorithms for decision making under partial prior information and general ambiguity attitudes, in: F. G. Cozman, R. Nau, T. Seidenfeld (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and Their Applications, 2005, pp. 349–358.
T. Seidenfeld, A contrast between two decision rules for use with (convex) sets of probabilities: [G]{}amma-maximin versus [E]{}-admissibility, Synthese 140 (1–2) (2004) 69–88.
G. [de Cooman]{}, M. C. M. Troffaes, Dynamic programming for deterministic discrete-time systems with uncertain gain, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 39 (2–3) (2004) 257–278.
D. Kikuti, F. G. Cozman, C. P. de Campos, Partially ordered preferences in decision trees: Computing strategies with imprecision in probabilities, in: R. Brafman, U. Junker (Eds.), Multidisciplinary IJCAI-05 Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling, 2005, pp. 118–123.
E. Schechter, Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations, Academic Press, San Diego, 1997.
[^1]: The upper expected utility of a gamble $f$ is ${\protect\overline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f)$ if and only if the lower expected utility of $-f$ is $-{\protect\overline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f)$. So, for any gamble $f$ in $\mathcal{K}$, ${\protect\underline{{\mathit{P}}}}(-f)=-{\protect\overline{{\mathit{P}}}}(f)$, and therefore, without loss of generality, we can restrict ourselves to lower expected utility.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We give a formula of the framed one-leg orbifold Gromov-Witten vertex where the leg is gerby with isotropy group ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$. Then we use this formula to compute the Gromov-Witten invariants of the local ${{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ gerbe. We will also compute some examples of the degree 1 and degree 2 ${{\Bbb Z}}_2$-Hodge integrals.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA'
author:
- Zhengyu Zong
title: 'A Formula of the One-leg Orbifold Gromov-Witten Vertex and Gromov-Witten Invariants of the Local ${{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ Gerbe'
---
Introduction
============
For smooth toric Calabi-Yau 3-folds, the Gromov-Witten theory is obtained by gluing the Gromov-Witten topological vertex [@AKMV], a generating function of cubic Hodge integrals. So the topological vertex, which is computed in [@Li-Liu-Liu-Zhou], can be viewed as the building block for the GW theory of smooth toric Calabi-Yau 3-folds. In the orbifold case, a vertex formalism for the orbifold GW theory of toric Calabi-Yau 3-orbifolds is established in [@Ros]. For toric Calabi-Yau 3-orbifolds, the orbifold GW theory is obtained by gluing the GW orbifold vertex, a generating function of cubic abelian Hurwitz-Hodge integrals. So the orbifold GW vertex can be viewed as the building block of the orbifold GW theory of toric Calabi-Yau 3-orbifolds.
In this paper, we prove a formula of the framed one-leg orbifold Gromov-Witten vertex where the leg is gerby with isotropy group ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$. This formula can be viewed as a counterpart of the case where the leg is effective [@Zong]. Unlike the effective case, the initial value of our vertex can not be computed by Mumford’s relation. So we will use virtual localization and vanishing properties of certain relative GW invariants of the nontrivial ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-gerbes over ${{\Bbb P}}^1$ to obtain a system of linear equations, from which we can solve the initial value. After that we will use localization on certain moduli spaces of relative stable morphisms to the trivial ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-gerbes over ${{\Bbb P}}^1$ to obtain the framing dependence of the vertex. We also use our formula to compute the GW invariants of the local ${{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ gerbe.
In section 5, we will calculate the degree 1 and degree 2 ${{\Bbb Z}}_2$-vertices more explicitly. Then we will use these results to calculate the prediction of some ${{\Bbb Z}}_2$-Hodge integrals in [@Ros]. These results can be viewed as an evidence for the conjecture of the orbifold GW/DT correspondence in [@Ros].
After the first version of this paper, our formula was used to prove the orbifold GW/DT correspondence in [@Ros2]. The strategy there is to rewrite the DT vertex in terms of the loop schur functions developed in [@Ros3] and [@Lam-Pyl] to obtain some useful combinatorial properties of the DT vertex. Then since our formula for the GW vertex involves a certain kind of orbifold rubber integrals which have strongly combinatorial properties (see section 3), one can prove the GW/DT correspondence by proving certain purely combinatorial identities.
Formula for the vertex
----------------------
### Framing dependence of the vertex
Let ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)$ be the moduli space of stable maps to ${{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ where $\gamma=(\gamma_{1}, \cdots, \gamma_{n})$ is a vector of elements in ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$. Let $U$ be the irreducible representation of ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$ given by $$\phi^U:{{\Bbb Z}}_m\to {{\Bbb C}}^*,\phi^U(1)=e^{\frac{2\pi\sqrt{-1}}{m}}$$ Then there is a corresponding Hodge bundle $$E^U\to{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)$$ and the corresponding Hodge classes on ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)$ are defined by Chern classes of $E^U$, $$\lambda^U_i=c_i(E^U)$$ Similarly, for any irreducible representation $R$ of ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$, we have a corresponding Hodge bundle $E^R$ and Hodge classes $\lambda^R_i$. Let ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g,n}$ be the moduli space of stable curves of genus $g$ with $n$ marked points and let $\psi_i$ be the $i^{th}$ descendent class on ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g,n}$, $1\leq i\leq n$. Let $$\epsilon :{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)\to {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g,n}$$ be the canonical morphism. Then the descendent classes $\bar{\psi}_i$ on ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g,n}$ are defined by $$\bar{\psi}_i=\epsilon^*(\psi_i)$$ Let $$\Lambda^{\vee,R}_g(u)=u^{\operatorname{rk}E^R}-\lambda^R_1 u^{\operatorname{rk}E^R-1} +\cdots+(-1)^{\operatorname{rk}E^R}\lambda^R_{\operatorname{rk}E^R}$$ where $\operatorname{rk}E^R$ is the rank of $E^R$ determined by the orbifold Riemann-Roch formula.
Let $d$ be a positive integer and let $${\overline{\mu}}=\{(\mu_1,k_1),\cdots , (\mu_{l(\mu)}, k_{l(\mu)})\}$$ be a ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition of d. Here, $\mu$ is a partition of $d$ with parts $\mu_i$ and $k_i\in {{\Bbb Z}}_m$. Let $$\{1,\cdots, l({\overline{\mu}})\}=A'({\overline{\mu}})\sqcup A''({\overline{\mu}})$$ such that $k_i=0$ if and only if $i\in A'({\overline{\mu}})$. Let $l'({\overline{\mu}})=|A'({\overline{\mu}})|$ and $l''({\overline{\mu}})=|A''({\overline{\mu}})|$. For any ${\overline{\mu}}$, we use the notation $-{\overline{\mu}}$ to denote $\{(\mu_1,-k_1),\cdots , (\mu_{l(\mu)}, -k_{l(\mu)})\}$.
Now we require $\gamma=(\gamma_{1}, \cdots, \gamma_{n})$ be a vector of *nontrivial* elements in ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$. Then for $\tau\in \frac{1}{m}{{\Bbb Z}}$, we define $G_{g,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}(\tau)_{m}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{(\sqrt{-1})^{|{\overline{\mu}}|+l({\overline{\mu}})-2\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{m-k_i}{m}}
\left(\tau(\tau+1)\right)^{\sum_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\mu}})}\delta_{0,k_i}}}{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}
\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{\prod_{j=0}^{\mu_i-1}(\mu_i\tau+\frac{k_i}{m}+j)}{\mu_i!}
\left(\frac{\mu_i\tau+\frac{k_i}{m}}{\mu_i}\right)^{-\delta_{0,k_i}}\\
&&\cdot\int_{{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma+k}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)}\frac{(-\tau(\tau+1))^{-\delta}\Lambda_{g}^{\vee,U}(\tau)\Lambda_{g}^{\vee,U^\vee}(-\tau-1)
\Lambda_{g}^{\vee,1}(1)}{\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\mu}})}(1-\mu_i\bar{\psi}_i)}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma+k$ denotes the vector $(\gamma_{1}, \cdots, \gamma_{n},k_1,\cdots,k_{l({\overline{\mu}})})$, $\bar{\psi}_i$ corresponds to $k_i$, $U^\vee$ and 1 denote the dual of $U$ and the trivial representation respectively, $$\delta_{0,x}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}1, &x=0,\\
0, &x\neq 0,\end{array} \right.$$ and $$\delta=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}1, &\textrm{if all monodromies around loops on the domain curve are trivial}\\
0, &\textrm{otherwise}.\end{array} \right.$$
Introduce formal variables $p=(p_{(i,j)})_{i\in{{\Bbb Z}}_+,j\in\{0,\cdots,m-1\}},x=(x_1,\cdots,x_{m-1})$ and define $$p_{{\overline{\mu}}}=p_{(\mu_1,k_1)}\cdots p_{(\mu_{l({\overline{\mu}})},k_{l({\overline{\mu}})})},x_{\gamma}=x_{\gamma_1}\cdots x_{\gamma_n}$$ for ${\overline{\mu}}$ and $\gamma$. We use the more intuitive symbol $\gamma!$ to denote $|\operatorname{Aut}(\gamma)|$. Then we define the generating functions $$\begin{aligned}
G_{{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}(\lambda;\tau)_{m}&=&\sum_{g=0}^{\infty}\lambda^{2g-2+l({\overline{\mu}})+l(\gamma)}G_{g,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}(\tau)_{m}\\
G(\lambda;\tau;p;x)_{m}&=&\sum_{{\overline{\mu}}\neq \emptyset,\gamma}G_{{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}(\lambda;\tau)_{m}p_{{\overline{\mu}}} \frac{x_\gamma}{\gamma!}=\sum_{{\overline{\mu}}\neq \emptyset}G_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_{m}p_{{\overline{\mu}}}=\sum_{\gamma}G_{\gamma}(\lambda;\tau;p)_{m}\frac{x_\gamma}{\gamma!}\\
G^\bullet(\lambda;\tau;p;x)_{m}&=&\exp(G(\lambda;\tau;p;x)_{m})=
\sum_{{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}(\lambda;\tau)_{m}p_{{\overline{\mu}}} \frac{x_\gamma}{\gamma!}=
1+\sum_{{\overline{\mu}}\neq\emptyset}G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_{m}p_{{\overline{\mu}}}\\
G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}(\lambda;\tau)_{m}&=&\sum_{\chi\in 2{{\Bbb Z}},\chi\leq 2l({\overline{\mu}})}\lambda^{-\chi+l({\overline{\mu}})+l(\gamma)}G^\bullet_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}(\tau)_{m}\end{aligned}$$ When taking the sum over $\gamma$, we set the following convention for $\gamma$: if $i<j$, then $\gamma_j\geq \gamma_i$ where $\gamma_1,\cdots, \gamma_n$ are viewed as elements in $\{1,\cdots ,m-1\}$.
In section 3, we will define an orbifold rubber integral $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$ and its generating function $$\Phi^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;x)_m=\sum_{\chi,\gamma}\frac{\lambda^{-\chi+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}})+l(\gamma)}}
{(-\chi+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}}))!}H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m\frac{x_\gamma}{\gamma!}$$ Define $G_d(\tau)=(G^\bullet_{{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_m)_{|{\overline{\nu}}|=d}$ and $G_d(0)=(G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m)_{|{\overline{\mu}}|=d}$ to be two column vectors indexed by ${\overline{\nu}}$ and ${\overline{\mu}}$ respectively. Let $\Phi_d(\tau)=(\Phi_d^{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\tau))_{|{\overline{\mu}}|=d,|{\overline{\nu}}|=d}$ be a matrix indexed by ${\overline{\nu}}$ and ${\overline{\mu}}$, where $$\Phi_d^{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\tau)=Z_{{\overline{\nu}}}
\Phi^\bullet_{-{\overline{\nu}},{\overline{\mu}}}(-\sqrt{-1}\tau\lambda;\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2}{m}}x_1,\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2i}{m}}x_i,
\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2(m-1)}{m}}x_{m-1})_m.$$ and $Z_{{\overline{\nu}}}=|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\nu}})|m^{l({\overline{\nu}})}\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}\nu_i$. Then we have the following theorem
$\Phi_d(\tau)$ is invertible and $$\begin{aligned}
G_d(\tau)=\Phi_d(\tau)^{-1}G_d(0),\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently, $$\begin{aligned}
G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_m=\sum_{|{\overline{\nu}}|=|{\overline{\mu}}|}G^\bullet_{{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m Z_{{\overline{\nu}}}
\Phi^\bullet_{-{\overline{\nu}},{\overline{\mu}}}(\sqrt{-1}\tau\lambda;\tilde{x})_m.\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{x}=(\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2}{m}}x_1,\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2i}{m}}x_i,
\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2(m-1)}{m}}x_{m-1})$.
We will calculate $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$ and $\Phi^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;x)_m$ in section 3 in two different ways. One way is to relate $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$ to usual double Hurwitz numbers and the other way is to give $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$ an intrinsic combinatorial expression using representations of the wreath product. Concretely, we will prove the following theorem:\
\
**Theorem 3.5** (Burnside type formula for $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$): $$H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m=\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}
\frac{X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}})}{Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}}\frac{X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\nu}})}{Z_{{\overline{\nu}}}}
F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)^r\prod_{i=1}^{l(\gamma)}F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i}),$$ where $F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\frac{m\kappa_{{\overline{\xi}}(i)}}{2}$ and $F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i})=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}|{\overline{\xi}}(j)|
e^{\frac{-2\gamma_ij\pi\sqrt{-1}}{m}}$.
Theorem 3.5 implies that $$\Phi^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;x)_m=\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}
\frac{X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}})}{Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}}\frac{X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\nu}})}{Z_{{\overline{\nu}}}}e^{F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)\lambda}
\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}e^{F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{i})x_i\lambda}$$ So Theorem 1 expresses our framed orbifold Gromov-Witten vertex $G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_m$ in terms of its initial value $G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m$ and the rubber integral $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$.
### Calculation of the initial value
For any integer $d\geq 1, s\in \{1,\cdots,m-1\}$ and $l\in{{\Bbb Z}}_m$, let $$w^s_{d}(l)=-l-ds\in {{\Bbb Z}}_m.$$ Similarly, for any ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition ${\overline{\nu}}=\{(\nu_1,l_1),\cdots,(\nu_{l(\nu)},l_{l(\nu)})\}$, let $$w^s({\overline{\nu}})=\{(\nu_1,w^s_{\nu_1}(l_1)),\cdots,(\nu_{l(\nu)},w^s_{\nu_{l(\nu)}}(l_{l(\nu)}))\}.$$ Let $$\begin{aligned}
B_d&=&\{{\overline{\eta}}||{\overline{\eta}}|\leq d,l({\overline{\eta}})=l''({\overline{\eta}})\}\\
C_d&=&\{({\overline{\mu}},s)|\mu=\eta,s=s({\overline{\eta}}),k_1=0,-w^s({\overline{\mu}}\setminus \{(\mu_1,k_1)\})={\overline{\eta}}\setminus \{(\eta_1,h_1)\},|{\overline{\eta}}|\leq d,l({\overline{\eta}})=l''({\overline{\eta}})\}.\end{aligned}$$ where $s=s({\overline{\eta}})$ is a function that we will explain in section 4.4. Let $$\tilde{x}=(\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2}{m}}x_1,\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2i}{m}}x_i,
\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2(m-1)}{m}}x_{m-1}),$$ then we define $$\beta_d=(-\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=|{\overline{\mu}}|,l({\overline{\xi}})=l'({\overline{\xi}})}G^\bullet_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\lambda;0;x)_mZ_{w^s({\overline{\xi}})}
\tilde{\Phi}^\bullet_{-w^s({\overline{\xi}}),{\overline{\mu}}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m}\lambda;\tilde{x})_m)_{({\overline{\mu}},s)\in C_d}$$ and $$G'_d=(G^\bullet_{{\overline{\eta}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m)_{{\overline{\eta}}\in B_d}$$ to be two column vectors indexed by $({\overline{\mu}},s)$ and ${\overline{\eta}}$ respectively. Let $$\tilde{\Phi}_d(\lambda;x)=(\tilde{\Phi}_d^{({\overline{\mu}},s),{\overline{\eta}}}(\lambda;x))_{({\overline{\mu}},s)\in C_d,{\overline{\eta}}\in B_d}$$ be a matrix indexed by $({\overline{\mu}},s)$ and ${\overline{\eta}}$, where $$\tilde{\Phi}_d^{({\overline{\mu}},s),{\overline{\eta}}}(\lambda;x)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}0,&\textrm{if}|{\overline{\eta}}|>|{\overline{\mu}}|\\
Z_{w^s(-{\overline{\eta}})}
\tilde{\Phi}^\bullet_{-w^s(-{\overline{\eta}}),{\overline{\mu}}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m}\lambda;\tilde{x})_m,&\textrm{if}|{\overline{\eta}}|=|{\overline{\mu}}|\\
\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=|{\overline{\mu}}|-|{\overline{\eta}}|,l({\overline{\xi}})=l'({\overline{\xi}})}G^\bullet_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\lambda;0;x)_mZ_{w^s(-({\overline{\xi}}\sqcup{\overline{\eta}}))}
\tilde{\Phi}^\bullet_{-w^s(-({\overline{\xi}}\sqcup{\overline{\eta}})),{\overline{\mu}}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m}\lambda;\tilde{x})_m
&\textrm{if}|{\overline{\eta}}|<|{\overline{\mu}}|\end{array} \right.$$ Then we have the following theorem
$\tilde{\Phi}_d(\lambda;x)$ is invertible and $$\begin{aligned}
G'_d=\tilde{\Phi}_d^{-1}(\lambda;x)\beta_d\end{aligned}$$
Theorem 2 in fact determines $G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m$ for any ${\overline{\mu}}$ because of the following two results that we will show in section 4:
1. For any ${\overline{\mu}}$ with $k_1=\cdots=k_{l({\overline{\mu}})}=0$ we have $$G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m=\frac{1}{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}
\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\mu}})}\left(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}^{\mu_i+1}}{2m\mu_i\sin(\frac{\mu_i\lambda}{2})}\right).$$
2. For any ${\overline{\nu}}$, let ${\overline{\xi}}=\{(\nu_i,l_i)|i\in A'({\overline{\nu}})\}$ and ${\overline{\eta}}=\{(\nu_i,l_i)|i\in A''({\overline{\nu}})\}$. Then $$G^\bullet_{{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m=G^\bullet_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\lambda;0;x)_mG^\bullet_{{\overline{\eta}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m
.$$
Therefore, the only nontrivial vertices are those $G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_2$ with $k_1,\cdots,k_{l({\overline{\mu}})}$ nontrivial and Theorem 2 calculates all of them.
We will also calculate the degree 1 and degree 2 ${{\Bbb Z}}_2$-vertices more explicitly in section 5. Then we will use these results to calculate the prediction of some ${{\Bbb Z}}_2$-Hodge integrals in [@Ros]. These results can be viewed as an evidence for the conjecture of the orbifold GW/DT correspondence in [@Ros].
The Gromov-Witten Invariants of the Local ${{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ Gerbe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let ${{{\mathcal}X}}$ be the global quotient of the resolved conifold Tot$({{{\mathcal}O}}(-1)\oplus{{{\mathcal}O}}(-1)\to {{\Bbb P}}^1)$ by ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$ acting fiberwise by $\xi_m$ and $\xi_m^{-1}$ respectively, where $\xi_m=e^{\frac{2\pi \sqrt{-1}}{m}}$. Let ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0={{\Bbb P}}^{1}\times {{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ be the trivial ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$ gerbe over ${{\Bbb P}}^1$. ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0$ can be viewed as ${{\Bbb P}}^1$ with root construction [@Cad] of order $m$ for ${{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{\Bbb P}}^1}$. Then ${{{\mathcal}X}}$ can be identified with Tot$(L_0\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0}(-1)\oplus L_0^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0}(-1)\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_0)$ where $L_0$ is the tautological bundle on ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0$.
Define $C^\bullet_{\chi,d,\gamma}$ to be $$C^\bullet_{\chi,d,\gamma}=\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0,d)]^{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}
e(R^1\pi_*F^*(L_0\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0}(-1)\oplus L_0^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0}(-1)))$$ where ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0,d)$ is the moduli space of degree $d$ stable maps from a possibly disconnected curve with Euler characteristic $\chi$ and with monodromies $\gamma$ around marked points to ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0$, $$\pi:{{{\mathcal}U}}\to {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, d)$$ is the universal domain curve and $$F:{{{\mathcal}U}}\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_0$$ is the evaluation map. Let $$C^\bullet_{d}(\lambda;x)=\sum_{\chi,\gamma}\lambda^{-\chi+l(\gamma)}C^\bullet_{\chi,d,\gamma}\frac{x_\gamma}{\gamma!}$$ Then we have the following theorem which gives the Gromov-Witten invariants of the local ${{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ gerbe
$$\begin{aligned}
C^\bullet_{d}(\lambda;x)=\sum_{|{\overline{\mu}}|=d}(-1)^{d-l'({\overline{\mu}})}G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m
Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}G^\bullet_{-{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m\end{aligned}$$
Acknowledgments
---------------
I wish to express my deepest thanks to my advisor Chiu-Chu Melissa Liu. When I encountered difficulties, she discussed problems with me patiently and helped me to find many important references. Her guidance has been always enlightening for me. Her papers [@Li-Liu-Liu-Zhou] [@Liu1] [@Liu-Liu-Zhou1] [@Liu-Liu-Zhou2] guided me through the whole process of this work. This paper could not be possible without my advisor Chiu-Chu Melissa Liu. I also wish to thank Dustin Ross for his helpful communications which are important for this paper.
Moduli Spaces of Relative Stable Morphisms {#moduli}
==========================================
Moduli spaces
-------------
Fix an integer $m\geq 1$. For any integer $s$ with $0\leq s\leq m-1$, let ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$ be the root construction [@Cad] of order $m$ for ${{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{\Bbb P}}^1}(-s)$. Then ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0={{\Bbb P}}^{1}\times {{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ is the trivial gerbe over ${{\Bbb P}}^1$ and ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$ is the nontrivial gerbe over ${{\Bbb P}}^1$ for $1\leq s\leq m-1$. For any integer $a>0$ and $0\leq s\leq m-1$, let $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\mathcal}Y}}_s[a]&=&{{{\mathcal}Y}}_{s}\cup{{{\mathcal}Y}}_{0(1)}\cup\cdots\cup{{{\mathcal}Y}}_{0(a)}\cong {{{\mathcal}Y}}_{s}\cup(({{\Bbb P}}^1_{(1)}\cup\cdots\cup{{\Bbb P}}^1_{(a)})\times {{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)\end{aligned}$$ be the union of ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$ and $a$ copies of ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0$, where ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$ is glued to ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_{0(1)}$ at $p_1^{(0)}$ and ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_{0(l)}$ is glued to ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_{0(l+1)}$ at $p_1^{(l)}$ for $1\leq l \leq a-1$. We call the irreducible component ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_{s}$ the root component and the other irreducible components the bubble components. A point $p_1^{(a)}\neq p_1^{(a-1)}$ is fixed on ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_{0(a)}$. Denote by $\pi_s[a]: {{{\mathcal}Y}}_s[a] \to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$ the map which is identity on the root component and contracts all the bubble components to $p_1^{(0)}$. Let $${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0(a)={{{\mathcal}Y}}_{0(1)}\cup\cdots\cup{{{\mathcal}Y}}_{0(a)}$$ denote the union of bubble components of ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_s[a]$.
Let $\gamma=(\gamma_{1}, \cdots, \gamma_{n})$ be the vector of integers $$1\leq \gamma_{i}\leq m-1$$ defining nontrivial elements $\gamma_{i}\in {{\Bbb Z}}_{m}$. Let $${\overline{\mu}}=\{(\mu_1,k_1),\cdots , (\mu_{l(\mu)}, k_{l(\mu)})\}$$ be a ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition of an integer $d>0$. Here, $\mu$ is a partition of $d$ with parts $\mu_i$ and $k_i\in {{\Bbb Z}}_m$. Let $$\{1,\cdots, l({\overline{\mu}})\}=A'({\overline{\mu}})\sqcup A''({\overline{\mu}})$$ such that $k_i=0$ if and only if $i\in A'({\overline{\mu}})$. Let $l'({\overline{\mu}})=|A'({\overline{\mu}})|$ and $l''({\overline{\mu}})=|A''({\overline{\mu}})|$. We set a convention for ${\overline{\mu}}$ as follows: If $i<j$, then $\mu_i\geq \mu_j$; if in addition $\mu_i=\mu_j$, let $c=\operatorname{gcd}(\mu_i,m)$, $\bar{k}_i=k_i$(mod $c$) and $\bar{k}_j=k_j$(mod $c$), then $\bar{k}_j\geq \bar{k}_i$ where $\bar{k}_i,\bar{k}_j$ are viewed as elements in $\{0,\cdots ,c-1\}$; if in addition $\bar{k}_j= \bar{k}_i$, then $k_j\geq k_i$ where $k_i,k_j$ are viewed as elements in $\{0,\cdots ,m-1\}$. We also set the convention for $\gamma$: If $i<j$, then $\gamma_j\geq \gamma_i$ where $\gamma_1,\cdots, \gamma_n$ are viewed as elements in $\{1,\cdots ,m-1\}$.
For any $0\leq s\leq m-1$, let ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, {\overline{\mu}})$ be the moduli space of relative maps to $({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, \infty)$. Then a point in ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, {\overline{\mu}})$ is of the form $$f: (C, x_1,\cdots , x_n, y_1, \cdots , y_{l({\overline{\mu}})})\to ({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s[a],p_1^{(a)})$$ such that $$f^{-1}(p_1^{(a)})=\sum_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\mu}})}\mu_i\frac{m}{\operatorname{gcd}(m,k_i)}y_i$$ as Cartier divisors and the monodromies around $y_i$ and $x_j$ are given by $k_i$ and $\gamma_j$ respectively. For a more general discussion of moduli spaces of relative stable morphisms to orbifolds, see [@Abr-Fan].
We will also consider the disconnected version ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, {\overline{\mu}})$, where the domain curve $C$ is allowed to be disconnected with $2(h^0({{{\mathcal}O}}_{c})-h^0({{{\mathcal}O}}_{c}))=\chi$. Similarly, if we specify ramification types ${\overline{\nu}},{\overline{\mu}}$ over $0,\infty\in{{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$, we can define the corresponding moduli spaces ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s,{\overline{\nu}}, {\overline{\mu}})$ and ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s,{\overline{\nu}}, {\overline{\mu}})$ of relative stable maps.
Torus action
------------
Consider the ${{\Bbb C}}^*$-action $$t \cdot [z^0:z^1] = [tz^0: z^1]$$ on ${{\Bbb P}}^1$. This action lifts canonically on ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$ for any $0\leq s\leq m-1$. This induces an action on ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_s[a]$ with trivial actions on the bubble components. These in turn induce actions on the moduli spaces ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, {\overline{\mu}}), {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, {\overline{\mu}}), {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s,{\overline{\nu}}, {\overline{\mu}})$ and ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s,{\overline{\nu}}, {\overline{\mu}})$. Define the quotient space ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s,{\overline{\nu}}, {\overline{\mu}})//{{\Bbb C}}^*$ to be $${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s,{\overline{\nu}}, {\overline{\mu}})//{{\Bbb C}}^*=({\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s,{\overline{\nu}}, {\overline{\mu}})\setminus {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s,{\overline{\nu}}, {\overline{\mu}})^{{{\Bbb C}}^*})/{{\Bbb C}}^*$$
The obstruction bundle
----------------------
For any $0\leq s\leq m-1$, let $$\pi_s:{{{\mathcal}U}}_s\to {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, {\overline{\mu}})$$ be the universal domain curve and let ${{{\mathcal}T}}_s$ be the universal target. Then there is an evaluation map $$F_s:{{{\mathcal}U}}_s\to {{{\mathcal}T}}_s$$ and a contraction map $$\tpi_s: {{{\mathcal}T}}_s\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_s.$$ Let $L_s=\sqrt[m]{{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{\Bbb P}}^1}(-s)}$ be the tautological line bundle on ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$ corresponding to the root construction. Then over each point of ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$, the isotropy group ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$ acts on the fiber of $L_s$ by multiplication by $e^{2\pi i/m}$.
Let ${{{\mathcal}D}}_s\subset {{{\mathcal}U}}_s$ be the divisor corresponding to the $l({\overline{\mu}})$ marked points $\{ y_1, \cdots , y_{l({\overline{\mu}})}\}$ and let ${{{\mathcal}D}}_s'\subset{{{\mathcal}U}}_s$ be the divisor corresponding to those marked points in $\{ y_1, \cdots , y_{l({\overline{\mu}})}\}$ which have trivial monodromies i.e. those marked points $y_i$ with $i\in A'({\overline{\mu}})$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
V^0_D&=&R^1(\pi_0)_*(\tilde{F_0}^*L_0(-\mathcal{D}_0') )\\
V^0_{D_d}&=&R^1(\pi_0)_* \tilde{F_0}^*(L_0^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0}(-p_{0})),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{F}_0=\tilde\pi_0\circ F_0:\mathcal{U}_0\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_0$ and $p_0=0,p_1=\infty\in{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0$. The fibers of $V^0_D$ and $V^0_{D_d}$ at $$\left[ f:(C,x_1,\ldots,x_{n}, y_1, \cdots , y_{l({\overline{\mu}})})\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_0[a]\ \right]\in {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}})$$ are $H^1(C, \tilde{f}_0^*L_0(-D_0'))$ and $H^1(C, \tilde{f}_0^*(L_0^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0}(-p_0)))$, respectively, where $D_0'=\sum_{i\in A'({\overline{\mu}})}y_i$, and $\tilde{f}_0=\pi_0[a]\circ f_0$. Note that $$H^0(C, \tilde{f}_0^*L_0(-D_0'))=H^0(C, \tilde{f}_0^*(L_0^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0}(-p_0)))=0,$$ so $V^0_D$ and $V^0_{D_d}$ are vector bundles of ranks $l'({\overline{\mu}})-\frac{\chi}{2}+\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{k_i}{m}+\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{\gamma_j}{m}$ and $d-\frac{\chi}{2}+\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{m-k_i}{m}+\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{m-\gamma_j}{m}$, respectively. The obstruction bundle $$V^0=V^0_D\oplus V^0_{D_{d}}$$ has rank $-\chi+d+l({\overline{\mu}})+n$ which is equal to the virtual dimension of ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}})$.
For $1\leq s\leq m-1$, define $$\begin{aligned}
V^s_D&=&R^1(\pi_s)_*(\tilde{F_s}^*L_s )\\
V^s_{D_d}&=&R^1(\pi_s)_* \tilde{F_s}^*(L_s^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_s}(-p_{0})),\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{F}_s=\tilde\pi_s\circ F_s:\mathcal{U}_s\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$ and $p_0=0,p_1=\infty\in{{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$. The fibers of $V^s_D$ and $V^s_{D_d}$ at $$\left[ f:(C,x_1,\ldots,x_{n}, y_1, \cdots , y_{l({\overline{\mu}})})\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_s[a]\ \right]\in {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, {\overline{\mu}})$$ are $H^1(C, \tilde{f}_s^*L_s)$ and $H^1(C, \tilde{f}_s^*(L_s^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_s}(-p_0)))$, respectively, where $\tilde{f}_s=\pi_s[a]\circ f_s$. Note that $$H^0(C, \tilde{f}_s^*L_s)=H^0(C, \tilde{f}_s^*(L_s^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_s}(-p_0)))=0,$$ because $\deg\tilde{f}_s^*L_s$ and $\deg\tilde{f}_s^*(L_s^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_s}(-p_0))$ are less than zero. So $V^s_D$ and $V^s_{D_d}$ are vector bundles of ranks $\frac{sd}{m}-\frac{\chi}{2}+\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{k_i}{m}+\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{\gamma_j}{m}$ and $\frac{(m-s)d}{m}-\frac{\chi}{2}+\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{m-k_i}{m}+\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{m-\gamma_j}{m}$, respectively. The obstruction bundle $$V^s=V^s_D\oplus V^s_{D_{d}}$$ has rank $-\chi+d+l''({\overline{\mu}})+n$ which is less than the virtual dimension of ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, {\overline{\mu}})$ if $k_i=0$ for some $1\leq i\leq l({\overline{\mu}})$.
We lift the ${{\Bbb C}}^*$-action to the obstruction bundle $V^s$ for $0\leq s\leq m-1$. It suffices to lift the ${{\Bbb C}}^*$-action on ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$ to the line bundles $L_s$ and $L_s^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_s}(-p_0)$. Let the weights of the ${{\Bbb C}}^*$-action on $L_0^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0}(-p_0)$ at $p_0$ and $p_1$ be $-\tau-1$ and $-\tau$, respectively and let the weights of the ${{\Bbb C}}^*$-action on $L_0$ at $p_0$ and $p_1$ be $\tau$ and $\tau$, respectively, where $\tau\in \frac{1}{m}{{\Bbb Z}}$. For $1\leq s\leq m-1$, let the weights of the ${{\Bbb C}}^*$-action on $L_s^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_s}(-p_0)$ at $p_0$ and $p_1$ be $-1$ and $-\frac{s}{m}$, respectively and let the weights of the ${{\Bbb C}}^*$-action on $L_s$ at $p_0$ and $p_1$ be $0$ and $\frac{s}{m}$, respectively.
For $0\leq s\leq m-1$, let $$\begin{aligned}
{{K}^{\bullet s}_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}}=\frac{1}{{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, {\overline{\mu}})]^{{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}}e(V^s)\end{aligned}$$ Then ${{K}^{\bullet s}_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}}$ is a topological invariant and we have $${{K}^{\bullet s}_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}}=0$$ when $1\leq s\leq m-1$ and $k_i=0$ for some $1\leq i\leq l({\overline{\mu}})$. We will calculate ${{K}^{\bullet s}_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}}$ in section 4 by virtual localization.
Orbifold Rubber Calculus
========================
The orbifold rubber integral $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$ and wreath Hurwitz numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the case of ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}})$, a point $[f]\in {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0,{\overline{\nu}}, {\overline{\mu}})$ has target of the form ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0[a_{0},a_1]$, where ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0[a_{0},a_1]$ is obtained by attaching ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0(a_0)$ and ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0(a_1)$ to ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0$ at 0 and $\infty$ respectively. The distinguished points on ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0[a_{0},a_1]$ are $q^0_{a_0}$ and $q^1_{a_1}$. Let $\pi: {{{\mathcal}Y}}_0[a_{0},a_1]\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_0$ be the contraction to the root component. We always assume the ramification type over $q^1_{a_1}$ is ${\overline{\mu}}$ and the ramification type over $q^0_{a_0}$ is ${\overline{\nu}}$.
We will study the following kind of orbifold rubber integrals $$H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m=\frac{(-\chi+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}}))!}{{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\nu}})||\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})//{{\Bbb C}}^*]^{{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}}(\psi^{0})^{-\chi+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}})+l(\gamma)-1}$$ where $\psi^{0}$ is the target $\psi$ class, the first Chern class of the line bundle ${{\Bbb L}}_{0}$ over ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})//{{\Bbb C}}^*$ whose fiber at $$[f:C\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_0[a_{0},a_1]]$$ is the cotangent line $T^*_{q^0_{a_0}}{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0[a_{0},a_1]$.
When $\gamma=\emptyset$, $H^\bullet_{\chi,\emptyset}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$ is just the disconnected wreath Hurwitz number [@Joh] [@Zhang-Zhou]. Note that $\chi\leq \textrm{min}\{2l({\overline{\mu}}),2l({\overline{\nu}})\}$ and if $\gamma=\emptyset$, the equality holds if and only if ${\overline{\nu}}=-{\overline{\mu}}$, where $-{\overline{\mu}}$ is defined to be $$-{\overline{\mu}}:=\{(\mu_1,-k_1),\cdots , (\mu_{l(\mu)}, -k_{l(\mu)})\}$$ In this case vir.dim${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})//{{\Bbb C}}^*=-1$ and we set the convention that $$H^\bullet_{2l({\overline{\mu}}),\emptyset}({\overline{\mu}},-{\overline{\mu}})_m=\frac{1}{Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}}$$ where $Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}=|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|m^{l({\overline{\mu}})}\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\mu}})}\mu_i$. The same convention is used in the study of wreath Hurwitz numbers since the Burnside formula for wreath Hurwitz numbers extends naturally to this boundary case. See [@Joh] [@Zhang-Zhou] for more details on the Burnside formula and other combinatorial expressions of the wreath Hurwitz numbers.
We define generating functions of $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}},\gamma}(\lambda)_m&=&\sum_{\chi\in 2{{\Bbb Z}},\chi\leq\min\{2l({\overline{\mu}}),2l({\overline{\nu}})\}}\frac{\lambda^{-\chi+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}})+l(\gamma)}}
{(-\chi+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}}))!}H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m\\
\Phi^\bullet(\lambda;p^+,p^-,x)_m&=&\sum_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}},\gamma}\Phi^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}},\gamma}(\lambda)_mp^+_{{\overline{\mu}}}
p^-_{{\overline{\nu}}}\frac{x_\gamma}{\gamma!}=\sum_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}\Phi^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;x)_mp^+_{{\overline{\mu}}}
p^-_{{\overline{\nu}}}\end{aligned}$$ where $p^+=(p^+_{(i,j)})_{i\in{{\Bbb Z}}_+,j\in\{0,\cdots,m-1\}},p^-=(p^-_{(i,j)})_{i\in{{\Bbb Z}}_+,j\in\{0,\cdots,m-1\}},x=(x_1,\cdots,x_{m-1})$ are formal variables, $p^+_{{\overline{\mu}}}=p^+_{(\mu_1,k_1)}\cdots p^+_{(\mu_{l({\overline{\mu}})},k_{l({\overline{\mu}})})}, p^-_{{\overline{\nu}}}=p^-_{(\nu_1,l_1)}\cdots p^-_{(\nu_{l({\overline{\nu}})},l_{l({\overline{\nu}})})},x_{\gamma}=x_{\gamma_1}\cdots x_{\gamma_n}$ and we use the more intuitive symbol $\gamma!$ to denote $|\operatorname{Aut}(\gamma)|$. We will also consider the connected orbifold rubber integral $$H^\circ_{g,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m=\frac{(2g-2+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}}))!}{{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\nu}})||\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})//{{\Bbb C}}^*]^{{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}}(\psi^{0})^{2g-2+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}})+l(\gamma)-1}$$ and the corresponding generating functions $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^\circ_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}},\gamma}(\lambda)_m&=&\sum_{g=0}^{\infty}\frac{\lambda^{2g-2+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}})+l(\gamma)}}
{(2g-2+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}}))!}H^\circ_{g,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m\\
\Phi^\circ(\lambda;p^+,p^-,x)_m&=&\sum_{{\overline{\mu}}\neq\emptyset,{\overline{\nu}}\neq\emptyset,\gamma}
\Phi^\circ_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}},\gamma}(\lambda)_mp^+_{{\overline{\mu}}}
p^-_{{\overline{\nu}}}\frac{x_\gamma}{\gamma!}
=\sum_{{\overline{\mu}}\neq\emptyset,{\overline{\nu}}\neq\emptyset}\Phi^\circ_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;x)_mp^+_{{\overline{\mu}}}
p^-_{{\overline{\nu}}}\end{aligned}$$ Then we have the following relation: $$\label{eqn:expphim}
\Phi^{\bullet}({\lambda};p^+,p^-,x)_m =\exp(\Phi^\circ({\lambda};p^+,p^-,x)_m).$$
Notice that although we take $\gamma$ to be a vector of nontrivial elements in ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$, the above construction of rubber integrals and their generating functions works for all $\gamma$. In particular, we can apply our construction to the non-orbifold case. So we define $$\begin{aligned}
H^\bullet_{\chi,n}(\mu,\nu):&=&\frac{(-\chi+l(\mu)+l(\nu)+n)!}{|\operatorname{Aut}(\nu)||\operatorname{Aut}(\mu)|}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, n}({{\Bbb P}}^1, \mu,\nu)//{{\Bbb C}}^*]^{{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}}(\psi^{0})^{-\chi+l(\mu)+l(\nu)+n-1}\\
H^\circ_{g,n}(\mu,\nu):&=&\frac{(2g-2+l(\mu)+l(\nu)+n)!}{|\operatorname{Aut}(\nu)||\operatorname{Aut}(\mu)|}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, n}({{\Bbb P}}^1, \mu,\nu)//{{\Bbb C}}^*]^{{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}}(\psi^{0})^{2g-2+l(\mu)+l(\nu)+n-1}\\\end{aligned}$$ We also define their generating functions to be $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^\bullet_{\mu,\nu,n}(\lambda)&=&\sum_{\chi\in 2{{\Bbb Z}},\chi\leq\min\{2l(\mu),2l(\nu)\}}\frac{\lambda^{-\chi+l(\mu)+l(\nu)+n}}
{(-\chi+l(\mu)+l(\nu)+n)!}H^\bullet_{\chi,n}(\mu,\nu)\\
\Phi^\bullet(\lambda;p^+,p^-,x)&=&\sum_{\mu,\nu,n}\Phi^\bullet_{\mu,\nu,n}(\lambda)p^+_{\mu}
p^-_{\nu}\frac{x^n}{n!}=\sum_{\mu,\nu}\Phi^\bullet_{\mu,\nu}(\lambda;x)p^+_{\mu}
p^-_{\nu}\\
\Phi^\circ_{\mu,\nu,n}(\lambda)&=&\sum_{g=0}^{\infty}\frac{\lambda^{2g-2+l(\mu)+l(\nu)+n}}
{(2g-2+l(\mu)+l(\nu)+n)!}H^\circ_{g,n}(\mu,\nu)\\
\Phi^\circ(\lambda;p^+,p^-,x)&=&\sum_{\mu\neq\emptyset,\nu\neq\emptyset,n}
\Phi^\circ_{\mu,\nu,n}(\lambda)p^+_{\mu}
p^-_{\nu}\frac{x^n}{n!}
=\sum_{\mu\neq\emptyset,\nu\neq\emptyset}\Phi^\circ_{\mu,\nu}(\lambda;x)p^+_{\mu}
p^-_{\nu}\end{aligned}$$ Then we also have the relation $$\label{eqn:expphi1}
\Phi^{\bullet}({\lambda};p^+,p^-,x) =\exp(\Phi^\circ({\lambda};p^+,p^-,x)).$$
Calculation of $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we will first give a geometric interpretation of $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$. Then we will calculate our orbifold rubber integral $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$ in two different ways: one is to express $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$ in terms of the usual (non-orbifold) double Hurwitz numbers and the other is to give a combinatorial expression of $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$ using the representation theory of the wreath product. In what follows, we assume $\gamma$ to be a vector of nontrivial elements in ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$.
### A geometric interpretation of $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$
For given $g,\gamma,{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}$, we fix $2g-2+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}})+l(\gamma)$ different points on ${{\Bbb P}}^1\setminus \{0,\infty\}$ and define $\hat{H}^\circ_{g,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$ to be the count of degree $md$ ($d=|{\overline{\mu}}|=|{\overline{\nu}}|$) covers $f:\tilde{C}\to {{\Bbb P}}^1$, with monodromy in the wreath product ${{\Bbb Z}}_m\wr S_d$ (see [@Mac]), with prescribed monodromy: the monodromy over 0 and $\infty$ must be ${\overline{\mu}}$ and ${\overline{\nu}}$ respectively, the monodromy over each of the $2g-2+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}})$ (fixed) points must be $\{(2,0),(1,0),\cdots,(1,0)\}$, the monodromy over the (fixed) point corresponding to $\gamma_i$ must be $\{(1,\gamma_i),(1,0),\cdots,(1,0)\}$ and $\tilde{C}/{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ is a connected genus $g$ twisted curve. If we do not require $\tilde{C}/{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ to be connected and require the Euler characteristic of $\tilde{C}/{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ to be $\chi$, then the corresponding number of covers is denoted by $\hat{H}^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$.
For $n=l(\gamma)$, consider the canonical map $$\rho: {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})\to {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, n}({{\Bbb P}}^1, \mu,\nu)$$ which forgets the orbifold structure. Then we have the following lemma which is completely similar to lemma 6 in [@JPT].
Consider $\rho|_{{{{\mathcal}M}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})//{{\Bbb C}}^*}:{{{\mathcal}M}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})\to {{{\mathcal}M}}_{g, n}({{\Bbb P}}^1, \mu,\nu)$, we have $$\deg(\rho|_{{{{\mathcal}M}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})})=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}0,
&\sum_{j=1}^{n}\gamma_{j}+\sum_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\mu}})}k_i+\sum_{q=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}l_q\neq 0\\
m^{2g-1},&\sum_{j=1}^{n}\gamma_{j}+\sum_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\mu}})}k_i+\sum_{q=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}l_q=0\end{array}\right.$$ where $\gamma=(\gamma_{1}, \cdots, \gamma_{n}), {\overline{\mu}}=\{(\mu_1,k_1),\cdots , (\mu_{l(\mu)}, k_{l(\mu)})\},{\overline{\nu}}=\{(\nu_1,l_1),\cdots , (\nu_{l(\nu)}, l_{l(\nu)})\}$.
Let $ \left[ f:(C,x_1,\ldots,x_{n}, y_1, \cdots , y_{l({\overline{\mu}})},z_1,\cdots,z_{l({\overline{\nu}})})\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_m[a_{0},a_1] \right]$ be a point in ${{{\mathcal}M}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})$ and let $(C',x_1',\ldots,x_{n}', y_1', \cdots , y_{l({\overline{\mu}})}',z_1',\cdots,z_{l({\overline{\nu}})}')$ be the coarse curve of $C$. The map $f$ together with the projection map ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_m[a_{0},a_1]\to {{\Bbb P}}^1[a_0,a_1]$ induce a map $f':(C',x_1',\ldots,x_{n}', y_1', \cdots , y_{l({\overline{\mu}})}',z_1',\cdots,z_{l({\overline{\nu}})}')\to {{\Bbb P}}^1[a_{0},a_1]$. Then we have $\rho([f])=[f']$. Conversely, given $[f']$, the map from $C$ to ${{\Bbb P}}^1$ is given by the composition of $f'$ and the canonical map $C\to C'$. So the preimage of $[f']$ is parameterized by the maps $C\to {{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ with given monodromies $\gamma,k,l$ at the corresponding marked points. Therefore, if $\sum_{j=1}^{n}\gamma_{j}+\sum_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\mu}})}k_i+\sum_{q=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}l_q\neq 0$, then there are $m^{2g}$ points in a fiber of $\rho$ corresponding to the monodromies around the $2g$ noncontractible loops on $C'$. Since ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$ is abelian, a ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-cover has automorphism group ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$. So the degree of $\rho$ is $m^{2g-1}$.
Recall that we have a branch morphism $$Br:{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, n}({{\Bbb P}}^1, \mu,\nu)\to\textrm{Sym}^r{{\Bbb P}}^1\cong {{\Bbb P}}^r$$ where $r=2g-2+l(\mu)+l(\nu)$, and evaluation maps $$ev_i: {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, n}({{\Bbb P}}^1, \mu,\nu)\to{{\Bbb P}}^1$$ for $i=1,\cdots,n$. The usual nonsingularity and Bertini arguments [@Fan-Pan] show that $$\label{eqn:orbibranch}
\hat{H}^\circ_{g,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m=\frac{1}{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})||\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\nu}})|}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})]^{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}(\rho\circ Br)^*(pt)\cdot (\rho\circ ev_1)^*(pt)\cdots(\rho\circ ev_n)^*(pt)$$ Localization calculations similar to those in [@Liu-Liu-Zhou2] show that $$\hat{H}^\circ_{g,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m= \frac{(2g-2+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}}))!}{{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\nu}})||\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})//{{\Bbb C}}^*]^{{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}}(\psi^{0})^{2g-2+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}})+l(\gamma)-1}.$$ In other words, we have $$\hat{H}^\circ_{g,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m=H^\circ_{g,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m.$$ Similarly, we also have $\hat{H}^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m=H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$.
Using the same localization calculations, the following identity holds $$\label{eqn:branch}
H^\circ_{g,n}(\mu,\nu)=\frac{1}{|\operatorname{Aut}(\mu)||\operatorname{Aut}(\nu)|}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, n}({{\Bbb P}}^1, \mu,\nu)]^{ {\mathrm{vir}} }} Br^*(pt)\cdot ev_1^*(pt)\cdots ev_n^*(pt)$$
Lemma 3.1 together with (\[eqn:orbibranch\]) (\[eqn:branch\]) and the nonsingularity and Bertini arguments show that $$\label{eqn:deg}
H^\circ_{g,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m=\hat{H}^\circ_{g,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m=\frac{|\operatorname{Aut}(\nu)||\operatorname{Aut}(\mu)|}{{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\nu}})||\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}}\delta_{0,\langle \frac{\sum_{j=1}^{n}\gamma_{j}+\sum_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\mu}})}k_i+\sum_{q=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}l_q}{m}\rangle}m^{2g-1}H^\circ_{g,n}(\mu,\nu)$$
By the divisor equation, we have $$\label{eqn:div}
H^\circ_{g,n}(\mu,\nu)=\frac{d^n}{|\operatorname{Aut}(\mu)||\operatorname{Aut}(\nu)|}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g, n}({{\Bbb P}}^1, \mu,\nu)]^{ {\mathrm{vir}} }} Br^*(pt)=d^nH^\circ_{g}(\mu,\nu)$$ and hence $$\label{eqn:n}
H^\bullet_{\chi,n}(\mu,\nu)=d^nH^\bullet_{\chi}(\mu,\nu)$$
Another way to obtain (\[eqn:div\]) (\[eqn:n\]) is to use the degeneration formula. By equation (2.10) in [@Oko-Pan1], we have the following relation $$H^\bullet_{\chi,n}(\mu,\nu)=\sum_{S\subset \{2,\cdots,n\}}\sum_{\eta }H^\bullet_{\chi,n-1-|S|}(\nu,\eta)z_{\eta}\frac{1}{|\operatorname{Aut}(\mu)||\operatorname{Aut}(\eta)|}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi', |S|+1}({{\Bbb P}}^1, \eta,\mu)]^{{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}}\omega$$ where $z_{\eta}=|\operatorname{Aut}(\eta)|\eta_1\cdots\eta_{l(\eta)}$, $\chi'$ is chosen to make the second integral nonzero and $\omega$ is the Poincare dual of a point. But the only way to make the second integral nonzero is to set $S=\emptyset, \eta=\mu$ and $\chi'=2l(\mu)$. In this case, we have $$\frac{1}{|\operatorname{Aut}(\mu)||\operatorname{Aut}(\eta)|}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi', |S|+1}({{\Bbb P}}^1, \eta,\mu)]^{{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}}\omega=\frac{1}{|\operatorname{Aut}(\eta)|}\sum_{i=1}^{l(\eta)}\frac{\eta_i}{\eta_1\cdots\eta_{l(\eta)}}$$ Therefore we have $$H^\bullet_{\chi,n}(\mu,\nu)=dH^\bullet_{\chi,n-1}(\mu,\nu)$$ where $d=|\mu|=|\nu|$. Repeating this process for $n$ times, we obtain (\[eqn:n\]).
In conclusion, equations (\[eqn:expphim\]) (\[eqn:deg\]) (\[eqn:div\]) completely determine the orbifold rubber integral $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$.
### A combinatorial expression of $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$
Let $({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d$ denote the wreath product ${{\Bbb Z}}_m\wr S_d$ (see [@Mac]). Any ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition ${\overline{\mu}}$ with $|{\overline{\mu}}|=d$ can be viewed as a conjugacy class in ${{\Bbb Z}}_m\wr S_d$. By the geometric interpretation of $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$, it is easy to show that $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$ has the following algebraic definition: $$H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m=\frac{1}{|({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d|}|\{(\sigma_0,\sigma_\infty,\sigma_1,\cdots,\sigma_r,\omega_1,
\cdots,\omega_n)\in({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d^{n+r+2}|\sigma_0\sigma_\infty\cdot\sigma_1\cdots\sigma_r\cdot\omega_1
\cdots\omega_n=1\}$$ such that $\sigma_0$ has type ${\overline{\mu}}$, $\sigma_\infty$ has type ${\overline{\nu}}$, $\sigma_1,\cdots,\sigma_r$ have type $\tau_0$ and $\omega_i$ has type $\rho_{\gamma_i}$, where $$\tau_0=\{(2,0),(1,0),\cdots,(1,0)\}$$ and $$\rho_{\gamma_i}=\{(1,\gamma_i),(1,0),\cdots,(1,0)\}.$$
Let ${{\Bbb C}}[({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d]$ be the group algebra associated to $({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d$ and $Z{{\Bbb C}}[({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d]$ the center of ${{\Bbb C}}[({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d]$. For any ${\overline{\mu}}$, define $C_{{\overline{\mu}}}\in Z{{\Bbb C}}[({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d]$ to be the sum of elements of type ${\overline{\mu}}$. Then by the above algebraic definition of $H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m$, we have $$H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m=\frac{1}{|({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d|}[1]C_{{\overline{\mu}}}C_{{\overline{\nu}}}C_{\tau_0}^r\prod_{i=1}^{l(\gamma)}
C_{\rho_{\gamma_i}}$$ where $r=2g-2+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}})$ and for any $x\in {{\Bbb C}}[({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d]$, $[1]x$ means taking the coefficient of the identity element.
The center $Z{{\Bbb C}}[({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d]$ is called the class algebra since it has a basis $$\{C_{{\overline{\mu}}}\}_{|{\overline{\mu}}|=d}$$ indexed by the conjugacy classes. On the other hand, $Z{{\Bbb C}}[({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d]$ also has a semisimple basis $$\{E_{{\overline{\xi}}}\}_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}$$ indexed by the irreducible representations of $({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d$. We have $$E_{{\overline{\xi}}}=\frac{\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}}{|({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d|}\sum_{|{\overline{\mu}}|=d}X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}})C_{{\overline{\mu}}}$$ and $$C_{{\overline{\mu}}}=\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}\frac{|C_{{\overline{\mu}}}|X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}})}{\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}}E_{{\overline{\xi}}}=\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}
F_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}})E_{{\overline{\xi}}}$$ where $X_{{\overline{\xi}}}$ and $\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}$ are character and dimension of the irreducible representations of $({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d$ associated with ${\overline{\xi}}$ respectively and $F_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}})=\frac{|C_{{\overline{\mu}}}|X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}})}{\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}}$.
Therefore we have, $$\begin{aligned}
H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m&=&\frac{1}{|({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d|}[1]C_{{\overline{\mu}}}C_{{\overline{\nu}}}C_{\tau_0}^r\prod_{i=1}^{l(\gamma)}
C_{\rho_{\gamma_i}}\\
&=&\frac{1}{|({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d|}[1](\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}
F_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}})E_{{\overline{\xi}}})(\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}
F_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\nu}})E_{{\overline{\xi}}})(\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}
F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)E_{{\overline{\xi}}})^r\prod_{i=1}^{l(\gamma)}(\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}
F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i})E_{{\overline{\xi}}})\\
&=&\frac{1}{|({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d|}[1]\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}(F_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}})F_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\nu}})F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)^r\prod_{i=1}^{l(\gamma)}
F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i}))E_{{\overline{\xi}}}\\
&=&\frac{1}{|({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d|}\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}(F_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}})F_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\nu}})F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)^r\prod_{i=1}^{l(\gamma)}
F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i}))\frac{(\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}})^2}{|({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d|}\\
&=&\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}\frac{X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}})}{Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}}\frac{X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\nu}})}{Z_{{\overline{\nu}}}}
F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)^r\prod_{i=1}^{l(\gamma)}F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i})\end{aligned}$$ where in the fourth identity we used the fact that $[1]E_{{\overline{\xi}}}=\frac{(\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}})^2}{|({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d|}$.
In order to compute $F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)$ and $F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i})$, we need to introduce some notations (see [@Mac]). For any ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition ${\overline{\mu}}$, we can decompose ${\overline{\mu}}$ into the following form $${\overline{\mu}}=\overline{{\overline{\mu}}(0)}\sqcup\cdots\sqcup\overline{{\overline{\mu}}(m-1)}$$ where $\overline{{\overline{\mu}}(i)}$ is weighted by the single element $i\in{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ i.e. $\overline{{\overline{\mu}}(i)}=\{(\mu(i)_1,i),\cdots,(\mu(i)_{l({\overline{\mu}}(i))},i)\}$. We denote the underlying partition of $\overline{{\overline{\mu}}(i)}$ by ${\overline{\mu}}(i)$. For any $d\geq 1$ and $k\in {{\Bbb Z}}_m$, let $p_d(k)$ be the $d^{th}$ power sum in a sequence of variables $y_k=(y_{(n,k)})_{n\geq 1}$. For any partition $\mu=\{\mu_1,\cdots,\mu_{l(\mu)}\}$, let $p_{\mu}(k)=p_{\mu_1}(k)\cdots p_{\mu_{l(\mu)}}(k)$. For any ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition ${\overline{\mu}}$, let $$P_{{\overline{\mu}}}=\prod_{k\in{{\Bbb Z}}_m}p_{{\overline{\mu}}(k)}(k).$$ Then the elements $P_{{\overline{\mu}}}, |{\overline{\mu}}|\geq 1$ form a basis of the following ring $$\Lambda_m={{\Bbb C}}[p_d(k)]_{d\geq 1,k\in {{\Bbb Z}}_m}.$$ We define a bilinear form $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ on $\Lambda_m$ by setting $$\langle P_{{\overline{\mu}}},P_{{\overline{\nu}}}\rangle=\delta_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}.$$
On the other hand, for any irreducible character $\alpha$ of ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$ and any $d\geq 1$, we can define $$p_d(\alpha)=\sum_{k\in {{\Bbb Z}}_m}\frac{\alpha(k)}{m}p_d(k).$$ Let $\alpha_i(k)=e^{\frac{2ik\pi\sqrt{-1}}{m}},k\in{{\Bbb Z}}_m$. Then $\{\alpha_i|0\leq i\leq m-1\}$ is the set of irreducible character of ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$ and we have $$p_d(k)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\alpha_i(-k)p_d(\alpha_i).$$ If we regard $p_d(\alpha)$ as the $d^{th}$ power sum in a sequence of variables $y_{\alpha}=(y_{(n,\alpha)})_{n\geq 1}$, then for any partition $\mu$ we can define the Schur function $s_{\mu}(\alpha)=s_{\mu}(y_{\alpha})$. Therefore for any ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition ${\overline{\mu}}$, we can define the Schur function $$S_{{\overline{\mu}}}=\prod_{i=0}^{m-1}s_{{\overline{\mu}}(i)}(\alpha_i),$$ and $S_{{\overline{\mu}}}, |{\overline{\mu}}|\geq 1$ also form a basis of $\Lambda_m$.
The following proposition can be found in [@Mac]
For any ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partitions ${\overline{\mu}}$ and ${\overline{\xi}}$, one has $$\langle S_{{\overline{\xi}}},P_{{\overline{\mu}}}\rangle=X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}}).$$
In particular, if we define $\epsilon$ to be $$\epsilon=\{(1,0),\cdots,(1,0)\},$$ then for $|{\overline{\xi}}|=|\epsilon|=d$ we have $$\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}=X_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\epsilon)=\langle S_{{\overline{\xi}}},P_{\epsilon}\rangle=\langle S_{{\overline{\xi}}},(\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}
p_1(\alpha_i))^d\rangle=d!\prod_{i=0}^{m-1}\frac{\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}(i)}{|{\overline{\xi}}(i)|}.$$
When $m=1$, $F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)$ can be computed in the following proposition (see Example 7 in page 117 of [@Mac]):
Let $\xi$ be an ordinary partition of $d\geq 1$. Then $$F_{\xi}(\tau_0)=\frac{\kappa_{\xi}}{2}$$ where $\kappa_{\xi}=\sum_{i=1}^{l(\xi)}\xi_i(\xi_i-2i+1)$ and $\tau_0=(1^{d-2}2)$.
Now let us compute $F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)$ and $F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i})$ by proving the following lemma:
$$\begin{aligned}
F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)&=&\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\frac{m\kappa_{{\overline{\xi}}(i)}}{2},\\
F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i})&=&\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}|{\overline{\xi}}(j)|
e^{\frac{-2\gamma_ij\pi\sqrt{-1}}{m}}\end{aligned}$$
Let $|{\overline{\xi}}|=|\tau_0|=|\rho_{\gamma_i}|=d, d_j=|{\overline{\xi}}(j)|, j=0,\cdots,m-1$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
X_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)&=&\langle S_{{\overline{\xi}}},P_{\tau_0}\rangle=\langle\prod_{i=0}^{m-1}S_{{\overline{\xi}}(i)}(\alpha_i),p_1(0)^{d-2}p_2(0)\rangle\\
&=&\langle\prod_{i=0}^{m-1}S_{{\overline{\xi}}(i)}(\alpha_i),(\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}p_1(\alpha_j))^{d-2}
(\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}p_2(\alpha_l))\rangle\\
&=&(d-2)!\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}\sum_{\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}n_j=d-2}\langle\prod_{i=0}^{m-1}S_{{\overline{\xi}}(i)}(\alpha_i),\prod_{j\neq l}
\frac{p_1(\alpha_j)^{n_j}}{n_j!}\frac{p_1(\alpha_l)^{n_l}}{n_l!}p_2(\alpha_l)\rangle\\
&=&(d-2)!\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}\langle\prod_{i=0}^{m-1}S_{{\overline{\xi}}(i)}(\alpha_i),\prod_{j\neq l}
\frac{p_1(\alpha_j)^{d_j}}{d_j!}\frac{p_1(\alpha_l)^{d_l-2}}{(d_l-2)!}p_2(\alpha_l)\rangle\\
&=&(d-2)!\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}\prod_{j\neq l}\langle S_{{\overline{\xi}}(j)}(\alpha_j),\frac{p_1(\alpha_j)^{d_j}}{d_j!}\rangle
\langle S_{{\overline{\xi}}(l)}(\alpha_l),\frac{p_1(\alpha_l)^{d_l-2}}{(d_l-2)!}p_2(\alpha_l)\rangle\\
&=&(d-2)!\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}\prod_{j\neq l}\frac{\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}(j)}{d_j!}\frac{\kappa_{{\overline{\xi}}(l)}\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}(l)}
{(d_l-2)!d_l(d_l-1)}\\
&=&(d-2)!\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}\kappa_{{\overline{\xi}}(l)}\prod_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}(j)}{d_j!}\\
&=&\frac{1}{d(d-1)}\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}\kappa_{{\overline{\xi}}(l)}\\\end{aligned}$$ where in the sixth identity we used Proposition 3.3. Note that $|C({\overline{\mu}})|=\frac{|({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d|}{Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}}$ for any ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition ${\overline{\mu}}$. So we have $$F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)=\frac{|C_{\tau_0}|X_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)}{\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}}=
\frac{d!m^dX_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)}{2(d-2)!m^{d-1}\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}}=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\frac{m\kappa_{{\overline{\xi}}(i)}}{2}$$ which proves the first identity. For the second identity, we have $$\begin{aligned}
X_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i})&=&\langle S_{{\overline{\xi}}},P_{\rho_{\gamma_i}}\rangle=\langle\prod_{a=0}^{m-1}S_{{\overline{\xi}}(a)}(\alpha_a),p_1(0)^{d-1}p_1(\gamma_i)\rangle\\
&=&\langle\prod_{a=0}^{m-1}S_{{\overline{\xi}}(a)}(\alpha_a),(\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}p_1(\alpha_j))^{d-1}
(\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}\alpha_l(-\gamma_i)p_1(\alpha_l))\rangle\\
&=&(d-1)!\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}\sum_{\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}n_j=d-1}\langle\prod_{a=0}^{m-1}S_{{\overline{\xi}}(a)}(\alpha_a),\prod_{j\neq l}
\frac{p_1(\alpha_j)^{n_j}}{n_j!}\frac{p_1(\alpha_l)^{n_l}}{n_l!}\alpha_l(-\gamma_i)p_1(\alpha_l)\rangle\\
&=&(d-1)!\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}\langle\prod_{a=0}^{m-1}S_{{\overline{\xi}}(a)}(\alpha_a),\prod_{j\neq l}
\frac{p_1(\alpha_j)^{d_j}}{d_j!}\frac{p_1(\alpha_l)^{d_l-1}}{(d_l-1)!}\alpha_l(-\gamma_i)p_1(\alpha_l)\rangle\\
&=&(d-1)!\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}\prod_{j\neq l}\langle S_{{\overline{\xi}}(j)}(\alpha_j),\frac{p_1(\alpha_j)^{d_j}}{d_j!}\rangle
\langle S_{{\overline{\xi}}(l)}(\alpha_l),\alpha_l(-\gamma_i)\frac{p_1(\alpha_l)^{d_l-1}}{(d_l-1)!}p_1(\alpha_l)\rangle\\
&=&(d-1)!\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}\prod_{j\neq l}\frac{\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}(j)}{d_j!}\frac{\alpha_l(-\gamma_i)\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}(l)}
{(d_l-1)!}\\
&=&(d-1)!\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}d_l\alpha_l(-\gamma_i)\prod_{j=0}^{m-1}\frac{\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}(j)}{d_j!}\\
&=&\frac{1}{d}\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}\sum_{l=0}^{m-1}d_l\alpha_l(-\gamma_i).\end{aligned}$$ Note that $|C(\rho_{\gamma_i})|=\frac{|({{\Bbb Z}}_m)_d|}{Z_{\rho_{\gamma_i}}}=\frac{d!m^d}{(d-1)!m^d}=d$, so we have $$F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i})=\frac{|C_{\rho_{\gamma_i}}|X_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i})}{\textrm{dim}{\overline{\xi}}}=
\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}|{\overline{\xi}}(j)|e^{\frac{-2\gamma_ij\pi\sqrt{-1}}{m}},$$ which proves the second identity.
We summarize the above computation in the following theorem
$$H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m=\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}
\frac{X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}})}{Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}}\frac{X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\nu}})}{Z_{{\overline{\nu}}}}
F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)^r\prod_{i=1}^{l(\gamma)}F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i}),$$ where $F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\frac{m\kappa_{{\overline{\xi}}(i)}}{2}$ and $F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{\gamma_i})=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}|{\overline{\xi}}(j)|
e^{\frac{-2\gamma_ij\pi\sqrt{-1}}{m}}$.
If we consider the generating function $\Phi^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;x)_m$ defined in section 3.1, it is easy to obtain the corresponding formula for $\Phi^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;x)_m$: $$\label{eqn:Burnside}
\Phi^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;x)_m=\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=d}
\frac{X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\mu}})}{Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}}\frac{X_{{\overline{\xi}}}({\overline{\nu}})}{Z_{{\overline{\nu}}}}e^{F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\tau_0)\lambda}
\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}e^{F_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\rho_{i})x_i\lambda}$$
Virtual Localization
====================
In this section, we calculate ${{K}^{\bullet s}_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}}$ by virtual localization.
Fixed points
------------
The connected components of the ${{\Bbb C}}^*$ fixed points set of ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, {\overline{\mu}})$ are parameterized by labeled graphs. We first introduce some graph notations which are similar to those in [@Liu-Liu-Zhou1].
Let $$\left[ f:(C,x_1,\ldots,x_{n}, y_1, \cdots , y_{l({\overline{\mu}})})\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_s[a]\ \right]\in {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, {\overline{\mu}})$$ be a fixed point of the ${{\Bbb C}}^*$-action. The restriction of the map $$\tilde{f}=\pi_s[a]\circ f: C\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_s.$$ to an irreducible component of $C$ is either a constant map to one of the ${{\Bbb C}}^*$ fixed points $p_0=0, p_1=\infty$ or a cover of ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$ which is fully ramified over $p_0$ and $p_1$. We associate a labeled graph $\Gamma$ to the ${{\Bbb C}}^*$ fixed point $$\left[ f:(C,x_1,\ldots,x_{n}, y_1, \cdots , y_{l({\overline{\mu}})})\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_s[a]\ \right]\in {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, {\overline{\mu}})$$ as follows:
1. We assign a vertex $v$ to each connected component $C_v$ of $\tilde{f}^{-1}(\{p_0,p_1\})$, a label $i(v)=i$ if $\tilde{f}(C_v)=p_i$, where $i=0,1$, and a label $g(v)$ which is the arithmetic genus of $C_v$ (We define $g(v)=0$ if $C_v$ is a point). We assign a set $n(v)$ of marked points on $C_v$. Denote by $V(\Gamma)^{(i)}$ the set of vertices with $i(v)=i$, where $i=0,1$. Then the set $V(\Gamma)$ of vertices of the graph $\Gamma$ is a disjoint union of $V(\Gamma)^{(0)}$ and $V(\Gamma)^{(1)}$.
2. We assign an edge $e$ to each rational irreducible component $C_e$ of $C$ such that $\tilde{f}|_{C_e}$ is not a constant map. Let $d(e)$ be the degree of $\tilde{f}|_{C_e}$ and $l(e)$ the monodromy around the unique point on $C_e$ which lies over $p_1$. Then $\tilde{f}|_{C_e}$ is fully ramified over $p_0$ and $p_1$. Let $E(\Gamma)$ denote the set of edges of $\Gamma$.
3. The set of flags of $\Gamma$ is given by $$F(\Gamma)=\{(v,e):v\in V(\Gamma), e\in E(\Gamma),
C_v\cap C_e\neq \emptyset \}.$$
4. For each $v\in V(\Gamma)$, define $$d(v)=\sum_{(v,e)\in F(\Gamma)}d(e),$$ and let ${\overline{\nu}}(v)$ be the ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition of $d(v)$ determined by $\{(d(e),l(e)): (v,e)\in F(\Gamma)\}$ and let ${\overline{\nu}}$ be the ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition of $d$ determined by $\{(d(e),l(e)): e\in E(\Gamma)\}$ . When the target is ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_s[a]$, where $a>0$, we assign an additional label for each $v\in V(\Gamma)^{(1)}$: let ${\overline{\mu}}(v)$ be the ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition of $d(v)$ determined by the ramification of $f|_{C_v}:C_v\to{{{\mathcal}Y}}_s[a]$ over $p_1^{(a)}$.
Note that for $v\in V(\Gamma)^{(1)}$, ${\overline{\nu}}(v)$ has the same partition but the opposite monodromies with the ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition of $d(v)$ determined by the ramification of $f|_{C_v}:C_v\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_0(a)$ over $p_1^{(0)}$.
For any $e\in E(\Gamma)$, consider the map $f|_{C_e}:C_e\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$. If the monodromy around the unique point on $C_e$ which lies over $p_1$ is $l(e)$, then by Lemma II.13 in [@Joh], the monodromy around the unique point on $C_e$ which lies over $p_0$ is $-l(e)-d(e)s$. Let $$w^s_{d(e)}(l(e))=-l(e)-d(e)s.$$ Similarly, for any ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition ${\overline{\nu}}=\{(\nu_1,l_1),\cdots,(\nu_{l(\nu)},l_{l(\nu)})\}$, let $$w^s({\overline{\nu}})=\{(\nu_1,w^s_{\nu_1}(l_1)),\cdots,(\nu_{l(\nu)},w^s_{\nu_{l(\nu)}}(l_{l(\nu)}))\}.$$
Let ${{{\mathcal}M}}_{(\nu_i,l_i)}$ be the moduli space of ${{\Bbb C}}^*$-fixed degree $\nu_i$ covers of ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_s$ with monodromies $l_i$ and $w^s_{\nu_i}(l_i)$ around $\infty$ and $0$ respectively. Let $$\begin{aligned}
J_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}=\{(\chi^0,\chi^1,{\overline{\nu}},\gamma^0,\gamma^1)|\chi^0,\chi^1\in 2{{\Bbb Z}},|{\overline{\nu}}|=|{\overline{\mu}}|,\gamma^0\sqcup \gamma^1=\gamma,\\
-\chi^0+2l({\overline{\nu}})-\chi^1=-\chi,-\chi^0+2l({\overline{\nu}})\geq 0,-\chi^1+l({\overline{\nu}})+l({\overline{\mu}})\geq 0\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then the ${{\Bbb C}}^*$-fixed locus can be identified with $$\begin{aligned}
\bigsqcup_{(\chi^0,\chi^1,{\overline{\nu}},\gamma^0,\gamma^1)\in J_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}}&&({\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi^0, \gamma^0-w^s_{\nu}(l)}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)\times_{\bar{I}{{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_{m}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}}{{{\mathcal}M}}_{(\nu_1,l_1)}
\times\cdots\times{{{\mathcal}M}}_{(\nu_{l({\overline{\nu}})},l_{l({\overline{\nu}})})}\\
&&\times_{\bar{I}{{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_{m}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}}{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi^1, \gamma^1}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0,-{\overline{\nu}}, {\overline{\mu}})//{{\Bbb C}}^*)/\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\nu}})\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{I}{{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_{m}$ is the rigidified inertia stack of ${{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_{m}, l=(l_1,\cdots,l_{l({\overline{\nu}})})$ and $w^s_{\nu}(l)=(w^s_{\nu_1}(l_1),\cdots,w^s_{\nu_{l(\nu)}}(l_{l(\nu)})$. Therefore, we can calculate our integral over $$\bigsqcup_{(\chi^0,\chi^1,{\overline{\nu}},\gamma^0,\gamma^1)\in J_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}}{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi^0, \gamma^0-w^s_{\nu}(l)}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)\times{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi^1, \gamma^1}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0,-{\overline{\nu}}, {\overline{\mu}})//{{\Bbb C}}^*$$ provided we include the following factor $$\frac{1}{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\nu}})|}\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}\frac{1}{m\nu_i}(\frac{m}{b_i})(\frac{m}{c_i})$$ where $b_i=\frac{m}{\textrm{gcd}(m,l_i)}$ and $c_i=\frac{m}{\textrm{gcd}(m,w^s_{\nu_i}(l_i))}$ are the orders of $l_i\in {{\Bbb Z}}_m$ and $w^s_{\nu_i}(l_i)\in{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ respectively.
We will use the following convention for the unstable integrals to simplify our expression $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{0,(0)}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)}\frac{1}{1-d\bar{\psi}}&=&\frac{1}{md^2}\\
\int_{{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{0,(c,-c)}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)}\frac{1}{(1-d_1\bar{\psi}_1)(1
-d_2\bar{\psi_2})}
&=& \frac{1}{m(d_1+d_2)}\\
\int_{{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{0,(c,-c)}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)}\frac{1}{(1-d\bar{\psi}_1)}=\frac{1}{md}\end{aligned}$$
Contribution from each graph
----------------------------
Calculations similar to those in section 4 of [@Zong] show that $$\frac{i_{\Gamma}^*e_{{{\Bbb C}}^*}(V^0)}{e_{{{\Bbb C}}^*}(N_{\Gamma}^{\mathrm{vir} })}=A^{0}_0A^{1}_0$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A^0_0&=&\sqrt{-1}^d\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}\nu_i\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}\frac{\prod_{j=0}^{\nu_i-1}(\nu_{i}\tau+\frac{l_i}{m}+j)}
{\nu_i!(u-\nu_{i}\bar{\psi_i})\frac{\operatorname{gcd}(l_{i},m)}{m}}\left(\frac{\nu_{i}\tau+\frac{l_i}{m}}{\nu_i}u\right)^
{-\delta_{0,l_i}}\\
&&\cdot\prod_{v \in V(\Gamma)^{(0)}}(\sqrt{-1})^{|{\overline{\nu}}(v)|+l({\overline{\nu}}(v))-2\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\nu}}(v))}\frac{m-l_i}{m}}
\Lambda_{g(v)}^{\vee,U}(\tau u)\Lambda_{g(v)}^{\vee,U^\vee}((-\tau-1)u)
\Lambda_{g(v)}^{\vee,1}(u)\\
&&\cdot(-1)^{-\delta_v}\left(\tau u(\tau+1)u\right)^{\sum_{(v,e)\in F(\Gamma)}\delta_{0,l(e)}-\delta_v}( u)^{l({\overline{\nu}}(v))-1}\\
A^1_0&=& \left\{\begin{array}{ll}\sqrt{-1}^{l''({\overline{\mu}})-l'({\overline{\mu}})-2\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{k_i}{m}}, &\textrm{the target is }{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0\\
\sqrt{-1}^{l''({\overline{\mu}})-l'({\overline{\mu}})-2\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{k_i}{m}}\sqrt{-1}^{l(\gamma^1)-2\sum_{\gamma_i\in \gamma^1}\frac{\gamma_i}{m}}&\\
\cdot\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}\frac{m\nu_i}{\textrm{gcd}(m,l_i)}\frac{(\sqrt{-1}\tau u)^{-\chi^{1}+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}})+l(\gamma^1)}}{-u-\psi^0}, &\textrm{the target is }{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0[a],a>0
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $$\delta_{v}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}1, &\textrm{if all monodromies around loops on $C_v$ are trivial}\\
0, &\textrm{otherwise}.\end{array} \right.$$
For $1\leq s\leq m-1$, we have $$\frac{i_{\Gamma}^*e_{{{\Bbb C}}^*}(V^s)}{e_{{{\Bbb C}}^*}(N_{\Gamma}^{\mathrm{vir} })}=A^{0}_sA^{1}_s$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A^0_s&=&\sqrt{-1}^d\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}\nu_i\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}
\frac{\prod_{j=1}^{\nu_i}(-\frac{w^s_{\nu_i}(l_i)}{m}+j)u^{-\delta_{0,w^s_{\nu_i}(l_i)}}}
{\nu_i!(u-\nu_{i}\bar{\psi_i})\frac{\operatorname{gcd}(l_{i},m)}{m}}\\
&&\cdot\prod_{v \in V(\Gamma)^{(0)}}(\sqrt{-1})^{|{\overline{\nu}}(v)|+l({\overline{\nu}}(v))-2(\frac{|{\overline{\nu}}(v)|s}{m}+\sum_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}}(v))}\frac{w^s_{\nu_i}(l_i)}{m}})
\Lambda_{g(v)}^{\vee,U}(0)\Lambda_{g(v)}^{\vee,U^\vee}(-u)
\Lambda_{g(v)}^{\vee,1}(u)\\
&&\cdot(-1)^{\delta_v}(0)^{\sum_{(v,e)\in F(\Gamma)}\delta_{0,w^s_{d(e)}(l(e))}-\delta_v}(u)^{2(\sum_{(v,e)\in F(\Gamma)}\delta_{0,w^s_{d(e)}(l(e))}-\delta_v)+l({\overline{\nu}}(v))-1}\\
A^1_s&=& \left\{\begin{array}{ll}\sqrt{-1}^{l''({\overline{\mu}})-l'({\overline{\mu}})-2\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{k_i}{m}}(\frac{su}{m})^{-l'({\overline{\mu}})}, &\textrm{the target is }{{{\mathcal}Y}}_s\\
\sqrt{-1}^{l''({\overline{\mu}})-l'({\overline{\mu}})-2\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{k_i}{m}}\sqrt{-1}^{l(\gamma^1)-2\sum_{\gamma_i\in \gamma^1}\frac{\gamma_i}{m}}&\\
\cdot(\frac{su}{m})^{-l'({\overline{\mu}})}\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}\frac{m\nu_i}{\textrm{gcd}(m,l_i)}
\frac{(\frac{\sqrt{-1}su}{m})^{-\chi^{1}+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}})+l(\gamma^1)}}{-u-\psi^0}, &\textrm{the target is }{{{\mathcal}Y}}_s[a],a>0
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Theorem 1
------------------
$$\begin{aligned}
&&K^{\bullet 0}_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}\\
&=&\frac{1}{{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}})]^{{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}}e(V^0)\\
&=&\frac{1}{{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}}\sum_{(\chi^0,\chi^1,{\overline{\nu}},\gamma^0,\gamma^1)\in J_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}}\frac{1}{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\nu}})|}\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}\frac{1}{m\nu_i}(\frac{m}{b_i})^2\\
&&\cdot\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi^0, \gamma^0+l}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)\times{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi^1, \gamma^1}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0,-{\overline{\nu}}, {\overline{\mu}})//{{\Bbb C}}^*]^{{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}}\frac{i_{\Gamma}^*e_{{{\Bbb C}}^*}(V^0)}{e_{{{\Bbb C}}^*}(N_{\Gamma}^{\mathrm{vir} })}\\
&=&\sqrt{-1}^{d+l''({\overline{\mu}})-l'({\overline{\mu}})-2\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{k_i}{m}}\sum_{(\chi^0,\chi^1,{\overline{\nu}},\gamma^0,\gamma^1)\in J_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}}\\
&&\left(G^\bullet_{\chi^0,{\overline{\nu}},\gamma^0}(\tau)_{m}\cdot Z_{{\overline{\nu}}}\frac{(-\sqrt{-1}\tau)^{-\chi^1 +l({\overline{\nu}}) +l({\overline{\mu}})+l(\gamma^1)}}
{(-\chi^1 +l({\overline{\nu}}) +l({\overline{\mu}}))!}H^\bullet_{\chi^1,\gamma^1}({\overline{\mu}},-{\overline{\nu}})_m\cdot\sqrt{-1}^{l(\gamma^1)-2\sum_{\gamma_i\in \gamma^1}\frac{\gamma_i}{m}}\right)\end{aligned}$$
Define the generating function $K^{\bullet 0}_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;x)$ to be $$K^{\bullet 0}_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;x)=\sqrt{-1}^{-(d+l''({\overline{\mu}})-l'({\overline{\mu}})-2\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{k_i}{m})}\sum_{\chi,\gamma}\lambda^{-\chi+l({\overline{\mu}})+l(\gamma)}K^{\bullet 0}_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}\frac{x_\gamma}{\gamma!}.$$ Then we have $$K^{\bullet 0}_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;x)=\sum_{|{\overline{\nu}}|=|{\overline{\mu}}|}G^\bullet_{{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_mZ_{{\overline{\nu}}}
\Phi^\bullet_{-{\overline{\nu}},{\overline{\mu}}}(-\sqrt{-1}\tau\lambda;\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2}{m}}x_1,\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2i}{m}}x_i,
\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2(m-1)}{m}}x_{m-1})_m.$$ Let $\tau=0$ we have $$K^{\bullet 0}_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;x)=G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;0;x).$$ Define $G_d(\tau)=(G^\bullet_{{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_m)_{|{\overline{\nu}}|=d}$ and $G_d(0)=(G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m)_{|{\overline{\mu}}|=d}$ to be two column vectors indexed by ${\overline{\nu}}$ and ${\overline{\mu}}$ respectively. Let $\Phi_d(\tau)=(\Phi_d^{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\tau))_{|{\overline{\mu}}|=d,|{\overline{\nu}}|=d}$ be a matrix indexed by ${\overline{\nu}}$ and ${\overline{\mu}}$, where $$\Phi_d^{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\tau)=Z_{{\overline{\nu}}}
\Phi^\bullet_{-{\overline{\nu}},{\overline{\mu}}}(-\sqrt{-1}\tau\lambda;\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2}{m}}x_1,\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2i}{m}}x_i,
\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2(m-1)}{m}}x_{m-1})_m.$$ $\Phi_d(\tau)$ is invertible because if we view its entries as elements in ${{\Bbb C}}[[\lambda,x]]$ then only the diagonal entries have constant terms. So we have $$\label{eqn:framing1}
G_d(\tau)=\Phi_d(\tau)^{-1}G_d(0)$$ By the orthogonality of characters and (\[eqn:Burnside\]), it is easy to see that $$\label{eqn:othogonality1}
\Phi^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda_1+\lambda_2,x)_m=\sum_{{\overline{\xi}}}\Phi^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\xi}}}(\lambda_1,x)_m Z_{{\overline{\xi}}}
\Phi^\bullet_{-{\overline{\xi}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda_2,x)_m,$$ and $$\label{eqn:othogonality2}
\Phi^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(0,x)_m=\frac{1}{Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}}\delta_{{\overline{\mu}},-{\overline{\nu}}}.$$ Therefore, (\[eqn:framing1\]) is equivalent to $$\label{eqn:framing2}
G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_m=\sum_{|{\overline{\nu}}|=|{\overline{\mu}}|}G^\bullet_{{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m Z_{{\overline{\nu}}}
\Phi^\bullet_{-{\overline{\nu}},{\overline{\mu}}}(\sqrt{-1}\tau\lambda;\tilde{x})_m,$$ where $\tilde{x}=(\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2}{m}}x_1,\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2i}{m}}x_i,
\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2(m-1)}{m}}x_{m-1})$. This finishes the proof of Theorem 1.
Proof of Theorem 2
------------------
For any $1\leq s\leq m-1$ and $l'({\overline{\mu}})\neq 0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
0&=&{{K}^{\bullet s}_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}}\\
&=&\frac{1}{{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s, {\overline{\mu}})]^{{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}}e(V^s)\\
&=&\frac{1}{{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}}\sum_{(\chi^0,\chi^1,{\overline{\nu}},\gamma^0,\gamma^1)\in J_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}}\frac{1}{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\nu}})|}\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\nu}})}\frac{1}{m\nu_i}(\frac{m}{b_i})(\frac{m}{c_i})\\
&&\cdot\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi^0, \gamma^0-w^s_{\nu}(l)}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)\times{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi^1, \gamma^1}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_s,-{\overline{\nu}}, {\overline{\mu}})//{{\Bbb C}}^*]^{{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}}\frac{i_{\Gamma}^*e_{{{\Bbb C}}^*}(V^s)}{e_{{{\Bbb C}}^*}(N_{\Gamma}^{\mathrm{vir} })}\\
&=&\sqrt{-1}^{d+l''({\overline{\mu}})-l'({\overline{\mu}})-2(\frac{s}{m}|{\overline{\mu}}|+\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{k_i}{m})}(\frac{s}{m})^{-l'({\overline{\mu}})}\sum_{(\chi^0,\chi^1,{\overline{\nu}},\gamma^0,\gamma^1)\in J_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}}\\
&&\left(G^\bullet_{\chi^0,-w^s({\overline{\nu}}),\gamma^0}(0)_{m}\cdot Z_{{\overline{\nu}}}\frac{(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m})^{-\chi^1 +l({\overline{\nu}}) +l({\overline{\mu}})+l(\gamma^1)}}
{(-\chi^1 +l({\overline{\nu}}) +l({\overline{\mu}}))!}H^\bullet_{\chi^1,\gamma^1}({\overline{\mu}},-{\overline{\nu}})_m\cdot\sqrt{-1}^{l(\gamma^1)-2\sum_{\gamma_i\in \gamma^1}\frac{\gamma_i}{m}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Define the generating function $K^{\bullet s}_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;x)$ to be $$K^{\bullet s}_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;x)=\sqrt{-1}^{-(d+l''({\overline{\mu}})-l'({\overline{\mu}})-2(\frac{s}{m}|{\overline{\mu}}|+\sum_{i\in A''({\overline{\mu}})}\frac{k_i}{m}))}(\frac{s}{m})^{l'({\overline{\mu}})}\sum_{\chi,\gamma}\lambda^{-\chi+l({\overline{\mu}})+l(\gamma)}K^{\bullet s}_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}\frac{x_\gamma}{\gamma!}.$$ Then we have $$\label{eqn:key}
0=K^{\bullet s}_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;x)
=\sum_{|{\overline{\nu}}|=|{\overline{\mu}}|}G^\bullet_{-w^s({\overline{\nu}})}(\lambda;0;x)_mZ_{{\overline{\nu}}}
\Phi^\bullet_{-{\overline{\nu}},{\overline{\mu}}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m}\lambda;\tilde{x})_m,$$ where $\tilde{x}=(\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2}{m}}x_1,\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2i}{m}}x_i,
\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2(m-1)}{m}}x_{m-1})$.
Now notice that when $k_i=0$ for some $i\in\{1,\cdots,l({\overline{\mu}})\}$, if $G_{g,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma}(0)_m$ is nonzero, then the following two conditions must be satisfied
1. $l({\overline{\mu}})=1$.
2. $\gamma=\emptyset$.
Let ${{{\mathcal}M}}$ be the connected component of ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g,(0)}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m)$ such that the monodromies around the $2g$ noncontractible loops are trivial. Then $$G_{g,\{(d,0)\},\emptyset}(0)_m=-\sqrt{-1}^{d+1}\int_{{{{\mathcal}M}}}\frac{\Lambda_{g}^{\vee,U}(0 )\Lambda_{g}^{\vee,U^\vee}(-1)
\Lambda_{g}^{\vee,1}(1)}{1-d\bar{\psi}_1}$$ There is a canonical map $\rho:{{{\mathcal}M}}\to {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g,1}$ with deg$\rho=\frac{1}{m}$. On the other hand, we have $$E^U|_{{{{\mathcal}M}}}\cong E^{U^\vee}|_{{{{\mathcal}M}}}\cong E^1|_{{{{\mathcal}M}}}.$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
G_{g,\{(d,0)\},\emptyset}(0)_m&=&-\frac{\sqrt{-1}^{d+1}}{m}\int_{{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g,1}}\frac{\Lambda_{g}^{\vee}(0 )\Lambda_{g}^{\vee}(-1)
\Lambda_{g}^{\vee}(1)}{1-d\psi_1}\\
&=&-\frac{\sqrt{-1}^{d+1}}{m}d^{2g-2}\int_{{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g,1}}\lambda_g\psi_1^{2g-2}\end{aligned}$$ So we have $$G_{\{(d,0)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_m=-\frac{\sqrt{-1}^{d+1}}{2md\sin(\frac{d\lambda}{2})}.$$ Therefore, for any ${\overline{\mu}}$ with $k_1=\cdots=k_{l({\overline{\mu}})}=0$ we have $$\label{eqn:initial}
G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m=\frac{1}{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}
\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\mu}})}\left(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}^{\mu_i+1}}{2m\mu_i\sin(\frac{\mu_i\lambda}{2})}\right).$$
Now for any $-w^s({\overline{\nu}})$, let ${\overline{\xi}}=\{(\nu_i,-w^s_{\nu_i}(l_i))|w^s_{\nu_i}(l_i)=0\}$ and ${\overline{\eta}}=\{(\nu_i,-w^s_{\nu_i}(l_i))|w^s_{\nu_i}(l_i)\neq0\}$. Then $-w^s({\overline{\nu}})={\overline{\xi}}\sqcup{\overline{\eta}}$ and $$\label{eqn:prod}
G^\bullet_{-w^s({\overline{\nu}})}(\lambda;0;x)_m=G^\bullet_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\lambda;0;x)_mG^\bullet_{{\overline{\eta}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m$$ because of condition (1) above. Let ${\overline{\eta}}=\{(\eta_1,h_1),\cdots,(\eta_{l(\eta)},h_{l(\eta)})\}$ with $h_1,\cdots,h_{l(\eta)}$ nontrivial. Let $c=\operatorname{gcd}(m,\eta_1)$ and let $\bar{h}_1\in \{0,\cdots,c-1\}$ denote $h_1$(mod $c$). Let $$\Sigma_{{\overline{\eta}}}=\{s\in\{1,\cdots,m-1\}|-h_1+\eta_1s=-\bar{h}_1\in {{\Bbb Z}}_m\}$$ Then we have $$|\Sigma_{{\overline{\eta}}}|=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}c-1,&\textrm{if }h_1\in\{1,\cdots,c-1\}\\
c,&\textrm{otherwise}\end{array} \right.$$ If we view $\Sigma_{{\overline{\eta}}}$ as a subset of $\{1,\cdots,m-1\}$, we can give $\Sigma_{{\overline{\eta}}}$ an order: $\Sigma_{{\overline{\eta}}}=\{s_1,\cdots,s_{|\Sigma_{{\overline{\eta}}}|}\}, s_i< s_j$ if $i<j$. Define $s({\overline{\eta}})\in\Sigma_{{\overline{\eta}}}$ to be $$s({\overline{\eta}})=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}s_{\bar{h}_1},&\textrm{if }h_1\in\{1,\cdots,c-1\}\\
s_{\bar{h}_1+1},&\textrm{otherwise}\end{array} \right.$$ Let $$\begin{aligned}
B_d&=&\{{\overline{\eta}}||{\overline{\eta}}|\leq d,l({\overline{\eta}})=l''({\overline{\eta}})\}\\
C_d&=&\{({\overline{\mu}},s)|\mu=\eta,s=s({\overline{\eta}}),k_1=0,-w^s({\overline{\mu}}\setminus \{(\mu_1,k_1)\})={\overline{\eta}}\setminus \{(\eta_1,h_1)\},|{\overline{\eta}}|\leq d,l({\overline{\eta}})=l''({\overline{\eta}})\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\tilde{x}=(\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2}{m}}x_1,\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2i}{m}}x_i,
\cdots,\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2(m-1)}{m}}x_{m-1})$, then we define $$\beta_d=(-\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=|{\overline{\mu}}|,l({\overline{\xi}})=l'({\overline{\xi}})}G^\bullet_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\lambda;0;x)_mZ_{w^s({\overline{\xi}})}
\tilde{\Phi}^\bullet_{-w^s({\overline{\xi}}),{\overline{\mu}}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m}\lambda;\tilde{x})_m)_{({\overline{\mu}},s)\in C_d}$$ and $$G'_d=(G^\bullet_{{\overline{\eta}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m)_{{\overline{\eta}}\in B_d}$$ to be two column vectors indexed by $({\overline{\mu}},s)$ and ${\overline{\eta}}$ respectively. Let $$\tilde{\Phi}_d(\lambda;x)=(\tilde{\Phi}_d^{({\overline{\mu}},s),{\overline{\eta}}}(\lambda;x))_{({\overline{\mu}},s)\in C_d,{\overline{\eta}}\in B_d}$$ be a matrix indexed by $({\overline{\mu}},s)$ and ${\overline{\eta}}$, where $$\tilde{\Phi}_d^{({\overline{\mu}},s),{\overline{\eta}}}(\lambda;x)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}0,&\textrm{if}|{\overline{\eta}}|>|{\overline{\mu}}|\\
Z_{w^s(-{\overline{\eta}})}
\tilde{\Phi}^\bullet_{-w^s(-{\overline{\eta}}),{\overline{\mu}}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m}\lambda;\tilde{x})_m,&\textrm{if}|{\overline{\eta}}|=|{\overline{\mu}}|\\
\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=|{\overline{\mu}}|-|{\overline{\eta}}|,l({\overline{\xi}})=l'({\overline{\xi}})}G^\bullet_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\lambda;0;x)_mZ_{w^s(-({\overline{\xi}}\sqcup{\overline{\eta}}))}
\tilde{\Phi}^\bullet_{-w^s(-({\overline{\xi}}\sqcup{\overline{\eta}})),{\overline{\mu}}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m}\lambda;\tilde{x})_m
&\textrm{if}|{\overline{\eta}}|<|{\overline{\mu}}|\end{array} \right.$$ We will show that $\tilde{\Phi}_d(\lambda;x)$ is invertible over ${{\Bbb C}}((\lambda,x))$ in Appendix A. Then by (\[eqn:key\]) we have $$G'_d=\tilde{\Phi}_d^{-1}(\lambda;x)\beta_d$$ This finishes the proof of Theorem 2.
Examples
========
In this section, we will compute the degree 1 and degree 2 ${{\Bbb Z}}_2$ Gromov-Witten vertices. Then we will use these results to compute some ${{\Bbb Z}}_2$ -Hodge integrals which appear in [@Ros].
degree 1 case
-------------
The degree 1 ${{\Bbb Z}}_2$ Gromov-Witten vertex has been computed in [@Ros]. We use our formula to recompute it and use this result to compute the degree 2 ${{\Bbb Z}}_2$ Gromov-Witten vertices in the next subsection.
When $d=1$ and $m=2$, let $\chi=2-2g$ and $n=l(\gamma)$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_2&=&H^\circ_{g,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_2\\
&=&\delta_{0,\langle \frac{n+k_1+l_1}{2}\rangle}2^{2g-1}H^\circ_{g,n}(\{(1)\},\{(1)\})\\
&=&\delta_{0,\langle \frac{n+k_1+l_1}{2}\rangle}2^{2g-1}H^\circ_{g}(\{(1)\},\{(1)\})\\
&=&\delta_{0,g}\delta_{0,\langle \frac{n+k_1+l_1}{2}\rangle}2^{2g-1}\end{aligned}$$ In particular $$\begin{aligned}
H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}(\{(1,0)\},\{(1,0)\})&=&\delta_{0,g}\delta_{0,\langle \frac{n}{2}\rangle}2^{2g-1}\\
H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}(\{(1,1)\},\{(1,0)\})&=&\delta_{0,g}\delta_{0,\langle \frac{n+1}{2}\rangle}2^{2g-1}\end{aligned}$$ So we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,0)\},\{(1,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2&=&\frac{1}{2}\cos(\frac{\lambda x}{2})\\
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,1)\},\{(1,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2&=&-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\sin(\frac{\lambda x}{2})\end{aligned}$$ By theorem 2 $$2\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,0)\},\{(1,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2G^\bullet_{\{(1,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2
=-2\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,1)\},\{(1,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2G^\bullet_{\{(1,0)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2$$ By equation (\[eqn:initial\]) $$G^\bullet_{\{(1,0)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2=\frac{1}{4\sin(\frac{\lambda}{2})}$$ Therefore, we obtain $$\label{eqn:deg1}
G^\bullet_{\{(1,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4\sin(\frac{\lambda}{2})}\tan (\frac{\lambda x}{2})$$ By theorem 1 $$\begin{aligned}
G^\bullet_{\{(1,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2&=&2\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,1)\},\{(1,1)\}}(-\tau\sqrt{-1}\lambda;x)_2
G^\bullet_{\{(1,1)\}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_2\\
&&+2\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,1)\},\{(1,0)\}}(-\tau\sqrt{-1}\lambda;x)_2
G^\bullet_{\{(1,0)\}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_2\\
G^\bullet_{\{(1,0)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2&=&2\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,1)\},\{(1,0)\}}(-\tau\sqrt{-1}\lambda;x)_2
G^\bullet_{\{(1,1)\}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_2\\
&&+2\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,0)\},\{(1,0)\}}(-\tau\sqrt{-1}\lambda;x)_2
G^\bullet_{\{(1,0)\}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_2\end{aligned}$$ Similar to the computation above, we have $\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,1)\},\{(1,1)\}}(-\tau\sqrt{-1}\lambda;x)_2=\frac{1}{2}\cos (\tau\lambda x)$. So the degree 1 framed vertices are given by $$\begin{aligned}
G^\bullet_{\{(1,1)\}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_2&=&\frac{\sqrt{-1}\sin(\tau\lambda x)}{4\sin(\frac{\lambda}{2})}+\frac{\sqrt{-1}\cos (\tau\lambda x)}{4\sin(\frac{\lambda}{2})}\tan (\frac{\lambda x}{2})\\
G^\bullet_{\{(1,0)\}}(\lambda;\tau;x)_2&=&-\frac{\sin(\tau\lambda x)}{4\sin(\frac{\lambda}{2})}\tan (\frac{\lambda x}{2})
+\frac{\cos (\tau\lambda x)}{4\sin(\frac{\lambda}{2})}\end{aligned}$$
degree 2 case
-------------
In this section, we compute the degree 2 ${{\Bbb Z}}_2$ Gromov-Witten vertices for $\tau=0$. Then we use these results to compute the predictions of the ${{\Bbb Z}}_2$-Hodge integrals in [@Ros]. These results can be viewed as an evidence for the conjecture of the orbifold GW/DT correspondence in [@Ros].
When $d=2$, we only need to notice that all degree 2 double Hurwitz numbers are $\frac{1}{2}$. Then calculations similar to those in degree 1 case show that $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(2,0)\},\{(2,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2&=&\frac{1}{4}\cos(\lambda)
\cos(\lambda x) \\
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(2,0)\},\{(1,1),(1,1)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2&=&-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{8}\sin(\lambda)
\cos(\lambda x) \\
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(2,0)\},\{(2,1)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2&=&-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4}\cos(\lambda)
\sin(\lambda x) \\
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,1),(1,0)\},\{(2,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2&=&-\frac{1}{4}\sin(\lambda)
\sin(\lambda x)\\
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,0),(1,0)\},\{(2,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2&=&-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{8}\sin(\lambda)
\cos(\lambda x)\\
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,0),(1,0)\},\{(2,1)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2&=&-\frac{1}{8}\sin(\lambda)
\sin(\lambda x)\\
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,0),(1,0)\},\{(1,0),(1,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2&=&\frac{1}{16}(\cos(\lambda)
\cos(\lambda x)+1)\\
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,1),(1,0)\},\{(1,0),(1,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2&=&-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{8}\cos(\lambda)
\sin(\lambda x)\\
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,0),(1,0)\},\{(1,1),(1,1)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2&=&\frac{1}{16}(\cos(\lambda)
\cos(\lambda x)-1)\\\end{aligned}$$ By equation (\[eqn:key\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
0&=&4G^\bullet_{\{(2,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2\Phi^\bullet_{\{(2,1)\},\{(2,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2
+4G^\bullet_{\{(2,0)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2\Phi^\bullet_{\{(2,0)\},\{(2,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2\\
&&+8G^\bullet_{\{(1,1),(1,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,0),(1,0)\},\{(2,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2\\
&&+4G^\bullet_{\{(1,1),(1,0)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,1),(1,0)\},\{(2,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2\\
&&+8G^\bullet_{\{(1,0),(1,0)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,1),(1,1)\},\{(2,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
0&=&4G^\bullet_{\{(2,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2\Phi^\bullet_{\{(2,1)\},\{(1,0),(1,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2\\
&&+4G^\bullet_{\{(2,0)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2\Phi^\bullet_{\{(2,0)\},\{(1,0),(1,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2\\
&&+8G^\bullet_{\{(1,1),(1,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,0),(1,0)\},\{(1,0),(1,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2\\
&&+4G^\bullet_{\{(1,1),(1,0)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,1),(1,0)\},\{(1,0),(1,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2\\
&&+8G^\bullet_{\{(1,0),(1,0)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2
\Phi^\bullet_{\{(1,1),(1,1)\},\{(1,0),(1,0)\}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\lambda;x)_2\\\end{aligned}$$ By equation (\[eqn:initial\]) (\[eqn:prod\]) (\[eqn:deg1\])we have $$\begin{aligned}
G^\bullet_{\{(2,0)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2&=&\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{8\sin(\lambda)}\\
G^\bullet_{\{(1,0),(1,0)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2&=&\frac{1}{32\sin^2(\frac{\lambda}{2})}\\
G^\bullet_{\{(1,1),(1,0)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2&=&\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{16\sin^2(\frac{\lambda}{2})}\tan(\frac{\lambda x}{2})\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the two nontrivial degree 2 vertices are given by $$\begin{aligned}
G^\bullet_{\{(2,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2&=&-\frac{1}{8}\tan(\frac{\lambda x}{2})\frac{\cos(\lambda x)+\cos(\lambda)+1}
{\sin(\lambda)(\cos(\lambda x)+\cos(\lambda))}\\
G^\bullet_{\{(1,1),(1,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2&=&-\frac{1}{16\cos^2(\frac{\lambda x}{2})(\cos(\lambda x)+\cos(\lambda))}
-\frac{1}{32\sin^2(\frac{\lambda}{2})}\tan^2(\frac{\lambda x}{2})\end{aligned}$$
Now we use these two vertices to compute the predictions in [@Ros]. The following Hodge integrals are defined in [@Ros]: $$\begin{aligned}
G(1,g):&=&\sum_{\gamma}\int_{{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g,\gamma}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_2)}\frac{\Lambda_{g}^{\vee,U}(0 )\Lambda_{g}^{\vee,U^\vee}(-1)
\Lambda_{g}^{\vee,1}(1)}{\frac{1}{2}-\bar{\psi}_1}\frac{x^{l(\gamma)-1}}{(l(\gamma)-1)!}\\
G(2,g):&=&\sum_{\gamma}\int_{{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}_{g,\gamma}({{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_2)}\frac{\Lambda_{g}^{\vee,U}(0 )\Lambda_{g}^{\vee,U^\vee}(-1)
\Lambda_{g}^{\vee,1}(1)}{(1-\bar{\psi}_1)(1-\bar{\psi}_2)}\frac{x^{l(\gamma)-2}}{(l(\gamma)-2)!}\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma=(1,\cdots,1)$ is a vector of nontrivial elements in ${{\Bbb Z}}_2$.
Notice that $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\{(2,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2&=&G^\bullet_{\{(2,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2\\
G_{\{(1,1),(1,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2&=&
G^\bullet_{\{(1,1),(1,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2-\frac{1}{2}G_{\{(1,1)\}}(\lambda;0;x)_2^2\\
&=&-\frac{1}{16\cos^2(\frac{\lambda x}{2})(\cos(\lambda x)+\cos(\lambda))}\end{aligned}$$ So if we define $a_1(x),a_2(x),a_3(x)$ to be the coefficients of $\lambda,\lambda^3,\lambda^5$ in $G_{\{(2,1)\}}(\lambda;0;\frac{x}{\lambda})_2$ respectively, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
G(1,1)&=&\frac{16}{3}a_1(x)=\int\frac{-1}{12}\sec^4(\frac{x}{2})+\frac{5}{24}\sec^6(\frac{x}{2})dx\\
G(1,2)&=&\frac{16}{3}a_2(x)=\int\frac{-1}{240}\sec^4(\frac{x}{2})-\frac{13}{288}\sec^6(\frac{x}{2})
+\frac{7}{96}\sec^8(\frac{x}{2})dx\\
G(1,3)&=&\frac{16}{3}a_3(x)=\int\frac{-11}{30240}\sec^4(\frac{x}{2})+\frac{1}{576}\sec^6(\frac{x}{2})
-\frac{1}{48}\sec^8(\frac{x}{2})+\frac{3}{128}\sec^{10}(\frac{x}{2})dx\end{aligned}$$ This gives the first three predictions in [@Ros]. Similarly, if we define $b_1(x),b_2(x),b_3(x)$ to be the coefficients of $\lambda^2,\lambda^4,\lambda^6$ in $G_{\{(1,1),(1,1)\}}(\lambda;0;\frac{x}{\lambda})_2$ respectively, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
G(2,1)&=&-8b_1(x)=\frac{1}{16}\sec^6(\frac{x}{2})\\
G(2,2)&=&-8b_2(x)=\frac{-1}{192}\sec^6(\frac{x}{2})+\frac{1}{64}\sec^8(\frac{x}{2})\\
G(2,3)&=&-8b_3(x)=\frac{1}{5760}\sec^6(\frac{x}{2})-\frac{1}{384}\sec^8(\frac{x}{2})+\frac{1}{256}\sec^{10}(\frac{x}{2})\end{aligned}$$ This gives the next three predictions.
The Gromov-Witten Invariants of the Local ${{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ Gerbe
=============================================================================
Let ${{{\mathcal}X}}$ be the global quotient of the resolved conifold Tot$({{{\mathcal}O}}(-1)\oplus{{{\mathcal}O}}(-1)\to {{\Bbb P}}^1)$ by ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$ acting fiberwise by $\xi_m$ and $\xi_m^{-1}$ respectively, where $\xi_m=e^{\frac{2\pi \sqrt{-1}}{m}}$. Then ${{{\mathcal}X}}$ can be identified with Tot$(L_0\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0}(-1)\oplus L_0^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0}(-1)\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_0)$ where $L_0$ is the tautological bundle on ${{{\mathcal}Y}}_0$.
Define $C^\bullet_{\chi,d,\gamma}$ to be $$C^\bullet_{\chi,d,\gamma}=\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0,d)]^{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}
e(R^1\pi_*F^*(L_0\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0}(-1)\oplus L_0^{-1}\otimes{{{\mathcal}O}}_{{{{\mathcal}Y}}_0}(-1)))$$ where $$\pi:{{{\mathcal}U}}\to {\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, d)$$ is the universal domain curve and $$F:{{{\mathcal}U}}\to {{{\mathcal}Y}}_0$$ is the evaluation map. Let $$\begin{aligned}
J_{\chi,d,\gamma}=\{(\chi^1,\chi^2,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma^1,\gamma^2)|\chi^1,\chi^2\in 2{{\Bbb Z}},|{\overline{\mu}}|=d,\gamma^1\sqcup \gamma^2=\gamma,\\
-\chi^1+2l({\overline{\mu}})-\chi^2=-\chi,-\chi^1+2l({\overline{\mu}})\geq 0,-\chi^2+2l({\overline{\mu}})\geq 0\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then by the degeneration formula (see [@Abr-Fan]) $$C^\bullet_{\chi,d,\gamma}=\sum_{(\chi^1,\chi^2,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma^1,\gamma^2)\in J_{\chi,d,\gamma}}K^{\bullet 0}_{\chi^1,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma^1}Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}K^{\bullet 0}_{\chi^2,-{\overline{\mu}},\gamma^2}$$ where $K^{\bullet 0}_{\chi,{\overline{\mu}},\gamma }=\frac{1}{{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}}\int_{[{\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}})]^{{ {\mathrm{vir}} }}}e(V^0)$, $V^0$ is the obstruction bundle on ${\overline{{{{\mathcal}M}}}}^\bullet_{\chi, \gamma}({{{\mathcal}Y}}_0, {\overline{\mu}})$ and $Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}=|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|m^{l({\overline{\mu}})}\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\mu}})}\mu_i$. Let $$C^\bullet_{d}(\lambda;x)=\sum_{\chi,\gamma}\lambda^{-\chi+l(\gamma)}C^\bullet_{\chi,d,\gamma}\frac{x_\gamma}{\gamma!}$$ Then we have $$C^\bullet_{d}(\lambda;x)=\sum_{|{\overline{\mu}}|=d}(-1)^{d-l'({\overline{\mu}})}K^{\bullet 0}_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;x)
Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}K^{\bullet 0}_{-{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;x)$$ where $K^{\bullet 0}_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;x)$ is defined in section 4.3. Recall that $$K^{\bullet 0}_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;x)=G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m$$ Therefore $$C^\bullet_{d}(\lambda;x)=\sum_{|{\overline{\mu}}|=d}(-1)^{d-l'({\overline{\mu}})}G^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m
Z_{{\overline{\mu}}}G^\bullet_{-{\overline{\mu}}}(\lambda;0;x)_m$$ This finishes the calculation of the Gromov-Witten invariants of the local ${{{\mathcal}B}}{{\Bbb Z}}_m$ gerbe and hence finishes the proof of Theorem 3.
The Invertibility of $\tilde{\Phi}_d(\lambda;x)$
================================================
We first recall the definition of $\tilde{\Phi}_d(\lambda;x)$: $$\tilde{\Phi}_d(\lambda;x)=(\tilde{\Phi}_d^{({\overline{\mu}},s),{\overline{\eta}}}(\lambda;x))_{({\overline{\mu}},s)\in C_d,{\overline{\eta}}\in B_d}$$ where $$\tilde{\Phi}_d^{({\overline{\mu}},s),{\overline{\eta}}}(\lambda;x)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}0,&\textrm{if}|{\overline{\eta}}|>|{\overline{\mu}}|\\
Z_{w^s(-{\overline{\eta}})}
\tilde{\Phi}^\bullet_{-w^s(-{\overline{\eta}}),{\overline{\mu}}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m}\lambda;\tilde{x})_m,&\textrm{if}|{\overline{\eta}}|=|{\overline{\mu}}|\\
\sum_{|{\overline{\xi}}|=|{\overline{\mu}}|-|{\overline{\eta}}|,l({\overline{\xi}})=l'({\overline{\xi}})}G^\bullet_{{\overline{\xi}}}(\lambda;0;x)_mZ_{w^s(-({\overline{\xi}}\sqcup{\overline{\eta}}))}
\tilde{\Phi}^\bullet_{-w^s(-({\overline{\xi}}\sqcup{\overline{\eta}})),{\overline{\mu}}}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m}\lambda;\tilde{x})_m
&\textrm{if}|{\overline{\eta}}|<|{\overline{\mu}}|\end{array} \right.$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
B_d&=&\{{\overline{\eta}}||{\overline{\eta}}|\leq d,l({\overline{\eta}})=l''({\overline{\eta}})\}\\
C_d&=&\{({\overline{\mu}},s)|\mu=\eta,s=s({\overline{\eta}}),k_1=0,-w^s({\overline{\mu}}\setminus \{(\mu_1,k_1)\})={\overline{\eta}}\setminus \{(\eta_1,h_1)\},|{\overline{\eta}}|\leq d,l({\overline{\eta}})=l''({\overline{\eta}})\}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, in order to show that $\tilde{\Phi}_d(\lambda;x)$ is invertible, we only need to show the matrix $$\tilde{\Phi}'_d(\lambda;x)=(\tilde{\Phi}_d^{({\overline{\mu}},s),{\overline{\eta}}}(\lambda;x))_{({\overline{\mu}},s)\in C'_d,{\overline{\eta}}\in B'_d}$$ is invertible for every $d\geq 1$, where $$\begin{aligned}
B'_d&=&\{{\overline{\eta}}||{\overline{\eta}}|= d,l({\overline{\eta}})=l''({\overline{\eta}})\}\\
C'_d&=&\{({\overline{\mu}},s)|\mu=\eta,s=s({\overline{\eta}}),k_1=0,-w^s({\overline{\mu}}\setminus \{(\mu_1,k_1)\})={\overline{\eta}}\setminus \{(\eta_1,h_1)\},|{\overline{\eta}}|= d,l({\overline{\eta}})=l''({\overline{\eta}})\}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\tilde{\Phi}_d=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\tilde{\Phi}'_d&*&\cdots&*\\
0&\tilde{\Phi}'_{d-1}&\ddots&\vdots\\
\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&*\\
0&\cdots&0&\tilde{\Phi}'_1
\end{array} \right).$$
Now we will show that the determinant of the matrix $ \tilde{\Phi}'_d(\lambda;\frac{x}{\lambda})|_{\lambda=x_2=\cdots=x_{m-1}=0}$ is nonzero. For convenience, we will denote $ \tilde{\Phi}'_d(\lambda;\frac{x}{\lambda})|_{\lambda=x_2=\cdots=x_{m-1}=0}$ by $\tilde{\Phi}'_d(x_1)$. Recall that $$\Phi^\bullet_{{\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}}}(\lambda;x)_m=\sum_{\chi\in 2{{\Bbb Z}},\chi\leq\min\{2l({\overline{\mu}}),2l({\overline{\nu}})\},\gamma}\frac{\lambda^{-\chi+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}})+l(\gamma)}}
{(-\chi+l({\overline{\mu}})+l({\overline{\nu}}))!}H^\bullet_{\chi,\gamma}({\overline{\mu}},{\overline{\nu}})_m\frac{x_\gamma}{\gamma!}$$ So if the underlying partitions $\mu\neq \eta$, then the entry $\tilde{\Phi}'^{({\overline{\mu}},s),{\overline{\eta}}}_d(x_1)=0$. Therefore, in order to show that the determinant of the matrix $\tilde{\Phi}'_d(x_1)$ is nonzero, we only need to show that for any fixed partition $\mu^0$ of $d$, the determinant of the sub-matrix $$\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0}(x_1)=(\tilde{\Phi}_d^{({\overline{\mu}},s),{\overline{\eta}}}(x_1))_{({\overline{\mu}},s)\in C'_d,{\overline{\eta}}\in B'_d,\mu=\eta=\mu^0}$$ is nonzero. $$\tilde{\Phi}'_d(x_1)=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0}(x_1)&0&\cdots&0\\
0&\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^1}(x_1)&\ddots&\vdots\\
\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&0\\
0&\cdots&0&\ddots
\end{array} \right).$$
Let $\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}={\overline{\eta}}\setminus \{(\eta_1,h_1)\}$ and $\mu^0=\{\mu^0_1,\cdots,\mu^0_{l(\mu_0)}\}$. Let $c_{\mu^0}=\operatorname{gcd}(m,\mu^0_1)$ and for any $1\leq i\leq \frac{m}{c_{\mu^0}}$ define $D^i_{\mu^0}$ to be $$D^i_{\mu^0}=\{j\in{{\Bbb Z}}|(i-1)c_{\mu^0}\leq j<ic_{\mu^0}\}.$$ For fixed $\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0$ and $1\leq i\leq \frac{m}{c_{\mu^0}}$ define $$\begin{aligned}
B^i_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0}&=&\{{\overline{\eta}}|\eta=\mu^0,l({\overline{\eta}})=l''({\overline{\eta}}),\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}=\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0,h_1\in D^i\}\\
C^i_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0}&=&\{({\overline{\mu}},s)|\mu=\eta,s=s({\overline{\eta}}),k_1=0,-w^s({\overline{\mu}}\setminus \{(\mu_1,k_1)\})=\hat{{\overline{\eta}}},\eta=\mu^0,l({\overline{\eta}})=l''({\overline{\eta}}),\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}=\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0,h_1\in D^i\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then we define the sub-matrix $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0,i}(x_1)$ of $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0}(x_1)$ to be $$\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0,i}(x_1)=(\tilde{\Phi}_d^{({\overline{\mu}},s),{\overline{\eta}}}(x_1))_{({\overline{\mu}},s)\in C^i_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0},{\overline{\eta}}\in B^i_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0}}$$
The determinant of the matrix $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0,i}(x_1)$ is nonzero
If we view the entries of the matrix $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0,i}(x_1)$ as power series in ${{\Bbb C}}[[x_1]]$, then the lowest degree term of $\tilde{\Phi}_d^{({\overline{\mu}},s),{\overline{\eta}}}(x_1)$ is $$Z_{w^s(-{\overline{\eta}})}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m})^{n(h_1)}H^\bullet_{2l({\overline{\mu}}),\gamma(h_1)}({\overline{\mu}},-w^s(-{\overline{\eta}}))_m
\frac{(\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2}{m}}x_1)^{n(h_1)}}{n(h_1)!}$$ where $n(h_1)=w^s_{\eta_1}(-h_1)=\bar{h}_1\in \{0,\cdots,c_{\mu^0}-1\}$ is *independent* of $s=s({\overline{\eta}})$ and $\gamma(h_1)=(x_1,\cdots,x_1)$ with $l(\gamma)=n(h_1)$. Also note that $|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\eta}})|=|\operatorname{Aut}(w^s(-{\overline{\eta}}))|=|\operatorname{Aut}(-w^s(-{\overline{\eta}}))|$. Therefore, by the calculation in section 3.2, we have $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{w^s(-{\overline{\eta}})}H^\bullet_{2l({\overline{\mu}}),\gamma(h_1)}({\overline{\mu}},-w^s(-{\overline{\eta}}))_m&=&Z_{{\overline{\eta}}}\frac{1}{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\eta}})|
|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\eta}})|m^{-l({\overline{\eta}})}\eta_1^{n(h_1)}\prod_{i=1}^{l({\overline{\eta}})}\eta_i^{-1}\\
&=&\frac{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\eta}})|}{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}\eta_1^{n(h_1)}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
&&Z_{w^s(-{\overline{\eta}})}(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m})^{n(h_1)}H^\bullet_{2l({\overline{\mu}}),\gamma(h_1)}({\overline{\mu}},-w^s(-{\overline{\eta}}))_m
\frac{(\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2}{m}}x_1)^{n(h_1)}}{n(h_1)!}\\
&=&(-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m})^{n(h_1)}\frac{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\eta}})|}{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}
\frac{(\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2}{m}}\eta_1x_1)^{n(h_1)}}{n(h_1)!}\end{aligned}$$ So the lowest degree term of $\det(\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0,i}(x_1))$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left(\prod_{({\overline{\mu}},s)\in C^i_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0}}\frac{1}{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\mu}})|}\right)\left(\prod_{{\overline{\eta}}\in B^i_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0}}\frac{|\operatorname{Aut}({\overline{\eta}})|(\sqrt{-1}^{1-\frac{2}{m}}\eta_1x_1)^{n(h_1)}}{n(h_1)!}\right)\\
&&\cdot\det\left((-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m})^{n(h_1)}\right)_{({\overline{\mu}},s)\in C^i_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0},{\overline{\eta}}\in B^i_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0}}\end{aligned}$$ Thus we only need to show $\det\left((-\frac{\sqrt{-1}s}{m})^{n(h_1)}\right)_{({\overline{\mu}},s)\in C^i_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0},{\overline{\eta}}\in B^i_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0}}$ is nonzero. But this is a Vandermonde matrix with different $s$ in different rows. So its determinant is nonzero.
Now for any fixed column $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}^0}$ of $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0}(x_1)$, there is a unique sub-matrix $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0,i}(x_1)$ that intersects with this column. Then the degrees of the entries that lie in the intersection of $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}^0}$ and $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0,i}(x_1)$ are $n(h^0_1)=\bar{h}^0_1\in \{0,\cdots,c_{\mu^0}-1\}$. By the convention of the order of a ${{\Bbb Z}}_m$-weighted partition (see section 2.1), the degrees of the other entries of $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}^0}$ are greater or equal to $n(h^0_1)$ (note that $k_1$ is always 0). And the equality holds for an entry $\tilde{\Phi}_d^{({\overline{\mu}}',s'),{\overline{\eta}}^0}(x_1)$ among those entries if and only if the following conditions hold:
1. There exists a $j>1$ such that $\eta^0_j=\eta^0_1,\bar{h}^0_1=\bar{h}^0_j$ and $h^0_j>h^0_1$, where $\bar{h}^0_1$ and $\bar{h}^0_j$ denote $h^0_1$(mod $c_{\mu^0}$) and $h^0_j$(mod $c_{\mu^0}$) respectively.
2. Let $\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0}={\overline{\eta}}^0\setminus \{(\eta^0_j,h^0_j)\}$, then $-w^{s'}({\overline{\mu}}'\setminus \{(\mu'_1,k'_1)\})=\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0}$ and $-h^0_j+\eta^0_js'=-\bar{h}^0_j\in {{\Bbb Z}}_m$.
Then there is a unique sub-matrix $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)$ that intersects with the row that contains $\tilde{\Phi}_d^{({\overline{\mu}}',s'),{\overline{\eta}}^0}(x_1)$. By condition (2), $h^0_j\in D^{i'}$. It is easy to see that every entry that lies in the intersection of $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}^0}$ and a row of $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)$ has degree $n(h^0_1)$. $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
&&&*&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\
&\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0,i}(x_1)&&*&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\
&&&*&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\
*&*&*&\ddots&*&*&*\\
*&*&x_1^{n(h^0_1)}&*&&&\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&*&&\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)&\\
*&*&x_1^{n(h^0_1)}&*&&&
\end{array}\right)$$ For every column $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}'}$ that intersects with $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)$, $\bar{h}'_1\leq \bar{h}^0_1$ by our convention. But $\bar{h}'_1$ can not be equal to $\bar{h}^0_1$, because otherwise $h'_1=h^0_j$ by condition (1) and the fact that $h^0_j,h'_1\in D^{i'}$. Hence ${\overline{\eta}}^0={\overline{\eta}}'^{0}$, a contradiction. So we have $\bar{h}'_1< \bar{h}^0_1$. In other words, condition (1) can not be satisfied for any entry that lies in $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}'}$ but does not lie in $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)$. So the degrees of these entries are strictly greater than $n(h'_1)$. By Lemma A.1, we can use the elementary transforms for matrices to convert $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)$ to $\Psi_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)$ such that if we pick the degree $n(h_1')$ terms of the entries in the column $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}'}\cap \Psi_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)$ of $\Psi_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)$ for every $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}'}\cap \Psi_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)\neq \emptyset$ to form a matrix, then this matrix is of the following form $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1&0&\cdots&\cdots&0\\
0&x_1&0&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&0&\ddots&\ddots&\vdots\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\ddots&0\\
0&0&\cdots&0&x_1^{|B^i_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^0}|-1}
\end{array}\right)$$ In this process, the following two properties do not change: (a) For every column $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}'}$ that intersects with $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)$, the degrees of the entries that lie in $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}'}$ but do not lie in $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)$ are strictly greater than $n(h'_1)$; (b) For every column $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}}$, let $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}},i}(x_1)$ be the sub-matrix that intersects with $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}}$, then the degrees of the entries that lie in $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}}$ but do not lie in $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}},i}(x_1)$ are no less than (or strictly greater than) $n(h_1)$. Now we can use the columns that intersect with $\Psi_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)$ to cancel the degree $n(h^0_1)$ terms of the entries that lie in the intersection of $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}^0}$ and rows of $\Psi_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)$. $$\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
&&&*&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\
&\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0,i}(x_1)&&*&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\
&&&*&\cdots&\cdots&\cdots\\
*&*&*&\ddots&*&*&*\\
*&*&x_1^{n(h^0_1)}&*&&&\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&*&&\Psi_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)&\\
*&*&x_1^{n(h^0_1)}&*&&&
\end{array}\right)$$ Since property (a) is preserved, this process will not change the degree $n(h^0_1)$ terms of the entries that lie in $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}^0}$ but do not lie in the rows of $\Psi_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}'^{0},i'}(x_1)$. In particular, the lowest degree term of $\det\left(\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}}^0,i}(x_1)\right)$ does not change. Since property (b) is preserved, we can repeat this process until for every ${\overline{\eta}}$ all the degree $n(h_1)$ entries in $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}}$ lie in the unique sub-matrix $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}},i}(x_1)$ (or $\Psi_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}},i}(x_1)$ if $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}},i}(x_1)$ has been changed) that intersects with $\alpha_{{\overline{\eta}}}$. Therefore, if we denote the result matrix of $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0}(x_1)$ of this process by $\Psi_{\mu^0}(x_1)$, then the lowest degree term of $\det\left(\Psi_{\mu^0}(x_1)\right)$ is the product of that of $\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}},i}(x_1)$ or $\Psi_{\mu^0,\hat{{\overline{\eta}}},i}(x_1)$ which is nonzero by Lemma A.1. So $\det\left(\tilde{\Phi}'_{\mu^0}(x_1)\right)$ is nonzero.
In conclusion, the matrix $\tilde{\Phi}_d(\lambda;x)$ is invertible.
[99]{} D. Abramovich, B. Fantechi, [*Orbifold techniques in degeneration formulas*]{}, arXiv: 1103.5132v1.
D. Abramovich, T. Graber, A. Vistoli, [*Gromov-Witten theory for Deligne-Mumford stacks*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 130 (2008), no. 5, 1337-1398.
M. Aganagic, A. Klemm, M. Marino, C. Vafa, [*The topological vertex*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. 254 (2005), no. 2, 425-478.
J. Bryan, C. Cadman, B. Young, [*The orbifold topological vertex*]{}, Advances in Mathematics 229 (2012), no. 1, 531-595.
J. Bryan, T. Graber, R. Pandharipande, [*The orbifold quantum cohomology of ${{\Bbb C}}^2/{{\Bbb Z}}_3$ and Hurwitz-Hodge integrals*]{}, J. Alg. Geom. [**17**]{} (2008), 1-28.
C. Cadman, [*Using stacks to impose tangency conditions on curves*]{}, Amer. J. Math. [**129**]{} (2007), 405-427.
W. Chen, Y. Ruan, [*Orbifold Gromov-Witten theory*]{}, Orbifold in mathematics and physics (Madison, WI, 2001), 2002.
R. Dijkgraaf, Mirror symmetry and elliptic curves, [*The moduli space of curves*]{}, R. Dijkgraaf, G. van der Geer (editors), Prog. in Math., [**129**]{}, Birkhaüser, 1995.
C. Faber, R. Pandharipande, [*Hodge integrals and Gromov-Witten theory*]{}, Invent. Math. [**139**]{} (2000), no. 1, 173–199.
B. Fantechi, R. Pandharipande, [*Stable maps and branch divisors*]{}, Compositio Math. [**130**]{} (2002), 345-364.
T. Graber, R. Pandharipande, [*Localization of virtual classes*]{}, Invent. Math. [**135**]{} (1999), no. 2, 487–518.
P. Johnson, [*Equivariant Gromov-Witten theory of one dimensional stacks*]{}, PhD thesis, 2009.
P. Johnson, R. Pandharipande, H.-H. Tseng, [*Abelian Hurwitz-Hodge integrals*]{}, Michigan Math. J. [**60**]{} (2011), no. 1, 171-198.
P. Johnson, R. Pandharipande, H.-H. Tseng, [*Notes on local ${{\Bbb P}}^1$-orbifolds*]{}, preprint.
T. Lam, P, Pylyavskyy, [*Total positivity in loop groups I: whirls and curls*]{}, Adv. Math. [**230**]{} (2012), no. 3, 1222-1271.
J. Li, [*Stable Morphisms to singular schemes and relative stable morphisms*]{}, J. Diff. Geom. [**57**]{} (2001), 509-578.
J. Li, [*Relative Gromov-Witten invariants and a degeneration formula of Gromov-Witten invariants*]{}, J. Diff. Geom. [**60**]{} (2002), 199-293.
J. Li, C.-C. Liu, K. Liu, J. Zhou, [*A mathematical theory of the topological vertex*]{}, Geom. Topol., 13:527, 2009.
C.-C. Liu, [*Formulae of one-partition and two-partition Hodge integrals*]{}, Geometry and Topology Monographs [**8**]{} (2006), 105-128.
C.-C. Liu, [*Localization in Gromov-Witten theory and orbifold Gromov-Witten theory*]{}, arxiv: 1107.4712v2.
C.-C. Liu, K. Liu, J. Zhou, [*A proof of a conjecture of Mariño-Vafa on Hodge integrals*]{}, J. Differential Geom. [**65**]{} (2003), no. 2, 289-340.
C.-C. Liu, K. Liu, J. Zhou, [*A formula of two-parition Hodge integrals*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc., [**20(1)**]{} (2007), 149-184.
C.-C. Liu, K. Liu, J. Zhou, [*Mariño-Vafa formula and Hodge integral indentities*]{}, J. Alg. Geom. [**15**]{} (2006), 379-398.
C.-C. Liu, K. Liu, J. Zhou, [*On a proof of a conjecture of Mariño-Vafa on Hodge integrals*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. [**11**]{} (2004), 259-272.
I. G. Macdonald, [*Symmetric functions and Hall polynomials*]{}, Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, second edition, 1995. With contributions by A. Zelevinsky, Oxford Science Publications.
D. Maulik, A. Oblomkov, A. Okounkov, R. Pandharipande, [*Gromov-Witten/Donaldson-Thomas correspondence for toric 3-folds*]{}, Invent. Math. 186 (2011), no. 2, 435¨C479.
D. Mumford, [*Towards an enumerative geometry of the moduli space of curves*]{}, Arithmetic and Geometry (M. Artin, J. Tate, eds.), Part II, Birkhäuser, 1983, 271-328.
A. Okounkov and R. Pandharipande, [*Virasoro constraints for target curves*]{}, Invent. Math. 163 (2006), no. 1, 47-108.
A. Okounkov and R. Pandharipande, [*Hodge integrals and invariants of the unknots*]{}, Geom. Topol. [**8**]{} (2004), 675-699.
D. Ross, [*Localization and gluing of orbifold amplitudes: the Gromov-Witten orbifold vertex*]{}, arXiv: 1109.5995v3.
D. Ross, [*The gerby Gopakumar-Mariño-Vafa formula*]{}, arxiv: 1208.4342.
D. Ross, [*The Loop Murnaghan-Nakayama Rule*]{}, arXiv:1208.4369.
H. Zhang J. Zhou, [*Wreath Hurwitz numbers, colored cut-and-join equations, and 2-Toda hierarchy*]{}, Sci. China Math. [**55**]{} (2012), no. 8, 1627-1646. 1869-1862.
J. Zhou, [*Hodge integrals, Hurwitz numbers, and symmetric groups*]{}, arXiv: math. AG/0308024.
Z. Zong, [*Generalized Mariño-Vafa formula and local Gromov-Witten theory of orbi-curves*]{}, arXiv: 1109.4992.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The diversity of neuron models used in contemporary theoretical neuroscience to investigate specific properties of covariances in the spiking activity raises the question how these models relate to each other. In particular it is hard to distinguish between generic properties of covariances and peculiarities due to the abstracted model. Here we present a unified view on pairwise covariances in recurrent networks in the irregular regime. We consider the binary neuron model, the leaky integrate-and-fire model, and the Hawkes process. We show that linear approximation maps each of these models to either of two classes of linear rate models, including the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process as a special case. The distinction between both classes is the location of additive noise in the rate dynamics, which is located on the output side for spiking models and on the input side for the binary model. Both classes allow closed form solutions for the covariance. For output noise it separates into an echo term and a term due to correlated input. The unified framework enables us to transfer results between models. For example, we generalize the binary model and the Hawkes process to the situation with synaptic conduction delays and simplify derivations for established results. Our approach is applicable to general network structures and suitable for the calculation of population averages. The derived averages are exact for fixed out-degree network architectures and approximate for fixed in-degree. We demonstrate how taking into account fluctuations in the linearization procedure increases the accuracy of the effective theory and we explain the class dependent differences between covariances in the time and the frequency domain. Finally we show that the oscillatory instability emerging in networks of integrate-and-fire models with delayed inhibitory feedback is a model-invariant feature: the same structure of poles in the complex frequency plane determines the population power spectra.'
title: A unified view on weakly correlated recurrent networks
---
c
Dmytro Grytskyy$^{1,\ast}$, Tom Tetzlaff$^{1}$, Markus Diesmann$^{1,2}$, Moritz Helias$^{1}$
**[1]{} Inst. of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6) and Inst. for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6)**\
**Jülich Research Centre and JARA, Jülich, Germany**\
**[2]{} Medical Faculty**\
**RWTH Aachen University, Germany**\
**$\ast$ email: [email protected]**
Keywords {#keywords .unnumbered}
========
Correlations, linear response, Hawkes process, leaky integrate-and-fire model, binary neuron, linear rate model, Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process
Introduction
============
The meaning of correlated neural activity for the processing and representation of information in cortical networks is still not understood, but evidence for a pivotal role of correlations increases [recently reviewed in @Cohen11_811]. Different studies have shown that correlations can either decrease [@Zohary94_140] or increase [@Sompolinsky01a] the signal to noise ratio of population signals, depending on the readout mechanism. The architecture of cortical networks is dominated by convergent and divergent connections among the neurons [@Braitenberg91] causing correlated neuronal activity by common input from shared afferent neurons in addition to direct connections between pairs of neurons and common external signals. It has been shown that correlated activity can faithfully propagate through convergent-divergent feed forward structures, such as synfire chains [@Abeles91; @Diesmann99_529], a potential mechanism to convey signals in the brain. Correlated firing was also proposed as a key to the solution of the binding problem [@Malsburg81; @Bienenstock95; @Singer99_49], an idea that has been discussed controversially [@Shadlen99]. Independent of a direct functional role of correlations in cortical processing, the covariance function between the spiking activity of a pair of neurons contains the information about time intervals between spikes. Changes of synaptic coupling, mediated by spike-timing dependent synaptic plasticity [STDP, @Markram97a; @Bi99], are hence sensitive to correlations. Understanding covariances in spiking networks is thus a prerequisite to investigate the evolution of synapses in plastic networks [@Burkitt07_533; @Gilson09_1; @Gilson10_si].
On the other side, there is ubiquitous experimental evidence of correlated spike events in biological neural networks, going back to early reports on multi-unit recordings in cat auditory cortex [@Perkel67b; @Gerstein69_828], the observation of closely time-locked spikes appearing at behaviorally relevant points in time [@Kilavik09_12653; @Ito11_2482] and collective oscillations in cortex [recently reviewed in @Buzsaki12_203].
The existing theories explaining correlated activity use a multitude of different neuron models. @Hawkes71_438 developed the theory of covariances for linear spiking Poisson neurons (Hawkes processes). @Ginzburg94 presented the approach of linearization to treat fluctuations around the point of stationary activity and to obtain the covariances for networks of non-linear binary neurons. The formal concept of linearization allowed @Brunel99 and @Brunel00_183 to explain fast collective gamma oscillations in networks of spiking leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) neurons. Correlations in feed-forward networks of leaky integrate-and-fire models are studied in @Morenobote06_028101, exact analytical solutions for such network architectures are given in @Rosenbaum10_00116 for the case of stochastic random walk models, and threshold crossing neuron models are considered in @Tchumatchenko10_058102 and @Burak09_2269. Covariances in structured networks are investigated for Hawkes processes [@Pernice11_e1002059], and in linear approximation for LIF [@Pernice12_031916] and exponential integrate-and-fire neurons [@Trousdale12_e1002408]. The latter three works employ an expansion of the propagator (time evolution operator) in terms of the order of interaction. Finally @Buice09_377 investigate higher order cumulants of the joint activity in networks of binary model neurons.
Analytical insight into a neuroscientific phenomenon based on correlated neuronal activity often requires a careful choice of the neuron model to arrive at a solvable problem. Hence a diversity of models has been proposed and is in use. This raises the question which features of covariances are generic properties of recurrent networks and which are specific to a certain model. Only if this question can be answered one can be sure that a particular result is not an artifact of oversimplified neuronal dynamics. Currently it is unclear how different neuron models relate to each other and whether and how results obtained with one model carry over to another. In this work we present a unified theoretical view on pairwise correlations in recurrent networks in the asynchronous and collective-oscillatory regime, approximating the response of different models to linear order. The joint treatment allows us to answer the question of genericness and moreover naturally leads to a classification of the considered models into only two categories, as illustrated in . The classification in addition enables us to extend existing theoretical results to biologically relevant parameters, such as synaptic delays and the presence of inhibition, and to derive explicit expressions for the time-dependent covariance functions, in quantitative agreement with direct simulations, which can serve as a starting point for further work.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. In the first part of our results in [“”]{} we investigate the activity and the structure of covariance functions for two versions of linear rate models (LRM); one with input the other with output noise. If the activity relaxes exponentially after application of a short perturbation, both models coincide with the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process (OUP). We mainly consider the latter case, although most results hold for arbitrary kernel functions. We extend the analytical solutions for the covariances in networks of OUP [@Risken96] to the neuroscientifically important case of synaptic conduction delays. Solutions are derived first for general forms of connectivity in [“”]{} for input noise and in [“”]{} for output noise. After analyzing the spectral properties of the dynamics in the frequency domain in [“”]{}, identifying poles of the propagators and their relation to collective oscillations in neuronal networks, we show in [“”]{} how to obtain pairwise averaged covariances in homogeneous Erdös-Rényi random networks. We explain in detail the use of the residue theorem to perform the Fourier back-transformation of covariance functions to the time domain in [“”]{} for general connectivity and in [“”]{} for averaged covariance functions in random networks, which allows us to obtain explicit results and to discuss class dependent features of covariance functions.
In the second part of our results in [“”]{}, [“”]{},\
and [“”]{} we consider the mapping of different neuronal dynamics on either of the two flavors of the linear rate models discussed in the first part. The mapping procedure is qualitatively the same for all dynamics as illustrated in : Starting from the dynamic equations of the respective model, we first determine the working point described in terms of the mean activity in the network. For unstructured homogeneous random networks this amounts to a mean-field description in terms of the population averaged activity (i.e. firing rate in spiking models). In the next step, a linearization of the dynamical equations is performed around this working point. We explain how fluctuations can be considered in the linearization procedure to improve its accuracy and we show how the effective linear dynamics maps to the LRM. We illustrate the results throughout by a quantitative comparison of the analytical results to direct numerical simulations of the original non-linear dynamics. The appendices [“”]{},\
[“”]{}, and\
[“”]{} describe the model implementations and are modules of our long-term collaborative project to provide the technology for neural systems simulations [@Gewaltig_07_11204].
Covariance structure of noisy rate models\[sec:ornstein\_uhlenbeck\_process\]
=============================================================================
Definition of models\[sub:def\_models\]
---------------------------------------
Let us consider a network of linear model neurons, each characterized by a continuous fluctuating rate $r$ and connections from neuron $j$ to neuron $i$ given by the element $w_{ij}$ of the connectivity matrix $\w$. We assume that the response of neuron $i$ to input can be described by a linear kernel $h$ so that the activity in the network fulfills $$\r(t)=h(\circ)\ast[\w\r(\circ-d)+\boldsymbol{b}\x(\circ)](t),\label{eq:rdwithb}$$ where $f(\circ-d)$ denotes the function $f$ shifted by the delay $d$, $\x$ is an uncorrelated noise with
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle x_{i}(t)\rangle & = & 0\text{,\qquad}\langle x_{i}(s)x_{j}(t)\rangle=\delta_{ij}\delta(s-t)\rho^{2}\ ,\label{eq:noise}\end{aligned}$$
e\. g. a Gaussian white noise and $(f\ast g)(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{t}f(t-t^{\prime})g(t^{\prime})\, dt^{\prime}$ is the convolution. With the particular choice $\boldsymbol{b}=\w\delta(\circ-d)\ast$ we obtain
$$\r(t)=[h(\circ)\ast\w(\r(\circ-d)+\x(\circ-d))](t).\label{eq:rdon}$$
We call the dynamics the linear noisy rate model (LRM) with noise applied to output, as the sum $r+x$ appears on the right hand side. Alternatively, choosing $\boldsymbol{b}=\Em$ we define the model with input noise as
$$\r(t)=h(\circ)\ast[\w\r(\circ-d)+\x(\circ)](t).\label{eq:rdin}$$
Hence, equations and are special cases of . In the following we consider the particular case of an exponential kernel $$\begin{aligned}
h(s) & =\frac{1}{\tau}\theta(s)\, e^{-s/\tau},\label{eq:exp_kernel-1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ denotes the Heaviside function, $\theta(t)=1$ for $t>0$, $0$ else. Applying to the operator $O=\tau\frac{d}{ds}+1$ which has $h$ as a Green’s function (i.e. $Oh=\delta)$ we get
$$\tau\frac{d}{dt}\r(t)+\r(t)=\w\r(t-d)+\b\x(t),\label{eq:OUPin-1}$$
which is the equation describing a set of delay coupled Ornstein-Uhlenbeck-processes (OUP) with input or output noise for $\boldsymbol{b}=\Em$ or $\boldsymbol{b}=\w\delta(\circ-d)\ast$, respectively. We use this representation in [“”]{} to show the correspondence to networks of binary neurons.
Solution of the convolution equation with input noise\[sub:solution\_convolution\_equation\_input\_noise\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The solution for the system with input noise obtained from the definition after Fourier transformation is
$$\R=H_{d}\w\R+H\X,$$
where the delay is consumed by the kernel function $h_{d}(s)=\frac{1}{\tau}\theta(s-d)e^{-(s-d)/\tau}$. We use capital letters throughout the text to denote objects in the Fourier domain and lower case letters for objects in the time domain. Solved for $\R=(1-H_{d}\w)^{-1}H\X$ the covariance function of $\r$ in the Fourier domain is found with the WienerKhinchin theorem [@Gardiner04] as $\langle\R(\omega)\R^{T}(-\omega)\rangle$, also called the cross spectrum
$$\begin{aligned}
\C(\omega) & =\langle\R(\omega)\R^{T}(-\omega)\rangle\label{eq:cross_spectrum_in}\\
& =(1-H_{d}(\omega)\w)^{-1}H(\omega)\langle\X(\omega)\X^{T}(-\omega)\rangle H(-\omega)(1-H_{d}(-\omega)\w^{T})^{-1}\nonumber \\
& =(H_{d}(\omega)^{-1}-\w)^{-1}\D(H_{d}(-\omega)^{-1}-\w^{T})^{-1},\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
where we introduced the matrix $\D=\langle\X(\omega)\X^{T}(-\omega)\rangle$. From the second to the third line we used the fact that the non-delayed kernels $H(\omega)$ can be replaced by delayed kernels $H_{d}(\omega)$ and that the corresponding phase factors $e^{i\omega d}$ and $e^{-i\omega d}$ cancel each other. If $\x$ is a vector of pairwise uncorrelated noise, $\D$ is a diagonal matrix and needs to be chosen accordingly in order for the cross spectrum to coincide (neglecting non-linear effects) with the cross spectrum of a network of binary neurons, as described in\
[“”]{}.
Solution of convolution equation with output noise\[sub:solution\_convolution\_equation\_output\_noise\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the system with output noise we consider the quantity $y_{i}=r_{i}+x_{i}$ as the dynamic variable representing the activity of neuron $i$ and aim to determine pairwise correlations. It is easy to get from after Fourier transformation
$$\R=H_{d}\w(\R+\X),$$
which can be solved for $\R=(1-H_{d}\w)^{-1}H_{d}\w\X$ in order to determine the Fourier transform of $\Y$ as
$$\Y=\R+\X=(1-H_{d}\w)^{-1}\X.$$
The cross spectrum hence follows as
$$\begin{aligned}
\C(\omega) & =\langle\Y(\omega)\Y{}^{T}(-\omega)\rangle\label{eq:cross_spectrum_on}\\
& =(1-H_{d}(\omega)\w)^{-1}\langle\X(\omega)\X^{T}(-\omega)\rangle(1-H_{d}(-\omega)\w^{T})^{-1}\nonumber \\
& =(1-H_{d}(\omega)\w)^{-1}\D(1-H_{d}(-\omega)\w^{T})^{-1},\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
with $\D=\langle\X(\omega)\X^{T}(-\omega)\rangle$. $\D$ is a diagonal matrix with the $i$-th diagonal entry $\rho_{i}^{2}$. For the correspondence to spiking models $\D$ must be chosen appropriately, as discussed in [“”]{} and [“”]{} for Hawkes processes and leaky integrate-and-fire neurons, respectively.
Spectrum of the dynamics\[sub:spectrum\_of\_dynamics\]
------------------------------------------------------
For both linear rate dynamics, with output and with input noise, the cross spectrum $\C(\omega)$ has poles at certain frequencies $\omega$ in the complex plane. These poles are defined by the zeros of $\det(H_{d}(\omega)^{-1}-\w)$ and the corresponding term with the opposite sign of $\omega$. The zeros of $\det(H_{d}(\omega)^{-1}-\w)$ are solutions of the equation
$$H_{d}(\omega)^{-1}=(1+i\omega\tau)e^{i\omega d}=L_{j}$$ where $L_{j}$ is the $j$-th eigenvalue of $\w$. The same set of poles arises from when solving for $\R$. For $d>0$ and the exponential kernel , the poles can be expressed as
$$z_{k}(L_{j})=\frac{i}{\tau}-\frac{i}{d}W_{k}(L_{j}\frac{d}{\tau}e^{\frac{d}{\tau}}),\label{eq:poles_z}$$
where $W_{k}$ is the $k$-th of the infinitely many branches of the Lambert-W function [@Corless96_329]. For vanishing synaptic delay $d=0$ there is obviously only one solution for every $L_{j}$ given by $z=\frac{-i}{\tau}(L_{j}-1)$.
Given the same parameters $d$, $\w$, $\tau$, the pole structures of the cross spectra of both systems and are identical, since the former can be obtained from the latter by multiplication with $(H_{d}(\omega)H_{d}(-\omega))^{-1}=(H(\omega)H(-\omega))^{-1}$, which has no poles. The only exception causing a different pole structure for the two models is the existence of an eigenvalue $L_{j}=0$ of the connectivity matrix $\w$, corresponding to a pole $z(0)=\frac{i}{\tau}$. However, this pole corresponds to an exponential decay of the covariance for input noise in the time domain and hence does not contribute to oscillations. For output noise, the multiplication with the term vanishing at $\omega=\frac{i}{\tau}$, cancels this pole in the covariance. Consequently both dynamics exhibit similar oscillations. A typical spectrum of poles for a negative eigenvalue $L_{j}<0$ is shown in B,D.
Population-averaged covariances\[sub:population\_averaged\_correlations\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Often it is desirable to consider not the whole covariance matrix but averages over subpopulations of pairs of neurons. For instance the average over the whole network would result in a single scalar value. Separately averaging pairs, distinguishing excitatory and inhibitory neuron populations, yields a $2$ by $2$ matrix of covariances. For these simpler objects closed form solutions can be obtained, which already preserve some useful information and show important features of the network. Averaged covariances are also useful for comparison with simulations and experimental results.
In the following we consider a recurrent random network of $N_{e}=N$ excitatory and $N_{i}=\gamma N$ inhibitory neurons with synaptic weight $w$ for excitatory and $-gw$ for inhibitory synapses. The probability $p$ determines the existence of a connection between two randomly chosen neurons. We study the dynamics averaged over the two subpopulations by introducing the quantities $r_{a}=\frac{1}{N_{a}}\sum_{j\in a}r_{j}$ and noise terms $x_{a}=\frac{1}{N_{a}}\sum_{j\in a}x_{j}$ for $a\in\{\Ex,\In\}$; indices $\In$ and $\Ex$ stand for inhibitory and excitatory neurons and corresponding quantities. Calculating the average local input $N_{a}^{-1}\sum_{j\in a}w_{jk}r_{k}$ to a neuron of type $a$, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
N_{a}^{-1}\sum_{j\in a}\sum_{k}w_{jk}r_{k} & =\label{eq:average_connectivity}\\
& =N_{a}^{-1}(\sum_{j\in a}\sum_{k\in\Ex}w_{jk}r_{k}+\sum_{j\in a}\sum_{k\in\In}w_{jk}r_{k})\nonumber \\
& =N_{a}^{-1}(pN_{a}w\sum_{k\in\Ex}r{}_{k}-pN_{a}gw\sum_{k\in\In}r{}_{k})\nonumber \\
& =pwN(r_{\Ex}-\gamma gr_{\In}),\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
where, from the second to the third line we used the fact that in expectation a given neuron $k$ has $pN_{a}$ targets in the population $a$. The reduction to the averaged system in is exact if in every column $k$ in $\w_{jk}$ there are exactly $K$ non-zero elements for $j\in\Ex$ and $\gamma K$ for $j\in\In$, which is the case for networks with fixed out-degree (number of outgoing connections of a neuron to the neurons of a particular type is kept constant), as noted earlier [@Tetzlaff12_e1002596]. For fixed in-degree (number of connections to a neuron coming in from the neurons of a particular type is kept constant) the substitution of $r_{j\in a}$ by $r_{a}$ is an additional approximation, which could be considered as an average over possible realizations of the random connectivity. In both cases the effective population-averaged connectivity matrix $\M$ turns out to be
$$\M=Kw\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -\gamma g\\
1 & -\gamma g
\end{array}\right),\label{eq:averaged_conn}$$
with $K=pN$. So the averaged activities fulfill the same equations and with the non-averaged quantities $\r$, $\x$, and $\w$ replaced by their averaged counterparts $\bar{\r}=(r_{\Ex},r_{\In})^{T}$, $\bar{\x}=(x_{\Ex},x_{\In})^{T}$, and $\M$. The population averaged activities $r_{a}$ are directly related to the block-wise averaged covariance matrix $\bar{\c}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
c_{\Ex\Ex} & c_{\Ex\In}\\
c_{\In\Ex} & c_{\In\In}
\end{array}\right)$, with $c_{ab}=N_{a}^{-1}N_{b}^{-1}\sum_{i\in a}\sum_{j\in b}c_{ij}$. With $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{D}_{ab}= & N_{a}^{-1}N_{b}^{-1}\left\langle \sum_{i\in a}x_{i}\sum_{j\in b}x_{j}\right\rangle \label{eq:averagedD}\\
= & N_{a}^{-1}N_{b}^{-1}\sum_{i\in a}\sum_{j\in b}D_{ij}\nonumber \\
= & \delta_{ab}N_{a}/N_{a}^{2}\rho^{2}=\delta_{ab}N_{a}^{-1}\rho^{2}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ we replace $\D$ by $\bar{\D}=\rho^{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
N^{-1} & 0\\
0 & (\gamma N)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)$ and $\c$ by $\bar{\c}$ so that the same equations and and their general solutions also hold for the block-wise averaged covariance matrices.
![Pole structure determines dynamics. Autocovariance of the population activity (**A**,**C**) measured in $\rho^{2}/\tau$ and its Fourier transform called power spectrum (**B**,**D**) of the rate models with output noise (dots) and input noise (diagonal crosses) for delays $d=3\ms$ (**A**,**B**) and $d=1\ms$ (**C**,**D**). Black symbols show averages over the excitatory population activity and gray symbols over the inhibitory activity obtained by direct simulation. Light gray curves show theoretical predictions for the spectrum and the covariance for output noise and the spectrum and the covariance for input noise. Black crosses in B, D denote the locations of the poles of the cross spectra - with the real parts corresponding to the damping (vertical axis), and the imaginary parts to oscillation frequencies (horizontal axis). The detailed parameters for this and following figures are given in [“”]{}. \[fig:power\_spectra\]](grytskyy_fig2)
The covariance matrices separately averaged over pairs of excitatory, inhibitory or mixed pairs are shown in for both linear rate dynamics and . (Parameters for all simulations presented in this article are collected in [“”]{}, the implementation of linear rate models is described in [“”]{}). The poles of both models shown in B are given by and coincide with the peaks in the cross spectra and for output and input noise, respectively. The results of direct simulation and the theoretical prediction are shown for two different delays, with the longer delay leading to stronger oscillations.
![Limits of the theory for fixed in-degree and fixed out-degree. Autocovariance (**A**) and covariance (**B**) in random networks with fixed in-degree (dots) and fixed out-degree (crosses). Simulation results for $c_{\Ex\Ex}$, $c_{\Ex\In}$, and $c_{\In\In}$ are shown in dark gray, black and light gray, respectively for synaptic weight $w=0.011$ far from bifurcation. For larger synaptic weight $w=0.018$ close to bifurcation (see text at the end of [“”]{}), $c_{\Ex\Ex}$ is also shown in **D** for fixed in-degree (dark gray dots) and for fixed out-degree (black dots). Corresponding theoretical predictions for the autocovariance (A) and the covariance (B,D) are plotted as light gray curves throughout. The set of eigenvalues is shown as black dots in panel **C** for the smaller weight. The gray circle denotes the spectral radius $w\sqrt{Np(1-p)(1+\gamma g^{2})}$ [@Rajan06; @Kriener08_2185] confining the set of eigenvalues for the larger weight. The small filled gray circle and the triangle show the effective eigenvalues $L$ of the averaged systems for small and large weight, respectively.\[fig:invsoutdegree\]](grytskyy_fig3)
C shows the distribution of eigenvalues in the complex plane for two random connectivity matrices with different synaptic amplitudes $w$. The model exhibits a bifurcation, if at least one eigenvalue assumes a zero real part. For fixed out-degree the averaging procedure is exact, reflected by the precise agreement of theory and simulation in D. For fixed in-degree, the averaging procedure is an approximation, which is good only for parameters far from the bifurcation. Even in this regime still small deviations of the theory from the simulation results are visible in B. On the stable side close to a bifurcation, the appearance of long living modes causes large fluctuations. These weakly damped modes appearing in one particular realization of the connectivity matrix are not represented after the replacement of the full matrix $\w$ by the average $\M$ over matrix realizations. The eigenvalue spectrum of the connectivity matrix provides an alternative way to understand the deviations. By the averaging the set of $N$ eigenvalues of the connectivity matrix is replaced withby the two eigenvalues of the reduced matrix $\M$, one of which is zero due to identical rows of $\M$. The eigenvalue spectrum of the full matrix is illustrated in C. Even if the eigenvalue(s) $L^{\M}$ of $\M$ are far in the stable region (corresponding to $\Im(z(L^{\M}))>0$) some eigenvalues $L^{\w}$ of the full connectivity matrix in the vicinity of the bifurcation region may still have an imaginary part becoming negative and the system can feel their influence, shown in D.
Fourier back transformation\[sub:fourier\_back\_transformation\]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Although the cross spectral matrices and for both dynamics look similar in the Fourier domain, the procedures for back transformation differ in detail. In both cases, the Fourier integral along the real $\omega$-axis can be extended to a closed integration contour by a semi-circle with infinite radius centered at $0$ in the appropriately chosen half-plane. The half-plane needs to be selected such that the contribution of the integration along the semi-circle vanishes. By employing the residue theorem [@Bronstein99] the integral can be replaced by a sum over residua of the poles encircled by the contour. For a general covariance matrix we only need to calculate $\c(t)$ for $t\geq0$, as for $t<0$ the solution can be found by symmetry $\c(-t)=\c^{T}(-t)$.
For input noise it is possible to close the contour in the upper half-plane where the integrand $\C(\omega)\, e^{i\omega t}$ vanishes for $|\omega|\rightarrow\text{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ for all $t>0$, as $|C_{ij}(\omega)|$ decays as $|\omega|^{-2}$. This can be seen from , because the highest order of $H_{d}^{-1}\propto\omega$ appearing in $\det(H_{d}^{-1}-\w)$ is equal to the dimensionality $N$ of $\w$ ($N=2$ for $\M$), and in $\det(\text{adjugate matrix \ensuremath{ij}of }H_{d}^{-1}-\w)$ it is $N-1$ ($i=j$) or $N-2$ ($i\neq j$). So $|(H_{d}^{-1}-\w)^{-1}|$ is proportional to $|\omega|^{-1}|e^{-i\omega d}|$ and $|\C(\omega)|\propto|\omega|^{-2}$ for large $|\omega|$.
For the case of output noise $\C(\omega)$ can be obtained from the $\C(\omega)$ for input noise multiplied with $(H_{d}(\omega)H_{d}(-\omega))^{-1}\sim|\omega|^{2}$ for large $|\omega|$. The multiplication with this factor changes the asymptotic behavior of the integrand, which therefore contains terms converging to a constant value and terms decaying like $|\omega|^{-1}$ for $|\omega|\rightarrow\text{\ensuremath{\infty}}$. These terms result in non-vanishing integrals over the semicircle in the upper half-plane and have to be considered separately. To this end we rewrite as
$$\begin{aligned}
\C(\omega)= & ((1-H_{d}(\omega)\w)^{-1}H_{d}(\omega)\w+1)\D(\w^{T}H_{d}(-\omega)(1-H_{d}(-\omega)\w^{T})^{-1}+1)\label{eq:cross_spectrum_on_separated}\\
= & (1-H_{d}(\omega)\w)^{-1}H_{d}(\omega)\w\D\w^{T}H_{d}(-\omega)(1-H_{d}(-\omega)\w^{T})^{-1}\nonumber \\
+ & (1-H_{d}(\omega)\w)^{-1}H_{d}(\omega)\w\D\nonumber \\
+ & \D\w^{T}H_{d}(-\omega)(1-H_{d}(-\omega)\w^{T})^{-1}\nonumber \\
+ & \D,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
and find the constant term $\D$ which turns into a $\delta$-function in the time domain. The first term in the second line of decays like $|\omega|^{-2}$ and can be transformed just as $\C(\omega)$ for input noise closing the contour in the upper half-plane. The second and third term are the transposed complex conjugates of each other, because of the dependence of $H$ on $-\omega$ instead of $\omega$, and require a special consideration. Multiplied by $e^{i\omega t}$ under the Fourier integral, the first term is proportional to $H_{d}e^{i\omega t}\sim\omega^{-1}e^{i\omega(t-d)}$ and vanishes faster than $|\omega|^{-1}$ for large $|\omega|$ in the upper half-plane for $t>d$ and in the lower half plane for $t<d$. For the second term the half planes are interchanged. The application of the residue theorem requires closing the integration contour in the half-plane where the integral over the semi-circle vanishes faster than $|\omega|^{-1}$. For $\w=\M$ and in the general case of a stable dynamics all poles of the first term are in the upper half-plane $\Im(z_{k}(L_{j}))>0$, and have no contribution to $\c(t)$ for $t<d$. For the second term the same is true for $t>-d$; these terms correspond to the jumps of $\c(t)$ after one delay, caused by the effect of the sending neuron arriving at the other neurons in the system after one synaptic delay. These terms correspond to the response of the system to the impulse of the sending neuron – hence we call them “echo terms” in the following [@Helias13_023002]. The presence of such discontinuous jumps at time points $d$ and $-d$ in the case of output noise is reflected in the convolution of $h\w$ with $\D$ in the time domain in . For input noise the absence of discontinuities can be inferred from the absence of such terms in , where the derivative of the correlation function is equal to the sum of finite terms. The first summand in corresponds to the covariance evoked by fluctuations propagating through the system originating from the same neuron and we call it “correlated input term”. In the system with input noise a similar separation into effective echo and correlated input terms can be performed. We obtain the correlated input term as the covariance in an auxiliary population without outgoing connections and echo terms as the difference between the full covariance between neurons within the network and the correlated input term.
Explicit expression for the population averaged cross covariance in the time domain\[sub:explicit\_expressions\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We obtain the population averaged cross spectrum in a recurrent random network of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes with input noise by inserting the averaged connectivity matrix $\w=\M$ into . The explicit expression for the covariance function follows by taking into account all (both) eigenvalues of $\M$ with values $0$ and $L=Kw(1-\gamma g)$. The detailed derivation of the results presented in this section are documented in [“”]{}. The expression for the cross spectrum takes the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\C(\omega) & =f(\omega)f(-\omega)\left(\Em+Kw\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & -\gamma g\\
1 & -1
\end{array}\right)H_{d}(\omega)\right)\D\left(\Em+Kw\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & 1\\
-\gamma g & -1
\end{array}\right)H_{d}(-\omega)\right),\label{eq:avg_cross_spectrum_in}\end{aligned}$$
where we introduced $f(\omega)=(H_{d}(\omega)^{-1}-L){}^{-1}$ as a short hand. Sorting the terms by their dependence on $\omega$, introducing the functions $\Phi_{1}(\omega),\ldots,\Phi_{4}(\omega)$ for this dependence, and $\varphi_{1}(t),\ldots,\varphi_{4}(t)$ for the corresponding functions in the time domain, the covariance in the time domain $\c(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\C(\omega)e^{i\omega t}d\omega$ takes the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\c(t) & =\D\varphi_{1}(t)\\
& +Kw\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & -\gamma g\\
1 & -1
\end{array}\right)\D\varphi_{2}(t)+\D\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & 1\\
-\gamma g & -1
\end{array}\right)\varphi_{3}(t)\right)\\
& +K^{2}w^{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & -\gamma g\\
1 & -1
\end{array}\right)\D\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & 1\\
-\gamma g & -1
\end{array}\right)\varphi_{4}(t).\end{aligned}$$
The previous expression is valid for arbitrary $\D$. In simulations presented in this article we consider identical marginal input statistics for all neurons. In this case the averaged activities for excitatory and inhibitory neurons are the same, so we can insert the special form of $\D$ given in , which results in $$\begin{aligned}
\c(t) & =\frac{\rho^{2}}{N}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & \gamma^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\varphi_{1}(t)\label{eq:cov_avg_oupin_t}\\
& +\frac{\rho^{2}}{N}Kw\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & -g\\
1 & -\gamma^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\varphi_{2}(t)+\frac{\rho^{2}}{N}Kw\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & 1\\
-g & -\gamma^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\varphi_{3}(t)\nonumber \\
& +\frac{\rho^{2}}{N}(\gamma+1)K^{2}w^{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g^{2} & g\\
g & \gamma^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\varphi_{4}(t).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The time-dependent functions $\varphi_{1},\ldots,\varphi_{4}$ are the same in both cases. Using the residue theorem $\varphi_{i}(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\Phi_{i}(\omega)e^{i\omega t}d\omega=i\sum_{z\in\text{poles of }\Phi_{i}}\mathrm{Res}(\Phi_{i},z)\, e^{izt}$ for $t\geqq0$ they can be expressed as a sum over the poles $z_{k}(L)$ given by and the pole $z=\frac{i}{\tau}$ of $H_{d}(\omega)$. At $\omega=z_{k}(L)$ the residue of is $\mathrm{Res}(f,\omega=z_{k}(L))=\left(idL+i\tau e^{i\omega d}\right)^{-1},$ the residue of $H_{d}(\omega)$ at $z=\frac{i}{\tau}$ is $-\frac{i}{\tau}e^{d/\tau}$, so that the explicit forms of $\varphi_{1},\ldots,\varphi_{4}$ follow as
$$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{1}(t) & =\sum_{\omega=z_{k}(L)}i\mathrm{Res}(f,\omega)f(-\omega)e^{i\omega t}\nonumber \\
\varphi_{2}(t) & =\sum_{\omega=z_{k}(L)}i\mathrm{Res}(f,\omega)f(-\omega)H_{d}(\omega)e^{i\omega t}+\frac{e^{(d-t)/\tau}}{\tau}f(\frac{i}{\tau})f(-\frac{i}{\tau})\nonumber \\
\varphi_{3}(t) & =\sum_{\omega=z_{k}(L)}i\mathrm{Res}(f,\omega)f(-\omega)H_{d}(-\omega)e^{i\omega t}\label{eq:phis}\\
\varphi_{4}(t) & =\sum_{\omega=z_{k}(L)}i\mathrm{Res}(f,\omega)f(-\omega)H_{d}(\omega)H_{d}(-\omega)e^{i\omega t}+\frac{e^{-t/\tau}}{2\tau}f(\frac{i}{\tau})f(-\frac{i}{\tau}).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
The corresponding expression for $\C(\omega)$ for output noise is obtained by multiplying with $H_{d}^{-1}(\omega)H_{d}^{-1}(-\omega)=(1+\omega^{2}\tau^{2})$
$$\begin{aligned}
\C(\omega) & =H_{d}^{-1}(\omega)H_{d}^{-1}(-\omega)f(\omega)f(-\omega)\label{eq:avg_cross_spectrum_on}\\
& \times(\Em+Kw\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & -\gamma g\\
1 & -1
\end{array}\right)H_{d}(\omega))\D(\Em+Kw\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & 1\\
-\gamma g & -1
\end{array}\right)H_{d}(-\omega)),\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
which, after Fourier transform, provides the expression for $\c(t)$ in the time domain for $t\geqq0$
$$\begin{aligned}
\c(t) & =\M\D\M^{T}\varphi_{1}(t)+\M\D\varphi_{0}(t)+\D\delta(t)\nonumber \\
& =K^{2}w^{2}\frac{\rho^{2}}{N}(1+\gamma g^{2})\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1\\
1 & 1
\end{array}\right)\varphi_{1}(t)+Kw\frac{\rho^{2}}{N}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -g\\
1 & -g
\end{array}\right)\varphi_{0}(t)+\frac{\rho^{2}}{N}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0\\
0 & \gamma{}^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\delta(t).\label{eq:cov_avg_oupon_t}\end{aligned}$$
As in , the first line holds for arbitrary $\D$, and the second for $\D$ given by , valid if the firing rates are homogeneous. $\varphi_{1}$ is defined as before, and
$$\varphi_{0}(t)=\theta(t-d)\sum_{\omega=z_{k}(L)}\left(dL+\tau e^{i\omega d}\right)^{-1}e^{i\omega t}\label{eq:phi0}$$
vanishes for $t<d$. All matrix elements of the first term in are identical. Therefore all elements of $\c(t)$ are equal for $0<|t|<d$. Both rows of the matrix in front of $\varphi_{0}$ are identical, so for $t>0$ the off diagonal term $c_{\In\Ex}$ coincides with $c_{\Ex\Ex}$ and $c_{\Ex\In}$ with $c_{\In\In}$ and vice versa for $t<0$.
As an illustration we show the functions $\varphi_{0},\ldots,\varphi_{4}$ for one set of parameters in . The left panels (A,C) correspond to contributions to the covariance caused by common input to a pair of neurons, the right panels (B,D) to terms due to the effect of one of the neurons’ activities on the remaining network (echo terms). The upper panels (A,B) belong to the model with input noise, the lower panel (C,D) to the one with output noise.
For the rate dynamics with output noise, the term with $\varphi_{1}$ in (shown in C) is symmetric and describes the common input covariance and the term with $\varphi_{0}$ (shown in D) is the echo part of the covariance. For the rate dynamics with input noise the term containing $\varphi_{4}$ (shown in A) is caused by common input and is hence also symmetric, the terms with $\varphi_{2}$ and $\varphi_{3}$ (shown in B) correspond to the echo part and have hence their peak outside the origin. The second echo term in is equal to the first one transposed and with opposite sign of the time argument, so we show $\varphi_{2}(t)$ and $\varphi_{3}(-t)$ together in one panel in B. Note that for input noise, the term with $\varphi_{1}$ describes the autocovariance, which corresponds to the term with the $\delta$-function in case of output noise.
The solution is visualized in , the solution in , and the decomposition into common input and echo parts is also shown and compared to direct simulations in .
![Functions $\varphi_{i,\ i=0...4}$ introduced in and for decomposition of covariance $\c(t)$. In panel **B** $\varphi_{3}(-t)$ is shown in gray and $\varphi_{2}(t)$ in black. The two functions are continuations of each other, joint at $t=0$. Both functions appear in the echo term for input noise. The function $\varphi_{0}$ in panel D describing the corresponding echo term in the case of output noise is shifted to be aligned with the function in panel B to facilitate the comparison of panels B and D. Parameters in all panels are $d=3\ms$, $\tau=10\ms$, $L=-1.72$.\[fig:phis\]](grytskyy_fig4)
Binary neurons\[sec:binary\_neurons\]
=====================================
In the following sections we study, in turn, the binary neuron model, the Hawkes model and the leaky integrate-and-fire model and show how they can be mapped to one of the two OUPs; either the one with input or the one with output noise, so that the explicit solutions and for the covariances derived in the previous section can be applied. In the present section, we start with the binary neuron model [@Ginzburg94; @Buice09_377].
Following @Ginzburg94 the state of the network of $N$ binary model neurons is described by a binary vector $\n\in\{0,1\}^{N}$ and each neuron is updated at independently drawn time points with exponentially distributed intervals of mean duration $\tau$. This stochastic update constitutes a source of noise in the system. Given the $i$-th neuron is updated, the probability to end in the up-state ($n_{i}=1$) is determined by the gain function $F_{i}(\n)$ which depends on the activity $\n$ of all other neurons. The probability to end in the down state ($n_{i}=0$) is $1-F_{i}(\n)$. Here we implemented the binary model in the NEST simulator [@Gewaltig_07_11204] as described in [“”]{}. Such systems have been considered earlier [@Ginzburg94; @Buice09_377], and here we follow the notation employed in the latter work. In the following we collect results that have been derived in these works and refer the reader to these publications for the details of the derivations. The zero-time lag covariance function is defined as $c_{ij}(t)=\langle n_{i}(t)n_{j}(t)\rangle-a_{i}(t)a_{j}(t)$, with the expectation value $\langle\rangle$ taken over different realizations of the stochastic dynamics. Here $\a(t)=(a_{1}(t),\ldots,a_{N}(t))^{T}$ is the vector of mean activities $a_{i}(t)=\langle n_{i}(t)\rangle$. $c_{ij}(t)$ fulfills the differential equation
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau\frac{d}{dt}c_{ij}(t) & = & -2c_{ij}(t)+\langle(n_{j}(t)-a_{j}(t))F_{i}(\n)\rangle+\langle(n_{i}(t)-a_{i}(t))F_{j}(\n)\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
In the stationary state, the correlation therefore fulfills $$\begin{aligned}
c_{ij} & = & \frac{1}{2}\langle(n_{j}-a_{j})F_{i}(\n)\rangle+\frac{1}{2}\langle(n_{i}-a_{i})F_{j}(\n)\rangle.\label{eq:cij_stationary}\end{aligned}$$ The time lagged covariance $c_{ij}(t,s)=\langle n_{i}(t)n_{j}(s)\rangle-a_{i}(t)a_{j}(s)$ fulfills for $t>s$ the differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\tau\frac{d}{dt}c_{ij}(t,s) & = & -c_{ij}(t,s)+\langle F_{i}(\n,t)(n_{j}(s)-a_{j}(s))\rangle.\label{eq:diffeq_cross_cov_lagged}\end{aligned}$$ This equation is also true for $i=j$, the autocovariance. The term $\langle F_{i}(\n,t)(n_{j}(s)-a_{j}(s))\rangle$ has a simple interpretation:. iIt measures the influence of a fluctuation of neuron $j$ at time $s$ around its mean value on the gain of neuron $i$ at time $t$ [@Ginzburg94]. We now assume a particular form for the coupling between neurons $$\begin{aligned}
F_{i}(\n,t) & = & \phi(\J{}_{i}\n(t-d))=\phi(\sum_{k=1}^{N}J{}_{ik}n_{k}(t-d)),\label{eq:input_functional}\end{aligned}$$ where $\J_{i}$ is the vector of incoming synaptic weights into neuron $i$ and $\phi$ is a non-linear gain function. Assuming that the fluctuations of the total input $\J_{i}\n$ into the $i$-th neuron are sufficiently small to allow a linearization of the gain function $\phi$, we obtain the Taylor expansion $$\begin{aligned}
F_{i}(\n,t) & = & F_{i}(\a)+\phi^{\prime}(\J_{i}\a)\,\J_{i}(\n(t-d)-\a(t-d)),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^{\prime}(\J_{i}\a)\label{eq:slope_of_avg}\end{aligned}$$ is the slope of the gain function at the point of mean input.
![Alternative linearizations of the binary neuron model. The black curve represents the non-linear gain function $\phi(x)=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\tanh(\beta x)$. The dashed gray line is its tangent at the mean input value (denoted by the diagonal cross). The solid curve is the slope $\langle\phi^{\prime}\rangle$ averaged over the distribution of the fluctuating input . This distribution estimated from direct simulation is presented by black dots, the corresponding theoretical prediction of a normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma)$ is shown as the light gray curve.\[fig:linofbin\]](grytskyy_fig5)
Up to this point the treatment of the system is identical to the work of @Ginzburg94. Now we present an alternative approach for the linearization which takes into account the effect of fluctuations in the input. For sufficiently asynchronous network states, the fluctuations in the input $\J_{i}\n(t-d)$ to neuron $i$ can be approximated by a Gaussian distribution $\mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma)$. In the following we consider a homogeneous random network with fixed in-degree as described in [“”]{}. As each neuron receives the same number $K$ of excitatory and $\gamma K$ inhibitory synapses, the marginal statistics of the summed input to each neuron is identical. The mean input to a neuron then is $\mu=KJ(1-\gamma g)a$, where $a$ is the mean activity of a neuron in the network. If correlations are small, the variance of this input signal distribution can be approximated as the sum of the variances of the individual contributions from the incoming signals, resulting in $\sigma^{2}=KJ^{2}(1+\gamma g^{2})\, a(1-a)$, where we used the fact that the variance of a binary variable with mean $a$ is $a(1-a)$. This results from a direct calculation: since $n\in\{0,1\}$, $n^{2}=n$, so that the variance is $\langle n^{2}\rangle-\langle n\rangle^{2}=\langle n\rangle-\langle n\rangle^{2}=a(1-a)$. Averaging the slope $\phi^{\prime}$ of the gain function over the distribution of the input variable results in the averaged slope $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\phi^{\prime}\rangle & \simeq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma,x)\,\phi^{\prime}(x)\; dx\label{eq:avg_slope}\\
\text{with }\mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma,x) & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}\exp\left(-\frac{(x-\mu)^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}}\right).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The two alternative methods of linearization of $\phi$ are illustrated in . In the given example, the linearization procedure taking into account the fluctuations of the input signal results in a smaller effective slope $\langle\phi^{\prime}\rangle$ than taking the slope $\phi^{\prime}(a)$ at the mean activity $a$ near its maximum. Averaging the slope $\langle\phi^{\prime}\rangle$ over this distribution fits simulation results better than $\phi^{\prime}(a)$ calculated at the mean of $a$, as shown in .
The finite slope of the non-linear gain function can be understood as resulting from the combination of a hard threshold with an intrinsic local source of noise. The inverse strength of this noise determines the slope parameter $\beta$ [@Ginzburg94]. In this sense, the network model contains two sources of noise, the explicit local noise, quantified by $\beta$ and the fluctuating synaptic input interpreted as self-generated noise on the network level, quantified by $\sigma$. Even in the absence of local noise ($\beta\to\infty$), the above mentioned linearization is applicable and yields a finite effective slope $\langle\phi^{\prime}\rangle$ . In the latter case the resulting effective synaptic weight is independent of the original synapse strength [@Grytskyy13_258].
We now extend the classical treatment of covariances in binary networks [@Ginzburg94] by synaptic conduction delays. In $F_{i}(\n,t$) must therefore be understood as a functional acting on the function $\n(t^{\prime})$ for $t^{\prime}\in[-\infty,t]$, so that also synaptic connections with time delay $d$ can be realized. We define an effective weight vector to absorb the gain factor as $\w_{i}=\beta_{i}\J{}_{i}$, with either $\beta_{i}=\phi^{\prime}(\mu)$ or $\beta_{i}=\langle\phi^{\prime}\rangle$ depending on the linearization procedure, and expand the right hand side of to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\langle F_{i}(\n,t)(n_{j}(s)-a_{j}(s))\rangle & = & \sum_{k=1}^{N}w_{ik}c_{kj}(t-d,s).\end{aligned}$$ Thus the cross-covariance fulfills the matrix delay differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
\tau\frac{d}{dt}\c(t,s)+\c(t,s) & = & \w\c(t-d,s).\label{eq:diffeq_cross_cov}\end{aligned}$$ This differential equation is valid for $t>s$. For the stationary solution, the differential equation only depends on the relative timing $u=t-s$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tau\frac{d}{du}\c(u)+\c(u) & = & \w\c(u-d).\label{eq:diffeq_cross_cov_eq}\end{aligned}$$ The same linearization applied to results in the boundary condition for the solution of the previous equation
$$2\c(0)=\w\c(-d)+(\w\c(-d))^{T}$$
or, if we split $\c$ into its diagonal and its off-diagonal parts $\c_{a}$ and $\c_{\neq}$
$$\begin{aligned}
2\c_{\neq}(0) & =\w\c_{\neq}(-d)+(\w\c_{\neq}(-d))^{T}+\OO\label{eq:binary_cov_0_lag}\\
\text{with } & \OO=\w\c_{a}(-d)+(\w\c_{a}(-d))^{T}.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
In the following section we use this representation to demonstrate the equivalence of the covariance structure of binary networks to the solution for Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes with input noise.
Equivalence of binary neurons and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes\[sub:equivalence\_binary\_oup\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the following subsection we show that the same equations and for binary neurons also hold for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process (OUP) with input noise. In doing so here we also extend the existing framework of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes [@Risken96] to synaptic conduction delays $d$. A network of such processes is described by
$$\tau\frac{d}{dt}\r(t)+\r(t)=\w\r(t-d)+\x(t),\label{eq:OUPin}$$
where $\x$ is a vector of pairwise uncorrelated white noise with $\langle\x(t)\rangle_{x}=0$ and $\langle x_{i}(t)x_{j}(t+t^{'})\rangle_{x}=\delta_{ij}\delta(t^{'})\rho^{2}$. With the help of the Green’s function $G$ satisfying $(\tau\frac{d}{dt}+1)\, G(t)=\delta(t)$, namely $G(t)=\frac{1}{\tau}\,\theta(t)\, e^{-t/\tau}$, we obtain the solution of equation as
$$\r(t)=\tau G(t)\r(0)+\int_{0}^{t}G(t-t^{'})(\w\r(t^{'}-d)+\x(t^{'}))\, dt^{'}.$$ The equation for the fluctuations $\delta\r(t)=\r(t)-\langle\r(t)\rangle_{x}$ around the expectation value
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta\r(t) & =\int_{0}^{t}G(t-t^{'})(\w\delta\r(t^{'}-d)+\x(t^{'}))\, dt^{'}\end{aligned}$$
coincides with the noisy rate model with input noise with delay $d$ and convolution kernel $h=G$. In the next step we investigate the covariance matrix $c_{ij}(t,s)=\langle\delta r_{i}(t+s)\delta r_{j}(t)\rangle_{x}$ to show for which choice of parameters the covariance matrices for the binary model and the OUP with input noise coincide. To this end we derive the differential equation with respect to the time lag $s$ for positive lags $s>0$
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau\frac{d}{ds}\c(t,s) & =\langle\tau\frac{d}{ds}\delta\r(t+s)\delta\r^{T}(t)\rangle{}_{x}\label{eq:masterforoupin}\\
& =\langle(\w\delta\r(t+s-d)-\delta\r(t+s)+\x(t+s))\delta\r^{T}(t)\rangle{}_{x}\nonumber \\
& =\w\c(t,s-d)-\c(t,s),\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
where we used $\langle\x(t+s))\delta\r(t)\rangle_{x}=0$, because the noise is realized independently for each time step and the system is causal. Eq. is identical to the differential equation satisfied by the covariance matrix for binary neurons [@Ginzburg94]. To determine the initial condition of we need to take the limit $\c(t,0)=\lim_{s\rightarrow+0}\c(t,s)$. This initial condition can be obtained as the stationary solution of the following differential equation
$$\begin{aligned}
\tau\frac{d}{dt}\c(t,0) & =\lim_{s\rightarrow+0}(\langle\tau\frac{d}{dt}\delta\r(t+s)\delta\r^{T}(t)\rangle_{x}+\langle\delta\r(t+s)\tau\frac{d}{dt}\delta\r^{T}(t)\rangle_{x})\\
& =\lim_{s\rightarrow+0}\left(\langle(\w\delta\r(t+s-d)-\delta\r(t+s)+\x(t+s))\delta\r^{T}(t)\rangle_{x}\right.\\
& \phantom{=\lim_{s\rightarrow+0}(}\left.+\langle\delta\r(t+s)(\delta\r^{T}(t-d)\w^{T}-\delta\r^{T}(t)+\x^{T}(t))\rangle_{x}\right)\\
& =-2\c(t,0)+\w\c(t,-d)+\c(t-d,d)\w^{T}+\D.\end{aligned}$$
Here we used that $\langle\x(t+s)\delta\r^{T}(t)\rangle$ vanishes due to independent noise realizations and causality and
$$\begin{aligned}
\D & =\lim_{s\rightarrow+0}\langle\delta\r(t+s)\x^{T}(t)\rangle_{x}\\
& =\lim_{s\rightarrow+0,\ s<d}\int_{0}^{t+s}G(t+s-t^{'})(\w\underbrace{\langle\delta\r(t^{'}-d)\x^{T}(t)\rangle_{x}}_{=0\text{ causality}}+\underbrace{\langle\x(t^{'})\x^{T}(t)\rangle_{x}}_{=\Em\delta(t-t^{\prime})\rho^{2}})dt^{'}\\
& =\lim_{s\rightarrow+0,\ s<d}\int_{0}^{t+s}G(t+s-t^{'})\Em\delta(t-t^{'})\rho^{2}dt^{'}\\
& =\lim_{s\rightarrow+0,\ s<d}G(s)\Em\sigma^{2}=\frac{1}{\tau}\Em\rho^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
In the stationary state, $\c$ only depends on the time lag $s$ and is independent of the first time argument $t$, which, with the symmetry $\c(-d)^{T}=\c(d)$ yields the additional condition for the solution of
$$2\c(0)=\w\c(-d)+(\w\c(-d))^{T}+\D$$ or, if $\c$ is split in diagonal and off-diagonal parts $\c_{a}$ and $\c_{\neq}$, respectively,
$$\begin{array}{cc}
2\c_{\neq}(0) & =\w\c_{\neq}(-d)+(\w\c_{\neq}(-d))^{T}+\OO\\
2\c_{a}(0) & =\w\c_{\neq}(-d)+(\w\c_{\neq}(-d))^{T}+\D
\end{array}$$ with . In the equation for the autocovariance $\c_{a}$ the first two terms are contributions due to the cross covariance. In the state of asynchronous network activity with $c_{ij}\sim N^{-1}\ \text{for }\ i\neq j$ these terms are typically negligible in comparison to the third term because $\sum_{k}w_{ik}c_{ki}\sim wKN^{-1}=pw$, which is typically smaller than $1$ for small effective weights $w<1$ and small connection probabilities $p\ll1$. In this approximation with the temporal shape of the autocovariance function is exponentially decaying with time constant $\tau$. With $\c_{a}(0)\approx\D/2$ the approximate solution for the autocovariance is $$\begin{aligned}
\c_{a}(t) & =\frac{\D}{2}\exp(-\frac{|t|}{\tau}).\label{eq:auto_cov_in}\end{aligned}$$ The cross covariance then satisfies the initial condition
$$\begin{aligned}
2\c_{\neq}(0) & =\w\c_{\neq}(-d)+(\w\c_{\neq}(-d))^{T}+\OO\\
\OO & =\w\D/2+(\w\D/2)^{T},\end{aligned}$$
which coincides with for binary neurons if the diagonal matrix containing the zero time autocorrelations $\c_{a}(0)$ for binary neurons is equal to $\D/2$, i.e. if the amplitude of the input noise $\rho^{2}=2\tau a(1-a)$ and the effective linear coupling satisfies $\w_{i}=\beta_{i}\J{}_{i}$. shows simulation results for population averaged covariance functions in binary networks and in networks of OUPs with input noise where the parameters of the OUP network are chosen according to the requirements derived above. The theoretical results agree well with the direct simulations of both systems. For comparison, both methods of linearization, as explained above, are shown. The linearization procedure which takes into account the noise on the input side of the non-linear gain function results in a more accurate prediction. Moreover, the results derived here extend the classical theory [@Ginzburg94] by considering synaptic conduction delays. shows the decomposition of the covariance structure for a non-zero delay $d=3\ms$. For details of the implementation see [“”]{}. The explicit effect of introducing delays into the system, such as the appearance of oscillations in the time dependent covariance, is presented in panels E and F of , differing from panels A and B of this figure, respectively, only in the delay ($d=10\ms$ for E and F, $d=0.1\ms$ for A and B).
![Binary model neuron corresponds to OUP model with input noise. Autocovariance (**A**), crosscovarince (**B**), and autocovariance of population averaged activity (**C**,**D**) for binary neurons (dots) and rate model with input noise (crosses). $c_{\Ex\Ex}$,$c_{\Ex\In}$ and $c_{\In\In}$ are shown in black, gray, and light gray. Corresponding theoretical predictions ( in C and D, in A, their difference in C) are plotted as light gray curves throughout. Dashed curve in C represents the theoretical prediction using the linearization with the slope at the mean activity , the solid curve shows the results for the slope averaged over Gaussian distributed input fluctuations . The spread of the simulation results for binary neurons in panel C is due to different realizations of the random connectivity. Panels (**E**,**F**) are the same as (A,B) but for the presence of a synaptic delay $d=10\ms$ instead of $d=0.1\ms$.\[fig:binandlin\]](grytskyy_fig6)
Hawkes processes\[sec:equivalence\_hawkes\_oup\]
================================================
In the following section we show that to linear order the covariance functions in networks of Hawkes processes [@Hawkes71_438] are equivalent to those in the linear rate network with output noise. Hawkes processes generate spikes randomly with a time density given by $\r(t)$, where neuron $i$ generates spikes at a rate $r_{i}(t)$, realized independently within each infinitesimal time step. Arriving spike trains $\s$ influence $\r$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
\r(t) & =\nu+(h_{d}\ast\J\s)(t),\label{eq:hawkes_def}\end{aligned}$$ with the connectivity matrix $\J$ and the kernel function $h_{d}$ including the delay. Here $\nu$ is a constant base rate of spike emission assumed to be equal for each neuron. Here we employ the implementation of the Hawkes model in the NEST simulator [@Gewaltig_07_11204]. The implementation is described in [“”]{}.
Given neuron $j$ spiked at time $u\leq t$, the probability of a spike in the interval $[t,t+\delta t)$ for neuron $i$ is $1$ if $i=j,\ u=t$ (the neuron spikes synchronously with itself) and $r_{i}(t)\delta t+o(\delta t^{2})$ otherwise. Considering the system in the stationary state with the time averaged activity $\bar{\r}=\langle\s(t)\rangle$ we obtain a convolution equation for time lags $\tau\ge0$ for the covariance matrix with the entry $c_{ij}(\tau)$ for the covariance between spike trains of neurons $i$ and $j$
$$\begin{aligned}
\c(\tau) & =\langle\s(t+\tau)\s^{T}(t)\rangle-\langle\s(t+\tau)\rangle\langle\s^{T}(t)\rangle\label{eq:convolution_eq_hawkes}\\
& =\langle(\delta(\tau)\Em+\r(t+\tau))\s^{T}(t)\rangle-\bar{\r}\bar{\r}^{T}\nonumber \\
& =\langle\r(t+\tau)(\s^{T}(t)-\bar{\r}^{T})\rangle+\D_{\overline{\r}}\nonumber \\
& =\langle(\nu+(h_{d}\ast\J\s)(t+\tau))(\s^{T}(t)-\bar{\r}^{T})\rangle+\D_{\overline{\r}}\nonumber \\
& =h_{d}\ast\J\langle\s(t+\tau)(\s^{T}(t)-\bar{\r}^{T})\rangle+\D_{\overline{\r}}\nonumber \\
& =(h_{d}\ast\J\c)(\tau)+\D_{\overline{\r}},\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
with the diagonal matrix $\D_{\overline{\r}}=\delta(\tau)\diag(\bar{\r})$, which has been derived earlier [@Hawkes71_438]. If the rates of all neurons are equal, $\bar{\r}_{i}=\bar{r}$, all entries in the diagonal matrix are the same, $\D_{\overline{\r}}=\delta(\tau)\mathbf{\Em}\bar{r}$. In the subsequent section we demonstrate that the same convolution equation holds for the linear rate with output noise.
Convolution equation for linear noisy rate neurons\[sub:convolution\_equation\_OUP\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the linear rate model with output noise we use equation for time lags $\tau>0$ to obtain a convolution equation for the covariance matrix of the output signal vector $\y=\r+\x$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
\c(\tau) & =\langle\y(t+\tau)(\y^{T}(t)-\bar{\r}^{T})\rangle\label{eq:convolution_eq_oup_on}\\
& =\langle(h_{d}\ast\w\y+\x)(t+\tau)(\y^{T}(t)-\bar{\r}^{T})\rangle\nonumber \\
& =(h_{d}\ast\w\c)(\tau)+\langle\x(t+\tau)(\r^{T}(t)-\bar{\r}^{T})\rangle+\langle\x(t+\tau)\x^{T}(t)\rangle\nonumber \\
& =(h_{d}\ast\w\c)(\tau)+\D,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
where we utilized that due to causality the random noise signal generated at $t+\tau$ has no influence on $\r(t)$, so the respective correlation vanishes. $\D$ is the covariance of the noise as in , $D_{ij}(\tau)=\langle x_{i}(t)x{}_{j}(t+\tau)\rangle=\delta_{ij}\delta(\tau)\rho^{2}$. If $\rho$ is chosen such that $\rho^{2}$ coincides with the averaged activity $\bar{r}$ in a network of Hawkes neurons and the connection matrix $\w$ is identical to $\J$ of the Hawkes network, the equations and are identical. Therefore the cross spectrum of both systems is given by .
Non-linear self-consistent rate in rectifying Hawkes networks
-------------------------------------------------------------
The convolution equation for the covariance matrix of Hawkes neurons is exact if no element of $\r$ is negative, which is particularly the case for a network of only excitatory neurons. Especially in networks including inhibitory couplings, the intensity $r_{i}$ of neuron $i$ may assume negative values. A neuron with $r_{i}<0$ does not emit spikes, so the instantaneous rate is given by $\lambda_{i}=[r_{i}(t)]_{+}=\theta(r_{i}(t))\, r_{i}(t),$ with the Heaviside function $\theta$. We now take into account this effective nonlinearity –the rectification of the Hawkes model neuron– in a similar manner as we already used to linearize binary neurons. If the network is in the regime of low spike rates, the fluctuations in the input of each neuron due to the Poissonian arrival of spikes are large compared to the fluctuations due to the time varying intensities $\r(t)$. Considering the same homogeneous network structure as described in [“”]{}, the input statistics is identical for each cell $i$, so the mean activity $\lambda_{0}=\left\langle \lambda_{i}\right\rangle $ is the same for all neurons $i$. The superposition of the synaptic inputs to neuron $i$ cause an instantaneous intensity $r_{i}$ that follows approximately a Gaussian distribution $\mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma,r_{i})$ with mean $\mu=\langle r\rangle=\nu+\lambda_{0}KJ(1-g\gamma)$ and standard deviation $\sigma=\sqrt{\langle r^{2}\rangle-\langle r\rangle^{2}}=J\sqrt{\frac{\lambda_{0}}{2\tau}K(1+g^{2}\gamma)}$. These expressions hold for the exponential kernel due to Campbell’s theorem [@PapoulisProb4th], because of the stochastic Poisson-like arrival of incoming spikes, where the standard deviation of the spike count is proportional to the square root of the intensity $\lambda_{0}$. The rate $\lambda_{0}$ is accessible by explicit integration over the Gaussian probability density as $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{0} & =\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma,r)\, r\,\theta(r)\, dr\\
& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}\int_{0}^{\infty}\exp(-\frac{(r-\mu)^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}})\, r\, dr\\
& =\frac{-\sigma}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{0}^{\infty}\exp(-\frac{(r-\mu)^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}})\,\frac{-(r-\mu)}{\sigma^{2}}\, dr+\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}\int_{0}^{\infty}\exp(-\frac{(r-\mu)^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}})\, dr\\
& =\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp(-\frac{\mu^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}})+\frac{\mu}{2}(1-\text{erf}(-\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{2}\sigma})).\end{aligned}$$ This equation needs to be solved self-consistently (numerically or graphically) to determine the rate in the network, as the right hand side depends on the rate $\lambda_{0}$ itself through $\mu$ and $\sigma$. Rewritten as
$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{0} & =\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp(-\frac{\mu^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}})+\mu P_{\mu,\sigma}(r>0)\nonumber \\
P_{\mu,\sigma}(r>0) & =\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\text{erf}(-\frac{\mu}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}),\label{eq:prob_positive_rate_Hawkes}\end{aligned}$$
$P_{\mu,\sigma}(r>0)$ is the probability that the intensity of a neuron is above threshold and therefore contributes to the transmission of a small fluctuation in the input. A neuron for which $r<0$ acts as if it was absent. Hence we can treat the network with rectifying neurons completely analogous to the case of linear Hawkes processes, but multiply the synaptic weight $J$ or $-gJ$ of each neuron with $P_{\mu,\sigma}(r>0)$, i.e. the linearized connectivity matrix is
$$\w=P_{\mu,\sigma}(r>0)\J.\label{eq:hawkes_lin_weight}$$
shows the agreement of the covariance functions obtained from direct simulation of the network of Hawkes processes and the analytical solution with average firing rate $\lambda_{0}$ determined by , setting the effective strength of the noise $\rho^{2}=\lambda_{0}$, and the linearized coupling as described above. The detailed procedure for choosing the parameters in the direct simulation is described together with the implementation of the Hawkes model in [“”]{}.
Leaky integrate-and-fire neurons\[sec:equivalence\_lif\_oup\]
=============================================================
In this section we consider a network of leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) model neurons with exponentially decaying postsynaptic currents and show its equivalence to the network of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes with output noise, valid in the asynchronous irregular regime. A spike sent by neuron $j$ at time $t$ arrives at the target neuron $i$ after the synaptic delay $d$, elicits a synaptic current $I_{i}$ that decays with time constant $\taus$ and causes a response in the membrane potential $V_{i}$ proportional to the synaptic efficacy $J_{ij}$. With the time constant $\taum$ of the membrane potential, the coupled set of differential equations governing the subthreshold dynamics of a single neuron $i$ is [@Fourcaud02] $$\begin{aligned}
\taum\frac{dV_{i}}{dt} & = & -V_{i}+I_{i}(t)\nonumber \\
\taus\frac{dI_{i}}{dt} & = & -I_{i}+\taum\sum_{j=1,j}^{N}J_{ij}s_{j}(t-d),\label{eq:diffeq_iaf}\end{aligned}$$ where the membrane resistance was absorbed into the definitions of $J_{ij}$ and $I_{i}$. If $V_{i}$ reaches the threshold $V_{\theta}$ at time point $t_{k}^{i}$ the neuron emits an action potential and the membrane potential is reset to $V_{r}$, where it is clamped for the refractory time $\taur$. The spiking activity of neuron $i$ is described by this sequence of action potentials, the spike train $s_{i}(t)=\sum_{k}\delta(t-t_{k}^{i})$. The dynamics of a single neuron is deterministic, but in network states of asynchronous, irregular activity and in the presence of external Poisson inputs to the network, the summed input to each cell can well be approximated as white noise [@Brunel00_183] with first moment $\mu_{i}=\taum\sum_{j}J_{ij}r_{j}$ and second moment $\sigma_{i}^{2}=\taum\sum_{j}J_{ij}^{2}r_{j}$, where $r_{j}$ is the stationary firing rate of neuron $j$. The stationary firing rate of neuron $i$ is then given by [@Fourcaud02] $$\begin{aligned}
r_{i}^{-1} & = & \taur+\taum\sqrt{\pi}\left(F(y_{\theta})-F(y_{r})\right)\label{eq:rate}\\
f(y) & = & e^{y^{2}}(1+\mathrm{erf}(y))\quad F(y)=\int^{y}f(y)\, dy\nonumber \\
\text{with }y_{\theta,r} & = & \frac{V_{\theta,r}-\mu_{i}}{\sigma_{i}}+\frac{\alpha}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\taus}{\taum}}\quad\alpha=\sqrt{2}|\zeta(\frac{1}{2})|,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with Riemann’s zeta function $\zeta$. The response of the LIF neuron to the injection of an additional spike into afferent $j$ determines the impulse response $w_{ij}h(t)$ of the system. The time integral $w_{ij}=w_{ij}\int_{0}^{\infty}h(t)\, dt$ is the DC-susceptibility, which can formally be written as the derivative of the stationary firing rate by the rate of the afferent $r_{j}$, which, evaluated by help of , yields [@Helias13_023002 Results and App. A]
$$\begin{aligned}
w_{ij} & = & \frac{\partial r_{i}}{\partial r_{j}}=\alpha J_{ij}+\beta J_{ij}^{2}\label{eq:w_ij}\\
\text{with }\alpha & = & \sqrt{\pi}(\taum r_{i})^{2}\frac{1}{\sigma_{i}}\left(f(y_{\theta})-f(y_{r})\right)\nonumber \\
\text{and }\text{\ensuremath{\beta}} & = & \sqrt{\pi}(\taum r_{i})^{2}\frac{1}{2\sigma_{i}^{2}}\left(f(y_{\theta})\,\frac{V_{\theta}-\mu_{i}}{\sigma_{i}}-f(y_{r})\,\frac{V_{r}-\mu_{i}}{\sigma_{i}}\right).\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
In the strongly fluctuation-driven regime, the temporal behavior of the kernel $h$ is dominated by a single exponential decay, whose time constant can be determined empirically. In a homogeneous random network the firing rates of all neurons are identical $r_{i}=\bar{r}$ and follow from the numerical solution of the self-consistency equation . Approximating the autocovariance function of a single spike train by a $\delta$-peak scaled by the rate $\bar{r}\delta(t)$, one obtains for the covariance function $\c$ between pairs of spike trains the same convolution equation as for Hawkes neurons [@Helias13_023002 cf. eq. 5]. As shown in [“”]{} this convolution equation coincides with that of a linear rate model with output noise , where the diagonal elements of $\D$ are chosen to agree to the average spike rate $\rho^{2}=\bar{r}$. The good agreement of the analytical cross covariance functions for the OUP with output noise and direct simulation results for LIF are shown in .
![Covariance structure in spiking networks corresponds to OUP with output noise. **A** Autocovariance obtained by direct simulation of the LIF (black), Hawkes (gray), and OUP (light gray) models for excitatory (dots) and inhibitory neurons (crosses). **B** Covariance $c_{\Ex\In}$ averaged over disjoint pairs of neurons for LIF (black dots), Hawkes (gray dots), and OUP with output noise (empty circles). **C** Covariance averaged over disjoint pairs of neurons of the same type. **D** Autocovariance of the population averaged activity. Averages in C,D over excitatory neurons as black dots, over inhibitory neurons as gray dots. Corresponding theoretical predictions are plotted as light gray curves in all panels except A. Light gray diagonal crosses in A and D denote theoretical peak positions determined by the firing rate $\bar{r}$ as $\bar{r}\Delta t$ (where $\Delta t=0.1\ms$ is the time resolution of the histogram).\[fig:covariance\_spiking\] ](grytskyy_fig7)
Discussion
==========
In this work we describe the path to a unified theoretical view on pairwise correlations in recurrent networks. We consider binary neuron models, leaky integrate-and-fire models, and linear point process models. These models containing a non-linearity (spiking threshold in spiking models, non-linear sigmoidal gain function in binary neurons, strictly positive rates in Hawkes processes) are linearized, taking into account the distribution of the fluctuating input.
The work presents results for several neuron models: We derive analytical expressions for delay-coupled Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes with input and with output noise, we extend the analytical treatment for stochastic binary neurons to the presence of synaptic delays, present a method that takes into account network-generated noise to determine the effective gain function, extend the theory of Hawkes processes to the existence of delays and inhibition, and present in eq. a condition for the onset of global oscillations caused by delayed feedback, generalized to feedback pathways through different eigenvalues of the connectivity.
Some results qualitatively extend the existing theory (delays, inhibition), others improve the accuracy of existing theories (linearization including fluctuations). More importantly, our approach enables us to demonstrate the equivalence of each of these models after linear approximation to a linear model with fluctuating continuous variables. The fact that linear perturbation theory leads to effective linear equations is of course not surprising, but the analytical procedure firstly enables a mapping between models that conserves quantitative results and secondly allows us to uncover common structures underlying the emergence of correlated activity in recurrent networks. For the commonly appearing exponentially decaying response kernel function, these rate models coincide with the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process [OUP, @Uhlenbeck30; @Risken96]. We find that the considered models form two groups, which, in linear approximation merely differ by a matrix valued factor scaling the noise and in the choice of variables interpreted as neural activity. The difference between these two groups corresponds to the location of the noise: spiking models – leaky integrate-and-fire models and Hawkes models – belong to the class with noise on the output side, added to the activity of each neuron. The non-spiking binary neuron model corresponds to an OUP where the noise is added on the input side of each neuron. The closed solution for the correlation structure of OUP holds for both classes.
![Different echo terms for spiking and non-spiking neurons. Binary non-spiking neurons shown in A,C and LIF in B,D. **A**,**B** Echo terms by direct influence of the neuron’s output on the network in dependence of neuron types (in A, B $c_{\Ex\Ex}$,$c_{\Ex\In}$, and $c_{\In\In}$ are plotted as black, gray dots and circles). **C**,**D** Contributions to the covariance evoked by correlated and common input (black dots) measured with help of auxiliary model neurons which do not provide feedback to the network. Corresponding theoretical predictions are plotted as light gray curves throughout.\[fig:echoes\]](grytskyy_fig8)
We identify different contributions to correlations in recurrent networks: the solution for output noise is split into three terms corresponding to the $\delta$-peak in the autocovariance, the covariance caused by shared input, and the direct synaptic influence of stochastic fluctuations of one neuron on another –the latter echo terms are equal to propagators acting with delays [@Helias13_023002]. A similar splitting into echo and correlated input terms for the case of input noise is shown in . For increasing network size $N\rightarrow\infty$, keeping the connection probability $p$ fixed, so that $K=pN$, and with rescaled synaptic amplitudes $J\sim1/\sqrt{N}$ [@Vreeswijk96; @Renart10_587] the echo terms vanish fastest. Formally this can be seen from : the multiplicative factor of the common covariance term $\varphi_{4}$ does not change with $N$ while the other coefficients decrease. So ultimately all four entries of the matrix $\c$ have the same time dependence determined by the common covariance term $\varphi_{4}$. In particular the covariance between excitation and inhibition $c_{\Ex\In}$ becomes symmetric in this limit. This finally provides a quantitative explanation of the observation made in [@Renart10_587] that the time-lag between excitation and inhibition vanishes in the limit of infinitely large networks. For a different synaptic rescaling $J\sim N^{-1}$ while keeping $\rho^{2}$ constant by appropriate additional input to each neuron [see @Helias13_023002 applied to the LIF model], all multiplicative factors decrease $\sim N^{-1}$ and so does the amplitude of all covariances. Hence the asymmetry of $c_{\Ex\In}$ does not vanish in this limit. The same results hold for the case of output noise where the term with $\varphi_{1}$ describes the common input part of the covariance. In this case and for finite network size, $c_{\In\Ex}$ coincides with $c_{\Ex\Ex}$ and $c_{\Ex\In}$ with $c_{\In\In}$ for $t>0$, having a discontinuous jump at the time of the synaptic delay $t=d$. For time lags smaller than the delay all four covariances coincide. This is due to causality, as the second neuron cannot feel the influence of a fluctuation that happened in the first neuron less than one synaptic delay before. The covariance functions for systems corresponding to an OUP with input noise contain neither discontinuities nor sharp peaks at $t=d$, but $c_{\Ex\In}$ and $c_{\In\Ex}$ have maxima and minima near this location. This observation can be interpreted as a result of the stochastic nature of the binary model where changes in the input influence the state of the neuron only with a certain probability. So, the entries of $\c$ in this case take different values for $|t|<d$ but show the tendency to approach each other with increasing $|t|\gg d$. This tendency increases with network size. Our analytical solutions for input noise and for output noise hence explain the model-class dependent differences in the shape of covariance functions.
The two above mentioned synaptic scaling procedures are commonly termed “strong coupling” ($J\sim1/\sqrt{N}$) and “weak coupling” ($J\sim1/N$), respectively. The results shown in were obtained for $J=2/\sqrt{N}$ and $\beta=0.5$, so the number of synapses required to cause a notable effect on the gain function is $1/(\beta J)=\sqrt{N}$, which is small compared to the number of incoming synapses $pN$. Hence the network is in the strong coupling regime. Also note that for infinite slope of the gain function, $\beta\to\infty$, the magnitude of the covariance becomes independent of the synaptic amplitude $J$, in agreement with the linear theory presented here. This finding can readily be understood by the linearization procedure, presented in the current work, that takes into account the network- generated fluctuations of the total input. The amplitude $\sigma$ of these fluctuations scales linearly in $J$ and the effective susceptibility depends on $J/\sigma$ in the case $\beta\to\infty$, explaining the invariance [@Grytskyy13_258]. In the current manuscript we generalized this procedure to finite slopes $\beta$ and to other models than the binary neuron model.
Our approach enables us to map results obtained for one neuron model to another, in particular we extend the theory of all considered models to capture synaptic conduction delays, and devise a simpler way to obtain solutions for systems considered earlier [@Ginzburg94]. Our derivation of covariances in spiking networks does not rely on the advanced Wiener-Hopf method [@Hazewinkel02], as earlier derivations [@Hawkes71_438; @Helias13_023002] do, but only employs elementary methods. Our results are applicable for general connectivity matrices, and for the purpose of comparison with simulations we explicitly derive population averaged results. The averages of the dynamics of the linear rate model equations are exact for random network architectures with fixed out-degree, and approximate for fixed in-degree. Still, for non-linear models the linearization for fixed in-degree networks are simpler, because the homogeneous input statistics results in an identical linear response kernel for all cells. Finally we show that the oscillatory properties of networks of integrate-and-fire models [@Brunel00_183; @Helias13_023002] are model-invariant features of all of the studied dynamics, given inhibition acts with a synaptic delay. We relate the collective oscillations to the pole structure of the cross spectrum, which also determines the power spectra of population signals such as EEG, ECoG, and the LFP.
The presented results provide a further step to understand the shape and to unify the description of correlations in recurrent networks. We hope that our analytical results will be useful to constrain the inverse problem of determining the synaptic connectivity given the correlation structure of neurophysiological activity measurements. Moreover the explicit expressions for covariance functions in the time domain are a necessary prerequisite to understand the evolution of synaptic amplitudes in systems with spike-timing dependent plasticity and extend the existing methods [@Burkitt07_533; @Gilson09_1; @Gilson10_si] to networks including inhibitory neurons and synaptic conduction delays.
Conflict of Interest Statement
==============================
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Appendix
========
Calculation of the population averaged cross covariance in time domain\[sub:explicit\_expressions\_app\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We obtain the population averaged cross spectrum for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with input noise by inserting the averaged connectivity matrix $\w=\M$ into . The two eigenvalues of $\M$ are $0$ and $L=Kw(1-\gamma g)$. Taking these into account, we first rewrite the term
$$\begin{aligned}
& (H_{d}(\omega)^{-1}-\M)^{-1}\\
= & \det(H_{d}(\omega)^{-1}-\M)^{-1}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
H_{d}(\omega)^{-1}+Kw\gamma g & -Kw\gamma g\\
Kw & H_{d}(\omega)^{-1}-Kw
\end{array}\right)\\
= & ((H_{d}(\omega)^{-1}-0)(H_{d}(\omega)^{-1}-L))^{-1}\left(H_{d}(\omega)^{-1}\Em+Kw\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & -\gamma g\\
1 & -1
\end{array}\right)\right)\\
= & f(\omega)\left(\Em+Kw\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & -\gamma g\\
1 & -1
\end{array}\right)H_{d}(\omega)\right),\end{aligned}$$
where we introduced $f(\omega)=(H_{d}(\omega)^{-1}-L){}^{-1}$. The corresponding transposed and conjugate complex term follows analogously. Hence we obtain the expression for the cross spectrum . The residue of at $\omega=z_{k}(L)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Res}(f,\omega=z_{k}(L)) & =\lim_{\omega_{1}\rightarrow\omega}\frac{\omega_{1}-\omega}{f^{-1}(\omega_{1})}\\
& \stackrel{\text{l'Hopital}}{=}\lim_{\omega_{1}\rightarrow\omega}\frac{1}{(f^{-1})^{\prime}(\omega_{1})}=\left(\frac{d(e^{i\omega d}(1+i\omega\tau))}{d\omega}\right)^{-1}\\
& =\left(ide^{i\omega d}(1+i\omega\tau)+i\tau e^{i\omega d}\right)^{-1}=\left(idL+i\tau e^{i\omega d}\right)^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we used the condition for a pole $H_{d}(z_{k})^{-1}=e^{iz_{k}d}(1+iz_{k}\tau)=L$ (see [“”]{}). The residue of $H_{d}(\omega)$ at $z(0)=\frac{i}{\tau}$ is $-\frac{i}{\tau}e^{d/\tau}$. Using the residue theorem, we need to sum over all poles within the integration contour $\left\{ z_{k}(L)|k\in\mathbb{N}\right\} \cup\frac{i}{\tau}$ to get the expression for $\c(t)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\C(\omega)e^{i\omega t}d\omega=i\sum_{z\in\left\{ z_{k}(L)|k\in\mathbb{N}\right\} \cup\frac{i}{\tau}}\mathrm{Res}(\C(z),z)e^{izt}$ for $t\geqq0$. Sorting to obtain four matrix prefactors and remainders with different frequency dependence, $\Phi_{1}(\omega)=f(\omega)f(-\omega)$, $\Phi_{2}(\omega)=f(\omega)f(-\omega)H_{d}(\omega)$, $\Phi_{3}(\omega)=\Phi_{2}(-\omega)$, and $\Phi_{4}(\omega)=f(\omega)f(-\omega)H_{d}(\omega)H_{d}(-\omega)$, we get . $\C(\omega)$ for output noise is obtained by multiplying the expression for $\C(\omega)$ for input noise with $H_{d}^{-1}(\omega)H_{d}^{-1}(-\omega)=(1+\omega^{2}\tau^{2})$. In order to perform the back Fourier transformation one first needs to rewrite the cross spectrum in order to isolate the frequency independent term and the two terms that vanish for either $t<d$ or $t>d$, as described in [“”]{},
$$\begin{aligned}
\C(\omega)= & f(\omega)(\Em+Kw\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & -\gamma g\\
1 & -1
\end{array}\right)H_{d}(\omega))\M\D\M^{T}f(-\omega)(\Em+Kw\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & 1\\
-\gamma g & -1
\end{array}\right)H_{d}(-\omega))\\
+ & f(\omega)(\Em+Kw\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & -\gamma g\\
1 & -1
\end{array}\right)H_{d}(\omega))\M\D\\
+ & \D\M^{T}f(-\omega)(\Em+Kw\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & 1\\
-\gamma g & -1
\end{array}\right)H_{d}(-\omega))+\D\\
= & f(\omega)\M\D\M^{T}f(-\omega)+f(\omega)\M\D+\D\M^{T}f(-\omega)+\D,\end{aligned}$$
where in the last step we used $\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma g & -\gamma g\\
1 & -1
\end{array}\right)\M=0$, because $\M$ is symmetric, obtaining . For each of the first three terms in the last expression the right integration contour needs to be chosen as described in [“”]{} on the example of the general expression .
Implementation of noisy rate models\[sub:implementation\_noisy\_rate\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The dynamics is propagated in time steps of duration $\Delta t$ (note that in other works we use $h$ as a symbol for the computation step size, which here is used as the symbol for the kernel). The product of the connectivity matrix with the vector of output variables at the end of the previous step $i-1$ is the vector $\I(t_{i})$ of inputs at the current step $i$. The intrinsic time scale of the system is determined by the time constant $\tau$. For sufficiently small time steps $\Delta t\ll\tau$ these inputs can be assumed to be time independent within one step. So we can use or and analytically convolve the kernel function $h$ assuming the input to be constant over the time interval $\Delta t$. This corresponds to the method of exponential integration [@Rotter99a see App. C.6] requiring only local knowledge of the connectivity matrix $\w$. Note that this procedure becomes exact for $\Delta t\rightarrow0$ and for finite $\Delta t$ is an approximation. The propagation of the initial value $r_{j}(t_{i-1})$ until the end of the time interval takes the form $r_{j}(t_{i-1})\, e^{-\Delta t/\tau}$ because $h(t_{i})=h(t_{i-1})\, e^{-\Delta t/\tau}$, so we obtain the expression $r_{j}(t_{i})$ at the end of the step as
$$r_{j}(t_{i})=e^{-\Delta t/\tau}\, r_{j}(t_{i-1})+(1-e^{-\Delta t/\tau})\, I_{j}(t_{i}),\label{eq:numeric_OUP}$$
where $I_{j}$ denotes the input to the neuron $j$. For output noise the output variable of neuron $j$ is $y_{j}=r_{j}+x_{j}$, with the locally generated additive noise $x_{j}$ and hence the input is $I_{j}(t_{i})=(\w\,\y(t_{i}))_{j}$. In the case of input noise the output variable is $r_{j}$ and the additional noise is added to the input variable, $I_{j}(t_{i})=(\w\,\r(t_{i}))_{j}+x_{j}(t_{i})$. In both cases $x_{j}$ is implemented as a binary noise: in each time step, $x_{j}$ is independently and randomly chosen to be $1$ or $-1$ with probability $0.5$ multiplied with $\rho/\sqrt{\Delta t}$ to satisfy for discretized time. Here the $\delta$-function is replaced by a “rectangle” function that is constant on the interval of length $\Delta t$, vanishes elsewhere, and has unit integral. The factor $\Delta t^{-1}$ in the expression for $x^{2}$ ensures the integral to be unity. So far, the implementation assumes the synaptic delay to be zero. To implement a non-zero synaptic delay $d$, each object representing a neuron contains an array $b$ of length $l_{d}=d/\Delta t$ acting as a ring buffer. The input $I_{j}(t_{i})$ used to calculate the output rate at step $i$ according to is then taken from position $i\ \mathrm{mod}\ l_{d}$ of this array and after that replaced by the input presently received from the network, so that the new input will be used only after one delay has passed. This sequence of buffer handling can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
I_{j}(t_{i}) & \leftarrow b[i\,\mathrm{mod}\, l_{d}]\\
b[i\,\mathrm{mod}\, l_{d}] & \leftarrow\begin{cases}
(\w\,\r)_{j}+x_{j} & \quad\text{for input noise}\\
(\w\,\y)_{j} & \quad\text{for output noise}
\end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$ The model is implemented in Python version 2.7 [@Python] using numpy 1.6.1 [@numpy] and scipy 0.9.0 [@scipy01].
Implementation of binary neurons in a spiking simulator code\[sub:implementation\_binary\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The binary neuron model is implemented in the NEST simulator, version 2.2.1 [@Gewaltig_07_11204], which allows distributed simulation on parallel machines and handles synaptic delays in the established framework for spiking neurons [@Morrison05a]. The name of the model is “`ginzburg_neuron`”. In NEST information is transmitted in form of point events, which in case of binary neurons are sent if the state of the neuron changes: one spike is sent for a down-transition and two spikes at the same time for an up-transition, so the multiplicity reflects the type of event. The logic to decode the original transitions is implemented in the function $\mathrm{handle}$ shown in . If a single spike is received, the synaptic weight $w$ is subtracted from the input buffer at the position determined by the time point of the transition and the synaptic delay. In distributed simulations a single spike with multiplicity $2$ sent to another machine is handled on the receiving side as two separate events with multiplicity $1$ each. In order to decode this case on the receiving machine we memorize the time ($t_{\mathrm{last}}$) and origin (global id $\mathrm{gid}_{\mathrm{last}}$ of the sending neuron) of the last arrived spike. If both coincide to the spike under consideration, the sending neuron has performed an up transition $0\rightarrow1$. We hence add twice the synaptic weight $2w$ to the input buffer of the target neuron, one that reflects the real change of the system state and another that compensates the subtraction of $w$ after reception of the first spike of a pair. The algorithm relies on the fact that within NEST two spikes that are generated by one neuron at the same time point are delivered sequentially to the target neurons. This is assured, because neurons are updated one by one: The update propagates each neuron by a time step equal to the minimal delay $d_{\mathrm{min}}$ in the network. All spikes generated within one update step are written sequentially into the communication buffers, and finally the buffers are shipped to the other processors [@Morrison05a]. Hence a pair of spikes generated by one neuron within a single update step will be delivered consecutively and will not be interspersed by spikes from other neurons with the same time stamp.
The model exhibits stochastic transitions (at random points in time) between two states. The transitions are governed by probabilities $\phi(h)$. Using asynchronous update [@PDP86a], in each infinitesimal interval $[t,t+\delta t)$ each neuron in the network has the probability $\frac{1}{\tau}\delta t$ to be chosen for update [@Hopfield82]. A mathematically equivalent formulation draws the time points of update independently for all neurons. For a particular neuron, the sequence of update points has exponentially distributed intervals with mean duration $\tau$, i.e. it forms a Poisson process with rate $\tau^{-1}$. We employ the latter formulation to incorporate binary neuron models in the globally time-driven spiking simulator NEST [@Gewaltig_07_11204] and constrain the points of transition to a discrete time grid $\Delta t=0.1\ms$ covering the interval $d_{\mathrm{min}}\geq\Delta t$. This neuron state update is implemented by the algorithm shown in . Note that the field $h$ is updated in steps of $\Delta t$ while the activity state is updated only when the current time exceeds the next potential transition point. As the last step of the activity update we draw an exponentially distributed time interval to determine the new potential transition time. The potential transition time is represented with a higher resolution (on the order of microseconds) than $\Delta t$ to avoid a systematic bias of the mean inter-update-interval. This update scheme is identical to the one used in [@Hopfield82]. Note that the implementation is different from the classical asynchronous update scheme [@Vreeswijk98], where in each discrete time step $\Delta t$ exactly one neuron is picked at random. The mean inter-update-interval (time constant $\tau$ in ) in the latter scheme is determined by $\tau=\Delta tN$, with $N$ the number of neurons in the network. For small time steps both schemes converge so that update times follow a Poisson process.
At each update time point the neuron state becomes $1$ with the probability given by the function $\phi$ applied to the input at that time according to and $0$ with probability $1-\phi$. The input is a function of the whole system state and is constant between spikes which indicate state changes. Each neuron therefore maintains a state variable $h$ at each point in time holding the summed input and being updated by adding and subtracting the input read from the ring buffer $b$ at the point $\mathrm{readpos(t)}$ corresponding to the current time [see @Morrison05a for the implementation of the ring buffer, i.p. Fig 6]. The ring buffer enables us to implement synaptic delays. For technical reasons this implementation requires a minimal delay of a single simulation time step [@Morrison08_267]. The gain function $\phi$ applied to the input $h$ has the form
$$\phi(h)=c_{1}h+c_{2}\frac{1}{2}\,(1+\tanh(c_{3}(h-\theta))),\label{eq:tanh}$$
where throughout this manuscript we used $c_{1}=0$, $c_{2}=1$, and $c_{3}=\beta$, as defined in [“”]{}.
``` {.numberLines .python language="Python" mathescape="true" numbers="left" tabsize="4"}
$y \leftarrow 0$ // initially neuron is inactive
$t_\mathrm{next} \leftarrow - \tau \log( \mathrm{rand}() )$ // next time point of update
for each time step $t$:
$h \leftarrow h + b [ \mathrm{readpos}(t) ]$
if $t > t_\mathrm{next}$:
// up-state with probability given by
// gain function $\phi$ depending on input $h(t)$
if $\phi(h) > \mathrm{rand}()$:
$y_\mathrm{new} \leftarrow 1$
else:
$y_\mathrm{new} \leftarrow 0$
if $y_\mathrm{new} \neq y$:
// down transition: send single spike
// up transition: send two spikes
send ($y_\mathrm{new} + 1$ spikes)
$y \leftarrow y_\mathrm{new}$
// add an exponentially distributed time interval
$t_\mathrm{next} \leftarrow t_\mathrm{next} - \tau \log ( \mathrm{rand}() )$
```
``` {.numberLines .python language="Python" mathescape="true" numbers="left" tabsize="4"}
handle($t_\mathrm{spike}, d, \mathrm{gid}, m$):
if $m = 1$:
// multiplicity = 1, either a single $1 \rightarrow 0$ event
// or the first or second of a pair of $0 \rightarrow 1$ events
if $\mathrm{gid} = \mathrm{gid}_\mathrm{lastspike}$ and $t_\mathrm{spike} = t_\mathrm{lastspike}$:
// received twice the same event, so transition $0 \rightarrow 1$
// add $2 w$ to compensate for subtraction after reception
// of first event
$b [ \mathrm{pos}(t_\mathrm{spike}, d, t) ] \leftarrow b[ \mathrm{pos}(t_\mathrm{spike}, d, t) ] + 2 w$
else:
// count this event negatively,
// assuming it comes as single event
// transition $1 \rightarrow 0$
$b [ \mathrm{pos}(t_\mathrm{spike}, d, t) ] \leftarrow b[ pos(t_\mathrm{spike}, d, t) ] - w$
else:
// multiplicity != 1
if m = 2:
// count this event positively, transition $0 \rightarrow 1$
$b [ pos(t_\mathrm{spike}, d, t) ] \leftarrow b [ pos(t_\mathrm{spike}, d, t) ] + w$
$\mathrm{gid}_\mathrm{lastspike} \leftarrow \mathrm{gid}$
$t_\mathrm{lastspike} \leftarrow t_\mathrm{spike}$
```
Implementation of Hawkes neurons in a spiking simulator code\[sub:implementation\_hawkes\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawkes neurons [@Hawkes71_438] were introduced in the NEST simulator in version 2.2.0 [@Gewaltig_07_11204]. The name of the model is “`pp_psc_delta`”. In the following we describe the implemented neuron model in general and mention the particular choices of parameter and correspondences to the theory presented in [“”]{}. The dynamics of the quasi-membrane potential $u$ is integrated exactly within a time step $\Delta t$ of the simulation [@Rotter99a], expressing the voltage $u(t_{i})$ at the end of time step $i$ by the membrane potential at the end of the previous time step $u(t_{i-1})$ as
$$u(t_{i})=e^{-\Delta t/\tau}\, u(t_{i-1})+(1-e^{-\Delta t/\tau})\, R_{m}I_{e}+b(t_{i}),$$
where $I_{e}$ is a time-step wise constant input current (equal to $0$ in all simulations presented in this article) and $R_{m}=\taum/C_{m}$ is the membrane resistance. The buffer $b(t_{i})$ contains the summed contributions of incoming spikes, multiplied by their respective synaptic weight, which have arrived at the neuron within the interval $(t_{i-1},t_{i}]$. $b$ is implemented as a ring-buffer in order to handle the synaptic delay, logically similar as in [“”]{}, described in detail in @Morrison05a. The instantaneous spike emission rate is $\lambda=[c_{1}u+c_{2}e^{c_{3}u}]_{+}$, where we use $c_{3}=0$ in all simulations presented here. The quantities in the theory [“”]{}, in particular in , are related to the parameters of the simulated model in the following way. The quantity $r$ relates to the membrane potential $u$ as $r=c_{1}u+c_{2}$ and the background rate $\nu$ agrees to $c_{2}=\nu$. Hence the synaptic weight $J_{ij}$ corresponds to the synaptic weight in the simulation multiplied by $c_{1}$. For the correspondence of the Hawkes model to the OUP with output noise of variance $\rho^{2}$ we use to adjust the background rate $\nu$ in order to obtain the desired rate $\lambda_{0}=\rho^{2}$ and we choose the synaptic weight $J$ of the Hawkes model so that the linear coupling strength $w$ of the OUP agrees to the effective linear weight given by . These two constraints can be fulfilled simultaneously by solving and by numerical iteration. The spike emission of the model is realized either with or without dead time. In this article we only used the latter. In the presence of a dead time, which is constrained to be larger than the simulation time step, at most one spike can be generated within a time step. A spike is hence emitted with the probability $p_{\ge1}=1-e^{\lambda\Delta t}$, where $e^{\lambda\Delta t}$ is the probability of the complementary event (emitting $0$ spikes), implemented by comparing a uniformly distributed random number to $p_{\ge1}$. The refractory period is handled as described in @Morrison05a. Without refractoriness, the number of emitted spikes is drawn from a Poisson distribution with parameter $\lambda\Delta t$, implemented in the GNU Scientific Library [@GSL06]. Reproducibility of the random sequences for different numbers of processes and threads is ensured by the concept of random number generators assigned to virtual processes, as described in [@Plesser07_672].
Parameters of simulations\[sub:parameters\]
-------------------------------------------
For all simulations we used $\gamma=0.25$ corresponding to the biologically realistic fraction of inhibitory neurons, a connectivity probability $p=0.1$, and a simulation time step of $\Delta t=0.1\ms$. For binary neurons we measured the covariance functions with a resolution of $1\ms$, for all other models the resolution is $0.1\ms$. Simulation time is $10,000\ms$ for linear rate and for LIF neurons, $50,000\ms$ for Hawkes, and $100,000\ms$ for binary neurons. The covariance is obtained for a time window of $\pm100\ms$.
The parameters for simulations of the LIF model presented in and are $J=0.1\mV,$ $\tau=20\ms,$ $\tau_{s}=2\ms,$ $\tau_{r}=2\ms,$ $V_{\theta}=15\mV,$ $V_{r}=0,$ $g=6,$ $d=3\ms,$ $N=8000$. The number of neurons in the corresponding networks of other models is the same. Cross covariances are measured between the summed spike trains of two disjoint populations of $N_{\mathrm{rec}}=1000$ neurons each. The single neuron autocovariances $a_{\alpha}$ are averaged over a subpopulation of $100$ neurons. The autocovariances of the population averaged activity $\frac{1}{N_{\alpha}}a_{\alpha}+C_{\alpha\alpha}$ for population $\alpha\in\{\Ex,\In\}$ (shown in ) are constructed from the estimated single neuron population averaged autocovariances $a_{\alpha}$ and cross covariances $C_{\alpha\alpha}$. This enables us to estimate $a_{\alpha}$ and $C_{\alpha\alpha}$ from the activity of a small subpopulation and still assigns the correct relative weights to both contributions. The corresponding effective parameters describing the system dynamics are $\mu=15\mV,$ $\sigma=10\mV,$ $r=23.6\Hz$ (see and the following text for details).
The parameters of the Hawkes model and of the noisy rate model with output noise yielding quantitatively agreeing covariance functions are:
- For simulations of the noisy rate model with output noise presented in and the parameters are $w=0.0043,$ $g\thickapprox5.93,$ $\tau=4.07\ms,$ $\rho^{2}=23.6\Hz,$ $d=3\ms$ (see , ). In also results for $d=1\ms$ and for input noise are shown. Signals are measured from $N_{\mathrm{rec}}=500$ neurons in each population to obtain $c_{\Ex\In},\ c_{\In\Ex}$ and from the whole population to determine $c_{\Ex\Ex}$ and $c_{\In\In}$. The cross covariances $C_{\Ex\Ex}$ and $C_{\In\In}$ are estimated from two disjoint subpopulations each comprising half of the neurons of the respective population.
- For the network of Hawkes neurons presented in we used $\lambda_{0}\thickapprox22.54\Hz$ (see ), $J=0.0055\mV$, $d=3\ms$, and the same $g$ and $\tau$ as for the noisy rate model. We measured the cross covariances in the same way as for the LIF model, but using the spike trains from sub-populations of $N_{\mathrm{rec}}=2000$ neurons. The autocovariances of the population averaged activity were estimated from the whole populations.
The network of binary neurons shown in uses $\theta=-3.89\mV,$ $\beta=0.5\mV{}^{-1},$ $J=0.02\mV,$ $d=3\ms$ (see , ), and the same $g$ and $\tau$ as the noisy rate model. Covariances are measured using the signals from all neurons.
The simulation results for the network of binary neurons presented in uses $\theta=-2.5\mV,$ $\tau=10\ms,$ $\beta=0.5\mV{}^{-1},$ $g=6,$ $J\thickapprox0.0447\mV,$ $N=2000$ and the smallest possible value of synaptic delay is $d=0.1\ms$ equal to time resolution (the same set of parameters only with modified $\beta=1\mV^{-1}$ was used to create ). The cross covariances $C_{\Ex\Ex}$ and $C_{\In\In}$ are estimated from two disjoint subpopulations each comprising half of the neurons of the respective population, $c_{\Ex\In}$ is measured between two such subpopulations. For $c_{\Ex\Ex}$ and $c_{\In\In}$ we used the full populations.
The parameters required for a quantitative agreement with the rate model with input noise are $w\thickapprox0.011,$ $\rho\thickapprox2.23\,\mathrm{\sqrt{ms}}$. We used the same parameters in , where additionally results for $w=0.018$ are shown. The population sizes are the same as for the binary network. The covariances are estimated in the same way as for the rate model with output noise. Note that the definition of noisy rate models has no limitation for units of $\rho^{2}$. These can be arbitrary and are chosen differently as required by the correspondence with either spiking or binary neurons.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We gratefully appreciate ongoing technical support by our colleagues in the NEST Initiative, especially Moritz Deger for the implementation of the Hawkes model. Binary and spiking network simulations performed with NEST (www.nest-initiative.org). Partially supported by the Helmholtz Association: HASB and portfolio theme SMHB, the Jülich Aachen Research Alliance (JARA), the Next-Generation Supercomputer Project of MEXT, and EU Grant 269921 (BrainScaleS).
Abeles, M. (1991). (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ascher, D., Dubois, P. F., Hinsen, K., Hugunin, J., & Oliphant, T. (2001). An open source project: Numerical python. Technical Report UCRL-MA-128569, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94566. Bi, G.-q., & Poo, M.-m. (1999). Distributed synaptic modification in neural networks induced by patterned stimulation. [*401*]{}, 792–796. Bienenstock, E. (1995). A model of neocortex. [*6*]{}, 179–224. Braitenberg, V., & Sch[ü]{}z, A. (1991). . Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag. Bronstein, I. N., Semendjajew, K. A., Musiol, G., & M[ü]{}hlig, H. (1999). (4 ed.). Verlag Harri Deutsch. Brunel, N. (2000). Dynamics of sparsely connected networks of excitatory and inhibitory spiking neurons. [*8*]{}(3), 183–208. Brunel, N., & Hakim, V. (1999). Fast global oscillations in networks of integrate-and-fire neurons with low firing rates. [*11*]{}(7), 1621–1671. Buice, M. A., Cowan, J. D., & Chow, C. C. (2009). Systematic fluctuation expansion for neural network activity equations. [*22*]{}, 377–426. Burak, Y., Lewallen, S., & Sompolinsky, H. (2009). Stimulus-dependent correlations in threshold-crossing spiking neurons. [*21*]{}, 2269–2308. Burkitt, A. N., Gilson, M., & van Hemmen, J. (2007). Spike-timing-dependent plasticity for neurons with recurrent connections. [*96*]{}(5), 533–546. Buzs[á]{}ki, G., & Wang, X. J. (2012). Mechanisms of gamma oscillations. [*35*]{}, 203–225. Cohen, M. R., & Kohn, A. (2011). Measuring and interpreting neuronal correlations. [*14*]{}(7), 811–819. doi:10.1038/nn.2842. Corless, R. M., Gonnet, G. H., Hare, D. E. G., Jeffrey, D. J., & Knuth, D. E. (1996). On the lambert w function. [*5*]{}, 329–359. Diesmann, M., Gewaltig, M.-O., & Aertsen, A. (1999). Stable propagation of synchronous spiking in cortical neural networks. [*402*]{}(6761), 529–533. Fourcaud, N., & Brunel, N. (2002). Dynamics of the firing probability of noisy integrate-and-fire neurons. [*14*]{}, 2057–2110. Galassi, M., Davies, J., Theiler, J., Gough, B., Jungman, G., Booth, M., & Rossi, F. (2006). . Network Theory Limited. Gardiner, C. W. (2004). (3rd ed.). Springer Series in Synergetics. Springer. Gerstein, G. L., & Perkel, D. H. (1969). Simultaneously recorded trains of action potentials: analysis and functional interpretation. [*881*]{}(164), 828–830. Gewaltig, M.-O., & Diesmann, M. (2007). ([NE]{}ural [S]{}imulation [T]{}ool). [*2*]{}(4), 1430. Gilson, M., Burkitt, A. N., Grayden, D. B., Thomas, D. A., & van Hemmen, J. L. (2009). Emergence of network structure due to spike-timing-dependent plasticity in recurrent neuronal networks. [I. I]{}nput selectivity - strengthening correlated input pathways. [*101*]{}(2), 81–102. Gilson, M., Burkitt, A. N., & van Hemmen, J. L. (2010). in recurrent neuronal networks. [*4*]{}, 23. Ginzburg, I., & Sompolinsky, H. (1994). Theory of correlations in stochastic neural networks. [*50*]{}(4), 3171–3191. Grytskyy, D., Tetzlaff, T., Diesmann, M., & Helias, M. (2013). Invariance of covariances arises out of noise. [*1510*]{}, 258–262. Hawkes, A. (1971). Point spectra of some mutually exciting point process. [*33*]{}(3), 438–443. Hazewinkel, M. (Ed.) (2002). . Springer. Helias, M., Tetzlaff, T., & Diesmann, M. (2013). Echoes in correlated neural systems. [*15*]{}, 023002. Hopfield, J. J. (1982). Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. [*79*]{}, 2554–2558. Ito, J., Maldonado, P., Singer, W., & Gr[ü]{}n, S. (2011). Saccade-related modulations of neuronal excitability support synchrony of visually elicited spikes. [*21*]{}(11), 2482–2497. Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. (2001). : Open source scientific tools for [Python]{}. http://www.scipy.org/. Kilavik, B. E., Roux, S., Ponce-Alvarez, A., Confais, J., Gruen, S., & Riehle, A. (2009). Long-term modifications in motor cortical dynamics induced by intensive practice. [*29*]{}, 12653–12663. Kriener, B., Tetzlaff, T., Aertsen, A., Diesmann, M., & Rotter, S. (2008). Correlations and population dynamics in cortical networks. [*20*]{}, 2185–2226. Markram, H., L[ü]{}bke, J., Frotscher, M., & Sakmann, B. (1997). Regulation of synaptic efficacy by coincidence of postsynaptic [AP]{}s and [EPSP]{}s. [*275*]{}, 213–215. Moreno-Bote, R., & Parga, N. (2006). Auto- and crosscorrelograms for the spike response of leaky integrate-and-fire neurons with slow synapses. [*96*]{}, 028101. Morrison, A., & Diesmann, M. (2008). Maintaining causality in discrete time neuronal network simulations. In P. beim Graben, C. Zhou, M. Thiel, & J. Kurths (Eds.), [*Lectures in Supercomputational Neuroscience: Dynamics in Complex Brain Networks*]{}, Understanding Complex Systems, pp. 267–278. Springer. Morrison, A., Mehring, C., Geisel, T., Aertsen, A., & Diesmann, M. (2005). Advancing the boundaries of high connectivity network simulation with distributed computing. [*17*]{}(8), 1776–1801. Papoulis, A., & Pillai, S. U. (2002). (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Perkel, D. H., Gerstein, G. L., & Moore, G. P. (1967). Neuronal spike trains and stochastic point processes. [II]{}. [S]{}imultaneous spike trains. [*7*]{}(4), 419–440. Pernice, V., Staude, B., Cardanobile, S., & Rotter, S. (2011). How structure determines correlations in neuronal networks. [*7*]{}(5), e1002059. Pernice, V., Staude, B., Cardanobile, S., & Rotter, S. (2012). Recurrent interactions in spiking networks with arbitrary topology. [*85*]{}(3), 031916. Plesser, H. E., Eppler, J. M., Morrison, A., Diesmann, M., & Gewaltig, M.-O. (2007). Efficient parallel simulation of large-scale neuronal networks on clusters of multiprocessor computers. In A.-M. Kermarrec, L. Boug[é]{}, & T. Priol (Eds.), [*Euro-Par 2007: Parallel Processing*]{}, Volume 4641 of [*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*]{}, Berlin, pp. 672–681. Springer-Verlag. (2008). The [Python]{} programming language. http://www.python.org. Rajan, K., & Abbott, L. (2006). Eigenvalue spectra of random matrices for neural networks. [*97*]{}, 188104. Renart, A., De La Rocha, J., Bartho, P., Hollender, L., Parga, N., Reyes, A., & Harris, K. D. (2010). The asynchronous state in cortical cicuits. [*327*]{}, 587–590. Risken, H. (1996). . Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Rosenbaum, R., & Josic, K. (2011). Mechanisms that modulate the transfer of spiking correlations. [*23*]{}(5), 1261–1305. Rotter, S., & Diesmann, M. (1999). Exact digital simulation of time-invariant linear systems with applications to neuronal modeling. [*81*]{}(5/6), 381–402. Rumelhart, D. E., Mc[C]{}lelland, J. L., & [the PDP Research Group]{} (1986). , Volume 1. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Shadlen, M. N., & Movshon, A. J. (1999). Synchrony unbound: A critical evaluation of the temporal binding hypothesis. [*24*]{}, 67–77. Singer, W. (1999). [*24*]{}(1), 49–65. Sompolinsky, H., Yoon, H., Kang, K., & Shamir, M. (2001). Population coding in neuronal systems with correlated noise. [*64*]{}(5), 51904. Tchumatchenko, T., Malyshev, A., Geisel, T., Volgushev, M., & Wolf, F. (2010). Correlations and synchrony in threshold neuron models. [*104*]{}, 058102. Tetzlaff, T., Helias, M., Einevoll, G., & Diesmann, M. (2012). Decorrelation of neural-network activity by inhibitory feedback. [*8*]{}(8), e1002596. Trousdale, J., Hu, Y., Shea-Brown, E., & Josic, K. (2012). Impact of network structure and cellular response on spike time correlations. [*8*]{}(3), e1002408. Uhlenbeck, G. E., & Ornstein, L. S. (1930). On the theory of the brownian motion. [*36*]{}, 823–841. reprinted in [@Wax54]. van Vreeswijk, C., & Sompolinsky, H. (1996). Chaos in neuronal networks with balanced excitatory and inhibitory activity. [*274*]{}, 1724–1726. van Vreeswijk, C., & Sompolinsky, H. (1998). Chaotic balanced state in a model of cortical circuits. [*10*]{}, 1321–1371. , C. (1981). The correlation theory of brain function. Internal report 81-2, Department of Neurobiology, Max-Planck-Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, G[ö]{}ttingen, Germany. Wax, N. (Ed.) (1954). . New York: Dover Publications. Zohary, E., Shadlen, M. N., & Newsome, W. T. (1994). Correlated neuronal discharge rate and its implications for psychophysical performance. [*370*]{}, 140–143.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Claudi Meneghin
title: 'Sur les points fixes et les cycles répulsifs au voisinage d’une singularité essentielle isolée à l’instar de la méthode de Zalcman [^1] '
---
=wncyb10 \[definition\][Définition]{}\[definition\][Lemma]{} \[definition\][Lemme]{} \[definition\][Proposition]{} \[definition\][Theorem]{} \[definition\][Théorème]{} \[definition\][Corollary]{} \[definition\][Corollaire]{} \[definition\][Remark]{} \[definition\][Remarque]{}
¶ Ł u v \#1[\[\#1\]]{} \#1[ ]{}
[ Soit $g$ une fonction holomorphe au voisinage d’une singularité essentielle isolée $v$: si $g$ y omet une valeur complexe, alors $v$ peut être approché par une suite de points fixes répulsifs de $g$, dont les multiplicateurs divergent à $\infty$. Cela entraîne que les fonctions entières omettant une valeur et les applications du plan complexe épointé (sauf les applications de Möbius) ont une infinité de points fixes répulsifs dont les multiplicateurs divergent. Dès un autre point de vue, nous montrons que, si $v$ n’est pas une valeur exceptionnelle au sens de Picard pour $g$, alors $v$ peut être approchée par une suite de points périodiques d’ordre deux de $g$, ces cycles étant répulsifs (avec multiplicateurs divergeant à $\infty$) si $v$ n’est pas une valeur complètement ramifiée. Let $g$ be a holomorphic function in the neighbourhoods of an isolated essential singularity $v$: if $g$ omits a complex value there, then $v$ may be approached by a sequence of repelling fixed points for $g$, whose multipliers diverge to $\infty$. This implies that an entire function omitting a value or a non-Möbius self-map of the punctured plane admit infinite repelling fixed points, whose multipliers diverge to $\infty$. By another point of view, we show that, if $v$ is not Picard-exceptional for $g$, then $v$ can be approached by a sequence of 2-cycles of $g$: these cycles are repelling if $v$ is not a completely branched value. ]{}
Introduction
============
Soit $v\in\CI$ et $g$ une fonction holomorphe (à singularité essentielle isolée en $v$) sur un voisinage épointé ${\cal W}\setminus\{v\}$ de $v$. Dans le théorème \[principal\], nous montrons que, si $g$ omet une valeur complexe $\alpha$ au voisinage de $v$, alors $v$ peut être approché par une suite de points fixes répulsifs $\{q_n\}\to v$ de $g$, dont les multiplicateurs $g^{\prime}(q_n)$ divergent à $\infty$. On montrera cela en distinguant les cas $v=\alpha$ et $v\not=\alpha$. Cela entraînera (corollaire \[principal3\]) que les fonctions entières omettant une valeur complexe et les applications du plan complexe épointé $\CI^*$ (sauf les applications de Möbius) ont une infinité de point fixes répulsifs dont les multiplicateurs divergent.
Dès un point de vue différent, nous montrerons aussi (théorème [\[principal2\]]{}) que, si $v$ n’est pas une valeur exceptionelle de $g$ (au sens de Picard) au voisinage de $v$, alors il existe une suite $\{q_n\}\to v$ de cycles d’ordre deux de $g$; si $v$ n’est pas une valeur complètement ramifiée, ces cycles-là sont répulsifs (avec multiplicateurs divergeant à $\infty$) .
Dans cet article, on utilisera un théorème de Lehto et Virtanen sur la croissance de la dérivée sphérique au voisinage d’une singularité essentielle isolée (théorème [\[rapp\]]{}, voir , [@lehto]) et une généralisation d’un lemme métrique de Gromov (lemme [\[metric\]]{}, voir [@gromov], p.256).
Cela montrera que la composition à la source de $g$ avec une suite de contractions bien choisies permet de construire (à l’instar de la méthode de Zalcman, voir [@bzalcman]) une fonction holomorphe entière limite; l’application des théorèmes de Picard, Hurwitz (voir par exemple [@berteloot], p.8), et des quatre valeurs complètement ramifiées (voir par exemple [@bergdyn], th.29 et 30) aux objets ainsi obtenus nous menera à la conclusion.
Préliminaires
=============
Rappelons tout d’abord l’énoncé du théorème 2 en :
Soit $f$ une fonction méromorphe au voisinage ${\cal U}$ de la singularité essentielle $z=\infty$; soit $f^{\sharp}$ la dérivée sphérique de $f$: alors $$\limsup_{z\to \infty}
\vert z\vert\cdot f^{\sharp}(z)<\infty$$ si et seulement si $f$ est faiblement normal en ${\cal U}$.
Nous rappelons que $f$ est dit [*faiblement normal*]{} sur un domaine ${\cal D}$ si, pour chaque sous-domaine simplement connexe $G\subset {\cal D} $, la famille $\{f\circ S\}_{S\in \hbox{\tt\small Aut}(G)}$, indexée sur les automorphismes de $G$, est normale.
En appliquant l’inversion $z\mapsto 1/(z-v)$ (voir aussi [@lehto], point 2), on obtient:
Soit $f:$ une fonction méromorphe sur ${\cal W}$, ayant une singularité essentielle à $v$. Alors $$\limsup_{z\to v}
\vert z-v\vert\cdot f^{\sharp}(z)<\infty$$ si et seulement si $f$ est faiblement normal sur ${\cal W}\setminus\{v\}$.
Nous utiliserons la conséquence suivante des théorèmes \[pre1\], \[pre2\] et du théorème 2 de :
Soit $v\in\CI$, ${\cal W}$ un voisinage de $v$ in $\CI$; soit $g$ une fonction holomorphe ${\cal W}\setminus\{v\}\to\CI$, ayant une singularité essentielle isolée à $v$ et omettant une valeur complexe $\alpha$ au voisinage de $v$. Alors $$\limsup_{z\to v} \vert z-v\vert\cdot g^{\sharp}(z)=\infty .$$
[**Démonstration:**]{} gràce au théorème d’Iversen, la valeur $\alpha$ est un valeur asymptotique de $g$; grâce au théorème 2 en (voir aussi , point 7), $g$ n’est pas faiblement normal en ${\cal W}\setminus\{v\}$; la thèse s’ensuit alors du théorème \[pre1\]. .2cm On montre aussi dans [@lehto] que $ \limsup_{z\to v} \vert z-v\vert\cdot g^{\sharp}(z)\geq 1/2\, $ pour toute fonction méromorphe sur ${\cal W}\setminus\{v\}\to\CI$, ayant une singularité essentielle isolée à $v$: nous n’utiliserons pas ce résultat dans cet article. On se bornera à noter que l’essai à appliquer les techniques de renormalisation decrites dans le théorème \[zalcman\] à des fonctions méromorphes faiblement normales produit des fonctions méromorphes, à dérivée sphérique bornée, sur un disque.
Rappelons maintenant une conséquence presque immediate du théorème 31 de [@bergdyn]:
Soit $p\in\CI$ et $h$ une fonction entière transcendante omettant la valeur $p$: alors $h$ n’a pas de valeurs complètement ramifiées.
[**Démonstration:**]{} grâce au théorème 31 de [@bergdyn], $$h\vert_{\CIP\setminus\{ p\}}:
\CI\setminus\{ p\}
\rightarrow
\CI\setminus\{ p\}$$ n’a pas de valeurs complètement ramifiées sur $\CI\setminus\{ p\}$, ce qui entraîne que $h$ n’a pas de valeurs complètement ramifiées sur $\CI\setminus\{ p\}$ non plus. Grâce au théorème de Picard, la valeur $h(p)\not=p$ est prise une infinité de fois par $h$ sur $\CI\setminus\{ p\}$ aussi bien, ce qui entraîne qu’elle n’est pas complètement ramifiée pour $h$. .5cm Le lemme suivant est une version renforcée du [lemme de l’espace métrique]{} (voir [@gromov], p. 256):
Soit $(X,d)$ un espace métrique complet, $Y\subset X$ un sous-ensemble de $X$ tel que $X\setminus \overline Y\not=\emptyset$ et $M:X\rightarrow \ER^+$ une fonction localement bornée sur $X\setminus \overline Y$. Soit $\sigma>0$: alors, pour tout $u\in X$ tel que $d(Y, u)> {2}/{\sigma M(u)}$ il existe $w\in X$ tel que: $$\begin{aligned}
&\ &\hbox{\tt (i) } d(u,w) \leq \quadras{\sigma M(u)}^{-1}
\labelle{metric1}\\
&\ &\hbox{\tt (ii) } M(w) \geq M(u)
\labelle{metric2}\\
&\ &\hbox{\tt (iii) }
\overline{D}\left(w, \quadras{\sigma M(w)}^{-1}\right)
\cap Y = \emptyset
\labelle{metric3}\\
&\ &\hbox{\tt (iv) } d(x,w)\leq \quadras{\sigma M(w)}^{-1}
\Rightarrow
M(x)\leq 2 M(w)
\labelle{metric4}.\end{aligned}$$
[**Démonstration:**]{} $ u\in X\setminus \displaystyle\overline{Y}$ tel que $d(Y, u)> {2}/{\sigma M(u)}$ étant donné, supposons par l’absurde qu’il n’existe pas un tel $w$. Alors $v_0:= u$ ne convient pas. Comme cette valeur de $w$ vérifie automatiquement (\[metric1\]), (\[metric2\]) et (\[metric3\]), elle doit violer la condition (\[metric4\]). Ainsi on peut trouver $v_1\in X$ tel que: $$\begin{aligned}
&\ &M(v_1)>2 M(v_0) \labelle{MM}\\
&\ &d(v_1,v_0)\leq\quadras{\sigma M(v_0)}^{-1}.\labelle{sigma}\end{aligned}$$
Par conséquent, $v_1$ aussi vérifie l’hypothèse du lemme, car $$\begin{aligned}
d(Y, v_1)
&\geq&
d(Y, v_0)-d(v_1, v_0)
\\
&\geq & 2\quadras{\sigma M(v_0)}^{-1}
- \quadras{\sigma M(v_0)}^{-1}\ \hbox{\tt [hypoth\`ese et
(\ref{sigma})]}
\\
&=&
\quadras{\sigma M(v_0)}^{-1}\\
&>&
2\quadras{\sigma M(v_1)}^{-1}\ \hbox{\tt [gr\^ace \`a (\ref{MM})]}. \end{aligned}$$
Par induction, on peut ainsi construire une suite $\{v_n\}$ telle que $v_0=u$, $ M(v_{n+1})>2 M(v_n)$ mais $d(v_n,v_{n+1})\leq \quadras{\sigma M(v_n)}^{-1}$.
Par conséquent, $$\begin{aligned}
M(v_{n})&\geq&
2^{n}M(v_0)
\labelle{croissance}\\
d(v_n, v_{n+1})&\leq& \quadras{2^n\sigma M(v_0)}^{-1}.
\labelle{borne}\end{aligned}$$ Ainsi, $$\begin{aligned}
d(v_{n},v_{n+k})
&\leq&
\sum_{l=n}^{n+k-1}
d(v_{l},v_{l+1})%\nonumber\\
%&<&
<\sum_{l=n}^{\infty}
d(v_{l},v_{l+1})\nonumber\\
&\leq&
\left[\sigma M(v_0)\right]^{-1}
\sum_{l=n}^{\infty}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{l}
\ \hbox{\tt [gr\^ace \`a (\ref{borne})]}
\nonumber\\
&=&
\left[\sigma M(v_0)\right]^{-1}
\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{n-1}\, .
\labelle{sauvecul}\end{aligned}$$
La suite $\{v_n\}$ est donc de Cauchy: en soit $\lambda$ la valeur limite. En rappelant que $v_0=u$, on a, grâce à (\[sauvecul\]), $$d(u, \lambda)=\lim_{k\to\infty}d(v_0, v_k)
\leq 2\quadras{\sigma M(u)}^{-1},$$ ce qui entraîne $$d(Y,\lambda)\geq d(Y,u)-d(u,\lambda )>0$$ car $d(Y,u)> 2\quadras{\sigma M(u)}^{-1}$. Ainsi $\lambda\not\in\overline{Y}$.
Par contre, grâce à (\[croissance\]), $M$ n’est pas borné au voisinage de $\lambda$: c’est une contradiction. .5cm Le lemme suivant renormalise, à l’instar de la méthode de Zalcman (voir par exemple [@bzalcman]), une fonction holomorphe $g$ au voisinage d’une singularité essentielle isolée. En effet, on procédera en composant $g$ avec un suite de contractions; pourtant, on ne sera pas concerné avec une famille pas normale de fonctions méromophes, mais avec une seule fonction à singularité essentielle isolée.
Soient $v\in\CI$, ${\cal W}$ un voisinage fermé de $v$, $g$ une fonction holomorphe sur ${\cal W}\setminus \{v\}$, ayant une singularité essentielle à $v$. Alors il existe des suites $\{v_n\}\to v$, $\{r_n\}\subset\ER^+$, avec $\{r_n\}\to 0$, telles que $\{g (v_n+r_n z)\}$ converge uniformément sur tout compact de $\CI$ vers une application holomorphe non constante $h:\CI\to\CI$ dont la dérivée sphérique $ h^{\sharp} $ est bornée sur $ \CI $. En outre, si $g$ ne prend pas la valeur $\alpha\in\CI$ sur ${\cal W}\setminus \{v\}$, alors $h$ ne prend pas la valeur $\alpha$ non plus.
[**Démonstration:**]{} grâce au théorème \[rapp\], on peut trouver des suites $\{\lambda_n\}\rightarrow +\infty$ en $\ER$ et $\{\xi_n\}\rightarrow v$ en ${\cal W}\setminus\{v\}$ telles que $$\vert
\xi_n - v \vert\cdot g^{\sharp}(\xi_n)
=
\lambda_n
.
\labelle{lambda}$$ Pour tout $n$, le lemme \[metric\] est applicable à ${\cal W}$ avec la métrique euclidéenne, $Y=\{v\}$, $M(x)=
g^{\sharp} (x)$, $u=\xi_n$ et $\sigma=3/\lambda_n$: en effet, grâce à (\[lambda\]),
$$d(Y, u)=
\vert
\xi_n - v \vert =
\frac{\lambda_n}
{g^{\sharp}(\xi_n)}
=
\frac{3}
{\sigma g^{\sharp}(\xi_n)}
>
\frac{2}
{\sigma g^{\sharp}(\xi_n)}
=
\frac{2}
{\sigma M(u)}
\, .$$
On obtient $v_n\in {\cal W}$ tel que: $$\begin{aligned}
&\ &\hbox{\tt (i)\ }
\vert \xi_n - v_n \vert
\leq \lambda_n/g^{\sharp}(\xi_n)
=
\vert \xi_n - v\vert
\labelle{tt1}
\\
&\ &\hbox{\tt (ii)\ }
g^{\sharp}(v_n)
\geq
g^{\sharp}(\xi_n)
\labelle{tt2}
\\
&\ &\hbox{\tt (iii)\ }
\overline{\DI}(v_n, \vert \xi_n - v \vert/3)\cap\{v\}=\emptyset
\labelle{tt3}
\\
&\ &\hbox{\tt (iv)\ }
\vert x-v_n \vert
\leq
\displaystyle
\frac{\lambda_n}
{3 g^{\sharp} (v_n)}
\Rightarrow
g^{\sharp}(x)\leq 2 g^{\sharp}(v_n)\, .
\labelle{tt4}\end{aligned}$$
Posons maintenant $r_n:=\quadras{3g^{\sharp} (v_n)}^{-1}$ et $h_n(z):=g(v_n +r_n z)$. Or, $\, v_n\to v\, $ car, grâce à (\[tt1\]), $$\vert v_n - v\vert
\leq
\vert \xi_n - v_n\vert+
\vert \xi_n - v\vert
\leq
2\,\vert \xi_n - v\vert.$$ Ainsi, on voit sur (\[tt2\]) et (\[tt4\]) que $$\begin{aligned}
z\in \DI(0,\lambda_n)&\Rightarrow&
v_n +r_n z\in
\DI\left(v_n, \frac{\lambda_n}{\quadras{3g^{\sharp} (v_n)}}\right)
\\
&\subset&
\DI\left(v_n, \frac{\lambda_n}{\quadras{3g^{\sharp} (\xi_n)}}\right)
\\
&=&
\DI\left(v_n, \vert \xi_n - v \vert/3\right)
\\
&\subset&
{\W},\end{aligned}$$ pour $n$ suffisamment grand (ce que nous sous-entendrons dans la suite).
Grâce à (\[tt3\]), chaque $h_n$ est bien défini sur $ \DI(0,\lambda_n)$. La famille $\{h_n\}$ est normale, car, grâce à (\[tt4\]) $$z\in \DI(0,\lambda_n)\Rightarrow h_n^{\sharp}(z)=
f_n^{\sharp}\left(v_n+\frac{z}
{\quadras{3g^{\sharp} (v_n)}}\right)
\,\quadras{3g^{\sharp} (v_n)}^{-1}
\leq 2.$$
Grâce au théorème d’Ascoli, et au fait que $\{\lambda_n\}\to\infty$, on peut extraire de $\{h_n\}$ une sous-suite uniformément convergente (que nous appellerons encore $\{h_n\}$) sur tout compact de $\CI$ vers une application méromorphe limite $h$. Cette application jouit de la propriété que $${h}^{\sharp}(0)
=\lim_{n\to\infty}
h_n^{\sharp}(0)
=1/3;$$ cela prouve qu’elle n’est pas constante. Comme, pour tout $n$, $h_n$ ne prend pas la valeur $\infty$ sur $\DI(0,\lambda_n)$, grâce au lemme de Hurwitz, $h$ ne prend pas la valeur $\infty$: c’est donc holomorphe. On a aussi, pour tout $z\in\CI$: $${h}^{\sharp}(z) =
\lim_{n\to\infty} {h_n}^{\sharp}(z)\leq 2.$$ En outre, si $g$ ne prend pas la valeur $\alpha$ sur ${\cal W}\setminus \{v\}$, alors, pour tout $n$, $h_n$ ne prend pas la valeur $\alpha$ sur $\DI(0,\lambda_n)$ et, grâce une fois de plus au lemme de Hurwitz, $h$ ne prend pas la valeur $\alpha$.
Les résultats principaux
========================
Soient $ v\in\CI $, ${\cal W}$ un voisinage fermé de $v$, $g$ une fonction holomorphe sur ${\cal W}\setminus \{v\}$, ayant une singularité essentielle à $v$. S’il existe une valeur complexe $\alpha $ omise par $g$ sur ${\cal W}\setminus \{v\}$, alors il existe une suite $\{q_n\}\to v$ de points fixes répulsifs de $g$, dont les multiplicateurs divergent à $\infty$.
[**Démonstration:**]{} Considérons d’abord le cas $\alpha\not=v$: gràce au lemme [\[zalcman\]]{}, on trouve des suites $\{v_{n}\}\to v$ et $\{r_{n}\}\downarrow 0$ telles que $h_n(z):=\{g(v_{n}+r_{n}z)\}$ converge uniformément sur tout compact de $\CI$ vers une fonction holomorphe entière non constante $h$ (à valeurs en $\CI$). Grâce au lemme [\[zalcman\]]{} $h$ omet la valeur $\alpha\not=v$, donc, grâce au théorème de Picard, il prend la valeur $v$, cette valeur n’étant pas complètement ramifiée, grâce au lemme [\[punctured\]]{}. On en tire qu’il existe $z_0\in\CI$ tel que $$\cases
{
h(z_0)=v\cr
h^{\prime}(z_0)\not= 0.
}
\labelle{branche1}$$
Or, $z\mapsto g(v_{n}+r_{n}z)-(v_{n}+r_{n}z)$ converge, apres eventuelle extraction, vers $h-v$, et $h(z_0)-v=0$, donc le lemme de Hurwitz nous passe une suite de points $\{z_{n}\}\to z_0$ tels que $g(v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n} )=(v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n} )$: ainsi les points $q_{n}:=v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n} $ forment une suite $ \{q_{n}\}\to v $ de points fixes de $g$.
Ces points sont répulsifs (pour $n$ assez grand): on a, d’un côté, grâce au choix de $z_0$ en (\[branche1\]): $$(g\circ h)^{\prime}(z_0)
=
h^{\prime}(z_0)
\cdot
g^{\prime}\left(h(z_0)\right)
\not=0;$$ de l’autre côté, $r_{n}\to 0$ et $$r_{n}\cdot
g^{\prime}
(v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n} )
=h_n^{\prime}(z_n)
\to
h^{\prime}(z_0)
,$$ ce qui prouve que, pour $n$ assez grand, les $q_{n}$ sont répulsifs et $g^{\prime}(q_{n})\to\infty$. .2cm [B)]{} Soit maintenant $\alpha=v$, c’est-à-dire $g$ omet la même valeur complexe $v$ au voisinage de la singularité essentielle $v$.
Appliquons le lemme [\[zalcman\]]{} à la fonction $\breve{g}$ definie par $$\breve{g}(z)=\frac{g(z)-v}{z-v}:$$ c’est correct, car cette fonction est holomorphe (à valeurs en $\CI$) sur ${\cal W}\setminus\{v\}$, a une singularité essentielle isolée en $z=v$ et ne prend pas la valeur $0$ sur ${\cal W}\setminus \{v\}$.
On trouve donc $\{v_n\}\to v$ et $\{r_n\}\to 0$ tels que $$h_n(z):= \frac{g(v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n}-v )}{v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n}-v}\longrightarrow
h(z),
\labelle{pasdepoles1}$$ uniformément sur tout compact de $\CI$, où $h$ est une fonction holomorphe entière non constante. Grâce au lemme [\[zalcman\]]{}, $h$ n’a pas de pôles, donc on a: $$\left\vert
\frac{v-v_{n}}{r_{n}}
\right\vert
\longrightarrow
\infty
\labelle{pasdepoles2}$$ en (\[pasdepoles1\]), car sinon $\lim_{n\to\infty}({v-v_{n}})/{r_{n}}$ serait un pôle pour $h$.
Grâce au lemme [\[zalcman\]]{}, $h$ ne prend pas la valeur $0$: grâce au théorème de Picard, $h$ prend alors la valeur $1$. Cette valeur n’est pas complètement ramifiée, grâce au lemme [\[punctured\]]{}. Il existe alors $z_0\in\CI$ tel que $$\cases
{
h(z_0)=1\cr
h^{\prime}(z_0)\not= 0.
}
\labelle{branche10}$$ Le lemme de Hurwitz nous passe une suite de points $\{z_{n}\}\to z_0$ tels que $$\frac{g(v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n} )-v}{(v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n} )-v}=1;$$ ainsi les points $q_{n}:=v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n} $ forment une suite $ \{q_{n}\}\to v $ de points fixes de $g$. Prouvons que ces points sont répulsifs (pour $n$ assez grand). On a, par définition: $$g(v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n})
=
v+
\left(v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n} - v\right)
\cdot
h_{n}(z).$$ En dérivant en $z=z_n$ et en divisant pour $r_n$, on obtient $$\begin{aligned}
g^{\prime}(v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n} )
&=&
h_{n}(z_{n})
+
\left(\frac{v-v_{n}}{r_{n}}+z_n\right)
\,h_{n}^{\prime}(z_{n})\\
%&=&
%h_{n}(z_{n})
%+
%\left(\frac{v-v_{n}}{r_{n}}+ z_{n}\right)\, h_{n}^{\prime}(z_{n}).\\\end{aligned}$$
Grâce à (\[pasdepoles2\]), $\left\vert
({v-v_{n}})/{r_{n}}
\right\vert
\longrightarrow
\infty$; comme on a aussi $h_{n}(z_{n})\to h(z_0)$ et $h_{n}^{\prime}(z_{n})\to h^{\prime}(z_0)\not=0$ (voir (\[branche10\])), on en tire que $g^{\prime}(v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n} )\to\infty$, ce qui conclut la démonstration. .5cm Le théorème \[principal\] comporte que les fonctions entières omettant une valeur et les applications du plan complexe épointé (sauf les applications de Möbius) ont une infinité de points fixes répulsifs dont les multiplicateurs divergent à $\infty$:
Soit $f$: [A)]{} une fonction entière omettant une valeur, ou [B)]{} une application du plan complexe épointé $\,\CI\setminus \{0\}$, ne se reduissant pas à une applications de Möbius. Alors il existe une suite infinie $\{\zeta\}_n$ de points fixes répulsifs de $f$ dont les multiplicateurs divergent à $\infty$.
[**Démonstration:**]{} dans le cas [A)]{} supposons, sans nuire à la généralité, que la valeur omise soit $0$. Posons $g(z):=1/f(1/z)$; dans le cas [B)]{}, l’un au moins des points $0$ et $\infty $ est une singularité essentielle isolée. Dans le premier sous-cas, posons $g:=f$, dans le deuxième $g(z):=1/f(1/z)$.
Dans les deux cas [A)]{} et [B)]{}, $g$ est holomorphe sur $\CI\setminus\{0\}$, a une singularité essentielle isolée à $z=0$ et ne prend jamais la valeur $0$. On peut alors appliquer le théroème \[principal\] à $g$, avec ${\cal W}=\CI$ et $v=\alpha =0$. Ainsi, il existe une infinité $z_n\to 0$ de points fixes répulsifs de $g$ dont les multiplicateurs divergent à $\infty$. Cela conclut la démonstration, car les multiplicateurs des points fixes sont invariants à conjugaison avec l’inversion $z\mapsto 1/z$ près. .5cm Voici le dernier résultat:
Soient $ v\in\CI $, ${\cal W}$ un voisinage fermé de $v$, $g$ une fonction holomorphe sur ${\cal W}\setminus \{v\}$, ayant une singularité essentielle à $v$. Si $v$ n’est pas une valeur exceptionelle de $g$ (au sens de Picard) au voisinage de $v$, il existe une suite $\{q_n\}\to v$ de 2-cycles de $g$. En outre, si $v$ n’est pas une valeur complètement ramifiée de $g$, les $\{q_n\}$ peuvent être choisis répulsifs, avec multiplicateurs divergeant à $\infty$.
[**Démonstration:**]{} gràce au lemme [\[zalcman\]]{}, on trouve des suites $\{v_{n}\}\to v$ et $\{r_{n}\}\downarrow 0$ telles que $\{h_n(z)\}:=\{g(v_{n}+r_{n}z)\}$ converge uniformément sur tout compact de $\CI$ vers une fonction holomorphe entière non constante $h$. Grâce à l’hypothèse sur le caractère non exceptionnel de la valeur $v$, l’ensemble $${\cal S}:= g^{-1}(v)\cap\W\setminus \{v\}$$ est infini. Grâce aux théorème de Picard (ou de façon banale, si $h$ est un polynôme) il existe $$\cases
{
z_0\in\CI\cr
w\in{\cal S}
}
\labelle{branche0}$$ tels que $h(z_0)=w$. Par continuité, il existe aussi un voisinage ${\cal U}$ de $z_0$ tel que $ h({\cal U})\subset\W\setminus \{v\} $ et, par conséquent, les $ g^{\circ 2}(v_n+ r_n z)$ sont bien définis, pour $n$ assez grand, sur ${\cal U}$. Or, $z\mapsto\{g^{\circ 2}(v_{n}+ r_{n}z)-(v_{n}+r_{n}z)\}$ converge, après eventuelle extraction, vers $g\circ h-v$ uniformément sur tout compact de ${\cal U}$. Comme $g\circ h(z_0)-v=g(w)-v=0$, le lemme de Hurwitz nous passe une suite de points $\{z_{n}\}\to z_0$ tels que $g^{\circ 2}(v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n})-(v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n} )=0$, ainsi les points $q_{n}:=v_{n}+ r_{n}z_{n} $ forment une suite $ \{q_{n}\}\to v $ de 2-cycles de $g$. Si, de plus, $v$ n’est pas une valeur complètement ramifiée de $g$, on peut choisir les $z_0\in\CI$ et $w\in{\cal S}$ en (\[branche0\]) de façon que $$\cases
{
h(z_0)=w\cr
h^{\prime}(z_0)\not= 0\cr
g^{\prime}(w)\not= 0.
}
\labelle{branche}$$
En effet, comme la valeur $v$ n’est pas complètement ramifiée, l’ensemble $${\cal T}:=\{w\in{\cal S}: g^{\prime}(w)\not= 0\}$$ (et, par conséquent, $h^{-1}({\cal T})$) est infini. L’ensemble $$\{z\in h^{-1}({\cal T}): h^{\prime}(z)\not= 0\}$$ est de même infini: cela découle, si $h$ est transcendant, du théorème des quatre valeurs complètement ramifiées; si $h$ est un polynôme, alors ceci s’ensuit tout simplement du fait que l’ensemble $\{z\vert h^{\prime}(z)= 0\}$ est fini. Cela prouve (\[branche\]): avec ce choix de $w$ et $z_0$, on a: $$(g\circ h)^{\prime}(z_0)
=
h^{\prime}(z_0)
\cdot
g^{\prime}\left(h(z_0)\right)
\not=0 ;$$ d’autre côté, $r_{n}\to 0$ et $$r_{n}\cdot
(g^{\circ 2})^{\prime}
(v_{n}+r_{n}z_{n} )
=(g\circ h_n)^{\prime}(z_n)
\to
(g\circ h)^{\prime}(z_0)
,$$ ainsi, pour $n$ assez grand, les $q_{n}$ sont répulsifs; on a aussi $(g^{\circ 2})^{\prime}(q_{n})\to\infty$.
[11]{} W.Bergweiler, [*An introduction to complex dynamics*]{} [Textos de matemática, Universidade de Coimbra, Série B No.6 (1995) ]{} François Berteloot, Volker Mayer [*Rudiments de dynamique holomorphe*]{} [Société Mathématique de France, EDP Sciences, 2001]{} M.Gromov, [*Foliated plateau problem: part II: harmonic maps of foliations*]{} [GAFA, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1991), 253-320]{} Olli Lehto, [*The spherical derivative of meromorphic functions in the neighbourhood of an isolated singularity*]{} [Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici, vol 33 p.196-205]{}
[L’adresse de l’auteur: CLAUDIO MENEGHINI INSTITUD DE STUDIS RHAETO CISALPINS FERMO POSTA CHIASSO 1 CH 6830 CHIASSO - SUISSE ]{}
[^1]: AMS MSC: 37F25, 37F05
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[Many machine learning tools for regression are based on recursive partitioning of the covariate space into smaller regions, where the regression function can be estimated locally. Among these, regression trees and their ensembles have demonstrated impressive empirical performance. In this work, we shed light on the machinery behind Bayesian variants of these methods. In particular, we study Bayesian regression histograms, such as Bayesian dyadic trees, in the simple regression case with just one predictor. We focus on the reconstruction of regression surfaces that are piecewise constant, where the number of jumps is unknown. We show that with suitably designed priors, posterior distributions concentrate around the true step regression function at a near-minimax rate. These results [*do not*]{} require the knowledge of the true number of steps, nor the width of the true partitioning cells. Thus, Bayesian dyadic regression trees are fully adaptive and can recover the true piecewise regression function nearly as well as if we knew the exact number and location of jumps. Our results constitute the first step towards understanding why Bayesian trees and their ensembles have worked so well in practice. As an aside, we discuss prior distributions on balanced interval partitions and how they relate to an old problem in geometric probability. Namely, we relate the probability of covering the circumference of a circle with random arcs whose endpoints are confined to a grid, a new variant of the original problem. ]{}'
author:
- |
Stéphanie van der Pas\
Mathematical Institute\
Leiden University\
Leiden, The Netherlands\
`[email protected]`\
Veronika Ročková\
Booth School of Business\
University of Chicago\
Chicago, IL, 60637\
`[email protected]`\
title: Bayesian Dyadic Trees and Histograms for Regression
---
Introduction
============
Histogram regression methods, such as regression trees [@cart] and their ensembles [@breiman], have an impressive record of empirical success in many areas of application [@Berchuck2005; @Nimeh2007; @Razi2005; @Green2012; @Polley2010]. Tree-based machine learning (ML) methods build a piecewise constant reconstruction of the regression surface based on ideas of recursive partitioning. Perhaps the most popular partitioning schemes are the ones based on parallel-axis splits. One recent example is the Mondrian process [@mondrian], which was introduced to the ML community as a prior over tree data structures with interesting self-consistency properties. Many efficient algorithms exist that can be deployed to fit regression histograms underpinned by some partitioning scheme. Among these, Bayesian variants, such as Bayesian CART [@Chipman1998; @Denison1998] and BART [@Chipman2010], have appealed to umpteen practitioners. There are several reasons why. Bayesian tree-based regression tools (a) can adapt to regression surfaces without any need for pruning, (b) are reluctant to overfit, (c) provide an avenue for uncertainty statements via posterior distributions. While practical success stories abound [@Berchuck2005; @Nimeh2007; @Razi2005; @Green2012; @Polley2010], the theoretical understanding of Bayesian regression tree methods has been lacking. In this work, we study the quality of posterior distributions with regard to the three properties mentioned above. We provide first theoretical results that contribute to the understanding of Bayesian Gaussian regression methods based on recursive partitioning.
Our performance metric will be the speed of posterior concentration/contraction around the true regression function. This is ultimately a frequentist assessment, describing the typical behavior of the posterior under the true generative model [@Ghosal2000]. Posterior concentration rate results are now slowly entering the machine learning community as a tool for obtaining more insights into Bayesian methods [@Zhang2004; @Tang2014; @Korda2013; @Briol2015; @Chen2016]. Such results quantify not only the typical distance between a point estimator (posterior mean/median) and the truth, but also the typical spread of the posterior around the truth. Ideally, most of the posterior mass should be concentrated in a ball centered around the true value with a radius proportional to the minimax rate [@Ghosal2000; @Ghosal2007]. Being inherently a performance measure of both location and spread, optimal posterior concentration provides a necessary certificate for further uncertainty quantification [@Szabo2015; @Castillo2014; @Rousseau2016b]. Beyond uncertainty assessment, theoretical guarantees that describe the average posterior shrinkage behavior have also been a valuable instrument for assessing the suitability of priors. As such, these results can often provide useful guidelines for the choice of tuning parameters, e.g. the latent Dirichlet allocation model [@Tang2014].
Despite the rapid growth of this frequentist-Bayesian theory field, posterior concentration results for Bayesian regression histograms/trees/forests have, so far, been unavailable. Here, we adopt this theoretical framework to get new insights into why these methods work so well.
Related Work {#related-work .unnumbered}
------------
Bayesian density estimation with step functions is a relatively well-studied problem [@Castillo_polya; @Liu2015; @Scricciolo2007]. The literature on Bayesian histogram regression is a bit less crowded. Perhaps the closest to our conceptual framework is the work by Coram and Lalley [@coram], who studied Bayesian non-parametric binary regression with uniform mixture priors on step functions. The authors focused on $L_1$ consistency. Here, we focus on posterior concentration rather than consistency. We are not aware of any other related theoretical study of Bayesian histogram methods for Gaussian regression.
Our Contributions {#our-contributions .unnumbered}
-----------------
In this work we focus on a canonical regression setting with merely one predictor. We study hierarchical priors on step functions and provide conditions under which the posteriors concentrate optimally around the true regression function. We consider the case when the true regression function itself is a step function, i.e. a tree or a tree ensemble, where the number and location of jumps is unknown.
We start with a very simple space of approximating step functions, supported on equally sized intervals where the number of splits is equipped with a prior. These partitions include dyadic regression trees. We show that for a suitable complexity prior, all relevant information about the true regression function (jump sizes and the number of jumps) is learned from the data automatically. During the course of the proof, we develop a notion of the complexity of a piecewise constant function relative to its approximating class.
Next, we take a larger approximating space consisting of functions supported on balanced partitions that do not necessarily have to be of equal size. These correspond to more general trees with splits at observed values. With a uniform prior over all balanced partitions, we are able to achieve a nearly ideal performance (as if we knew the number and the location of jumps). As an aside, we describe the distribution of interval lengths obtained when the splits are sampled uniformly from a grid. We relate this distribution to the probability of covering the circumference of a circle with random arcs, a problem in geometric probability that dates back to [@shepp; @Feller68]. Our version of this problem assumes that the splits are chosen from a discrete grid rather than from a unit interval.
Notation {#notation .unnumbered}
--------
With $\propto$ and $\lesssim$ [we]{} will denote an equality and inequality, up to a constant. The $\varepsilon$-covering number of a set $\Omega$ for a semimetric $d$, denoted by $N(\varepsilon,\Omega,d),$ is the minimal number of $d$-balls of radius $\varepsilon$ needed to cover the set $\Omega$. We denote by $\phi(\cdot)$ the standard normal density and by $P_f^n= \bigotimes P_{f,i}$ the $n$-fold product measure of the $n$ independent observations under with a regression function $f(\cdot)$. By $\mathbb{P}_n^{x}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\delta_{x_i}$ we denote the empirical distribution of the observed covariates, by $||\cdot||_n$ the norm on $L_2(\mathbb{P}_n^{x})$ and by $||\cdot||_2$ the standard Euclidean norm.
Bayesian Histogram Regression
=============================
We consider a classical nonparametric regression model, where response variables ${{\boldsymbol{Y}}}^{(n)} = (Y_1, \ldots, Y_n)'$ are related to input variables $\x^{(n)} = (x_1, \ldots, x_n)'$ through the function $f_0$ as follows $$\label{eq:def_problem}
Y_i = f_0(x_i) + \varepsilon_i, \quad \varepsilon_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0, 1), \quad i = 1, \ldots, n.$$
We assume that the covariate values $x_i$ are one-dimensional, fixed and have been rescaled so that $x_i\in [0, 1]$. Partitioning-based regression methods are often invariant to monotone transformations of observations. In particular, when $f_0$ is a step function, standardizing the distance between the observations, and thereby the split points, has no effect on the nature of the estimation problem. Without loss of generality, we will thereby assume that the observations are aligned on an equispaced grid.
(Equispaced Grid) \[ass:fixedgrid\] We assume that the [scaled]{} predictor values satisfy $x_i = \frac{i}{n}$ for each $i = 1, \ldots, n$.
This assumption implies that partitions that are balanced in terms of the Lebesque measure will be balanced also in terms of the number of observations. A similar assumption was imposed by Donoho [@Donoho1997] in his study of Dyadic CART.
The underlying regression function $f_0: [0, 1] \to \mathbb{R}$ is assumed to be a step function, i.e. $$f_0(x) = \sum_{k=1}^{K_{0}} \beta_k^0 {\mathbb{I}}_{\Omega_k^0}(x),$$ where $\{\Omega_k^0\}_{k=1}^{K_{0}}$ is a partition of $[0, 1]$ into $K_0$ non-overlapping intervals. [We assume that $\{\Omega_k^0\}_{k=1}^{K_{0}}$ is minimal, meaning that $f_0$ cannot be represented with a smaller partition (with less than $K_0$ pieces).]{} Each partitioning cell $\Omega_k^0$ is associated with a step size $\beta_k^0$, determining the level of the function $f_0$ on $\Omega_k^0$. The entire vector of $K_0$ step sizes will be denoted by $\b^0=(\beta_1^0,\dots,\beta_K^0)'$.
One might like to think of $f_0$ as a regression tree with $K_0$ bottom leaves. Indeed, every step function can be associated with an equivalence class of trees that live on the same partition but differ in their tree topology. The number of bottom leaves $K_0$ will be treated as unknown throughout this paper. Our goal will be designing a suitable class of priors on step functions so that the posterior concentrates tightly around $f_0$. Our analysis with a single predictor has served as a precursor to a full-blown analysis for high-dimensional regression trees [@Rockova2017].
We consider an approximating space of all step functions (with $K=1,2,\dots$ bottom leaves) $$\label{shells}
\mathcal{F}=\cup_{K=1}^\infty\mathcal{F}_K,$$ which consists of smaller spaces (or shells) of all $K$-step functions $$\mathcal{F}_K=\left\{f_{\b}:[0,1]\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}; f_{\b}(x)=\sum_{k=1}^{K} \beta_k {\mathbb{I}}_{\Omega_k}(x)\right\},$$ each indexed by a partition $\{\Omega_k\}_{k=1}^K$ and a vector of $K$ step heights $\b$. The fundamental building block of our theoretical analysis will be the prior on $\mathcal{F}$. This prior distribution has three main ingredients, described in detail below, (a) a prior on the number of steps $K$, (b) a prior on the partitions $\{\Omega_k\}_{k=1}^K$ of size $K$, and (c) a prior on step sizes $\b=(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_K)'$.
Prior $\pi_K(\cdot)$ on the Number of Steps $K$
------------------------------------------------
To avoid overfitting, we assign an exponentially decaying prior distribution that penalizes partitions with too many jumps.
(Prior on $K$)\[prior\_K\] The prior on the number of partitioning cells $K$ satisfies $$\label{priorK}
\pi_K(k)\equiv\Pi(K=k)\,\propto\, \exp(-c_K\, k\log k)\quad\text{for}\quad k=1,2,\dots.$$
This prior is no stranger to non-parametric problems. It was deployed for stepwise reconstructions of densities [@Scricciolo2007; @Liu2015] and regression surfaces [@coram]. When $c_K$ is large, this prior is concentrated on models with small complexity where overfitting should not occur. Decreasing $c_K$ leads to the smearing of the prior mass over partitions with more jumps. This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:prior\], which depicts the prior for various choices of $c_K$. We provide recommendations for the choice of $c_K$ in [Section 3.1.]{}
Prior $\pi_{\Omega}(\cdot\C K)$ on Interval Partitions $\{\Omega_k\}_{k=1}^K$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After selecting the number of steps $K$ from $\pi_K(k)$, we assign a prior over interval partitions $\pi_{\Omega}(\cdot\C K)$. We will consider two important special cases.
### Equivalent Blocks {#sec:EB}
Perhaps the simplest partition is based on statistically equivalent blocks [@anderson], where all the cells are required to have the same number of points. This is also known as the $K$-spacing rule that partitions the unit interval using order statistics of the observations.
(Equivalent Blocks)\[prior\_EB\] Let $x_{(i)}$ denote the $i^{th}$ order statistic of $\x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)'$, where $x_{(n)}\equiv 1$ and $n=Kc$ for some $c\in\mathbb{N}\backslash\{0\}$. Denote by $x_{(0)}\equiv 0$. A partition $\{\Omega_k\}_{k=1}^K$ consists of $K$ equivalent blocks, when $\Omega_k=(x_{(j_k)},x_{(j_{k+1})}]$, where $j_k=(k-1)c$.
A variant of this definition can be obtained in terms of interval lengths rather than numbers of observations.
(Equispaced Blocks)\[prior\_EB2\] A partition $\{\Omega_k\}_{k=1}^K$ consists of $K$ [*equispaced blocks*]{} $\Omega_k$, when $
\Omega_k = \left(\frac{k-1}{K}, \frac{k}{K}\right]\quad\text{for}\quad k=1,\dots, K.
$
When $K=2^s$ for some $s\in{\mathbb{N}}\backslash\{0\}$, the equispaced partition corresponds to a full complete binary tree with splits at dyadic rationals. If the observations $x_i$ lie on a regular grid (Assumption \[ass:fixedgrid\]), then Definition \[prior\_EB\] and \[prior\_EB2\] are essentially equivalent. We will thereby focus on equivalent blocks (EB) and denote such a partition (for a given $K>0$) with ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_K^{EB}$. Because there is only one such partition for each $K$, the prior $\pi_{\Omega}(\cdot| K)$ has a single point mass mass at ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_K^{EB}$. With ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{EB}=\cup_{K=1}^\infty{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_K^{EB}$ we denote the set of all EB partitions for $K=1,2,\dots$. We will use these partitioning schemes as a jump-off point.
### Balanced Intervals {#sec:balance}
Equivalent (equispaced) blocks are deterministic and, as such, do not provide much room for learning about the actual location of jumps in $f_0$. Balanced intervals, introduced below, are a richer class of partitions that tolerate a bit more imbalance. First, we introduce the notion of cell counts $\mu(\Omega_k)$. For each interval $\Omega_k$, we write $$\label{cell:count}
\mu(\Omega_k)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\mathbb{I}(x_i\in\Omega_k),$$ the proportion of observations falling inside $\Omega_k$. Note that for equivalent blocks, we can write $\mu(\Omega_1)=\cdots=\mu(\Omega_K)=c/n=1/K$.
(Balanced Intervals)\[ass:balance\] A partition $\{\Omega_k\}_{k=1}^K$ is [*balanced*]{} if $$\label{eq:balance}
\frac{C^2_{min}}{K}\leq \mu(\Omega_k)\leq \frac{C^2_{max}}{K} \quad\text{for all}\quad k=1,\dots, K$$ for some universal constants $C_{min}\leq 1\leq C_{max}$ not depending on $K$.
The following variant of the balancing condition uses interval widths rather than cell counts: ${\widetilde{C}^2_{min}}/{K}\leq |\Omega_k|\leq {\widetilde{C}^2_{max}}/{K}$. Again, under Assumption 1, these two definitions are equivalent. In the sequel, we will denote by ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{BI}_K$ the set of all balanced partitions consisting of $K$ intervals and by ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{BI}=\cup_{K=1}^\infty{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{BI}_K$ the set of all balanced intervals of sizes $K=1,2,\dots$. It is worth pointing out that the balance assumption on the interval partitions can be relaxed, at the expense of a log factor in the concentration rate [@Rockova2017].
With balanced partitions, the $K^{th}$ shell $\mathcal{F}_K$ of the approximating space $\mathcal{F}$ in consists of all step functions that are supported on partitions ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_{K}^{BI}$ and have $K-1$ points of discontinuity $u_k\in I_n\equiv \{x_i:i=1,\dots,n-1\}$ for $k=1,\dots K-1$. For equispaced blocks in Definition \[prior\_EB2\], we assumed that the points of subdivision were [*deterministic*]{}, i.e. $u_k=k/K$. For balanced partitions, we assume that $u_k$ are [*random*]{} and chosen amongst the [*observed values $x_i$*]{}. The order statistics of the vector of splits $\u=(u_1,\dots,u_{K-1})'$ uniquely define a segmentation of $[0,1]$ into $K$ intervals $\Omega_k=(u_{(k-1)},u_{(k)}]$, where $u_{(k)}$ designates the $k^{th}$ smallest value in $\u$ and $u_{(0)}\equiv0, u_{(K)}=x_{(n)}\equiv1$. Our prior over balanced intervals $\pi_\Omega(\cdot\C K)$ will be defined implicitly through a [*uniform*]{} prior over the split vectors $\u$. Namely, the prior over balanced partitions ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{BI}_K$ satisfies $$\label{prior_omega}
\pi_{\Omega}(\{\Omega_k\}_{k=1}^K\C K)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{card}({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{BI}_K)} {\mathbb{I}}\left(\{\Omega_k\}_{k=1}^K\in{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{BI}_K\right).$$ In the following Lemma, we obtain upper bounds on $\mathrm{card}({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{BI}_K)$ and discuss how they relate to an old problem in geometric probability. In the sequel, we denote with $|\Omega_k|$ the lengths of the segments defined through the split points $\u$.
\[lemma:upper\_cellsize\] Assume that $\u=(u_1,\dots, u_{K-1})'$ is a vector of independent random variables obtained by uniform sampling (without replacement) from $I_n$. Then under Assumption 1, we have for $1/n<C<1/K$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi\left(\min_{1\leq k\leq K}|\Omega_{k}|\geq C \right)= \frac{{{\lfloor n(1-K\,C)\rfloor+K-1} \choose {K-1}}}{{{n-1}\choose {K-1}}}\label{prob_mincell}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{prob_maxcell}
\Pi\left(\max_{1\leq k\leq K}|\Omega_{k}|\leq C \right)=1-
\sum_{k=1}^{\widetilde{n}}(-1)^k{n-1\choose k} \frac{{{\lfloor n(1-k\,C)\rfloor+K-1} \choose {K-1}}}{{{n-1}\choose {K-1}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\widetilde{n}=\min\{n-1,\lfloor 1/C\rfloor\}$.
The denominator of follows from the fact that there are $n-1$ possible splits for the $K-1$ points of discontinuity $u_k$. The numerator is obtained after adapting the proof of Lemma 2 of Flatto and Konheim [@flatto_konheim]. Without lost of generality, we will assume that $C=a/n$ for some $a=1,\dots,\lfloor n/K\rfloor$ so that $n(1-KC)$ is an integer. Because the jumps $u_k$ can only occur on the grid $I_n$, we have $|\Omega_k|=j/n$ for some $j=1,\dots,n-1$. It follows from Lemma 1 of Flatto and Konheim [@flatto_konheim] that the set $E_K=\{|\Omega_k|:\sum_{k=1}^{K}|\Omega_k|=1\,\,\text{and}\,\, |\Omega_k|\geq C\,\text{for}\,k=1,\dots,K\}$ lies in the interior of a convex hull of $K$ points $v_r=(1-KC)e_r+C\sum_{k=1}^Ke_k$ for $r=1,\dots, K$, where $e_r=(e_{r1},\dots,e_{rK})'$ are unit base vectors, i.e. $e_{rj}=\mathbb{I}(r=j)$. Two examples of the set $E_K$ (for $K=2$ and $K=3$) are depicted in Figure \[fig:1\]. In both figures, $n=10$ (i.e. $9$ candidate split points) and $a=2$. With $K=2$ (Figure \[fig1:left\]), there are only $7= {{n(1-KC)+K-1} \choose {K-1}}$ pairs of interval lengths $(|\Omega_1|,|\Omega_2|)'$ that satisfy the minimal cell condition. These points lie on a grid between the two vertices $v_1=(1-C,C)$ and $v_2=(C,1-C)$. With $K=3$, the convex hull of points $v_1=(1-2C,C,C)',v_2=(C,1-2C,C)'$ and $v_1=(C,C,1-2C)'$ corresponds to a diagonal dissection of a cube of a side length $(1-3C)$ (Figure \[fig1:right\], again with $a=2$ and $n=10$). The number of lattice points in the interior (and on the boundary) of such tetrahedron corresponds to an arithmetic sum $\frac{1}{2}{(n-3a+2)(n-3a+1)}={{n-3a+2}\choose 2}$. So far, we showed for $K=2$ and $K=3$. To complete the induction argument, suppose that the formula holds for some arbitrary $K>0$. Then the size of the lattice inside (and on the boundary) of a $(K+1)$-tetrahedron of a side length $[1-(K+1)C]$ can be obtained by summing lattice sizes inside $K$-tetrahedrons of increasing side lengths [$0,\sqrt{2}/n, 2\sqrt{2}/n ,\dots,[1-(K+1)C]\sqrt{2}/n$]{}, i.e. $$\sum_{j=K-1}^{n[1-(K+1)C]+K-1}{j\choose K-1}={n[1-(K+1)C]+K \choose K},$$ where we used the fact $\sum_{j=K}^N{j\choose K}={N+1 \choose K+1}$. The second statement is obtained by writing the event as a complement of the union of events and applying the method of inclusion-exclusion.$\qedhere$
Flatto and Konheim [@flatto_konheim] showed that the probability of covering a circle with random arcs of length $C$ is equal to the probability that all segments of the unit interval, obtained with iid random uniform splits, are smaller than $C$. Similarly, the probability could be related to the probability of covering the circle with random arcs whose endpoints are chosen from a grid of $n-1$ equidistant points on the circumference.
There are ${n-1\choose K-1}$ partitions of size $K$, of which ${{\lfloor n(1-\widetilde{C}^2_{min})\rfloor+K-1} \choose {K-1}}$ satisfy the minimal cell width balancing condition (where $\widetilde{C}^2_{min}>K/n$). This number gives an upper bound on the combinatorial complexity of balanced partitions $\mathrm{card}({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{BI}_K)$.
Prior $\pi(\b\C K)$ on Step Heights $\b$
----------------------------------------
To complete the prior on $\mathcal{F}^K$, we take independent normal priors on each of the coefficients. Namely $$\label{eq:prior_beta}
\pi(\b\C K)=\prod_{k=1}^K\phi(\beta_k),$$ where $\phi(\cdot)$ is the standard normal density.
Main Results
============
A crucial ingredient of our proof will be understanding how well one can approximate $f_0$ with other step functions (supported on partitions ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$, which are either equivalent blocks ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{EB}$ or balanced partitions ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{BI}$). We will describe the approximation error in terms of the overlap between the true partition $\{\Omega^0_k\}_{k=1}^{K_0}$ and the approximating partitions $\{\Omega_k\}_{k=1}^K\in{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$. More formally, we define the [*restricted cell count*]{} (according to Nobel [@nobel]) as $$m\left(V; \{\Omega_k^0\}_{k=1}^{K_0}\right)=|\Omega_k^0: \Omega_k^0\cap V\neq \emptyset|,$$ the number of cells in $\{\Omega_k^0\}_{k=1}^{K_0}$ that overlap with an interval $V\subset [0,1]$. Next, we define the [*complexity*]{} of $f_0$ as the smallest size of a partition in ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ needed to completely cover $f_0$ without any overlap.
(Complexity of $f_0$ w.r.t. ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$)\[def:K0\] We define $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$ as the smallest $K$ such that there exists a $K$-partition $\{\Omega_k\}_{k=1}^K$ in the class of partitions ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ for which $$m\left(\Omega_k; \{\Omega_k^0\}_{k=1}^{K_0}\right)=1\quad \text{for all} \quad k=1,\dots, K.$$ The number $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$ will be referred to as the [*complexity of $f_0$ w.r.t. ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$*]{}.
The complexity number $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$ indicates the optimal number of steps needed to approximate $f_0$ with a step function (supported on partitions in ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$) without any error. It depends on the true number of jumps $K_0$ as well as the true interval lengths $|\Omega_k^0|$. [If the minimal partition $\{\Omega_k^0\}_{k=1}^{K_0}$ resided in the approximating class, i.e. $\{\Omega_k^0\}_{k=1}^{K_0}\in{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$, then we would obtain $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})=K_0$, the true number of steps.]{} On the other hand, when $\{\Omega_k^0\}_{k=1}^{K_0}\notin {\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$, the complexity number $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$ can be much larger. This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:prior\] (right), where the true partition $\{\Omega_k^0\}_{k=1}^{K_0}$ consists of $K_0=4$ unequal pieces and we approximate it with equispaced blocks with $K=2,5,10$ steps. Because the intervals $\Omega_k^0$ are not equal and the smallest one has a length $1/10$, we need $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{EB})=10$ equispaced blocks to perfectly approximate $f_0$. For our analysis, we do not need to assume that $\{\Omega_k^0\}_{k=1}^{K_0}\in{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ (i.e. $f_0$ does not need to be inside the approximating class) or that $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$ is finite. The complexity number can increase with $n$, where sharper performance is obtained when $f_0$ can be approximated error-free with some $f\in{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$, where $f$ has a small number of discontinuities relative to $n$.
\[ass:existence\] Let ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$ be a class of approximating partitions. We assume that $f_0$ is ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}$-valid, i.e. $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}) < \sqrt{n}$.
Another way to view $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$ is as the ideal partition size on which the posterior should concentrate. If this number were known, we could achieve a near-minimax posterior concentration rate $n^{-1/2}\sqrt{K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})\log[n/K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})]}$ (Remark \[remark\]). The actual minimax rate for estimating a piece-wise constant $f_0$ (consisting of $K_0>2$ pieces) is $n^{-1/2}\sqrt{K_0\log (n/K_0)}$ [@Gao]. In our main results, we will target the nearly optimal rate expressed in terms of $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}})$.
Posterior Concentration for Equivalent Blocks
---------------------------------------------
Our first result shows that the minimax rate is nearly achieved, without any assumptions on the number of pieces of $f_0$ or the sizes of the pieces.
(Equivalent Blocks)\[thm:main\_step\] Let $f_0 : [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}$ be a step function with $K_0$ steps, where $K_0$ is unknown. Denote by $\mathcal{F}$ the set of all step functions supported on equivalent blocks, equipped with priors $\pi_K(\cdot)$ and $\pi(\b \mid K)$ as in and . Denote with $K_{f_0}\equiv K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{EB})$ and assume $\|\b^0\|^2_\infty\lesssim\log n$ and $K_{f_0}\lesssim \sqrt{n}$. Then, under Assumption \[ass:fixedgrid\], we have $$\label{eq:conc}
\Pi\left( f \in \mathcal{F}: \|f - f_0\|_n \geq M_n n^{-1/2}\sqrt{K_{f_0}\log{(n/K_{f_0})}} \mid {{\boldsymbol{Y}}}^{(n)}\right) \to 0$$ in $P_{f_0}^n$-probability, for every $M_n \to \infty$ as $n \to \infty$.
Before we proceed with the proof, a few remarks ought to be made. First, it is worthwhile to emphasize that the statement in Theorem \[thm:main\_step\] is a frequentist one as it relates to an aggregated behavior of the posterior distributions obtained under the true generative model $P_{f_0}^n$.
Second, the theorem shows that the Bayesian procedure performs an automatic adaptation to $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{EB})$. The posterior will concentrate on EB partitions that are fine enough to approximate $f_0$ well. Thus, we are able to recover the true function as well as if we knew $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{EB})$. Third, it is worth mentioning that, under Assumption \[ass:fixedgrid\], Theorem \[thm:main\_step\] holds for equivalent as well as equisized blocks. In this vein, it describes the speed of posterior concentration for [*dyadic regression trees*]{}. Indeed, as mentioned previously, with $K=2^s$ for some $s\in\mathbb{N}\backslash\{0\}$, the equisized partition corresponds to a full binary tree with splits at dyadic rationals.
Another interesting insight is that the Gaussian prior , while selected for mathematical convenience, turns out to be sufficient for optimal recovery. In other words, despite the relatively large amount of [mass near zero]{}, the Gaussian prior does not rule out optimal posterior concentration. Our standard normal prior is a simpler version of the Bayesian CART prior, which determines the variance from the data [@Chipman1998].
Let $K_{f_0}\equiv K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{EB}) $ be as in Definition \[def:K0\]. Theorem \[thm:main\_step\] is proved by verifying the three conditions of Theorem 4 of [@Ghosal2007], for [${\varepsilon}_n = n^{-1/2}\sqrt{K_{f_0}\log(n/K_{f_0})}$]{} and $\mathcal{F}_n = \bigcup_{K=0}^{k_n} \mathcal{F}_K$, with $k_n$ of the order [$K_{f_0}{\log(n/K_{f_0})}$]{}. The approximating subspace $\mathcal{F}_n\subset\mathcal{F}$ should be rich enough to approximate $f_0$ well and it should receive most of the prior mass. The conditions for posterior contraction at the rate ${\varepsilon}_n$ are:
1. \[GV1\] $\displaystyle \sup_{{\varepsilon}> {\varepsilon}_n} \log N\left(\tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{36}, \{f \in \mathcal{F}_n : \|f - f_0\|_n < {\varepsilon}\}, \|.\|_n\right) \leq n{\varepsilon}_n^2,$
2. \[GV2\] $\displaystyle \frac{\Pi(\mathcal{F} \backslash \mathcal{F}_n)}{\Pi(f \in \mathcal{F} : \|f-f_0\|_n^2 \leq {\varepsilon}_n^2)} = o(e^{-2n{\varepsilon}_n^2}),$
3. \[GV3\] $\displaystyle \frac{\Pi(f \in \mathcal{F}_n : j{\varepsilon}_n < \|f - f_0\|_n \leq 2j{\varepsilon}_n)}{\Pi(f \in \mathcal{F} : \|f-f_0\|_n^2 \leq {\varepsilon}_n^2)} \leq e^{\frac{j^2}{4}n{\varepsilon}_n^2}$ for all sufficiently large $j$.
The entropy condition \[GV1\] restricts attention to EB partitions with small $K$. As will be seen from the proof, the largest allowed partitions have at most (a constant multiple of) $K_{f_0}\log{(n/K_{f_0})}$ pieces.
.
Condition \[GV2\] requires that the prior does not promote partitions with more than $K_{f_0}\log{(n/K_{f_0})}$ pieces. This property is guaranteed by the exponentially decaying prior $\pi_K(\cdot)$, which penalizes large partitions.
The final condition, \[GV3\], requires that the prior charges a $\|.\|_n$ neighborhood of the true function. In our proof, we verify this condition by showing that the prior mass on step functions of the optimal size [$K_{f_0}$]{} is sufficiently large.
We verify the three conditions \[GV1\], \[GV2\] and \[GV3\].
#### \[GV1\]
Let ${\varepsilon}> {\varepsilon}_n$ and $K \in \mathbb{N}$. For $f_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}},f_{\b} \in \mathcal{F}_{K}$, we have $K^{-1}\|{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} - \b\|_2^2 = \|f_{{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}} - f_{\b}\|_n^2$ because $\mu(\Omega_k) = 1/K$ for each $k$. We now argue as in the proof of Theorem 12 of [@Ghosal2007] to show that $N\left(\tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{36}, \{f \in \mathcal{F}_K : \|f - f_0\|_n < {\varepsilon}\}, \|.\|_n\right)$ can be covered by the number of $\sqrt{K}{\varepsilon}/36$-balls required to cover a $\sqrt{K}{\varepsilon}$-ball in ${\mathbb{R}}^{K}$. This number is bounded above by $108^K$. Summing over $K$, we recognize a geometric series. Taking the logarithm of the result, we find that \[GV1\] is satisfied if $\log(108)(k_n+1) \leq n{\varepsilon}_n^2$.
#### \[GV2\]
We bound the denominator by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi(f \in \mathcal{F} : \|f-f_0\|_n^2 \leq {\varepsilon}^2)
&\geq \pi_K(K_{f_0})\Pi\left(\b \in \mathbb{R}^{{K(f_0)}} : \|\b - \b^{\rm ext}_0\|_2^2 \leq {\varepsilon}^2 K_{f_0} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\b_0^{\rm ext} \in \mathbb{R}^{K_{f_0}}$ is an extended version of $\b^0 \in \mathbb{R}^{K_0}$, containing the coefficients for $f_0$ expressed as a step function on the partition $\{\Omega_k^0\}_{k=1}^{K_{f_0}}$. This can be bounded from below by $$\frac{\pi_K(K_{f_0})}{e^{\|\b^{\rm ext}_0\|_2^2/2}}\Pi\left(\b \in \mathbb{R}^{{K(f_0)}}:\|\b\|^2_2\leq {\varepsilon}^2 K_{f_0}/2\right)> \frac{\pi_K(K_{f_0})}{e^{\|\b^{\rm ext}_0\|_2^2/2}} \int_0^{{\varepsilon}^2 K_{f_0}/2}
\frac{x^{K_{f_0}/2 -1} e^{-x/2}}{2^{K_{f_0}/2}\Gamma(K_{f_0}/2)}dx.$$ We bound this from below by bounding the exponential at the upper integration limit, yielding: $$\label{eq:lowerboundball}
\frac{\pi_K(K_{f_0})}{e^{\|\b^{\rm ext}_0\|_2^2/2}}\frac{e^{-\varepsilon^2K_{f_0}/4}}{2^{K_{f_0}}\Gamma(K_{f_0}/2+1)}\varepsilon^{K_{f_0}}K_{f_0}^{K_{f_0}/2}.$$ For ${\varepsilon}= {\varepsilon}_n \to 0$, we thus find that the denominator in \[GV2\] can be lower bounded with $e^{K_{f_0}\log {\varepsilon}_n-c_K\,K_{f_0}\log K_{f_0}-\|\b_0^{ext}\|^2_2/2-K_{f_0}/2[\log 2+{\varepsilon}_n^2/2]}$. We bound the numerator: $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi(\mathcal{F} \backslash \mathcal{F}_n) &= \Pi\left( \bigcup_{k = k_n + 1}^\infty \mathcal{F}_k \right)
\propto \sum_{k=k_n + 1}^\infty e^{-c_Kk\log{k}}
\leq e^{-c_K(k_n+1)\log(k_n+1)} + \int_{k_n + 1}^\infty e^{-c_Kx\log{x}},\end{aligned}$$ which is of order [$e^{-c_K(k_n+1)\log(k_n+1)}$]{}. Combining this bound with , we find that \[GV2\] is met if: $$e^{-K_{f_0}\log{{\varepsilon}_n}+(c_K+1)\,K_{f_0}\log K_{f_0}+K_{f_0}\|\b^0\|_\infty^2 - c_K(k_n+1)\log(k_n+1) + 2n{\varepsilon}_n^2} \to 0 \text{ as } n \to \infty.$$
#### \[GV3\]
We bound the numerator by one, and use the bound for the denominator. As ${\varepsilon}_n \to 0$, we obtain the condition [${-K_{f_0} \log{{\varepsilon}_n}}+(c_K+1)K_{f_0}\log K_{f_0}+K_{f_0}\|\b^0\|_{\infty}^2 \leq {\frac{j^2}{4}n{\varepsilon}_n^2}$]{} for all sufficiently large $j$.
#### Conclusion
With [${\varepsilon}_n = n^{-1/2}\sqrt{K_{f_0}\log(n/K_{f_0})}$]{}, letting $k_n\propto n{\varepsilon}_n^2=K_{f_0}\log(n/K_{f_0})$, the condition \[GV1\] is met. With this choice of $k_n$, the condition [\[GV2\]]{} holds as well as long as $\|\b^0\|_\infty^2\lesssim \log n$ and $K_{f_0}\lesssim\sqrt{n}$. Finally, the condition \[GV3\] is met for $K_{f_0}\lesssim\sqrt{n}$. $\qedhere$
It is worth pointing out that the proof will hold for a larger class of priors on $K$, as long as the prior shrinks at least exponentially fast (meaning that it is bounded from above by $ae^{-bK}$ for constants $a, b > 0$). However, a prior at this exponential limit will require tuning, because the optimal $a$ and $b$ will depend on $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{EB})$. We recommend using the prior that prunes somewhat more aggressively, because it does not require tuning by the user. Indeed, Theorem \[thm:main\_step\] holds regardless of the choice of $c_K>0$. We conjecture, however, that values $c_K \geq 1/K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{EB})$ lead to a faster concentration speed and we suggest $c_K=1$ as a default option.
\[remark\] When $K_{f_0}$ is known, there is no need for assigning a prior $\pi_K(\cdot)$ and the conditions \[GV1\] and \[GV3\] are verified similarly as before, fixing the number of steps at $K_{f_0}$.
Posterior Concentration for Balanced Intervals
----------------------------------------------
An analogue of Theorem \[thm:main\_step\] can be obtained for balanced partitions from Section \[sec:balance\] that correspond to regression trees with splits at actual observations. Now, we assume that $f_0$ is ${\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{BI}$-valid and carry out the proof with $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{BI})$ instead of $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{EB})$. The posterior concentration rate is only slightly worse.
(Balanced Intervals)\[thm:main\_step\_BI\] Let $f_0 : [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}$ be a step function with $K_0$ steps, where $K_0$ is unknown. Denote by $\mathcal{F}$ the set of all step functions supported on balanced intervals equipped with priors $\pi_K(\cdot), \pi_{\Omega}(\cdot| K)$ and $\pi(\b \mid K)$ as in , and . Denote with $K_{f_0}\equiv K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{BI})$ and assume $\|\b^0\|^2_\infty\lesssim\log^{2\beta} n$ and $K(f_0,{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^{BI})\lesssim \sqrt{n}$. Then, under Assumption \[ass:fixedgrid\], we have $$\label{eq:conc}
\Pi\left( f \in \mathcal{F}: \|f - f_0\|_n \geq M_n n^{-1/2}\sqrt{K_{f_0}\log^{2\beta}(n/K_{f_0})} \mid {{\boldsymbol{Y}}}^{(n)}\right) \to 0$$ in $P_{f_0}^n$-probability, for every $M_n \to \infty$ as $n \to \infty$, where $\beta>1/2$.
All three conditions \[GV1\], \[GV2\] and \[GV3\] hold if we choose $k_n\propto K_{f_0}[{\log (n/K_{f_0}})]^{2\beta-1}$. The entropy condition will be satisfied when $\log \left(\sum_{k=1}^{k_n} C^k\mathrm{card}({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_k^{BI})\right)\lesssim n\,\varepsilon_n^2$ for some $C>0$, [where ${\varepsilon}_n = n^{-1/2}\sqrt{K_{f_0}\log^{2\beta}(n/K_{f_0})}$]{}. Using the upper bound $\mathrm{card}({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_k^{BI})<{n-1\choose k-1}<{n-1\choose k_n-1}$ (because $k_n<\frac{n-1}{2}$ for large enough $n$), the condition \[GV1\] is verified. Using the fact that $\mathrm{card}({\boldsymbol{\Omega}}_{K_{f_0}})\lesssim K_{f_0}\log (n/K_{f_0})$, the condition \[GV2\] will be satisfied when, for some $D>0$, we have $$e^{-K_{f_0}\log{{\varepsilon}_n}+(c_K+1)\,K_{f_0}\log K_{f_0}+D\,K_{f_0}\log (n/{K_{f_0}})+ K_{f_0}\|\b^0\|_\infty^2 - c_K(k_n+1)\log(k_n+1) + 2n{\varepsilon}_n^2} \to 0. \label{C2eq}$$ This holds for our choice of $k_n$ under the assumption $\|\b^0\|^2_\infty\lesssim \log^{2\beta} n$ and $K_{f_0}\lesssim \sqrt{n}$. These choices also yield \[GV3\].
\[remark\] When $K_{f_0}\gtrsim\sqrt n$, Theorem \[thm:main\_step\] and Theorem \[thm:main\_step\_BI\] still hold, only with the bit slower slower concentration rate $n^{-1/2}\sqrt{K_{f_0}\log n}$.
Discussion
==========
We provided the first posterior concentration rate results for Bayesian non-parametric regression with step functions. We showed that under suitable complexity priors, the Bayesian procedure adapts to the unknown aspects of the target step function. Our approach can be extended in three ways: (a) to smooth $f_0$ functions, (b) to dimension reduction with [high-dimensional]{} predictors, (c) to more general partitioning schemes that correspond to methods like Bayesian CART and BART. These three extensions are developed in our followup manuscript [[@Rockova2017]]{}.
Acknowledgment
==============
This work was supported by the James S. Kemper Foundation Faculty Research Fund at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
[10]{}
L. [Breiman]{}, J. H. [Friedman]{}, R. A. [Olshen]{}, and C. J. [Stone]{}. . Statistics/Probability Series. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California, U.S.A., 1984.
L. Breiman. Random forests. , 45:5–32, 2001.
A. Berchuck, E. S. Iversen, J. M. Lancaster, J. Pittman, J. Luo, P. Lee, S. Murphy, H. K. Dressman, P. G. Febbo, M. West, J. R. Nevins, and J. R. Marks. Patterns of gene expression that characterize long-term survival in advanced stage serous ovarian cancers. , 11(10):3686–3696, 2005.
S. Abu-Nimeh, D. Nappa, X. Wang, and S. Nair. A comparison of machine learning techniques for phishing detection. In [*Proceedings of the Anti-phishing Working Groups 2nd Annual eCrime Researchers Summit*]{}, eCrime ’07, pages 60–69, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.
M. A. Razi and K. Athappilly. A comparative predictive analysis of neural networks ([NN]{}s), nonlinear regression and classification and regression tree ([CART]{}) models. , 29(1):65 – 74, 2005.
D. P. Green and J. L. Kern. Modeling heterogeneous treatment effects in survey experiments with [B]{}ayesian [A]{}dditive [R]{}egression [T]{}rees. , 76(3):491, 2012.
E. C. Polly and M. J. van der Laan. Super learner in prediction. Available at: http://works.bepress.com/mark\_van\_der\_laan/200/, 2010.
D. M. Roy and Y. W. Teh. The [M]{}ondrian process. In D. Koller, D. Schuurmans, Y. Bengio, and L. Bottou, editors, [ *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 21*]{}, pages 1377–1384. Curran Associates, Inc., 2009.
H. A. Chipman, E. I. George, and R. E. McCulloch. Bayesian [CART]{} model search. , 93(443):935–948, 1998.
D. Denison, B. Mallick, and A. Smith. A [B]{}ayesian [CART]{} algorithm. , 95(2):363–377, 1998.
H. A. Chipman, E. I. George, and R. E. McCulloch. : [B]{}ayesian [A]{}dditive [R]{}egression [T]{}rees. , 4(1):266–298, 03 2010.
S. Ghosal, J. K. Ghosh, and A. W. van der Vaart. Convergence rates of posterior distributions. , 28(2):500–531, 04 2000.
T. Zhang. Learning bounds for a generalized family of [B]{}ayesian posterior distributions. In S. Thrun, L. K. Saul, and P. B. Schölkopf, editors, [ *Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 16*]{}, pages 1149–1156. MIT Press, 2004.
J. Tang, Z. Meng, X. Nguyen, Q. Mei, and M. Zhang. Understanding the limiting factors of topic modeling via posterior contraction analysis. In T. Jebara and E. P. Xing, editors, [*Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-14)*]{}, pages 190–198. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2014.
N. Korda, E. Kaufmann, and R. Munos. Thompson sampling for 1-dimensional exponential family bandits. In C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahramani, and K. Q. Weinberger, editors, [*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26*]{}, pages 1448–1456. Curran Associates, Inc., 2013.
F.-X. Briol, C. Oates, M. Girolami, and M. A. Osborne. Frank-[W]{}olfe [B]{}ayesian quadrature: Probabilistic integration with theoretical guarantees. In C. Cortes, N. D. Lawrence, D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett, editors, [*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28*]{}, pages 1162–1170. Curran Associates, Inc., 2015.
M. Chen, C. Gao, and H. Zhao. Posterior contraction rates of the phylogenetic indian buffet processes. , 11(2):477–497, 06 2016.
S. Ghosal and A. van der Vaart. Convergence rates of posterior distributions for noniid observations. , 35(1):192–223, 02 2007.
B. Szabó, A. W. van der Vaart, and J. H. van Zanten. Frequentist coverage of adaptive nonparametric [B]{}ayesian credible sets. , 43(4):1391–1428, 08 2015.
I. Castillo and R. Nickl. On the [B]{}ernstein von [M]{}ises phenomenon for nonparametric [B]{}ayes procedures. , 42(5):1941–1969, 2014.
J. [Rousseau]{} and B. [Szabo]{}. . , September 2016.
I. Castillo. Polya tree posterior distributions on densities. , 2016.
L. Liu and W. H. Wong. Multivariate density estimation via adaptive partitioning (ii): posterior concentration. arXiv:1508.04812v1, 2015.
C. Scricciolo. On rates of convergence for [B]{}ayesian density estimation. , 34(3):626–642, 2007.
M. Coram and S. Lalley. Consistency of [B]{}ayes estimators of a binary regression function. , 34(3):1233–1269, 2006.
L. Shepp. Covering the circle with random arcs. , 34(11):328–345, 1972.
W. Feller. . Wiley, 3rd edition, January 1968.
D. L. Donoho. and best-ortho-basis: a connection. , 25(5):1870–1911, 10 1997.
V. Rockova and S. L. van der Pas. Posterior concentration for [B]{}ayesian regression trees and their ensembles. arXiv:1708.08734, 2017.
T. Anderson. Some nonparametric multivariate procedures based on statistically equivalent blocks. In P.R. Krishnaiah, editor, [*Multivariate Analysis*]{}, pages 5–27. Academic Press, New York, 1966.
L. Flatto and A. Konheim. The random division of an interval and the random covering of a circle. , 4:211–222, 1962.
A. Nobel. Histogram regression estimation using data-dependent partitions. , 24(3):1084–1105, 1996.
C. Gao, F. Han, and C.H. Zhang. Minimax risk bounds for piecewise constant models. , pages 1–36, 2017.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Three dimensional continuous and discrete Fourier-like transforms, based on the three simple and four semisimple compact Lie groups of rank 3, are presented. For each simple Lie group, there are three families of special functions ($C$-, $S$-, and $E$-functions) on which the transforms are built. Pertinent properties of the functions are described in detail, such as their orthogonality within each family, when integrated over a finite region $F$ of the 3-dimensional Euclidean space (continuous orthogonality), as well as when summed up over a lattice grid $F_M\subset F$ (discrete orthogonality). The positive integer $M$ sets up the density of the lattice containing $F_M$. The expansion of functions given either on $F$ or on $F_M$ is the paper’s main focus.'
author:
- 'Maryna Nesterenko$^{1,2}$'
- Jiří Patera$^1$
title: 'Three dimensional $C$-, $S$- and $E$-transforms'
---
$^1$ Centre de recherches mathématiques, Université de Montréal, C.P.6128-Centre ville, Montréal, H3C3J7, Québec, Canada; [email protected]\
$^2$ Institute of mathematics of NAS of Ukraine, 3, Tereshchenkivs’ka str, Kyiv-4, 04216, Ukraine; [email protected]
Introduction {#sec_Introduction}
============
New $n$-dimensional $C$- and $S$- and $E$-transforms were recently described in [@KlimykPatera2006; @KlimykPatera2007-1; @KP3]. Each transform is based on a compact semisimple Lie group of rank $n$ and comes in three versions: analogs of Fourier series, Fourier integrals, and Fourier transforms on an $n$-dimensional lattice. They are named $C$- and $S$- and $E$-transforms [@patera2005] in recognition of the fact that they can be understood as generalizations of the one dimensional cosine, sine, and exponential Fourier transform.
The aim of this paper is to set the grounds for the 3-dimensional exploitation of transforms – described here as continuous transforms in a finite region $F$ of the 3-dimensional Euclidean space ${{\mathbb R}}^3$, and also as discrete transforms of functions given on a lattice grid of points $F_M\subset F$ of any density – in ready-to-use form. A positive integer $M$ specifies the density. In some cases, the density of the grid is more flexible as it is dictated by not one, but two or three positive intergers. The grid could thus be made denser along certain axes. The symmetry of the lattice is dictated by the shape of $F$, or equivalently, by the choice of the Lie group.
There are seven compact semisimple Lie groups of rank 3: $$\begin{gathered}
SU(2)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)\,,\ \
SU(3)\times SU(2)\,,\ \
O(5)\times SU(2)\,,\ \
G(2)\times SU(2)\,,\\
SU(3)\,,\ \
O(7)\,,\ \
Sp(6)\,.\end{gathered}$$ Throughout the paper we identify these cases by symbols that are often used for their respective Lie algebras: $$A_1\times A_1\times A_1\,,\quad
A_2\times A_1\,,\quad
C_2\times A_1\,,\quad
G_2\times A_1\,,\quad
A_3\,,\quad
B_3\,,\quad
C_3\,.$$
The immediate motivation for this paper is our anticipation of the extensive use of the transforms given the need for processing the rapidly increasing amount of 3D digital data gathered today. In 2D, our group transforms offered only in some cases more than a marginal advantage, having emerged when satisfactory practical methods had already been developed and adequately implemented. So far, practical use of the functions in 2D rested on the fact that the continuous extension of the transformed lattice data displayed remarkably smooth interpolation between lattice points [@GermainPatera2006-1] (see also references therein).
Special functions, which serve as the kernel of our transform (we call them $C$-, $S$-, and $E$-functions or orbit functions), have simple symmetry property under the action of the corresponding affine Weyl group. The affine group contains as a subgroup the group of translations in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, which underlies the common Fourier transform. This is the primary reason for the superior performance of our transforms, although detailed comparisons, rather than examples, will have to provide quantitative content to substantiate such a claim.
Other properties of the $C$-, $S$-, and $E$-functions are not less important.
Within each family, functions are described in a uniform way for semisimple Lie groups of any type and rank. In this work, we illustrate this uniformity by considering all seven rank 3 group cases in parallel. The price to pay for the uniformity of methods is having to work with non-orthogonal bases which are not normalized.
The functions are defined in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ and have continuous derivatives of all degrees. Their orthogonality, when integrated over the finite region $F$ appropriate for each Lie group, was shown in [@MoodyPatera2006]. The discrete orthogonality of $C$-functions in $F_M$ has already been described in [@MoodyPatera1987] and extensively used (see for example [@GrimmPatera1997] and references therein). The completeness of these systems of functions directly follows from the completeness of the system of exponential functions.
A Laplace operator for each Lie group is given in a different set of coordinates. The $C$- and $S$-functions are its eigenfunctions with known eigenvalues. On the boundary of $F$, the $C$-functions have a vanishing normal derivative, while $S$-functions reach zero at the boundary.
The functions have a number of other useful properties, which can be found in [@KlimykPatera2006; @KlimykPatera2007-1; @KP3]. For example, the decomposition of their products into sums, the splitting of functions into as many mutually exclusive congruence classes as is the order of the center of the Lie group, etc$\dots$.
A different but valid viewpoint on some of the special functions presented here, namely, functions symmetrized by the summation of constituent functions over a finite group [@Macdonald1995], may turn out to be rather useful. The finite group, in the case of $C$- and $S$-functions, is the Weyl group of the corresponding semisimple Lie group. In the case of $E$-functions, it is the even subgroup of the Weyl group. The Weyl group of $SU(n)$ is isomorphic to the group $S_n$ of the permutation of $n$ elements. This led to the recent implementations in [@KlimykPatera2007-2; @KlimykPatera2007-3], where instead of the Weyl group of $SU(n)$, the $S_n$ group is used, and variables are given relative to an orthonormal system of coordinates. Furthermore, the even subgroup of $S_n$ is the alternating group. Related transforms were introduced most recently in [@KP2008; @KP6].
The paper is organized as follows.
In Section \[sec\_properties\_definitions\], necessary definitions and properties of Lie groups and algebras are given and discussed. Semisimple Lie groups of rank 3 are considered in detail in Section \[sec\_algebras\]. For each of these groups, we lay down the information necessary to construct and use their orbit functions for 3D continuous and discrete transforms. Section \[sec\_orbit-funcs\] is devoted to $C$-, $S$- and $E$- orbit functions and to their pertinent properties. Continuous and discrete orbit-function transforms are presented in Section \[sec\_c-s-e-transforms\]. Some problems and possible applications arising in connection with orbit functions are formulated in the conclusion. An example of the application of orbit function transforms in the case of the group $SU(2)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)$ is given at the end of the paper.
Pertinent properties of Lie groups and Lie algebras {#sec_properties_definitions}
===================================================
The notion of orbit function of $n$ variables depends essentially on the underlying semisimple Lie group of rank $n$. This section is intended to recall some of the standard properties of semisimple Lie groups/Lie algebras in general, and particularly those of rank 3, as well as properties of related Weyl groups. We also fix notation and terminology. Additional information about such Lie groups can be found for example in [@Bourbaki; @Humphreys1972; @KassMoodyPateraSlansky1990; @VinbergOnishchik].
Definitions and notations {#ssec_definitions}
-------------------------
Let ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ be the real Euclidean space spanned by the simple roots of a simple Lie group $G$ (equivalently, Lie algebra). The basis of the simple roots is hereafter referred to as the $\alpha$-basis. An $\alpha$-basis is not orthogonal and comprises simple roots of at most two different lengths. If a semisimple $G$ is not simple, the $\alpha$-bases of its simple constituents are pairwise orthogonal.
For important practical (i.e. computational) reasons, it is advantageous to introduce also the basis of fundamental weights, hereafter referred to as the $\omega$-basis. Moreover, for Lie groups with simple roots of two different lengths, it is useful to introduce bases dual to $\alpha$- and $\omega$-bases, denoted here as $\check{\alpha}$- and $\check{\omega}$-bases respectively. Occasionally it is also useful to work with the orthonormal basis $\{e_1,e_2,\ldots e_n\}$ of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Each subsection contains an explicit elaboration of these bases for the groups we consider.
The Cartan matrix $C$ of $G$ provides, in principle, all of the information needed about $G$. It is an $n\times n$-matrix. In particular, it provides the relation between $\alpha$-and $\omega$-bases: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{bases}
\alpha=C\omega\qquad\qquad\omega=C^{-1}\alpha\,,\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Cartan_matrix}
C_{ij}=\left(
\tfrac{2\langle\alpha_i,\alpha_j\rangle}{\langle\alpha_j,\alpha_j\rangle}
\right),
\qquad i,j\in\{1, 2, \ldots, n\}.\end{gathered}$$ Here $\langle\cdot\,,\cdot\rangle$ denotes the inner product in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. The length of the long simple roots is determined by an additional convention $$\begin{gathered}
\langle\alpha_{\text{long}} ,\alpha_{\text{long}}\rangle=2.\end{gathered}$$
The dual bases are fixed by the relations $$\begin{gathered}
\label{duals}
\check{\alpha}_i=\frac{2\alpha_i}{\langle\alpha_i ,\alpha_i\rangle},
\qquad
\check{\omega}_i=\frac{2\omega_i}{\langle\alpha_i ,\alpha_i\rangle},
\qquad
\langle\alpha_i ,\check{\omega}_j\rangle=\langle\check{\alpha}_i ,\omega_j\rangle=\delta_{ij},\end{gathered}$$ where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta.
The root lattice $Q$ and the weight lattice $P$ of $G$ are formed by all integer linear combinations of the $\alpha$-basis and $\omega$-basis, $$\begin{gathered}
Q={{\mathbb Z}}\alpha_1+{{\mathbb Z}}\alpha_2+\cdots+{{\mathbb Z}}\alpha_n,\qquad P={{\mathbb Z}}\omega_1+{{\mathbb Z}}\omega_2+\cdots+{{\mathbb Z}}\omega_n.\end{gathered}$$ In general, $Q\subseteq P$, but in rank 3 Lie groups the equalities do not occur. Similarly, we can introduce the dual lattices $\check Q$ and $\check P$.
In the weight lattice $P$, we define the cone of dominant weights $P^+$ and its subset of strictly dominant weights $P^{++}$ $$\begin{gathered}
P\;\supset\;
P^+={{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0}\omega_1+\cdots+{{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0}\omega_n
\;\supset\;
P^{++}={{\mathbb Z}}^{>0}\omega_1+\cdots+{{\mathbb Z}}^{>0}\omega_n.\end{gathered}$$
For any simple Lie group $G$ there is a unique highest root $\xi$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{highest_root}
\xi=m_1\alpha_1+m_2\alpha_2+\cdots+m_n\alpha_n=q_1\check\alpha_1+q_2\check\alpha_2+\cdots+q_n\check\alpha_n\end{gathered}$$ Coefficients $m_i$ and $q_i$, $i=\overline{1,n}$, are natural numbers, referred to as marks and comarks respectively. They are well known for all simple Lie groups (see for example [@Humphreys1972; @KassMoodyPateraSlansky1990]).
Weyl groups and their orbits {#ssec_Weyl_group}
----------------------------
The Weyl group $W(G)$ of a semisimple Lie group $G$ is the finite group generated in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ by reflections in $n-1$ dimensional mirrors (hyperplanes) orthogonal to the simple roots of $G$ and containing the origin of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. For a simple root $\alpha_i$, $i=\overline{1,n}$ the corresponding reflection $r_{\alpha_i}$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{reflection_alpha}
r_i x=r_{\alpha_i} x=x-\frac{2\l x ,\alpha_i\r}{\l\alpha_i ,\alpha_i\r}\alpha_i
=x-\l x ,\check\alpha_i\r\alpha_i,\qquad x\in{{\mathbb R}}^n.\end{gathered}$$
There is a general method for building Weyl group orbits. In Section \[sec\_algebras\], we limit ourselves to recording the result of its application for all Lie groups of rank $n=3$.
It is assumed that we have fixed a semisimple Lie group of rank 3 and that we consider its weight lattice $P$. A $W$-orbit can be generated from any point $(a,b,c)\in{{\mathbb R}}^3$, but in this paper we are almost always interested in $W$-orbits of points in $P$. It is convenient to specify the orbit by its unique point $(a,b,c)=a\omega_1+b\omega_2+c\omega_3$ with positive integer coordinates $a>0$, $b>0$, $c>0$. We denote such a generic orbit by $W(a, b, c)$.
Every group contains the trivial one point orbit $(0, 0, 0)$. The number of points of a generic orbit $|W(a, b, c)|$ is equal to the order $|W|$ of the Weyl group.
Affine Weyl groups and their fundamental domains {#ssec_affine_weyl_group}
------------------------------------------------
Consider the reflection $r_{\xi}$ with respect to the hyperplane containing the origin and orthogonal to the highest root $\xi$, see (\[highest\_root\]) $$\begin{gathered}
\label{reflection_xi}
r_{\xi} x=x-\frac{2\l x ,\xi\r}{\l\xi ,\xi\r}\xi,\qquad x\in{{\mathbb R}}^n.\end{gathered}$$
We extend the set of $n$ reflections $r_{\alpha_i}$, given in (\[reflection\_alpha\]), generating the Weyl group $W$, by one reflection $r_0$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{reflection_0}
r_{0} x=r_\xi x+\check\xi,\qquad
\text{where}\quad \check\xi=\frac{2\xi}{\l\xi ,\xi\r},\quad x\in{{\mathbb R}}^n.\end{gathered}$$ The resulting group transformations of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, generated by $n+1$ reflections $r_0,\ r_1,\ \ldots,\ r_n$, is referred to as the affine Weyl group $W^{aff}$. The order of $W^{aff}$ is infinite.
The fundamental region $F(G)\subset {{\mathbb R}}^n$ for any $W^{aff}(G)$ is the convex hull of the vertices $\{0,\frac{\omega_1}{q_1},\ldots, \frac{\omega_n}{q_n}\}$, where $q_i$, $i=\overline{1,n}$ are comarks from (\[highest\_root\]), or equivalently, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{fund_region_Fm}
F(G)=\{0,\frac{\check\omega_1}{m_1},\frac{\check\omega_2}{m_2},\ldots, \frac{\check\omega_n}{m_n}\},
\qquad \text{where}\quad m_i,\; i=\overline{1,n}\quad\text{are marks, see~(\ref{highest_root}).}\end{gathered}$$
Repeated reflections of $F(G)$ in its $n-1$-dimensional sides results in tiling the entire space ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ by copies of $F$. We define grid $F_M\subset F$, depending on an arbitrary natural number $M$ as given in (\[highest\_root\]), $$\begin{gathered}
\label{grid_Fm}
F_M=\left\{
\frac{s_1}{M}\check\omega_1+\frac{s_2}{M}\check\omega_2+\cdots+\frac{s_n}{M}\check\omega_n\mid
s_1,\dots,s_n\in{{\mathbb Z}}^{\geq0},\ \;
\sum_{i=1}^n s_im_i\le M>0
\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
The number of points of the grid $F_M$ is denoted by $|F_M|$, and the volume of the fundamental region $F$ with respect to the euclidian measure is denoted by $|F|$.
In case $G=G_1\times G_2$, where $G_1$ and $G_2$ are simple, the fundamental region of $G$ is the Cartesian product of the fundamental regions of $G_1$ and $G_2$. The same holds for grids $F_M$, but for each simple constituent of $G$, the numbers $M_1$ nd $M_2$ could be chosen independently.
In the case of two different numbers $M_1$ and $M_2$, such that , the corresponding grids are related as follows $F_{M_2}\subset
F_{M_1}$.
Even subgroup $W^e$ of the Weyl group {#ssec_even_subgroup}
-------------------------------------
Elements of the subgroup $W^e\subset W$ are formed by an even number of reflections which generate $W$. Each $C-$ and $S-$function is built on a single Weyl group orbit of point $\lambda\in P$, and each $E-$function is built on an orbit of the even subgroup of the Weyl group, defined as follows.
Consider a subgroup of W generated by an even number of reflections $$\begin{gathered}
W_e=\{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}\dots r_{i_{2k}}|k\in {{\mathbb N}},\ r_{i_l}\in W,\ l=\overline{1,2k}\}.\end{gathered}$$ $W_e$ is a normal subgroup of the index 2 of the Weyl group, i.e. $2|W_e|=|W|$. Let us denote the orbit of point $\lambda\in P$ with respect to the action of $W_e$ by $W_e(\lambda)$, and the size of this orbit by $|W_e(\lambda)|$, then $$\begin{gathered}
\label{even_subgr_of_W}
W(\lambda)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
W_e(\lambda)\cup W_e(r_i\lambda),\; \text{for some}\; r_i\in W,& \text{when}\; \lambda\in P^{++}\\
W_e(\lambda),& \text{when}\; \lambda\in P^{+}\setminus P^{++}
\end{array}
\right.\end{gathered}$$ and one of the following relations holds true $|W_e(\lambda)|=\frac 12 |W(\lambda)|$, when $\lambda\in P^{++}$ or $|W_e(\lambda)|=|W(\lambda)|$, when $\lambda\in P^{+}\setminus P^{++}$. Note that each orbit of the even subgroup $W_e$ contains exactly one point from $P_e:=P^+\cup r_iP^{++}$, $r_i\in W$.
Similarly, we define the even affine Weyl subgroup $$\begin{gathered}
W^{aff}_e=\{r_{i_1}r_{i_2}\dots r_{i_{2k}}|k\in {{\mathbb N}},\ r_{i_l}\in W^{aff},\ l=\overline{1,2k}\},\end{gathered}$$ and its fundamental region $$\begin{gathered}
\label{fund_region_Fem}
F_e=F\cup r_iF,\end{gathered}$$ where $F$ is a fundamental region of $W^{aff}$ (\[fund\_region\_Fm\]) and $r_i\in r_0,r_1,\dots,r_n$.
The same formula holds true for the grid on the fundamental region $F_e$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{grid_Fem}
F_{e\,M}=F_M\cup r_iF_M,\qquad r_i\in W^{aff}.\end{gathered}$$
As it follows from (\[fund\_region\_Fem\]), the fundamental region of $W_e$ is not unique, hence it can be chosen in such a way as to be convenient for a given application.
\[ex\_a1\] Consider the rank one compact simple Lie group $SU(2)$ (the corresponding Lie algebra is $A_1$).
The Cartan matrix in this case is the $1\times 1$ matrix $C=(2)$. The root system consists of two roots $\pm\alpha$. The root and weight lattices are formed by integer multiples of the simple root and integer multiples of the fundamental weight $\omega$. $$\begin{gathered}
Q=\{{{\mathbb Z}}\alpha\},\qquad P=\{{{\mathbb Z}}\omega\},
\qquad
\text{where}\quad \alpha=C\omega\quad \text{so that}\quad \omega=\tfrac12\alpha.\end{gathered}$$ Therefore $P=Q\cup(Q+\omega)$.
The Weyl group $W$ of $A_1$ is of order 2. It is a reflection group acting in ${{\mathbb R}}$. We have $W=\{ 1,-1\}$ and $W_e=\{ 1\}$. Consequently, a Weyl group orbit containing the point $x\ne 0$, also contains the point $-x$, but the orbit of the even subgroup of $W$ consists of a single point, either $x$ or $-x$.
The fundamental region $F$ is the segment with endpoints $F=\{0,\omega\}$.
The grid $F_M\subset F$ is fixed by the positive integer $M$ and it consists of $M+1$ points $$\begin{gathered}
F_M=\{0,\tfrac1M,\tfrac2M,\dots,\tfrac{M-1}{M},1\}.\end{gathered}$$
Semisimple Lie algebras of rank three {#sec_algebras}
=====================================
In this section, we provide specific information about compact semisimple Lie groups of rank 3, namely $SU(2)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)$, $O(5)\times SU(2)$, $SU(3)\times SU(2)$, $G_2\times SU(2)$, and the simple groups $Sp(6)$, $O(7)$, and $SU(4)$. For each of the groups ,we lay down all of the information necessary to construct and use their orbit functions for 3D continuous and discrete transforms.
Note, that only the weight lattices of the Lie groups $SU(2)\times SU(2)\times SU(2)$, $O(5)\times SU(2)$, $O(7)$ and $Sp(6)$ display cubic symmetries.
Below we present the Dynkin diagram for each semisimple Lie group of rank 3. On these diagrams, long and short simple roots $\alpha$ are respectively denoted by unfilled and filled circles and comarks are presented over the circles.
The Lie algebra ${A_1\times A_1\times A_1}$ {#ssec_A1A1A1}
-------------------------------------------
![a) the fundamental region $F$ of the Lie algebra $A_1\times A_1\times A_1$; $x$, $y$ and $z$ indicate respectively the orthogonal directions of the orthonormal basis $\{e_1$, $e_2$, $e_3\}$; b) the grid $F_{2,1,3}(A_1\times A_1\times A_1)$.[]{data-label="fig_a1a1a1"}](a1a1a1)
This case is a straightforward concatenation of three copies of $A_1$ (see Example \[ex\_a1\]). The Dynkin diagram and Cartan matrix with its inverse are the following, $$\begin{gathered}
\parbox{.6\linewidth}
{\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\def\kr{\circle{5}}
\def\cr{\circle*{5}}
\thicklines
\begin{picture}(10,15)
\put(4,12){$1$}
\put(5,7){\kr}
\put(3,0){$\alpha_1$}
\put(14,12){$1$}
\put(15,7){\kr}
\put(13,0){$\alpha_2$}
\put(24,12){$1$}
\put(25,7){\kr}
\put(23,0){$\alpha_3$}
\end{picture}}
\hspace{-175 pt}
C=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
2&0&0\\0&2&0\\0&0&2
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\qquad
C^{-1}=\tfrac12\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0&0\\0&1&0\\0&0&1
\end{smallmatrix}\right).\end{gathered}$$
All simple roots of the same length equal to $\sqrt 2$. The bases of simple roots and fundamental weights are thus related by $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{lllll}
\alpha_i=2\omega_i,&\quad
\omega_i=\tfrac12\alpha_i,&\quad
\check\alpha_1=\alpha_1,&\quad
\check\omega_1=\omega_1,&\quad
i=1,2,3.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
These bases are easily written in the orthonormal basis $\{e_1,\ e_2,\ e_3\}$ $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
\alpha_i=\sqrt 2 e_i,&\quad
\omega_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}e_i,&\quad
\check\omega_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt 2}e_i,&\quad
i=1,2,3.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The highest roots for the simple subgroups $A_1$ are given by the formulas $$\begin{gathered}
\xi=\alpha_1,
\quad
\xi=\alpha_2,
\quad
\xi=\alpha_3.\end{gathered}$$
The fundamental region is a cube with vertices, see Fig. \[fig\_a1a1a1\]a $$\begin{gathered}
F(A_1\times A_1\times A_1)=\{0,\ \omega_i,\ \omega_i+\omega_j,\ \omega_1+\omega_2+\omega_3\},
\quad \text{where} \quad j<i\in{1,2,3}.\end{gathered}$$
The volume of the fundamental region is given by the formula $$\begin{gathered}
|F(A_1\times A_1\times A_1)|=|{{\check\omega}}_1|\cdot|{{\check\omega}}_2|\cdot|{{\check\omega}}_3|=\frac{1}{2\sqrt 2}.\end{gathered}$$
The grid $F_{M,M',M''}\subset F$ is fixed by the independent choice of three positive integers $M,M'$ and $M''$, and consists of all the points $$\begin{gathered}
F_{M,M',M''}(A_1\times A_1\times A_1)=\left\{\tfrac{s_1}{M}{{\check\omega}}_1+\tfrac{s'_1}{M'}{{\check\omega}}_2+\tfrac{s''_1}{M''}{{\check\omega}}_3\mid\
s_1\leq M,\ s'_1\leq M',\ s''_1\leq M';\ s_1,s'_1,s''_1\in {{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0}\right\}.\end{gathered}$$ The grid is cubic if $M=M'=M''$, otherwise it is rectangular. The freedom to use unequal values of $M,M'$ and $M''$ may prove rather useful in the analysis of data given on rectangular, but not cubic grids.
The number of points in the grid $F_{M,M',M''}$ equals to $$\begin{gathered}
|F_{M,M',M''}(A_1\times A_1\times A_1)|=|F_{M}(A_1)|\cdot|F_{M'}(A_1)|\cdot|F_{M''}(A_1)|=(M+1)(M'+1)(M''+1).\end{gathered}$$
\[ex\_grid\_a1a1a1\] Consider the case $M=M'=1$, $M''=3$. There are 16 points of $F_{1,1,3}(A_1\times A_1\times A_1)$. Explicitly, we have the following sets of integers $[s_1,s_1',s_1'']$ and the corresponding grid points in the ${{\check\omega}}$-basis (in this case the basis is orthogonal), $(\tfrac{s_1}M,\tfrac{s_1'}{M'},\tfrac{s_1''}{M''})$: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
[0,0,0]=(0,0,0),&\;
[0,0,1]=(0,0,\tfrac13),&\;
[0,0,2]=(0,0,\tfrac23),&\;
[0,0,3]=(0,0,1),
\\[1pt]
[0,1,0]=(0,1,0),&\;
[0,1,1]=(0,1,\tfrac13),&\;
[0,1,2]=(0,1,\tfrac23),&\;
[0,1,3]=(0,1,1),
\\[1pt]
[1,0,0]=(1,0,0),&\;
[1,0,1]=(1,0,\tfrac13),&\;
[1,0,2]=(1,0,\tfrac23),&\;
[1,0,3]=(1,0,1),
\\[1pt]
[1,1,0]=(1,1,0),&\;
[1,1,1]=(1,1,\tfrac13),&\;
[1,1,2]=(1,1,\tfrac23),&\;
[1,1,3]=(1,1,1).
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
Next, consider the case $M=2$, $M'=1$, $M''=3$, see Fig. \[fig\_a1a1a1\]b. The 16 points of $F_{1,1,3}(A_1\times A_1\times A_1)$ form a part of $F_{2,1,3}(A_1\times A_1\times A_1)$. Note that they correspond to another set of $[s_1,s_1',s_1'']$. More precisely, $F_{1,1,3}$ is the subset of $F_{2,1,3}$ with an even value of $s_1$. Thus $F_{2,1,3}(A_1\times A_1\times A_1)$ contains an additional eight points: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
[1,0,0]=(\tfrac12,0,0),&\;
[1,0,1]=(\tfrac12,0,\tfrac13),&\;
[1,0,2]=(\tfrac12,0,\tfrac23),&\;
[1,0,3]=(\tfrac12,0,1),
\\[1pt]
[1,1,0]=(\tfrac12,1,0),&\;
[1,1,1]=(\tfrac12,1,\tfrac13),&\;
[1,1,2]=(\tfrac12,1,\tfrac23),&\;
[1,1,3]=(\tfrac12,1,1).
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The Weyl group orbit of the generic point $a\omega_1+b\omega_2+c\omega_3$, $\ a,b,c>0$, always consists of the eight points $$\begin{gathered}
W_{(a,b,c)}(A_1\times A_1\times A_1)=\{(\pm a,\ \pm b,\ \pm c)\}.\end{gathered}$$
Orbit sizes for arbitrary points are given by the relations $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{ll}
|W_{(a,b,c)}|=8,&\quad
|W_{(a,b,0)}|=|W_{(a,0,c)}|=|W_{(0,b,c)}|=4,
\\[1pt]
|W_{(0,0,0)}|=1,&\quad
|W_{(a,0,0)}|=|W_{(0,b,0)}|=|W_{(0,0,c)}|=2.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The Lie algebra ${A_2\times A_1}$ {#ssec_A2A1}
---------------------------------
![a) the fundamental region $F$ of the Lie algebra $A_2\times A_1$; $x$, $y$ and $z$ indicate respectively orthogonal directions of the orthonormal basis $\{e_1$, $e_2$, $e_3\}$ and the fundamental region of $A_2$ lies in the plane $x+y+z=0$; b) the grid $F_{2,3}(A_2\times A_1)$.[]{data-label="fig_a2a1"}](a2a1)
The Dynkin diagram and Cartan matrix with its inverse are the following, $$\begin{gathered}
\parbox{.6\linewidth}
{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}
\def\kr{\circle{10}}
\def\cr{\circle*{10}}
\thicklines
\begin{picture}(20,30)
\put(8,24){$1$}
\put(10,14){\kr}
\put(6,0){$\alpha_1$}
\put(15,14){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(28,24){$1$}
\put(30,14){\kr}
\put(26,0){$\alpha_2$}
\put(48,24){$1$}
\put(50,14){\kr}
\put(46,0){$\alpha_3$}
\end{picture}}
\hspace{-175 pt}
C=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
2&-1&0\\-1&2&0\\0&0&2
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\qquad
C^{-1}=\tfrac16\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
4&2&0\\2&4&0\\0&0&3
\end{smallmatrix}\right).\end{gathered}$$
Hence all the simple roots of the same length equal to $\sqrt 2$.
The bases of simple roots and fundamental weights are thus related by $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
\alpha_1=2\omega_1-\omega_2,&\quad
\omega_1=\tfrac23\alpha_1+\tfrac13\alpha_2,&\quad
\check\alpha_1=\alpha_1,&\quad
\check\omega_1=\omega_1,
\\
\alpha_2=-\omega_1+2\omega_2,&\quad
\omega_2=\tfrac13\alpha_1+\tfrac23\alpha_2,&\quad
\check\alpha_2=\alpha_2,&\quad
\check\omega_2=\omega_2,
\\
\alpha_3=2\omega_3;&\quad
\omega_3=\tfrac12\alpha_3,&\quad
\check\alpha_3=\alpha_3,&\quad
\check\omega_3=\omega_3.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
In order to visualize the implied geometry, it is useful to represent the $\omega$ and $\alpha$ bases in the orthonormal basis. We have $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{ll}
\alpha_1=(1,\ -1,\ 0)=e_1-e_2,&\quad
\omega_1=(\tfrac23,-\tfrac13,-\tfrac13)=\tfrac23e_1-\tfrac13e_2-\tfrac13e_3={{\check\omega}}_1,
\\[1 pt]
\alpha_2=(0,\ 1,\ -1)=e_2-e_3,&\quad
\omega_2=(\tfrac13,-\tfrac13,-\tfrac23)=\tfrac13e_1+\tfrac13e_2-\tfrac23e_3={{\check\omega}}_2,
\\[1 pt]
\alpha_3=\tfrac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}(1,1,1)=\tfrac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}(e_1+e_2+e_3),&\quad
\omega_3=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt6}(1,\ 1,\ 1)=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt6}(e_1+e_2+e_3)={{\check\omega}}_3.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The highest roots for the simple subgroups $A_2$ and $A_1$ are given by the formulas $$\begin{gathered}
\xi=\alpha_1+\alpha_2,
\qquad
\xi=\alpha_3.\end{gathered}$$
The fundamental region $F$ is a cylinder (see Fig. \[fig\_a1a1a1\]a) with an equilateral triangle as its base and ${{\omega}}_3$ as its height. Its vertices are $$\begin{gathered}
F(A_2\times A_1)=\{0,\ {{\omega}}_1,\ {{\omega}}_2,\ {{\omega}}_3,\ {{\omega}}_1+{{\omega}}_3,\ {{\omega}}_2+{{\omega}}_3\}.\end{gathered}$$
The volume of the fundamental region is given by the formula $$\begin{gathered}
|F(A_2\times A_1)|=\tfrac12([{{\check\omega}}_1,{{\check\omega}}_2],{{\check\omega}}_3)=\tfrac12\cdot\tfrac13\cdot\tfrac13\cdot\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}
\left|\begin{smallmatrix}
2&-1&-1\\1&1&-2\\1&1&1\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right|=\tfrac{1}{2\sqrt{6}}\end{gathered}$$
The grid $F_{M,M'}(A_2\times A_1)\subset F(A_2\times A_1)$ is fixed by the independent choice of the two positive integers $M$ and $M'$. It consists of all the points $$\begin{gathered}
F_{M,M'}(A_2\times A_1)=\left\{\tfrac{s_1}{M}{{\check\omega}}_1+\tfrac{s_2}{M}{{\check\omega}}_2+\tfrac{s'_1}{M'}{{\check\omega}}_3\mid\
s_1+s_2 \le M,\ s'_1 \le M';\ s_1,s_2,s_1'\in {{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0}\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
The number of points in the grid $F_{M,M'}(A_2\times A_1)$ equals to $$\begin{gathered}
|F_{M,M'}(A_2\times A_1)|=|F_{M}(A_2)|\cdot|F_{M'}(A_1)|=\left((M+1)^2-\tfrac {M(M+1)}{2}\right)(M'+1).\end{gathered}$$
\[ex\_grid\_a2a1\] Consider the case $M=2$, $M'=3$, see Fig. \[fig\_a2a1\]b. There exist 24 points of $F_{2,3}$ $$\begin{gathered}
|F_{2,3}(A_2\times A_1)|=\left((2+1)^2-\tfrac {2(2+1)}{2}\right)(3+1)=24.\end{gathered}$$
Explicitly, we have the following sets of integers $[s_1,s_2,s_1']$ and the corresponding grid points $(\tfrac{s_1}M,\tfrac{s_2}{M},\tfrac{s_1'}{M'})$ in ${{\check\omega}}$-basis: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
[0,2,0]=(0,1,0),&\;
[0,2,3]=(0,1,1),&\;
[0,2,2]=(0,1,\tfrac23),&\;
[0,2,1]=(0,1,\tfrac13),
\\[1pt]
[2,0,0]=(1,0,0),&\;
[2,0,3]=(1,0,1),&\;
[2,0,2]=(1,0,\tfrac23),&\;
[2,0,1]=(1,0,\tfrac13),
\\[1pt]
[0,0,0]=(0,0,0),&\;
[0,0,3]=(0,0,1),&\;
[0,0,2]=(0,0,\tfrac23),&\;
[0,0,1]=(0,0,\tfrac13),
\\[1pt]
[0,1,0]=(0,\tfrac12,0),&\;
[0,1,3]=(0,\tfrac12,1),&\;
[0,1,2]=(0,\tfrac12,\tfrac23),&\;
[0,1,1]=(0,\tfrac12,\tfrac13),
\\[1pt]
[1,0,0]=(\tfrac12,0,0),&\;
[1,0,3]=(\tfrac12,0,1),&\;
[1,0,2]=(\tfrac12,0,\tfrac23),&\;
[1,0,1]=(\tfrac12,0,\tfrac13),
\\[1pt]
[1,1,0]=(\tfrac12,\tfrac12,0),&\;
[1,1,3]=(\tfrac12,\tfrac12,1),&\;
[1,1,2]=(\tfrac12,\tfrac12,\tfrac23),&\;
[1,1,1]=(\tfrac12,\tfrac12,\tfrac13).
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The Weyl group orbit of the generic point $a\omega_1+b\omega_2+c\omega_3$, $\ a,b,c>0$, consists of twelve points $$\begin{gathered}
W_{(a,b,c)}((A_2\times A_1))=
\{
(a,\ b,\ \pm c),\
(-a,\ a+b,\ \pm c),\
(a+b,\ -b,\ \pm c),\
(b,\ -(a+b),\ \pm c),
\\
(-(a+b),\ a,\ \pm c),\
(-b,\ -a,\ \pm c)
\}.\end{gathered}$$
Orbit sizes for arbitrary points are given by the relations $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
|W_{(a,b,c)}|=12,&\quad
|W_{(a,b,0)}|=6,&\quad
|W_{(a,0,c)}|=6,&\quad
|W_{(0,b,c)}|=6,
\\[1pt]
|W_{(a,0,0)}|=3,&\quad
|W_{(0,b,0)}|=3,&\quad
|W_{(0,0,c)}|=2,&\quad
|W_{(0,0,0)}|=1.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The Lie algebra ${C_2\times A_1}$ {#ssec_C2A1}
---------------------------------
![a) the fundamental region $F$ of the Lie algebra $C_2\times A_1$; $x$, $y$ and $z$ indicate respectively orthogonal directions of the orthonormal basis $\{e_1$, $e_2$, $e_3\}$ and the fundamental region of $C_2$ is the isosceles right-angled triangle in the plane $z=0$, its right-angle is at the point $\tfrac12{{\check\omega}}_1$; b) the grid $F_{3,2}(C_2\times A_1)$.[]{data-label="fig_c2a1"}](c2a1)
The Dynkin diagram and Cartan matrix with its inverse are the following, $$\begin{gathered}
\parbox{.6\linewidth}
{\setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
\def\kr{\circle{5}}
\def\cr{\circle*{5}}
\thicklines
\begin{picture}(10,15)
\put(4,12){$2$}
\put(5,7){\cr}
\put(3,0){$\alpha_1$}
\put(6,5){\line(1,0){7,5}}
\put(6,9){\line(1,0){7,5}}
\put(14,12){$1$}
\put(15,7){\kr}
\put(13,0){$\alpha_2$}
\put(24,12){$1$}
\put(25,7){\kr}
\put(23,0){$\alpha_3$}
\end{picture}}
\hspace{-175 pt}
C=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
2&-1&0\\-2&2&0\\0&0&2
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\qquad
C^{-1}=\tfrac12\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
2&1&0\\2&2&0\\0&0&1
\end{smallmatrix}\right).\end{gathered}$$
Hence $\alpha_1$ is the shorter of the simple roots. The relative lengths of the simple roots are set as $\langle\alpha_1 ,\alpha_1\rangle=1$ and $\langle\alpha_2 ,\alpha_2\rangle=\langle\alpha_3 ,\alpha_3\rangle=2$.
The bases of simple roots and fundamental weights are thus related by $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
\alpha_1=2\omega_1-\omega_2,&\quad
\omega_1=\alpha_1+\tfrac12\alpha_2,&\quad
\check\alpha_1=2\alpha_1,&\quad
\check\omega_1=2\omega_1,
\\
\alpha_2=-2\omega_1+2\omega_2,&\quad
\omega_2=\alpha_1+\alpha_2,&\quad
\check\alpha_2=\alpha_2,&\quad
\check\omega_2=\omega_2,
\\
\alpha_3=2\omega_3;&\quad
\omega_3=\tfrac12\alpha_3;&\quad
\check\alpha_3=\alpha_3;&\quad
\check\omega_3=\omega_3.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
In the orthonormal basis these bases have the form $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
\alpha_1=(0,1,0)=e_2,&\quad
\omega_1=(\tfrac 12,\tfrac 12,0)=\tfrac 12e_1+\tfrac 12e_2,&\quad
\check\omega_1=(1,1,1),
\\
\alpha_2=(1,-1,0)=e_1-e_2,&\quad
\omega_2=(1,0,0)=e_1,&\quad
\check\omega_2=(1,0,0),
\\
\alpha_3=(0,0,\sqrt 2)=\sqrt 2 e_3;&\quad
\omega_3=(0,0,\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2})=\tfrac {1}{\sqrt 2}e_3;&\quad
\check\omega_3=(0,0,\tfrac {1}{\sqrt 2}).
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The highest roots for the simple subgroups $C_2$ and $A_1$ are given by the formulas $$\begin{gathered}
\xi=2\alpha_1+\alpha_2,
\qquad
\xi=\alpha_3.\end{gathered}$$
The fundamental region $F(C_2\times A_1)$ is a cylinder (see Fig. \[fig\_c2a1\]a) with a triangular base. Its vertices are $$\begin{gathered}
F(C_2\times A_1)=\{0,\ \tfrac12 {{\check\omega}}_1,\ {{\check\omega}}_2,\ {{\check\omega}}_3,\ \tfrac12{{\check\omega}}_1+{{\check\omega}}_3,\ {{\check\omega}}_2+{{\check\omega}}_3\}.\end{gathered}$$
The volume of the fundamental region is given by the formula $$\begin{gathered}
|F(C_2\times A_1)|=\tfrac14([{{\check\omega}}_2,{{\check\omega}}_1],{{\check\omega}}_3)=\tfrac14\cdot\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\left|\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0&0\\
1&1&0\\
0&0&1\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right|=\tfrac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}\end{gathered}$$
The grid $F_{M,M'}\subset F$ is fixed by the independent choice of the two positive integers $M$ and $M'$. It consists of all the points $$\begin{gathered}
F_{M,M'}(C_2\times A_1)=\left\{\tfrac{s_1}{M}{{\check\omega}}_1+\tfrac{s_2}{M}{{\check\omega}}_2+\tfrac{s'_1}{M'}{{\check\omega}}_3\mid\
2s_1+s_2 \le M,\ s'_1 \le M';\ s_1,s_2,s_1'\in {{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0}\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
The number of points in the grid $F_{M,M'}(C_2\times A_1)$ equals to $$\begin{gathered}
|F_{M,M'}(C_2\times A_1)|=|F_{M}(C_2)|\cdot|F_{M'}(A_1)|=
\left(\left[\tfrac{M}{2}\right]+1\right)
\left(M+1-\left[\tfrac{M}{2}\right]\right)
(M'+1),\end{gathered}$$ where $[\ \cdot\ ]$ denotes the integer part of a number.
\[ex\_grid\_c2a1\] Consider the case $M=3$, $M'=2$. There exist 18 points of $F_{3,2}(C_2\times A_1)$, see Fig. \[fig\_c2a1\]b $$\begin{gathered}
|F_{3,2}(C_2\times A_1)|=\left(\left[\tfrac{3}{2}\right]+1\right)\left(3+1-\left[\tfrac{3}{2}\right]\right)(2+1)=18.\end{gathered}$$
Explicitly, we have the following sets of integers $[s_1,s_2,s_1']$ and the corresponding grid points in the ${{\check\omega}}$-basis, $(\tfrac{s_1}M,\tfrac{s_2}{M},\tfrac{s_1'}{M'})$: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{lll}
[1,0,0]=(\tfrac13,0,0),&\quad
[1,0,1]=(\tfrac13,0,\tfrac12),&\quad
[1,0,2]=(\tfrac13,0,2),
\\[1pt]
[0,1,0]=(0,\tfrac13,0),&\quad
[0,1,1]=(0,\tfrac13,\tfrac12),&\quad
[0,1,2]=(0,\tfrac13,2),
\\[1pt]
[0,2,0]=(0,\tfrac23,0),&\quad
[0,2,1]=(0,\tfrac23,\tfrac12),&\quad
[0,2,2]=(0,\tfrac23,2),
\\[1pt]
[1,1,0]=(\tfrac13,\tfrac13,0),&\quad
[1,1,1]=(\tfrac13,\tfrac13,\tfrac12),&\quad
[1,1,2]=(\tfrac13,\tfrac13,2),
\\[1pt]
[0,0,0]=(0,0,0),&\quad
[0,0,1]=(0,0,\tfrac12),&\quad
[0,0,2]=(0,0,2),
\\[1pt]
[0,3,0]=(0,1,0),&\quad
[0,3,1]=(0,1,\tfrac12),&\quad
[0,3,2]=(0,1,2).
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The Weyl group orbit of the generic point $a\omega_1+b\omega_2+c\omega_3$, $\ a,b,c>0$, consists of the following set of points $$\begin{gathered}
W_{(a,b,c)}(C_2\times A_1)=\{
\pm(a, b, c),\
\pm(a, b, -c),\
\pm(-a, a+b, c),\
\pm(a+2b, -b, c),\
\pm(a+2b, -(a+b), c),
\\ \qquad\;
\pm(-a, a+b, -c),\
\pm(a+2b, -(a+b), -c),\
\pm(a+2b, -b, -c)
\}.\end{gathered}$$
Orbit sizes for arbitrary points are given by the relations $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
|W_{(a,b,c)}|=16,&\quad
|W_{(a,b,0)}|=8,&\quad
|W_{(a,0,c)}|=8,&\quad
|W_{(0,b,c)}|=8,
\\[1pt]
|W_{(a,0,0)}|=4,&\quad
|W_{(0,b,0)}|=4,&\quad
|W_{(0,0,c)}|=2,&\quad
|W_{(0,0,0)}|=1.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The Lie algebra ${G_2\times A_1}$ {#ssec_G2A1}
---------------------------------
![a) the fundamental region $F$ of the Lie algebra $G_2\times A_1$; $x$, $y$ and $z$ indicate respectively orthogonal directions of the orthonormal basis $\{e_1$, $e_2$, $e_3\}$ and the fundamental region of $G_2$ is the half of the equilateral triangle in the plane $z=0$; b) the grid $F_{4,3}(G_2\times A_1)$.[]{data-label="fig_g2a1"}](g2a1)
The Dynkin diagram and Cartan matrix with its inverse are the following, $$\begin{gathered}
\parbox{.6\linewidth}
{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}
\def\kr{\circle{10}}
\def\cr{\circle*{10}}
\thicklines
\begin{picture}(20,30)
\put(8,24){$2$}
\put(10,14){\kr}
\put(6,0){$\alpha_1$}
\put(13,10){\line(1,0){18}}
\put(15,14){\line(1,0){12}}
\put(13,18){\line(1,0){18}}
\put(28,24){$3$}
\put(30,14){\cr}
\put(26,0){$\alpha_2$}
\put(48,24){$1$}
\put(50,14){\kr}
\put(46,0){$\alpha_3$}
\end{picture}}
\hspace{-175 pt}
C=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
2&-3&0\\-1&2&0\\0&0&2
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\qquad
C^{-1}=\tfrac12\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
4&6&0\\2&4&0\\0&0&1
\end{smallmatrix}\right).\end{gathered}$$
Hence $\alpha_2$ is the shorter of the simple roots. The relative lengths of the simple roots are set as $\langle\alpha_2,\alpha_2\rangle=\tfrac23$ and $\langle\alpha_1
,\alpha_1\rangle=\langle\alpha_3 ,\alpha_3\rangle=2$.
The bases of simple roots and fundamental weights are thus related by $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
\alpha_1=2\omega_1-3\omega_2,&\quad
\omega_1=2\alpha_1+3\alpha_2,&\quad
\check\alpha_1=\alpha_1,&\quad
\check\omega_1=\omega_1,
\\
\alpha_2=-\omega_1+2\omega_2,&\quad
\omega_2=\alpha_1+2\alpha_2,&\quad
\check\alpha_2=3\alpha_2,&\quad
\check\omega_2=3\omega_2,
\\
\alpha_3=2\omega_3;&\quad
\omega_3=\tfrac12\alpha_3;&\quad
\check\alpha_3=\alpha_3;&\quad
\check\omega_3=\omega_3.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
Relative to the orthonormal basis, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
\alpha_1=(\sqrt 2,0,0)=\sqrt 2e_1,&\quad
\omega_1=(\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2},\tfrac{\sqrt 3}{\sqrt 2},0)=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2}e_1+\tfrac{\sqrt 3}{\sqrt 2}e_2,&\quad
\check\omega_1=(\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2},\tfrac{\sqrt 3}{\sqrt 2},0),
\\
\alpha_2=(-\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2},\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 6},0)=-\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2}e_1+\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 6}e_2,&\quad
\omega_2=(0,\tfrac{\sqrt 2}{\sqrt 3},0)=\tfrac{\sqrt 2}{\sqrt 3}e_2,&\quad
\check\omega_2=(0,\sqrt6,0),
\\
\alpha_3=(0,0,\sqrt 2)=\sqrt 2e_3;&\quad
\omega_3=(0,0,\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2})=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2}e_3;&\quad
\check\omega_3=(0,0,\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2}).
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The highest roots for the simple subgroups are given by the formulas $$\begin{gathered}
\xi=2\alpha_1+3\alpha_2,
\qquad
\xi=\alpha_3.\end{gathered}$$
The fundamental region $F$ is a cylinder (see Fig. \[fig\_g2a1\]a) with a triangular base. Its vertices are $$\begin{gathered}
F(G_2\times A_1)=\{0,\ \tfrac12 {{\check\omega}}_1,\ \tfrac13{{\check\omega}}_2,\ {{\check\omega}}_3,\ \tfrac12{{\check\omega}}_1+{{\check\omega}}_3,\ \tfrac13{{\check\omega}}_2+{{\check\omega}}_3\}.\end{gathered}$$
The volume of the fundamental region is given by the formula $$\begin{gathered}
|F(G_2\times A_1)|= \tfrac12\l[\tfrac 12{{\check\omega}}_1,\tfrac 13{{\check\omega}}_2],{{\check\omega}}_3\r=
\tfrac 12\cdot \tfrac{1}{2\sqrt 2}\cdot\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 3}\cdot\tfrac{1}{\sqrt 2}
\left|\begin{smallmatrix}
1&\sqrt3&0\\
0&\sqrt2&0\\
0&0&1\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right|=
\frac{\sqrt 6}{24},\quad
\text{where}\quad [\cdot,\cdot]\quad \text{denotes the vector product}.\end{gathered}$$
The grid $F_{M,M'}\subset F$ is fixed by the independent choice of two positive integers $M$ and $M'$. It consists of all the points $$\begin{gathered}
F_{M,M'}(G_2\times A_1)=\left\{\tfrac{s_1}{M}{{\check\omega}}_1+\tfrac{s_2}{M}{{\check\omega}}_2+\tfrac{s'_1}{M'}{{\check\omega}}_3\mid\
2s_1+3s_2 \le M,\ s'_1 \le M';\ s_1,s_2,s_1'\in {{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0}\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
The number of points in the grid $F_{M,M'}$ equals to $$\begin{gathered}
|F_{M,M''}(G_2\times A_1)|=|F_{M}(G_2)|\cdot|F_{M'}(A_1)|=
\left(\left[\tfrac{M}{3}\right]+1+\sum_{i=0}^{\frac M3}\left[\tfrac{M-3i}{2}\right]\right)(M'+1),\end{gathered}$$ where $[\ \cdot\ ]$ is the integer part of a number.
\[ex\_grid\_g2a1\] Consider the case $M=4$, $M'=3$. There are 16 points of $F_{4,3}$ (see Fig. \[fig\_g2a1\]b) $$\begin{gathered}
|F_{4,3}(G_2\times A_1)|=
\left(
\left[\tfrac{4}{3}\right]+1+\sum_{i=0}^{\left[\frac{4}{3}\right]}\left[\tfrac{4-3i}{2}\right]
\right)
(3+1)=(1+1+(2+0))\cdot 4=16.\end{gathered}$$ Explicitly, we have the following sets of integers $[s_1,s_2,s_1']$ and the corresponding grid points in the ${{\check\omega}}$-basis, $(\tfrac{s_1}M,\tfrac{s_2}{M},\tfrac{s_1'}{M'})$: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
[0,0,0]=(0,0,0),&\;
[0,0,1]=(0,0,\tfrac13),&\;
[0,0,2]=(0,0,\tfrac23),&\;
[0,0,3]=(0,0,1),
\\[1pt]
[0,1,0]=(0,\tfrac14,0),&\;
[0,1,1]=(0,\tfrac14,\tfrac13),&\;
[0,1,2]=(0,\tfrac14,\tfrac23),&\;
[0,1,3]=(0,\tfrac14,1),
\\[1pt]
[1,0,0]=(\tfrac14,0,0),&\;
[1,0,1]=(\tfrac14,0,\tfrac13),&\;
[1,0,2]=(\tfrac14,0,\tfrac23),&\;
[1,0,3]=(\tfrac14,0,1),
\\[1pt]
[2,0,0]=(\tfrac12,0,0),&\;
[2,0,1]=(\tfrac12,0,\tfrac13),&\;
[2,0,2]=(\tfrac12,0,\tfrac23),&\;
[2,0,3]=(\tfrac12,0,1).
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
Next, consider the case $M=3$, $M'=2$. $F_{3,2}(G_2\times A_1)$ consists of the following points: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{lll}
[0,0,0]=(0,0,0),&\quad
[0,0,1]=(0,0,\tfrac12),&\quad
[0,0,2]=(0,0,1),
\\[1pt]
[1,0,0]=(\tfrac13,0,0),&\quad
[1,0,1]=(\tfrac13,0,\tfrac12),&\quad
[1,0,2]=(\tfrac13,0,1),
\\[1pt]
[0,1,0]=(0,\tfrac13,0),&\quad
[0,1,1]=(0,\tfrac13,\tfrac12),&\quad
[0,1,2]=(0,\tfrac13,1).
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$ In this case, none of the nine points of $F_{3,2}(G_2\times A_1)$ coincides with a point of $F_{4,3}(G_2\times A_1)$. This is due to the fact that lattice densities $M=3$ and $M'=2$ do not correspondingly divide the densities $M=4$ and $M'=3$.
The Weyl group orbit of the generic point $a\omega_1+b\omega_2+c\omega_3$, $\ a,b,c>0$, consists of 24 points $$\begin{gathered}
W_{(a,b,c)}(G_2\times A_1)=\{
\pm(a, b, c),\
\pm(-a, 3a+b, c),\
\pm(a+b, -b, c),\
\pm(2a+b, -(3a+b), c),
\\
\quad
\pm(-(a+b), 3a+2b, c),\
\pm(-(2a+b), 3a+2b, c),
\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\;
\pm(a, b, -c),\
\pm(-a, 3a+b, -c),\
\pm(a+b, -b, -c),\
\pm(2a+b, -(3a+b), -c),
\\
\quad\quad\quad
\pm(-(a+b), 3a+2b, -c),\
\pm(-(2a+b), 3a+2b, -c)
\}.\end{gathered}$$
Orbit sizes for arbitrary points are given by the relations $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
|W_{(a,b,c)}|=24,&\quad
|W_{(a,b,0)}|=12,&\quad
|W_{(a,0,c)}|=12,&\quad
|W_{(0,b,c)}|=12,
\\[1pt]
|W_{(a,0,0)}|=6,&\quad
|W_{(0,b,0)}|=6,&\quad
|W_{(0,0,c)}|=2,&\quad
|W_{(0,0,0)}|=1.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The Lie algebra ${A_3}$ {#ssec_A3}
-----------------------
![a) the fundamental region $F$ of the Lie algebra $A_3$; $x$, $y$ and $z$ indicate respectively orthogonal directions of the orthonormal basis $\{e_1$, $e_2$, $e_3\}$, and the fundamental region of $A_3$ is the tetrahedron; b) the grid $F_{3}(A_3)$.[]{data-label="fig_a3"}](a3)
The Dynkin diagram and Cartan matrix with its inverse are the following, $$\begin{gathered}
\parbox{.6\linewidth}
{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}
\def\kr{\circle{10}}
\def\cr{\circle*{10}}
\thicklines
\begin{picture}(20,30)
\put(8,24){$1$}
\put(10,14){\kr}
\put(6,0){$\alpha_1$}
\put(15,14){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(28,24){$1$}
\put(30,14){\kr}
\put(26,0){$\alpha_2$}
\put(35,14){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(48,24){$1$}
\put(50,14){\kr}
\put(46,0){$\alpha_3$}
\end{picture}}
\hspace{-175 pt}
C=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
2&-1&0\\-1&2&-1\\0&-1&2
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\qquad
C^{-1}=\tfrac14\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
3&2&1\\2&4&2\\1&2&3
\end{smallmatrix}\right).\end{gathered}$$
Hence, all simple roots of the same length equal to $\sqrt 2$.
The bases of simple roots and fundamental weights are thus related by $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{lll}
\alpha_1=2\omega_1-\omega_2,&\quad
\omega_1=\tfrac34\alpha_1+\tfrac12\alpha_2+\tfrac14\alpha_3,&\quad
\check\alpha_i=\alpha_i,\quad i\in \{1,2,3\}.
\\
\alpha_2=-\omega_1+2\omega_2-\omega_3,&\quad
\omega_2=\tfrac12\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\tfrac12\alpha_3,&\quad
\check\omega_i=\omega_i,\quad i\in\{1,2,3\}.
\\
\alpha_3=-\omega_2+2\omega_3;&\quad
\omega_3=\tfrac14\alpha_1+\tfrac12\alpha_2+\tfrac34\alpha_3;
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
Relative to the orthonormal basis, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{lll}
\alpha_1=(1,-1,0)=e_1-e_2,&\quad
\omega_1=(\tfrac56,-\tfrac16,-\tfrac16)=\tfrac16(5e_1-e_2-e_3)=\check\omega_1,
\\
\alpha_2=(0,1,-1)=e_2-e_3,&\quad
\omega_2=(\tfrac23,\tfrac23,-\tfrac13)=\tfrac13(2e_1+2e_2-e_3)=\check\omega_2,
\\
\alpha_3=(\tfrac13,\tfrac13,\tfrac43)=\tfrac13(e_1+e_2+4e_3);&\quad
\omega_3=(\tfrac12,\tfrac12,\tfrac12)=\tfrac12(e_1+e_2+e_3)=\check\omega_3.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The highest root $\xi$ is given by the formula $$\begin{gathered}
\xi=\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\alpha_3.\end{gathered}$$
The fundamental region is a pyramid (see Fig. \[fig\_a3\]a) with vertices $$\begin{gathered}
F(A_3)=\{0,\ {{\check\omega}}_1,\ {{\check\omega}}_2,\ {{\check\omega}}_3\}.\end{gathered}$$
The volume of the fundamental region is given by the formula $$\begin{gathered}
|F(A_3)|=\tfrac 16 \l[{{\check\omega}}_1,{{\check\omega}}_2],{{\check\omega}}_3\r=\tfrac 16\cdot\tfrac 16\cdot\tfrac 13\cdot\tfrac 12\cdot
\left|\begin{smallmatrix}
5&-1&-1\\
2&2&-1\\
1&1&1\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right|=\tfrac1{12},\end{gathered}$$ where $[\cdot,\cdot]$ denotes the vector product.
The grid $F_{M}\subset F$ is fixed by the choice of one positive integer $M$. It consists of all the points $$\begin{gathered}
F_{M}(A_3)=\left\{\tfrac{s_1}{M}{{\check\omega}}_1+\tfrac{s_2}{M}{{\check\omega}}_2+\tfrac{s_3}{M}{{\check\omega}}_3\mid\
s_1+s_2+s_3 \le M;\ s_1,s_2,s_3\in {{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0}\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
The number of points in the grid $F_{M}$ equals to $$\begin{gathered}
|F_{M}(A_3)|=\frac12\sum_{i=0}^{M}(M+1-i)(M+2-i).\end{gathered}$$
\[ex\_grid\_a3\] Consider the case $M=3$. There are 20 points of $F_{3}(A_3)$ (see Fig. \[fig\_a3\]b). Explicitly, we have the following sets of integers $[s_1,s_2,s_3]$ and the corresponding grid points in the ${{\check\omega}}$-basis $(\tfrac{s_1}M,\tfrac{s_2}{M},\tfrac{s_3}{M})$: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
[0,0,0]=(0,0,0),&\;
[0,0,3]=(0,0,1),&\;
[0,3,0]=(0,1,0),&\;
[3,0,0]=(1,0,0),
\\[1pt]
[2,0,1]=(\tfrac23,0,\tfrac13),&\;
[2,1,0]=(\tfrac23,\tfrac13,0),&\;
[1,0,2]=(\tfrac13,0,\tfrac23),&\;
[0,1,2]=(0,\tfrac13,\tfrac23),
\\[1pt]
[1,2,0]=(\tfrac13,\tfrac23,0),&\;
[0,2,1]=(0,\tfrac23,\tfrac13),&\;
[1,0,0]=(\tfrac13,0,0),&\;
[0,0,1]=(0,0,\tfrac13),
\\[1pt]
[0,1,0]=(0,\tfrac13,0),&\;
[1,1,0]=(\tfrac13,\tfrac13,0),&\;
[1,0,1]=(\tfrac13,0,\tfrac13),&\;
[0,1,1]=(0,\tfrac13,\tfrac13),
\\[1pt]
[1,1,1]=(\tfrac13,\tfrac13,\tfrac13),&\;
[2,0,0]=(\tfrac23,0,0),&\;
[0,0,2]=(0,0,\tfrac23),&\;
[0,2,0]=(0,\tfrac23,0).
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The Weyl group orbit of the generic point $a\omega_1+b\omega_2+c\omega_3$, $\ a,b,c>0$, consists of 24 points $$\begin{gathered}
W_{(a,b,c)}(A_3)=\{
(a,\ b,\ c),
(-a,\ a+b,\ c),
(a+b,\ -b,\ b+c),
(a,\ b+c,\ -c),
(b,\ -(a+b),\ a+b+c),
\\ \hspace{-20pt}
(-a,\ a+b+c,\ -c),
(-(a+b),\ a,\ b+c),
(a+b,\ c,\ -(b+c)),
\\ \hspace{30pt}
(a+b+c,\ -(b+c),\ c),
(b,\ c,\ -(a+b+c)),
(b+c,\ -(a+b+c),\ a+b),
\\ \hspace{30pt}
(-b,\ -a,\ a+b+c),
(-(a+b),\ a+b+c,\ -(b+c)),
(-(a+b+c),\ a,\ b),
\\ \hspace{10pt}
(a+b+c,\ -c,\ -b),
(b+c,\ -c,\ -(a+b)),
(-b,\ b+c\ -(a+b+c)),
\\ \hspace{20pt}
(c,\ -(a+b+c),\ a),
(-(b+c),\ -a,\ (a+b)),
(-(a+b+c),\ a+b,\ -b),
\\ \hspace{48pt}
(c,\ -(b+c),\ -a),
(-(b+c),\ b,\ -(a+b)),
(-c,\ -(a+b),\ a),
(-c,\ -b,\ -a)
\}.\end{gathered}$$
Orbit sizes for arbitrary points are given by the relations $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
|W_{(a,b,c)}|=24,&\quad
|W_{(a,b,0)}|=12,&\quad
|W_{(a,0,c)}|=12,&\quad
|W_{(0,b,c)}|=12,
\\[1pt]
|W_{(a,0,0)}|=4,&\quad
|W_{(0,b,0)}|=6,&\quad
|W_{(0,0,c)}|=4,&\quad
|W_{(0,0,0)}|=1.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The Lie algebra ${B_3}$ {#ssec_B3}
-----------------------
![a) the fundamental region $F$ of the Lie algebra $B_3$; $x$, $y$ and $z$ indicate respectively orthogonal directions of the orthonormal basis $\{e_1$, $e_2$, $e_3\}$ and the face defined by vertices $\{0, {{\check\omega}}_1, \tfrac12{{\check\omega}}_2\}$ lies in the plane $z=0$; b) the grid $F_{4}(B_3)$.[]{data-label="fig_b3"}](b3)
The Dynkin diagram and Cartan matrix with its inverse are the following, $$\begin{gathered}
\parbox{.6\linewidth}
{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}
\def\kr{\circle{10}}
\def\cr{\circle*{10}}
\thicklines
\begin{picture}(20,30)
\put(8,24){$1$}
\put(10,14){\kr}
\put(6,0){$\alpha_1$}
\put(15,14){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(28,24){$2$}
\put(30,14){\kr}
\put(26,0){$\alpha_2$}
\put(34,11){\line(1,0){13}}
\put(34,17){\line(1,0){13}}
\put(48,24){$2$}
\put(50,14){\cr}
\put(46,0){$\alpha_3$}
\end{picture}}
\hspace{-175 pt}
C=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
2&-1&0\\-1&2&-2\\0&-1&2
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\qquad
C^{-1}=\tfrac12\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
2&2&2\\2&4&4\\1&2&3
\end{smallmatrix}\right).\end{gathered}$$
Hence $\alpha_1$ is the shorter of the simple roots. The relative lengths of the simple roots are set as $\langle\alpha_1 ,\alpha_1\rangle=1$ and $\langle\alpha_2 ,\alpha_2\rangle=\langle\alpha_3 ,\alpha_3\rangle=2$.
The bases of simple roots and fundamental weights are thus related by $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
\alpha_1=2\omega_1-\omega_2,&\quad
\omega_1=\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\alpha_3,&\quad
\check\alpha_1=\alpha_1,&\quad
\check\omega_1=\omega_1,
\\
\alpha_2=-\omega_1+2\omega_2-2\omega_3,&\quad
\omega_2=\alpha_1+2\alpha_2+2\alpha_3,&\quad
\check\alpha_2=\alpha_2,&\quad
\check\omega_2=\omega_2,
\\
\alpha_3=-\omega_2+2\omega_3;&\quad
\omega_3=\tfrac12\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\tfrac32\alpha_3;&\quad
\check\alpha_3=2\alpha_3;&\quad
\check\omega_3=2\omega_3.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
Relative to the orthonormal basis, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
\alpha_1=(1,-1,0)=e_1-e_2,&\quad
\omega_1=(1,0,0)=e_1,&\quad
\check\omega_1=(1,0,0)=e_1,
\\
\alpha_2=(0,1,-1)=e_2-e_3,&\quad
\omega_2=(1,1,0)=e_1+e_2,&\quad
\check\omega_2=(1,1,0)=e_1+e_2,
\\
\alpha_3=(0,0,1)=e_3;&\quad
\omega_3=(\tfrac12,\tfrac12,\tfrac12)=\tfrac12(e_1+e_2+e_3);&\quad
\check\omega_3=(1,1,1)=e_1+e_2+e_3.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The highest root $\xi$ is given by the formula $$\begin{gathered}
\xi=\alpha_1+2\alpha_2+2\alpha_3.\end{gathered}$$
The fundamental region is a pyramid (see Fig. \[fig\_a1a1a1\]a) with vertices $$\begin{gathered}
F(B_3)=\{0,\ {{\check\omega}}_1,\ \tfrac12 {{\check\omega}}_2,\ \tfrac12 {{\check\omega}}_3\}.\end{gathered}$$
The volume of the fundamental region is given by the formula $$\begin{gathered}
|F(B_3)|=\tfrac 16 \l[{{\check\omega}}_1,\tfrac12 {{\check\omega}}_2],\tfrac12 {{\check\omega}}_3\r=\tfrac16 \cdot \tfrac12\cdot \tfrac12
\left|\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0&0\\
1&1&0\\
1&1&1\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right|=\tfrac{1}{24},\quad
\text{where}\quad [\cdot,\cdot]\quad \text{denotes the vector product}.\end{gathered}$$
The grid $F_{M}\subset F$ is fixed by the choice of an integer $M$. It consists of all the points $$\begin{gathered}
F_{M}(B_3)=\left\{\tfrac{s_1}{M}{{\check\omega}}_1+\tfrac{s_2}{M}{{\check\omega}}_2+\tfrac{s_3}{M}{{\check\omega}}_3\mid\
s_1+2s_2+2s_3\le M;\ s_1, s_2, s_3\in {{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0}\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
The number of points in the grid $F_{M}$ equals to $$\begin{gathered}
|F_{M}(B_3)|=\left(\left[\tfrac{M}{2}\right]+1\right)
\left(\left[\tfrac{M}{2}\right]\left[\tfrac{M+1}{2}\right]+M+1
-\tfrac{M+2}{2}\left[\tfrac{M}{2}\right]\right)
+\sum_{i=0}^{\left[\frac{M}{2}\right]}i^2.\end{gathered}$$ where $[\ \cdot\ ]$ is the integer part of a number.
\[ex\_grid\_b3\] Consider the case $M=4$, see Fig. \[fig\_b3\]b. There are 14 points of $F_4$ $$\begin{gathered}
|F_{4}(B_3)|=\left(\left[\tfrac{4}{2}\right]+1\right)
\left(\left[\tfrac{4}{2}\right]\left[\tfrac{4+1}{2}\right]+4+1
-\tfrac{4+2}{2}\left[\tfrac{4}{2}\right]\right)
+\sum_{i=0}^{\left[\frac{4}{2}\right]}i^2=
3(2\cdot2+4+1-3\cdot2)+0+1+4
=14.\end{gathered}$$ Explicitly, we have the following sets of integers $[s_1,s_2,s_3]$ and the corresponding grid points in the ${{\check\omega}}$-basis, $(\tfrac{s_1}M,\tfrac{s_2}{M},\tfrac{s_3}{M})$: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
[0,0,0]=(0,0,0),&\;
[0,0,1]=(0,0,\tfrac14),&\;
[0,0,2]=(0,0,\tfrac12),&\;
[1,0,1]=(\tfrac14,0,\tfrac14),
\\[1pt]
[0,2,0]=(0,\tfrac12,0),&\;
[0,1,1]=(0,\tfrac14,\tfrac14),&\;
[0,1,2]=(0,\tfrac14, \tfrac12),&\;
[1,0,2]=(\tfrac14,0,\tfrac12),
\\[1pt]
[0,0,4]=(0,0,1),&\;
[0,0,3]=(0,0,\tfrac34),&\;
[1,1,0]=(\tfrac14,\tfrac14,0),&\;
[2,0,0]=(\tfrac12,0,0).
\\[1pt]
[0,1,0]=(0,\tfrac14,0),&\;
[1,0,0]=(\tfrac14,0,0),
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The Weyl group orbit of the generic point $a\omega_1+b\omega_2+c\omega_3$, $\ a,b,c>0$, consists of 48 points $$\begin{gathered}
W_{(a,b,c)}(B_3)=\{
\pm (a,\ b,\ c),
\pm (-a,\ a+b,\ c),
\pm (a+b,\ -b,\ 2b+c),
\pm (a,\ b+c,\ -c),
\\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\;\;
\pm (b,\ -(a+b),\ 2a+2b+c),
\pm (-a,\ a+b+c,\ -c),
\pm (-(a+b),\ a,\ 2b+c),
\\ \qquad\quad\;\pm (a+b,\ b+c,\ -(2b+c)),
\pm (a+b+c,\ -(b+c),\ 2b+c),
\\ \qquad\qquad\quad\quad\quad\;\;\;\pm (b,\ a+b+c,\ -(2a+2b+c)),
\pm (b+c,\ -(a+b+c),\ 2a+2b+c),
\\ \hspace{44 pt}
\pm (-b,\ -a,\ 2a+2b+c),
\pm (-(a+b),\ a+2b+c,\ -(2b+c)),
\\ \hspace{20 pt}
\pm (a+2b+c,\ -(b+c),\ c),
\pm (-(a+b+c),\ a,\ 2b+c),
\\ \hspace{36 pt}
\pm (a+b+c,\ b,\ -(2b+c)),
\pm (a+2b+c,\ -(a+b+c),\ c),
\\ \hspace{76 pt}
\pm (b+c,\ a+b,\ -(2a+2b+c)),
\pm (-b,\ a+2b+c,\ -(2a+2b+c)),
\\ \hspace{64 pt}
\pm (b+c,\ -(a+2b+c),\ 2a+2b+c),
\pm (-(a+2b+c),\ a+b,\ c),
\\ \hspace{16 pt}
\pm (a+2b+c,\ -b,\ -c),
\pm (-(b+c),\ -a,\ 2a+2b+c),
\\ \hspace{-40 pt}
\pm (-(a+b+c),\ a+2b+c,\ -(2b+c))
\}.\end{gathered}$$
Orbit sizes for arbitrary points are given by the relations $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
|W_{(a,b,c)}|=48,&\quad
|W_{(a,b,0)}|=24,&\quad
|W_{(a,0,c)}|=24,&\quad
|W_{(0,b,c)}|=24,
\\[1pt]
|W_{(a,0,0)}|=6,&\quad
|W_{(0,b,0)}|=12,&\quad
|W_{(0,0,c)}|=8,&\quad
|W_{(0,0,0)}|=1.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The Lie algebra ${C_3}$ {#ssec_C3}
-----------------------
![a) the fundamental region $F$ of the Lie algebra $C_3$; $x$, $y$ and $z$ indicate respectively orthogonal directions of the orthonormal basis $\{e_1$, $e_2$, $e_3\}$ and the face defined by vertices $\{0, \tfrac12{{\check\omega}}_1, \tfrac12{{\check\omega}}_2\}$ lies in the plane $z=0$; b) the grid $F_{4}(C_3)$.[]{data-label="fig_c3"}](c3)
The Dynkin diagram and Cartan matrix with its inverse are the following, $$\begin{gathered}
\parbox{.6\linewidth}
{\setlength{\unitlength}{1pt}
\def\kr{\circle{10}}
\def\cr{\circle*{10}}
\thicklines
\begin{picture}(20,30)
\put(8,24){$2$}
\put(10,14){\cr}
\put(6,0){$\alpha_1$}
\put(15,14){\line(1,0){10}}
\put(28,24){$2$}
\put(30,14){\cr}
\put(26,0){$\alpha_2$}
\put(33,11){\line(1,0){13}}
\put(33,17){\line(1,0){13}}
\put(48,24){$1$}
\put(50,14){\kr}
\put(46,0){$\alpha_3$}
\end{picture}}
\hspace{-175 pt}
C=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
2&-1&0\\-1&2&-1\\0&-2&2
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\qquad
C^{-1}=\tfrac12\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
2&2&1\\2&4&2\\2&4&3
\end{smallmatrix}\right).\end{gathered}$$
Hence $\alpha_3$ is the longer of the simple roots. The relative lengths of the simple roots are set as and .
The bases of simple roots and fundamental weights are thus related by $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
\alpha_1=2\omega_1-\omega_2,&\quad
\omega_1=\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\tfrac12\alpha_3,&\quad
\check\alpha_1=2\alpha_1,&\quad
\check\omega_1=2\omega_1,
\\
\alpha_2=-\omega_1+2\omega_2-\omega_3,&\quad
\omega_2=\alpha_1+2\alpha_2+\alpha_3,&\quad
\check\alpha_2=2\alpha_2,&\quad
\check\omega_2=2\omega_2,
\\
\alpha_3=-2\omega_1+2\omega_3;&\quad
\omega_3=\alpha_1+2\alpha_2+\tfrac32\alpha_3;&\quad
\check\alpha_3=\alpha_3;&\quad
\check\omega_3=\omega_3.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
In the orthonormal basis these bases have the form $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
\alpha_1=(\tfrac1{\sqrt 2},-\tfrac1{\sqrt 2},0)=\tfrac1{\sqrt 2}(e_1-e_2),&\quad
\omega_1=(\tfrac1{\sqrt 2},0,0)=\tfrac1{\sqrt 2}e_1,&\quad
\check\omega_1=(\sqrt 2,0,0),
\\
\alpha_2=(0,\tfrac1{\sqrt 2},-\tfrac1{\sqrt 2})=\tfrac1{\sqrt 2}(e_2-e_3),&\quad
\omega_2=(\tfrac1{\sqrt 2},\tfrac1{\sqrt 2},0)=\tfrac1{\sqrt 2}(e_1+e_2),&\quad
\check\omega_2=(\sqrt 2,\sqrt 2,0),
\\
\alpha_3=(0,0,{\sqrt 2})={\sqrt 2}e_3;&\quad
\omega_3=(\tfrac1{\sqrt 2},\tfrac1{\sqrt 2},\tfrac1{\sqrt 2})=\tfrac1{\sqrt 2}(e_1+e_2+e_3);&\quad
\check\omega_3=(\tfrac1{\sqrt 2},\tfrac1{\sqrt 2},\tfrac1{\sqrt 2}).
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The highest root $\xi$ is given by the formula $$\begin{gathered}
\xi=2\alpha_1+2\alpha_2+\alpha_3.\end{gathered}$$
The fundamental region is a pyramid (see Fig. \[fig\_a1a1a1\]a) with vertices $$\begin{gathered}
F(C_3)=\{0,\ \tfrac12 {{\check\omega}}_1,\ \tfrac12{{\check\omega}}_2,\ {{\check\omega}}_3\}.\end{gathered}$$
The volume of the fundamental region is given by the formula $$\begin{gathered}
|F(C_3)|=\tfrac 16 \l[\tfrac12{{\check\omega}}_1,\tfrac12{{\check\omega}}_2],{{\check\omega}}_3\r=
\tfrac16\cdot\tfrac12\cdot\tfrac12\cdot\sqrt 2\cdot\sqrt 2\cdot\tfrac1{\sqrt 2}
\left|\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0&0\\
1&1&0\\
1&1&1\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right|=\frac{\sqrt 2}{24},\end{gathered}$$ where $[\cdot,\cdot]$ is the vector product.
The grid $F_{M}\subset F$ is fixed by the choice of the integer $M$. It consists of all the points $$\begin{gathered}
F_{M}(C_3)=\left\{\tfrac{s_1}{M}{{\check\omega}}_1+\tfrac{s_2}{M}{{\check\omega}}_2+\tfrac{s_3}{M}{{\check\omega}}_3\mid\
2s_1+2s_2+s_3\le M;\ s_1, s_2, s_3\in {{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0}\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
The number of points in the grid $F_{M}$ equals to $$\begin{gathered}
|F_{M}(C_3)|=\left(\left[\tfrac{M}{2}\right]+1\right)
\left(\left[\tfrac{M}{2}\right]\left[\tfrac{M+1}{2}\right]+M+1
-\tfrac{M+2}{2}\left[\tfrac{M}{2}\right]\right)
+\sum_{i=0}^{\left[\frac{M}{2}\right]}i^2.\end{gathered}$$ where $[\ \cdot\ ]$ is the integer part of a number.
\[ex\_grid\_c3\] Consider the case $M=4$. There are 14 points of $F_4(C_3)$, see Fig. \[fig\_c3\]b. $$\begin{gathered}
|F_{4}(C_3)|=\left(\left[\tfrac{4}{2}\right]+1\right)
\left(\left[\tfrac{4}{2}\right]\left[\tfrac{4+1}{2}\right]+4+1
-\tfrac{4+2}{2}\left[\tfrac{4}{2}\right]\right)
+\sum_{i=0}^{\left[\frac{4}{2}\right]}i^2=14.\end{gathered}$$ Explicitly, we have the following sets of integers $[s_1,s_2,s_3]$ and the corresponding grid points in the ${{\check\omega}}$-basis, $(\tfrac{s_1}M,\tfrac{s_2}{M},\tfrac{s_3}{M})$: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
[0,0,0]=(0,0,0),&\;
[0,0,1]=(0,0,\tfrac14),&\;
[0,0,2]=(0,0,\tfrac12),&\;
[0,0,3]=(0,0,\tfrac34),
\\[1pt]
[0,1,0]=(0,\tfrac14,0),&\;
[0,1,1]=(0,\tfrac14,\tfrac14),&\;
[0,0,4]=(0,0,1),&\;
[2,0,0]=(\tfrac12,0,0),
\\[1pt]
[1,0,0]=(\tfrac14,0,0),&\;
[1,0,1]=(1,0,\tfrac13),&\;
[1,0,2]=(1,0,\tfrac23),&\;
[1,1,2]=(1,1,\tfrac23).
\\[1pt]
[1,1,0]=(1,1,0),&\;
[1,1,1]=(1,1,\tfrac13),&\;
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
The Weyl group orbit of the generic point $a\omega_1+b\omega_2+c\omega_3$, $\ a,b,c>0$, consists of 48 points $$\begin{gathered}
W_{(a,b,c)}(C_3)=\{
\pm (a,\ b,\ c),\
\pm (-a,\ a+b,\ c),\
\pm (a+b,\ -b,\ b+c),\
\pm (a,\ b+2c,\ -c),\
\\ \hspace{90 pt}
\pm (b,\ -(a+b),\ a+b+c),\
\pm (-a,\ a+b+2c,\ -c),\
\pm (-(a+b),\ a,\ b+c),\
\\ \hspace{30 pt}
\pm (a+b,\ b+2c,\ -(b+c)),\
\pm (a+b+2c,\ -(b+2c),\ b+c),\
\\ \hspace{66 pt}
\pm (b,\ a+b+2c,\ -(a+b+c)),\
\pm (b+2c,\ -(a+b+2c),\ a+b+c),\
\\ \hspace{28 pt}
\pm (-b,\ -a,\ a+b+c),\
\pm (-(a+b),\ a+2b+2c,\ -(b+c)),\
\\ \hspace{22 pt}
\pm (a+2b+2c,\ -(b+2c),\ c),\
\pm (-(a+b+2c),\ a,\ b+c),\
\\ \hspace{38 pt}
\pm (a+b+2c,\ b,\ -(b+c)),\
\pm (a+2b+2c,\ -(a+b+2c),\ c),\
\\ \hspace{60 pt}
\pm (b+2c,\ a+b,\ -(a+b+c)),\
\pm (-b,\ a+2b+2c,\ -(a+b+c)),\
\\ \hspace{62 pt}
\pm (b+2c,\ -(a+2b+2c),\ a+b+c),\
\pm (-(a+2b+2c),\ a+b,\ c),\
\\ \hspace{10 pt}
\pm (a+2b+2c,\ -b,\ -c),\
\pm (-(b+2c),\ -a,\ a+b+c),\
\\ \hspace{-50 pt}
\pm (-(a+b+2c),\ a+2b+2c,\ -(b+c))
\}.\end{gathered}$$
Orbit sizes for arbitrary points are given by the relations $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{llll}
|W_{(a,b,c)}|=48,&\quad
|W_{(a,b,0)}|=24,&\quad
|W_{(a,0,c)}|=24,&\quad
|W_{(0,b,c)}|=24,
\\[1pt]
|W_{(a,0,0)}|=6,&\quad
|W_{(0,b,0)}|=12,&\quad
|W_{(0,0,c)}|=8,&\quad
|W_{(0,0,0)}|=1.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
Orbit functions {#sec_orbit-funcs}
===============
In this section, we define what we mean by $C$-, $S$- and $E$-functions, specified by a given point $\lambda\in{{\mathbb Z}}^n$. We also show some of the properties inherent to those functions. Namely, the following properties are of interest, their pairwise orthogonality (using the appropriate scalar product, an integral over the fundamental region), their discrete orthogonality (again, using a properly defined scalar product, a sum over the discrete grid), their product can be represented as a sum, and they are eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator.
Definitions, symmetries and general properties {#ssec_def_orb_funcs}
----------------------------------------------
We start with the $C$-functions. The $C$-function $C_{\lambda}(x)$, $\lambda\in P^+$ is defined as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{def_c-function}
C_\lambda(x) := \sum_{\mu\in W_\lambda} e^{2\pi i \l\mu, x\r},
\qquad
x\in{{\mathbb R}}^n,\end{gathered}$$ where $W_\lambda$ is the Weyl group orbit generated from $\lambda$.
If in (\[def\_c-function\]) we restrict ourselves to the orbit of the even subgroup $W_{e\lambda}$, then we define $E_{\lambda}(x)$, $\lambda\in P_e$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{def_e-function}
E_\lambda(x) := \sum_{\mu\in W_{e\lambda}} e^{2\pi i \l\mu, x\r},
\qquad
x\in{{\mathbb R}}^n.\end{gathered}$$
The definition of an $S$-function $S_{\lambda}(x)$, $\lambda\in P^{++}$ is almost identical, but the sign of each summand is determined by the number of reflections $p(\mu)$ necessary to obtain $\mu$ from $\lambda$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{def_s-function}
S_\lambda(x) := \sum_{\mu\in W_\lambda} (-1)^{p(\mu)}e^{2\pi i \l\mu , x\r}
\qquad
x\in{{\mathbb R}}^n.\end{gathered}$$ Of course the same $\mu$ can be obtained by different successions of reflections, but all routes from $\lambda$ to $\mu$ will have a length of the same parity, and thus the salient detail given by $p(\mu)$, in the context of an $S$-function, is meaningful and unchanging.
For different families of orbit functions, the $\lambda$ (represented in the $\omega$-basis) are taken from different sets, namely $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{array}{ll}
\lambda\in\{{{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0} \omega_1 + {{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0} \omega_2 + {{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0} \omega_3\},
&
\text{for}\; C\;\text{-functions};
\\
\lambda\in\{{{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0} \omega_1 + {{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0} \omega_2 + {{\mathbb Z}}^{\ge 0} \omega_3\}\cup
r_i\{{{\mathbb Z}}^{>0} \omega_1 + {{\mathbb Z}}^{>0} \omega_2 + {{\mathbb Z}}^{>0} \omega_3\},\; r_i\in W
&
\text{for}\; E\;\text{-functions};
\\
\lambda\in\{{{\mathbb Z}}^{>0} \omega_1 + {{\mathbb Z}}^{>0} \omega_2 + {{\mathbb Z}}^{>0} \omega_3\},
&
\text{for}\; S\;\text{-functions}.
\end{array}\end{gathered}$$
In particular, this implies that, for $S$-functions, the number of summands always equals to the size of the Weyl group.
In the case of $x\in F_M$ (the coordinates of $x$ are rational), the $C$-, $S$- and $E$-functions are formed by roots of unity. Therefore, there can only be a finite number of possible orbit functions that can take distinct values on the points of $F_M$, these functions are orthogonal on the grid. The number of pairwise orthogonal orbit functions on $F_M$ coincides with the size of $F_M$, including the boundary in the case of $C$- and $E$-functions and excluding the boundary in the case of , $S$-functions.
Note that in the 1-dimensional case, $C$-, $S$- and $E$-functions are respectively a cosine, a sine and an exponential functions up to the constant.
All three families of orbit functions are based on semisimple Lie groups of finite order, the number of variables coincides with the rank of the corresponding Lie algebra.
In general, $C$-, $S$- and $E$-functions are the finite sums of exponential functions, therefore they are continuous and have continuous derivatives of all orders in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$.
It is easy to prove that $C$- and $S$-functions are invariant with respect to the action of both Weyl $W$ and affine Weyl $W^{aff}$ groups (see e.g. [@KlimykPatera2006; @KlimykPatera2007-1]) and that $E$-functions are invariant with respect to the action of $W_e$ and $W_e^{aff}$ groups (see e.g. [@KashubaPatera2007]). Therefore it is enough to consider them only on the fundamental domain of their affine Weyl symmetry groups.
The $S$-functions are antisymmetric with respect to $n-1$-dimensional boundary of $F$. Hence they are zero on the boundary of $F$. The $C$-functions are symmetric with respect to $n-1$-dimensional boundary of $F$. Their normal derivative at the boundary is equal to zero (because the normal derivative of a $C$-function is an $S$-function). A number of other properties of orbit functions are presented in [@KlimykPatera2006; @KlimykPatera2007-1; @KP3].
Calculation of scalar products
------------------------------
Here we present the rules necessary for the calculation of the scalar products of the vectors given in the different bases.
Let vectors $u=(u_1,u_2,\dots,u_n)=u_1{{\omega}}_1+u_2{{\omega}}_2+\dots+u_n{{\omega}}_n$ and $v= v_1{{\omega}}_1+v_2{{\omega}}_2+\dots+v_n{{\omega}}_n$ are represented in the $\omega$-basis, then their scalar product is calculated as the matrix product $$\begin{gathered}
\l u , v\r = u \tilde C v^t=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}u_i v_j\l{{\omega}}_i,{{\omega}}_j\r=
\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}u_i v_j\frac{\l\alpha_j,\alpha_j\r}2C^{-1}_{i,j},\end{gathered}$$ here $\tilde C_{i,j}=\frac{\l\alpha_j,\alpha_j\r}2C^{-1}_{i,j}$ and $C$ is the Cartan matrix.
If vectors $x=(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n)=x_1\alpha_1+x_2\alpha_2+\dots+x_n\alpha_n$ and $y= y_1\alpha_1+y_2\alpha_2+\dots+y_n\alpha_n$ are represented in the $\alpha$-basis, then their scalar product is calculated as the matrix product $$\begin{gathered}
\l x , y\r = x \hat C y^t=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}x_i y_j\l\alpha_i,\alpha_j\r=
\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}x_i y_j\frac{\l\alpha_j,\alpha_j\r}2C_{i,j},\end{gathered}$$ here $\hat C_{i,j}=\frac{\l\alpha_j,\alpha_j\r}2C_{i,j}$ and $C$ is the Cartan matrix.
Square lengths of the simple roots $\l\alpha_j,\alpha_j\r$ are always indicated in the Dynkin diagrams of the semisimple Lie groups, see e.g. [@Humphreys1972; @KassMoodyPateraSlansky1990].
It is also useful to remind that $$\begin{gathered}
\l \alpha_i , \check\omega_j\r = \l \check \alpha_i , \omega_j\r=\l e_i , e_j\r=\delta_{i,j},
\quad \text{where}\;\delta_{i,j}\;\text{is the Kronecker delta}.\end{gathered}$$
$C$-, $S$-, and $E$-functions as eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the functions $C_\lambda(x)$, $E_\lambda(x)$ and $S_\lambda(x)$ and suppose that the continuous variable $x$ is given relative to the orthogonal basis. In the case of Lie algebra $A_n$ we use orthogonal coordinates $x_1, x_2, \dots,x_{n+1}$ and coordinates $x_1, x_2, \dots,x_{n}$ for $B_n$, $C_n$ and $D_n$ (the orthogonal bases for these algebras are well known and can be found e.g. in [@KlimykPatera2006]).
The Laplace operator in orthogonal coordinates has the form $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial {x_1}}+
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial {x_2}}+\dots+ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial
{x_k}}, \quad \text{where}\; k=n\;(\text{or}\;k=n+1\; \text{for}\;
A_n) .\end{gathered}$$
For the algebras $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$ and $D_n$, the Laplace operator gives the same eigenvalues on every exponential function summand of an orbit function with eigenvalue $-4\pi\langle \lambda,\lambda\rangle$.
Hence, the functions $C_\lambda(x)$, $E_\lambda(x)$ and $S_\lambda(x)$ are eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator: $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta
\left(\begin{array}{c}
C_\lambda(x)\\
E_\lambda(x)\\
S_\lambda(x)\\
\end{array}\right)
=-4\pi^2 \l\lambda ,\lambda\r
\left(\begin{array}{c}
C_\lambda(x)\\
E_\lambda(x)\\
S_\lambda(x)\\
\end{array}\right).\end{gathered}$$
Now we consider the continuous variable $x$ given relative to the ${{\omega}}$-basis. Let $\Delta$ denote the Laplace operator, where the differentiation $\partial_{x_i}$ is made with respect to the direction given by $\omega_i$. $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta = \sum_{i,j=1}^n \frac{C_{ij}}{\l\alpha_i ,\alpha_i\r}
\partial_{x_i}\partial_{x_j},
\text{where}\; C\; \text{is the Cartan matrix}.\end{gathered}$$ It is known in Lie theory that the matrix of scalar products of the simple roots is positive definite, moreover our definition makes matrix $\frac{C_{ij}}{\l\alpha_i ,\alpha_i\r}$ symmetric, hence it can be diagonalized and the Laplace operator could be transformed to the sum of second derivatives by an appropriate change of variables.
Thereby, using the results of Section \[sec\_algebras\] we can write the explicit forms of the Laplace operators given in the ${{\omega}}$-basis for all semisimple Lie algebras of rank 3 $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta=
\begin{cases}
\partial_{x_1}^2+\partial_{x_2}^2+\partial_{x_3}^2,
\quad & \text{for}\quad A_1\times A_1\times A_1;
\\
\partial_{x_1}^2-{\partial}_{x_1}{\partial}_{x_2}+\partial_{x_2}^2+\partial_{x_3}^2,
\quad &\text{for}\quad A_2\times A_1;
\\
2\partial_{x_1}^2-2\partial_{x_1}\partial_{x_2}+\partial_{x_2}^2+\partial_{x_3}^2,
\quad &\text{for}\quad C_2\times A_1;
\\
3\partial_{x_1}^2-5\partial_{x_1}\partial_{x_2}+\partial_{x_2}^2+\partial_{x_3}^2,
\quad &\text{for}\quad G_2\times A_1;
\\
\partial_{x_1}^2-\partial_{x_1}\partial_{x_2}+\partial_{x_2}^2-\partial_{x_2}\partial_{x_3}+\partial_{x_3}^2,
\quad &\text{for}\quad A_3;
\\
\partial_{x_1}^2-\partial_{x_1}\partial_{x_2}+\partial_{x_2}^2-2\partial_{x_2}\partial_{x_3}+2\partial_{x_3}^2,
\quad &\text{for}\quad B_3;
\\
2\partial_{x_1}^2-2\partial_{x_1}\partial_{x_2}+2\partial_{x_2}^2-2\partial_{x_2}\partial_{x_3}+\partial_{x_3}^2,
\quad &\text{for}\quad C_3.
\\
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$
Continuous orthogonality
------------------------
For any two squared integrable functions $\phi(x)$ and $\psi(x)$ defined on the fundamental region $\widetilde{F}$, we define a continuous scalar product $$\begin{gathered}
\label{def_cont_scalar_product}
\l\phi(x),\psi(x)\r:=\int_{{F}}\phi(x)\overline{\psi(x)}{\rm d}x.\end{gathered}$$ Here, integration is carried out with respect to the Euclidean measure, the bar means complex conjugation and $x\in {F}$, where ${F}$ is the fundamental region of either $W$ or $W_e$.
Any pair of orbit functions from the same family is orthogonal on the corresponding fundamental region with respect to the introduced scalar product (\[def\_cont\_scalar\_product\]), namely $$\begin{gathered}
\label{cont_orthog c funcs}
\l C_{\lambda}(x),C_{\lambda'}(x)\r=|W_\lambda|\cdot|F|\cdot\delta_{\lambda\lambda'},
\\\label{cont_orthog s funcs}
\l S_{\lambda}(x),S_{\lambda'}(x)\r=|W|\cdot|F|\cdot\delta_{\lambda\lambda'},
\\\label{cont_orthog e funcs}
\l E_{\lambda}(x),E_{\lambda'}(x)\r=|W_{e\ \lambda}|\cdot|F_e|\cdot\delta_{\lambda\lambda'},\end{gathered}$$ where $\delta_{\lambda\lambda'}$ is the Kronecker delta, $|W|$ is the size of Weyl group, $|W_{\lambda}|$ and $|W_{e\ \lambda}|$ are the sizes of Weyl group orbits, and $|F|$ and $|F_e|$ are volumes of fundamental regions. All of the necessary information for each semisimple Lie algebra of rank 3 can be found in Section \[sec\_algebras\]. In particular, $|F_e|=2|F|$ and $|W_{e\ \lambda}|$ is defined by formula (\[even\_subgr\_of\_W\]).
Proof of the relations (\[cont\_orthog c funcs\],\[cont\_orthog s funcs\],\[cont\_orthog e funcs\]) follows from the orthogonality of the usual exponential functions and from the fact that a given weight $\mu\in P$ belongs to precisely one orbit function.
Therefore each family of orbit functions forms an orthogonal basis in the Hilbert space of squared integrable functions ${\mathcal L}^2(F)$. Hence functions given on $F$ can be expanded in terms of linear combinations of $C$-, $S$- or $E$-functions.
Discrete orthogonality
----------------------
Let us denote the discrete grid of the fundamental region as $F_M$ in the general case, even though in some cases it is determined by more than one positive integer $$\begin{gathered}
F_M=
\begin{cases}
F_M \quad & \text{for}\; C\text{-functions},
\\
F_{M}\setminus\partial F\quad & \text{for}\; S\text{-functions},
\\
F_{e\,M} \quad & \text{for}\; E\text{-functions}.
\\
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ A discrete scalar product of two functions $\phi(x)$ and $\psi(x)$ given on ${F_M}$ (including $C$-, $S$- and $E$-functions) is dependent on this grid and defined by the bilinear form $$\begin{gathered}
\label{def_discr_scalar_product}
\l\phi(x),\psi(x)\r_M= \sum_{i=1}^{|{F}_M|}\varepsilon(x_i)\phi(x_i)\overline{\psi(x_i)},
\quad x_i\in{F}_M.\end{gathered}$$ Here $\varepsilon(x_i)$ is the number of points conjugate to $x_i$ on the maximal torus of the Lie group. The value of $\varepsilon(x_i)$ is given by the formula $$\begin{gathered}
\varepsilon(x_i)=
\begin{cases}
|W_{x_i}| \quad & \text{for}\; C\text{-functions},
\\
|W|\quad & \text{for}\; S\text{-functions},
\\
|W_{e\,x_i}| \quad & \text{for}\; E\text{-functions}.
\\
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$
Again, as in the continuous case, the $C$-, $S$- and $E$-functions are pairwise orthogonal, i.e. $$\begin{gathered}
\label{discr_ortog c}
\l C_{\lambda}(x),C_{\lambda'}(x)\r_M=
\sum_{\substack{i=\overline{1,N}}}|W_{x_i}|C_{\lambda}(x_i)\overline{C_{\lambda'}(x_i)}=
|W_\lambda|\cdot|A_M|\cdot\delta_{\lambda\lambda'},
\\ \label{discr_ortog s}
\l S_{\lambda}(x),S_{\lambda'}(x)\r_M=
|W|\sum_{\substack{i=\overline{1,N}}}S_{\lambda}(x_i)\overline{S_{\lambda'}(x_i)}=
|W|\cdot|A_M|\cdot\delta_{\lambda\lambda'},
\\ \label{discr_ortog e}
\l E_{\lambda}(x),E_{\lambda'}(x)\r_M=
\sum_{\substack{i=\overline{1,N}}}|W_{e\ x_i}|\phi_{\lambda}(x_i)\overline{\phi_{\lambda'}(x_i)}=
|W_{e\ \lambda}|\cdot|A_M|\cdot\delta_{\lambda\lambda'}.\end{gathered}$$ Here $|W_{x_i}|$ and $|W_{e\ x_i}|$ denote the sizes of the orbits of the Weyl group and its even subgroup.
$A_M$ is the $W$-invariant Abelian subgroup of the maximal torus ${\mathbb T}$ of the simple compact group corresponding to $W$ $$\begin{gathered}
A_M:=\{wx|x\in {F_M},\; w\in W\}
\qquad \text{and}\qquad
|A_M|=\sum_{i=1}^{|F_M|}|W_{x_i}|.\end{gathered}$$
Proof of the orthogonality relations can be found in [@MoodyPatera2006].
All necessary data for the computation of the coefficients and discrete scalar products is given in Section \[sec\_algebras\].
$C$-, $S$- and $E$-transforms {#sec_c-s-e-transforms}
=============================
For different fixed $m\in R^n$ the set of exponential functions $\{e^{2\pi i\l m,x\r}$, $x\in R^n\}$ determines continuous and discrete Fourier transforms on ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. In much the same way, the orbit functions (which are a symmetrized version of exponential functions defined in Section \[sec\_orbit-funcs\]) determine an analogue of the Fourier transform.
In this section, we introduce the essentials of the continuous and discrete $C$-, $S$- and $E$-transforms. The discrete transform can be used for the continuous interpolation of values of a function $f(x)$ between its given values on a grid $F_M$.
Continuous transforms {#ssec_cont_transforms}
---------------------
Each continuous function on the fundamental region with continuous derivatives can be expanded as the sum of $C$-, $S$- or $E$-functions. Let $f(x)$ be a function defined on $F$ (or $F_e$ for $E$-functions), then it may be written that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{cont_trans_c}
f(x)=\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in P^+}}c_\lambda C_\lambda(x),
\qquad
c_\lambda=|W_{\lambda}|^{-1}|F|^{-1}\l f(x),C_{\lambda}(x)\r;
\\\label{cont_trans_s}
f(x)=\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in P^{++}}}c_\lambda S_\lambda(x),
\qquad
c_\lambda=|W|^{-1}|F|^{-1}\l f(x),S_{\lambda}(x)\r;
\\\label{cont_trans_e}
f(x)=\sum_{\substack{\lambda\in P_e}}c_\lambda E_\lambda(x),
\qquad
c_\lambda=|W_{e\ \lambda}|^{-1}|F_e|^{-1}\l f(x),E_{\lambda}(x)\r.
$$ Here $\l \cdot,\cdot\r$ denotes the continuous scalar product of (\[def\_cont\_scalar\_product\]). Direct and inverse $C$-, $S$- and $E$-transforms of the function $f(x)$ are in (\[cont\_trans\_c\]), (\[cont\_trans\_s\]) and (\[cont\_trans\_e\]) respectively.
Discrete transforms {#ssec_discr_transforms}
-------------------
Let $\Lambda_M\in P$ be the maximal set of points, such that for any two $\lambda,\lambda'\in\Lambda_M$ the condition of discrete orthogonality holds for any of the families of orbit functions in ((\[discr\_ortog c\]), (\[discr\_ortog s\]) or (\[discr\_ortog e\])).
Then we have the following discrete transforms for the function $f(x)$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{discr_trans_c}
f(x) =\sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda_M} b_\lambda C_\lambda(x),
\quad
x\in F_M,
\qquad
b_\lambda=\frac{\l f,C_\lambda\r_M}{\l C_\lambda,C_\lambda\r_M};
\\ \label{discr_trans_s}
f(x) =\sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda_M} b_\lambda S_\lambda(x),
\quad
x\in F_M,
\qquad
b_\lambda=\frac{\l f,S_\lambda\r_M}{\l S_\lambda,S_\lambda\r_M};
\\\label{discr_trans_e}
f(x) =\sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda_M} b_\lambda E_\lambda(x),
\quad
x\in F_{e\ M},
\qquad
b_\lambda=\frac{\l f,E_\lambda\r_M}{\l E_\lambda,E_\lambda\r_M}.\end{gathered}$$ Here $\l\cdot,\cdot\r_M$ denotes the discrete scalar product given of (\[def\_discr\_scalar\_product\]).
Continuous extensions {#ssec_cont_ext}
---------------------
Once the coefficients $b_\lambda$ of the expansions (\[discr\_trans\_c\]) (\[discr\_trans\_s\]), (\[discr\_trans\_e\]) are calculated, discrete variables $x_i$ in ${F_M}$ may be replaced by continuous variables $x$ in ${F}$ $$\begin{gathered}
f_{cont}(x) :=\sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda_M} b_\lambda C_\lambda(x),
\qquad
x\in F;
\\
f_{cont}(x) :=\sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda_M} b_\lambda S_\lambda(x),
\qquad
x\in F;
\\
f_{cont}(x) :=\sum_{\lambda\in \Lambda_M} b_\lambda E_\lambda(x),
\qquad
x\in F_{e}.\end{gathered}$$ The function $f_{cont}(x)$ smoothly interpolates the values of $f(x_i)$, $i=1,2,\dots,|F_M|$. At the points $x_i$, we have the equality $f_{cont}(x_i)=f(x_i)$.
If we calculate more than one discrete transform on the same grid ${F_M}$ and use the same set of orbit functions $\phi_\lambda(x)$, $\lambda\in\Lambda_M$, then it is reasonable to pre-compute and save the matrix $$\begin{gathered}
B =
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\phi_{\lambda_1}(x_1)}{\l \phi_{\lambda_1}, \phi_{\lambda_1}\r_M} & \hdots & \frac{\phi_{\lambda_1}(x_{|F_M|})}{\l \phi_{\lambda_1}, \phi_{\lambda_1}\r_M}\\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\frac{\phi_{\lambda_n}(x_1)}{\l \phi_{\lambda_n}, \phi_{\lambda_n}\r_M} & \hdots & \frac{\phi_{\lambda_n}(x_N)}{\l \phi_{\lambda_n}, \phi_{\lambda_n}\r_M}
\end{pmatrix}.\end{gathered}$$ This would save valuable computation time, especially for large $M$, since the coefficients $b_\lambda$ are easily calculated as a matrix product $\overrightarrow{b}=B\cdot \overrightarrow{f}^t$.
Moreover, the matrix $B$ does not depend on the function that is to be expanded into series, therefore it need be calculated only once for each $M$ and can be repeatedly used.
Concluding remarks {#sec_conclusions}
==================
- Each of the transforms described here is based on a compact semisimple Lie group of rank 3. All seven types of such Lie groups were considered. Our goal was to provide the tools for the expansion of functions of 3 variables given on a bounded region $D$ of an Euclidean space ${{\mathbb R}}^3$. The variables can be either continuous or discrete (lattice grid points). The symmetry of the lattice is the Weyl group of the Lie group. The bounded region $D$ has to be scaled to fit into the fundamental region $F$ of the corresponding Lie group. In case of functions given on a lattice grid, the scaling has to be accompanied with the matching density of the grid points in $F$. Fortunately, the formalism admits choosing any density one may need. The scaling resulting in the inclusion $D\subset F$ is not unique. Various options may be considered for specific functions.
![One of the possible applications of orbit functions is the construction of unknown transitional data (smooth interpolation). Fig. \[interpolation\] shows how additional frames could be added to a film. In much the same way, the continuous deformation of the picture can be proceed and a 3-dimensional image can be created from corresponding 2-dimensional layers or cuts. []{data-label="interpolation"}](interpolation5a)
- The uncommon special functions of our transforms are defined for compact semisimple Lie groups of any type and rank [@patera2005]. Their continuous and discrete orthogonality in $F$ is assured [@MoodyPatera2006]. Unlike the translation symmetry required in traditional Fourier expansions, the symmetry group of $C$-, $S$-, and $E$-functions is the appropriate affine Weyl group, which contains the translations in ${{\mathbb R}}^3$ as a subgroup.
- The uniformity of our approach, as to the type of the rank 3 Lie group, is illustrated here by considering the seven cases in parallel. The price paid for uniformity is the exploitation of non-orthogonal bases, $\alpha$, $\omega$-bases and their duals whenever necessary. The majority of practically useful digital data usually given on cubic/square lattices with the simplest symmetry group. Only more costly experimental installations may use denser lattice arrangements of data collectors.
It should be pointed out that, at least for one type of transform, it is possible to avoid paying the price i.e. of having to work with orthonormal bases. The Weyl group of $SU(n)$ is isomorphic to the permutation group $S_n$ of $n$ elements. Recently introduced transforms [@KlimykPatera2007-2; @KlimykPatera2007-3; @KP2008; @KP6], based on $S_n$ and on its alternating subgroup, exploit orthonormal bases in ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, although even there, the corresponding fundamental regions do not have orthogonal adjacent faces, in general.
- There is an additional freedom of choice whenever the underlying Lie group is not simple. Suppose that group is a product of two simple Lie groups, $G^1\times G^2$. The fundamental region is then the Cartesian product of $F(G^1)$ and $F(G^2)$.
For the expansion of class functions on the product group, we can combine $C$-functions on one with $S$-functions on the other. Similarly, we can combine $C$- or $S$-functions with $E$-functions, enlarging appropriately the fundamental region of the $E$-functions.
In much the same way, discretization can proceed differently on $F(G^1)$ then on $F(G^2)$. The corresponding integers $M_1$, $M_2$ that fix it can be as different as one desires. Thus the density of grid points in $F(G^1)\times F(G^2)$ may be very different on the two orthogonal components.
- A number of other properties of the orbit functions may prove to be useful (see [@KlimykPatera2006; @KlimykPatera2007-1; @KP3] and references therein). Let us point out that each of the three types of functions split into mutually exclusive congruence classes. For a given semisimple Lie group, the number of congruence classes equals the order of the center of the Lie group.
- The possibility to introduce the $C$-, $S$-, and $E$-functions by summation over a finite noncrystallographic Coxeter groups instead of the Weyl group of a Lie group appears to be rather interesting. In 3D there is just one such group $H_3$, the icosahedral group of order 120. Most of the properties carry over to this case in a simple straightforward way. The exception is the orthogonality, continuous or discrete. There is an analog of the fundamental region, but no lattice. Its role, perhaps, should be played by some quasicrystal?
Example of $C$-transform on $A_1\times A_1\times A_1$
=====================================================
As an example, we chose to interpolate a discretization of a known function, namely the Gaussian function shown in equation (\[eq\_gauss\]) $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_gauss}
g(x) = e^{-(x-p)^2} = e^{-(x-p)\cdot(x-p)},\quad x\in {{\mathbb R}}^3,\end{gathered}$$ where $p\in F(A_1\times A_1\times A_1)$ is a fixed point inside the fundamental region.
The first test to be undertaken is to sample the function in the points of the grid $F_M$ for several values of $M$. The continuous extension of $g(x)$, calculated from points of $F_M$, is $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_c-transform}
T(x) = \sum_{\lambda\in P} b_\lambda C_\lambda(x),
\quad \text{with} \quad
b_\lambda = \frac{\l g, C_\lambda\r}{\l C_\lambda, C_\lambda\r}.\end{gathered}$$ For different values of $M$, Fig. \[figError\]a represents the error, as defined by the integral $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_error}
\int_{F} \left| T(x)-g(x)\right|d F.\end{gathered}$$ The integral (24) was calculated using a simple Monte Carlo method with 10000 randomly chosen points. We made sure that the granularity of the randomly generated points was much higher than that of the grid $F_M$.
![a) the error (\[eq\_error\]) of the $C$-transform (\[eq\_c-transform\]) as function of $M$; b) the standard deviation of the difference between the Gaussian function (\[eq\_gauss\]) and its interpolation (\[eq\_c-transform\]) as function of $M$.[]{data-label="figError"}](error.eps)
Fig. \[figError\]b shows the standard deviation of the sample set. It decreases in much the same way the error did in function of $M$. As a means to show what takes place visually, we give a plot of $T$ as compared to $g$ on the parametric line given by the transformation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_parametrization}
L \colon {{\mathbb R}}\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^3,\quad
k \shortmid\!\xrightarrow{L}(k,k,k).\end{gathered}$$ Fig. \[cut1d\]a and Fig. \[cut1d\]b show the comparison between $T\left( L(k)\right)$ and $g\left( L(k)\right)$ for $k\in [0,1]$, with $M=4$ and $M=10$, respectively. As seen when comparing Figs. \[cut1d\]a and \[cut1d\]b, the degree of oscillation increases as $M$ increases, but the total error decreases. This is exactly as one would expect.
![Comparison of $T\left( L(k)\right)$ (\[eq\_c-transform\]) with $g\left( L(k)\right)$ for $k\in [0,1]$ (\[eq\_parametrization\]), with $M=4$ (a) and $M=10$ (b).[]{data-label="cut1d"}](cut1d.eps)
Consider two-dimensional cuts on the parametric surface given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq_parametrization2}
S \colon {{\mathbb R}}^2 \rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^3,\quad
(k,l) \shortmid\!\xrightarrow{L}(k+l,k+k,k+l)\quad
\text{with}\; k\in [0,\tfrac{1}{2}]\quad \text{and}\; l\in [0,\tfrac{1}{2}].\end{gathered}$$
A two dimensional cut from the graphs of $g$ is presented in Fig. \[gauss3d\]. Figs. \[surface\]a and \[surface\]b are two dimensional cuts from the graphs of $T$ with $M=4$ and $M=10$, respectively.
![Two dimensional cut (\[eq\_parametrization2\]) of the Gaussian function $g\left( S(k,l)\right)$.[]{data-label="gauss3d"}](gauss3d.eps)
![Two dimensional cut (\[eq\_parametrization2\]) of the interpolation $T\left( S(k,l)\right)$ for $M=4$ (a) and $M=10$ (b).[]{data-label="surface"}](surface.eps)
In the case of $A1\times A1\times A1$ (as well as in the other cases, albeit less trivially), the set of pairwise orthogonal functions is not unique, i.e. one can scale all $\lambda\in P$ by integer multiplier $s\cdot(a,b,c)$ with $(a,b,c)\in{{\mathbb Z}}^3, s\in {{\mathbb Z}}$. This leads to a shifted system of orbit functions, that take the exact same values on the discrete grid $F_M$, but do in fact differ in their continuous behavior. Such a shifted system of functions can be understood as higher harmonics of the original functions on the grid $F_M$.
Examples with original and shifted systems of orbit functions follow. Fig. \[harmonics\]a shows $g$ and $T$ with $M=6$, for $T$ computed using the fundamental set of $C$-functions and Fig. \[harmonics\]b shows the same graph, but for a $T$ that was computed using the set of $C$-functions shifted by a factor of $(M,0,0)$.
![Comparison between $g\left( L(k)\right)$ and $T\left( L(k)\right)$ (\[eq\_c-transform\]) computed using the fundamental set of $C$-functions (a) or computed using the shifted by a factor $(M,0,0)$ set of $C$-functions (b) for $k\in [0,1]$ (\[eq\_parametrization\]), with $M=6$.[]{data-label="harmonics"}](harmonics.eps)
The result is enlightening. The case using the shifted set of orbit functions exhibits a degree of error far above what could be tolerated, due to the fact that the higher harmonics of the $C$-functions, as expected, oscillate more. This derogatory result should not, however, dismiss the use of such higher harmonics. The Gaussian function extrapolated here is very smooth, and should thus be extrapolated with a sum of smoother functions. But in real life applications, the data could be quite chaotic, thus the use of higher harmonics could be useful.
It is also possible not to shift the entire set, but only a specific subset, and at that, not all should be shifted by the same factor. Careful consideration must be taken, because the functions do not obey the simplistic rule that a shifted function is equal to its counterpart. In fact, the set of adjacent functions is paired according to a reflective symmetry, but not according to translation symmetry.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
Work supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the MIND Research Institute, by MITACS, and by Lockheed Martin Canada. We are grateful for the hospitality extended to us at the Centre de recherches mathématiques, Université de Montréal (M.N.) and at the Aspen Center for Physics (J.P.) where most of this work was done.
[99]{} Agbinya J.I., Two dimensional interpolation of real sequences using the DCT *Electronic Lett.* 1993, [**29**]{}, 204–205.
Bourbaki N., Lie groups and Lie algebras. Chapters 1–3 Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1989.
Germain M. and Patera J., Cosine Transform Generalized to Lie Groups $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ and $O(5)$: Application to Textural Image Analysis [*IEEE CCECE*]{} 2006, Ottawa 2006;\
Germain M. and Patera J., Multiresolution Analysis of Digital Images using the Continuous Extension of Discrete Group Transforms [*SPIE Conf. on Electronic Imaging*]{}, San Jose, 2006, 6065-47, S12;\
Grimm S. and Patera J., Decomposition of tensor products of the fundamental representations of $E_8$ in [*Advances in Mathematical Sciences – CRM’s 25 Years*]{} ed. L. Vinet, CRM Proc. Lecture Notes, vol. 11, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997, pp. 329–355.
Humphreys J.E., Introduction to Lie algebras and representation theory, New York, Springer, 1972.
Kashuba I. and Patera J., Discrete and continuous exponential transforms of simple Lie groups of rank two *J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*, 2007, **40**, 4751–4774; math-ph/0702016.
Kass S., Moody R.V., Patera J., Slansky R., Affine Lie algebras, weight multiplicities, and branching rules, Vol.1 and Vol.2 Los Alamos Series in Basic and Applied Sciences, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1990.
Klimyk A. and Patera J., Orbit functions *SIGMA* **2** paper 006, 60 pages, math-ph/0601037.
Klimyk A. and Patera J., Antisymmetric orbit functions *SIGMA* **3** paper 023, 83 pages, math-ph/0702040v1.
Klimyk A. and Patera J., $E$-orbit functions, *SIGMA* **4** paper 002, 57 pages, arXiv:0801.0822v1.
Klimyk A. and Patera J., (Anti)symmetric multidimensional trigonometric functions and the corresponding Fourier transforms *J. Math. Phys.*, 2007, **48**, 093504, 24 pages; arXiv:0705.4186v1.
Klimyk A. and Patera J., (Anti)symmetric multidimensional exponential functions and the corresponding Fourier transforms *J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*, 2007, **40**, 10473–10489; arXiv:0705.3572v1.
Klimyk A. and Patera J., Alternating multivariate trigonometric functions and corresponding Fourier transfdorms, *J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*, 2008, [**41**]{}, 145205 (16pp).
Klimyk A U and Patera J Alternating group and multivariate exponential functions, in: “Groups and Symmetries; from the Neolithic Scots to John McKay”, AMS-CRM Proceedings and Lectures Notes Series (eds. J. Harnad and P. Winternitz), to appear (2008).
Macdonald I.G., Symmetric functions and Hull polynomials, Oxford University Press, 1995.
Moody R.V. and Patera J., Computation of character decompositions of class functions on compact semisimple Lie groups [*Mathematics of Computation*]{}, 1987, [**48**]{}, 799-827.
Moody R.V. and Patera J., Voronoi domains and dual cells in the generalized kaleidoscope with applications to root and weight lattices (dedicated to H. S. M. Coxeter), [*Can. J. Math.*]{}, 1995, [**47**]{}, 573–605.
Moody R.V. and Patera J., Orthogonality within the families of $C$-, $S$-, and $E$-functions of any compact semisimple Lie group *SIGMA* **2** paper 076, 14 pages, math-ph/0611020.
Patera J., Compact simple Lie groups and theirs $C$-, $S$-, and $E$-transforms *SIGMA* **1** paper 025, 6 pages, math-ph/0512029.
Vinberg É.B., Onishchik A.L., Lie groups and Lie algebras-2 VINITI, 1988 (in russian).
Wang Z., Interpolation using type I discrete cosine transform *Electronic Lett.* 1990, [**26**]{}, 1170-1171.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Zero-shot learning (ZSL) aims to recognize instances of unseen classes solely based on the semantic descriptions of the classes. Existing algorithms usually formulate it as a semantic-visual correspondence problem, by learning mappings from one feature space to the other. Despite being reasonable, previous approaches essentially discard the highly precious discriminative power of visual features in an implicit way, and thus produce undesirable results. We instead reformulate ZSL as a conditioned visual classification problem, i.e., classifying visual features based on the classifiers learned from the semantic descriptions. With this reformulation, we develop algorithms targeting various ZSL settings: For the conventional setting, we propose to train a deep neural network that directly generates visual feature classifiers from the semantic attributes with an episode-based training scheme; For the generalized setting, we concatenate the learned highly discriminative classifiers for seen classes and the generated classifiers for unseen classes to classify visual features of all classes; For the transductive setting, we exploit unlabeled data to effectively calibrate the classifier generator using a novel learning-without-forgetting self-training mechanism and guide the process by a robust generalized cross-entropy loss. Extensive experiments show that our proposed algorithms significantly outperform state-of-the-art methods by large margins on most benchmark datasets in all the ZSL settings.'
author:
- |
Kai Li$^{1}$, Martin Renqiang Min$^{2}$, Yun Fu$^{1,3}$\
$^1$Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, USA\
$^2$NEC Laboratories America\
$^3$Khoury College of Computer Science, Northeastern University, Boston, USA\
[[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: 'Rethinking Zero-Shot Learning: A Conditional Visual Classification Perspective'
---
Introduction
============
Deep learning methods have achieved revolutionary successes on many tasks in computer vision owing to the availability of abundant labeled training data [@zhang2019rnan; @zhang2019mst; @li2018support; @li2019attnbn; @li2019gain; @li2019vsr]. However, labeling large-scale training data for each task is both labor-intensive and unscalable. Inspired by human’s remarkable abilities to recognize instances of unseen classes solely based on class descriptions without seeing any visual example of such classes, researchers have extensively studied an image classification setting similar to the human learning called zero-shot learning (ZSL) [@xian2018zero; @schwartz2018delta; @li2018discriminative; @song2018selective], in which labeled training images of seen classes and semantic descriptions of both seen classes and unseen classes are given and the task is to classify test images into seen and unseen classes.
Existing approaches usually formulate ZSL as a visual-semantic correspondence problem and learn the visual-semantic relationship from seen classes and apply it to unseen classes, considering that the seen and unseen classes are related in the semantic space [@akata2015evaluation; @zhang2017learning; @kodirov2015unsupervised]. These methods usually project either visual features or semantic features from one space to the other, or alternatively project both types of features to an intermediate embedding space. In the shared embedding space, the associations between the two types of features are utilized to guide the learning of the projection functions.
However, these methods fail to recognize the tremendous efforts in obtaining these discriminative visual features over a large number of classes through training powerful deep neural network classifiers with a huge amount of computational and data resources, and thus essentially discard the highly precious discriminative power of visual features in an implicit way. In details, on one hand, the visual features used in most ZSL methods are extracted by some powerful deep neural networks (e.g., ResNet101) trained on large-scale datasets (e.g., ImageNet) [@xian2016latent]. These visual features are already highly discriminative; reprojecting them to any space shall impair the discriminability, especially to a lower dimensional space, because the dimension reduction usually significantly shrinks data variance. It is surprising that the majority of existing ZSL approaches try to transform the visual feature vectors in various ways [@li2018discriminative; @song2018selective; @kodirov2015unsupervised]. On the other hand, by nature of classification problems, the competition information among different classes are crucial for classification performance. But many ZSL approaches ignore the class separation information during training due to focusing on learning the associations between visual and semantic features, and fail to realize that ZSL is essentially a classification problem [@zhang2017learning].
Inspired by the above observations, we propose to solve ZSL in a novel conditional visual feature classification framework. In the proposed framework, we effectively generate visual feature classifiers from the semantic attributes, and thus intrinsically preserve the visual feature discriminability while exploiting the competing information among different classes. Within the novel framework, we propose various novel strategies to address different ZSL problems.
For the conventional ZSL problem where only unseen classes are involved for evaluations, we propose to train a deep neural network that generates visual feature classifiers directly from the semantic attributes. We train the network with a Cosine similarity based cross-entropy loss, which mitigates the impact of variances of features from two different domains when calculating their correlations. Borrowing ideas from meta-learning, we train our model in an episode-based way by composing numerous “fake” new ZSL tasks, so that its generalizability to “real” new ZSL tasks during test is enhanced. For the generalized setting in which seen classes are included for ZSL evaluations, we concatenate the classifiers for seen classes and unseen classes to classify visual features for all classes. Since the classifiers for seen classes are trained with labeled samples, they are highly discriminative to discern whether an incoming image belongs to the seen classes or not. This desirable property prevents our method from significant performance drops when much more classes are involved for evaluations. For the transductive setting in which images of unseen classes are available during training [@song2018transductive], we take advantage of these unlabeled data to calibrate our classifier generator using the pseudo labels generated by itself. To limit the harm of incorrect pseudo labels and avoid the model being over-adapted to new classes, we propose to use the generalized cross-entropy loss to guide the model calibration process under an effective learning-without-forgetting training scheme.
In summary, our contributions are as follows:
- We reformulate ZSL as a conditional visual classification problem, by which we can essentially benefit from high discriminability of visual features and inter-class competing information among training classes to solve ZSL problem in various settings.
- We propose various effective techniques to address different ZSL problems uniformly within the proposed framework.
- Experiments show that our algorithms significantly outperform state-of-the-art methods by large margins on most benchmark datasets in all the ZSL settings.
The contributions of this paper are as follows.
- We formulate ZSL as a conditional visual classification problem by which we can effectively utilize the high discriminability of visual features and take advantage of the separation information among different classes. This formulation facilitate us to develop effective algorithms for various ZSL settings.
- We propose to deep ZSL model which generate visual feature classifiers directly from the attributes. We train the model in a episode-based way under a cosine similarity based corss-entropy loss, which limits the variance of features from two different domains and enhance the model generalibility.
- We extend the deep ZSL model for the transductive setting by effectively utilizing the unlabeled data for calibration the model toward unseen classes under a novel train-without-forgetting scheme.
- The proposed method reaches significant performance gains over the state-of-the-art methods for all the ZSL setting on most benchmark datasets.
Related Work
============
Zero-Shot Learning (ZSL) aims to recognize unseen classes based on their semantic associations with seen classes. The semantic associations could be within the human-annotated attributes [@song2018transductive; @morgado2017semantically; @annadani2018preserving], word vectors [@frome2013devise; @zhang2017learning; @changpinyo2017predicting], text descriptions [@lei2015predicting; @yizhe_zsl_2017], etc. In practice, ZSL is performed by firstly learning an embedding space where semantic vectors and visual features are interacted. Then, within the learned embedding space, the best match among semantic vectors of unseen classes is selected for the visual features of any given image of the unseen classes.
According to the embedding space used, existing methods can be generally categorized into the following three groups. Some approaches select semantic space as embedding space and project visual features to semantic space [@lampert2014attribute; @frome2013devise]. Projecting visual features into a often much lower-dimensional semantic space shall shrink the variance of the projected data points and thus aggravate the hubness problem, i.e., some candidates will be biased to be the best matches to many of the queries. Alternatively, some methods project both visual and semantic features into a common intermediate space [@akata2015evaluation; @yang2018learning; @zhang2015zero]. However, due to the lack of training samples from unseen classes, these methods are prone to classifying test samples into seen classes [@romera2015embarrassingly]. The third category of methods choose the visual space as the embedding space and learn a mapping from the semantic space to visual space [@zhang2017learning]. Benefiting from the abundant data diversity in visual space, these methods can mitigate the hubness problem to some extent.
Recently, a new branch of methods come out and approach ZSL in virtue of data augmentation, either by variational auto-encoder (VAE) [@mishra2018generative] or Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) [@chen2018zero; @xian2018feature; @felix2018multi; @zhu2018generative; @yizhe_abp_2019]. These methods learn from visual and semantic features of seen classes and produce generators that can generate synthesized visual features based on class semantic descriptions. Then, synthesized visual features are used to train a standard classifier for object recognition.
ZSL may turn easier when unlabelled test samples are available during training, i.e., the so-called transductive ZSL. This is because unlabelled test samples can be utilized to help reach clearer decision boundaries for both seen and unseen classes. In fact, it is more like a semi-supervised learning problem. Propagated Semantic Transfer (PST) [@rohrbach2013transfer] conducts label propagation from seen classes to unseen classes through exploiting the class manifold structure. Unsupervised Domain Adaption (UDA) [@kodirov2015unsupervised] formulates the problem as a cross-domain data association problem and solves it by regularized sparse coding. Quasi-Fully Supervised Learning (QFSL) [@song2018transductive] aims to strength the mapping from visual space to semantic space by explicitly requiring the visual features being mapped to the categories (seen and unseen) they belong.
Unlike the above methods, we approach ZSL from the perspective of conditioned visual feature classification. Perhaps most similar to our algorithms are [@lei2015predicting; @wang2018zero], which approach ZSL also by generating classifiers. However, [@lei2015predicting] projects visual features to a lower dimensional space, harming discriminability of the visual features. [@wang2018zero] uses graph convolutional network to model the semantic relationships and output classifiers. However, it requires categorical relationship as additional inputs. We instead generate classifiers directly from attributes by a deep neural network and train the model with a novel cosine similarity based cross-entropy loss. Besides, neither of the two methods uses episode-based training to enhance model adaptability to novel classes. Moreover, they are only feasible for the conventional ZSL setting, while our method is flexible for various ZSL settings.
Method
======
Zero-shot learning (ZSL) is to recognize objects of unseen classes given only semantic descriptions of the classes. Formally, suppose we have three sets of data $\mathcal{D}=\{\mathcal{D}_s, \mathcal{D}_a, \mathcal{D}_u\}$, where $\mathcal{D}_s=\{\mathcal{X}_s, \mathcal{Y}_s\}$ and $\mathcal{D}_u=\{\mathcal{X}_u, \mathcal{Y}_u\}$ are training and test sets, respectively. $\mathcal{X}_s$ and $\mathcal{X}_u$ are the images, while $\mathcal{Y}_s$ and $\mathcal{Y}_u$ the corresponding labels. There is no overlap between training classes and test classes, i.e., $\mathcal{Y}_s \cap \mathcal{Y}_u=\emptyset$. The goal of ZSL is to learn transferable information from $\mathcal{D}_s$ that can be used to classify unseen classes from $\mathcal{D}_u$, with the help of semantic descriptions $\mathcal{D}_a=\mathcal{A}_s\cup\mathcal{A}_u$ for both seen ($\mathcal{A}_s$) and unseen ($\mathcal{A}_u$) classes. $\mathcal{D}_a$ can be human-annotated class attributes [@xian2018feature] or articles describing the classes [@yizhe_zsl_2018].
We solve ZSL in a conditional visual feature classification framework. Specifically, we predict the possibility $p(y|\textbf{x}; \textbf{a}_y)$ of an image $\textbf{x}$ belonging to class $y$ given the semantic description $\textbf{a}_y$ of the class, where $y\in\mathcal{Y}_u$ in the standard setting, while $y\in\mathcal{Y}_s\cup\mathcal{Y}_u$ in the generalized setting. When $\mathcal{X}_u$ is available during training, we call the problem transductive ZSL. For convenience, sometimes we call the setting inductive ZSL where $\mathcal{X}_u$ is unavailable.
Zero-Shot Learning
------------------
By approaching ZSL in virtue of visual classification conditioned on attributes, we need to generate visual feature classifiers from the attributes. We achieve this by learning a deep neural network $f$ which takes a semantic feature vector of a class as input and outputs the classifier weight vector for the class. Since the model $f$ is going to generate classifiers for novel classes when tested, we adopt the episode-based training mechanism, an effective and popular technique in meta-learning [@vinyals2016matching; @finn2017model; @li2019on], to mimic this scenario during training. The key to episode-based training is to sample in each mini-batch a “fake” new task that matches the scenario where the model is tested. This process is called an episode. The goal is to expose the model with numerous “fake” new tasks during training, such that it can generalize better for real new tasks when tested. To construct a ZSL episode, we randomly sample from $\mathcal{D}_t=\{\mathcal{X}_t, \mathcal{Y}_t\}$ and $\mathcal{A}_t$ a ZSL task $\mathcal{T}=\{\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{A}\}$ where $\mathcal{V}=\{\textbf{x}_{i, j}\}^{N}_{i=1}, y_j\}^{M}_{j=1}$ contains samples for $M$ classes, $N$ samples per classes. Note for each sample $(\textbf{x}_{i, j}, y_j)$, we dismiss its global (dataset-wise) label and replace it with a local (minibatch-wise) label (i.e., $y_j\in\{1, 2, \cdots, M\}$), while still maintaining the class separation (samples of the same global label still with the same local label). This is to cut off the connections across tasks induced by the shared global label pool, so that each mini-batch is treated as a new task. $\mathcal{A}= \{\textbf{a}_1, \textbf{a}_2, \cdots, \textbf{a}_M\}$ is the associated $M$ attribute vectors.
For each task $\mathcal{T}=\{\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{A}\}$, $f$ generates a classifier for the $M$ sampled classes as $$\mathbf{W} = f(\mathcal{A}).
\label{weight_generation} \\$$ With the classifier $\mathbf{W}$, we can calculate classification scores of visual features from $\mathcal{V}$. Rather than using the extensively used dot product, we use cosine similarity.
**Algorithm 1.** Proposed ZSL approach
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Input:** Training set $\mathcal{D}_s=\{\mathcal{X}_s, \mathcal{Y}_s\}$ and attributes $\mathcal{A}_s$.
**Output:** Classifier weight generation network $f$
**while** not done **do**
1\. Randomly sample from $\mathcal{D}_s$ and $\mathcal{A}_s$ a ZSL task
$\mathcal{T}=\{\mathcal{V}, \mathcal{A}\}$, where $\mathcal{V}=\{\{\textbf{x}_{i, j}\}^{N}_{i=1}, y_j\}^{M}_{j=1}$
and $\mathcal{A}=\{\textbf{a}_j\}^{M}_{j=1}$.
2\. Calculate loss according to Eq.
3\. Update $f$ through back-propagation.
**end while**
**Cosine similarity based classification score function**. Traditional multi-layer neural networks use dot product between the output vector of previous layer and the incoming weight vector as the input to activation function. [@luo2017cosine; @gidaris2018dynamic] recently showed that replacing the dot product with cosine similarity can bound and reduce the variance of the neurons and thus result in models of better generalization. Considering that we are trying to calculate the correlation between data from two dramatically different domains, especially for the attribute domain in which the features are discontinuous and have high variances. Using cosine similarity shall mitigate the harmful effect of the high variances and bring us desirable Softmax activations. With this consideration, we define our classification score function as $$p(y=i|\textbf{x}) = \frac{\exp(\sigma\cos(\mathbf{w}_i, \mathbf{x}))}{\sum_{j=1}^N \exp(\sigma\cos(\mathbf{w}_j, \mathbf{x}))},
\label{probability}$$ where $\sigma$ is a learnable scalar controlling the peakiness of the probability distribution generated by the Softmax operator. $\mathbf{w}_i$ is the classifier weight vector for class $i$.
With this definition, the loss of a typical ZSL task $\mathcal{T}$ is defined as follows, $$\begin{array}{cl}
\mathcal{L} & = \sum_{(\textbf{x},y)\in\mathcal{T}}\big[-\sigma\cos(\mathbf{w}_i,
\mathbf{x}) + \\
& \log(\sum_{j=1}^N\exp(\sigma\cos(\mathbf{w}_j, \mathbf{x})))\big] + \lambda\|\phi\|_2,
\end{array}
\label{obj1}$$ where $\lambda$ is a hyper-parameter weighting the $l_2$-norm regularization of the learnable parameters of neural network $f_{\phi}$.
**Algorithm 1** outlines our training procedures.
Generalized Zero-Shot Learning
------------------------------
With the learned classifier generator $f$, given attributes of unseen classes $\mathcal{A}_u$ in the test stage, we generate the corresponding classifier weights $\mathbf{W}_u=f(\mathcal{A}_u)$ and use them to classify visual features of unseen classes $\mathcal{X}_u$ according to Eq. . When both seen and unseen classes are involved for evaluations, i.e., the generalized ZSL setting, we combine the classifiers for both seen and unseen classes to classify images from all classes. Specifically, with $\mathcal{A}_u$ and $\mathcal{A}_s$, we can get classifiers $\mathbf{W}_u=f(\mathcal{A}_u)$ and $\mathbf{W}_s=f(\mathcal{A}_s)$ for unseen and seen classes, respectively. We use their concatenation $\textbf{W}_b=[\mathbf{W}_u, \mathbf{W}_s]$ as the classifier for all classes. It is worth noting that since $f$ has already been trained with labeled samples, the resulting $\mathbf{W}_s$ should be very discriminative to discern whether an incoming image belongs to the seen classes or not. As will be shown later in the experiments, this desirable property prevents our method from significant recognition accuracy drops when much more classes are involved for evaluations.
Transductive Zero-Shot Learning
-------------------------------
Thanks to the conditional visual classification formulation of ZSL, the above inductive approach can be readily adapted to the transductive ZSL setting. We can utilize test data during training to calibrate our classifier generator and output classifiers of better decision boundaries for both seen and unseen classes. We achieve this in virtue of self-training. Specifically, we alternate between generating pseudo labels for images of unseen classes using the classifier generator and updating it using the generated pseudo labels. With this idea, two key problems need to be solved. The first is how to prevent the generator from over-adapting to unseen classes such that the knowledge previously learned from seen classes is lost, resulting in unsatisfactory performance for seen classes. The second is how to avoid the generator being impaired by the incorrect pseudo labels. We propose a novel self-training based transductive ZSL algorithm to avoid both problems. Figure \[trans\] illustrates our algorithm.
To generate pseudo labels for test images $\mathcal{X}_u$, we first generate classifier weights $\textbf{W}_u$ for unseen classes as $$\mathbf{W}_u=f(\mathcal{A}_u).
\label{weight_unseen}$$ With $\mathbf{W}_u$, we calculate classification score $\textbf{S}$ of $\mathcal{X}_u$ according to Eq. $\eqref{probability}$. Pseudo labels $\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}_u$ of $\mathcal{X}_u$ can be obtained from $\textbf{S}$. There inevitably exist noises among $\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}_u$. We propose to mitigate their impact by a novel classification score peakiness based filtering strategy. Let $\textbf{s}^i \in \mathbb{R}^{N_u}$ be the classification score of $\textbf{u}_i\in\mathcal{X}_u$ according to all the $N_u$ classes. Let $s^i_{y_m}$ and $s^i_{y_n}$ be the highest and second highest score among $\textbf{s}^i$. The pseudo label assigned to $\textbf{u}_i$ should be ${y_m}$. However, we regard this assignment as a “confident” one unless $s^i_{y_m}$ is peaky enough: $$\frac{s^i_{y_m}}{s^i_{y_n}} > \gamma,
\label{peakiness}$$ where $\gamma$ is a threshold controlling the peakiness. This constraint prevents ambiguous label assignment from being exploited for classifier generator calibration.
![Illustration of the transductive ZSL algorithm. We sample ZSL tasks $\mathcal{T}_s$ from seen classes and $\mathcal{T}_u$ from unseen classes (with pseudo labels). The classifier $\textbf{W}_u$ generated from $\textbf{A}_u$ are concatenated with classifier $\textbf{W}_s$ to classify visual features from both $\mathcal{T}_u$ and $\mathcal{T}_s$, which results in loss $\mathcal{L}_u$ and $\mathcal{L}_s$, respectively. The pseudo labels for unseen classes are updated in a self-training way. []{data-label="trans"}](./figs/trans.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
After obtaining the confident set $\hat{\mathcal{D}}_u=\{\hat{\mathcal{X}}_u, \hat{\mathcal{Y}}_u\}$, as well as the the corresponding attributes $\hat{\mathcal{A}}_u$, we can use them to adjust $f$. However, finetuning $f$ with only $\hat{\mathcal{D}}_u$ shall cause strong bias towards unseen classes such that the knowledge previously acquired about seen classes will be forgotten after a few iterations. What is worse, the incorrect pseudo labels among $\hat{\mathcal{Y}}_s$ may damage $f$ when they are of a high portion. We propose a novel learning-without-forgetting training scheme to avoid this.
Along with sampling a ZSL task $\mathcal{T}_u$ from ($\hat{\mathcal{D}}_u$, $\hat{\mathcal{A}}_u$) to calibrate $f$ to unseen classes, we sample another ZSL task $\mathcal{T}_s$ from ($\mathcal{D}_s$, $\mathcal{A}_s$) to keep the memory of $f$ to seen classes and dilute the impact of noisy labels from $\mathcal{T}_u$. Further, while updating $f$, we update as well classifier $\mathbf{W}_s$ to adjust the decision boundaries of seen classes towards unseen ones.
**Algorithm 2.** Proposed approach for transductive ZSL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Input:** Training set $\mathcal{D}_s=\{\mathcal{X}_s, \mathcal{Y}_s\}$, attribute set
$\mathcal{D}_a=\mathcal{A}_s\cup\mathcal{A}_u$, and test images $\mathcal{X}_u$, parameters $\gamma$ and $q$
**Output:** Class label $\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}_u$ of $\mathcal{X}_u$, weight generator $f$,
classifier weight $\textbf{W}_s$ for seen classes.
1\. Obtain $f$ with $\mathcal{D}_s$ and $\mathcal{A}_s$ using **Algorithm 1**.
2\. Obtain $\textbf{W}_s=f(\mathcal{A}_s)$.
**for** $r =1, 2, ... N_r$ **do**
3\. Calculate classifier weights for unseen classes
$\textbf{W}_u=f(\mathcal{A}_u)$.
4\. Generate pseudo labels $\tilde{\mathcal{Y}}_u$ for $\mathcal{X}_u$ according to Eq. .
5\. Select confident test set $\hat{\mathcal{D}}_u=\{\hat{\mathcal{X}}_u, \hat{\mathcal{Y}}_u\}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{A}}_u$
based on Eq. .
**for** $i =1, 2, ... N_i$ **do**
6\. Sample ZSL tasks $\mathcal{T}_s$ from ($\mathcal{D}_s$, $\mathcal{A}_s$), and
$\mathcal{T}_u$ from ($\hat{\mathcal{D}}_u$ $\hat{\mathcal{A}}_u$).
7\. Calculate loss according to Eq. .
8\. Update $f$ and $\textbf{W}_s$ through back-propagation.
**end while**
**end while**
Moreover, we introduce the very recently proposed generalized cross-entropy loss [@zhang2018generalized] to handle task $\mathcal{T}_u$ and limit the impact of incorrect pseudo labels to the classifier weight generator: $$\mathcal{L}_u = \sum_{(\textbf{x}_u, y_u)\in\mathcal{T}_u} \frac{1-(\textbf{w}_{y_u})^q}{q},
\label{loss_q}$$ where $\textbf{w}_{y_u}$ is the possibility of $\textbf{x}_u$ belonging to class ${y_u}$, which is calculated according to Eq. . $q\in$ (0,1\] is a hyper-parameter of which a higher value is preferred when the noise level is high. It can be shown that Eq. turns to Eq. when $q$ infinitely approaches 0. On the other hand, it turns to the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) loss when $q=1$. Cross-entropy loss is powerful for classification tasks but noise-sensitive, while MAE loss performs worse for conventional classification task but is robust to noisy labels. Tuning $q$ between 0 and 1 fits different noise levels.
By handling $\mathcal{T}_u$ with generalized cross-entropy loss and $\mathcal{T}_s$ with conventional cross-entropy loss, our loss function for the transductive ZSL is as follows: $$\mathcal{L}(\phi, \textbf{W}_s) = \mathcal{L}_u + \mathcal{L}_s,
\label{obj_gzsl}$$ where $\mathcal{L}_s$ is defined in Eq . **Algorithm 2** outlines the training procedures.
Experiments
===========
Datasets and Evaluation Settings
--------------------------------
We employ the most widely-used zero-shot learning datasets for performance evaluation, namely, CUB [@welinder2010caltech] AwA1 [@lampert2014attribute], AwA2 [@xian2018zero], SUN [@patterson2012sun] and aPY [@farhadi2009describing]. The statistics of the datasets are shown in Table \[Table\_stat\]. We follow the GBU setting proposed in [@xian2018zero] and evaluate both the conventional ZSL setting and the generalized ZSL (GZSL) setting. In the conventional ZSL, test samples are restricted to the unseen classes, while in GZSL, they may come from either seen classes or unseen classes. For both settings, we use top-1 (T1) Mean Class Accuracy (MCA) as the evaluation metric in our experiments. For GZSL, we evaluate the MCA for both seen ($S$) and unseen classes ($U$), and also calculate their harmonic mean $H=2*U*S/(U+S)$.
CUB AwA1 AwA2 aPY SUN
-- ---------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- --
\#Seen 150 40 40 20 645
\#Unseen 50 10 10 12 72
2048 2048 2048 2048 2048
312 85 85 312 102
: Information of zero-shot classification datasets.[]{data-label="Table_stat"}
Implementation details
----------------------
Following [@xian2018zero], we use ResNet101 [@he2016deep] trained on ImageNet for feature extraction, which results in a 2048-dimension vector for each input image. The classifier generation model $f$ consists of two pairs of FC+ReLU layers, i.e., FC-ReLU-FC-ReLU, which maps semantic vectors to visual classifier weights. The dimension of the intermediate hidden layer is 1600 for all the five datasets. We train $f$ with Adam optimizer and a learning rate $10^{-5}$ for all datasets by 1,000,000 randomly sample ZSL tasks. Each task consists of 32 randomly sampled classes, 4 samples for each class, i.e., $M=32$ and $N=4$, except aPY where we set $M=16$ and $N=4$ because there are in total only 20 classes for training. The hyper-parameter $\lambda$ is chosen as $10^{-4}$, $10^{-3}$, $10^{-3}$, $10^{-5}$ and $10^{-4}$ for AwA1, AwA2, CUB, SUN and aPY, respectively.
For transductive ZSL, the experimental setting is the same as that in the corresponding inductive case for each dataset. For all the datasets, we update the pseudo labels of unseen classes every 10,000 iterations and execute 50 updates, i.e., $N_r=50$ and $N_i=10,000$. We apply $\gamma=1.2$ and $q=0.5$ for all the datasets. We develop our algorithms based on PyTorch.
Ablation Studies
----------------
By formulating ZSL as a visual classification problem conditioned on the attributes, we can naturally benefit from the high discriminability of visual features. Meanwhile, to combat with the significant variance of visual and attribute features, we propose to replace the widely-used dot product with cosine similarity to calculate the classification score. Moreover, we introduce the episode-based training scheme to enhance the adaptability of our model to new tasks. We conduct ablation study to evaluate the effectiveness of our ingenious designs.
**Preserving visual feature discriminability**. To study the importance of preserving visual discriminability, we implement two baseline methods: one we project visual features to attribute space and the other we project visual features to an intermediate space (of half dimension as the visual space). All the other settings are the same as our method.
Table \[Table\_ablation\] shows that the performance degrades significantly by projecting visual features to either the semantic space or the intermediate space, no matter using dot product or Cosine similarity based classification score functions. As analyzed before, image feature embeddings for ZSL are usually generated offline by some powerful feature extraction networks such that high discriminatibility has already been secured. Reprojecting them to either the attribute or the intermediate space shall inevitably impair the discriminability. What is worse, the attribute space or the intermediate space are often of lower dimension than the visual embedding space. The visual variance, which is crucial to ensure discriminability, shall be shrunk once the feature embeddings are reprojected to the lower-dimensional spaces. Due to the damage of the discriminability of visual features, the hubness problem becomes even more intense, leading to much worse results.
V$\rightarrow$A
---------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
V $\rightarrow$ I $\leftarrow$ A
A$\rightarrow$V
Dot product
Cosine similarity
Episode based training
ZSL 36.3 45.1 34.2 42.8 27.0 67.7 70.9
GZSL-U 24.5 10.1 25.9 11.2 22.7 59.8 62.7
GZSL-S 62.5 86.8 68.9 81.8 53.2 75.2 77.0
GZSL-H 35.2 18.0 37.6 19.6 31.9 66.6 69.1
: Ablation study on the AwA1 dataset. “V$\rightarrow$A”, “A$\rightarrow$V”, and “V $\rightarrow$ I $\leftarrow$ A” refer to projecting visual features to attribute space, projecting attributes to visual space, and projecting both visual and attribute features into an intermediate space, respectively. []{data-label="Table_ablation"}
**Cosine similarity based classification score function**. We compare dot product and cosine similarity based loss functions within all the three classification spaces. Table \[Table\_ablation\] shows that the classification space seems a more dominant factor: neither of the two score functions works well if the classification space is not appropriate. When the visual embedding space is selected for classification, the proposed cosine similarity based score function results in much better performance than that based on dot product. We speculate the reason is that values of class attribute are not continuous such that there are large variance among the attribute vectors of different classes. Consequently, classifier weights derived from them also possess large variance, which might cause high variances of inputs to the Softmax activation function [@luo2017cosine]. Unlike dot product, our cosine similarity based score function normalizes the classifier weights before calculating its dot product with visual embeddings. This normalization procedure can bound and reduce the variance of the classifier weights, contributing to better performance.
------------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------ ----------
ZSL ZSL ZSL ZSL ZSL
T1 U S H T1 U S H T1 U S H T1 U S H T1 U S H
LATEM [@xian2016latent] 55.3 14.7 28.8 19.5 49.3 15.2 57.3 24.0 55.1 7.3 71.7 13.3 55.8 11.5 77.3 20.0 35.2 0.1 73.0 0.2
ALE [@akata2015evaluation] 58.1 21.8 33.1 26.3 54.9 23.7 62.8 34.4 59.9 16.8 76.1 27.5 62.5 14.0 81.8 23.9 39.7 4.6 73.7 8.7
DEVISE [@frome2013devise] 56.5 16.9 27.4 20.9 52.0 23.8 53.0 32.8 54.2 13.4 68.7 22.4 59.7 17.1 74.7 27.8 **39.8** 4.9 76.9 9.2
SJE [@akata2015evaluation] 53.7 14.7 30.5 19.8 53.9 23.5 59.2 33.6 65.6 11.3 74.6 19.6 61.9 8.0 73.9 14.4 32.9 3.7 55.7 6.9
ESZSL [@romera2015embarrassingly] 54.5 11.0 27.9 15.8 53.9 12.6 63.8 21.0 58.2 6.6 75.6 12.1 58.6 5.9 77.8 11.0 38.3 2.4 70.1 4.6
SYNC [@changpinyo2016synthesized] 56.3 7.9 **43.3** 13.4 55.6 11.5 70.9 19.8 54.0 8.9 87.3 16.2 46.6 10.0 90.5 18.0 23.9 7.4 66.3 13.3
SAE ([@kodirov2017semantic]) 40.3 8.8 18.0 11.8 33.3 7.8 54.0 13.6 53.0 1.8 77.1 3.5 54.1 1.1 82.2 2.2 8.3 0.4 80.9 0.9
GFZSL [@verma2017simple] 60.6 0.0 39.6 0.0 49.3 0.0 45.7 0.0 68.3 1.8 80.3 3.5 63.8 2.5 80.1 4.8 38.4 0.0 83.3 0.0
DEM [@zhang2017learning] 61.9 20.5 34.3 25.6 51.7 19.6 57.9 29.2 68.4 32.8 84.7 47.3 67.2 30.5 86.4 45.1 35.0 11.1 75.1 19.4
Relat. Net [@yang2018learning] - - - - 55.6 38.1 61.1 47.0 68.2 31.4 **91.3** 46.7 64.2 30.0 **93.4** 45.3 - - - -
SP-AEN [@chen2018zero] 59.2 24.9 38.6 30.3 55.4 34.7 70.6 46.6 - - - - 58.5 23.3 90.9 37.1 24.1 13.7 63.4 22.6
PSR [@annadani2018preserving] 61.4 20.8 37.2 26.7 56.0 24.6 54.3 33.9 - - - - 63.8 20.7 73.8 32.3 38.4 13.5 51.4 21.4
$\textrm{f-CLSWGAN}^{\star}$ [@xian2018feature] 60.8 **42.6** 36.6 **39.4** **57.3** **57.7** 43.7 **49.7** 68.2 43.7 57.7 49.7 - - - - - - - -
Ours **62.6** 36.3 42.8 39.3 54.4 47.4 47.6 47.5 **70.9** **62.7** 77.0 **69.1** **71.1** **56.4** 81.4 **66.7** 38.0 **26.5** 74.0 **39.0**
------------------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------ ----------
**Episode-based training mechanism** The proposed episode-based training mechanism is to train our classifier weight generator in the way it works during test. From Table \[Table\_ablation\], we can observe that there are about 3$\%$ performance gains for both the ZSL setting and GZSL setting when this unique training mechanism is adopted. This is within our expectation because after exposing our weight generator with numerous (fake) new ZSL tasks during training, it acquires the knowledge how to deal with real new ZSL tasks during test. So, better performance is more likely to be guaranteed.
--------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
ZSL ZSL ZSL ZSL ZSL
T1 U S H T1 U S H T1 U S H T1 U S H T1 U S H
ALE-tran [@akata2015evaluation] 55.7 19.9 22.6 21.2 54.5 23.5 45.1 30.9 65.6 25.9 - - 70.7 12.6 73.0 21.5 46.7 8.1 - -
GFZSL-tran [@verma2017simple] **64.0** 0.0 41.6 0.0 49.3 24.9 45.8 32.2 81.3 48.1 - - 78.6 31.7 67.2 43.1 37.1 0.0 - -
DSRL [@norouzi2013zero] 56.8 17.7 25.0 20.7 48.7 17.3 39.0 24.0 74.7 22.3 - - 72.8 20.8 74.7 32.6 45.5 11.9 - -
QFSL [@song2018transductive] 58.3 31.2 51.3 38.8 **72.1** **71.5** **74.9** **73.2** - - - - 79.7 66.2 **93.1** 77.4 - - - -
Ours-trans (XE) 61.9 44.5 57.6 50.2 59.2 54.4 67.9 60.4 87.4 84.2 84.3 84.2 81.4 77.7 88.3 82.7 52.7 50.4 86.3 63.7
Ours-trans (GXE) 63.5 **45.4** **58.1** **51.0** 61.3 57.0 68.7 62.3 **89.8** **87.7** **89.0** **88.4** **83.2** **80.2** 90.0 **84.8** **54.7** **51.8** **87.6** **65.1**
--------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Comparative Results
-------------------
**Zero-shot learning**. Table \[result\_zsl\] shows the comparative results of the proposed method and the state-of-the-art ones for the inductive ZSL problem. For conventional ZSL, our method reaches the best for three out of the five datasets. Remarkably, for the AwA2 dataset, our method beats the second best by about 4$\%$. **Generalized zero-shot learning**. More interesting observations can be made for the GZSL setting where classification is performed over both seen and unseen classes. With more classes involved, the classification accuracy of unseen classes drops for all methods. However, our method exhibits much more robustness than the other ones and drops moderately on these datasets. Remarkably, our method sometimes secures accuracy that is even by about 100$\%$ (*aPY*) higher than the second best. We analyze this striking improvements are brought by our consideration of inter-class separation during training so that the resultant classifiers for seen classes possess favorable class separation property after training and shall be highly discriminative to discern whether an incoming image belongs to the classes they were trained for.
Contrary to the striking advantages for recognizing unseen classes, our method seems kind of “forgetful” and is overcome by many methods for recognizing seen classes. This is because during training, we constantly sample new ZSL tasks to train the weight generator to acquire the knowledge of handling new ZSL tasks. Unlike existing methods, which process the whole dataset altogether or are specially designed to keep the training memory, our method intentionally forgets the global class structure of training set. Therefore, with the increase of the capability of handle new ZSL tasks, it inevitably sacrifices some competence of classifying seen classes. Despite of this, our method surpasses the other ones by large margins for three out of the five datasets for the harmonic mean (H), while being very close to the feature synthesized based method, f-CLSWGAN, which generates additional data for training. **Transductive zero-shot learning**. When test data are available during training, better performance is often expected as we can utilize them to mitigate the classification bias towards seen classes. Table \[result\_gzsl\] verifies this and our transductive algorithm significantly outperforms the inductive counterpart. This substantiates the effectiveness of our novel learning-without-forgetting self-training technique. Further, with generalized cross-entropy loss for unseen classes, Ours-trans (GXE) consistently performs better than Ours-trans (XE) which uses conventional cross-entropy loss. This shows the effectiveness of using the generalized cross-entropy loss for avoiding the negative impact of incorrect pseudo labels. Comparatively speaking, similar as we have observed in the inductive setting, our method significantly outperforms existing ones, especially for unseen classes in GZSL.
![Analysis of the self-training process on the AwA1 dataset. “5685” is the total number of test images.[]{data-label="training_analysis"}](./figs/ana1.pdf "fig:"){width="0.495\linewidth"} ![Analysis of the self-training process on the AwA1 dataset. “5685” is the total number of test images.[]{data-label="training_analysis"}](./figs/ana2.pdf "fig:"){width="0.495\linewidth"}
{width="0.246\linewidth"} {width="0.246\linewidth"} {width="0.246\linewidth"} {width="0.246\linewidth"}\
{width="0.246\linewidth"} {width="0.246\linewidth"} {width="0.246\linewidth"} {width="0.246\linewidth"}\
(a) V$\rightarrow$A (b) DEM [@zhang2017learning] (c) Ours (d) Ours-trans
Further Analyses
----------------
**Analyzing self-training process**. In the transductive ZSL setting, we propose to calibrate weight generator $f$ towards unseen classes using test data in a novel self-training fashion. We alternate between generating pseudo labels for unseen images using $f$ and updating $f$ using the pseudo labels of high confidence. By this self-training strategy, the bias of $f$ towards seen classes can be progressively eliminated, with boost for unseen class recognition as the consequence.
To analyze how this self-training process works, we plot in Figure \[training\_analysis\] the changes of training loss, classification accuracy, number of confident unseen samples (used for updating the model) and the portion of the correctly labeled ones among them. We can see that as the training round increases, the training loss keeps decreasing and the collection of confident samples is consistently enlarged. At the same time, the accuracy of pseudo label assignment is also promoted. This means with the increase of training round, the unlabeled images used for training are boosted in terms of both quantity and quality, which in return further improves the classifier generator. **Number of classes per episode**. Table \[tab:zs\_cls\] shows that ZSL accuracy changes little w.r.t. sampled classes in each mini-batch, which contradicts the observations in [@snell2017prototypical], where episode-based training is used for few-shot learning. We speculate the reason is that sampling more classes per mini-batch in [@snell2017prototypical] helps boost discriminability of the feature extraction model, as it is required to extract distinct features for more classes in each mini-batch. This does not apply to us as we use pretrained features. Sampling more classes in each mini-batch to train the classifier generator can be approximated by sampling multiple mini-batches.
c=4 c=8 c=16 c=32 c=40 (all)
----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------------
ZSL 68.1 69.6 70.4 70.9 69.8
: ZSL accuracy w.r.t. training classes per batch.[]{data-label="tab:zs_cls"}
**Embedding visualization**. Recall that we calculate the possibility of an image $\textbf{x}$ of belonging to class $y$ given class attribute $\textbf{a}_y$ by calculating the Cosine similarity of $\textbf{x}$ and the classifier weight $\textbf{w}_y$ generating from $\textbf{a}_y$ (Eq. ). As Cosine similarity of two vectors is equivalent to their dot product after being normalized, we can view $\frac{\textbf{w}_y}{\|\textbf{w}_y\|}$ as the prototype of class $y$. By this interpretation, the possibility of $\textbf{x}$ of belonging to class $y$ can be measured by the distance of the normalized feature $\frac{\textbf{x}}{\|\textbf{x}\|}$ and the normalized classifier weight vector $\frac{\textbf{w}_y}{\|\textbf{w}_y\|}$. Thus, we can visualize normalized classifier weight vectors and normalized visual feture vectors to qualitatively evaluate the discriminability of the classifiers.
We plot the t-SNE visualizations [@maaten2008visualizing] of the classifier weights and their overlappings with the visual features of unseen classes in Figure \[tsne\]. We can see that our class prototypes are more spatially dispersed than that of DEM [@zhang2017learning] which does not consider the inter-class separation information for generating class prototypes. Besides, we can observe that by projecting visual features to attribute space, the corresponding class prototypes are extremely clustered. This substantiates the merits of formulating ZSL as a conditional visual classification problem, by which we can naturally benefit from the high discrimination of the visual features and the inter-class separation information to get discriminative classifiers for both seen and unseen classes. Moreover, we can also see that the distribution of the class prototypes in the transductive setting is even more dispersed than that for the inductive setting. This evidences the effectiveness of our transductive ZSL algorithm in exploiting unlabeled test data for enhancing the discriminability of the classifiers for both seen and unseen classes.
By overlapping the class prototypes with visual features of unseen classes, we can observe that visual features of unseen classes lie closely with their corresponding class prototypes, whiling being far away from those of seen classes. In contrast, this favorable distribution cannot be observed in the plots of DEM and the algorithm which projects visual features to the attribute space. This further substantiates the superiority of our method.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we reformuate ZSL as a visual feature classification problem conditioned on the attributes. Under this reformulation, we develop algorithms for various ZSL settings. For the conventional setting, we propose to learn a deep neural network to generate visual feature classifiers directly from the attributes, and guide the process with a cosine similarity based cross-entropy loss and an episode-based training scheme. For the generalized setting, we propose to concatenate classifiers for both seen and unseen classes to recognize objects from all classes. For the transductive setting, we develop a novel learning-without-forgetting self-training mechanism to calibrate the classifier genereator towards unseen classes while maintaining good performance for seen classes. Experiments on widely used datasets verify the effectiveness of the proposed methods and demonstrate that the proposed methods obtain remarkable advantages over the state-of-the-art methods, especially for unseen classes in the generalized ZSL setting.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Further Analysis on the GZSL Performance
========================================
From the experiments in the main article, we can observe that the proposed method reaches significant performance gains over the existing ones for the generalized ZSL setting. Here, we give more explanations for our impressive performance.
As explained in the main text, our great advantages in GZSL is owing to our novel problem formulation of ZSL as a conditional visual classification problem. Due to this formulation, during the test stage, we generate the classifiers for both seen and unseen classes from the corresponding attributes, and combine (by concatenating the classifier weight matrices) them to classify images from all classes. Figure \[generalized\_zsl\] illustrates the process. *Since our classifier generation model is trained with seen classes, during test, the classifiers for seen classes generated from the corresponding attributes should be highly discriminative to discern whether or not an incoming image belongs to the classes observed during training.* Thus, the involvement of seen classes during GZSL test impacts much less on our method than on the existing ones, leading to our much better recognition results.
![Illustration of how we conduct test in the generalized ZSL setting. $\textbf{W}_u$ and $\textbf{W}_s$ are the classifier weight matrices for unseen and seen classes, respectively. We concatenate $\textbf{W}_u$ and $\textbf{W}_s$ to classify images from all classes. Since $f$ is trained with seen classes during training, $\textbf{W}_s$ should be highly discriminative to discern whether an incoming image belongs to seen or unseen classes. []{data-label="generalized_zsl"}](./figs/whysogood.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Another thing to be further noted is that in the GZSL experimental setting, our performance for seen classes is less competitive and is often inferior to the state-of-the-art. To figure out how this happens, we plot in Figure \[change\_of\_accuracy\] the changes of performance on the AwA1 dataset with respect to the training iteration. We can observe that in the conventional ZSL setting, the accuracy (ZSL-T1) first keeps increasing and then remains stable, along with the decrease of the training loss. For the generalized ZSL setting, the accuracy for unseen classes (GZSL-Unseen) and seen classes (GZSL-Seen) has quite different changing trajectories: GZSL-Seen reaches the peak in the very beginning, drops thereafter, and remains stable later, while GZSL-Unseen first keeps increasing and then remains stable. The dropping rate of GZSL-Seen is much slower than the increasing rate of GZSL-Unseen, which makes their harmonic mean GZSL-H change similarly as GZSL-Unseen.
The plot indicates that our classifier generator acquires quickly the knowledge of classifying the observed classes and reaches the peak performance for seen class recognition. It is then tuned to be apt for categorizing unseen classes as exposed with various randomly sampled new ZSL tasks. As a side effect of the drift towards recognizing unseen classes, the classification boundaries for seen classes turn vaguer, but still remain a fair discriminative level. The enhancement in the competence of recognizing unseen classes, in combined with a fair maintenance of the capability of recognizing seen classes, leads to our distinguished performance in GZSL.
![Changes of loss and accuracy with training iteration. As the loss decreases with training iteration, the ZSL accuracy (ZSL-T1) keeps increasing and then remains stable. Meanwhile, in the generalized setting, the accuracy for unseen class recognition (GZSL-Unseen) keeps increasing and then remains stable as well, but the accuracy for seen classes (GZSL-Seen) quickly reaches its peak, then deceases, and eventually remains unchanged. Since the decreasing rate of GZSL-Seen is much smaller than increasing rate of GZSL-Unseen, their harmonic mean (GZSL-H) has the same changing pace as GZSL-Unseen, *i.e.*, increasing first and then remaining stable. []{data-label="change_of_accuracy"}](./figs/acc_with_iterations.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Classification Result Visualizations
====================================
To facilitate analysis, we visualize the classification results of our method in the conventional ZSL setting. Figure \[zsl\_awa2\] shows the visualizations on the *AWA1*. In the figure, according to the classification score, we show the top image returns of a class given the semantic description of the class.
According to the top images, we can see that our method reasonably captures discriminative visual properties of each unseen class based solely on its semantic embedding. We can also see that the misclassified images are with appearance so similar to that of predicted class that even humans cannot easily distinguish between the two. For example, the “bat” images in the first row of Figure \[zsl\_awa2\] look so similar to that of the “rat” images. Without carefully observation, human can sometimes make mistakes in differentiating them, even that we have seen various images about the two classes before. Considering that the attributes of the two classes are very similar and our model has never “seen” any images of the two classes, it is reasonable to make the mistakes.
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This research is supported in part by the NSF IIS award 1651902, U.S. Army Research Office Award W911NF-17-1-0367, and NEC labs America.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address:
- |
Mathematical Sciences Institute\
The Australian National University\
Acton ACT 2601\
Australia
- |
KTH Royal Institute of Technology\
Department of Mathematics\
SE-100 44 Stockholm\
Sweden
author:
- Jack Hall
- David Rydh
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
date: 'Dec 3, 2015'
title: Algebraic groups and compact generation of their derived categories of representations
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
In this article we characterize two classes of group schemes over a field $k$:
1. those with compactly generated derived categories of representations; and
2. those with finite (Hochschild) cohomological dimension.
Compact generation {#compact-generation .unnumbered}
------------------
Let $X$ be a quasi-compact and quasi-separated algebraic stack. Let $\DQCOH(X)$ be the unbounded derived category of lisse-étale $\Orb_X$-modules with quasi-coherent cohomology sheaves.
In [@perfect_complexes_stacks], we showed that $\DQCOH(X)$ is compactly generated in many cases. This does not always hold, however. With Neeman, we considered $B_k\Ga$—the classifying stack of the additive group scheme over a field $k$—and proved that every compact object of $\DQCOH(B_k\Ga)$ is $0$ if $k$ has positive characteristic [@hallj_neeman_dary_no_compacts Prop. 3.1]. In particular, $\DQCOH(B_k\Ga)$ is not compactly generated.
If $\DQCOH(X)$ is compactly generated, then for every point $x\colon \spec k\to X$ it follows that $\DQCOH(B_kG_x)$ is compactly generated, where $G_x$ denotes the stabilizer group of $x$. It follows that the presence of a $\Ga$ in a stabilizer group of positive characteristic is an obstruction to compact generation [@hallj_neeman_dary_no_compacts Thm. 1.1]. We called such stacks *poorly stabilized*. Our first main result is that this obstruction is the only point-wise obstruction.
\[MT:compact-gen-of-BG\] Let $k$ be a field, let $G$ be a group scheme of finite type over $k$ and let $\overline{G}=G\otimes_k \overline{k}$. Then $\DQCOH(B_kG)$ is compactly generated if and only if
1. $k$ has characteristic zero or
2. $k$ has positive characteristic and the reduced connected component $\red{\overline{G}}^0$ is semi-abelian.
Moreover, if $\DQCOH(B_kG)$ is compactly generated, then it is compactly generated by
1. \[MT:compact-gen-of-BG:one\] a single perfect complex if and only if the affinization of $\red{\bar{G}}^0$ is unipotent (e.g., if $G$ is proper or unipotent); or
2. \[MT:compact-gen-of-BG:comp-reps\] the set of $k$-representations of $G$ that have compact image in $\DQCOH(B_kG)$ when $G$ is affine; or
3. \[MT:compact-gen-of-BG:irreps-fcd\] the set of irreducible $k$-representations of $G$ when $G$ is affine and $k$ has characteristic zero or $G$ is linearly reductive.
A group scheme is *semi-abelian* if it is an extension of an abelian variety by a torus (e.g., a torus or an abelian variety). Note that $\red{\overline{G}}^0$ is semi-abelian precisely when there is no subgroup $\Ga\hookrightarrow \overline{G}$ [@hallj_neeman_dary_no_compacts Lem. 4.1]. The *affinization* of a group scheme $G$ is the affine group scheme $\spec \Gamma(G,\Orb_G)$, see [@MR0302656 III.3.8].
Recall that the abelian category $\QCOH(B_kG)$ is naturally identified with the category $\Rep_k(G)$ of $k$-linear, locally finite representations of $G$. An *irreducible* $k$-representation of $G$ is a simple object of the abelian category $\Rep_k(G)$. There is a natural functor $$\Psi_{B_k G}\colon \DCAT(\Rep_k(G))=\DCAT(\QCOH(B_kG))\to \DQCOH(B_kG).$$ When $G$ is affine and $\DQCOH(B_kG)$ is compactly generated, then $\Psi_{B_kG}$ is an equivalence [@hallj_neeman_dary_no_compacts Thm. 1.2]. Conversely, if $G$ is affine and $\DQCOH(B_kG)$ is not compactly generated, then $G$ is poor (Theorem \[MT:compact-gen-of-BG\]) and $\Psi_{B_kG}$ is not an equivalence [@hallj_neeman_dary_no_compacts Thm. 1.3]. If $G$ is not affine, then $\Psi_{B_kG}$ is not even full on bounded objects. Nonetheless, $\DQCOH(B_kG)$ remains preferable. For example, $\DQCOH(B_kG)$ is always left-complete, which is not true of $\DCAT(\QCOH(B_kG))$; see [@hallj_neeman_dary_no_compacts].
By Theorem \[MT:compact-gen-of-BG\], if $G$ is linearly reductive, then $\DQCOH(B_kG)$ is compactly generated by the finite-dimensional irreducible $k$-representations of $G$. Since $\Rep_k(G)$ is a semisimple abelian category, $\Rep_k(G)$ is generated by the finite-dimensional irreducible $k$-representations.
Theorem \[MT:compact-gen-of-BG\] also implies that $\DQCOH(B_kG)$ is compactly generated by $\Orb_{B_kG}$ when $G$ is unipotent and $k$ has characteristic zero. We wish to point out, however, that the abelian category $\Rep_k(G)$ is not generated by the trivial one-dimensional representation [@2013arXiv1306.5418G Cor. 3.4]. This further emphasizes the benefits of the derived category $\DQCOH(B_kG)$ over the abelian category $\Rep_k(G)$.
Theorem \[MT:compact-gen-of-BG\] cannot be extended to the situation where $B_kG$ is not of finite cohomological dimension (e.g., it fails for $k=\bar{\F}_2$ and $G=(\Z/2\Z)_k$). To prove Theorem \[MT:compact-gen-of-BG\], we explicitly describe a set of generators (Remark \[rem:gens-of-BG\]).
Finite cohomological dimension {#finite-cohomological-dimension .unnumbered}
------------------------------
Let $X$ be a quasi-compact and quasi-separated algebraic stack. An object of $\DQCOH(X)$ is *perfect* if it is smooth-locally isomorphic to a bounded complex of free $\Orb_X$-modules of finite rank. While every compact object of $\DQCOH(X)$ is perfect [@perfect_complexes_stacks Lem. 4.4 (1)], there exist non-compact perfect complexes (e.g., $\Orb_{X}$, where $X=B_{\F_2}(\Z/2\Z)$). The following, however, are equivalent [@perfect_complexes_stacks Rem. 4.6]:
- every perfect object of $\DQCOH(X)$ is compact;
- the structure sheaf $\Orb_X$ is compact;
- there exists an integer $d_0$ such that for every quasi-coherent sheaf $F$ on $X$, the cohomology groups $H^{d}(X,F)$ vanish for all $d>d_0$; and
- the derived global section functor $\RDERF\Gamma\colon \DQCOH(X)\to
\DCAT(\AB)$ commutes with small coproducts.
We say that the stack $X$ has *finite cohomological dimension* when it satisfies any of the conditions above.
In the relative situation, the cohomological dimension of a morphism depends in a subtle way on the separation properties of the target (see Remark \[rem:strange\_cd\]). For this reason, in [@perfect_complexes_stacks], we introduced the more robust notion of a *concentrated* morphism. In the absolute situation, these two notions coincide, and we will use them interchangeably.
If $G$ is a group scheme over a field $k$, a basic question to consider is when its classifying stack $B_kG$ is concentrated. In characteristic $p>0$, the presence of unipotent subgroups of $G$ (e.g., $\Z/p\Z$, $\Galpha_p$, or $\Ga$) is an immediate obstruction. This rules out all non-affine group schemes and $\GL_n$, where $n>1$. In characteristic zero, if $G$ is affine, then its classifying stack is concentrated. It was surprising to us that in characteristic zero, there are non-affine group schemes whose classifying stack is concentrated. This follows from a recent result of Brion on the coherent cohomology of anti-affine group schemes [@MR3102962]. More precisely, we have the following theorem.
\[MT:fin-coh-dim-of-BG\] Let $k$ be a field, let $G$ be a group scheme of finite type over $k$ and let $\overline{G}=G\otimes_k \overline{k}$. Then $B_kG$ is concentrated if and only if
1. $k$ has positive characteristic and $\overline{G}$ is affine and linearly reductive; or
2. $k$ has characteristic zero and $\overline{G}$ is affine; or
3. $k$ has characteristic zero and the anti-affine part $G_\ant$ of $\bar{G}$ is of the form $G_\ant=S\times_A E(A)$, where $A$ is an abelian variety, $S\to A$ is an extension by a torus and $E(A)\to A$ is the universal vector extension.
Finally, from Theorem \[MT:fin-coh-dim-of-BG\] using stratifications and approximation techniques, we obtain a criterion for a stack to be concentrated.
\[MT:concentrated-stacks\] Let $X$ be a quasi-compact and quasi-separated algebraic stack. Consider the following conditions:
1. $X$ is concentrated.
2. Every residual gerbe $\mathcal{G}$ of $X$ is concentrated.
3. For every point $x\colon \spec k\to X$, the stabilizer group scheme $G_x$ is as in Theorem \[MT:fin-coh-dim-of-BG\].
Then (1)$\implies$(2)$\iff$(3). If $X$ has affine stabilizer groups and either equal characteristic or finitely presented inertia, then (3)$\implies$(1).
Theorem \[MT:concentrated-stacks\] generalizes a result of Drinfeld and Gaitsgory [@MR3037900 Thm. 1.4.2]: in characteristic zero, every quasi-compact and quasi-separated algebraic stack with finitely presented inertia and affine stabilizers is concentrated. Our generalization is made possible by a recent approximation result of the second author [@rydh-2014].
As an application of Theorem \[MT:concentrated-stacks\] and [@perfect_complexes_stacks Thm. C], we obtain the following variant of [@perfect_complexes_stacks Thm. B] in positive characteristic:
\[MT:globaltype\_pos-char\] Let $X$ be an algebraic stack of equal characteristic. Suppose that there exists a faithfully flat, representable, separated and quasi-finite morphism $X'\to X$ of finite presentation such that $X'$ has the resolution property and affine linearly reductive stabilizers. Then the unbounded derived category $\DQCOH(X)$ is compactly generated by a countable set of perfect complexes. In particular, this holds for every stack $X$ of s-global type with linearly reductive stabilizers.
Argue exactly as in the proof of [@perfect_complexes_stacks Thm. B] in [@perfect_complexes_stacks §9]: by [@perfect_complexes_stacks Ex. 8.9] and Theorem \[MT:concentrated-stacks\], the stack $X'$ is $\aleph_0$-crisp, hence so is $X$ by [@perfect_complexes_stacks Thm. C].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
It is our pleasure to thank Dan Petersen and Brian Conrad for fruitful discussions concerning Section \[S:coh-dim-BG\]. We would also like to thank Amnon Neeman for his encouragement with Appendix \[A:duality\]. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous referee for a number of supportive comments.
Cohomological dimension of classifying stacks {#S:coh-dim-BG}
=============================================
Let $G$ be a group scheme of finite type over a field $k$. In this section, we give a complete classification of the groups $G$ such that $BG$ has finite cohomological dimension (Theorem \[MT:fin-coh-dim-of-BG\]). In positive characteristic, these are the linearly reductive groups (Theorem \[T:Nagata\]). In characteristic zero, these are the affine groups as well as certain groups built up from the universal vector extension of an abelian variety (Theorem \[T:conc-BG-char-zero\]).
Let $G$ be an *affine* group scheme over a field $k$ of characteristic $p$. We say that $G$ is
- *nice* if the connected component of the identity $G^0$ is of multiplicative type and the number of geometric components of $G$ is not divisible by $p$; or
- *reductive* if the unipotent radical of $G_{\overline{k}}$ is trivial ($G$ not necessarily connected); or
- *linearly reductive* if every finite dimensional representation of $G$ is semi-simple, or equivalently, if $BG\to \spec k$ has cohomological dimension zero.
Note that subgroups, quotients and extensions of nice group schemes are nice. Indeed, this follows from the corresponding fact for connected group schemes of multiplicative type [@MR0274459 Exp. IX, Props. 8.1, 8.2]. Also note that if $G$ is nice, then $G^0$ is a twisted form of $(\Gm)^n\times \Gmu_{p^{r_1}}\times\dots\times \Gmu_{p^{r_m}}$ for some tuple of natural numbers $n,r_1,r_2,\dots,r_m$.
If $G$ is a group scheme of finite type over a field $k$, then there is always a smallest normal subgroup scheme $G_\ant$ such that $G/G_\ant$ is affine. The subgroup $G_\ant$ is anti-affine, that is, $\Gamma(G_\ant,\Orb_{G_\ant})=k$. Anti-affine groups are always smooth, connected and commutative. Their structure has also been described by Brion [@MR2488561].
In positive characteristic, we have the following result, which is classical when $G$ is smooth and affine.
\[T:Nagata\] Let $G$ be a group scheme of finite type over a field $k$. Consider the following conditions:
1. $G$ is nice.\[TI:Nagata:nice\]
2. $G$ is affine and linearly reductive.\[TI:Nagata:lin-red\]
3. $BG$ has cohomological dimension $0$.\[TI:Nagata:coh-dim-0\]
4. $BG$ has finite cohomological dimension.\[TI:Nagata:coh-dim-fin\]
Then $\implies$$\implies$$\implies$. If $k$ has positive characteristic, then all four conditions are equivalent.
First, recall that group schemes of multiplicative type are linearly reductive. Moreover, a finite étale group scheme is linearly reductive if and only if the number of geometric components is prime to the characteristic $p$ (by Maschke’s Lemma and the fact that $\Z/p\Z$ is not linearly reductive).
$\implies$: if $G$ is nice, then $G^0$ and $\pi_0(G)=G/G^0$ are linearly reductive group schemes; thus, so is $G$ (Lemma \[lem:jarod\]).
$\implies$: that an affine group scheme $G$ is linearly reductive if and only if the classifying stack $BG$ has cohomological dimension $0$ is well-known.
Now, suppose that $k$ has positive characteristic. That $\implies$ when $G$ is smooth is Nagata’s theorem [@MR0142667]. That $\implies$ in general is proved in [@MR0302656 IV, §3, Thm. 3.6]. Let us briefly indicate how a similar argument proves that $\implies$. Assume that $BG$ has finite cohomological dimension. Then the same is true of $BH$ for every subgroup $H$ of $G$. In particular, there cannot be any subgroups of $G$ isomorphic to $\Z/p\Z$ or $\Galpha_p$.
For the moment, assume that $G$ is affine. If $G$ is connected, then $G$ is of multiplicative type since $G$ has no subgroups isomorphic to $\Galpha_p$ [@MR0302656 IV, §3, Lem. 3.7]. If $G$ is disconnected, then the connected component $G^0$ has finite cohomological dimension and is thus of multiplicative type by the previous case. It follows that $\pi_0(G)$ has finite cohomological dimension (Lemma \[lem:jarod\]). In particular, the rank has to be prime to $p$; hence $G$ is nice.
Finally, suppose that $G$ is not affine. Since we are in positive characteristic, $G_\ant$ is semi-abelian, i.e., the extension of an abelian variety $A$ by a torus $T$ [@MR2488561 Prop. 2.2]. In particular, the classifying stack $BA$ has finite cohomological dimension. Indeed, $A=G_\ant/T$ and $BT$ has cohomological dimension zero; then apply Lemma \[lem:jarod\]. The subgroup scheme $A[p]\subset A$ of $p$-torsion points is finite of degree $p^{2g}$, where $g$ is the dimension of $A$. By assumption, $A[p]$ has finite cohomological dimension, so $A[p]$ is of multiplicative type. But this is impossible: the Cartier dual is $A^\vee[p]$, which is not étale.
Let $f\colon X \to Y$ be a quasi-compact and quasi-separated morphism of algebraic stacks. Define $\cohdim(f)$, the *cohomological dimension* of $f$, to be the least non-negative integer $n$ such that $\RDERF^d f_*M = 0$ for every $d>n$ and quasi-coherent sheaf $M$ on $X$. If no such $n$ exists, then we set $n=\infty$. We define the cohomological dimension of an algebraic stack $X$, $\cohdim(X)$, to be the non-negative integer $\cohdim(X \to \spec \Z)$.
The lemma that follows is a simple refinement of [@2008arXiv0804.2242A Prop. 12.17].
\[lem:jarod\] Let $H \hookrightarrow G$ be an inclusion of group schemes of finite type over a field $k$ with quotient $Q$.
1. \[lem:jarod:sub\] Then $\cohdim(BH)\leq \cohdim(BG)+\cohdim(Q)$.
In addition, if $H$ is a normal subgroup scheme of $G$, then $Q$ is a group scheme of finite type over $k$ and the following holds:
1. \[lem:jarod:ext\] $\cohdim(BG)\leq \cohdim(BH)+\cohdim(BQ)$; and
2. \[lem:jarod:quot\] if $\cohdim(BH)=0$, then $\cohdim(BG)=\cohdim(BQ)$.
Let $i\colon BH\to BG$ denote the induced morphism. For , by [@perfect_complexes_stacks Lem. 2.2(4)], $\cohdim(BH) \leq \cohdim(BG) + \cohdim(i)$. Also, the pull-back of $i$ along the universal $G$-torsor is $Q \to \spec k$. By [@perfect_complexes_stacks Lem. 2.2(2)], $\cohdim(i) \leq \cohdim(Q)$; the claim follows.
For , by [@perfect_complexes_stacks Lem. 2.2(4)], $\cohdim(BG) \leq \cohdim(BQ) + \cohdim(j)$, where $j\colon BG\to BQ$ is the induced morphism. Since $BH\to \spec k$ is a pull-back of $j$, it follows that $\cohdim(j)\leq\cohdim(BH)$ [@perfect_complexes_stacks Lem. 2.2(2)]; the claim follows.
For , by , we know that $\cohdim(BG) \leq \cohdim(BQ)$. The reverse inequality follows from the observation that the underived adjunction map $\ID{BQ}\to j_*j^*$ is an isomorphism and $\cohdim(j) = 0$.
In characteristic zero, we have the following result.
\[T:conc-BG-char-zero\] Let $G$ be a group scheme of finite type over a field $k$ of characteristic zero. Then $BG$ has finite cohomological dimension if and only if
1. $G$ is affine, i.e., $G_\ant$ is trivial; or
2. $G_\ant$ is of the form $G_\ant=S\times_A E(A)$, where $S$ is the extension of an abelian variety $A$ by a torus and $E(A)$ is the universal vector extension of $A$.
By Lemma \[lem:jarod\]–, it is enough to treat the cases where $G$ is either affine or anti-affine. If $G$ is affine, then $G$ is a closed subgroup of $\GL_n$ for some $n$. The induced morphism $BG\to B\GL_n$ is a $\GL_n/G$-fibration. Since $\cohdim(B\GL_n)=0$ in characteristic zero, it follows that $\cohdim(BG)\leq \cohdim(\GL_n/G)$ which is finite. In the anti-affine case, the result follows from Proposition \[prop:coh-dim-of-anti-affine\].
\[prop:coh-dim-of-anti-affine\] Let $G$ be a non-trivial anti-affine group scheme of finite type over a field $k$. If $k$ has characteristic zero and $G=S\times_A E(A)$, then $BG$ has cohomological dimension zero. If not, then $BG$ has infinite cohomological dimension.
We have already seen that $BG$ has infinite cohomological dimension in positive characteristic, so we may assume henceforth that $k$ has characteristic zero.
By Chevalley’s Theorem [@MR1906417 Thm. 1.1], $G$ is an extension of an abelian variety $A$ by an affine connected group scheme $G_\aff$. Since $G$ is commutative, $G_\aff=T\times U$, where $T$ is a torus and $U$ is connected, unipotent and commutative; in particular, $U\cong (\Ga)^n$ for some $n$. Moreover, both the semi-abelian variety $S=G/U$ and the vector extension $E=G/T$ are anti-affine, and $G=S\times_A E$ [@MR2488561 Prop. 2.5]. Since $T$ is linearly reductive, the cohomological dimension of $B(G/T)$ equals the cohomological dimension of $BG$ (Lemma \[lem:jarod\]). We may thus assume that $T=0$, so that $G=E$ is an extension of $A$ by $U$. Let $g$ be the dimension of $A$ and let $n$ be the dimension of $U$.
Brion has calculated the coherent cohomology of $G$ [@MR3102962 Prop. 4.3]: $$H^*(G,\Orb_G)=\textstyle \bigwedge^*(W^\vee),$$ where $W\subseteq H^1(A,\Orb_A)^\vee$ is a $k$-vector space of dimension $g-n$. If $g=n$, then $G$ equals the universal vector extension $E(A)$ and $G$ has no non-trivial cohomology.
We now proceed to calculate $H^*(BG,\Orb_{BG})$ via the Leray spectral sequence for the composition of $f\colon \spec k\to BG$ and $\pi\colon BG\to \spec k$. Some preliminary observations.
1. Since $G$ is anti-affine, every coherent sheaf on $BG$ is a trivial vector bundle.
2. If $G$ was assumed to be an affine group scheme, then the natural functor $\Psi^+\colon \DCAT^+(\QCOH(BG))\to \DQCOH^+(BG)$ is an equivalence of categories and the derived functor $\RDERF \MODPSH{f}\colon \DQCOH^+(\spec k)\to
\DQCOH^+(BG)$ equals the composition of $\RDERF \QCOHPSH{f}\colon
\DCAT^+(\MOD(k))\to \DCAT^+(\QCOH(BG))$ with $\Psi^+$. When $G$ is not affine, as in our case, both of these facts may fail.
First consider $\mathcal{H}^i\bigl(\RDERF \MODPSH{f} k\bigr)=\RDERF^if_* k\in \QCOH(BG)$. By flat base change, $f^*\RDERF^if_* k=H^i(G,\Orb_{G})$, which is coherent of rank $d_i=\binom{g-n}{i}$. By the observation above, $\RDERF^if_*k$ is a trivial vector bundle of the same rank.
Consider the Leray spectral sequence: $$E_2^{pq}=H^p(BG,\RDERF^qf_*k) \Rightarrow E_\infty^{p+q}=H^{p+q}(\spec k,k).$$ Of course, $H^n(\spec k,k)=0$, unless $n=0$. Since $\RDERF^qf_*k$ is trivial, we also have that $E_2^{pq}=H^p(BG,\Orb_{BG})\otimes_k k^{d_q}$.
If $n=g$, then $E_2^{pq}=0$ for all $q>0$, so the spectral sequences degenerates and we deduce that $H^p(BG,\Orb_{BG})=0$ if $p>0$. It follows that $BG$ has cohomological dimension zero.
If $n<g$, then we claim that $BG$ does not have finite cohomological dimension. In fact, suppose on the contrary that $BG$ has finite cohomological dimension. Then $E_2$ is bounded with Euler characteristic zero, since $\sum_{i=0}^{g-n} (-1)^i d_i=0$. This gives a contradiction since the Euler characteristic of $E_\infty$ is one.
\[rem:strange\_cd\] The groups $G=S\times_A E(A)$ have quite curious properties. The classifying stack $BG$ has cohomological dimension zero although $G$ is not linearly reductive (for which we require $G$ affine), showing that does not always imply in Theorem \[T:Nagata\]. Moreover, the presentation $f\colon \spec k\to BG$ has cohomological dimension zero although $f$ is not affine. This shows that in [@perfect_complexes_stacks Lem. 2.2 (6)], the assumption that $Y$ has quasi-affine diagonal cannot be weakened beyond affine stabilizers. We also obtain an example of an extension $0\to U\to E(A)\to A\to 0$ such that $\cohdim(BU)=g$, $\cohdim(BE(A))=0$ and $\cohdim(BA)=\infty$ for every $g\geq 1$. This shows that in Lemma \[lem:jarod\], the cohomological dimension of $BQ$ is not bounded by those of $BG$ and $BH$ unless $\cohdim(BH)=0$.
In the proof of Proposition \[prop:coh-dim-of-anti-affine\], we did not calculate the cohomology of $BG$ for an anti-affine group scheme $G$. This can be done in characteristic zero as follows. Recall that $G$ is the extension of the abelian variety $A$ of dimension $g$ by a commutative group $G_\aff=T\times U$, where $T$ is a torus and $U\cong (\Ga)^n$ is a unipotent group of dimension $0\leq n\leq g$. As before, we let $W\subseteq
H^1(A,\Orb_A)^\vee$ be the $k$-vector space (of dimension $g-n$) corresponding to the vector extension $0\to U\to E\to A\to 0$. Then, $$H^j(BG,\Orb_{BG})=H^j(BE,\Orb_{BE})=\begin{cases}
\mathrm{Sym}^d(W^\vee) & \text{if $j=2d\geq 0$,}\\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ The first equality holds since $BT$ has cohomological dimension zero. The second equality follows by induction on $g-n$. When $g-n=0$ we saw that there is no higher cohomology. For $g-n>0$, we consider the Leray spectral sequence for $BE'\to BE\to \spec k$ where $E'$ is a vector extension of $A$ corresponding to a subspace $W'\subseteq W$ of dimension $g-n-1$. An easy calculation gives the desired result.
In positive characteristic, $n=0$ and $E=A$ and we expect that the cohomology is the same as above (with $W=H^1(A,\Orb_A)^\vee$). When $g=1$, that is, when $A$ is an elliptic curve, the Leray spectral sequence for $\spec k\to BA\to
\spec k$ and an identical calculation as above confirms this.
Stabilizer groups and cohomological dimension {#S:stab-coh-dim}
=============================================
In this section, we generalize a result of Gaitsgory and Drinfeld [@MR3037900 Thm. 1.4.2] on the cohomological dimension of noetherian algebraic stacks in characteristic zero with affine stabilizers. We extend their result to positive characteristic and also allow stacks with non-finitely presented inertia.
\[T:concentrated-stacks\] Let $X$ be a quasi-compact and quasi-separated algebraic stack with affine stabilizers. If $X$ is either
1. a $\Q$-stack, or
2. has nice stabilizers, or
3. has nice stabilizers at points of positive characteristic and finitely presented inertia,
then $X$ is concentrated. In particular, this is the case if $X$ is a tame Deligne–Mumford stack, or a tame Artin stack [@MR2427954].
Note that Theorems \[T:Nagata\] and \[T:conc-BG-char-zero\] give a partial converse to Theorem \[T:concentrated-stacks\]: if $X$ is concentrated, then the stabilizer groups of $X$ are either
1. of positive characteristic and nice;
2. of characteristic zero and affine; or
3. of characteristic zero and extensions of an affine group by an anti-affine group of the form $S\times_A E(A)$.
Theorem \[MT:concentrated-stacks\] follows from Theorem \[T:concentrated-stacks\] and this converse.
We will prove Theorem \[T:concentrated-stacks\] by stratifying the stack into pieces that admit easy descriptions. For nice stabilizers, we need the following
A morphism of algebraic stacks $X\to Y$ is *nicely presented* if there exists:
1. a constant finite group $H$ such that $|H|$ is invertible over $X$,
2. an $H$-torsor $E\to X$, and
3. a $(\Gm)^n$-torsor $T\to E$ such that $T\to Y$ is quasi-affine.
We say that $X\to Y$ is *locally nicely presented* if $X\times_Y Y'\to Y'$ is nicely presented for some fppf-covering $Y'\to Y$.
Note that a locally nicely presented morphism has finite cohomological dimension. If $Y$ has nice stabilizers (e.g., $Y$ is a scheme) and $X\to Y$ is locally nicely presented, then $X$ has nice stabilizers. The following lemma will also be useful.
\[L:nice\_cons\] Let $G$ be a group algebraic space of finite presentation over a scheme $S$. If $G$ has affine fibers, then the locus in $S$ where the fibers are nice group schemes is constructible.
Standard arguments reduce the situation to the following: $S$ is noetherian and integral with generic point $s$ and $G$ is affine and flat over $S$. We may also replace $S$ with $S'$ for any dominant morphism $S'\to S$ of finite type. In particular, we may replace the residue field of the generic point with a finite field extension. Note that if the generic point has characteristic $p$, then $S$ is an $\F_p$-scheme.
If the connected component of $G_s$ is not of multiplicative type, then there exists, after a finite field extension, either a subgroup $\Ga \to G_s$ or a subgroup $\Galpha_p\to G_s$. By smearing out, there is an induced closed subgroup $(\Ga)_U \to G_U$ or $(\Galpha_p)_U\to G_U$, where $U$ is open and dense in $S$; in particular, $G_u$ is not nice for every $u\in U$.
If the connected component of $G_s$ is of multiplicative type, there is, after a residue field extension, a sequence $0 \to T_s \to G_s \to H_s \to 0$ with $T_s$ diagonalizable and $H_s$ constant. We have $T$ and $H$ over $S$ and we can spread out to an exact sequence over an open dense subscheme $U$ of $S$ that agrees with the pull back of $G$ to $U$.
Let $d$ be the order of $H_s$ and $p$ the characteristic of $\kappa(s)$. If $G_s$ is nice, then $p\nmid d$. If $p$ is zero, we may shrink $U$ such that no point has characteristic dividing $d$. Thus $G_u$ is nice for every $u\in U$. Conversely, if $G_s$ is not nice, then $p \mid d$ and $G_u$ is not nice for every $u\in U$.
Let $X$ be an algebraic stack. A *finitely presented filtration* $(X_i)_{i=0}^r$ is a sequence of finitely presented closed substacks $\emptyset=X_0\hookrightarrow X_1\hookrightarrow \dots \hookrightarrow
X_r\hookrightarrow X$ such that $|X_r|=|X|$.
\[rem:strata\_gerbes\] If $X$ is quasi-compact and quasi-separated with inertia of finite presentation (e.g., $X$ noetherian), then there exists a finitely presented filtration of $X$ with strata that are gerbes. In the noetherian case, this is immediate from generic flatness and [@MR1771927 Prop. 10.8]. For the general case, see [@rydh-2014 Cor. 8.4]. Moreover, by Lemma \[L:nice\_cons\], if $X$ has affine stabilizers as in Theorem \[MT:fin-coh-dim-of-BG\](1) or (2), then $X$ has a stratification by gerbes such that each stratum is either of equal characteristic $0$ or nice.
On a quasi-compact and quasi-separated algebraic stack, every quasi-coherent sheaf is a direct limit of its finitely generated quasi-coherent subsheaves. This is well-known for noetherian algebraic stacks [@MR1771927 Prop. 15.4]. The general case was recently settled by the second author [@rydh-2014].
\[P:stabilizer-filtration\] Let $X$ be a quasi-compact and quasi-separated algebraic stack. Then
1. \[PI:stabfiltr:affine\] $X$ has *affine* stabilizers if and only if there exists a finitely presented filtration $(X_i)_{i=0}^r$, positive integers $n_1,n_2,\dots,n_r$ and *quasi-affine* morphisms $X_i\setminus X_{i-1}\to
B\GL_{n_i,\Z}$ for every $i=1,\dots,r$; and
2. \[PI:stabfiltr:nice\] $X$ has *nice* stabilizers if and only if there exists a finitely presented filtration $(X_i)_{i=0}^r$, affine schemes $S_i$ of finite presentation over $\spec \Z$ and *locally nicely presented* morphisms $X_i\setminus X_{i-1}\to S_i$ for every $i=1,\dots,r$.
The conditions are clearly sufficient. To prove that they are necessary, first assume that $X$ is an fppf-gerbe over an algebraically closed field $k$. Then $X=BG$, where $G$ is an affine (resp. nice) group scheme. If $G$ is affine, then there is a quasi-affine morphism to some $B\GL_{n,k}$ [@MR2108211 Lem. 3.1]. If $G$ is nice, then $BG^0\to BG$ is an $H=\pi_0(G)$-torsor. Since $G^0$ is diagonalizable, there is a $(\Gm)^n$-torsor $(\mathbb{G}_{m,k})^{n-r}\to BG^0$. Thus $BG\to \spec k\to \spec \Z$ is nicely presented.
If $k$ is not algebraically closed, then, by approximation, the situation above holds after passing to a finite field extension $k'/k$. If the stabilizer of $X$ is affine, then $X$ has the resolution property [@perfect_complexes_stacks Rmk. 7.2] and hence there is a quasi-affine morphism $X\to B\GL_{n,k}$. In this case, let $S=B\GL_{n,\Z}$. If the stabilizer of $X$ is nice, then $X\to \spec k$ is at least locally nicely presented. By approximating $\spec k\to \spec \Z$, we obtain a finitely presented affine scheme $S\to \spec \Z$ such that $X\to \spec k\to S$ is locally nicely presented.
If $X$ is any quasi-separated algebraic stack, then for every point $x\in |X|$ there is an immersion $Z\hookrightarrow X$ such that $Z$ is an fppf-gerbe over an affine integral scheme $\underline{Z}$ and the residual gerbe $\mathcal{G}_x\to \spec
\kappa(x)$ is the generic fiber of $Z\to \underline{Z}$ [@MR2774654 Thm. B.2]. In particular, $\mathcal{G}_x$ is the inverse limit of open neighborhoods $U\subseteq Z$ of $x$ such that $U\to Z$ is affine. By [@rydh-2009 Thm. C], there exists an open neighborhood $x\in U\subseteq Z$ and a morphism $U\to S$ that is quasi-affine (resp. locally nicely presented).
We may write the quasi-compact immersion $U\hookrightarrow Z\hookrightarrow X$ as a closed immersion $U\hookrightarrow V$ in some quasi-compact open substack $V\subset X$. Since $V$ is quasi-compact and quasi-separated, we may express $U\hookrightarrow V$ as an inverse limit of finitely presented closed immersions $U_\lambda\hookrightarrow V$. Since $S$ is of finite presentation, there is a morphism $U_\lambda\to S$ for sufficiently large $\lambda$. After increasing $\lambda$, the morphism $U_\lambda\to S$ becomes quasi-affine (resp. locally nicely presented) by [@rydh-2009 Thm. C]. Let $U_x=U_\lambda$.
For every $x\in |X|$ proceed as above and choose a locally closed finitely presented immersion $U_x\hookrightarrow X$ with $x\in |U_x|$. As the substacks $U_x$ are constructible, it follows by quasi-compactness that a finite number of the $U_x$’s cover $X$ and we easily obtain a stratification and filtration as claimed, cf. [@MR2774654 Pf. of Prop. 4.4].
The following lemma will be useful.
\[L:stratify\_cohdim\] Let $X$ be a quasi-compact and quasi-separated algebraic stack. If $i\colon Z\hookrightarrow X$ is a finitely presented closed immersion with complement $j\colon U\hookrightarrow X$, then $$\cohdim(X)\leq \max\{\cohdim(U),\cohdim(Z)+\cohdim(j)+1\}.$$
Let $I$ denote the ideal sheaf defining $Z$ in $X$. Let $F$ be a quasi-coherent sheaf on $X$. Consider the adjunction map $F\to \RDERF j_*j^*F$ and let $C$ denote the cone. Then $j^*C=0$ and $C$ is supported in degrees $\leq \cohdim(j)$. Since $H^d(\RDERF\Gamma \RDERF j_*j^*F)=H^d(U,j^*F)=0$ for $d> \cohdim(U)$, it is enough to show that $H^d(X,G)=0$ if $G$ is a quasi-coherent sheaf such that $j^*G=0$ and $d>\cohdim(Z)$. After writing $G$ as a direct limit of its finitely generated subsheaves, we may further assume that $G$ is finitely generated. Then $I^nG=0$ for sufficiently large $n$ and one easily proves that $H^d(X,G)=0$ by induction on $n$.
We now prove the main result of this section.
We first treat (1) and (2). Choose a filtration as in Proposition \[P:stabilizer-filtration\] or . In characteristic zero, $B\GL_n$ has cohomological dimension zero and quasi-affine morphisms have finite cohomological dimension. In arbitrary characteristic, locally nicely presented morphisms have finite cohomological dimension. Indeed, $BH$ and $B(\Gm)^n$ have cohomological dimension zero. Thus, the Theorem follows from Lemma \[L:stratify\_cohdim\]. For (3), we may choose a filtration as in Remark \[rem:strata\_gerbes\]. Then the result follows from Lemma \[L:stratify\_cohdim\] and the cases (1) and (2) already proved.
There are several other applications of the structure result of Proposition \[P:stabilizer-filtration\]. An immediate corollary is that the locus of points where the stabilizers are affine (resp. nice) is ind-constructible. This is false for “linearly reductive”: the locus with linearly reductive stabilizers in $B\GL_{n,\Z}$, for $n\geq 2$, is the subset $B\GL_{n,\Q}$ which is not ind-constructible. Another corollary is the following approximation result.
Let $S$ be a quasi-compact algebraic stack and let $X=\varprojlim_\lambda
X_\lambda$ be an inverse limit of quasi-compact and quasi-separated morphisms of algebraic stacks $X_\lambda\to S$ with affine transition maps. Then $X$ has affine (resp. nice) stabilizers if and only if $X_\lambda$ has affine (resp. nice) stabilizers for sufficiently large $\lambda$.
The question is fppf-local on $S$, so we can assume that $S$ is affine. Note that if $X\to Y$ is affine and $Y$ has affine (resp. nice) stabilizers, then so has $X$. The result now follows from Proposition \[P:stabilizer-filtration\] and [@rydh-2009 Thm. C].
Thus if $X_\lambda$ is of equal characteristic and has affine stabilizer groups, then $X\to S$ has finite cohomological dimension if and only if $X_\lambda\to S$ has finite cohomological dimension for sufficiently large $\lambda$. The example $X=B\GL_{2,\Q}=\varprojlim_m B\GL_{2,\Z[\frac{1}{m}]}$ shows that this is false in mixed characteristic.
Compact generation of classifying stacks {#S:compact-generation}
========================================
In this section, we prove Theorem \[MT:compact-gen-of-BG\] on the compact generation of classifying stacks. The following three lemmas will be useful.
\[L:cons-adjoint\] Let $F \colon \mathcal{T} \to \mathcal{S}$ be a triangulated functor between triangulated categories that are closed under small coproducts. Assume that $F$ admits a conservative right adjoint $G$ that preserves small coproducts. If $\mathcal{T}$ is compactly generated by a set $T$, then $\mathcal{S}$ is compactly generated by the set $F(T)=\{F(t) \suchthat t \in T\}$.
By [@MR1308405 Thm. 5.1 “$\Rightarrow$”], $F(T) \subseteq
\mathcal{S}^c$. Thus, it remains to prove that the set $F(T)$ is generating. If $s \in \mathcal{S}$ is non-zero, then $G(s)$ is non-zero. It follows that there is a non-zero map $t \to G(s)[n]$ for some $t\in T$ and $n\in \Z$. By adjunction, there is a non-zero map $F(t) \to s[n]$, and we have the claim.
\[L:qppsh\] Let $\pi\colon X' \to X$ be a proper and faithfully flat morphism of noetherian algebraic stacks. Assume that either $\pi$ is finite or a torsor for a smooth group scheme. If a set $T$ compactly generates $\DQCOH(X')$, then the set $\{\RDERF \pi_*P \suchthat P \in T\}$ compactly generates $\DQCOH(X)$.
By [@perfect_complexes_stacks Ex. 6.5] and Proposition \[P:quasi-perfect-smooth-proper\], in both cases $\RDERF\pi_*$ is $\DQCOH$-quasiperfect with respect to open immersions (see [@perfect_complexes_stacks Defn. 6.4]) and its right adjoint $\pi^!$ is conservative. The claim now follows from Lemma \[L:cons-adjoint\].
\[L:cons-extension\] Let $k$ be a field and let $1 \to K \to G \to H \to 1$ be a short exact sequence of group schemes of finite type over $k$. Let $p\colon BG \to BH$ be the induced morphism. Assume that either
1. \[lem:conservative:trivgen\] $\DQCOH(BK)$ is compactly generated by $\Orb_{BK}$, or
2. \[lem:conservative:aa\] $K \subseteq G_\ant$ and $\cohdim(BK) = 0$.
Then $\RDERF p_* \colon \DQCOH(BG) \to \DQCOH(BH)$ is concentrated and conservative.
For , the pull back of $p$ along the universal $H$-torsor is the morphism $p'\colon BK \to \spec k$. Since $\DQCOH(BK)$ is compactly generated by $\Orb_{BK}$, it follows that $BK$ is concentrated. By [@perfect_complexes_stacks Lem. 2.5(2)], $p$ is concentrated. To prove that $\RDERF p_*$ is conservative, by [@perfect_complexes_stacks Thm. 2.6], it remains to prove that $\RDERF p'_*$ is conservative. If $M\in \DQCOH(BK)$ is non-zero, then by assumption there is a non-zero map $\Orb_{BK}[n] \to M$ for some integer $n$. Since $\LDERF p'^*\Orb_{\spec k} \homotopic
\Orb_{BK}$, by adjunction, there is a non-zero map $\Orb_{\spec
k}[n] \to \RDERF p'_*M$. The claim follows.
For , by [@perfect_complexes_stacks Lem. 2.2(2) & 2.5(2)], $\cohdim(p) = 0$ and $p$ is concentrated. Thus, if $M \in \DQCOH(BG)$ and $i\in \Z$, then $\COHO{i}(\RDERF p_*M) = p_*\COHO{i}(M)$. So to establish that $\RDERF p_*$ is conservative, it remains to prove that the functor $p_*\colon \QCOH(BG) \to \QCOH(BH)$ is conservative. Let $q\colon
BG \to B(G/G_\ant)$ be the natural morphism. Then $q$ factors as $BG \xrightarrow{p} BH \to B(G/G_\ant)$. Smooth-locally $q$ is the morphism $BG_\ant
\to \spec k$, and $\QCOH(BG_\ant) \to \QCOH(\spec k)$ is an equivalence [@MR2488561 Lem. 1.1]. By descent, it follows that $q_*$ is conservative. Hence, $p_*$ is conservative. The result follows.
If $k$ has positive characteristic and $\red{\overline{G}}^0$ is not semi-abelian, then $B_kG$ is poorly stabilized [@hallj_neeman_dary_no_compacts Lem. 4.1], so $\DQCOH(B_kG)$ is not compactly generated [@hallj_neeman_dary_no_compacts Thm. 1.1]. Conversely, assume either that $k$ has characteristic zero or that $\red{\overline{G}}^0$ is semi-abelian.
Let $G^0$ be the connected component of $G$. Then $BG^0\to BG$ is finite and faithfully flat. By Lemma \[L:qppsh\], we may assume that $G=G_0$. By Lemma \[L:qppsh\], we may always pass to finite extensions of the ground field $k$. In particular, we may assume that $\red{G}$ is a smooth group scheme. Similarly, since $B\red{G}\to BG$ is finite and faithfully flat, we may replace $G$ with $\red{G}$. Hence, we may assume that $G$ is smooth and connected.
By Chevalley’s Theorem [@MR1906417 Thm. 1.1], we may (after passing to a finite extension of $k$) write $G$ as an extension of an abelian variety $A$ by a smooth connected affine group $G_\aff$. By assumption, $G_\aff$ is a torus in positive characteristic. In particular, $BG_\aff$ is concentrated, has affine diagonal and the resolution property; thus $\DQCOH(BG_\aff)$ is compactly generated by a set of compact vector bundles [@perfect_complexes_stacks Prop. 8.4]. Since the induced map $f\colon
BG_\aff \to BG$ is an $A$-torsor, $\DQCOH(BG)$ is compactly generated (Lemma \[L:qppsh\]). Note that this also establishes .
For , let $M \in \DQCOH(B_kG)$ and suppose that $M\not\simeq 0$. By , there exists a non-zero map $V[n] \to M$, where $V$ is a finite-dimensional $k$-representation of $G$. Let $L \subseteq V$ be an irreducible $k$-subrepresentation of $G$. If the composition $L[n] \to V[n] \to M$ is zero, then there is an induced non-zero map $(V/L)[n] \to M$. Since $V$ is finite-dimensional, we must eventually arrive at the situation where there is a non-zero map $L[n] \to M$, where $L$ is irreducible. Finally, $B_kG$ has finite cohomological dimension (Theorem \[MT:fin-coh-dim-of-BG\]), so $L$ is compact [@perfect_complexes_stacks Rem. 4.6].
It remains to address . Suppose that $\DQCOH(BG)$ is compactly generated by a single perfect complex. Then so too is $\DQCOH(B\red{\bar{G}}^0)$. Assume that $k=\bar{k}$ and $G=\red{\bar{G}}^0$; in particular, $G$ is smooth and connected and $k$ is perfect. To derive a contradiction, we assume that $G/G_\ant$—the affinization of $G$—is not unipotent. By Chevalley’s Theorem [@MR1906417 Thm. 1.1], $G$ is an extension of an abelian variety $A$ by a connected smooth affine group $G_\aff$. The exact sequence of [@MR2488561 Prop. 3.1(i)] quickly implies that the induced map $G_\aff \to G/G_\ant$ is surjective. In particular, $G_\aff$ is not unipotent; moreover, there is a subgroup $\Gm \subset G_\aff$ such that the induced map $\Gm \to G/G_\ant$ has kernel $\mu_n$ for some $n$. Since $G/G_\ant$ is affine and $\Gm$ is linearly reductive, it follows that the induced morphism $\phi \colon B(\Gm/\mu_n) \to B(G/G_\ant)$ is affine; in particular, the functor $\RDERF\phi_*$ is conservative.
Let $\mathcal{L}$ be the standard representation of $\Gm$. Then for every integer $r$, a brief calculation using that $\RDERF \phi_*$ is conservative proves that $\RDERF q_*(\mathcal{L}^{\tensor rn}) \neq
0$, where $q$ is the composition $B\Gm \to B(\Gm/\mu_n)
\xrightarrow{\phi} B(G/G_\ant)$. If $\DQCOH(BG)$ is compactly generated by a single perfect complex $P$, then for every integer $r$ there exist integers $m_r$ and non-zero maps $l_r \colon P
\to \RDERF \psi_*(\mathcal{L}^{\tensor rn})[m_r]$, where $\psi \colon
B\Gm \to BG_\aff\to BG$ is the induced map; indeed, $\RDERF q_*$ is conservative so $\RDERF \psi_*(\mathcal{L}^{\tensor rn}) \neq 0$ for every $r$. By adjunction, there are non-zero maps $\LDERF \psi^*P \to
\mathcal{L}^{\tensor rn}[m_r]$, for every $r$. That is, $$\Hom_{\Orb_{B\Gm}}(\LDERF \psi^*P, \mathcal{L}^{\tensor rn}[m_r]) = \Hom_{\Orb_{B\Gm}}(\psi^*\COHO{m_r}(P),\mathcal{L}^{\tensor rn})$$ is non-zero for every integer $r$. But $\LDERF \psi^*P$ is perfect, so there are only finitely many non-zero $\COHO{i}(P)$ and only a finite number of the representations $\mathcal{L}^{\tensor rn}$ appear in $\psi^*\COHO{i}(P)$. Hence, we have a contradiction, so the affinization of $\red{\bar{G}}^0$ is unipotent.
Conversely, suppose that the affinization of $\red{\bar{G}}^0$ is unipotent. By Lemma \[L:qppsh\] and arguing as before, after passing to a finite extension of $k$, we may assume that $G=\red{G}^0$ and that the affinization $G/G_\ant$ is unipotent. Passing to a further finite extension of $k$, by Chevalley’s Theorem [@MR1906417 Thm. 1.1], we may assume that $G$ (resp. $G_\ant$) is an extension of an abelian scheme $A$ (resp. $A'$) by a connected smooth affine group $G_\aff$ (resp. $G_\aff'$). Note that if $k$ has positive characteristic, then since $\DQCOH(BG)$ is compactly generated, it follows by what we have already established that $G_\aff$ has no unipotent elements; in particular, since $G_\aff \to
G/G_\ant$ is surjective (arguing as above) and $G/G_\ant$ is unipotent, it follows that $G/G_\ant$ is trivial.
By [@MR2488561 Prop. 3.1(ii)] we have that $G_\aff' \subseteq G_\aff$. Since $G_\aff'$ is smooth, affine, connected and commutative, it follows that $G_\aff'=T\times
U$, where $T$ is a torus and $U$ is connected and unipotent [@MR2488561 (2.5)]. Note that from the above, if $k$ has positive characteristic, then $G_\aff'=T$. By assumption, $G$ is connected; thus, $G_\ant \subseteq Z(G)$ [@MR0302656 Cor. III.3.8.3]. In particular, $T$ is a normal subgroup of both $G_\aff$ and $G$. By Lemmas \[L:cons-adjoint\] and \[L:cons-extension\], it suffices to prove that $\DQCOH(G/T)$ is compactly generated by a single perfect complex.
We have exact sequences $$\xymatrix@R-1pc{1 \ar[r] & G_\aff/T \ar[r] & G/T \ar[r] & A \ar[r] & 1\phantom{.} \\
1 \ar[r] & U \ar[r] & G_\aff/T \ar[r] & G_\aff/G_\aff' \ar[r] & 1. }$$ The kernel of the surjective map $G_\aff/G_\aff'\twoheadrightarrow G/G_\ant$ is finite by [@MR2488561 Prop. 3.1(ii)]. By assumption $G/G_\ant$ is unipotent and $G_\aff/G_\aff'$ is connected and smooth; hence $G_\aff/G_\aff'$ and $G_\aff/T$ are unipotent. Note that in positive characteristic $G_\aff/T=0$.
We know that $\DQCOH(BA)$ is compactly generated by a single perfect complex (Lemma \[L:qppsh\]). In characteristic zero, since $G_\aff/T$ is unipotent, we have also established that $\DQCOH(B(G_\aff/T))$ is compactly generated by the structure sheaf in . Hence, by Lemmas \[L:cons-adjoint\] and \[L:cons-extension\], we have that $\DQCOH(B(G/T))$ is compactly generated and the result follows.
\[rem:gens-of-BG\] In characteristic zero, the proof of Theorem \[MT:compact-gen-of-BG\] shows that if $G^0$ fits in an exact sequence of group schemes $0 \to U \to G^0 \to A \to 0$, where $U$ is unipotent, then $\DQCOH(BG)$ is compactly generated by the perfect complex $\RDERF \pi_*\Orb_{B U}$, where $\pi \colon BU \to BG$ is the induced morphism.
\[C:gerbes\] Let $k$ be a field. Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a quasi-compact and quasi-separated fppf gerbe over $\spec k$. The derived category $\DQCOH(\mathcal{G})$ is compactly generated if and only if $\mathcal{G}$ is not poorly stabilized.
If $\mathcal{G}$ is poorly stabilized, then $\DQCOH(\mathcal{G})$ is not compactly generated [@hallj_neeman_dary_no_compacts Thm. 1.1]. Conversely, Lemma \[L:qppsh\] permits us to reduce to the situation where $\mathcal{G}$ is neutral. The result now follows from Theorem \[MT:compact-gen-of-BG\].
More generally, we have the following.
Let $S$ be a scheme and let $G\to S$ be a flat group scheme of finite presentation. Let $X$ be a quasi-compact algebraic stack over $S$ with quasi-finite and separated diagonal and let $\mathcal{G}\to X$ be a $G$-gerbe. Assume that either
1. $S$ is the spectrum of a field $k$ and $G$ is not poor, that is, either $S$ has characteristic zero or $\red{\overline{G}}^0$ is semi-abelian; or
2. $S$ is arbitrary and $G\to S$ is of multiplicative type.
Then $\mathcal{G}$ is $\aleph_0$-crisp (and $1$-crisp if $G \to S$ is proper). In particular, $\DQCOH(\mathcal{G})$ is compactly generated.
The question is local on $X$ with respect to quasi-finite faithfully flat morphisms of finite presentation [@perfect_complexes_stacks Thm. C]. We may thus assume that $X$ is affine and that $\mathcal{G}\to X$ is a trivial $G$-gerbe, that is, $\mathcal{G}\simeq X\times_S BG$. We may also replace $S$ by a quasi-finite flat cover and in the first case assume that $\red{G}^0$ is a group scheme and in the second case assume that $G\to S$ is diagonalizable.
In the second case $X\times_S BG$ is concentrated, has affine diagonal and has the resolution property. It is thus $\aleph_0$-crisp [@perfect_complexes_stacks Prop. 8.4].
In the first case, we may, after further base change, apply Chevalley’s theorem and write $\red{G}^0$ as an extension of an abelian variety $A/k$ by a smooth connected affine group $G_\aff$ (a torus in positive characteristic). The stack $X\times_k
BG_\aff$ is $\aleph_0$-crisp as in the previous case ($1$-crisp if $G$ is proper). The morphism $X\times_k BG_\aff\to X\times_k B\red{G}^0$ is a torsor under $A$, hence Proposition \[P:quasi-perfect-smooth-proper\] and [@perfect_complexes_stacks Prop. 6.6] applies. Hence, $X\times_k B\red{G}^0$ is $\aleph_0$-crisp. Finally, since $B\red{G}^0\to
BG$ is finite and flat, $X\times_k BG$ is $\aleph_0$-crisp by [@perfect_complexes_stacks Thm. C].
Grothendieck duality for smooth and representable morphisms of algebraic stacks {#A:duality}
===============================================================================
In this Appendix we prove a variant of [@2008arXiv0811.1955N Prop. 1.20] that was necessary for this paper. The difficult parts of the following Proposition, for schemes, are well-known [@MR1804902 Thm. 4.3.1].
Recall that a morphism of algebraic stacks $X\to Y$ is *schematic* (or strongly representable) if for every scheme $Y'$ and morphism $Y'\to Y$, the pull-back $X\times_Y Y'$ is a scheme. We say that $X\to Y$ is *locally schematic* if there exists a faithfully flat morphism $Y'\to Y$, locally of finite presentation, such that $X\times_Y Y'$ is a scheme. In particular, if $S$ is a scheme, $G\to S$ is a group *scheme*, $Y$ is an $S$-stack and $X\to Y$ is a $G$-torsor, then $X\to Y$ is locally schematic (but perhaps not schematic).
\[P:quasi-perfect-smooth-proper\] Let $f\colon X \to Y$ be a proper, smooth, and locally schematic morphism of noetherian algebraic stacks of relative dimension $n$. Let $f^!\colon \DQCOH(Y) \to \DQCOH(X)$ be the functor $\omega_{f}[n] \otimes_{\Orb_X} \LDERF f^*(-)$, where $\omega_{f} = \wedge^n \Omega_{f}$.
1. There is a *trace morphism* $\gamma_f \colon \RDERF^n f_*\omega_f
\to \Orb_Y$ that is compatible with locally noetherian base change on $Y$.
2. The trace morphism induces a natural transformation $\Tr_f\colon \RDERF f_*f^! \to \ID{}$, which is compatible with locally noetherian base change and gives rise to a sheafified duality quasi-isomorphism whenever $M\in \DQCOH(X)$ and $N\in \DQCOH(Y)$: $$J_{f,M,N} \colon \RDERF f_*\SRHom_{\Orb_X}(M,f^!N) \to
\SRHom_{\Orb_Y}(\RDERF f_*M,N).$$ In particular, $f^!$ is a right adjoint to $\RDERF f_*\colon \DQCOH(X)\to \DQCOH(Y)$.
For the moment, assume that $f$ is a morphism of schemes. By [@MR1804902 Cor. 3.6.6], there is a *trace morphism* $\gamma_{f} \colon
\RDERF^nf_*\omega_{f} \to \Orb_Y$ that is compatible with locally noetherian base change on $Y$. For $N\in \DQCOH(Y)$, there is also an induced morphism, which we denote as $\Tr_f(N)$: $$\RDERF f_* f^!N\simeq (\RDERF f_* \omega_{f})[n]
\otimes^{\LDERF}_{\Orb_{Y}} N \to (\RDERF^n f_*\omega_{f})
\otimes^{\LDERF}_{\Orb_Y} N \xrightarrow{\gamma_f \tensor \ID{}} N,$$ where the first isomorphism is the Projection Formula [@MR1308405 Prop. 5.3] and the second morphism is given by the truncation map $\tau_{\geq 0}$—using that $\RDERF f_*$ has cohomological dimension $n$. Tor-independent base change (e.g., [@perfect_complexes_stacks Cor. 4.13]) shows that the morphism $\Tr_f(N)$ is natural and compatible with locally noetherian base change and induces a sheafified duality morphism: $$J_{f,M,N} \colon \RDERF f_* \SRHom_{\Orb_X}(M,f^!N) \to
\SRHom_{\Orb_Y}(\RDERF f_*M,N),$$ where $M \in \DQCOH(X)$ and $N \in \DQCOH(Y)$. The morphism $J_{f,M,N}$ is a quasi-isomorphism whenever $M \in
\DCAT_{\COH}^b(X)$ and $N \in \DQCOH^b(Y)$ [@MR1804902 Thm. 4.3.1].
Returning to the general case, we note that by hypothesis, there is a noetherian scheme $U$ and a smooth and surjective morphism $p\colon U \to Y$ such that in the $2$-cartesian square of algebraic stacks: $$\xymatrix{X_U \ar[d]_{f_U}\ar[r]^{p_X} & X \ar[d]^f \\ U\ar[r]^p & Y,}$$ the morphism $f_U$ is a proper and smooth morphism of relative dimension $n$ of noetherian schemes. Let $R=U\times_Y U$, which is a noetherian algebraic space. Let $\tilde{R} \to R$ be an étale surjection, where $\tilde{R}$ is a noetherian scheme. Let $s_1$ and $s_2$ denote the two morphisms $\tilde{R} \to R \to U$ and let $f_{\tilde{R}} \colon X_{\tilde{R}} \to \tilde{R}$ denote the pullback of $f$ along $p\circ s_1\colon \tilde{R} \to Y$. By the above, there are trace morphisms $\gamma_{f_U}$ and $\gamma_{f_{\tilde{R}}}$ that are compatible with locally noetherian base change. In particular, for $i=1$ and $i=2$ the following diagram commutes: $$\xymatrix{s_i^*\RDERF^n(f_U)_*\omega_{f_U} \ar[r]^-{\sim}
\ar[d]_{s_i^*\gamma_{f_U}} & \RDERF^n(f_{\tilde{R}})_*\omega_{f_{\tilde{R}}}
\ar[d]^{\gamma_{f_{\tilde{R}}}} \\ s_i^*\Orb_U \ar[r]^-{\sim} &
\Orb_{\tilde{R}} }$$ By smooth descent, there is a uniquely induced morphism $\gamma_f \colon
\RDERF^nf_*\omega_f \to \Orb_Y$ such that the following diagram commutes: $$\xymatrix{p^*\RDERF^nf_*\omega_f \ar[r]^-{\sim}
\ar[d]_{p^*\gamma_f}& \RDERF^n(f_U)_*\omega_{f_U}
\ar[d]^{\gamma_{f_U}} \\ p^*\Orb_Y \ar[r]^-{\sim} & \Orb_U.}$$ Now the morphism $f$ is quasi-compact, quasi-separated, and representable—whence concentrated [@perfect_complexes_stacks Lem. 2.5 (3)]. By the Projection Formula [@perfect_complexes_stacks Cor. 4.12], there is a natural quasi-isomorphism for each $N \in \DQCOH(Y)$: $$(\RDERF f_*\omega_{f}[n]) \otimes^{\LDERF}_{\Orb_{Y}} N \simeq
\RDERF f_*f^!N.$$ Since $f$ is also proper, flat, and representable with fibers of relative dimension $\leq n$ it follows that $\RDERF f_*\omega_{f}
\in \DCAT_{\COH}^{[0,n]}(Y)$. Inverting the quasi-isomorphism above and truncating, we obtain a natural morphism: $$\RDERF f_* f^!N \simeq (\RDERF f_* \omega_{f})[n]
\otimes^{\LDERF}_{\Orb_{Y}} N \to (\RDERF^n f_*\omega_{f})
\otimes^{\LDERF}_{\Orb_Y} N \xrightarrow{\gamma_f \otimes \ID{}} N,$$ which we denote as $\Tr_f(N)$. If $M \in \DQCOH(X)$ and $N\in \DQCOH(Y)$, let $$\begin{aligned}
A(M,N) &= \RDERF f_* \SRHom_{\Orb_X}(M,f^!N),\\
B(M,N) &=
\SRHom_{\Orb_Y}(\RDERF f_*M,N),\text{ and}\\
J_{f,M,N} &\colon A(M,N) \to B(M,N),
\end{aligned}$$ where $J_{f,M,N}$ is the sheafified duality morphism induced by $\RDERF f_* f^!N\to N$. Furthermore, there is a natural isomorphism of functors: $$p^*\RDERF f_*f^! \simeq \RDERF (f_U)_*p_X^*f^! \simeq \RDERF(f_U)_*(f_U)^!p^*,$$ and the following diagram is readily observed to commute for each $N\in \DQCOH(Y)$: $$\xymatrix@C3pc{p^*\RDERF f_* f^!N \ar[r]^-{p^*\Tr_f(N)} \ar[d] &
p^*N \ar@{=}[d] \\ \RDERF (f_U)_*(f_U)^!p^*N \ar[r]^-{\Tr_{f_U}(p^*N)} & p^*N. }$$ We have already seen that $J_{f_U,M,N}$ is a quasi-isomorphism whenever $M \in \DCAT_{\COH}^b(X_U)$ and $N\in \DQCOH^b(U)$. Thus, by tor-independent base change and the commutativity of the diagram above, the morphism $J_{f,M,N}$ is a quasi-isomorphism whenever $M
\in\DCAT_{\COH}^b(X)$ and $N\in \DQCOH^b(Y)$.
It remains to prove that $J_{f,M,N}$ is a quasi-isomorphism for all $M \in \DQCOH(X)$ and all $N \in \DQCOH(Y)$. By [@hallj_neeman_dary_no_compacts Thm. B.1], $\DQCOH(X)$ and $\DQCOH(Y)$ are left-complete triangulated categories. Thus, we have distinguished triangles: $$N\to \prod_{k\leq 0} \tau^{\geq k}N\to \prod_{k\leq 0} \tau^{\geq k}N
\quad \text{and} \quad
f^!N\to \prod_{k\leq 0} \tau^{\geq k}f^!N\to \prod_{k\leq 0} \tau^{\geq k}f^!N,$$ where the first maps are the canonical ones and the second maps are $1-\textrm{shift}$. Since $f^![-n]$ is $t$-exact, we also have a distinguished triangle: $$f^!N\to \prod_{k\leq 0} f^!\tau^{\geq k}N\to \prod_{k\leq 0} f^!\tau^{\geq k}N.$$ Hence we have a natural morphism of distinguished triangles: $$\xymatrix@C-1pc{A(M,N) \ar[r]
\ar[d]_{J_{f,M,N}} & \ar[d]_{(J_{f,M,\trunc{\geq k}N})}
\displaystyle\prod_{k\leq 0} A(M,\tau^{\geq k}N) \ar[r]
& \ar[d]_{(J_{f,M,\trunc{\geq k}N})}
\displaystyle\prod_{k\leq 0}
A(M,\tau^{\geq k}N) \\
B(M,N) \ar[r]
& \displaystyle\prod_{k\leq 0} B(M,\tau^{\geq k}N) \ar[r]
& \displaystyle\prod_{k\leq 0} B(M,\tau^{\geq k}N).}$$ Since $f$ has cohomological dimension $\leq n$, it follows that there are natural quasi-isomorphisms for every pair of integers $k$ and $p$: $$\label{E:bounded-eqn}
\begin{aligned}
\trunc{\leq p}A(M,\tau^{\geq k}N)
&= \trunc{\leq p}\RDERF f_*\SRHom_{\Orb_X}(M,f^!\tau^{\geq k}N) \\
&\homotopic \trunc{\leq p}\RDERF f_*\trunc{\leq p}\SRHom_{\Orb_X}(M,\tau^{\geq k-n}f^!N)\\
&\homotopic \trunc{\leq p}\RDERF f_*\SRHom_{\Orb_X}(\tau^{\geq k-n-p}M,f^!\tau^{\geq k}N) \\
&= \trunc{\leq p}A(\tau^{\geq k-n-p}M,\tau^{\geq k}N) \\
\trunc{\leq p}B(M,\tau^{\geq k}N)
&= \trunc{\leq p}\SRHom_{\Orb_Y}(\RDERF f_* M,\tau^{\geq k}N) \\
&\homotopic
\trunc{\leq p}\SRHom_{\Orb_Y}(\tau^{\geq k-p}\RDERF f_*M,\tau^{\geq k}N)\\
&\homotopic
\trunc{\leq p}\SRHom_{\Orb_Y}(\RDERF f_*(\tau^{\geq k-n-p}M),\tau^{\geq k}N)\\
&=\trunc{\leq p}B(\tau^{\geq k-n-p}M,\tau^{\geq k}N).
\end{aligned}$$ Thus it is enough to establish that $J_{f,M,N}$ is a quasi-isomorphism when $M\in \DQCOH^+(X)$ and $N
\in \DQCOH^+(Y)$. A similar argument, but this time using the homotopy colimit $\bigoplus_{k\geq 0} \tau^{\leq k}M\to \bigoplus_{k\geq 0} \tau^{\leq k}M \to M$ (cf., [@MR2434692 Lem. 4.3.2]), further permits a reduction to the situation where $M \in \DQCOH^b(X)$ and $N\in
\DQCOH^b(Y)$.
For the remainder of the proof we fix $N\in \DQCOH^b(Y)$. Let $F_N$ be the functor $A(-,N)$ and let $G_N$ be the functor $B(-,N)$, both regarded as contravariant triangulated functors from $\DQCOH(X)$ to $\DQCOH(Y)$. Since $N$ is bounded below, the functors $F_N$ and $G_N$ are bounded below and $J_{f,-,N}$ induces a natural transformation $F_N \to G_N$.
Let $C \subseteq
\QCOH(X)$ be the collection of objects of the form $\bigoplus_{i\in I}
L_i$, where $L_i \in \COH(X)$ and $I$ is a set. Recall that $J_{f,L,N}$ is a quasi-isomorphism whenever $L\in \COH(X)$ and $N\in \DQCOH^b(Y)$. Since $F_N$ and $G_N$ both send coproducts to products, it follows that $J_{f,\oplus L_i,N}=\prod J_{f,L_i,N}$, so $J_{f,L,N}$ is also a quasi-isomorphism whenever $L=\bigoplus L_i \in C$.
Every $M \in \QCOH(X)$ is a quotient of some object of $C$ [@MR1771927 Prop. 15.4]. By standard “way-out” arguments (e.g., [@MR2490557 Compl. 1.11.3.1]) it now follows that $J_{f,M,N}$ is a quasi-isomorphism for all $M\in \DQCOH^-(X)$, and the result follows.
Note that if $A$ is an abelian variety and $\pi\colon BA\to \spec k$ is the classifying stack, then $\RDERF\pi_*\colon \DQCOH(BA)\to \DCAT(\MOD(k))$ does not admit a right adjoint. In fact, $BA$ is not concentrated (see Section \[S:coh-dim-BG\]), so $\RDERF\pi_*$ does not preserve small coproducts; thus, cannot be a left adjoint.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper studies the second-order asymptotics of the Gaussian multiple-access channel with degraded message sets. For a fixed average error probability $\eps \in (0,1)$ and an arbitrary point on the boundary of the capacity region, we characterize the speed of convergence of rate pairs that converge to that boundary point for codes that have asymptotic error probability no larger than $\eps$. We do so by elucidating clear relationships between the rate pairs achievable at large blocklengths and the local second-order asymptotics, i.e. the second-order behavior of these rate pairs in the neighborhood of a boundary point. We provide a numerical example to illustrate how the angle of approach to a boundary point affects the second-order coding rate. This is the first conclusive characterization of the second-order asymptotics of a network information theory problem in which the capacity region is not a polygon.'
author:
- 'Jonathan Scarlett $\,$ and $\,$ Vincent Y. F. Tan [^1]'
bibliography:
- '../isitbib.bib'
title: 'Second-Order Asymptotics for the Gaussian MAC with Degraded Message Sets'
---
Gaussian multiple-access channel, Degraded message sets, Superposition coding, Strong converse, Finite blocklengths, Second-order coding rates, Dispersion.
Introduction
============
In this paper, we revisit the Gaussian multiple-access channel (MAC) with degraded message sets (DMS). This is a communication model in which two independent messages are to be sent from two sources to a common destination. One encoder, the cognitive or informed encoder, has access to both messages, while the uninformed encoder only has access to its own message. Both transmitted signals are assumed to be power limited, and their sum is corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). See Fig. \[fig:gauss\_mac\].
The capacity region, i.e. the set of all pairs of achievable rates, is well-known (e.g. see [@elgamal Ex. 5.18(b)]), and is given by the set of rate pairs $(R_1, R_2)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
R_1 &\le \rvC\big((1-\rho^2) S_1\big) \label{eqn:cap1} \\
R_1 + R_2 &\le \rvC\big( S_1+S_2 + 2\rho\sqrt{ S_1 S_2 } \big) \label{eqn:cap2}\end{aligned}$$ for some $\rho \in [0,1]$, where $S_1$ and $S_2$ are the admissible transmit powers, and $\rvC(x):=\frac{1}{2}\log(1+x)$ is the Gaussian capacity function. The capacity region for $S_1=S_2=1$ is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:cr\]. The boundary is parametrized by $\rho$, and the direct part is proved using superposition coding [@cover72].
While the capacity region is well-known, there is substantial motivation to understand the [*second-order asymptotics*]{} for this problem. For any given point $(R_1^*, R_2^*)$ on the boundary of the capacity region, we study the rate of convergence to that point for an $\eps$-reliable code. More precisely, we characterize the set of all $(L_1, L_2)$ pairs, known as second-order coding rates [@Hayashi08; @Hayashi09; @Nom13; @Nom13b], for which there exist sequences of codes whose asymptotic error probability does not exceed $\eps$, and whose code sizes $M_{1,n}$ and $M_{2,n}$ behave as $$\begin{aligned}
\log M_{j,n}\ge n R_j^* + \sqrt{n}L_j + o\big( \sqrt{n}\big),\quad j = 1,2. \label{eqn:roughly}\end{aligned}$$ This study allows us to understand the fundamental tradeoffs between the rates of transmission and average error probability from a perspective different from the study of error exponents. Here, instead of fixing a pair of rates and studying the exponential decay of the error probability $\eps$, we fix $\eps$ and study the speed at which a sequence of rate pairs approaches an information-theoretic limit as the blocklength grows.
Related Work
------------
The study of the second-order asymptotics of channel coding for discrete memoryless channels was initiated by Strassen [@Strassen]. For the single-user AWGN channel with (equal or maximal) power constraint $S$, a specialization of our model with $M_{2,n}=1$, Hayashi [@Hayashi09] and Polyanskiy [*et al.*]{} [@PPV10] showed that the optimum (highest) second-order coding rate is $\sqrt{\rvV(S) }\Phi^{-1}(\eps)$, where $\rvV(x):=\frac{x(x+2)}{2(x+1)^2}$ is the [*Gaussian dispersion function*]{}. More precisely, Polyanskiy [*et al.*]{} [@PPV10 Thm. 54] showed the asymptotic expansion $$\log M^*(n,\eps)=n\rvC(S) + \sqrt{n\rvV(S)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps)+g_n, \label{eqn:single_user}$$ where $M^*(n,\eps)$ is the maximum size of a length-$n$ block code with (either average or maximum) error probability $\eps$, and $O(1)\le g_n\le\frac{1}{2}\log n + O(1)$. In fact, the expression for $\rvV(S)$ was already known to Shannon [@Sha59b Sec. X], who analyzed the reliability function of the AWGN channel for rates close to capacity.
There have been numerous attempts to study the finite blocklength behavior and second-order asymptotics for MACs [@TK12; @huang12; @Mol12; @Mol12b; @Mol13; @Ver12; @Mou13; @Scarlett13b; @Haim12], but most of these works focus on inner bounds (the direct part). The development of tight and easily-evaluated converse bounds remains more modest, and those available do not match the direct part in general or are very restrictive (e.g. product channels were considered in [@Haim12]). We will see that the assumption of Gaussianity of the channel model together with the degradedness of the message sets allows us to circumvent some of the difficulties in proving second-order converses for the MAC, thus allowing us to obtain a [*conclusive*]{} second-order result for the Gaussian MAC with DMS.
We focus primarily on [*local*]{} second-order asymptotics propounded by Haim [*et al.*]{} [@Haim12] for general network information theory problems, where a boundary point is fixed and the rate of approach is characterized. This is different from the global asymptotics studied in [@TK12; @huang12; @Mol12; @Mol12b; @Mol13; @Ver12; @Mou13; @Scarlett13b], which we also study here as an initial step towards obtaining the local result. Similarly to Haim [*et al.*]{} [@Haim12], we believe that the study of local second-order asymptotics provides significantly greater insight into the system performance.
Main Contributions
------------------
Our main contribution is the characterization of the set of admissible second-order coding rates $(L_1, L_2)$ in the curved part of the boundary of the capacity region. For a point on the boundary characterized by $\rho \in (0,1)$, we show that the set of achievable second-order rate pairs $(L_1, L_2)$ is given by those satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
L_1\\ L_1+L_2
\end{bmatrix}\in \bigcup_{\beta\in\bbR} \big\{ \beta\, \bD(\rho)+\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps) \big\},\end{aligned}$$ where the entries of $\bD(\rho)$ are the derivatives of the capacities in –, $\bV(\rho)$ is the [*dispersion matrix*]{} [@TK12; @huang12], and $\Psi^{-1}$ is the $2$-dimensional generalization of the inverse of the cumulative distribution of a Gaussian. (All quantities are defined precisely in the sequel.) Thus, the contribution from the Gaussian approximation $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps)$ is insufficient for characterizing the second-order asymptotics of multi-terminal channel coding problems in general, and we need to take into account contributions from the first-order term in terms of its slope $\bD(\rho)$. This is in stark contrast to single-user problems (e.g. [@Hayashi08; @Hayashi09; @PPV10; @Strassen; @Nom13b]) and the (two-encoder) Slepian-Wolf problem [@TK12; @Nom13] where the Gaussian approximation in terms of a dispersion quantity is sufficient for second-order asymptotics.
We first derive global second-order results [@Haim12; @TK12] and then use them to obtain local second-order results. As in [@Haim12], we make a strong connection between these two perspectives. To the best of our knowledge, our main result (Theorem \[thm:local\]) provides the first complete characterization of the second-order asymptotics of a multi-user information theory problem in which the boundary of the capacity region (or optimal rate region for source coding problems) is curved.
Problem Setting and Definitions
===============================
In this section, we state the channel model, various definitions and some known results.
### Notation {#notation .unnumbered}
Given integers $l\le m$, we use the discrete interval [@elgamal] notations $[l:m]:=\{l,\ldots, m\}$ and $[m] :=[1:m]$. All $\log$’s and $\exp$’s are with respect to the natural base $\rme$. The $\ell_p$-norm of the vectorized version of matrix $\bA$ is denoted by $\|\bA\|_p := \big(\sum_{i,j} |a_{i,j}|^p\big)^{1/p}$. For two vectors of the same length $\ba,\mathbf{b}\in\bbR^d$, the notation $\ba\le\mathbf{b}$ means that $a_j\le b_j$ for all $j \in [d]$. The notation $\calN(\bu;\bm{\mu}, \bLambda)$ denotes the multivariate Gaussian probability density function (pdf) with mean $\bm{\mu}$ and covariance $\bLambda$. The argument $\bu$ will often remain unspecified. We use standard asymptotic notations: $f_n\in O(g_n)$ if and only if (iff) $\limsup_{n\to\infty} \big|f_n/g_n\big|<\infty$; $f_n \in \Omega(g_n)$ iff $g_n \in O(f_n)$; $f_n \in \Theta(g_n)$ iff $f_n \in O(g_n)\cap\Omega(g_n)$; $f_n \in o(g_n)$ iff $\limsup_{n\to\infty} \big|f_n/g_n\big|=0$; and $f_n \in \omega(g_n)$ iff $\liminf_{n\to\infty} \big|f_n/g_n\big|=\infty$.
Channel Model
-------------
The signal model for the Gaussian MAC is given by $$\begin{aligned}
Y= X_1 + X_2 + Z, \label{eqn:channel}\end{aligned}$$ where $X_1$ and $X_2$ represent the inputs to the channel, $Z\sim\calN(0,1)$ is additive Gaussian noise with zero mean and unit variance, and $Y$ is the output of the channel. Thus, the channel from $(X_1, X_2)$ to $Y$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
W(y|x_1, x_2) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}(y-x_1-x_2)^2 \right).\end{aligned}$$ The channel is used $n$ times in a memoryless manner without feedback. The channel inputs (i.e., the transmitted codewords) $\bx_1 = (x_{11},\ldots, x_{1n})$ and $\bx_2= (x_{21},\ldots, x_{2n})$ are required to satisfy the maximal power constraints $$\begin{aligned}
\|\bx_1\|_2^2\le n S_1,\quad\mbox{and}\quad \|\bx_2\|_2^2\le n S_2, \label{eqn:power_constraints}\end{aligned}$$ where $S_1$ and $S_2$ are arbitrary positive numbers. We do not incorporate multiplicative gains $g_1$ and $g_2$ to $X_1$ and $X_2$ in the channel model in ; this is without loss of generality, since in the presence of these gains we may equivalently redefine with $S_j' :=S_j / g_j^2$ for $j = 1,2$.
Definitions
-----------
\[def:code\] An [*$(n,M_{1,n},M_{2,n},S_1, S_2,\eps_n)$-code*]{} for the Gaussian MAC with DMS consists of two encoders $f_{1,n},f_{2,n}$ and a decoder $\varphi_n$ of the form $f_{1,n} : [M_{1,n}]\times [M_{2,n}] \to \bbR^n$, $f_{2,n} : [M_{2,n}]\to\bbR^n$ and $\varphi_n : \bbR^n\to [M_{1,n}]\times [M_{2,n}]$ which satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\|f_{1,n}(m_1, m_2)\|_2^2 &\le n S_1 \quad\forall \, (m_1,m_2)\in [M_{1,n}]\times [M_{2,n}] , \label{eqn:power1} \\
\|f_{2,n}(m_2)\|_2^2&\le n S_2 \quad\forall \, m_2 \in [M_{2,n}] \label{eqn:power2}, \\
\Pr\big( (\rvM_1,\rvM_2)\ne (\hat{\rvM}_1,\hat{\rvM}_2) \big) &\le\eps_n , \label{eqn:error_prob1}\end{aligned}$$ where the messages $\rvM_1$ and $\rvM_2$ are uniformly distributed on $[M_{1,n}]$ and $[M_{2,n}]$ respectively, and $(\hat{\rvM}_1,\hat{\rvM}_2) :=\varphi_n(Y^n)$ are the decoded messages.
Since $S_1$ and $S_2$ are fixed positive numbers, we suppress the dependence of the subsequent definitions, results and parameters on these constants. We will often make reference to [*$(n,\eps)$-codes*]{}; this is the family of $(n,M_{1,n},M_{2,n},S_1, S_2,\eps)$-codes where the sizes $M_{1,n},M_{2,n}$ are left unspecified.
\[def:neps\] A pair of non-negative numbers $(R_1, R_2)$ is [*$(n,\eps)$-achievable*]{} if there exists an $(n,M_{1,n},M_{2,n},S_1, S_2,\eps_n)$-code such that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n}\log M_{j,n}\ge R_j,\quad j = 1,2,\quad\mbox{and}\quad \eps_n \le \eps.\end{aligned}$$ The [*$(n,\eps)$-capacity region*]{} $\calC(n,\eps) \subset\bbR_+^2$ is defined to be the set of all $(n,\eps)$-achievable rate pairs $(R_1, R_2)$.
Definition \[def:neps\] is a non-asymptotic one that is used primarily for the global second-order results. We now introduce definitions that involve the existence of [*sequences*]{} of codes, implying that these are asymptotic-type definitions.
A pair of non-negative numbers $(R_1, R_2)$ is [*$\eps$-achievable*]{} if there exists a sequence of $(n,M_{1,n},M_{2,n},S_1, S_2,\eps_n)$-codes such that $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log M_{j,n} \ge R_j,\quad j = 1,2,\quad\mbox{and}\quad \limsup_{n\to\infty}\eps_n \le \eps.\end{aligned}$$ The [*$\eps$-capacity region*]{} $\calC(\eps) \subset\bbR_+^2$ is defined to be the closure of the set of all $\eps$-achievable rate pairs $(R_1, R_2)$. The [*capacity-region*]{} $\calC$ is defined as $$\calC:=\bigcap_{\eps > 0}\calC(\eps)=\lim_{\eps\to 0}\calC(\eps),$$ where the limit exists because of the monotonicity of $\calC(\eps)$.
Next, we state the most important definitions concerning local second-order coding rates in the spirit of Nomura-Han [@Nom13] and Tan-Kosut [@TK12]. We will spend the majority of the paper developing tools to characterize these rates. Here $(R_1^*, R_2^*)$ is a pair of rates on the boundary of $\calC(\eps)$.
\[def;second\] A pair of numbers $(L_1, L_2)$ is [*$(\eps,R_1^*,R_2^*)$-achievable*]{} if there exists a sequence of $(n,M_{1,n},M_{2,n},S_1, S_2,\eps_n)$-codes such that $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}(\log M_{j,n} - nR_j^*) \ge L_j,\quad j = 1,2,\quad\mbox{and}\quad \limsup_{n\to\infty}\eps_n \le \eps. \label{eqn:second_def}\end{aligned}$$ The [*$(\eps,R_1^*,R_2^*)$-optimal second-order coding rate region*]{} $\calL(\eps;R_1^*,R_2^*) \subset\bbR^2$ is defined to be the closure of the set of all $(\eps,R_1^*,R_2^*)$-achievable rate pairs $(L_1, L_2)$.
Stated differently, if $(L_1, L_2)$ is $(\eps,R_1^*,R_2^*)$-achievable, then there are codes whose error probabilities are asymptotically no larger than $\eps$, and whose sizes $(M_{1,n},M_{2,n})$ satisfy the asymptotic relation in . Even though we refer to $L_1$ and $L_2$ as “rates”, they may be negative [@Hayashi08; @Hayashi09; @Nom13; @Nom13b]. A negative value corresponds to a backoff from the first-order term, whereas a positive value corresponds to an addition to the first-order term.
Existing First-Order Results
----------------------------
To put things in context, let us review some existing results concerning the $\eps$-capacity region. To state the result compactly, we define the [*mutual information vector*]{} as $$\begin{aligned}
\bI(\rho)=\begin{bmatrix}
I_1(\rho) \\ I_{12}(\rho)
\end{bmatrix} := \begin{bmatrix}
\rvC\big( S_1(1-\rho^2) \big) \\ \rvC\big( S_1+S_2 + 2\rho\sqrt{S_1S_2} \big)
\end{bmatrix} . \label{eqn:mi_vec}\end{aligned}$$ For a pair of rates $(R_1, R_2)$, let the [*rate vector*]{} be $$\begin{aligned}
\bR := \begin{bmatrix}
R_1 \\ R_1 + R_2
\end{bmatrix} . \label{eqn:rate_vec}\end{aligned}$$ A statement of the following result is provided in [@elgamal Ex. 5.18(b)]. A weak converse was proved for the more general Gaussian MAC with common message in [@BLW12].
\[prop:first\] The capacity region of the Gaussian MAC with DMS is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\calC= \bigcup_{0\le\rho\le 1}\left\{ (R_1, R_2 ) \in\bbR_+^2 : \bR \le \bI(\rho) \right\} . \label{eqn:first_order}\end{aligned}$$
The union on the right is a subset of $\calC(\eps)$ for every $\eps\in (0,1)$. However, only the weak converse is implied by . To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the strong converse for the Gaussian MAC with DMS has not been demonstrated. A by-product of the derivation of the second-order asymptotics in this paper is the strong converse, allowing us to assert that for all $\eps\in (0,1)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\calC=\calC(\eps). \label{eqn:str_conv}\end{aligned}$$ The direct part of Proposition \[prop:first\] can be proved using superposition coding [@cover72]. Treat $X_2$ as the cloud center and $X_1$ as the satellite codeword. The input distribution to achieve a point on the boundary characterized by some $\rho \in [0,1]$ is a $2$-dimensional Gaussian with zero mean and covariance matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:sigmamatrix}
\bSigma(\rho) :=\begin{bmatrix}
S_1 & \rho \sqrt{S_1S_2}\\
\rho \sqrt{S_1S_2} & S_2
\end{bmatrix} .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the parameter $\rho$ represents the correlation between the two users’ codewords.
Global Second-Order Results {#sec:global}
===========================
In this section, we present inner and outer bounds to $\calC(n,\eps)$. We begin with some definitions. Let $\rvV(x,y) := \frac{x(y+2)}{2(x+1)(y+1)}$ be the [*Gaussian cross-dispersion function*]{} and let $\rvV(x) := \rvV(x,x)$ be the [*Gaussian dispersion function*]{} [@Sha59b; @PPV10; @Hayashi09] for a single-user additive white Gaussian noise channel with signal-to-noise ratio $x$. For fixed $0\le \rho\le 1$, define the [*information-dispersion matrix*]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\bV(\rho) :=\begin{bmatrix}
V_1(\rho) & V_{1,12}(\rho)\\ V_{1,12}(\rho) & V_{12}(\rho) \end{bmatrix}, \label{eqn:inf_disp_matr}\end{aligned}$$ where the elements of the matrix are $$\begin{aligned}
V_1(\rho) &:= \rvV\big( S_1 (1-\rho^2)\big) , \\ V_{1,12}(\rho) &:= \rvV\big( S_1 (1-\rho^2), S_1 + S_2 + 2\rho\sqrt{S_1 S_2} \big) , \\V_{12}(\rho) &:= \rvV\big(S_{1}+S_{2}+2\rho\sqrt{S_{1}S_{2}} \big) . $$ Let $(X_1,X_2)\sim P_{X_1, X_2} = \calN(\bzero;\bSigma(\rho))$, and define $Q_{Y|X_2}$ and $Q_Y$ to be Gaussian distributions induced by $P_{X_1, X_2}$ and the channel $W$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{Y|X_2}(y|x_2) & : = \calN\big(y; x_2 (1+ \rho \sqrt{S_1/S_2}) , 1+ S_1(1- \rho ^2) \big), \label{eqn:out1}\\
Q_{Y}(y) & : = \calN\big(y;0, 1+S_1 + S_2 + 2\rho \sqrt{S_1 S_2}\big). \label{eqn:out2}\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that the random variables $(X_1, X_2)$ and the densities $Q_{Y|X_2}$ and $Q_Y$ all depend on $\rho$; this dependence is suppressed throughout the paper. The mutual information vector $\bI(\rho)$ and information-dispersion matrix $\bV(\rho)$ are the mean vector and conditional covariance matrix of the information density vector $$\begin{aligned}
\bj(X_1, X_2 , Y) := \begin{bmatrix}
j_1(X_1, X_2 , Y) \\ j_{12}(X_1, X_2 , Y)
\end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}
\log\dfrac{W(Y|X_1,X_2)}{Q_{Y|X_2}(Y|X_2)} & \log\dfrac{W(Y|X_1,X_2)}{Q_{Y}(Y)}
\end{bmatrix}^T.
\label{eqn:info_dens}\end{aligned}$$ That is, we can write $\bI(\rho)$ and $\bV(\rho)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\bI(\rho) &=\bbE\big[\, \bj(X_1,X_2,Y)\big], \label{eqn:mean_v}\\
\bV(\rho) &=\bbE\big[\cov \big(\bj(X_1,X_2,Y) \, \big|\, X_1,X_2 \big)\big].\label{eqn:cov_v}\end{aligned}$$
[boundaries\_1002]{} (17,31)[$\frac{\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),0.80)}{\sqrt{n}}$ ]{} (67,31)[$\frac{\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),0.80)}{\sqrt{n}}$ ]{} (10,15)[$\frac{\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),0.01)}{\sqrt{n}}$ ]{} (60,15)[$\frac{\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),0.01)}{\sqrt{n}}$ ]{}
For a given point $(z_1, z_2) \in \bbR^2$ and a (non-zero) positive semi-definite matrix $\bV$, define $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(z_1, z_2;\bV) :=\int_{-\infty}^{z_2}\int_{-\infty}^{z_1}\calN(\bu;\bzero,\bV)\,\rmd \bu,\end{aligned}$$ and for a given $\eps\in (0,1)$, define the set $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi^{-1}(\bV,\eps):=\left\{ (z_1, z_2)\in\bbR^2:\Psi(-z_1,- z_2;\bV) \ge 1-\eps\right\}. \label{eqn:psiinv}\end{aligned}$$ These quantities can be thought of as the generalization of the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of the standard Gaussian $\Phi (z) := \int_{-\infty}^z \calN(u;0,1)\, \rmd u$ and its inverse $\Phi^{-1}(\eps):=\sup\big\{z\in\bbR :\Phi(-z)\ge 1-\eps\big\}$ to the bivariate case. For $\eps< \frac{1}{2}$, the points contained in $\Psi^{-1}(\bV,\eps)$ have negative coordinates. See Fig. \[fig:psi\_set\] for an illustration of (scaled versions of) $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps)$.
Let ${\underline{g}}(\rho,\eps,n)$ and ${\overline{g}}(\rho,\eps,n)$ be arbitrary functions of $\rho$, $\eps$ and $n$ for now, and define the inner and outer regions $$\begin{aligned}
\calR_{\mathrm{in}}(n,\eps;\rho) &:=\bI(\rho)+\frac{\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps)}{\sqrt{n}} + {\underline{g}}(\rho,\eps,n) \bone, \label{eqn:Rin} \\
\calR_{\mathrm{out}}(n,\eps;\rho)& :=\bI(\rho)+\frac{\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps)}{\sqrt{n}} + {\overline{g}}(\rho,\eps,n) \bone \label{eqn:Rout} .\end{aligned}$$
\[thm:global\] There exist functions ${\underline{g}}(\rho,\eps,n)$ and ${\overline{g}}(\rho,\eps,n)$ such that the $(n,\eps)$-capacity region satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\bigcup_{0\le\rho\le 1}\calR_{\mathrm{in}}(n,\eps;\rho) \subset\calC(n,\eps) \subset\bigcup_{-1\le\rho\le 1}\calR_{\mathrm{out}}(n,\eps;\rho), \label{eqn:unions}\end{aligned}$$ and such that ${\underline{g}}$ and ${\overline{g}}$ satisfy the following properties:
1. For any $\eps\in(0,1)$ and $\rho\in(-1,1)$, we have $${\underline{g}}(\rho,\eps,n) = O\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right),\quad\mbox{and}\quad {\overline{g}}(\rho,\eps,n) = O\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right). \label{eqn:thirdorder1}$$
2. For any $\eps\in(0,1)$ and any sequence $\{\rho_n\}$ with $\rho_n\to\pm1$, we have $${\underline{g}}(\rho_n,\eps,n) = o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right),\quad\mbox{and}\quad {\overline{g}}(\rho_n,\eps,n) = o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right). \label{eqn:thirdorder2}$$
The proof of Theorem \[thm:global\] is provided in Section \[sec:prf\_global\]. We remark that even though the union for the outer bound is taken over $\rho\in [-1,1]$, only the values $\rho\in[0,1]$ will play a role in establishing the local asymptotics in Section \[sec:local\], since negative values of $\rho$ are not even first-order optimal, i.e. they fail to achieve a point on the boundary of the capacity region.
Local Second-Order Coding Rates {#sec:local}
===============================
In this section, we present our main result, namely, the characterization of the $(\eps,R_1^*,R_2^*)$-optimal second-order coding rate region $\calL(\eps;R_1^*,R_2^*)$ (see Definition \[def;second\]), where $(R_1^*,R_2^*)$ is an arbitrary point on the boundary of $\calC$. Our result is stated in terms of the derivative of the mutual information vector with respect to $\rho$, namely $$\begin{aligned}
\bD(\rho)=\begin{bmatrix}
D_1(\rho) \\ D_{12}(\rho)
\end{bmatrix} :=\frac{\partial}{\partial\rho}\begin{bmatrix}
I_1(\rho) \\ I_{12}(\rho)
\end{bmatrix}, \label{eqn:derI} \end{aligned}$$ where the individual derivatives are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial I_1(\rho)}{\partial\rho} & = \frac{-S_1\rho}{1+S_1(1-\rho^2)},\label{eqn:dvalues0} \\
\frac{\partial I_{12}(\rho)}{\partial\rho} & = \frac{\sqrt{S_1 S_2}}{1+S_1 + S_2 + 2\rho\sqrt{S_1S_2}} . \label{eqn:dvalues}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\rho\in (0,1]$ represents the strictly concave part of the boundary (see Fig. \[fig:cr\]), and in this interval we have $D_1(\rho)<0$ and $D_{12}(\rho) >0$.
We introduce the following notation: For a vector $\bv=(v_1, v_2)\in\bbR^2$, define the [*down-set*]{} of $\bv$ as $$\bv^- := \{(w_1, w_2) \in \bbR^2 : w_1 \le v_1, w_2\le v_2\}. \label{eqn:minus_notation}$$ We are now in a position to state our main result.
\[thm:local\] Depending on $(R_1^*, R_2^*)$, we have the following three cases:
1. If $R_1^*=I_1(0)$ and $R_1^*+R_2^* \le I_{12}(0)$ (vertical segment of the boundary corresponding to $\rho=0$), then $$\begin{aligned}
\calL(\eps;R_1^*,R_2^*) = \left\{ (L_1, L_2) \in \bbR^2 : L_1 \le \sqrt{V_1(0)} \Phi^{-1}(\eps)\right\} \label{eqn:second1} .\end{aligned}$$
2. If $R_1^*=I_1(\rho)$ and $R_1^*+R_2^*=I_{12}(\rho)$ (curved segment of the boundary corresponding to $0 <\rho <1$), then $$\begin{aligned}
\calL(\eps;R_1^*,R_2^*) = \left\{ (L_1, L_2) \in \bbR^2 : \begin{bmatrix}
L_1 \\ L_1+ L_2
\end{bmatrix} \in \bigcup_{\beta\in \bbR}\bigg\{ \beta\, \bD(\rho) +\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps) \bigg\}\right\}. \label{eqn:second2}\end{aligned}$$
3. If $R_1^*=0$ and $R_1^*+R_2^* = I_{12}(1)$ (point on the vertical axis corresponding to $\rho=1$), then $$\calL(\eps;R_1^*,R_2^*) = \left\{(L_1,L_2)\in\bbR^2 \,:\, \begin{bmatrix}
L_1 \\ L_1+ L_2
\end{bmatrix} \in \bigcup_{\beta\le0} \bigg\{ \beta\, \bD(1) + \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\ \sqrt{ V_{12}(1)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps)
\end{bmatrix}^-\bigg\} \right\} .\label{eqn:second3}$$
The proof of Theorem \[thm:local\] is provided in Section \[sec:prf\_local\]. It leverages on the global second-order result in Theorem \[thm:global\].
Discussion {#sec:discuss}
----------
Observe that in case (i), the second-order region is simply characterized by a scalar dispersion term $V_1(0)$ and the inverse of the Gaussian cdf $\Phi^{-1}$. Roughly speaking, in this part of the boundary, there is effectively only a single rate constraint in terms of $R_1$, since we are operating “far away” from the sum rate constraint. This results in a large deviations-type event for the sum rate constraint which has no bearing on second-order asymptotics; see further discussions in [@TK12; @Nom13] and [@Haim12].
Cases (ii)–(iii) are more interesting, and their proofs are non-trivial. As in Nomura-Han [@Nom13] and Tan-Kosut [@TK12], the second-order asymptotics for case (ii) depend on the dispersion matrix $\bV(\rho)$ and the $2$-dimensional analogue of the inverse of the Gaussian cdf $\Psi^{-1}$, since [*both*]{} rate constraints are active at a point on the boundary parametrized by $\rho \in (0,1)$. However, in our setting, the expression containing $\Psi^{-1}$ alone (i.e. the expression obtained by setting $\beta=0$ in ) corresponds to only considering the unique input distribution $\calN(\bzero,\bSigma(\rho))$ achieving the point $(I_1(\rho), I_{12}(\rho)-I_1(\rho))$. From Fig. \[fig:cr\], this is [*not*]{} sufficient to achieve all second-order coding rates, since there are non-empty regions within the capacity region that are not contained in the trapezium of rate pairs achievable using $\calN(\bzero,\bSigma(\rho))$.
Thus, to achieve all $(L_1, L_2)$ pairs, we must allow the input distribution to vary with the blocklength $n$. This is manifested in the $\beta\, \bD(\rho)$ term. Our proof of the direct part involves random coding with an input distribution of the form $\calN(\bzero,\bSigma(\rho_n))$, where $\rho_n - \rho= O\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\big)$. By a Taylor series, the resulting mutual information vector $\bI(\rho_n)$ is approximately $\bI(\rho) + (\rho_n-\rho) \bD(\rho)$. Since $\rho_n - \rho= O\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\big)$, the gradient term $(\rho_n-\rho) \bD(\rho)$ also contributes to the second-order behavior, together with the Gaussian approximation term $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps)$.
For the converse, we consider an arbitrary sequence of codes with rate pairs $\{(R_{1,n}, R_{2,n})\}_{n\ge 1}$ converging to $(I_1(\rho), I_{12}(\rho)-I_1(\rho))$ with second-order behavior given by . From the global result, we know $[R_{1,n}, R_{1,n}+R_{2,n}]^T \in \calR_{\mathrm{out}}(n,\eps;\rho_n)$ for some sequence of $\rho_n$. We then establish, using the definition of the second-order coding rates in , that $\rho_n=\rho+O\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\big)$. Finally, by the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem [@Rudin Thm. 3.6(b)], we may pass to a subsequence of $\rho_n$ (if necessary), and this establishes the converse.
A similar discussion holds true for case (iii); the main differences are that the covariance matrix is singular, and that the union in is taken over $\beta\le0$ only, since $\rho_n$ can only approach one from below.
![Second-order coding rates in nats/$\sqrt{\mbox{use}}$ with $S_1=S_2=1$, $\rho=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\eps = 0.1$. The regions $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps)$ and $\calL(\eps;R_1^*,R_2^*)$ are to the bottom left of the boundaries. We also plot the line $L_2=L_1\tan\theta^*_{\rho,\eps}$, where $\theta^*_{\rho,\eps}$ is the unique angle $\theta$ for which the intersection of the boundary of $\calL(\eps;R_1^*,R_2^*)$ and the line $L_2=L_1\tan\theta$ coincides with the boundary of $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps)$. \[fig:local\_region\]](second_order_region_0909.eps){width="0.525\paperwidth"}
Second-Order Asymptotics for a Given Angle of Approach {#sec:directions}
------------------------------------------------------
Here we study the second-order behavior when a point on the boundary is approached from a given angle, as was done in Tan-Kosut [@TK12]. If $\eps<\frac{1}{2}$ (resp. $\eps>\frac{1}{2}$), we approach a boundary point from inside (resp. outside) the capacity region. We focus on the most interesting case in Theorem \[thm:local\], namely, case (ii) corresponding to $\rho\in(0,1)$. Case (iii) can be handled similarly, and in case (i) the angle of approach is of little interest since $L_2$ can be arbitrarily large or small.
First, we present an alternative expression for the set $\calL=\calL(\eps;R_1^*,R_2^*)$ given in with $R_1^*=I_1(\rho)$ and $R_1^*+R_2^*=I_{12}(\rho)$ for some $\rho\in(0,1)$. It is easily seen that $(L_1,L_2)\in\calL$ implies $(L_1 + \beta D_1(\rho),L_2 + \beta D_2(\rho))\in\calL$, where $D_2(\rho) := D_{12}(\rho) - D_1(\rho)$. It follows that $\calL$ equals the set of all points lying below a straight line with slope $\frac{D_2(\rho)}{D_1(\rho)}$ which intersects the boundary of $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps)$. That is, $$\calL(\eps;R_1^*,R_2^*) = \Big\{(L_1,L_2) \,:\, L_2 \le a_\rho L_1 + b_{ \rho,\eps} \Big\},$$ where $$a_\rho := \frac{D_2(\rho)}{D_1(\rho)},\quad\mbox{and}\quad b_{ \rho,\eps}:= \inf\Big\{b \,:\, \big(L_1,a_\rho L_1 + b\big) \in \Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps) \text{ for some } L_1 \in \bbR \Big\}.$$ We provide an example in Fig. \[fig:local\_region\] with the parameters $S_1=S_2=1$, $\rho=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\eps = 0.1$. Since $\eps < \frac{1}{2}$, the boundary point $(R_1^*, R_2^*)$ is approached from the inside. See Fig. \[fig:psi\_set\], where for $\eps<\frac{1}{2}$, the set $\Psi^{-1}(\bV,\eps)$ only contains points with negative coordinates.
![Plot of $\sqrt{L_1^2+L_2^2}$ against the angle of approach $\theta$ with the same parameters as in Fig. \[fig:local\_region\]. The second-order rates $L_1, L_2$, as functions of $\theta$, are defined in . Here, $\pi+\arctan(a_\rho) \approx 0.328\times (2\pi)$ and $2\pi+\arctan(a_\rho) \approx 0.828\times (2\pi)$ are the critical angles where $\sqrt{L_1^2+L_2^2}$ diverges. \[fig:local\_rate\]](second_order_rate_0926.eps){width="0.525\paperwidth"}
Given the gradient $a_\rho$, the offset $b_{\rho,\eps}$, and an angle $\theta$ (measured with respect to the horizontal axis), we seek the pair $(L_1,L_2)$ on the boundary of $\calL(\eps;R_1^*,R_2^*)$ such that $L_2 = L_1\tan\theta$. It is easily seen that this point is obtained by solving for the intersection of the line $L_2 = a_{\rho } L_1 + b_{\rho,\eps}$ with $L_2 = L_1\tan\theta$. The two lines coincide when $$\begin{aligned}
L_1 = \frac{b_{ \rho,\eps}}{\tan\theta-a_\rho},\quad\mbox{and}\quad L_2 = \frac{b_{ \rho,\eps}\tan\theta}{\tan\theta-a_\rho}. \label{eqn:intersection}\end{aligned}$$ In Fig. \[fig:local\_region\], we see that there is only a single angle $\theta^*_{\rho,\eps}\approx 3.253\mbox{ rads}$ for which the point of intersection in is also on the boundary of $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps)$, yielding $(L_1,L_2)\approx (-0.920,-0.103)$. In other words, there is only one angle for which coding with a fixed (not varying with $n$) input distribution $\calN(\bzero,\bV(\rho))$ is optimal in the second-order sense (i.e. for which the added term $\beta \bD(\rho)$ in is of no additional help and $\beta=0$ is optimal). For all the other angles, we should choose a non-zero coefficient $\beta$, which corresponds to choosing an input distribution which varies with $n$.
Finally, in Fig. \[fig:local\_rate\], we plot the norm of the vector of second-order rates $[L_1, L_2]^T$ in against $\theta$, the angle of approach. For $\eps<\frac{1}{2}$, the point $[L_1, L_2]^T$ may be interpreted as that corresponding to the “smallest backoff” from the first-order optimal rates.[^2] Thus, $\sqrt{L_1^2+L_2^2}$ is a measure of the total backoff. For $\eps>\frac{1}{2}$, $[L_1, L_2]^T$ corresponds to the “largest addition” to the first-order rates. It is noted that the norm tends to infinity when the angle tends to $\pi+\arctan(a_\rho)$ (from above) or $2\pi+\arctan(a_\rho)$ (from below). This corresponds to an approach almost parallel to the gradient at the point on the boundary parametrized by $\rho$. A similar phenomenon was observed for the Slepian-Wolf problem [@TK12].
Concluding Remarks
==================
We have studied the second-order asymptotics (i.e. identified the optimal second-order coding rate region) of the Gaussian MAC with DMS. There are two reasons as to why the analysis here is more tractable vis-à-vis finite blocklength or second-order analysis for the the discrete memoryless MAC (DM-MAC) studied extensively in [@TK12; @huang12; @Mol12; @Mou13; @Scarlett13b; @Haim12]. Gaussianity allows us to identify the boundary of the capacity region and associate each point on the boundary with an input distribution parametrized by $\rho$. Because for the DM-MAC, one needs to take the convex closure of the union over input distributions $P_{X_1 , X_2}$ to define the capacity region [@elgamal Sec. 4.5], the boundary points are more difficult to characterize. In addition, in the absence of the DMS assumption, one needs to ensure in a converse proof (possibly related to the [*wringing technique*]{} of Ahlswede [@Ahl82]) that the codewords pairs are almost orthogonal. By leveraging on the DMS assumption, we circumvent this requirement.
For future investigations, we note that the Gaussian broadcast channel [@elgamal Sec. 5.5] is a problem which is very similar to the Gaussian MAC with DMS (both require superposition coding and each point on the boundary is achieved by a unique input distribution). As such, we expect that some of the second-order analysis techniques contained herein may be applicable to the Gaussian broadcast channel.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:global\]: Global Second-Order Result {#sec:prf_global}
===========================================================
Converse Part {#sec:prf_global_converse}
-------------
We first prove the outer bound in . The analysis is split into six steps.
### A Reduction from Maximal to Equal Power Constraints {#sec:exact}
We first perform a reduction that will simplify the proof. Let $\calC_{\mathrm{eq}}(n,\eps)$ be the $(n,\eps)$-capacity region in the case that and are equality constraints, i.e., $\|f_{1,n}(m_1, m_2)\|_2^2=nS_1$ and $\|f_{2,n}(m_2)\|_2^2=nS_2$ for all $(m_1, m_2)$. We claim that $$\begin{aligned}
\calC_{\mathrm{eq}}(n,\eps)\subset\calC (n,\eps)\subset\calC_{\mathrm{eq}}(n+1,\eps). \label{eqn:eqreduction}\end{aligned}$$ The lower bound is obvious. The upper bound follows by noting that the decoder for the length-$(n+1)$ code can ignore the last symbol, which can be chosen to equalize the powers.
It follows from that for the purpose of second-order asymptotics, $\calC_{\mathrm{eq}}(n,\eps)$ and $\calC(n,\eps)$ are equivalent. This argument was also used in [@PPV10 Lem. 39] and [@Sha59b Sec. XIII]. Henceforth, we assume that all codewords $(\bx_1, \bx_2)$ have empirical powers [*exactly*]{} equal to $(S_1,S_2)$.
### Correlation Type Classes {#sec:types}
Define $\calI_0 := \{0\}$ and $\calI_k := (\frac{k-1}{n},\frac{k}{n}], k \in [n]$, and let $\calI_{-k} := -\calI_k$ for $k\in [n]$. We see that the family $\{\calI_k:k\in [-n:n]\}$ forms a partition of $[-1, 1]$. Consider the [*correlation type classes*]{} (or simply [*type classes*]{}) $$\begin{aligned}
\calT_n(k)& := \left\{ (\bx_1, \bx_2) : \frac{\langle\bx_1,\bx_2\rangle}{\|\bx_1\|_2 \|\bx_2\|_2} \in\calI_k \right\} \end{aligned}$$ where $k \in [-n: n]$, and $\langle \bx_1,\bx_2\rangle :=\sum_{i=1}^n x_{1i}x_{2i}$ is the standard inner product in $\bbR^n$. The total number of type classes is $2n+1$, which is polynomial in $n$ analogously to the case of discrete alphabets [@Csi97 Ch. 2].
We use an argument from Csiszár-Körner [@Csi97 Lem. 16.2] to perform a further reduction (along with the one in Section \[sec:exact\]) to codes for which all codeword pairs have the same type. Let the message sets of the general code be $\calM_{j,n} = [M_{j,n}]$ for $j = 1,2$. Let a codebook $\calC := \{ (\bx_1(m_1, m_2),\bx_2(m_2)) : m_1 \in {\calM}_{1,n}, m_2 \in \calM_{2,n}\}$ be given. For each $m_2\in \calM_{2,n}$, we can find a set $\tilde{\calM}_{1,n}(m_2) \subset {\calM}_{1,n}$ such that all pairs of codewords $(\bx_1(m_1, m_2),\bx_2(m_2))$, $m_1 \in \tilde{\calM}_{1,n}(m_2)$ have the same type, say indexed by $k(m_2) \in [-n:n]$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n}\log\big| \tilde{\calM}_{1,n}(m_2)\big|\ge\frac{1}{n}\log\big| {\calM}_{1,n}(m_2)\big|-\frac{\log (2n+1)}{n},\quad\forall\, m_2\in \calM_{2,n}. \label{eqn:reduction1}\end{aligned}$$ We may assume that all the sets $\tilde{\calM}_{1,n}(m_2), m_2\in \calM_{2,n}$ have the same cardinality; otherwise, we can remove extra codeword pairs from some sets $\tilde{\calM}_{1,n}(m_2)$ and will still be satisfied. We may also assume (by relabeling if necessary) that $\tilde{\calM}_{1,n}:=\tilde{\calM}_{1,n}(m_2)$ is the same set for all $m_2$. Now, we have a subcodebook $\tilde{\calC}_1:=\{(\bx_1(m_1, m_2),\bx_2(m_2)) : m_1 \in \tilde{\calM}_{1,n}, m_2 \in \calM_{2,n}\}$, where for each $m_2$, all the codeword pairs have the same type and is satisfied. Across the $m_2$’s, there may be different types indexed by $k(m_2) \in [-n:n]$, but there exists a dominant type indexed by $k^* \in \{k(m_2): m_2 \in \calM_{2,n}\}$ and a set $\tilde{\calM}_{2,n} \subset {\calM}_{2,n}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n}\log\big| \tilde{\calM}_{2,n} \big|\ge \frac{1}{n}\log\big| {\calM}_{2,n} \big|-\frac{\log (2n+1)}{n}. \label{eqn:reduction2}\end{aligned}$$ As such, we have shown that there exists a subcodebook $\tilde{\calC}_{12}:=\{(\bx_1(m_1, m_2),\bx_2(m_2)) : m_1 \in \tilde{\calM}_{1,n}, m_2 \in \tilde{\calM}_{2,n}\}$ of constant type indexed by $k^*$ where the sum rate satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n}\log\big| \tilde{\calM}_{1,n}\times \tilde{\calM}_{2,n} \big|\ge\frac{1}{n}\log\big| {\calM}_{1,n}\times {\calM}_{2,n} \big|-\frac{2\log (2n+1)}{n}. \label{eqn:reduction3}\end{aligned}$$ Combining and , we see that the converse part of Theorem \[thm:global\] for fixed-type codes implies the same for general codes, since the additional $O\big(\frac{\log n}{n})$ factors in and can be absorbed into the third-order term ${\overline{g}}(\rho,\eps,n)$. Thus, in the remainder of the proof, we limit our attention to fixed-type codes. For each $n$, the type is indexed by $k\in[-n:n]$, and we define $\hrho := \frac{k}{n} \in [-1,1]$. In some cases, we will be interested in *sequences* of such values, in which case we will make the dependence on $n$ explicit by writing $\hrho_n$.
### A Verdú-Han-type Converse Bound for the Gaussian MAC with DMS
We now state a non-asymptotic converse bound for the Gaussian MAC with DMS based on analogous bounds in Han’s work on the information spectrum approach for the general MAC [@Han98 Lem. 4] and in Boucheron-Salamatian’s work on the information spectrum approach for the general broadcast channel with DMS [@bouch00 Lem. 2]. This result can be proved similarly to [@Han98; @bouch00], so we omit its proof.
\[prop:vh\] Fix a blocklength $n\ge 1$, auxiliary output distributions $Q_{\bY|\bX_2}$ and $Q_{\bY }$, and a constant $\gamma>0$. For any $(n,M_{1,n} ,M_{2,n} ,S_1, S_2,\eps_n)$-code with codewords of fixed empirical powers $S_1$ and $S_2$ falling into a single correlation type class $\calT_n(k)$, there exist random vectors $(\bX_1,\bX_2)$ with joint distribution $P_{\bX_1, \bX_2}$ supported on $\{(\bx_1,\bx_2)\in\calT_n(k) :\|\bx_j\|_2^2 = nS_j,j=1,2\}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\eps_n\ge\Pr(\calA_n\cup\calB_n)-2\exp(-n\gamma), \label{eqn:vh}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\calA_n &:=\left\{ \frac{1}{n}\log\frac{W^n(\bY|\bX_1, \bX_2)}{Q_{\bY|\bX_2} (\bY|\bX_2)}\le \frac{1}{n}\log M_{1,n} -\gamma\right\} \label{eqn:calAn} \\
\calB_n &:=\left\{ \frac{1}{n}\log\frac{W^n(\bY|\bX_1, \bX_2)}{Q_{\bY}(\bY)} \le \frac{1}{n}\log \big(M_{1,n} M_{2,n} \big)-\gamma\right\},\label{eqn:calBn}\end{aligned}$$ with $\bY \,|\,\{ \bX_1=\bx_1,\bX_2=\bx_2 \} \sim W^n(\cdot|\bx_1,\bx_2)$.
The joint distribution $P_{\bX_1,\bX_2}$ can be taken to be the empirical distribution of the code, i.e. if the codebook is $\{(\bx_1(m_1, m_2), \bx_2(m_2): m_1\in [M_{1,n}],m_2\in [M_{2,n}]\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\bX_2} (\bx_2) &= \frac{ |\{ m_2 \in [M_{2,n}]:\bx_2(m_2)=\bx_2\}|}{M_{2,n}},\\
P_{\bX_1|\bX_2} (\bx_1|\bx_2(m_2)) &= \frac{ |\{ m_1 \in [M_{1,n}]:\bx_1(m_1,m_2)=\bx_1\}|}{M_{1,n}}.\end{aligned}$$
There are several differences in Proposition \[prop:vh\] compared to [@Han98 Lem. 4]. First, in our work, there are cost constraints on the codewords, and thus the support of the input distribution $P_{\bX_1, \bX_2}$ is specified to reflect this constraint. Second, there are two (instead of three) events in the probability in because the informed encoder $f_{1,n}$ has access to both messages. Third, we can choose arbitrary output distributions $Q_{\bY|\bX_2}$ and $Q_{\bY}$. This generalization is analogous to the non-asymptotic converse bound by Hayashi and Nagaoka for classical-quantum channels [@Hayashi03 Lem. 4]. The freedom to choose the output distribution is crucial in both our problem and [@Hayashi03].
### Evaluation of the Verdú-Han Bound for $\hrho\in(-1,1)$ {#sec:eval_vh}
Recall from Sections \[sec:exact\] and \[sec:types\] that the codewords satisfy exact power constraints and belong to a single type class $\calT_n(k)$. In this subsection, we consider the case that $\hrho := \frac{k}{n} \in (-1,1)$, and we derive bounds which will be useful for sequences $\hrho_n$ uniformly bounded away from $-1$ and $1$. In Section \[sec:eval\_vh2\], we present alternative bounds to handle the remaining cases.
We evaluate for a single correlation type class parametrized by $k$. Let $\gamma :=\frac{\log n}{2n}$, yielding $2\exp(-n\gamma)=\frac{2 }{\sqrt{n}}$. We choose the output distributions $Q_{\bY|\bX_2}$ and $Q_{\bY}$ to be the $n$-fold products of $Q_{Y|X_2}$ and $Q_Y$, defined in – respectively, with $\hrho$ in place of $\rho$.
We now characterize the statistics of the first and second moments of $\bj(x_{1i}, x_{2i}, Y_i)$ in for fixed sequences $(\bx_1, \bx_2)\in\calT_n(k)$. From Appendix \[sec:moments\], these moments can be expressed as continuously differentiable functions of the empirical powers $\frac{1}{n}\|\bx_1\|_2^2$, $\frac{1}{n}\|\bx_2\|_2^2$ and the empirical correlation coefficient $\frac{\langle\bx_1,\bx_2\rangle}{ \|\bx_1\|_2 \|\bx_2\|_2}$. The former two quantities are fixed due to the reduction in Section \[sec:exact\], and the latter is within $\frac{1}{n}$ of $\hrho$ by the assumption that $(\bx_1,\bx_2)\in\calT_n(k)$. Thus, Taylor expanding and in Appendix \[sec:moments\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\bbE\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)\right] - \bI(\hrho )\right\|_\infty &\le \frac{\xi_1}{n} \label{eqn:expectation_j} \\
\left\|\cov\left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n \bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)\right] - \bV(\hrho )\right\|_{\infty} &\le \frac{\xi_2}{n} \label{eqn:Vcalc}\end{aligned}$$ for some $\xi_1>0$ and $\xi_2>0$ which can taken to be independent of $\hrho$ (since the corresponding derivatives are uniformly bounded).
Let $R_{j,n} := \frac{1}{n}\log M_{j,n}$ for $j = 1,2$, and let $\bR_{n} := [R_{1,n} , R_{1,n} + R_{2,n} ]^T$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(\calA_n\cup\calB_n)=1-\Pr(\calA_n^c\cap\calB_n^c)=1-\bbE_{\bX_1,\bX_2} \big[ \Pr(\calA_n^c\cap\calB_n^c | \bX_1,\bX_2) \big]\end{aligned}$$ and in particular, using the definition of $\bj(x_1,x_2,y)$ in and the fact that $Q_{\bY|\bX_2}$ and $Q_{\bY}$ are product distributions, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(\calA_n^c\cap\calB_n^c | \bx_1,\bx_2)& = \Pr\left( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i) > \bR_{n} -\gamma\bone \right) \label{eqn:AB}\\
&\le \Pr\left( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\Big( \bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)-\bbE[\bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)] \Big) > \bR_{n} -\bI(\hrho ) -\gamma\bone-\frac{\xi_1}{n}\bone \right), \label{eqn:use_norm_less} \end{aligned}$$ where follows from .
We are now in a position to apply the multivariate Berry-Esseen theorem [@Got91; @Bha10] (see Appendix \[app:be\]). The first two moments are bounded according to –, and in Appendix \[sec:moments\] we show that, upon replacing the given $(\bx_1,\bx_2)$ pair with a different pair yielding the same statistics of $\sum_{i=1}^{n}\bj(x_{1i},x_{2i},Y_i)$ if necessary (cf. Lemma \[lem:dependence\]), the required third moment is uniformly bounded (cf. Lemma \[lem:T\_bd\]). It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
&\Pr(\calA_n^c\cap\calB_n^c | \bx_1,\bx_2) \nn\\
&\le \Psi \Bigg(\sqrt{n} \Big( I_1(\hrho ) \! +\! \gamma \!+\!\frac{\xi_1}{n} \!-\! R_{1,n} \Big) ,
\sqrt{n} \Big( I_{12}(\hrho ) \!+ \!\gamma \!+\!\frac{\xi_1}{n}\!- \! (R_{1,n} \! +\! R_{2,n} )\Big) ; \cov\left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n \bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)\right] \Bigg) \!+\! \frac{\psi(\hrho ) }{\sqrt{n}} \label{eqn:berry} .\end{aligned}$$ By Taylor expanding the continuously differentiable function $(z_1,z_2,\bV)\mapsto\Psi(z_1,z_2;\bV)$, using the approximation in and the fact that $\det(\bV(\hrho))>0$ for $\hrho\in(-1,1)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr(\calA_n^c\cap\calB_n^c | \bx_1,\bx_2) \le \Psi \left( \sqrt{n} \big( I_1(\hrho ) -R_{1,n} \big) , \sqrt{n} \big( I_{12}(\hrho ) - (R_{1,n} + R_{2,n})\big) ; \bV(\hrho ) \right) + \frac{\eta(\hrho )\log n}{\sqrt{n}} \label{eqn:taylor} .\end{aligned}$$ The remainder terms in and are dependent on $\hrho$, so we denote them by $\psi(\hrho )$ and $\eta(\hrho )$. These remainder terms satisfy $\psi(\hrho ),\eta(\hrho )\to \infty$ as $\hrho \to \pm 1$, since $\bV(\hrho )$ becomes singular as $\hrho \to \pm 1$. Despite this non-uniformity, we conclude from and that any $(n,\eps)$-code with codewords in $\calT_n(k)$ must, for large enough $n$, have rates that satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
R_{1,n} \\ R_{1,n} + R_{2,n}
\end{bmatrix}& \in \bI(\hrho ) + \frac{\Psi^{-1}\Big(\bV(\hrho ),\eps + \frac{2}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\eta(\hrho )\log n}{\sqrt{n}}\Big)}{\sqrt n} \label{eqn:constant_type_bd0}.
$$ The following “continuity” lemma for $\eps\mapsto\Psi^{-1}(\bV,\eps)$ is proved in Appendix \[app:upper\_bd\_set\].
\[lem:approx\] Fix $0<\eps<1$ and a positive sequence $\lambda_n=o(1)$. Let $\bV$ be a non-zero positive semi-definite matrix. There exists a function $h(\bV,\eps )$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi^{-1}\big( \bV,\eps+\lambda_n)\subset\Psi^{-1}\big( \bV,\eps )+h( \bV,\eps)\,\lambda_n\, \bone. \label{eqn:inclusion}\end{aligned}$$
We conclude from Lemma \[lem:approx\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi^{-1}\Big(\bV(\hrho ),\eps + \frac{2}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{\eta(\hrho )\log n}{\sqrt{n}}\Big) \subset \Psi^{-1}\big(\bV(\hrho ),\eps \big) +\frac{ h(\hrho,\eps) \log n}{\sqrt{n}}\bone \label{eqn:taylor_expand_set}\end{aligned}$$ for some function $h(\hrho,\eps):=h(\bV(\hrho),\eps)$ which diverges only as $\hrho\to\pm 1$. Uniting and , we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
R_{1,n} \\ R_{1,n} + R_{2,n}
\end{bmatrix} \in \bI(\hrho ) + \frac{\Psi^{-1}\big(\bV(\hrho ),\eps\big)}{\sqrt{n}} + \frac{h(\hrho ,\eps)\log n}{n}\bone.\label{eqn:constant_type_bd}\end{aligned}$$
### Evaluation of the Verdú-Han Bound with $\hrho_n\to\pm1$ {#sec:eval_vh2}
Here we consider a sequence of codes of a single type indexed by $k_n$ such that $\hrho_n := \frac{k_n}{n} \to 1$. The case $\hrho_n\to-1$ is handled similarly, and the details are thus omitted.
Our aim is to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
R_{1,n} \\ R_{1,n} + R_{2,n}
\end{bmatrix} \in \bI(\hrho_n) + \frac{\Psi^{-1}\big(\bV(\hrho_n),\eps\big)}{\sqrt{n}} + o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt n}\right)\bone. \label{eqn:rho1aim1}\end{aligned}$$ The following lemma states that as $\hrho_n\to 1$, the set $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\hrho_n),\eps\big)$ in can be approximated by $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(1),\eps\big)$, which is a simpler rectangular set. The proof of the lemma is provided in Appendix \[app:bounds\_set\].
\[lem:bounds\_set\] Fix $0<\eps<1$ and let $\hrho_n\to 1$. There exist positive sequences $a_n,b_n = \Theta( (1-\hrho_n)^{1/4})$ and $c_n= \Theta( (1-\hrho_n)^{1/2})$ satisfying $$\begin{bmatrix}
0 \\ \sqrt{V_{12}(1)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps + a_n)
\end{bmatrix}^- - b_n \bone \subset\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\hrho_n),\eps)\subset \begin{bmatrix}
0 \\ \sqrt{V_{12}(1)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps )
\end{bmatrix}^- + c_n \bone \label{eqn:set_up_bd} .$$ The down-set notation $[\bv]^-$ is defined in .
From the inner bound in Lemma \[lem:bounds\_set\], in order to show it suffices to show $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix} R_{1,n} \\ R_{1,n} + R_{2,n} \end{bmatrix}
\le \bI(\hrho_n) + \sqrt{\frac{V_{12}(1)}{n}}\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ \Phi^{-1}(\eps) \end{bmatrix} + o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt n}\right)\bone , \label{eqn:rho1aim2}\end{aligned}$$ where we absorbed the sequences $a_n ,b_n$ into the $o\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\big)$ term.
We return to the step in , which when combined with the Verdú-Han bound (with $\gamma := \frac{\log n}{2n}$) yields for some $(\bx_1,\bx_2)\in\calT_n(k)$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\eps_n &\ge 1-\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\Big( \bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)-\bbE[\bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)] \Big) > \bR_n - \bI(\hat{\rho}_n) - \gamma\bone-\frac{\xi_1}{n}\bone \bigg) - \frac{2}{\sqrt n} \\
&\ge \max\Bigg\{ \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\Big( j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)-\bbE[j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)] \Big) \le R_{1,n} - I_1(\hrho_n) - \gamma - \frac{\xi_1}{n} \bigg), \nn \\
&\qquad \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\Big( j_{12}(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)-\bbE[j_{12}(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)] \Big) \le R_{1,n} + R_{2,n} - I_{12}(\hrho_n) - \gamma - \frac{\xi_1}{n} \bigg) \Bigg\} - \frac{2}{\sqrt n}. \label{eqn:vhweakened}\end{aligned}$$
From and the assumption that $\hat{\rho}_n \to 1$, the variance of $\sum_{i=1}^{n}j_{12}(x_{1i},x_{2i},Y_i)$ equals $n(V_{12}(1)+o(1))$. Since $V_{12}(1)>0$, we can treat the second term in the maximum in in an identical fashion to the single-user setting [@Strassen; @PPV10] to obtain the second of the element-wise inequalities in . It remains to prove the first, i.e. to show that no $\Theta\big( \frac{1}{\sqrt n} \big)$ addition to $R_{1,n}$ is possible for $\eps\in(0,1)$. We will make use of the identities $$\begin{aligned}
I_1(\hrho_n) &= \Theta(1 -\hrho_n) \label{eqn:rho1moment1}\\
V_1(\hrho_n) &= \Theta(1 -\hrho_n) \label{eqn:rho1moment2}\end{aligned}$$ which follow since $I_1(1)=V_1(1)=0$, and by applying Taylor expansions in the same way as – (see also Appendix \[sec:moments\]). It is easily verified that the corresponding derivatives (e.g. $\frac{\partial I_1}{\partial\rho}$) at $\rho=1$ are strictly negative, hence justifying the use of $\Theta(\cdot)$ instead of $O(\cdot)$ in –.
We treat the cases $1-\hrho_n = \omega\big(\frac{1}{n}\big)$ and $1-\hrho_n=O\big(\frac{1}{n}\big)$ separately. In the former case, we combine – and – to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilI_{1,n}&:= \bbE\left[\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)\right] = \Theta\left(1-\hrho_n\right) ,\label{eqn:rho1moment1a} \\
\tilV_{1,n}&:= \var\left[ \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)\right] = \Theta\left(1-\hrho_n\right). \label{eqn:rho1moment2a}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we show in Appendix \[sec:moments\] that, upon replacing the given $(\bx_1,\bx_2)$ pair with a different pair yielding the same statistics of $\sum_{i=1}^{n}j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i},Y_i)$ if necessary (cf. Lemma \[lem:dependence\]), we have (cf. Lemma \[lem:tildeT\]) $$\tilT_{1,n}:= \sum_{i=1}^n \bbE\left[ \Big| \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \big(j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i) - \bbE[j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)]\big)\Big|^3 \right] = O\left( \frac{1-\hrho_n }{\sqrt{n}}\right). \label{eqn:rho1moment3a}$$ Thus, an application of the (univariate) Berry-Esseen theorem [@feller Sec. XVI.5] yields $$\begin{aligned}
& \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\Big( j_{1}(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)-\bbE[j_{1}(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)] \Big) \le R_{1,n} - I_1(\hrho_n) - \gamma - \frac{\xi_1}{n} \bigg) \nn \\
&\quad \ge \Phi\left(\frac{ \sqrt{n} \big( R_{1,n} - I_1(\hat{\rho}_n) - \gamma - \frac{\xi_1}{n} \big)}{\sqrt{ \tilV_{1,n}}}\right) - \frac{6\, \tilT_{1,n}}{ \tilV_{1,n}^{3/2} }. \label{eqn:rho1phi}\end{aligned}$$ We see from – that the remainder term above scales as $O\big( [ n(1-\hrho_n) ]^{-1/2} \big)$. Since it is assumed that $1-\hrho_n = \omega\big(\frac{1}{n}\big)$, this remainder term vanishes. Thus, combining with and the fact that $\gamma=O\big(\frac{\log n}{n}\big)$, and inverting the relationship between rate and error probability, we obtain $$R_{1,n}\le I_1(\hrho_n)+ \sqrt{ \frac{\tilV_{1,n}}{n}} \Phi^{-1}(\eps)+o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right). \label{eqn:rho1phi_a}$$ Furthermore, $\hrho_n\to1$ implies that $\tilV_{1,n}\to0$, and hence we have for any $\eps\in(0,1)$ that $$R_{1,n} \le I_{1}(\hat{\rho}_n) + o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right), \label{eqn:rho1R1a}$$ thus yielding and hence .
It remains to show that also holds when $1-\hrho_n = O\big(\frac{1}{n}\big)$. In this case, we can combine and to conclude that the variance of $\sum_{i=1}^n j_{1}(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)$ is $O(1)$, and we thus have from Chebyshev’s inequality that $$\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\Big( j_{1}(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)-\bbE[j_{1}(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)] \Big) \le \frac{c}{\sqrt{n}} \bigg) \to 1 \label{eqn:rho1case2}$$ for all $c>0$. Substituting into and taking $c\to0$ yields , as desired.
### Completion of the Proof
Combining and , we conclude that for any sequence of codes with error probability not exceeding $\eps\in(0,1)$, we have for some sequence $\hrho_n\in[-1,1]$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
R_{1,n} \\ R_{1,n} + R_{2,n}
\end{bmatrix} \in \bI(\hrho_n) + \frac{\Psi^{-1}\big(\bV(\hrho_n),\eps\big)}{\sqrt{n}} + {\overline{g}}(\hrho_n,\eps,n)\bone, \label{eqn:rho1aim}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\overline{g}}(\rho,\eps,n)$ satisfies the conditions in the theorem statement. Specifically, the first condition follows from (with $\barg(\rho,\eps,n) := h(\rho,\eps)\frac{\log n}{n}$), and the second from (with $\barg(\rho,\eps,n) := o\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\big)$). This concludes the proof of the global converse.
Direct Part
-----------
We now prove the inner bound in . At a high level, we modify the key ideas in the analysis of the cost-constrained ensemble by Scarlett [*et al.*]{} [@Scarlett13] so that they are applicable to superposition codes. This approach can be applied to input-constrained MACs with DMS in significantly greater generality than the Gaussian case.
### Random-Coding Ensemble
For user $j=1,2$, we introduce $K$ *auxiliary cost functions* $\{a_{k}(x_1,x_2)\}_{k=1}^K$, which are assumed to be arbitrary for now. The ensemble will be defined in such a way that, with probability one, each codeword pair falls into the set $$\calD_n := \bigg\{\big(\bx_1,\bx_2\big) : \|\bx_{1}\|_2^2 \le nS_1, \|\bx_{2}\|_2^2 \le nS_2, \bigg|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n a_k(x_{1 i},x_{2 i}) - \bbE[a_k(X_1,X_2)]\bigg| \le \frac{\delta}{n} , ~ \forall \, k \in [K] \bigg\}, \label{eqn:setD}$$ where $\delta$ is a positive constant, and $(X_1,X_2)$ are jointly Gaussian with a covariance matrix of the form given in . Roughly speaking, the set $\calD_n$ contains codewords satisfying the power constraints such that the empirical expectations of the $K$ auxiliary cost functions are $\delta/n$-close to the true expectations.
Before defining the ensemble, we present the following straightforward variation of [@Scarlett13 Prop. 1]. We make use of the fact that $\|\bx\|_2^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{n}x_i^2$, i.e. the power constraints are additive in the same way as the auxiliary costs.
\[prop:subexp\_cost\] Fix $\rho\in[0,1]$, and let $(\bX'_1,\bX'_2)$ be jointly distributed according to the $n$-fold product distribution of $P_{X_1,X_2} \sim \calN(\bzero,\bSigma(\rho))$ (see ), i.e. $(\bX'_1,\bX'_2)\sim\prod_{i=1}^n P_{X_1, X_2}(x_{1i}', x_{2i}')$. If $\bbE[a_k(X_1,X_2)^2]<\infty$ for all $k\in[K]$, then there exists a choice of $\delta>0$ such that $$\Pr\big( (\bX'_1,\bX'_2) \in \calD_n \big) \ge \psi(n), \label{eqn:subexp_cost}$$ where $\psi(n)=\Omega(n^{-(K+2)/2})$.
In the case that the power constraints are absent from $\calD_n$, this is a special case of the statement of [@Scarlett13 Prop. 1], which was proved using the following steps: (i) Find a subset of $K' \le K$ linearly independent auxiliary cost functions, linear combinations of which can be used to construct the remaining $K-K'$ functions; (ii) Apply a local limit theorem (e.g. [@Stone65]) to bound the probability that all $K$ constraints in $\calD_n$ are satisfied. The second step relies on the constraints being two-sided, i.e. allowing for deviations on both sides of the mean in $\calD_n$. This is false in the presence of the power constraints. However, for $\rho\in[0,1)$ we have $\det(\bSigma(\rho))>0$, thus ensuring that the functions $x_1^2$ and $x_2^2$ can be included in the set of $K'\le K+2$ linearly independent functions, and ensuring the validity of the second step above. For the remaining case $\rho=1$, the codewords $\bX'_1$ and $\bX'_2$ are scalar multiples of each other, and thus the power constraints for the two users are equivalent (i.e. one implies the other). We can thus remove one of the power constraints from $\calD_n$ without changing the statement of the proposition, and the remaining constraint can be included in the set of $K'\le K+1$ linearly independent functions. This concludes the proof.
We now define the random-coding ensemble. We use superposition coding, in which the codewords are generated according to $$\bigg\{\Big(\bX_2 (m_2) ,\{\bX_1(m_1,m_2)\}_{m_1=1}^{M_{1,n}}\Big)\bigg\}_{m_2=1}^{M_{2,n}} \sim\prod_{m_2=1}^{M_{2,n}}\bigg( P_{\bX_2}(\bx_2(m_2))\prod_{m_1=1}^{M_{1,n}}P_{\bX_1|\bX_2}(\bx_1(m_1,m_2)|\bx_2(m_2)) \bigg)$$ for some codeword distributions $P_{\bX_2}$ and $P_{\bX_1|\bX_2}$. These distributions will be chosen such that all codewords fall into the set $\calD_n$ with probability one. The auxiliary costs will be chosen to satisfy the assumptions of Proposition \[prop:subexp\_cost\], and we assume that $\delta$ is chosen such that holds, in accordance with the proposition statement.
Let the i.i.d. codewords $(\bX'_1,\bX'_2)$ be defined as in Proposition \[prop:subexp\_cost\]. Defining the set $$\calD_{2,n} := \bigg\{ \bx_2 \,:\, \Pr\big((\bX'_1,\bx_2) \in \calD_{n} \,\big|\, \bX'_2=\bx_2 \big) \ge \frac{1}{2}\psi(n) \bigg\}, \label{eqn:setD2}$$ the codeword distributions are given by $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\bX_2}(\bx_2) &= \frac{1}{\mu_{2,n}}\prod_{i=1}^n P_{X_2}(x_{2 i}) \bone\big\{ \bx_2\in\calD_{2,n} \big\}, \label{sc_px2} \\
P_{\bX_1|\bX_2}(\bx_1|\bx_2) &= \frac{1}{\mu_{1,n}(\bx_2)}\prod_{i=1}^n P_{X_1|X_2}(x_{1 i}|x_{2 i}) \bone\big\{ (\bx_1,\bx_2)\in\calD_n \big\}, \label{sc_px1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_{2,n}$ and $\mu_{1,n}(\bx_2)$ are normalizing constants. We see that $\bX_2 \in \calD_{2,n}$ with probability one, and the definition of $\calD_{2,n}$ in implies that $\mu_{1,n}(\bx_2) \ge \frac{1}{2}\psi(n) = \Omega(n^{-(K+2)/2})$ for all $\bx_2 \in\calD_{2,n}$. It will prove useful to show that we similarly have $\mu_{2,n}=\Omega(n^{-(K+2)/2})$. To see this, we write as $$\mu_{2,n}\Pr\big( (\bX'_1,\bX'_2) \in \calD_n \,\big|\, \bX'_2\in \calD_{2,n} \big)
+ (1-\mu_{2,n})\Pr\big( (\bX'_1,\bX'_2) \in \calD_n \,\big|\, \bX'_2\notin \calD_{2,n} \big) \ge \psi(n).$$ Upper bounding the first probability by one and the second according to , we obtain $$\mu_{2,n} + \frac{1}{2}\psi(n) \ge \psi(n), \label{eqn:mu2bound}$$ where we have also used $1-\mu_{2,n} \le 1$. It follows that $\mu_{2,n} \ge \frac{1}{2}\psi(n) = \Omega(n^{-(K+2)/2})$, as desired. Finally, upper bounding the indicator functions in – by one, we obtain $$P_{\bX_1,\bX_2}(\bx_1,\bx_2) \le \frac{4}{\psi(n)^2} \prod_{i=1}^n P_{X_1,X_2}(x_{1i}, x_{2i}). \label{eqn:change_measure}$$
### A Feinstein-type Achievability Bound for the MAC with DMS
We now state a non-asymptotic achievability based on an analogous bound for the MAC [@Han98 Lem. 3]. This bound can be considered as a dual of Proposition \[prop:vh\]. Define $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\bX_1|\bX_2} W^n(\by|\bx_2) &: = \int_{\bbR^n} P_{\bX_1|\bX_2}(\bx_1|\bx_2) W^n(\by|\bx_1, \bx_2)\, \rmd \bx_1 ,\\
P_{\bX_1,\bX_2} W^n(\by ) &:= \int_{\bbR^n} \int_{\bbR^n} P_{\bX_1,\bX_2}(\bx_1,\bx_2) W^n(\by|\bx_1, \bx_2)\, \rmd\bx_1\, \rmd\bx_2\end{aligned}$$ to be output distributions induced by an input distribution $P_{\bX_1, \bX_2}$ and the channel $W^n$. We have the following proposition, whose proof is omitted since it is uses standard arguments (e.g. see [@Mol13 Thm. 4]).
\[prop:fein\] Fix a blocklength $n\ge 1$, random vectors $(\bX_1,\bX_2)$ with joint distribution $P_{\bX_1, \bX_2}$ such that $\|\bX_1\|_2^2\le nS_1$ and $\|\bX_2\|_2^2\le nS_2$ almost surely, auxiliary output distributions $Q_{\bY|\bX_2}$ and $Q_{\bY }$, and a constant $\gamma>0$. Then there exists an $(n,M_{1,n} ,M_{2,n},S_1,S_2,\eps_n)$-code for which $$\begin{aligned}
\eps_n\le\Pr(\calF_n\cup\calG_n) + \Lambda_1 \exp(-n\gamma)+ \Lambda_{12} \exp(-n\gamma), \label{eqn:fein}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Lambda_1 := \sup_{\bx_2, \by} \frac{\rmd (P_{\bX_1|\bX_2}W^n)(\by|\bx_2)}{\rmd Q_{\bY|\bX_2}(\by|\bx_2)} ,\quad \Lambda_{12}:= \sup_{ \by} \frac{\rmd (P_{\bX_1,\bX_2}W^n)(\by )}{\rmd Q_{\bY }(\by )}, \label{eqn:K12}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\calF_n &:=\left\{ \frac{1}{n}\log\frac{W^n(\bY|\bX_1, \bX_2)}{Q_{\bY|\bX_2} (\bY|\bX_2)}\le \frac{1}{n}\log M_{1,n} +\gamma\right\} \label{eqn:calEn} \\
\calG_n &:=\left\{ \frac{1}{n}\log\frac{W^n(\bY|\bX_1, \bX_2)}{Q_{\bY}(\bY)} \le \frac{1}{n}\log \big(M_{1,n} M_{2,n} \big)+\gamma\right\} \label{eqn:calFn}\end{aligned}$$ with $\bY \,|\,\{ \bX_1=\bx_1,\bX_2=\bx_2\} \sim W^n(\cdot|\bx_1,\bx_2)$.
The main difference between and traditional Feinstein-type threshold decoding bounds (e.g. [@Han98 Lem. 3], [@Lan06 Lem. 1]) is that we have the freedom to choose arbitrary output distributions $Q_{\bY|\bX_2}$ and $Q_{\bY }$; this comes at the cost of introducing the multiplicative factors $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_{12}$ which depend on the maximum value of the Radon-Nikodym derivatives in . These multiplicative factors result from a standard change of measure argument.
### Analysis of the Random-Coding Error Probability for fixed $\rho\in[0,1)$ {#sec:fixed_rho}
We now use Proposition \[prop:fein\] with the codeword input distribution $P_{\bX_1, \bX_2}$ in -. By construction, the probability of either codeword violating the power constraint is zero. We choose the output distributions $Q_{\bY|\bX_2}:=(P_{X_1|X_2} W)^n$ and $Q_{\bY }:=(P_{X_1, X_2} W)^n$ to be of the convenient product form. As such, by , and , we can choose $\Lambda_1 = 2\psi(n)^{-1}$ and $\Lambda_{12} = 4\psi(n)^{-2}$ in . Hence, $$\eps_n \le 1 - \Pr\left( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\bj (X_{1i},X_{2i},Y_i) > \bR_n + \gamma\bone\right) +\frac{2\exp(-n\gamma) }{\psi(n)}+ \frac{4\exp(-n\gamma)}{\psi(n)^2}, \label{eqn:feinstein}$$ where the information density vector $\bj(x_1, x_2,y)$ is defined with respect to $P_{X_1|X_2}W(y|x_2)$ and $P_{X_1,X_2}W(y)$, which coincide with $Q_{Y|X_2}$ and $Q_Y$ in –. Choosing $$\gamma := \max\left\{-\frac{1}{n}\log \left(\frac{\psi(n)}{\sqrt{n}} \right), -\frac{1}{n}\log \left( \frac{\psi(n)^2}{\sqrt{n}} \right) \right\},$$ we notice that the sum of the third and fourth terms in is upper bounded by $\frac{6}{\sqrt{n}}$. The fact that $\psi(n)=\Omega(n^{-(K+2)/2})$ (see Proposition \[prop:subexp\_cost\]) implies that $\gamma = O\big(\frac{\log n}{n}\big)$, and we obtain $$\eps_n \le \max_{(\bx_1,\bx_2)\in\calD_n} 1 - \Pr\left( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\bj (x_{1i},x_{2i},Y_i) > \bR_n + \gamma\bone\right) + \frac{6}{\sqrt{n}}. \label{eqn:feinstein2}$$ We now make use of the key idea proposed in [@Scarlett13], namely, choosing the auxiliary costs in terms of the moments of $\bj(x_1,x_2,Y)$ in order to ensure that the Berry-Esseen theorem can be applied to . We define $$\begin{aligned}
\bj(x_1,x_2) &:= \bbE[\bj(x_1,x_2,Y)], \label{eqn:funcI} \\
\bv(x_1,x_2) &:= \cov[\bj(x_1,x_2,Y)], \label{eqn:funcV} \\
t(x_1,x_2) &:= \bbE\Big[\big\|\bj(x_1,x_2,Y)-\bbE[\bj(x_1,x_2,Y)]\big\|_2^3\Big], \label{eqn:funcT}\end{aligned}$$ where the expectations and covariance are taken with respect to $W(\cdot|x_1,x_2)$. We set $K=6$ and let the auxiliary costs equal the entries of the vectors and matrix in – ($2$ entries for $\bj(x_1, x_2)$, $3$ unique entries for the symmetric matrix $\bv(x_1, x_2)$ and $1$ entry for the scalar $t(x_1, x_2)$).[^3] The assumptions of Proposition \[prop:subexp\_cost\] are satisfied, since all moments of a Gaussian random variable are finite. We have from –, and – that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|\bbE\left[ \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n\bj (x_{1},x_2,Y_i) \right] - \bI(\rho)\right\|_{\infty} &\le \frac{\delta }{n}, \label{eqn:costmoment1} \\
\left\|\cov\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt n}\sum_{i=1}^n\bj (x_{1},x_2,Y_i)\right] - \bV(\rho) \right\|_{\infty} &\le \frac{\delta }{n} \label{eqn:costmoment2}\end{aligned}$$ for all $(\bx_1,\bx_2)\in\calD_n$, where the expectations and covariance are taken with respect to $W^n(\cdot|\bx_1,\bx_2)$. Similarly, defining $T(\rho) := \bbE [ t(X_1,X_2) ]$, we have from and that $$\left|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \bbE\left[ \Big\| \bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i) - \bbE[\bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)] \Big\|_2^3 \right] - T(\rho)\right| \le \frac{\delta}{n}. \label{eqn:costmoment3}$$ Thus, by applying the multivariate Berry-Esseen theorem [@Got91; @Bha10] (see Appendix \[app:be\]) to and performing Taylor expansions similarly to Section \[sec:eval\_vh\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\eps_n &\le 1 - \Psi\Big( \sqrt{n}\big( I_1(\rho)- R_{1,n}\big), \sqrt{n}\big( I_{12}(\rho) - ( R_{1,n} + R_{2,n})\big) ; \bV(\rho)\Big) + \frac{\zeta(\rho,\delta)\log n}{\sqrt{n}} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta(\rho,\delta)$ is a function depending only on $\rho$ and $\delta$. By inverting the relationship between the rates and the error probability similarly to Section \[sec:eval\_vh\], we obtain the desired result for any given $\rho\in[0,1)$, i.e. the first part of the theorem.
### Analysis of the Random-Coding Error Probability for $\rho_n\to1$
In order to prove the second part of the theorem, we use the cost-constrained ensemble with $\rho$ varying with $n$, namely $\rho_n\to1$. Similarly to , it suffices to show the achievability of $(R_{1,n},R_{2,n})$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix} R_{1,n} \\ R_{1,n} + R_{2,n} \end{bmatrix}
\ge \bI(\rho_n) + \sqrt{\frac{V_{12}(1)}{n}}\begin{bmatrix} 0 \\ \Phi^{-1}(\eps) \end{bmatrix} + o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt n}\right) \bone, \label{eqn:rho1aim3}\end{aligned}$$ rather than the equivalent form given by . See the outer bound in Lemma \[lem:bounds\_set\].
We set $K=7$ and choose the first five auxiliary costs to be the same as those above, while letting $a_6$ and $a_7$ equal the two entries of $$\begin{aligned}
\bt(x_1,x_2) &:= \bbE\Big[\big|\bj(x_1,x_2,Y)-\bbE[\bj(x_1,x_2,Y)]\big|^3\Big], \label{eqn:vecT}\end{aligned}$$ where the absolute value is applied element-wise. The reasons for the different choices of auxiliary costs here (compared to the case of fixed $\rho\in[0,1)$) are to obtain a sharper bound on the third absolute moment corresponding to $\sum_{i=1}^{n}j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i},Y_i)$, and since we will use two applications of the scalar Berry-Esseen theorem instead of one application of the vector version.
Defining $$\bT(\rho) = \begin{bmatrix} T_1(\rho) \\ T_{12}(\rho) \end{bmatrix} := \bbE [ \bt(X_1,X_2) ], \label{eqn:Tmatrix}$$ we have similarly to – that $$\left\|\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \bbE\left[ \Big| \bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i) - \bbE[\bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)] \Big|^3 \right] - \bT(\rho)\right\|_{\infty} \le \frac{\delta}{n}. \label{eqn:costmoment3a}$$ We have $I_1(1)=V_1(1)=T_1(1)=0$, and the behaviors of $I_1(\rho_n)$ and $V_1(\rho_n)$ as $\rho_n\to1$ are characterized by –. Furthermore, Lemma \[lem:T1\_rho\_bd\] in Appendix \[sec:moments\] states that $$T_1(\rho_n) = O(1-\rho_n) \label{eqn:t1growth}$$ analogously to – (except with $O(\cdot)$ in place of $\Theta(\cdot)$).
Since Proposition \[prop:subexp\_cost\] holds for all $\rho\in[0,1]$, it also holds for $\rho$ varying within this range, and remains true with $\gamma=O\big(\frac{\log n}{n}\big)$. Applying the union bound to , we obtain $$\eps_n \le \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i},Y_i) \le R_{1,n} + \gamma \bigg) + \Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i},Y_i) \le R_{1,n} + R_{2,n} + \gamma \bigg) + \frac{6}{\sqrt{n}}. \label{eqn:rho1feinstein}$$ for some $(\bx_1,\bx_2)\in\calD_n$ The subsequent arguments are similar to Section \[sec:eval\_vh2\], so we only provide an outline. We treat the cases $1-\rho_n=\omega\big(\frac{1}{n}\big)$ and $1-\rho_n=O\big(\frac{1}{n}\big)$ separately. For the former, we fix a small $c>0$ and choose $$R_{1,n} = I_{1}(\rho_n) - \frac{c}{\sqrt{n}} - \gamma. \label{eqn:rho1R1n}$$ Using the bounds in – and , and applying the (scalar) Berry-Esseen theorem, we have similarly to that $$\Pr\bigg( \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i},Y_i) \le R_{1,n} + \gamma \bigg) \le \Phi\left(\frac{-\frac{c}{\sqrt{n}} + O\big(\frac{\log n}{n}\big)}{\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}\big(V_{1}(\rho_n) + O\big(\frac{1}{n}\big)\big)}}\right) + o(1), \label{eqn:rho1term1}$$ where $V_{1}(\rho_n)=\omega\big(\frac{1}{n}\big)$, and the remainder term is $o(1)$ due to and . Since $\rho_n\to1$, we see that $V_{1}(\rho_n)\to0$, and hence the right-hand side of vanishes for any $c>0$. Thus, applying the Berry-Esseen theorem to and inverting the relationship between the rates and error probability, we obtain the following bound on the sum rate: $$R_{1,n} + R_{2,n} \ge I_{12}(\rho_n) + \sqrt{\frac{V_{12}(1)}{n}}\Phi^{-1}(\eps) + o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt n}\right). \label{eqn:rho1R12n}$$ Combining and , we obtain upon taking $c\to0$.
Using – and applying Chebyshev’s inequality similarly to , we see that the left-hand side of also vanishes for any $c>0$ in the case that $1-\rho_n=O\big(\frac{1}{n}\big)$. It follows that remains true for this case, thus completing the proof of the second part of Theorem \[thm:global\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm:local\]: Local Second-Order Result {#sec:prf_local}
=========================================================
Converse Part {#sec:localconverse}
-------------
We now present the proof of the converse part of Theorem \[thm:local\].
### Proof for case (i) ($\rho=0$)
To prove the converse part for case (i), it suffices to consider the most optimistic case, namely $M_{2,n}=1$ (i.e. no information is sent by the uninformed user). From the single-user dispersion result given in [@Hayashi09; @PPV10] (cf. ), the number of messages for user 1 must satisfy $$\log M_{1,n} \le nI_{1}(0) + \sqrt{nV_{1}(0)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps) + o(\sqrt{n}),$$ thus proving the converse part of .
### Establishing The Convergence of $\rho_n$ to $\rho$ {#sec:establishing1}
Fix a correlation coefficient $\rho\in(0,1]$, and consider any sequence of $(n,M_{1,n},M_{2,n},S_1, S_2,\eps_n)$-codes for the Gaussian MAC with DMS satisfying . Let us consider the associated rates $\{ (R_{1,n}, R_{2,n} ) \}_{n\ge 1}$, where $R_{j,n}=\frac{1}{n}\log M_{j,n}$ for $j = 1,2$. As required by Definition \[def;second\], we suppose that these codes satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}R_{j,n} &\ge R_j^*, \label{eqn:first_order_opt} \\
\liminf_{n\to\infty} {\sqrt{n}}\big( R_{j,n} - R_j^*\big )&\ge L_j,\quad j = 1,2, \label{eqn:sec_order_opt} \\
\limsup_{n\to\infty}\eps_n &\le\eps \label{eqn:error_prob}\end{aligned}$$ for some $(R_1^*,R_2^*)$ on the boundary parametrized by $\rho$, i.e. $R_1^*=I_1(\rho)$ and $R_1^*+R_2^*=I_{12}(\rho)$. The first-order optimality condition in is not explicitly required by Definition \[def;second\], but it can easily be seen that , which is required by Definition \[def;second\], implies . Letting $\bR_n := [ R_{1,n}, R_{1,n}+ R_{2,n}]^T$, we have from the global converse bound in that there exists a sequence $\{\rho_n\}_{n\ge 1}\subset [-1,1]$ such that $$\bR_n \in \bI(\rho_n)+\frac{\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho_n),\eps)}{\sqrt{n}} + {\overline{g}}(\rho_n,\eps,n) \bone.$$ Although ${\overline{g}}(\rho_n,\eps,n)$ depends on $\rho_n$, we know from Theorem \[thm:global\] that it is $o\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt n}\big)$ for both $\rho_n\to\pm1$ and $\rho_n$ bounded away from $\pm1$. It follows that $$\bR_n \in \bI(\rho_n)+\frac{\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho_n),\eps)}{\sqrt{n}} + o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt n}\right) \bone\label{eqn:uniformconverse}$$ for all sequences $\{\rho_n\}_{n\ge 1}$. We claim that this result implies that $\rho_n$ converges to $\rho$. Indeed, since the boundary of the capacity region is curved and uniquely parametrized by $\rho$ for $\rho\in(0,1]$, $\rho_n\not\to\rho$ implies for some $\delta>0$ and for all sufficiently large $n$ that either $I_1(\rho_n) \le I_1(\rho)-\delta$ or $I_{12}(\rho_n) \le I_{12}(\rho) - \delta$. It follows from that $R_{1,n}\le I_1(\rho_n)+\frac{\delta}{2}$ and $R_{1,n}+R_{2,n}\le I_{12}(\rho_n)+\frac{\delta}{2}$ for $n$ large enough. As such, we deduce that $R_{1,n}\le I_1(\rho)-\frac{\delta}{2}$ or $R_{1,n}+R_{2,n}\le I_{12}(\rho )-\frac{\delta}{2}$ for all sufficiently large $n$. This, in turn, contradicts the first-order optimality conditions in .
### Establishing The Convergence Rate of $\rho_n$ to $\rho$ {#sec:establishing2}
Because each entry of $\bI(\rho)$ is twice continuously differentiable, a Taylor expansion yields $$\begin{aligned}
\bI(\rho_n) = \bI(\rho) + \bD(\rho) (\rho_n-\rho) + O\big( (\rho_n - \rho)^2 \big) \bone, \label{eqn:taylor_expand_I}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bD(\rho)$ is the derivative of $\bI$ defined in . In the same way, since each entry of $\bV(\rho)$ is continuously differentiable in $\rho$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\bV(\rho_n) - \bV(\rho) \|_{\infty} = O( \rho_n-\rho ) . \end{aligned}$$ We claim that these expansions, along with , imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\bR_n &\in\bI(\rho) + \bD(\rho) (\rho_n-\rho) + \frac{\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho ) ,\eps) }{\sqrt{n}} + \left[ o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt n}\right) +O\big( (\rho_n - \rho)^2 \big)+ O\left(\frac{ (\rho_n-\rho)^{1/2} }{\sqrt{n}} \right) \right]\bone. \label{eqn:after_taylor}\end{aligned}$$ The final term in the square parentheses results from the outer bound in Lemma \[lem:bounds\_set\] for the case $\rho=1$. For $\rho\in(0,1)$ a standard Taylor expansion yields with the last term replaced by $O\big(\frac{\rho_n-\rho}{\sqrt{n}}\big)$, and it follows that holds for *all* $\rho\in(0,1]$. We treat two cases separately: (I) $\rho_n-\rho =O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}})$, and (II) $\rho_n-\rho =\omega(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}})$. We first show that Case (II) is not of interest in our study of local second-order coding rates (Definition \[def;second\]). If Case (II) holds, intuitively in , $\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho ) ,\eps)$ is dominated by $\bD(\rho)(\rho_n-\rho)$ and hence, the second-order term scales as $\omega(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}})$ instead of the desired $\Theta(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}})$. To be more precise, because $$\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps) \subset\begin{bmatrix}
\sqrt{V_1(\rho)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps) \\ \sqrt{V_{12}(\rho)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps)
\end{bmatrix}^- ,$$ the bound in implies that $\bR_n$ must satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\bR_n \in\bI(\rho) + \bD(\rho) (\rho_n-\rho) + \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\begin{bmatrix}
\sqrt{V_1(\rho)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps) \\ \sqrt{V_{12}(\rho)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps)
\end{bmatrix}^- + o(\rho_n-\rho)\bone.\end{aligned}$$ In other words, and $\rho_n-\rho=\omega(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}})$ imply that $\bR_n$ must satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\bR_n \le\bI(\rho) + \bD(\rho) (\rho_n-\rho) + o( \rho_n-\rho )\bone. \label{eqn:omega_term}\end{aligned}$$ Since the first entry of $\bD(\rho)$ is negative and the second entry is positive, states that $L_1=+\infty$ (i.e. a large addition to $R_1^*$) only if $L_1+L_2=-\infty$ (i.e. a large backoff from $R_1^* + R_2^*$), and $L_1+L_2=+\infty$ only if $L_1=-\infty$. This is due the fact that we consider second-order terms scaling as $\Theta\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\big)$. Thus, only Case (I) is of interest, i.e. $\rho_n-\rho =O\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\big)$.
### Completing the Proof for Case (ii) ($\rho\in(0,1)$) {#sec:completing}
Assuming now that $\rho_n-\rho =O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}})$, it follows that $\tau_n:=\sqrt{n}(\rho_n-\rho)$ is a bounded sequence. By the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem [@Rudin Thm. 3.6(b)], $\{\tau_n\}_{n\ge 1}$ contains a convergent subsequence $\{\tau_{n_k}\}_{k\ge 1}$. Fix any convergent subsequence $\{\tau_{n_k}\}_{k\ge 1}$ and let the limit of this subsequence be $\beta\in\bbR$, i.e. $\beta:=\lim_{k\to\infty}\tau_{n_k}$. Then, for the blocklengths indexed by $n_k$, we know from that $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n_k}\big(\bR_{n_k}-\bI(\rho)\big)\in\beta\, \bD(\rho) + \Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho ) ,\eps) +o(1) \, \bone, \label{eqn:subseq}\end{aligned}$$ where the $o(1)$ term combines the $o\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\big)$ term in and the deviation $(\tau_{n_k} - \beta)\max \{ -D_1(\rho) , D_{12}(\rho) \}$. By referring to the second-order optimality condition in , and applying the definition of the limit inferior in [@Rudin Def. 3.16], we know that [*every*]{} convergent subsequence of $\{R_{j,n}\}_{n\ge 1}$ has a subsequential limit that satisfies $\lim_{k\to\infty} \sqrt{n_k} \big(R_{j,n_k}-R_j^*)\ge L_j$ for $j = 1,2$. In other words, for all $\gamma>0$, there exist an integer $K_1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n_k} \big(R_{1,n_k}-I_1(\rho)\big) &\ge L_1-\gamma \\
\sqrt{n_k} \big(R_{1,n_k}+R_{1,n_k}-I_{12}(\rho)\big) &\ge L_1+L_2-2\gamma \end{aligned}$$ for all $k\ge K_1$. Thus, we may lower bound each component in the vector on the left of with $L_1-\gamma$ and $L_1 + L_2-2\gamma$. There also exists an integer $K_2$ such that the $o(1)$ terms are upper bounded by $\gamma$ for all $k\ge K_2$. We conclude that any pair of $(\eps,R_1^*, R_2^*)$-achievable second-order coding rates $(L_1, L_2)$ must satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
L_1-2\gamma \\ L_1 + L_2 -3\gamma
\end{bmatrix} \in \bigcup_{\beta\in\bbR}\left\{ \beta\, \bD(\rho)+ \Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho ) ,\eps) \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, since $\gamma>0$ is arbitrary, we can take $\gamma \downarrow 0$, thus completing the converse proof for case (ii).
### Completing the Proof for Case (iii) ($\rho=1$)
The case $\rho=1$ is handled in essentially the same way as $\rho\in(0,1)$, so we only state the differences. Since $\beta$ represents the difference between $\rho_n$ and $\rho$, and since $\rho_n\le1$, we should only consider the case that $\beta \le 0$. Furthermore, for $\rho=1$ the set $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps)$ can be written in a simpler form; see Lemma \[lem:bounds\_set\]. Using this form, we readily obtain .
Direct Part
-----------
We obtain the local result from the global result using a similar (yet simpler) argument to the converse part in Section \[sec:localconverse\]. For fixed $\rho\in[0,1]$ and $\beta\in\bbR$, let $$\rho_n := \rho + \frac{\beta}{\sqrt{n}}, \label{eqn:rho_sequence}$$ where we require $\beta \ge 0$ (resp. $\beta\le0$) when $\rho=0$ (resp. $\rho=1$). By Theorem \[thm:global\], we can achieve $(R_{1,n},R_{2,n})$ satisfying $$\bR_n \in \bI(\rho_n)+\frac{\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho_n),\eps)}{\sqrt{n}} + o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\bone. \label{eqn:direct_Rn}$$ Substituting into and performing Taylor expansions in an identical fashion to the converse part (cf. the argument from to ), we obtain $$\bR_n \in \bI(\rho) + \frac{\beta\, \bD(\rho)}{\sqrt{n}}+\frac{\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\rho),\eps)}{\sqrt{n}} + o\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\bone. \label{eqn:direct_Rn2}$$ We immediately obtain the desired result for case (ii) where $\rho\in [0,1)$. We also obtain the desired result for case (iii) where $\rho=1$ using the alternative form of $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(1),\eps)$ (see Lemma \[lem:bounds\_set\]), similarly to the converse proof.
For case (i), we substitute $\rho=0$ into and to obtain $\bD(\rho)=[0 ~ D_{12}(\rho)]^T$ with $D_{12}(\rho)>0$. Since $\beta$ can be arbitrarily large, it follows from that $L_2$ can take any real value. Furthermore, the set $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(0),\eps)$ contains vectors with a first entry arbitrarily close to $\sqrt{V_1(0)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps)$ (provided that the other entry is sufficiently negative), and we thus obtain .
Moments of the Information Density Vector {#sec:moments}
=========================================
Let $\rho\in[-1,1]$ be given, and recall the definition of the information density vector in , and the choices of $Q_{Y|X_2}$ and $Q_Y$ in –. For a given pair of sequences $(\bx_1, \bx_2)$, form the random vector $$\begin{aligned}
\bA_n:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{i=1}^n \bj(x_{1i},x_{2i},Y_i), \label{eqn:An}\end{aligned}$$ where $Y_i|\{X_1=x_{1i},X_2=x_{2i}\}\sim W(\cdot|x_{1i}, x_{2i})$. Define the constants $\alpha:=S_1 (1-\rho^2)$, $\vartheta := S_1 + S_2 + 2\rho\sqrt{S_1 S_2}$ and $\kappa:=\rho\sqrt{{S_1}/{S_2}}$. Then, it can be verified that $$\begin{aligned}
j_1(x_1, x_2,Y) &= \frac{1}{2}\log(1+\alpha) -\frac{Z^2}{2} + \frac{(x_1-\kappa x_2+Z)^2}{2(1+\alpha)} = \frac{-\alpha Z^2 + 2(x_1-\kappa x_2)Z }{ 2(1+\alpha)} + f_1(x_1,x_2), \label{eqn:j1_def}\\
j_{12}(x_1, x_2,Y) &= \frac{1}{2}\log(1+\vartheta) -\frac{Z^2}{2} + \frac{(x_1+x_2+Z)^2}{2(1+\vartheta)} = \frac{-\vartheta Z^2 + 2(x_1 + x_2 ) Z }{ 2(1+\vartheta)} +f_{12}(x_1, x_2) ,\label{eqn:j12_def}\end{aligned}$$ where $Z:=Y-x_1-x_2\sim\calN(0,1)$ and $f_1(x_1, x_2)$ and $f_{12}(x_1, x_2)$ are some deterministic functions that will not affect the covariance matrix. Taking the expectation, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\bbE\big[ j_1(x_1, x_2,Y)\big] & = \frac{1}{2}\log(1+\alpha) -\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1+(x_1-\kappa x_2)^2}{2(1+\alpha) } = \frac{1}{2}\log(1+\alpha) + \frac{(x_1-\kappa x_2)^2-\alpha}{2(1+\alpha) } \label{eqn:mean_j1} , \\
\bbE\big[ j_{12}(x_1, x_2,Y)\big]& = \frac{1}{2}\log(1+\vartheta) -\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1+(x_1+x_2)^2}{2(1+\vartheta)} = \frac{1}{2}\log(1+\vartheta) +\frac{(x_1+x_2)^2 - \vartheta}{2(1+\vartheta)} \label{eqn:mean_j2} . \end{aligned}$$ Setting $x_1 \leftarrow x_{1i}$, $x_2\leftarrow x_{2i}$ and $Y \leftarrow Y_i$ in and and summing over all $i$, we conclude that the mean vector of $\bA_n$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\bbE \big[\bA_n\big] = \sqrt{n}\left[
\rvC(\alpha) + \frac{ \|\bx_1 - \kappa\bx_2\|_2^2 - n \alpha }{2n(1+\alpha) } \quad\,\,
\rvC(\vartheta) + \frac{ \|\bx_1 + \bx_2 \|_2^2 - n \vartheta}{2n(1+ \vartheta ) }
\right]^T . \label{eqn:meanA}\end{aligned}$$ From and , we deduce that the variances are $$\begin{aligned}
\var\big[j_1(x_1, x_2,Y) \big] &= \var\Big[ \frac{-\alpha Z^2 + 2(x_1-\kappa x_2)Z }{ 2(1+\alpha)} \Big] = \frac{\alpha^2+2(x_1-\kappa x_2)^2}{ 2(1+\alpha)^2}, \label{eqn:var1} \\
\var\big[j_{12}(x_1, x_2,Y) \big]&= \var\Big[ \frac{-\vartheta Z^2 + 2(x_1 + x_2 ) Z }{ 2(1+\vartheta)} \Big] = \frac{\vartheta^2+2(x_1+x_2)^2}{ 2(1+\vartheta)^2}, \label{eqn:var2}\end{aligned}$$ where we used the fact that $\cov[Z^2, Z]=\bbE Z^3 - (\bbE Z )(\bbE Z^2 )=0$. The covariance is $$\begin{aligned}
&\cov\big[j_1(x_1, x_2,Y), j_{12}(x_1, x_2,Y) \big] =\cov\Big[\frac{-\alpha Z^2 + 2(x_1-\kappa x_2)Z }{ 2(1+\alpha)} , \frac{-\vartheta Z^2 + 2(x_1 + x_2 ) Z }{ 2(1+\vartheta)} \Big]\\
&=\frac{1}{4(1+\alpha)(1+\vartheta)}\Big\{ \bbE\big[ ( -\alpha Z^2 + 2(x_1-\kappa x_2 ) Z)(-\vartheta Z^2 + 2(x_1 +x_2)Z) \big] \nn\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad -\bbE\big[ -\alpha Z^2 + 2(x_1-\kappa x_2 ) Z \big]\bbE\big[-\vartheta Z^2 + 2(x_1 +x_2)Z \big] \Big\}\\
&=\frac{3\alpha\vartheta+ 4(x_1-\kappa x_2 )(x_1 +x_2) -\alpha\vartheta}{4(1+\alpha)(1+\vartheta)}=\frac{ \alpha\vartheta+ 2(x_1^2+(1-\kappa)x_1x_2-\kappa x_2^2 ) }{ 2(1+\alpha)(1+\vartheta)} \label{eqn:cov}\end{aligned}$$ Setting $x_1 \leftarrow x_{1i}$, $x_2\leftarrow x_{2i}$ and $Y \leftarrow Y_i$ in , and and summing over all $i$, we conclude that covariance matrix of $\bA_n$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\cov\big[ \bA_n\big] \!=\! \left[\begin{array}{cc}
\dfrac{ n\alpha^2 +2 \|\bx_1 - \kappa\bx_2\|_2^2 }{2n( 1+ \alpha)^2} & \dfrac{ n\alpha\vartheta \! + \! 2( \|\bx_1\|_2^2 \!+\! ( 1\!-\! \kappa) \langle \bx_1, \bx_2 \rangle \!-\! \kappa \|\bx_2\|_2^2 ) }{2n(1+ \alpha)(1+\vartheta)}\\[2ex]
\dfrac{ n\alpha\vartheta \! +\! 2( \|\bx_1\|_2^2 \!+\! ( 1\!-\! \kappa) \langle \bx_1, \bx_2 \rangle \!-\! \kappa \|\bx_2\|_2^2 ) }{2n(1+ \alpha)(1+\vartheta)} & \dfrac{ n\vartheta^2 +2\|\bx_1 + \bx_2\|_2^2 }{2n ( 1+ \vartheta)^2}
\end{array} \right] . \label{eqn:element_a} \end{aligned}$$
In the remainder of the section, we analyze several third absolute moments associated with $\bA_n$ appearing in the univariate [@feller Sec. XVI.5] and multivariate Berry-Esseen theorems [@Got91; @Bha10] (see Appendix \[app:be\]). The following lemma will be used to replace any given $(\bx_1,\bx_2)$ pair by an “equivalent” pair (in the sense that the statistics of $\bA_n$ are unchanged) for which the corresponding third moments have the desired behavior. This is analogous to Polyanskiy *et al.* [@PPV10], where for the AWGN channel, one can use a spherical symmetry argument to replace any given sequence $\bx$ such that $\|\bx\|_2^2=nS$ with a fixed sequence $(\sqrt{S},\cdots,\sqrt{S})$.
\[lem:dependence\] The joint distribution of $\bA_n$ depends on $(\bx_1,\bx_2)$ only through the powers $\|\bx_1\|_2^2$, $\|\bx_2\|_2^2$ and the inner product $\langle\bx_1, \bx_2\rangle$.
This follows by substituting – into and using the symmetry of the additive noise sequence $\bZ=(Z_1, \ldots, Z_n)$. For example, from , the first entry of $\bA_n$ can be written as $$\frac{1}{\sqrt n}\left( \frac{1}{2}\log(1+\alpha) - \frac{1}{2}\|\bZ\|_2^2 + \frac{1}{2(1+\alpha)}\|\bx_1-\kappa\bx_2+\bZ\|_2^2 \right),$$ and the desired result follows by writing $$\|\bx_1-\kappa\bx_2+\bZ\|^2 = \|\bx_1\|^2 + \kappa^2\|\bx_2\|^2 + \|\bZ\|^2 - 2\kappa\langle\bx_1,\bx_2\rangle + 2\langle\bx_1,\bZ\rangle - 2\kappa\langle\bx_2,\bZ\rangle.$$ Since $\bZ$ is i.i.d. Gaussian, the last two terms depend on $(\bx_1,\bx_2)$ only through $\|\bx_1\|_2^2$ and $\|\bx_2\|_2^2$.
We now provide lemmas showing that, upon replacing a given pair $(\bx_1,\bx_2)$ with an equivalent pair using Lemma \[lem:dependence\] if necessary, the corresponding third moments have the desired behavior. It will prove useful to work with the empirical correlation coefficient $$\rho_{\mathrm{emp}}(\bx_1, \bx_2):= \frac{\langle\bx_1, \bx_2\rangle}{\|\bx_1\|_2\|\bx_2\|_2}.$$ It is easily seen that Lemma \[lem:dependence\] remains true when the inner product $\langle\bx_1,\bx_2\rangle$ is replaced by this normalized quantity.
\[lem:T\_bd\] For any fixed $\tilde{\rho} \in [-1,1]$, there exists a sequence of pairs $(\bx_1,\bx_2)$ (indexed by increasing lengths $n$) such that $\|\bx_1\|_2^2 = nS_1$, $\|\bx_2\|_2^2 = nS_2$, $\rho_{\mathrm{emp}}(\bx_1,\bx_2) = \tilde{\rho}$, and $$\tilde{T}_n := \sum_{i=1}^n \bbE\left[ \Big\| \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \big(\bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i) - \bbE[\bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)]\big)\Big\|_2^3 \right] = O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right), \label{eqn:Bn}$$ where the $O\big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\big)$ term is uniform in $\tilde{\rho} \in [-1,1]$.
By using the fact that $\|\bv\|_2\le \|\bv\|_1$ and $(|a|+|b|)^3 \le 4|a|^3 + 4|b|^3$, the following bounds hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{T}_n &\le\sum_{i=1}^n \bbE\left[ \Big\| \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \big(\bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i) - \bbE[\bj(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)]\big)\Big\|_1^3 \right] \label{eqn:Bn_bd1}\\
&\le 4\sum_{i=1}^n \bbE\left[ \Big| \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \big(j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i) - \bbE[j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)]\big)\Big|^3 \right] \nn\\
&\qquad+ 4\sum_{i=1}^n \bbE\left[ \Big| \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \big(j_{12}(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i) - \bbE[j_{12}(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)]\big)\Big|^3 \right]\label{eqn:Bn_bd2} .\end{aligned}$$ We now specify $(\bx_1,\bx_2)$ whose powers and correlation match those given in the lemma statement. Assuming for the time being that $|\tilde{\rho}| \le \frac{n-1}{n}$, we choose $$\begin{aligned}
\bx_1 &= \big(\sqrt{S_1},\cdots,\sqrt{S_1}\big) \label{eqn:seq1} \\
\bx_2 &= \big(\sqrt{S_2(1+\eta)},\sqrt{S_2},\cdots,\sqrt{S_2},-\sqrt{S_2(1-\eta)},-\sqrt{S_2},\cdots,-\sqrt{S_2}\big) \label{eqn:seq2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta\in(-1,1)$, and $\bx_2$ contains $k\ge1$ negative entries and $n-k\ge1$ positive entries. It is easily seen that $\|\bx_1\|_2^2=nS_1$ and $\|\bx_2\|_2^2=nS_2$, as desired. Furthermore, we can choose $k$ and $\eta$ to obtain the desired correlation since $$\langle\bx_1,\bx_2\rangle=\big(n-2(k-1)+\sqrt{1+\eta}-\sqrt{1-\eta}\big)\sqrt{S_1S_2}, \label{eqn:innerprod}$$ and since the range of the function $f(\eta):=\sqrt{1+\eta}-\sqrt{1-\eta}$ for $\eta\in(-1,1)$ is given by $(-\sqrt{2},\sqrt{2})$.
Using –, it can easily be verified that the third absolute moment of each entry of $\bj(x_1,x_2,Y)$ (i.e. $\bbE \big|j_1(x_1, x_2,Y)-\bbE [j_1(x_1, x_2,Y)] \big|^3$ and $\bbE \big|j_{12}(x_1, x_2,Y)-\bbE [j_{12}(x_1, x_2,Y)] \big|^3$) is bounded above by some constant for any $(x_1,x_2)=(\sqrt{S_1},\pm\sqrt{cS_2})$ ($c\in(0,2)$). We thus obtain using . The proof is concluded by noting that a similar argument applies for the case $\tilde{\rho} \in (\frac{n-1}{n},1]$ by replacing by $$\bx_2 = \big(\sqrt{S_2(1+\eta)},\sqrt{S_2(1-\eta)},\sqrt{S_2},\cdots,\sqrt{S_2}\big), \label{eqn:seq2a}$$ and similarly (with negative entries) when $\tilde{\rho} \in [-1,\frac{n-1}{n})$.
\[lem:tildeT\] For any pair of sequences $\{\rho_n\}_{n\ge 1}\subset [-1,1]$ and $\{\tilde{\rho}_n\}_{n\ge 1}\subset [-1,1]$ such that $\rho_n,\tilde{\rho}_n\to1$ with $1-\tilde{\rho}_n=\Theta(1-\rho_n)$, there exists a sequence of vectors $(\bx_1,\bx_2)$ (indexed by increasing lengths $n$) with the properties $\|\bx_1\|_2^2=nS_1$, $\|\bx_2\|_2^2=nS_2$, $\rho_{\mathrm{emp}}(\bx_1,\bx_2) = \tilde{\rho}_n$, and they satisfy $$\tilde{T}_{1,n} := \sum_{i=1}^n \bbE\left[ \Big| \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \big(j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i) - \bbE[j_1(x_{1i},x_{2i}, Y_i)]\big)\Big|^3 \right] =O\left( \frac{1-\tilde{\rho}_n}{\sqrt{n}}\right), \label{eqn:B1n}$$ where the information density is computed with respect to $\rho_n$, i.e. $j_1$ is defined in with input distribution $P_{X_1, X_2}=\calN(\bzero,\bSigma(\rho_n))$.
We make use of the notation and definitions in the proof of Lemma \[lem:T\_bd\], using a subscript to denote dependence on $n$, e.g. $k_n$. We again focus on the case that $|\tilde{\rho}_n| \le \frac{n-1}{n}$ and we choose $(\bx_1, \bx_2)$ according to –. The remaining cases are handled similarly (e.g. using ) and are thus omitted.
Inverting , we have $k_n=\frac{n}{2}(1-\tilde{\rho}_n) + O(1)$, and thus the entries corresponding to $x_2 \ne \sqrt{S_2}$ in contribute an additive $O\big(\frac{1-\tilde{\rho}_n}{\sqrt{n}}\big)$ term to the summation in . For the remaining entries, where $(x_1,x_2)=(\sqrt{S_1},\sqrt{S_2})$, we note from that the third absolute moment of $j(x_1,x_2,Y)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\bbE\left[ \big| j(x_1, x_2,Y)-\bbE\big[j(x_1, x_2,Y)\big] \big|^3\right] & =\bbE\left[\left|\frac{-\alpha(Z^2-1) + 2(x_1-\kappa x_2)Z }{ 2(1+\alpha)}\right|^3\right] \\
& \le 2\left( |\alpha|^3\bbE\big[|Z^2-1|^3\big] + 8\big(\sqrt{S_1}-\kappa\sqrt{S_2}\big)^3 \bbE\big[|Z|^3\big] \right) \label{eqn:thirdexpansion2} \\
& = \Theta\left(|\alpha|^3 + \big(\sqrt{S_1}-\kappa\sqrt{S_2}\big)^3\right) \\
& = \Theta(1-\tilde{\rho}_n), \label{eqn:thirdexpansion4}\end{aligned}$$ where follows because $\alpha\ge0$ and $|a+b|^3 \le 4(|a|^3+|b|^3)$, and follows by substituting $\alpha=S_1 (1-\rho^2)$ and $\kappa=\rho\sqrt{{S_1}/{S_2}}$, and applying first-order Taylor expansions in $1-\tilde{\rho}_n$ (recall that $1-\rho_n = \Theta(1-\tilde{\rho}_n)$ by assumption). From , we conclude that the entries where $(x_1,x_2)=(\sqrt{S_1},\sqrt{S_2})$ in – contribute an additive $O\big(\frac{1-\tilde{\rho}_n}{\sqrt{n}}\big)$ term to the summation in , thus yielding the desired result.
Recall the definition of $T_1(\rho)$ in which we restate here for the reader’s convenience: $$T_1(\rho):= \bbE\left[ \bbE\Big[ \big| j_1(X_1, X_2 , Y) -\bbE[j_1(X_1, X_2 , Y)] \big|^3\, \big|\, X_1, X_2 \Big]\right].$$ The distribution of $(X_1, X_2)$ above is $\calN(\bzero,\bSigma(\rho))$ and the information density $j_1$ is also defined with respect to $\rho$.
\[lem:T1\_rho\_bd\] For any sequence $\{\rho_n\}_{n\ge 1}$ satisfying $\rho_n \to 1$, we have $$T_1(\rho_n) = O(1-\rho_n). \label{eqn:T1_O}$$
We upper bound $t_1(x_1, x_2)$ using the Cauchy-Schwarz and arithmetic-geometric mean inequalities as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
t_1(x_1, x_2) &= \bbE\big[ \big| j_1(x_1, x_2, Y) - \bbE [j_1(x_1, x_2, Y)] \big|^3\big]\\
&\le\sqrt{ \bbE\Big[ \big( j_1(x_1, x_2, Y) - \bbE [j_1(x_1, x_2, Y)] \big)^2\Big] \bbE\Big[ \big( j_1(x_1, x_2, Y) - \bbE [j_1(x_1, x_2, Y)] \big)^4\Big] } \label{eqn:cauchy}\\
&\le \frac{1}{2}\left(\bbE\Big[ \big( j_1(x_1, x_2, Y) - \bbE [j_1(x_1, x_2, Y)] \big)^2\Big] + \bbE\Big[ \big( j_1(x_1, x_2, Y) - \bbE [j_1(x_1, x_2, Y)] \big)^4\Big] \right) \label{eqn:bd_t1} .\end{aligned}$$ Now, by , the variance of $j_1(x_1, x_2, Y)$ is $$m_2(x_1, x_2) :=\bbE\Big[ \big( j_1(x_1, x_2, Y) - \bbE [j_1(x_1, x_2, Y)] \big)^2\Big]=\frac{\alpha^2+2(x_1-\kappa x_2)^2}{ 2(1+\alpha)^2} . \label{eqn:2nd_centralized}$$ By a similar calculation, we deduce that the centralized fourth moment of $j_1(x_1, x_2, Y)$ is $$m_4(x_1, x_2) :=\bbE\Big[ \big( j_1(x_1, x_2, Y) - \bbE [j_1(x_1, x_2, Y)] \big)^4\Big]= \frac{15\alpha^4+ 60\alpha^2 (x_1-\kappa x_2)^2 + 12 (x_1-\kappa x_2)^4 }{4(1+\alpha)^4}. \label{eqn:4th_centralized}$$ Taking the expectation of with respect to $(X_1, X_2) \sim \calN(0,\bSigma(\rho))$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\bbE[ m_2(X_1, X_2) ] = \frac{ \alpha (2+\alpha)}{2(1+\alpha)^2} \label{eqn:m2} \end{aligned}$$ where we used the fact that $X_1-\kappa X_2 \sim\calN(0,\alpha)$. Similarly, taking the expectation of yields $$\bbE[ m_4(X_1, X_2) ] = \frac{3\alpha^2( 5\alpha^2+ 20\alpha + 12)}{4(1+\alpha)^4} \label{eqn:m4}$$ where we used the fact that $\bbE \big[(X_1-\kappa X_2)^4\big] = 3\alpha^2$. Now, observe that since $\alpha=\alpha(\rho)=S_1 (1-\rho^2)$ is continuously differentiable in $\rho$, so are $\bbE[ m_2(X_1, X_2) ]$ and $\bbE[ m_4(X_1, X_2) ]$. Moreover $\bbE[ m_2(X_1, X_2) ]$ and $\bbE[ m_4(X_1, X_2) ]$ are equal to zero when $\rho = 1$ (and hence $\alpha = 0$). Consequently, by we know that $T_1(\rho)$ is upper bounded by a continuously differentiable function in $\rho$ and it evaluates to zero when $\rho =1$. We conclude, by first-order Taylor expansions in $\rho$ in the vicinity of $\rho=1$, that holds.
The Multivariate Berry-Esseen Theorem {#app:be}
=====================================
In this section, we state a version of the multivariate Berry-Esseen theorem [@Got91; @Bha10] that is suited for our needs in this paper. The following is a restatement of Corollary 38 in [@WKT13].
\[thm:multidimensional-berry-esseen\] Let $\bU_1, \ldots, \bU_n$ be independent, zero-mean random vectors in $\bbR^d$. Let $\bL_n := \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}(\bU_1 + \cdots + \bU_n)$, Assume $\bV:=\cov(\bL_n)$ is positive definite with minimum eigenvalue $\lambda_{\min}(\bV)>0$. Let $t := \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \bbE\big[ \| \bU_i \|_2^3\big]$ and let $\bZ$ be a zero-mean Gaussian random vector with covariance $\bV$. Then, for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$, $$\sup_{\mathscr{C} \in \mathfrak{C}_d} \big| \Pr( \bL_n \in \mathscr{C} ) - \Pr ( \bZ \in \mathscr{C} ) \big|
\le \frac{k_d\, t}{\lambda_{\min}(\bV)^{3/2} \sqrt{n}},$$ where $\mathfrak{C}_d$ is the family of all convex, Borel measurable subsets of $\mathbb{R}^d$, and $k_d$ is a function only of the dimension $d$ (e.g., $k_2 = 265$).
Proof of Lemma \[lem:approx\] {#app:upper_bd_set}
=============================
Fix $(z_1, z_2) \in\Psi^{-1}\big( \bV,\eps+\lambda_n)$ and define $\bZ = ( Z_1, Z_2)\sim\calN(\bzero,\bV)$. Since $\Psi^{-1}\big( \bV,\eps )$ is monotonic in the sense that $\Psi^{-1}\big( \bV,\eps ) \subset\Psi^{-1}\big( \bV,\eps' )$ for $\eps\le\eps'$, it suffices to verify that $(z_1, z_2)$ belongs to the set on the right-hand side of for those $(z_1, z_2)$ on the boundary of $\Psi^{-1}\big( \bV,\eps+\lambda_n)$. That is (cf. ), $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr\big( Z_1\le -z_1, Z_2\le -z_2\big)=1-(\eps+\lambda_n). \label{eqn:integral}\end{aligned}$$ Define $\nu_n :=\inf\left\{ \nu>0: (-z_1-\nu, -z_2-\nu) \in \Psi^{-1} ( \bV,\eps )\right\}$. We need to show that $\nu_n=o(1)$ is bounded above by some linear function of $\lambda_n$. By using and the definition of $\nu_n$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_n&=\Pr\big(Z_1 \in [-z_1-\nu_n, -z_1] \cup Z_2 \in [ -z_2-\nu_n, -z_2] \big) \\
& \ge\max_{j=1,2}\left\{ \Phi\left(\frac{ -z_j}{\sqrt{V_{jj}}} \right) -\Phi\left( \frac{ -z_j-\nu_n}{\sqrt{V_{jj}}}\right) \right\} . \label{eqn:min2}\end{aligned}$$ The assumption that $\bV$ is a non-zero positive-semidefinite matrix ensures that at least one of $V_{jj}, j=1,2$ is non-zero. We have the lower bound $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi\left(\frac{ -z }{\sqrt{V }} \right) -\Phi\left( \frac{ -z -\nu_n}{\sqrt{V }}\right) \ge\frac{\nu_n}{\sqrt{V }} \min\left\{ \calN( z;0,V ), \calN( z+\nu_n;0,V ) \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, for all $n$ large enough, each of the terms in $\{\cdot\}$ in is bounded below by $\nu_n f(z_j, V_{jj} )$ for $j = 1,2$ where $f(z,V):=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{V}}\calN( z;0,V)$ satisfies $\lim_{ z\to\pm\infty}f(z,V)=0$. Hence, $\nu_n\le \lambda_n\min_{j=1,2}\{ f(z_j, V_{jj} )^{-1}\}$. For every fixed $\eps\in (0,1)$, every $(z_1, z_2) \in\Psi^{-1}\big( \bV,\eps+\lambda_n)$ satisfies $\min\{|z_1|, |z_2|\}<\infty$, and hence $\min_{j=1,2}\{ f(z_j, V_{jj} )^{-1}\}$ is finite. This concludes the proof.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:bounds\_set\] {#app:bounds_set}
==================================
Recall that $\hrho_n\to 1$. We start by proving the inner bound on $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\hrho_n),\eps)$. Let $(w_1, w_2)$ be an arbitrary element of the left-hand-side of , i.e. $w_1\le -b_n$ and $w_2\le\sqrt{V_{12}(1)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps+a_n) - b_n$. Define the random variables $(Z_{1,n}, Z_{2,n})\sim\calN(\bzero,\bV(\hrho_n))$ and the sequence $b_n:=( 1-\hrho_n )^{1/4}$. Consider $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr\big(Z_{1,n}\le -w_1, Z_{2,n}\le -w_2\big) &\ge \Pr \Big(Z_{1,n}\le b_n , Z_{2,n}\le -\big(\sqrt{V_{12}(1)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps+a_n) - b_n\big) \Big)\\
&\ge \Pr\Big(Z_{2,n}\le -\big(\sqrt{V_{12}(1)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps+a_n) -b_n\big) \Big)-\Pr\Big( Z_{1,n} > b_n \Big) \label{eqn:set_mani}\\
&= \Phi\left(\frac{-\big(\sqrt{V_{12}(1)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps+a_n) -b_n\big) }{\sqrt{V_{12}(\hrho_n)}} \right) - \Phi\left( \frac{-b_n}{\sqrt{V_{1}( \hrho_n)}}\right) . \label{eqn:mu_n}\end{aligned}$$ From the choice of $b_n$ and the fact that $\sqrt{V_1(\hrho_n)} = \Theta(\sqrt{1 -\hrho_n})$ (cf. ), the argument of the second term scales as $- (1-\hrho_n)^{-1/4} $ which tends to $-\infty$. Hence, the second term vanishes. We may thus choose a vanishing sequence $a_n$ so that the expression in equals $1-\eps$. Such a choice satisfies $a_n =\Theta( b_n)=\Theta(( 1-\hrho_n )^{1/4} )$, in accordance with the lemma statement. From the definition in , we have proved that $(w_1,w_2)\in \Psi^{-1}(\bV(\hrho_n),\eps)$ for this choice of $(a_n,b_n)$.
For the outer bound on $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\hrho_n),\eps)$, let $(u_1,u_2)$ be an arbitrary element of $\Psi^{-1}(\bV(\hrho_n),\eps)$. By definition, $$\Pr(Z_{1,n}\le - u_1, Z_{2,n}\le -u_2)\ge 1-\eps,$$ where $(Z_{1,n}, Z_{2,n})\sim\calN(\bzero,\bV(\hrho_n))$ as above. Thus, $$1-\eps\le\Pr( Z_{2,n}\le -u_2) =\Phi\left(\frac{-u_2}{\sqrt{V_{12}(\hrho_n)}}\right).$$ This leads to $$u_2\le\sqrt{V_{12}(\hrho_n)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps) = \sqrt{V_{12}(1)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps) + c_n'$$ for some $c_n'=\Theta(1-\hrho_n)$, since $\rho\mapsto\sqrt{V_{12}(\rho)}$ is continuously differentiable and its derivative does not vanish at $\rho=1$. Similarly, we have $$u_1\le\sqrt{ V_1(\hrho_n)}\Phi^{-1}(\eps) = c_n''$$ for some $c_n'' =\Theta(\sqrt{1-\hrho_n})$, since $V_1(1)=0$ and $\sqrt{V_{1}(\hrho_n)}=\Theta (\sqrt{1-\hrho_n})$ by . Letting $c_n:=\max\{ |c_n'|, |c_n''|\}=\Theta(\sqrt{1-\hrho_n})$, we deduce that $(u_1, u_2)$ belongs to the rightmost set in . This completes the proof.
[^1]: J. Scarlett is with the Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, U.K.(email:[email protected]). V. Y. F. Tan is with the Institute for Infocomm Research (I$^2$R), A\*STAR, Singapore and with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore. (email:[email protected]).
[^2]: There may be some imprecision in the use of the word “backoff” here as for angles in the second (resp. fourth) quadrant, $L_2$ (resp. $L_1$) is positive. On the other hand, one could generally refer to “backoff” as moving in some inward direction (relative to the capacity region boundary) even if it is in a direction where one of the second-order rates increases. The same goes for the term “addition”.
[^3]: An alternative approach would be to set $K=3$ and choose the system costs $a_1(x_1,x_2) = x_1^2$, $a_2(x_1,x_2) = x_2^2$ and $a_3(x_1,x_2)=x_1x_2$. Under these choices, all codeword pairs have roughly the same powers and empirical correlations, thus allowing us to bound the moments associated with $\sum_{i=1}^{n}\bj(x_{1i},x_{2i},Y_i)$ similarly to Section \[sec:prf\_global\_converse\]. Furthermore, the uniform bound on the third absolute moment given in Lemma \[lem:T\_bd\] in Appendix \[sec:moments\] can be used in place of the auxiliary cost corresponding to $t(x_1,x_2)$. On the other hand, the approach of choosing the auxiliary costs according to – remains applicable in significantly greater generality beyond the Gaussian setting. See [@Scarlett13] for more details.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A model consisting of oxygen-occupied and -vacant chains is considered, with repulsive first and second nearest-neighbor interactions $V_1$ and $V_2$, respectively. The statistical mechanics and the diffraction spectrum of the model is solved exactly and analytically with the only assumption $V_1 >> V_2$. At temperatures $T \sim V_1$ only a broad maximum at (1/2,0,0) is present, while for $\mid \delta - 1/2 \mid > 1/14$ at low enough $T$, the peak splits into two. The simple expression for the diffraction intensity obtained for $T << V_1$ represents in a more compact form previous results of Khachaturyan and Morris, extends them to all $\delta$ and $T/V_2$ and leads to a good agreement with experiment.'
author:
- 'A.A. Aligia'
---
One Dimensional Oxygen Ordering in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$
Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica\
Centro Atómico Bariloche e Instituto Balseiro\
8400 S.C. de Bariloche, Río Negro, Argentina
PACS numbers: 74.70.Vy, 61.14.Hg, 64.60.Cn
It is now clear that the superconducting transition temperature of YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$ depends not only on $\delta$ but also on the oxygen ordering [@veal90]. Therefore, detailed knowledge of this ordering in the whole oxygen concentration range is important for an understanding of the electronic properties of the system and the superconducting mechanism.
At low enough temperatures, at least for $1/4 < \delta \leq 1/2$, the oxygen atoms in the basal planes are ordered in infinite CuO chains [@bey89; @rey89]. Experimental [@rey89; @son91; @son92; @al88] and theoretical [@aligia92; @q92; @seme; @agb] evidence favoring alternative types of oxygen ordering is restricted to $\delta > 0.6$ and $\delta \leq 0.25$. Concerning the ordering among different CuO chains at $T=0$, the experimental situation [@bey89; @rey89] favors structures that are given by the ground state of a one-dimensional (1D) Ising model in which the interactions $V_n$ between chains at a distance $na$, where $a$ is the lattice parameter, satisfy the inequality $V_{n+1} + V_{n-1} > 2V_n$ [@agb; @g1d; @aligia91; @ceder90]. The low temperature thermodynamics of the two-dimensional asymmetric next-nearest-neighbor Ising model (ASYNNNI) [@wille88] is also governed by the simplest one-dimensional Ising model ($V_1 >0$ and $V_n$ = 0 for $n > 1)$ [@ceder90; @font89].
Due to the sluggish oxygen kinetics at low temperatures, the system often does not reach a completely ordered state at $T$=0, as is required by the third principle of thermodynamics. In this case, in the range $1/4 \leq \delta \leq 1/2$, diffuse diffraction peaks are observed [@bey89; @lev92]. For the largest values of $\delta$, and diffraction vectors [**q**]{} = ($2 \pi/a)(h, 0,0$), only one peak in the interval 0$<h<$1,centered at $h$ = 1/2 is present. For the smallest values of $\delta$ in the above mentioned range, two maxima centered at $h = 1/2 \pm \epsilon$ are observed. Khachaturyan and Morris (KM) [@khacha90] explained qualitatively these observations in the range $1/3 \leq \delta \leq
1/2$, assuming a random faulting of the double period ordered structure with $\delta=1/2$ (alternating Cu-O and Cu-vacancy chains [@rey89]). This work has been criticized in a Comment [@comm] because of the restricted composition range of the theory and the assumptions on the interactions that would be implicit in the model. In their Reply [@rep] KM state that Ref. [@khacha90] does not assume a particular type of interaction and that, while it would be nice to have a tractable analysis for all $\delta$, it was not necessary to establish that random faulting can produce split peaks. In another Comment to [@khacha90], it was shown that the short-range order implicitly assumed by KM, minimizes the free energy of the 1D Ising model with repulsive $V_1$, $V_2$ and $V_n$=0 for $n>2$ at $T
\rightarrow 0$ [@aligia90]. $V_1 > 2V_2$ should hold to stabilize the double period structure at $\delta = 1/2$. While interactions at larger distances are important in determining the ground state of the system [@agb; @g1d; @aligia91; @ceder90], it will be shown in this letter that this model is the simplest one which leads to a reasonable agreement with the experimentally observed diffraction peaks. However, for $T \rightarrow 0$ the free energy should be minimized by long-range ordered structures and this model becomes unrealistic. In addition, the results of KM predict too narrow and intense split peaks near $\delta = 1/3$ when compared with experiment [@bey89; @lev92]. Since one expects that these peaks should broaden and lose intensity when the temperature is increased, it is of interest not only to extend the theory of KM to all compositions, but also to study the model at finite temperatures. This task is carried out in the present letter.
In order to obtain simple analytical results, two cases are considered: a) $T >> V_2$, $V_1/T$ arbitrary [@foot], b) $V_1 >> T$ and any $V_2/T$ with $V_2 < V_1/2$. The resulting short-range correlations are used as input parameters for the calculation of the diffraction intensity. If the system is metastable, these parameters can be thought of as probabilities that are given by the preparation method, independent of the free energy of the system, or as equilibrium parameters at higher $T$. While KM obtained two different expressions for the diffraction intensity, one for $1/3 \leq \delta
\leq 4/9$ and another one for $4/9 \leq \delta \leq 1/2$ [@khacha90], in case (b) the elegant method based on generating functions [@schwa83] leads to a single expression which simplifies those of KM, extends them to all oxygen compositions, and allows for more than two consecutive oxygen occupied chains (requiring $T \neq0$ in the 1D Ising model).
Following KM we shall denote by $\bigcirc$ the Cu-O chains and by $\Box$ the Cu-vacancy chains. It is convenient to write the model in the form: $$H = V_1 \sum_i n_i n_{i+1} + V_2 \sum_i n_i n_{i+2},$$ where $n_i =1$ (0) if the ith chain is $\Box (\bigcirc$). The diffraction intensity is given by [@khacha90]: $$I (h) = N \mid f_{ox} \mid^2 \delta \sum^{\infty}_{m=- \infty} P(m)
\exp (i2 \pi hm),$$ where $N$ is the total number of unit cells, $f_{ox}$ is the oxygen scattering factor and $P(m)$ is the conditional probability that if $n_0=1$, also $n_m=1$. Interchanging $\bigcirc$ and $\Box$ it is easily seen that, excluding integer $h$, $I(h)$ is the same for $\delta$ and $1- \delta$.
In the following $\delta \leq 1/2$ is assumed.
a\) $V_2 << T$
In this case $V_2$ can be neglected (as will become clearer in case (b)) and the model reduces to the simplest 1D Ising model. This model describes the low-temperature oxygen ordering of the 2D ASYNNNI model [@ceder90; @font89] and is exactly solvable [@kiku51]. The quantity that determines the free energy and $I(h)$ for each value of $\delta$, is the probability $y_1$ of finding a pair $\Box \Box$ of two consecutive $\Box$ chains: $$y_1 = \delta - \gamma_1/2 + \left [ (\delta - \gamma_1/2)^2 +
\delta^2 (\gamma_1 -1) \right ]^{1/2},$$ where $\gamma_1 = [1 -\exp (-V_1/T)]^{-1}$. $P(m)$ satisfies the following non-homogeneous difference equation: $$P(m) = \eta - \beta P(m-1),$$ where $\eta = (\delta- y_1)/(1-\delta)$ is the conditional probability that if $n_{m-1}=0$, then $n_m =1$. Similarly $\eta -
\beta = y_1/\delta = P(1)$ is the probability that if $n_{m-1}=1$ then $n_m=1$. The solution of Eq. (4) with the boundary condition $P(0)=1$ is: $$P(m) = \delta + (1-\delta)(-\beta)^{\mid m \mid},$$ and replacing this in Eq. (2) $$I(h) = N \mid f_{ox} \mid^2 \delta \frac {(1-\beta)(1+\beta -
\eta)}{1+ \beta^2 + 2 \beta \cos (2\pi h)}.$$ For any $\delta$ and $T$ this expression gives only one peak centered at $h=1/2$. If enough statistics and Monte Carlo steps are allowed, Monte Carlo results using the ASYNNNI [@font89] at low enough temperatures should converge to this simple expression. Thus, the ASYNNNI should be extended to include longer range repulsions in order to explain split diffraction peaks [@agb; @g1d; @aligia91; @ceder90], as shown before [@aligia90].
In the limit $T >> V_1$ [@foot], then $\gamma_1 = T/V_1,~ y_1 =
\delta^2 [1 - (1- \delta)^2 V_1/T],~ \eta = \delta + \delta^2 (1-
\delta) V_1/T,~ \beta = \delta(1- \delta) V_1/T$ and: $$I(h) \stackrel {\sim}{=} N \mid f_{ox} \mid^2 \delta (1-\delta)
\left [ 1 - 2 \delta (1- \delta) (V_1/T) \cos (2 \pi h) \right ].$$ Thus, at high enough $T,~I(h)$ is a constant plus a small harmonic term with maximum at $h = 1/2$ and minimum at $h \rightarrow 0$ and $h \rightarrow 1$.
For $V_1 >> T >> V_2$, neglecting exponentially small terms, $\gamma_1 = 1$, $y_1 = 0$, $\eta = \beta = \delta/ (1- \delta)$ and: $$I(h) = \frac {N \mid f_{ox} \mid^2 \delta (1- \delta) (1-2
\delta)}{1 +2 \delta (1- \delta) \cos (2 \pi h)},$$ in agreement with Ref. [@aligia90]. For $\delta \rightarrow 0,~I(h)$ is small and flat, while for $\delta \rightarrow 1/2$, the second member of Eq. (9) gives the extremely narrow peak at $h=1/2$ corresponding to the double period long-range ordered structure.
b\) $V_1 >> T$
As shown above, for $\delta \leq 1/2$ the probability $y_1$ of finding a strip $\Box \Box$ is of order $\delta^2 (1-2 \delta)^{-1}$ exp ($-V_1/T$) and can be neglected if $\delta \neq 1/2$. This allows to represent any possible structure in terms of a sequence of two strips: $\bigcirc$ and $\Box \bigcirc$. The energy per strip is given by $V_2 y$ where $y$ is the probability of finding two nearest-neighbors $\Box \bigcirc$ strips. Calling $x$ the probability of finding one $\Box \bigcirc$ strip, it is easy to see that the problem can be mapped into the 1D Ising model with only $V_1 \neq 0$ ,already considered in case (a). The mapping is given by the correspondence $\Box \bigcirc \rightarrow \Box$,$x
\rightarrow \delta$, $y \rightarrow y_1$, $V_2 \rightarrow V_1$. The free energy per chain $F$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
(1+x)F = V_2 y -T [ x \ln x + (1-x)\ln (1-x) - y\ln y
- 2 (x-y) \ln (x-y) \nonumber \\
- (1-2x+y) \ln (1-2x+y) ],\end{aligned}$$ where $1+x$ is the average number of chains per strip. The average number of $\Box$ chains per strip is $x/(1+x) = \delta$. Thus: $$x = \delta/ (1- \delta),$$ and minimizing $F$ one obtains: $$y = x - \gamma/2 + \left [(x- \gamma/2)^2 + x^2 (\gamma -1) \right ]^{1/2},$$ where $$\gamma = \left [ 1 - \exp (-V_2/T) \right ]^{-1}.$$ The probability of finding three consecutive $\bigcirc$ chains, which is given by $1+ \delta (y/x - 3)$ can be used instead of $T$ as independent variable.
$P(m)$ can be determined from $P(m-1)$ and $P(m-2)$ from the following reasoning. Since $P(m)=P(-m), m \geq 0$ will be assumed. The pair of chains $m-2$ and $m-1$ can be in one of the three following states: 1) $\bigcirc \bigcirc$, 2) $\Box
\bigcirc$, 3) $\bigcirc \Box$. The probability of state $i$ is denoted $p_i$. Since $\Box \Box$ is excluded, if the third state is realized ($p_3$=1) then $P(m)$=0. In state 1, the chain $m-1$ should belong to a $\bigcirc$ strip and if $p_1$ =1, $P(m)$ is given by the conditional probability $(x-y)/(1-x)$ that after a strip $\bigcirc$, a strip $\Box \bigcirc$ follows. Similarly, if $p_2$ = 1, $P(m)$ is the conditional probability $y/x$ that after a strip $\Box
\bigcirc$, another of the same kind follows. Thus: $$P(m) = p_1 (x-y)/(1-x) + p_2 y/x,$$ and using $P(m-2)=p_2$, $P(m-1)=p_3$, $p_1 +p_2 +p_3 = 1$, Eq. (13) takes the form: $$P(m) = \beta \left [1 - P(m-1) \right ] - \alpha P(m-2),$$ where $$\beta = (x-y)/(1-x)~;~ \alpha = \beta -y/x.$$ Eq. (14) can be solved using the generating function [@schwa83]: $$G(z) = \sum^{\infty}_{m=0} P(m) z^m.$$ Using Eq. (14) and the boundary conditions $P(0)=1$, $P(1)=0$, an equation for $G(z)$ is obtained, the solution of which reads: $$G(z) = \frac{1+(\beta-1)z}{(1-z)(1+ \beta z + \alpha z^2)}.$$ By integration in the complex plane it can be shown that $$P(m) = \delta - R_{m+1} (z_1) - R_{m+1} (z_2),$$ where $R_n(z_i)$ is the residue of $G(z)/z^n$ at the pole $z_i$, and $z_1$ and $z_2$ are the two roots of the polynomial $\alpha z^2 +
\beta z + 1$. However, the diffraction intensity can be obtained directly from the generating function. Using Eqs. (2) and (16) one has: $$I(h) = N \mid f_{ox} \mid^2 \delta \left [ G (\exp (i 2 \pi h)) +
G(\exp (-i2 \pi h)) -1 \right ],$$ and after some algebra, this expression is simplified to: $$I(h) = \frac {N \mid f_{ox} \mid^2 \delta (1- \alpha)(1+ \alpha -
\beta)} {4 \alpha \cos^2 (2 \pi h) + 2 \beta(1+ \alpha) \cos (2 \pi h)
+ (1- \alpha)^2 + \beta^2}$$ Eq. (20), together with Eqs. (10) to (12) and (15) describes the scattering intensity for all $\delta \leq 1/2$ and $T<< V_1$. For $\delta > 1/2,~ I(h)$ is given by the same equation with $\delta$ replaced by $1- \delta$. The condition for the existence of two split maxima is obtained requiring that the denominator of Eq. (20) as a function of $\cos(2 \pi h)$ has a minimum in the interval (-1,1). One obtains $4 \alpha > \beta (1+ \alpha)$, or equivalently $\gamma
< \gamma_c$, where $$\gamma_c = 4 (1-2 \delta)/(1- \delta)$$ Since $\gamma \geq 1$, split peaks are possible only for $\delta <
3/7 = 0.429$. For these values of $\delta$, the simple Eqs. (12) and (21) give the critical temperature above which only one peak exists. In the region of compositions and temperatures for which two intensity maxima exist ($\delta < 3/7$ and $\gamma < \gamma_c$), their positions are given by a very simple expression: $$h_{max} = \frac {1}{2 \pi} \arccos \left [ - \frac {\gamma (1-
\delta)} {4(1-2\delta)} \right].$$
In the limit $V_1 >> T >> V_2$, neglecting terms of order $\exp
(-V_1/T)$ and of order $V_2/T$, which do not bring any qualitative change in $I(h)$, one has $\gamma = T/V_2,~ y = x^2,~ \beta = x,~
\alpha = 0$ and $I(h)$ takes the form of Eq. (8). For $T<<V_2$, neglecting exponentially small terms one has $\gamma=1$ and i) for $\delta \leq 1/3$, $y = 0,~ \alpha = \beta =
\delta/(1-2 \delta)$; ii) for $\delta \geq 1/3$, $y = (3
\delta-1)/(1- \delta),~ \beta =1,~ \alpha = (1-2 \delta)/ \delta$. Case (ii) coincides with the one previously solved by KM [@khacha90], since Eq. (14) takes the form of the nonhomogeneous difference equation of KM. In [*both*]{} cases, $I(h)$ takes the form (for $T<<V_2$ and any $\delta$): $$I(h) = \frac {N \mid f_{ox} \mid^2 \delta (1-2 \delta) \mid 1-3
\delta \mid}{4 \delta (1-2 \delta) \cos^2 (2 \pi h) + 2 \delta (1-
\delta) \cos (2 \pi h) + 10 \delta^2 + 1 - 6 \delta}$$ Eq. (10a) (valid for $4/9 \leq \delta \leq 1/2$) and also Eq. (10b) of KM ($1/3 \leq \delta < 4/9$) should reduce to the much simpler Eq. (23). Moreover, Eq. (23) extends the results of KM to all values of $\delta$, and Eq. (22) with $\gamma=1$ gives the position of the split maxima. This low temperature limit can be described as an uncorrelated sequence of i) strips $\bigcirc$ and $\Box \bigcirc \bigcirc$ for $\delta \leq 1/3$ or ii) strips $\Box \bigcirc$ and $\Box \bigcirc \bigcirc$ for $\delta \geq 1/3$. These strips would become correlated if $V_3$ (and $V_4$ for $\delta \geq 1/3$) were included in the model.
For a comparison with experiment, the low temperature limit Eq. (23) is not good enough and Eqs. (10) to (12), (15) and (20) should be used. In Fig. 1, the evolution of $I(h)$ with temperature is represented. For $\delta=0.364$ and $T=0$ ($\gamma = 1)$, $I(h)$ shows two sharp peaks as already shown in Fig. 1 of KM [@khacha90]. As expected, the peaks broaden and lose intensity, keeping the same total area, when the temperature is increased. However, as long as two well defined maxima exist, the positions of the peaks do not depend strongly on temperature. For $\gamma=1.2$, the result is very similar to one of those obtained by Beyers [*et al.*]{} for $\delta = 0.35$ [@bey89; @lev92]. For $\delta = 0.25$, the experimental peaks are somewhat sharper, suggesting that repulsions at larger distances than two lattice parameters are also present [@agb; @g1d; @aligia91; @ceder90]. Other difficulties in the comparison between theory and experiment are the possibility of phase separation [@bey89; @lev92] and that a fraction of oxygen atoms always remains disordered [@krek92], particularly for quenched samples. For comparison with the experimental results in quenched samples [@lev92] with $\delta = 0.27$, $\delta = 0.35$ and $\delta = 0.43$, $\delta$ is replaced by $5 \delta/4$ in the theoretical curves, following Ref. [@krek92]. The corresponding results for $\gamma = 1.2$, shown in Fig. 2, are in good agreement with experiment. The intensity for $\delta = 0.35 \times 5/4$ is somewhat higher than the experimental one.
The agreement with experiment can be improved by adding more interactions. Also a quantitative agreement with experiment was obtained postulating that $P(2n+1) = 0$ within domains, the size of which is adjusted for each $\delta$ [@lev92]. However, except in unrealistic limits, an analytical treatment of the problem is no longer possible in these cases and a further improvement of the present results can only be done at the cost of a loss in simplicity and physical transparency. Furthermore, in view of the above mentioned experimental uncertainties, the analytical results are already satisfactory.
I acknowledge gratefully insightful conversations with J. Garcés and H.Wio.
B.W. Veal [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 6305 (1990). R. Beyers [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**340**]{}, 619 (1989). J. Reyes-Gasga [*et al.*]{}, Physica C[**159**]{}, 831 (1989). R. Sonntag [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 1497 (1991). Sonntag, Th. Zeiske and D. Hohlwein, Physica B [**180-181**]{}, 374 (1992). M.A. Alario-Franco [*et al.*]{}, Physica C [**156**]{}, 455 (1988). A.A. Aligia, Europhys. Lett. [**18**]{}, 181 (1992). Qiang Wang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 10834 (1992). S. Semenovskaya and A.G. Khachaturyan, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 6511 (1992). A.A.Aligia, J.Garcés and H.Bonadeo, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 10226 (1990). D.de Fontaine, G.Ceder, and M.Asta, Nature (London) [**343**]{}, 544 (1990) A.A. Aligia, H. Bonadeo and J. Garcés, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 542 (1991). G. Ceder [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 8698 (1990); references therein L.T. Wille, A. Berera and D. de Fontaine, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 1065 (1988). D. de Fontaine, M.E. Mann and F. Ceder, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 1300 (1989). L.E. Levine and M. Däumling, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 8146 (1992). A.G. Khachaturyan and J.W. Morris, Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 76 (1990). D. de Fontaine and S.C. Moss, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 527 (1991). A.G. Khachaturyan and J.W. Morris, Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 528 (1991). A.A. Aligia, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 2475 (1990). When the 1D model is regarded as a limiting case of 2D models of O ordering [@wille88; @agb], the temperature should be low enough to ensure a correlation length of several lattice parameters along the CuO chains. A study of the relevant correlation functions suggests that the limiting temperature lies roughly 30% below the tetragonal- orthorhombic transition temperature for $\delta=1/2$ [@ceder90; @agb]. for example W.A. Schwalm and M.K. Schwalm, Am. J. Phys. [**51**]{}, 230 (1983). for example Mc Coy, [*The Two Dimensional Ising Model*]{}, Harvard, Cambridge, Masacusets (1973); R. Kikuchi, Phys. Rev. [**81**]{}, 988 (1951). T. Krekels [*et al.*]{}, Physica C [**196**]{}, 363 (1992); references therein.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The inclusive cross section for the production of $J/\psi$ in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation is studied using a recently developed factorization formalism. In addition to the conventional color-singlet contribution, we include contributions from $c \bar c$ pairs that are produced at short distances in color-octet states. The color-octet contributions are suppressed by the smaller probability for the color-octet $c \bar c$ pair to evolve into a state that includes a $\psi$, but they may dominate near the upper endpoint of the $\psi$ energy spectrum. The signature for the color-octet contribution is a dramatic change in the angular distribution of the $\psi$ near the endpoint.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus OH 43210'
- 'Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208'
author:
- Eric Braaten
- 'Yu-Qi Chen'
title: |
Signature for Color-Octet Production of $J/\psi$\
in $e^+ e^-$ Annihilation
---
Charmonium is a bound state of a charm quark and antiquark held together by the strong force of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Because QCD confines color charges, the quark and antiquark must be in a singlet state with respect to color. The production of charmonium requires the creation of a $c \bar c$ pair with energy greater than $2 m_c$, where $m_c$ is the mass of the charm quark. Since the QCD coupling constant is relatively weak at the scale $2 m_c$, the production of charmonium should be amenable to theoretical analysis using perturbation theory in $\alpha_s$. Most theoretical predictions of charmonium production have been based on the “color-singlet model” [@schuler]. In this model, the $c \bar c$ pair that forms charmonium is assumed to be produced in a color-singlet state by parton collisions whose cross sections can be calculated using perturbation theory. The probability that a $c \bar c$ pair produced in a color-octet state will bind to form charmonium is assumed to be negligible.
Recent developments in both theory and experiment have challenged this simple assumption. Bodwin, Braaten and Lepage [@BBL] have developed a factorization formalism that allows the systematic calculation of inclusive cross sections for charmonium states to any order in the QCD coupling constant $\alpha_s$ and to any order in $v^2$, where $v$ is the typical relative velocity of the charm quark. This formalism implies that “color-octet processes”, in which the $c \bar c$ pair that forms charmonium is produced at short distances in a color-octet state, must contribute to the cross section at some level. The assumption that charmonium production is always dominated by color-singlet processes has also been challenged by recent experimental data. The CDF collaboration has measured the cross sections for prompt charmonium production at large transverse momentum at the Tevatron [@CDF], using a silicon vertex detector to separate the prompt signal from the background of charmonium produced by the decay of $B$ hadrons. At the large values of $p_T$ available at the Tevatron, the dominant production mechanism is fragmentation [@braaten-yuan], the formation of charmonium within the jet of a high energy parton. For the $J^{PC} = 1^{--}$ charmonium states $J/\psi$ and $\psi'$, the prompt cross sections were measured to be more than an order of magnitude larger than the predictions of the color-singlet model, even after including the effects of fragmentation [@bdfm].
One of the proposed explanations for the CDF data on prompt $\psi$ production is that the large cross section comes from a color-octet term in the fragmentation function for a gluon to form $\psi$ [@braaten-fleming]. This term corresponds to the gluon forming a $c \bar c$ pair in a color-octet $^3S_1$ state at short distances of order $1/m_c$ or smaller, with the binding of the $c \bar c$ pair into a color-singlet $\psi$ occurring at longer distances. This explanation reproduces the $p_T$-dependence of the CDF data. The normalization of the data can be fit by adjusting the value of a matrix element that measures the probability for the formation of $\psi$ from a pointlike $c \bar c$ pair in a color-octet $^3S_1$ state [@cho]. This matrix element is found to be much smaller than the corresponding matrix element in the color-singlet model, which measures the probability for the formation of $\psi$ from a pointlike $c \bar c$ pair in a color-singlet $^3S_1$ state. In spite of the fact that the color-octet matrix element is intrinsically smaller, the color-octet term can dominate over the color-singlet term in the gluon fragmentation function because the color-singlet term is suppressed by a short-distance factor of $\alpha_s^2(m_c)$.
In order to establish that the color-octet mechanism plays a significant role in the production of charmonium, it is necessary to find other production processes in which it dominates over the conventional color-singlet mechanisms. In this Letter, we point out that there is a dramatic signal for color-octet processes in inclusive $\psi$ production in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation. The color-octet terms are suppressed relative to the color-singlet term over most regions of phase space, but they are enhanced near the upper endpoint of the $\psi$ energy distribution. The distribution of the angle $\theta$ between the 3-momentum of the $\psi$ and the beam axis has the form $${d \sigma \over dE d \cos \theta}
\; = \; S(E) \left( 1 \;+\; A(E) \cos^2 \theta \right) \;.$$ where $E$ is the energy of the $\psi$ in the center of momentum frame. The shape of the angular distribution is characterized by the parameter $A(E)$, which varies with $E$. The color-singlet model predicts that $A(E)$ should approach a value close to $-1$ near the upper endpoint of $E$. We show in this paper that, if color-octet contributions dominate near the endpoint, $A(E)$ will change sign and approach a value close to $+1$ at the endpoint. This change in the sign of $A$ would provide a dramatic signature for color-octet production mechanisms.
Using the formalism of Ref. [@BBL], the inclusive cross section for the production of a charmonium state $H$ with momentum $P$ can be written in a factored form: $$d \sigma (e^+ e^- \to H(P) + X)
\;=\; \sum_n d {\widehat \sigma} (e^+ e^- \to c \bar c(P,n) + X) \;
\langle {\cal O}^H_n \rangle,
\label{fact}$$ where $d {\widehat \sigma}$ is the inclusive cross section for producing a $c \bar c$ pair with total momentum $P$, vanishing relative momentum, and in a color and angular-momentum state labelled by $n$. This parton cross section is a short-distance quantity that can be calculated as a perturbation series in $\alpha_s(m_c)$. The long-distance factor $\langle {\cal O}^H_n \rangle$ is the matrix element of a local 4-fermion operator in nonrelativistic QCD which represents the inclusive probability for the formation of the meson $H$ from the pointlike $c \bar c$ state $n$. All dependence on the particular quarkonium state $H$ resides in the matrix elements. The relative magnitudes of the matrix elements $\langle {\cal O}^H_n \rangle$ can be estimated using scaling rules that predict how they scale with the quark mass $m_c$ and with the relative velocity $v$ of the quark.
In the case of P-wave states, there is a color-octet matrix element that contributes at the same order in $v^2$ as the leading color-singlet matrix element. The color-octet term is needed for perturbative consistency, because it cancels an infrared divergence in the color-singlet term [@bbly]. In the case of S-waves, the leading color-octet matrix element is suppressed by $v^4$ relative to the leading color-singlet matrix element. It is therefore perturbatively consistent to neglect the color-octet term. However, the suppression factor $v^4$ is only about 1/10 for charmonium, so the color-octet term is not necessarily negligible numerically.
The predictions of the color-singlet model for the inclusive production of $\psi$ in $e^+ e^-$ annihilation have been explored thoroughly [@keung; @kuhn; @mirkes]. In this model, the sum (\[fact\]) is truncated to a single term whose matrix element is proportional to $|R(0)|^2$, where $R(0)$ is the radial wavefunction at the origin. In the notation of Ref. [@BBL], the matrix element is $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_1(^3S_1) \rangle \approx (9/2 \pi) |R(0)|^2$. At leading order in $\alpha_s$, the parton process is $e^+ e^- \to c \bar c g g$, where the $c \bar c$ pair is produced in a color-singlet $^3S_1$ state with vanishing relative momentum. The corresponding differential cross section $d \widehat{\sigma}_1^{(^3S_1)}$ can be obtained from Ref. [@mirkes] by integrating over the energies of the recoiling gluons. The complete expression for the differential cross section is too lengthy to reproduce here, but it becomes relatively simple at the endpoints of the energy spectrum. Near the lower endpoint $E_{\rm min} = 2 m_c$, the distribution is isotropic, corresponding to $A =0$. The upper endpoint is $E_{\rm max} = (s + 4 m_c^2)/(2 \sqrt{s})$, where $s$ is the square of the center of mass energy. At this endpoint, the distribution approaches $${d \widehat{\sigma}_1^{(^3S_1)} \over dE d \cos \theta}
\; \longrightarrow \; {128 \pi \alpha^2 \alpha_s^2 \over 243 m_c s^2}
\left( {1+r \over 1-r} \;-\; \cos^2 \theta \right) \;,
\label{csm-max}$$ where $r = 4 m_c^2/s$. For comparison with data, we can identify $2 m_c$ with the mass $M_\psi$ of the $\psi$. Thus the color-singlet model predicts that $A(E)$ should vary from 0 at $E = M_\psi$ to $-(s-M_\psi^2)/(s+M_\psi^2)$ at $E_{\rm max} = (s + M_\psi^2)/(2 \sqrt{s})$. The prediction for $A(E)$ as a function of the $\psi$ momentum $p_\psi = \sqrt{E^2 - M_\psi^2}$ at $\sqrt{s} = 10.6 \; {\rm GeV}$ is shown as a solid line in Fig. 1. The predicted value at the endpoint is $A = -0.84$.
Color-octet contributions to the differential cross section (\[fact\]) are suppressed by a factor of $v^4$ from the matrix element $\langle {\cal O}_n^\psi \rangle$. They can be competitive with the color-singlet terms only if there is some enhancement from the short-distance cross section $d \widehat{\sigma}$. Such an enhancement does occur in the endpoint region. At leading order in $\alpha_s$, the color-octet contribution comes from the parton process $e^+ e^- \to c \bar c g$, which produces $c \bar c$ pairs only in the endpoint region and with angular momentum $^1S_0$, $^3P_J$, $^1D_0$, etc. From the velocity-counting rules of Ref. [@BBL], the dominant matrix elements at this order in $\alpha_s$ are $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^1S_0) \rangle$ and $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^3P_J) \rangle$, $J = 0,1,2$, which are suppressed by $v^4$ relative to the color-singlet matrix element $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_1(^3S_1) \rangle$. The matrix element $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^1S_0) \rangle$ is proportional to the probability for the formation of a $\psi$ from a pointlike $c \bar c$ pair that is produced in a color-octet $^1S_0$ state, and similarly for $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^3P_J) \rangle$. The suppression by $v^4$ arises because the formation of the color-singlet bound state can proceed through a magnetic-dipole transition in the $^1S_0$ case and through a double electric-dipole transition in the $^3P_J$ case. The three P-wave matrix elements are not independent at leading order in $v^2$, but are related by heavy-quark spin symmetry: $$\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^3P_J) \rangle
\;\approx\; (2J+1) \langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^3P_0) \rangle \;.$$ The short-distance cross sections corresponding to these matrix elements can be calculated from the Feynman diagrams for $e^+ e^- \to c \bar c g$: $$\begin{aligned}
{d \widehat{\sigma}_8^{(^1S_0)} \over dE d \cos \theta}
&=& \delta(E - E_{\rm max}) {16 \pi^2 \alpha^2 \alpha_s \over 9 m_c s^2}
(1-r) (1 + \cos^2\theta) \;,
\label{com-S}
\\
{d \widehat{\sigma}_8^{(^3P_0)} \over dE d \cos \theta}
&=& \delta(E - E_{\rm max}) {32 \pi^2 \alpha^2 \alpha_s \over 27 m_c^3 s^2}
{(1-3r)^2 (1 + \cos^2 \theta) \over 2 (1-r)} \;.
\label{com-P0}
\\{d \widehat{\sigma}_8^{(^3P_1)} \over dE d \cos \theta}
&=& \delta(E - E_{\rm max}) {32 \pi^2 \alpha^2 \alpha_s \over 27 m_c^3 s^2}
{(1+2r) + (1-2r) \cos^2 \theta \over (1-r)} \;.
\label{com-P1}
\\{d \widehat{\sigma}_8^{(^3P_2)} \over dE d \cos \theta}
&=& \delta(E - E_{\rm max}) {32 \pi^2 \alpha^2 \alpha_s \over 27 m_c^3 s^2}
{(1+6r+6r^2) + (1-6r+6r^2) \cos^2 \theta \over 5 (1-r)} \;.
\label{com-P2}\end{aligned}$$ The delta functions should be interpreted as narrow distributions in the energy. In the quarkonium rest frame, the width of the delta distribution is of order $m_c v^2$. This is the order of magnitude of the splittings between the radial and orbital-angular-momentum energy levels of charmonium, which are roughly 500 MeV. The effect of boosting to the $e^+ e^-$ center of momentum frame is to decrease the width of the delta function by the factor $2 m_c/\sqrt{s}$, which at CLEO energies is approximately 0.3. Thus the delta functions in (\[com-S\])–(\[com-P2\]) should be interpreted as distributions in $E$ whose widths are on the order of 150 MeV.
We now compare the magnitudes of the color-singlet and color-octet contributions to the cross section. Away from the endpoint region, the color-singlet and color-octet parton cross sections $d \widehat{\sigma}$ are both of order $\alpha_s^2$. The color-octet terms are therefore suppressed by a factor of $v^4$ from the matrix elements. In the endpoint region, the parton cross sections (\[com-S\])–(\[com-P2\]) for the color-octet terms are of order $\alpha_s$ and they are enhanced by a factor of $1/v^2$ from the energy delta functions. The relative magnitudes of the color-octet terms compared to the leading color-singlet term is therefore $v^2/\alpha_s$ in the endpoint region. Thus the color-octet terms can be competitive in this region. They will dominate over the color-singlet term if the $1/\alpha_s$ enhancement overcomes the $v^2$ suppression.
If we assume that the color-octet terms dominate in the endpoint region, we obtain a simple and dramatic prediction for the $\psi$ angular distribution. In the endpoint region, the distribution should approach a form that corresponds to some linear combination of the differential cross sections $d \widehat{\sigma}_8^{(^1S_0)}$ and $\sum_J (2J+1) d \widehat{\sigma}_8^{(^3P_J)}$. If the $^1S_0$ term dominates, the angular distribution parameter $A(E)$ should approach $+1$. If the $^3P_J$ terms dominate, then $A(E)$ should approach the value $(3-10r+7r^2)/(3+6r+7r^2)$. At CLEO energies, this value is approximately $+0.62$. Thus, regardless of the relative sizes of the matrix elements $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^1S_0) \rangle$ and $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^3P_0) \rangle$, the value of $A$ is predicted to be positive and close to +1. The predictions from color-octet dominance of the endpoint region fall in the hatched region in Fig. 1, with the upper and lower lines corresponding to dominance by the matrix elements $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^1S_0) \rangle$ and $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^3P_0) \rangle$, respectively. This prediction stands in sharp contrast to the prediction of the color-singlet model that $A(E)$ should approach $-0.85$ in the endpoint region.
Higher order radiative corrections and relativistic corrections will produce a smooth transition between the moderate $z$ region where the color-singlet contributions dominate and the endpoint region where the color-octet contributions dominate. Relativistic corrections to the color-singlet contribution can be taken into account by including additional matrix elements in the general factorization formula (\[fact\]). At order $\alpha_s^2$, the first relativistic correction will change the cross section by an amount of order $v^2$. This could easily change the color-singlet prediction for the asymmetry parameter $A$ at the endpoint by about 30%, but it is unlikely to change the sign. At order $\alpha_s^3$, the relativistic correction diverges logarithmically as $E \to E_{\rm max}$. The singularity at the endpoint can be factored into one of the color-octet matrix elements and it has therefore already been taken into account in our analysis.
For a more quantitative analysis of $A(E)$, we require phenomenological determinations of $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^1S_0) \rangle$ and $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^3P_0) \rangle$. These matrix elements are independent of the color-octet matrix element $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^3S_1) \rangle$ that plays an important role in gluon fragmentation into $\psi$. One process which provides information on $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^1S_0) \rangle$ and $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^3P_0) \rangle$ is photoproduction. The cross section for $\gamma N \to \psi + X$ was first calculated in the color-singlet model by Berger and Jones [@berger]. The relevant parton process at leading order in $\alpha_s$ is $\gamma g \to c \bar c g$. As emphasized by Berger and Jones, the color-singlet model breaks down in the endpoint region $z \to 1$, where $z = E_\psi/E_\gamma$ is the ratio of the energies of the $\psi$ and the photon in the nucleon rest frame. From the point of view of the factorization approach of Ref. [@BBL], this breakdown of the color-singlet model can be attributed to contributions from color-octet processes in the endpoint region $z \to 1$. At leading order in $\alpha_s$, the relevant parton process is $\gamma g \to c \bar c$, which produces color-octet $c \bar c$ pairs in the endpoint region with angular momentum quantum numbers $^1S_0$ and $^3P_J$. Thus it might be possible to use data on photoproduction in the nearly elastic region $z \to 1$ to constrain the matrix elements $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^1S_0) \rangle$ and $\langle {\cal O}^{\psi}_8(^3P_J) \rangle$. Unfortunately, the endpoint $z=1$ for photoproduction is dominated by elastic and diffractive $\psi$’s, which cannot be described adequately within our factorization framework. The color-octet mechanism produces inelastic $\psi$’s with $z$ near 1, and it is not clear whether these can be separated from the diffractive contribution. In order to eliminate the diffractive contribution, it may be necessary to go to higher momentum transfer and determine the color-octet matrix elements from electroproduction data.
We have shown that the inclusive production cross section for $J/\psi$ in $e^+e^-$ annihilation may be dominated by color-octet production mechanisms near the upper endpoint of the $\psi$ energy spectrum. The signal for the color-octet contributions is a dramatic change in the angular distribution of the $\psi$, which has the general form $1 + A(E) \cos^2 \theta$. The prediction of the color-singlet model is $A \approx -0.84$ at the upper endpoint $E_{\rm max}$. If the endpoint region is dominated by color-octet processes, then $A(E)$ should change sign near the endpoint, approaching a value $A \ge +0.62$. Thus the angular distribution provides a simple and dramatic signature for color-octet production mechanisms. The enormous statistics available at CLEO makes it possible to measure the angular distribution as a function of the momentum $p_\psi$ of the $\psi$. Preliminary results from CLEO indicate that the angular distribution is consistent with the color-singlet model at moderate values of $p_\psi$, but that the asymmetry parameter $A$ changes sign at the largest values of $p_\psi$ [@klaus] in agreement with the prediction from color-octet dominance. Such a result would provide strong evidence that color-octet processes play a significant role in charmonium production.
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, under Grant DE-FG02-91-ER40684.
See G.A. Schuler, CERN preprint CERN-TH.7170/94, and references therein.
G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G.P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. [**D51**]{}, 1125 (1995).
F. Abe et al. (CDF collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 3704 (1992); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 2537 (1993); K. Byrum (for the CDF collaboration), in [*Proceedings of the XXVII International Conference on High Energy Physics*]{}, ed. R.J. Busse and I.G. Knowles (Institute of Physics, 1994).
E. Braaten and T.C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 1673 (1993).
E. Braaten, M.A. Doncheski, S. Fleming, and M. Mangano, Phys. Lett. [**B333**]{}, 548 (1994); M. Cacciari and M. Greco, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 1586 (1994); D.P. Roy and K. Sridhar, Phys. Lett. [**B339**]{}, 141 (1994).
E. Braaten and S. Fleming, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3327 (1995).
P. Cho and A.K. Leibovich, Caltech preprint CALT-68-1988 (hep-ph 9505329); M. Cacciari, M. Greco, M.L. Mangano, and A. Petrelli, CERN preprint CERN-TH/95-129 (hep-ph 9505379).
G.T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, T.C. Yuan, and G.P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D[**46**]{}, R3703 (1992).
W.-Y. Keung, Phys. Rev. [**D23**]{}, 2072 (1981).
J.H. Kühn, Phys. Rev. [**D24**]{}, 2996 (1981); J.H. Kühn and H. Schneider, Z. Phys. [**C11**]{}, 263 (1981); J.H. Kühn and E. Mirkes, Phys. Lett. [**B296**]{}, 425 (1992); Phys. Rev. [**D48**]{}, 179 (1993).
V.M. Driessen, J.H. Kühn, and E. Mirkes, Phys. Rev. [**D49**]{}, 3197 (1994).
E.L. Berger and D. Jones, Phys. Rev. [**D23**]{}, 1521 (1981).
K. Honscheid and A. Wolf (private communication).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We have developed a new technique called Direct Shear Mapping (DSM) to measure gravitational lensing shear directly from observations of a single background source. The technique assumes the velocity map of an un-lensed, stably-rotating galaxy will be rotationally symmetric. Lensing distorts the velocity map making it asymmetric. The degree of lensing can be inferred by determining the transformation required to restore axisymmetry. This technique is in contrast to traditional weak lensing methods, which require averaging an ensemble of background galaxy ellipticity measurements, to obtain a single shear measurement. We have tested the efficacy of our fitting algorithm with a suite of systematic tests on simulated data. We demonstrate that we are in principle able to measure shears as small as 0.01. In practice, we have fitted for the shear in very low redshift (and hence un-lensed) velocity maps, and have obtained null result with an error of $\pm 0.01$. This high sensitivity results from analysing spatially resolved spectroscopic images (i.e. 3D data cubes), including not just shape information (as in traditional weak lensing measurements) but velocity information as well. Spirals and rotating ellipticals are ideal targets for this new technique. Data from any large IFU or radio telescope is suitable, or indeed any instrument with spatially resolved spectroscopy such as SAMI, ALMA, HETDEX and SKA.'
author:
- |
C. O. de Burgh-Day$^{1,2,3}$[^1], E. N. Taylor$^{1,3}$, R. L. Webster$^{1,3}$and A. M. Hopkins$^{2,3}$\
$^{1}$School of Physics, David Caro Building, The University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia\
$^{2}$The Australian Astronomical Observatory, PO Box 915, North Ryde NSW 1670, Australia\
$^{3}$ARC Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO)
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
date: 'Accepted yyyy Month dd. Received yyyy Month dd; in original form yyyy Month dd'
title: 'Direct Shear Mapping - a new weak lensing tool'
---
=5
\[firstpage\]
gravitational lensing – weak lensing, cosmology – dark matter
Introduction
============
Weak gravitational lensing maps matter distributions in the universe, both baryonic and dark (e.g. @1993ApJ...404..441K). This paper explores the enhanced potential of weak lensing in three dimensions [@2006ApJ...650L..21M; @2002ApJ...570L..51B]. We describe a methodology to obtain a shear measurement from a 3D data cube of a single weakly lensed galaxy. This technique will allow us to measure the size and shape of dark matter distributions around individual galaxies at low redshifts.
Conventional 2D weak lensing techniques rely on measuring the (two-dimensional) shapes of many ($\gtrsim 100$) images in a field. With the assumption that the images in the field should have no preferred orientation, one can infer the presence of a shear field if any correlation in alignments is detected. There are a number of statistical approaches [@2010MNRAS.405.2044B; @2006MNRAS.368.1323H; @1995ApJ...449..460K; @2003MNRAS.338...48R] used to perform this analysis. The statistical uncertainty of a particular weak lensing survey depends on the total survey area and the number density of perfectly measured galaxies. The dominant source of uncertainty in all of these methods is shape noise: the error in the measurement due to the intrinsic and random orientations of the images in the sample. Using these techniques, one would typically need $\sim 10$ objects to measure a shear of $10\%$ on arcminute scales.
A powerful enhancement of the weak lensing method was proposed by @2002ApJ...570L..51B, followed by @2006ApJ...650L..21M. Theoretically, the rotation curves of regularly rotating elliptical and spiral galaxies will have maximum and minimum values in the projected velocity maps. These coincide with the major and minor axes of the projected 2D image. In gravitational lensing, the Equivalence Principle requires that photons of different energies are affected similarly. Thus weak lensing will shear the velocity maps and distort the 2D image, causing the angle between maximum and minimum rotation axes to deviate from $90^{\circ}$. While there are other kinematic effects which also introduce perturbations into the velocity map of a galaxy, weak gravitational lensing has a unique signature. An un-sheared velocity map is symmetrical about the major and minor axis, while a sheared velocity map loses these symmetries. Since we can predict the properties expected in an un-sheared velocity map (namely that the angle between the major and minor axis is orthogonal, or put another way, that the velocity is symmetrical about these axes), a metric which measures the presence and strength of the shear field between the observer and the background galaxy can be designed.
@2002ApJ...570L..51B suggested using the distortion in the rotation curve to measure shear. He fitted for shear in an inclined ring model using a Monte-Carlo routine, concluding that while currently a typical shear could not be measured by this method, it would be possible to measure it with future higher resolution surveys. @2006ApJ...650L..21M suggested a similar method, but fitted for the entire velocity map. This has the advantage of utilising additional information from the velocity map, and potentially avoiding problems the concentric-ring method would encounter when fitting for shear in warped or disturbed disks (since in that case each concentric ring will recover a different shear). Morales’ method involved measuring the angle between the major and minor rotation axes, and obtaining a measure of the shear strength from the deviation of the fitted angle from orthogonal.
We have extended Morales’ work, and developed a technique to measure the shear vector directly from the 3D data cube of a single weakly lensed galaxy. Our technique is called Direct Shear Mapping (DSM) and utilises a Monte-Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) algorithm to search for asymmetries in the 3D data. The MCMC function used is called <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">emcee</span>[^2] [@2013PASP..125..306F]. We have performed a suite of tests on simulated data to characterise the efficiency and accuracy of the fitting algorithm, and to understand the limits of its fitting range. Additionally we have tested the technique on un-sheared data to ensure we can recover a null result at low redshift, and determine realistic systematic errors.
Using a symmetry search method rather than focusing on the velocity axes directly allows us to use all the available data, giving a statistically better fit. This method is unique among weak lensing measurement methods in that it uses the velocity map of an object to measure the shear field, and does not rely on fitting for the shape of the galaxy. Rather than obtaining a single measure of the shear over a wide area of sky, we can determine a shear value for a single background galaxy. Hence we are able to measure the mass of an individual foreground dark matter halo.
We have demonstrated that we can measure shears as small as $\gamma \sim 0.01$ in realistic simulations and expect to extend this to observational datasets (Taylor et al, in prep.). Two-dimensional weak lensing methods are able to statistically measure the mass and structure of an individual dark matter halo and establish its relationship to other observables, for example baryonic mass (eg @2014MNRAS.437.2111V). It may also be possible to probe for significant substructure in the shear field on small angular scales by making a number of independent shear measurements around a dark matter halo, a problem which shape-fitting and moment-measurement methods cannot address, since they are blind to variations on smaller scales. We already have a first probable detection (Taylor et al, in prep.), and there are a number of existing and upcoming instruments and surveys which will produce data products well suited to our technique, including observations with SPIRAL [@2001PASP..113..215K], SAMI [@2012MNRAS.421..872C] and CALIFA in the optical, and ASKAP and the SKA at radio frequencies [@2008ExA....22..151J; @2000pras.conf..203S; @2007astro.ph..3746B].\
This paper is organised as follows. In section \[sec:Weaklensing\] we briefly review weak lensing theory. In section \[sec:Methods\] we describe DSM, and the structure of the DSM fitting algorithm. In section \[sec:Modellingandtestingofmethod\] we describe the generation of synthetic galaxy data, and present the results of a suite of systematic tests of the DSM method. In section \[sec:Applicationtorealdata\] we present fits to low-redshift data from the literature, demonstrating the ability of DSM to recover a null result. Conclusions are presented in section \[sec:Conclusions\].
Weak lensing {#sec:Weaklensing}
============
Lensing theory is well developed, and there are many derivations of the relevant equations (e.g. @1999PhDT........23M [[email protected]]; @2001PhR...340..291B [[email protected]]; @2010CQGra..27w3001B [[email protected]]).\
Light travels along geodesics, and in the presence of massive bodies, geodesics are curved. As light passes massive bodies, its path is deflected, and a background image will be distorted, magnified, shifted and duplicated. Weak gravitational lensing is the term used to describe minimal distortion of the background source with no observable multiplication of the source image.
For this paper the focus is on linearisable weak lensing, that is, lensing where the distortions are small, and do not vary across the source. This class of lensing can be expressed as a single transformation matrix. It is this feature which forms the basis of the method by which the DSM shear values are determined. We will also restrict ourselves to individual lenses (e.g. galaxies or clusters), however this method is equally valid for measuring the cosmic lensing signal.\
If one assumes the length scales of the lensing mass distribution are much smaller than the observer-lens distance, then the thin lens approximation can be used. In the thin lens approximation we project the lensing mass distribution onto a plane perpendicular to the observer’s line of sight to obtain the surface mass density: $$\Sigma(\vec{\xi}) = \int\mathrm{d}\vec{z}\rho(\vec{\xi},\vec{z}),$$ where $\vec{\xi} = \sqrt{\vec{x}^2+\vec{y}^2}$ is a set of coordinates in the lens plane, and $\vec{z}$ is the third coordinate parallel to the observer’s line of sight. Using the weak field approximation, the deflection angle of light passing the lensing mass is then given by $$%\vec{\alpha}(x,y) = \frac{4\pi G M}{c^{2}}\frac{\sqrt{x^{2} + y^{2}}}{|\sqrt{x^{2} + y^{2}}|^{2}}, \\
\vec{\alpha}(\vec{\xi}) = \frac{4G}{c^2}\int \mathrm{d}^2\xi'\Sigma(\vec{\xi}')\frac{\vec{\xi}-\vec{\xi}'}{|\vec{\xi}-\vec{\xi}'|^2},$$ where $\Sigma(\vec{\xi})$ is the (projected) surface mass density and $$M(<\vec{\xi}) = \int \mathrm{d}^2\xi'\Sigma(\vec{\xi}')$$ is the mass enclosed within $\vec{\xi}$. The surface mass density can be written in a dimensionless scaled form $\kappa(\xi) = {\Sigma(\xi)}/{\Sigma_{cr}}$, where $$\Sigma_{cr} = \frac{c^{2}}{4\pi G}\frac{D_{s}}{D_{d}D_{ds}} \\$$ is the critical surface mass density. $\Sigma\geq\Sigma_{cr}$ yields multiple images (i.e. strong lensing) while $\Sigma\leq\Sigma_{cr}$ gives only one (i.e. flexion and weak lensing).\
The lens equation is $$\label{eq:lens_eq}
\vec\beta = \vec\theta - \frac{D_\mathrm{ds}}{D_\mathrm{s}}\vec\alpha,$$ where $\theta = \xi / D_\mathrm{d}$ is the apparent angular separation of the lens and source, $\beta = \eta/D_\mathrm{s}$ is the true angular separation of the lens and source and $\eta$ is the projected distance between the lens and source in the source plane. $D_\mathrm{ds}$ is the angular diameter distance between the lens and source, $D_\mathrm{s}$ is the angular diameter distance between the observer and source and $D_\mathrm{d}$ is the angular diameter distance between the observer and lens.
In the thin lens limit, if the bend angle is slowly varying with position, then the lens mapping can be locally linearized. Equation (\[eq:lens\_eq\]) can then be re-expressed as a coordinate mapping between the lensed and un-lensed coordinate systems$$\vec\beta = \mathcal{A}\,\vec\theta,$$ where $\mathcal{A}$ is the Jacobian of transformation and is given by $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:A_tot}
\mathcal{A}(\vec\theta) & = \frac{\partial\vec\beta}{\partial\vec\theta} = (\delta_{ij} - \frac{\partial^{2}\psi(\vec\theta)}{\partial\theta_{i}\partial\theta_{j}}), \\
& = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
1-\kappa-\gamma_{1} & -\gamma_{2} \\
-\gamma_{2} & 1-\kappa+\gamma_{1} \\
\end{array}\right),
\end{split}$$ where $\beta$ is the angle to the true source location, $\kappa$ is the convergence (as defined previously), and $\gamma_{1}$ and $\gamma_{2}$ are the shear components given by $$\gamma_{1} = \frac{1}{2}(\frac{\partial^{2}\psi}{\partial\theta_{1}^{2}}-\frac{\partial^{2}\psi}{\partial\theta_{2}^{2}}),\ \ \gamma_{2}=\frac{\partial^{2}\psi}{\partial\theta_{1}\partial\theta_{2}}, \\$$ and $\vec{\gamma} = (\gamma_1,\gamma_2)$. The magnification is given by $\mu=\frac{1}{det\mathcal{A}}=\frac{1}{(1-\kappa)^{2}-|\gamma|^{2}}$. $\mathcal{A}$ is the most general form of the linearised weak lensing transformation, but not the most useful for our purposes. In the weak regime, $\kappa$ has only a small effect as $\Sigma\ll\Sigma_{cr}$. Furthermore, since the DSM algorithm compares the velocity map of a galaxy to reflections of itself, and $\kappa$ produces a spatial magnification only, it will have no effect on the fit. With this in mind, the $\kappa$ term in Equation (\[eq:A\_tot\]) is discarded for simplicity, so that we can define a reduced transformation $$\label{eq:A_red}
\mathcal{A_\mathrm{r}} \equiv \left(\begin{array}{cc}
1-\gamma_{1} & -\gamma_{2} \\
-\gamma_{2} & 1+\gamma_{1} \\
\end{array}\right),$$ and $\gamma_1 = |\vec{\gamma}|\cos(2\theta)$ and $\gamma_2 = |\vec{\gamma}|\sin(2\theta)$. $\mathcal{A}_\mathrm{r}$ can be expressed in a simpler form by selecting a coordinate system such that the shear vector is at a fixed angle with respect to the coordinate axes [@2006ApJ...650L..21M]. We choose to define our coordinates such that the shear vector lies at $45^\circ$ to the $y$-axis, to obtain $$\mathcal{A}_{45}
= \left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -\gamma \\
-\gamma & 1 \\
\end{array}\right),$$ where $\gamma = |\vec{\gamma}|$. It is an important property of $\mathcal{A}_{45}$ that it is invertible and unitary, i.e. $$\mathcal{A}_{45}^{-1} = \frac{1}{1-\gamma^2}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \gamma \\
\gamma & 1 \\
\end{array}\right),$$ and $\mathcal{A}_{45}^{-1}\mathcal{A}_{45}={A}_{45}\mathcal{A}_{45}^{-1}=I$. To recover the full shear vector in a generalised coordinate system with angle $\theta_t$ to the shear vector, from a measured shear of $\gamma_\mathrm{meas} = |\vec{\gamma}|$, one simply projects onto the new coordinate system: $$\vec{\gamma} = (\gamma_1,\gamma_2) = (\gamma_\mathrm{meas}\cos(2\theta_t),\gamma_\mathrm{meas}\sin(2\theta_t))\label{eq:total_shear}.$$ The angle $\theta_t$ can be obtained by knowing the direction to the lensing mass. In the cases considered in this paper the lensed galaxy is at low redshift and so the direction to the lensing mass can be determined. We now have a linearised lensing transformation matrix $\mathcal{A}_{45}$ with which to map our image coordinates according to a shear strength $\gamma$.\
To set up the problem, we first define terminology and the relevant coordinates. There are four relevant coordinate systems to consider:
1. The intrinsic galaxy coordinates in the source plane, prior to lensing: $(m,n)$.
2. The observed galaxy coordinates in the detector plane: $(m^{\prime},n^{\prime})$. The prime notation refers to the observed frame, in which a shear signal is present.
3. The detector frame coordinates: $(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})$. These coordinates correspond to the pixel coordinates of the detector. Note that since they sit in the plane in which a shear signal is present, they are also primed.
4. The intrinsic frame resulting from taking the detector coordinates and projecting them back into the source plane: $(x,y)$.
While it may at first seem counter-intuitive to use primed notation to denote the observed frame, it is natural to do so considering it is the observed frame that it is lensed, and the intrinsic source plane which is not lensed. Note that at no point are the coordinates of the *lensing galaxy referred to. The only coordinate systems used are those of the intrinsic plane of the source galaxy, and the plane of the detector. The detector coordinates are centred on the middle of each pixel, and relate to the un-lensed source plane coordinates $(x,y)$ through $$\left[\begin{array}{c}
x^{\prime} \\
y^{\prime} \\
\end{array}\right]
= \mathcal{A}_{45}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
x \\
y \\
\end{array}\right].$$ The detector plane galaxy coordinates are the coordinates of the galaxy as it is observed on the sky, and are related to the intrinsic source plane galaxy coordinates through $$\left[\begin{array}{c}
m^{\prime} \\
n^{\prime} \\
\end{array}\right]
= \mathcal{A}_{45}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
m \\
n \\
\end{array}\right],$$ where the ‘source plane’ refers to the plane in which the true galaxy sits. $(m,n)$ will be aligned at some angle $\phi$ with respect to the source plane, and will have a different origin to the $(x,y)$ coordinates system, i.e. $$\left[\begin{array}{c}
x-x_{0} \\
y-y_{0} \\
\end{array}\right]
= \mathcal{R(\phi)}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
m\\
n\\
\end{array}\right],$$ where $\mathcal{R(\phi)}$ is a rotation matrix, and $$\left[\begin{array}{c}
x_{z} \\
y_{z} \\
\end{array}\right]
=
\left[\begin{array}{c}
x-x_{0} \\
y-y_{0} \\
\end{array}\right],$$ where $(x_{0},y_{0})$ are some translation of coordinates, such that in the $(x_{z},y_{z})$ coordinate system the galaxy is centred on the origin. This relationship between $(x_{z},y_{z})$ and $(m,n)$ will become relevant later when discussing the fitting methods employed by DSM.\
Finally, since $\mathcal{A}_{45}$ is unitary, to undo a lensing transformation, one simply needs to apply the inverse matrix $\mathcal{A}_{45}^{-1}$ to the lensed coordinates; $$\mathcal{A}_{45}^{-1}\left[\begin{array}{c}
x^{\prime} _{z} \\
y^{\prime}_{z} \\
\end{array}\right]
= \mathcal{A}_{45}^{-1} \mathcal{A}_{45}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
x_{z} \\
y_{z} \\
\end{array}\right]
= \left[\begin{array}{c}
x_{z} \\
y_{z} \\
\end{array}\right].$$*
Method {#sec:Methods}
======
The DSM symmetry method:
------------------------
The aim of the DSM algorithm is to use an MCMC fitting algorithm to find the best fit shear value in an observed object, taking as its input a velocity map (V), an error map (E) and a mask (M). This is done by looking for axes of symmetry in the velocity map. As shown in Equation (\[eq:total\_shear\]), when combined with knowledge of the direction to the lens, the best fit shear value provides a measurement of the total shear field along the line-of-sight to the observed source. A set of such measurements can then be used in a number of scientific applications. The lensing object can be either a cluster or field galaxy.\
The key idea with this technique is that the projected velocity map of a rotationally supported galaxy is symmetric about two axes (the axis of maximum and of zero projected rotational velocity). We are specifically looking at low redshift background sources, so that we have sufficient angular resolution to apply this algorithm. The low redshift of the source and lens means the direction to the lensing mass is well determined, assuming the foreground luminous galaxy is at the centre of mass of its dark matter halo. Thus we measure the mass of the dark matter halo of the foreground galaxy, through weak shear and possibly flexion.\
For circular orbits (such as in spiral galaxies), the projected velocity onto the plane of the observer is $(v(r)m/r)\sin(\zeta)$, where $r$ is the distance from the centre of the galaxy, $m$ is the projected distance along the major axis and $\zeta$ is the angle between the line-of-sight and the galaxy’s rotation axis. This results in the maximum rotational velocity along the $m$ axis, and the minimum along the $n$ axis, with the angle between them being $90^{\circ}$, where $m$ and $n$ are the projected distances along the major and minor axes of the galaxy respectively. A diagram of this geometry is presented in @2006ApJ...650L..21M, Figure 1.
This orthogonality implies that we should find three symmetries in the velocity map of a rotating galaxy: symmetrical about the major axis, anti-symmetrical about the minor axis and anti-symmetrical about the diagonal between the two.
Once a galaxy is lensed however, the shape of the galaxy is distorted without the frequency of the light received at each pixel being changed. Since the rotational velocity of a galaxy is determined via the red- or blue-shifting of a known emission frequency, it follows that the apparent rotational velocity of the galaxy will not change under lensing, but the shape will. In other words the image will be distorted along an axis in the direction of the shear field, so that the velocity axes $m$, $n$ will no longer have an angle of $90^{\circ}$ between them, resulting in the loss of all three symmetries from the image. DSM uses this deviation from symmetry to fit for the shear field that the galaxy light has passed through. For further reading on the topic of velocity maps in rotationally supported galaxies see .\
DSM fits for the gravitational lensing shear field which best restores symmetry to the image. Since in the weak lensing regime the light distortion is small, it can be linearised and expressed as a single transformation matrix. Thus if a transformation matrix can be found that restores symmetry to the image, this can be inverted to find the transformation that resulted in the initial distortion, and hence the shear strength.
To measure the degree of asymmetry in the image, the DSM algorithm uses an MCMC routine with many walkers, which aims to maximise a likelihood function by stepping through the parameter space of possible solutions for $(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})$, $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{S}$ (the definitions of which are given below). To do this, the MCMC routine iterates over the following steps:
1. Translate the image plane galaxy coordinates $(m^{\prime}, n^{\prime})$, so that the galaxy centre sits at the origin in the image plane coordinate system $(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})$.
2. Apply the following coordinate transformations to a regular coordinate grid, representing the coordinates of the pixels in a (possibly sheared) velocity map image: $$\mathbb{S}^{-1}\Rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{-1}\Rightarrow \mathbb{T} \Rightarrow \mathbb{R} \Rightarrow \mathbb{S},$$ where $\mathbb{S}$ ($\mathbb{S}^{-1}$) is a shear (inverse-shear), $\mathbb{R}$ ($\mathbb{R}^{-1}$) is a rotation (inverse-rotation), and $\mathbb{T}$ is a reflection about one of the three symmetries in the image. The coordinate set resulting from these transformations is used to map the input image to three reflected trial images.
3. In the detector coordinates $(x^{\prime},y^{\prime})$, compute the per-pixel differences between the reflected and reference (i.e. original) images, resulting in three ‘difference images’.
4. For each difference image, compute the per-pixel $\chi^{2}$ (giving three sets of values)
5. For each set of per-pixel $\chi^{2}$’s, compute the likelihood value.
6. Add the three sets of per-pixel likelihoods, and then sum over the pixels to obtain the total likelihood for this fit. The shear is obtained from the MCMC maximum likelihood fit.
A diagram of steps (i) to (iii) is shown in Figure \[fig:lensingdiagram\].\
{width="16.5cm"}
The structure of the DSM algorithm is now described in detail.
The fitting algorithm
---------------------
The core of the fitting algorithm, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">trial$\_$fit</span>, is structured such that each set of trial parameters is input into <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">trial$\_$fit</span>, and a log-likelihood is returned. The set of parameters that results in the maximum likelihood is found by inputting <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">trial$\_$fit</span> into a Monte-Carlo routine. The module <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">emcee</span> is used in preference over other modules because it employs an ensemble of walkers. This is advantageous for this application since the likelihood surface features local minima (representing incorrect solutions, expected to be a result of discretisation and interpolation errors). The Monte-Carlo routine is invoked by a function <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">run$\_$emcee</span>. The order of processes in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">run$\_$emcee</span> is as follows:\
There are five parameters the algorithms seeks to optimally measure; shear $(\gamma)$, galaxy position angle $(\theta)$, galaxy centre in the $(x,y)$ coordinate system ($x_{0}$ and $y_{0})$, and galaxy central velocity $(v_{0})$. A set of initial guesses for the parameters are specified, followed by the parameters for <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">emcee</span> to run (i.e. number of walkers, number of initial steps to discard (‘burn-in steps’), and total number of iterations). A set of initial walker locations is then generated in a ‘ball’ around the initial guess values.\
A log probability function is defined, which is passed to the fitting parameters. The log probability function first determines whether all the parameters to be fitted lie within a pre-set range of realistic possible values.\
If they do, it calls <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">trial$\_$fit</span>. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">trial$\_$fit</span> returns the total likelihood and the total $\chi^{2}$. The burn-in steps are run, and the sampler is then reset so that the burn-in steps aren’t counted toward the final fit. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">emcee</span> is then run for the full number of iterations. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">run$\_$emcee</span> then returns the object ‘sampler’ and the array of acceptable walkers. The fitted values of the parameters are obtained by taking the mean of the fitted values of the walkers, then taking the mean of the walkers (in each dimension, for each parameter)
$$\begin{split}
x_{0} & = \langle \langle x_{0\,i} \rangle_{j}\rangle, \\
y_{0} & = \langle\langle y_{0\,i} \rangle_{j}\rangle, \\
v_{0} & = \langle\langle v_{0\,i} \rangle_{j}\rangle, \\
\gamma & = \langle\langle \gamma_{i} \rangle_{j}\rangle, \\
\theta & = \langle\langle \theta_{i} \rangle_{j}\rangle \\
\end{split}$$
As mentioned above, the core of the algorithm is <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">trial$\_$fit</span>, which generates the likelihoods, and so some time is taken here to discuss its form. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">trial$\_$fit</span> takes as its input the set of parameters to test, and the data in the form of a velocity map ($V$), an error map ($E$) and a mask ($M$).\
Three reflection matrices are then defined, for reflection of the galaxy coordinates about a major axis, a minor axis perpendicular to the major axis, and about both axes. If the line of reflection is fixed to pass through the origin, and has an angle with respect to the x-axis of $\omega$, then the generalised reflection matrix is $$\begin{split}
\mathbb{T} & = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \cos( 2\omega) & \sin(2\omega) \\
\sin(2\omega) & -\cos(2\omega) \end{array}\right). \\
\end{split}$$ DSM is structured such that $\omega = 0$, so that the reflection axes always align with the detector coordinates $(x_{z}^{\prime},y_{z}^{\prime})$. With $\omega = 0$, the matrices to reflect the coordinates about the major axis, the minor axis and both axes are:
- About the major axis: $$\begin{split}
\mathbb{T}_{1} & = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \end{array}\right); \\
\end{split}$$
- About the minor axis: $$\begin{split}
\mathbb{T}_{2} & = \left(\begin{array}{cc} -1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 \end{array}\right);\\
\end{split}$$
- About both axes: $$\begin{split}
\mathbb{T}_{3}
& = \mathbb{T}_{1} \mathbb{T}_{2} \\
& = \left(\begin{array}{cc} -1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \end{array}\right), \\
\end{split}$$
where the subscripts denote the different axes of reflection (1 = major, 2 = minor and 3 = both).\
The inverse shear and rotation matrices to be tested are then defined as $$\mathbb{S}^{-1} = (1 - \gamma_{trial})^{-2} \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & \gamma_{trial} \\
\gamma_{trial} & 1\end{array}\right),$$ $$\mathbb{R}^{-1} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \cos ( \phi_{trial} ) & -\sin( \phi_{trial} )\\
\sin( \phi_{trial} ) & \cos( \phi_{trial} ) \end{array}\right),$$ followed by the corresponding shear and rotation matrices
$$\mathbb{S} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & -\gamma_{trial} \\
-\gamma_{trial} & 1\end{array}\right), \\$$
$$\begin{split}
\mathbb{R} & = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \cos(-\phi_{trial}) & -\sin(-\phi_{trial})\\
\sin(-\phi_{trial}) & \cos(-\phi_{trial}) \end{array}\right)\\
& = \left(\begin{array}{cc} \cos(\phi_{trial}) & \sin(\phi_{trial})\\
-\sin(\phi_{trial}) & \cos(\phi_{trial}) \end{array}\right),\\
\end{split}$$
where $\gamma_{trial}$ is a trial shear strength and $\phi_{trial}$ is a trial value for the position angle of the object in the source plane.\
For each reflection (about the major axis, the minor axis and both), the matrices are multiplied together in the order: $$\mathbb{F}_{1,2,3} = \mathbb{S\ R\ T}_{1,2,3}\ \mathbb{R}^{-1} \mathbb{S}^{-1},$$ such that an inverse shear of $\gamma_{trial}$ is the first operation to take place, followed by a rotation by $-\phi_{trial}$, and so on. This series of matrix transformations is then applied to a set of $x_{z}^{\prime}$ and $y_{z}^{\prime}$ coordinate arrays (i.e. the detector coordinates) to produce trial fit coordinates; $$\begin{split}
x^{t}_{z\,1,2,3} & = \mathbb{F}_{1,2,3}\, x_{z}^{\prime},\\
y^{t}_{z\,1,2,3} & = \mathbb{F}_{1,2,3}\, y_{z}^{\prime},
\end{split}$$ which are then translated back to the $(x,y)$ coordinate system $$\begin{split}
x^{t}_{1,2,3} & = x^{t}_{z\,1,2,3} + x_{0},\\
y^{t}_{1,2,3} & = y^{t}_{z\,1,2,3} + y_{0}.
\end{split}$$ Since these coordinates have been transformed, they will not necessarily be integer values and so it is necessary to interpolate the data when drawing values from the input images with the trial coordinates $(x^{t}_{1,2,3},y^{t}_{1,2,3})$. In the DSM algorithm bilinear interpolation is used. To understand the bilinear interpolation process, it is useful to think of the transformed coordinates as a distorted grid, which we are trying to project back onto a regular grid. In this case each distorted grid square will fall across four regular grid squares, or alternatively each regular grid square will have part of four different distorted pixels fall into it. In order to compute the value of each regular grid square, we need to interpolate between the four pixel values it contains. We can work out what fraction of each distorted grid square $I(x^{t},y^{t})$ falls into our regular grid squares $V(p,q)$, and assign a value to the regular grid square which is equal to $$\begin{split}
V(p,q) &= f_{x^{t}}f_{y^{t}}I(x^{t},y^{t})\\
&+ f_{x^{t}+1}f_{y^{t}}I(x^{t}+1,y^{t})\\
&+ f_{x^{t}}f_{y^{t}+1}I(x^{t},y^{t}+1)\\
&+ f_{x^{t}+1}f_{y^{t}+1}I(x^{t}+1,y^{t}+1),
\end{split}$$ where $f_{x^{t}}f_{y^{t}}$ denotes the fraction of the distorted grid square $I(x^{t},y^{t})$ with coordinate $(x^{t},y^{t})$ that falls within the regular grid square $V(p,q)$. In order to minimise interpolation errors, it is desirable to interpolate as few times as possible. To this end, the trial data is kept in a fractional form until the last step in the fitting process, the computation of the per-pixel $\chi$ values, so that it is only interpolated once. In other words $I(x^{t},y^{t}), I(x^{t}+1,y^{t}), I(x^{t},y^{t}+1)$ and $I(x^{t}+1,y^{t}+1)$ are kept separate and transformed separately. This means that from a single input set of 3 data arrays (velocity map, error map and mask), we have $3\times 3\times 4$ arrays until they are interpolated (3 input images, three reflections and four fractions). For simplicity therefore, in this paper the four fractional arrays (prior to interpolation) are written as a single array, since they are all treated identically up to the point of interpolation.
With this in mind, the transformed (fractional) coordinates are used to create transformed data arrays $$\begin{split}
V^{t}_{1,2,3} & = V(x^{t}_{1,2,3},y^{t}_{1,2,3}),\\
E^{t}_{1,2,3} & = E(x^{t}_{1,2,3},y^{t}_{1,2,3}),\\
\end{split}$$ where $V^{t}$ is the transformed velocity map, $E^{t}$ is the transformed error map, and $M^{t}$ is the transformed mask.
A set of three ‘difference images’ are then computed by subtracting the reference velocity map (i.e. original un-lensed image) from each of the transformed maps, along with an additive shift which is a function of $v_{0}$, the form of which is dependent on which axis of symmetry is being used: $$\Delta V_{1,2,3} = \left\{\begin{array}{c}
V^{t}_{1} - V \\
2 v_{0} - V^{t}_{2,3} - V ,\\
\end{array} \right.$$ where the two forms are due to the fact that the sign of the velocity map switches across the y-axis, but stays the same across the x-axis (thus the sign is reversed for reflections about the minor axis and about both axes, but remains the same for reflections about the major axis).\
The error associated with the difference images is given by $$\Delta E_{1,2,3} = \sqrt{ (E^{t})^{2}_{1,2,3} + E^{2}}.$$ At this point any pixels in the velocity or error maps with bad or missing data are flagged. Any pixels on the edge of the object, where pixels containing velocity data would be interpolated with non-finite values are also flagged. A per-pixel $\chi$ value is then computed for each of the three reflections $$\chi_{1,2,3} = ( \Delta V_{1,2,3} / \Delta E_{1,2,3} ),\\$$ It is at this point that it is most advantageous to interpolate the data, since the next step is to square the data. Interpolating prior to squaring the data reduces the interpolation errors since they will be linear, not squared. The interpolated $\chi$ values are clipped to $\sigma_{max}$, a specified maximum allowed value. Any flagged data points are also penalised and set to $\sigma_{max}$. The setting of a maximum allowed value $\sigma_{max}$ avoids the situation where a few bad pixels with a very large error dominate the fit. Since the shear signal is so small compared to the errors from inaccurate data around the edges of the velocity map, if the $\chi$ values are not clipped the fit would be dominated by minimisation of the residuals in the edge pixels. A check is made by eye to determine the location of the bad (clipped) pixels. The three interpolated $\chi$ arrays are then added together and squared to obtain the per-pixel $\chi^{2}$ value $$\chi^{2} = \chi_{1}^{2} + \chi_{2}^{2} + \chi_{3}^{2}.$$ The three error arrays $(\Delta E_{1,2,3})$ also need to be interpolated at this point, since they are now squared in order to compute the per-pixel log-likelihood. The likelihood of a given pixel having a given value, assuming gaussian errors, is $$L =\sum_i^3{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\Delta E_i^2}}\exp(-\frac{\chi_i^2}{2})},
\label{eq:likelihood}$$ so the masked per-pixel log-likelihood is $$\log L = -\frac{1}{2} [\ \chi^{2} + 2\log( \Delta E_{1}\Delta E_{2}\Delta E_{3}) + 3\log(2\pi) \ ] \times M.$$ Note that the extra error terms arise due to the normalisation in Equation (\[eq:likelihood\], and the log-likelihood has been multiplied by the input mask $M$ to ensure the number of pixels included in the final log-likelihood value is the same for every trial fit. The per-pixel log likelihood, $\log L$, is then summed over the pixels to obtain the total log-likelihood, $\log \mathcal{L}$. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">trial$\_$fit</span> then returns $\log \mathcal{L}$, which is used by the log probability function <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">logp</span>. Clearly the smallest residuals in $\Delta V_{1,2,3}$ will come from trial values which leave the object symmetrical about the three axes of reflection, i.e. the trial values corresponding to the true position angle and shear in the input image.
Modelling and testing of method {#sec:Modellingandtestingofmethod}
===============================
To fully characterise the sensitivity of the method, and the efficacy with which it recovers the true shear in an image, a suite of tests were performed on synthetic data. The galaxies were modelled using the following steps:
1. Generate a model galaxy, with a lensing signal present;
2. Degrade the velocity and spatial resolution of the image (this is done after the lensing signal is imposed since these properties are chiefly due to seeing and instrumental uncertainties);
3. Perform an MCMC implementation of the symmetry-search process, including input trial inverse-shears and rotations, and computing the $\chi^{2}$ and likelihood of the trial fit;
4. Repeat the above processes systematically for a range of input parameter values;
5. Assess the robustness of the fitting process as a function of each of the input parameters.
Generating the model data
-------------------------
The model-generating algorithm, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">make$\_$data</span>, can be roughly broken into two steps; generating the clean maps, and then adding seeing and velocity measurement error. In order to add the seeing, it is necessary to subsample the data. To achieve this, the data is initially generated to have $M\times N\times n$ pixels, where $n$ is the number of subsamples per larger pixel.\
The data reduction process for radio data results in a single error value for every pixel in the velocity error map [@2001isra.book.....T]. In contrast, optical IFU data is constructed from many individually-measured spectra and so has a different error for every pixel in the velocity map. Since the error maps generated for the model galaxies are constant across the map, they are more analogous to radio data than to optical data. More sophisticated error maps which vary across the galaxy would be required to model optical data. This is left for future publications.\
To begin with, empty arrays are created for the velocity map, intensity map, and mask. Arrays of coordinates are then created, running from zero to (x$_{p}$, y$_{p}$), with size (x$_{p}\times \sqrt{n}$, y$_{p}\times \sqrt{n}$)), where x$_{p}$ and y$_{p}$ are the lengths of the $x$ and $y$ axes of the final images to be made, and $n$ the number of subsamples per pixel to be used when convolving with a Gaussian. These arrays are called $x_{i}$ and $y_{i}$. These coordinates are then inclined about the x-axis $$y_{incl} = (y_{i} )\sin( \eta ),$$ where $\eta$ is the inclination angle. These inclined coordinate arrays are then lensed and rotated by the required values $$\begin{split}
x^{\prime}_{i} &= \mathcal{K} \, x_{i},\\
y^{\prime}_{incl} &= \mathcal{K} \, y_{incl},\\
\end{split}$$ where $$\mathcal{K} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & -\gamma \\
-\gamma & 1 \\
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos{\theta} & -\sin{\theta} \\
-\sin{\theta} & \cos{\theta} \\
\end{array}\right).\\$$ These coordinates are then used to generate a galaxy image with an exponential surface brightness profile [@1970ApJ...160..811F; @2008gady.book.....B] $$I(x,y) = i_0\exp(-2R),$$ which gives the following expression for the velocity map $$\begin{split}
%V(x,y) = V_0\cos[\arctan(\frac{x^{\prime}_{i} }{y^{\prime}_{incl} } ) ] \tanh(\sqrt{ { x^{\prime}_{i} }^{2} + { y^{\prime}_{incl} }^{2} } / {R_{e}} ),
V(x,y) = v_0& R^2\left[I_0(R)K_0(R)-I_1(R)K_1(R)\right]\\
&\times \cos[\arctan(\frac{x^{\prime}_{i} }{y^{\prime}_{incl} } ) ],
\end{split}$$ where $i_0$ and $v_0$ are scaling constants which are set to unity, $K_0$, $K_1$ and $I_0$, $I_1$ are Modified Bessel Functions of the first and second kind respectively, and $$R \equiv \frac{\sqrt{{x^{\prime}_{i}}^{2} + {y^{\prime}_{incl}}^{2} } }{2 R_{d}},$$ where $R_{d}$ is the disk scale radius.\
This inclination, lensing and rotation procedure assumes the galaxy has no thickness, which is a reasonable approximation since the characteristic scale length of a spiral galaxy disc is typically several orders of magnitude larger than the thickness or scale height [@2008PASA...25..184G]. Future implementations of the algorithm will investigate this assumption, and if the effects of thickness are non-negligible it can be incorporated into the modelling. Thickness will be more significant when considering elliptical systems, and if appreciable, will smooth out the shear signal.\
A mask is then created with the radius of the mask being set at some multiple of the disk scale radius, $R_{d}$. This mask ensures that only the uniformly-rotating inner parts of the galaxy are used in the fitting algorithm, and the outer regions, which are low signal-to-noise and often disturbed, do not bias the measurement. For real galaxies, the mask size is determined by inspection, including the regular inner regions of the galaxy. It is noted that there is no real kinematic signature that can mimic the lensing shear signal.\
The effects of seeing and imperfect spatial resolution on the velocity and intensity maps were simulated by convolving the flux-weighted velocity map with a Gaussian kernel of width $s$ which when combined with assumptions about model redshift and size, can be expressed in pixels. The Gaussian kernel is given by $$G(x,y,s) = \sqrt{ \frac{1}{ 2 \pi s^{2} } }\exp\left[-(\frac{ x^{2} + y^{2}} { 2 s^{2} } ) \right],$$ so that the flux-weighted degraded image is given by $$V_{w}(x,y) = \left[ V(x,y) \times I(x,y) \right] \otimes G(x,y,s).$$ The degraded images are then re-binned to the final size (i.e. the array sizes are re-binned from (x$_{p}\times \sqrt{n}$, y$_{p}\times \sqrt{n}$) to (x$_{p}$, y$_{p}$)), and normalised for the flux-weighting. $$V_{deg}(x,y) = V_{w}(x,y)/I(x,y)$$ Finally, the images have a measurement error (i.e. noise) added to the pixel values. The noise is drawn from a Gaussian distribution peaked around the central velocity, with a width specified as a fraction of the maximum velocity range
$$\begin{split}
V^{\prime}_{deg}(x,y) &= V_{deg}(x,y) + N(V_{0}, V_{frac}),\\
V_{frac} &= \delta V/V_{max},
\end{split}$$
where $$N(V_{0},V_{frac}) = \frac{1}{ (\sqrt{2 \pi}) V_{frac} }\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{V_{0}}{V_{frac}})^{2} \right],\\$$ where $V^{\prime}_{deg}$ is the 3D image with error in the velocity added, $\delta V$ is the error in the velocity, $V_{frac}$ is the fractional error in the velocity, $V_{0}$ is the central velocity, and $V_{max}$ is the maximum velocity range in the model.
Sensitivity tests
-----------------
In order to characterise the sensitivity of the DSM algorithm, an ensemble of fits was computed for an exhaustive range of values of the input variables, specified below. The systematic tests were performed on synthetic data generated using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">make$\_$data</span>, with many realisations of the data fitted, so that while each model had the same measurement error characteristics, the error in each realisation was random. The sensitivity to the following parameters was investigated:
1. Velocity signal-to-noise ($V_{max}/\delta V$) in the range $V_{max}/\delta V = (2,1000)$. This incorporates the effects on the accuracy of the measured velocity from both spectral resolution and galaxy inclination angle;
2. Sampling resolution (i.e. number of pixels across the galaxy) in the range $p = (2,15)$. This is a proxy for galaxy angular size or redshift;
3. Shear strength in the range of $\gamma = (-0.3, 0.3)$, where this is the same $\gamma$ as defined in Section \[sec:Weaklensing\], to demonstrate the stability of the algorithm for strong shears;
4. Inclination angle $\phi$ in the range $\phi = (10^{\circ},80^{\circ})$. This investigates the effect of a reduced number of pixels and a change in the projected shape of the velocity map with inclination angle. It does not investigate the effect of inclination angle on the accuracy of the velocity; this is taken into account in the investigation of velocity signal-to-noise, discussed above.
5. Once the other parameters had been investigated, seeing ($s$) in the range $s = (1, 10)$;
Initially, a set of 40 realisations were fit for a set of ‘fiducial’ values of the input parameters, to establish a baseline sensitivity. The values chosen were for a $20$ kpc galaxy, masked beyond $1.5\,$R$_{e}$ at a redshift of $z=0.1$, which gives a mask with a diameter of 15 pixels, and a galaxy with an R$_{e}$ of 5 pixels. The fiducial inclination angle is $\theta_{incl} = 35^\circ$, with a velocity signal-to-noise of $V_{max}/\delta V = 100$.
![The error in the recovered shear values for an esemble of model realisations, as a function of the true input shear. The parameters used in the galaxy models are $p = 7.5$ pixels, $\theta_{incl} = 35^{\circ}$, $V_{max}/\delta V = 100$. The blue boxes with error bars show the mean and standard deviation in each bin, while the red circles show each individual realisation. There are 40 realisations per bin, with 12 bins over a range $\gamma = (-0.3,0.3)$. []{data-label="fig:gammavgamma"}](gammavgamma.pdf){width="8cm"}
![The error in the recovered shear values with varying inclination angle, $\theta_{incl}$. The black dashed line shows the fiducial inclination angle value used in the other fits. Symbols and input parameters as in Figure 1.[]{data-label="fig:gammavinclang"}](gammavinclang.pdf){width="8cm"}
![The error in the recovered shear values with varying galaxy radius, $p$. The black dashed line shows the fiducial inclination angle value used in the other fits. Symbols and input parameters as in Figure 1. []{data-label="fig:gammavgalrad"}](gammavgalrad.pdf){width="8cm"}
![The error in the recovered shear values with varying noise, $V_{frac}$. The black dashed line shows the fiducial inclination angle value used in the other fits. Symbols and input parameters as in Figure 1. []{data-label="fig:gammavnoise"}](gammavnoise.pdf){width="8cm"}
![The error in the recovered shear values with varying input shear, with seeing of $s=1$, incorporated. Seeing has the effect of decreasing the magnitude of the fitted shear value, compared to the true shear. Symbols and input parameters as in Figure 1. []{data-label="fig:gammavgamma_deg=True"}](gammavgamma_deg=True.pdf){width="8cm"}
![The error in the recovered shear values with varying seeing, $s$. Symbols input parameters as in Figure 1. []{data-label="fig:FWHMvgamma=0"}](FWHMvgamma=0.pdf){width="8cm"}
![The error in the recovered shear values with varying seeing ($s$), for four different input shear values in the model. Red corresponds to an input shear of $\gamma_{in} = 0.3$, magenta corresponds to an input shear of $\gamma_{in} = 0.15$, green corresponds to an input shear of $\gamma_{in} = -0.15$ and blue corresponds to an input shear of $\gamma_{in} = -0.3$. The boxes show the uncertainty of the mean (the inner horizontal lines), and standard deviation (the ends of the boxes), in each bin, while the circles show each individual realisation. For each input value of $\gamma$, there are 40 realisations per bin, with 12 bins over a range $s = (1,10)$. Fiducial values of $p = 7.5$ pixels, $\theta_{incl} = 35^{\circ}$, and $V_{max}/\delta V = 100$ are used, as in the previous models. The slight asymmetry in the plot about the x-axis is a consequence of the position angle (which is held constant in all of the realisations) of the model objects being neither $0^{\circ}$ or $\pm 90^{\circ}$. The error in the fitted shear increases with shear size (and conversely is very small for small shears), so that a typical shear signal ($\gamma\lesssim 0.1$), when measured with good seeing, will have a very small degradation in the fit due to this effect. For example, for a true shear of $0.1$ with a seeing of $s=1$ pixel, the mean fitted shear is $\sim 0.099$, i.e. an error of 0.001.[]{data-label="fig:gammavFWHM_multi"}](gammavFWHM_multi.pdf){width="8cm"}
Once the baseline was established, the behaviour of the fit was investigated as a function of each of the input parameters except seeing. Each parameter was varied over the range mentioned above, while keeping the other parameters fixed at the fiducial values. The results are shown in Figures \[fig:gammavgamma\], \[fig:gammavinclang\], \[fig:gammavgalrad\], and \[fig:gammavnoise\]. For each parameter investigated, 12 values over the range were chosen, and 40 realisations of each value were fitted for.
The accuracy of the fit was relatively stable for $\theta_{incl} \gtrsim 30^{\circ}$ (Figure \[fig:gammavinclang\]), and is stable for any input shear value in the range $(-0.3 < \gamma < 0.3)$, so long as the shear field is linear. The most notable change in sensitivity was with varying velocity signal-to-noise for $V_{max}/\delta V \lesssim 50$ and with the number of pixels across the galaxy for $p \lesssim 8$ pixels. The results of this can be seen in Figures \[fig:gammavgalrad\] and \[fig:gammavnoise\].\
In each figure, the red dots show each individual realisation. The outer blue box shows the standard deviation, while the inner bars in the box show the uncertainty in the mean. Since the number of realisations per bin is reasonably large, the uncertainty on the mean is very small, such that it is hard to see in most bins in most figures. This suggests that we have performed enough realisations for the only uncertainties remaining in this suite of tests to be numerical ones. At worst these uncertainties contribute an error of $\sim$O($1\%$), which is an acceptable value. The exception to the above observation is the systematic bias introduced by seeing, which is discussed below.\
Once the effects of noise, shear strength, inclination angle and sampling resolution had been investigated, seeing was introduced, and its effect on the recovered shear accuracy was investigated by varying the input shear while holding the seeing fixed at $s = 1$ (corresponding to a spatial degradation kernel FWHM of $1$ pixel), and then by varying the seeing while holding the input shear fixed at $\gamma = 0$. The results are shown in Figures \[fig:gammavgamma\_deg=True\] and \[fig:FWHMvgamma=0\] respectively.
-------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ----------
Parameter Range investigated Lower limit Upper limit Best fit
\[0.5ex\] $\gamma$ (unitless) $ -0.3 < \gamma < 0.3 $ -0.3 0.3 0.0
$\theta_{incl}$ (degrees) $ 10 < \theta_{incl} < 80 $ 30 80 45
$V_{max}/\delta V $ (unitless) $ 1 < V_{max}/\delta V < 1000 $ 50 none $1000$
$p$ (pixels) $ 2 < p <15 $ 7.5 none $15$
$s$ (pixels) $ 1 < s < 10 $ none $4$ $1$
\[1ex\]
-------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ----------
\[table:fitranges\]
The accuracy of the fit varies little with the size of the degradation kernel (Figure \[fig:FWHMvgamma=0\]) for a fixed input shear of $\gamma = 0$, however if the input shear is varied with fixed seeing, it becomes apparent that seeing introduces a bias into the shear signal for any nonzero shear (Figure \[fig:gammavgamma\_deg=True\]). This is because the seeing ‘smears’ the velocity map, washing out the shear signal, and resulting in the measured shear having a smaller magnitude. @1995ApJ...449..460K have developed techniques to reduce the impact of such smearing in the case of 2D images in traditional weak lensing applications by attempting to deconvolve the PSF from the image. It may be possible to implement similar techniques for velocity maps and 3D data in general, however we leave an investigation of this possibility to future work.
To further investigate the effect of seeing on nonzero shears, a second set of model realisations were fit, over a range of degradation kernel sizes for four non-zero shear values; $\gamma = -0.3, -0.15, 0.15$, and $0.3$. As can be seen in Figure \[fig:gammavFWHM\_multi\], the effect of seeing is to reduce the magnitude of the shear present in the data, and so increase the error. For a true shear which is positive (negative), increasing seeing give an increasingly negative (positive) error. This effect seems to saturate for very high values of $s$, corresponding to very poor seeing, and is relatively small for all realistic choices of seeing. For a seeing corresponding to a degradation kernel of $s = 2.5$, the error in the fit due to seeing is $\sim$O($2.5\%$) at worst (i.e. in the case of the strongest possible shear). The error in the fitted shear increases with shear size (and conversely is very small for small shears), so that a typical shear signal ($\gamma\lesssim0.1$), when measured with good seeing, will have a very small degradation in the fit due to this effect ($\lesssim 0.1\%$). In light of this, this effect was not seen as being of immediate concern, so long as the seeing conditions for observing are reasonable. The slight positive bias in Figure \[fig:gammavFWHM\_multi\] is due to the non-alignment of the projected distance between the lens and source and the position angle of the source, and is an expected effect. The uncertainty of the mean in this set of fits is larger than in the previous suite of tests because there are fewer realisations per bin in this case.\
Simulations were also undertaken to determine whether ellipticity in the point spread function (PSF) might bias the measurement of the shear using the DSM algorithm. A mock dataset was created, in which each object was convolved with a PSF with an ellipticity of $e = 0.5$. This is an extreme choice of PSF ellipticity, far greater than would be expected for any current telescopes. In spite of this however, the introduction of ellipticity to the PSF made a negligible ($< 1\%$) difference to the accuracy with which the DSM algorithm recovered the shears present in the mock dataset objects. Furthermore, no dependence between the PSF ellipse orientation and galaxy position angle was observed.\
Based on the errors per bin in the set of simulations described above, guideline acceptable fit ranges were specified for each of the input parameters. These define the parameter space in which the DSM method as currently implemented will be useful and effective. The guideline values for each parameter are presented in Table \[table:fitranges\].
Application to real data {#sec:Applicationtorealdata}
========================
The requirements for the application of the DSM algorithm to a background galaxy are the following:
- A reasonable expectation that weak lensing may be applicable, vis an angular distance between the foreground and background galaxies that suggests an estimated shear $\gtrsim 0.01$.
- The background galaxy has a suitable projection to the line-of-sight. Measurement of the shear from the velocity map is not possible at inclination angles at or close to $\theta_\mathrm{incl} = 0^\circ$ and $\theta_\mathrm{incl} = 90^\circ$. The measurement accuracy of the velocity map is minimum at these angles, and maximum at $\theta \simeq 35^\circ$. This effect is taken into account in our investigation of velocity signal-to-noise in the previous section.
- Ideally, the background galaxy is relatively isolated so that the disk motions are circular and undisturbed.
- The projected separation between the lens (foreground) and source (background) galaxies does not coincide with either the major or minor axes of the source galaxy.
- A measurable and regular rotation. In practice, this means that at high redshift there will be fewer suitable galaxies to which the DSM method can be applied.
Non-circular motions in the disk of the background galaxy, such as tidal distortions or kinematic motions due to a bar, will result in well-defined signatures in the DSM fitting metric, and cannot be confused with the shear signal. In such cases it is not possible to fit for a small shear.
In order to have confidence that DSM is fitting for true shear signals in lensed data, one needs to be reassured that where there is no lensing signal present, DSM recovers a null result. In the previous section DSM’s ability to accurately recover a null result in model data was demonstrated, however there are characteristics of real objects that were not included in the models. Examples of this include warp instabilities in the disks of galaxies, barred galaxies, ‘clumpiness’ and non-uniform structure within galactic disks, and turbulence in the outer regions of the galaxy (of particular relevance for radio data).
To assess how well a null result is recovered in un-lensed observational data, fits were attempted for a shear signal in the velocity maps of very low redshift galaxies. Since the probability of an object being lensed increases with distance (as the projected density of intervening matter increases), then the chance of a very low redshift galaxy being lensed is vanishingly small. With this in mind the shear was fit in a number of galaxies in the nearby universe, using data at radio wavelengths. Radio data was chosen for this first test since the models investigated in section \[sec:Modellingandtestingofmethod\] have properties analogous to that found in HI data cubes (specifically that the error maps are constant, rather than varying across the image). An investigation of optical integral field spectrograph data is left for future work.
Both ‘regular’ and ‘complex’ objects were fitted to. ‘Regular’ objects are those that have a smooth velocity map with no warps, bars or clumps present. ‘Complex’ objects are those with warps apparent, barred galaxies, and those with clumpy structure and generally complex velocity profiles.\
Data from The HI Nearby Galaxy Survey (THINGS) [@2008AJ....136.2563W] was used, which provides very high angular and velocity resolution ($7^{\prime\prime}$ and $5\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$ respectively) observations of 34 objects with distances in the range $3<\,$D$\,<15\,$Mpc ($0.0007<z<0.00355$). Since the velocity maps from THINGS are obtained from measurements in HI, they trace the HI abundance in the galaxies. The HI component of most galaxies extends out to much larger radii than the optical component, into regions where there is more turbulence and the disk is more likely to be warped. For this reason it is advantageous to mask this data beyond the extent of the optical component. Two objects were fitted from THINGS; NGC 3621 with morphological type SA(s)d, and NGC 5236 (M83) with morphological type SAB(s)c. The morphology of these two choices was of particular relevance, as it allowed for the effect of bars on the accuracy of the fit to be investigated. The HI emission and velocity map of NGC 3621 are shown in Figures \[fig:NGC3621\_0\] and \[fig:NGC3621\_1\], and those of NGC5236 are shown in Figures \[fig:NGC5236\_0\] and \[fig:NGC5236\_1\]. In both cases the mask radius is 12 pixels and is shown by the black line.\
![ The zeroth moment (i.e the HI emission image) of NGC 3621 from THINGS. The mask radius is shown by the black line. The Fitted parametes for this galaxy are given in Tables \[table:realfits\] and \[table:unmaskedfits\] for the masked and unmasked fits respectively.[]{data-label="fig:NGC3621_0"}](NGC3621_0.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
![ The first moment (i.e. the velocity map) of NGC 3621 from THINGS, with the mask radius shown by the black line. The rotational velocities are based on the HI emission line. The Fitted parametes for this galaxy are given in Tables \[table:realfits\] and \[table:unmaskedfits\] for the masked and unmasked fits respectively. []{data-label="fig:NGC3621_1"}](NGC3621_1.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
![The zeroth moment (i.e the HI emission image) of NGC 5236 from THINGS. The mask radius is shown by the black line. The Fitted parametes for this galaxy are given in Tables \[table:realfits\] and \[table:unmaskedfits\] for the masked and unmasked fits respectively. []{data-label="fig:NGC5236_0"}](NGC5236_0.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
![The first moment (i.e. the velocity map) of NGC 5236 from THINGS, with the mask radius shown by the black line. The Fitted parametes for this galaxy are given in Tables \[table:realfits\] and \[table:unmaskedfits\] for the masked and unmasked fits respectively. []{data-label="fig:NGC5236_1"}](NGC5236_1.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
Two velocity maps were fitted from THINGS; one barred (NGC 5236) and one not barred (NGC 3621). Each were fitted with the same input parameters for the Monte-Carlo routine; $60$ walkers, $200$ burn in steps, followed by $300$ fitting steps. The fits for each object are presented in Table \[table:realfits\].\
Initial guesses for the fit were obtained as follows: For the coordinates of the galaxy centre, the mean in the $x$ and $y$ positions of all nonzero pixels was used. For the central velocity, the mean of all nonzero pixels was taken. The position angle was estimated by eye. For all the fits an initial shear guess of $\gamma = 0$ was used. So long as it was given sufficient time to converge, the algorithm was reasonably robust to poor initial guesses. With poor guesses up to 600 burn in steps were required to obtain a fit of equivalent accuracy. Circular masks were added at approximately the extent of the regular velocity field, in the inner regions of the objects. This is roughly $1/3$ of the radio extent for both NGC 3621 and NGC 5236. The use of circular masks, necessitated to eliminate bias from complex extended structure, discourages fits involving strong distortions, and therefore damps the fitted shear values. This is an effect that needs to be addressed, however it is beyond the scope of the current analysis.\
-------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ----------- ---------------------- ---------- --------------------- ---------- --------------------- ------------------ ------------------
$\gamma$ $\delta \gamma$ $\phi$ $\delta \phi$ $x_{0}$ $\delta x_{0}$ $y_{0}$ $\delta y_{0}$ $V_{0}$ $\delta V_{0}$
**Object** (unitless) (unitless) (degrees) (degrees) (pixels) (pixels) (pixels) (pixels) (km$\,$s$^{-1}$) (km$\,$s$^{-1}$)
\[0.5ex\] NGC 3621 $-7.91\times 10^{-5}$ $7.75\times 10^{-4}$ -9.65 $7.28\times 10^{-2}$ 35.00 $9.1\times 10^{-3}$ 36.00 $8.7\times 10^{-3}$ 727.78 1.262
NGC 5236 $5.22\times 10^{-5}$ $1.85\times 10^{-3}$ -119.70 $1.46\times 10^{-1}$ 41.03 $1.2\times 10^{-2}$ 40.97 $1.2\times 10^{-2}$ 509.56 1.298
\[0.9ex\]
-------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ----------- ---------------------- ---------- --------------------- ---------- --------------------- ------------------ ------------------
\[table:realfits\]
As can be seen the accuracy with which the fits have recovered the expected null result is most affected by the application of a mask to the object. The warps and turbulence prevalent in the outer disks of even un-barred THINGS objects result in biasing of the fits, however masking to the optical radius of the object rectifies this. To illustrate the degree of improvement provided by this masking process, the THINGS objects were fitted for again without masking. The results of this are presented in Table \[table:unmaskedfits\]. It is clear from this table that masking to remove spurious signal from complex velocity structures, and retaining only the inner regular region of the velocity map is critical for obtaining good fits.
------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------
Parameter NGC 3621 NGC 5236
\[0.5ex\] $\gamma \pm \delta \gamma$ (unitless) $0.049 \pm 0.0057$ $-0.234 \pm 0.2587$
$\phi\pm\delta \phi$ (degrees) $-9.66\pm 0.415$ $-135.11\pm 7.414$
$x_{0}\pm\delta x_{0}$ (pixels) $34.83\pm 0.069$ $53.13\pm 13.217$
$y_{0}\pm\delta y_{0}$ (pixels) $35.31\pm 0.021$ $23.86\pm 13.513$
$V_{0}\pm\delta V_{0}$ (km$\,$s$^{-1}$) $730.96\pm 0.580$ $377.14\pm 91.497$
------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------
: Fitted parameters for the un-masked THINGS galaxies. Fits were obtained in the same manner as those presented in Table \[table:realfits\], except that the objects were not masked.
\[table:unmaskedfits\]
Conclusions {#sec:Conclusions}
===========
A new method for measuring gravitational shear from weak lensing has been described and tested. The method is based on the premise that symmetries in the velocity map are lost when it is lensed. DSM describes a process by which the deviation from symmetry might be measured and a linearised shear field determined. Systematic tests were performed to investigate the robustness of the algorithm, and requirements on the data quality for a high fidelity measurement. These tests also demonstrated the ability of the algorithm to recover a null result in synthetic data. The algorithm was then tested on images of nearby galaxies from the THINGS radio survey. A null result was obtained after appropriate masking of the image. The results of these investigations, presented in Tables \[table:fitranges\] and \[table:realfits\], have demonstrated that the DSM algorithm will recover a null result, both in simulated and real data. The range of parameters within which the DSM algorithm will be useful has also been established. These results are strong motivation to develop the DSM algorithm further. The first step has been made towards quantifying the errors and uncertainties expected when DSM is used to recover a shear signal from observational data. Future work will investigate velocity maps from higher redshift galaxies that have a high probability of being lensed to determine whether a non-zero shear signal is observed. This technique is most effective where the background source is an isolated, undisturbed, stably-rotating disk. We have found that such systems not only exist but are reasonably easy to find (de Burgh-Day et al, in prep.) in large datasets such as the Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA) Survey (@2011MNRAS.413..971D [[email protected]], Liske et al. in prep).\
An initial application will involve using this method to make measurements of individual dark matter halo masses, and measurements of cosmological parameters, including $\sigma_{8}$, and $H_{0}$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The referee is thanked for helping to clarify a number of issues in older versions, and contributing greatly to improving the quality of this paper. This research was conducted as part of the Australian Research Council Centre for Excellence for All-Sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO), through project number CE110001020. Special thanks goes to the members of the SAMI instrument and the SAMI survey teams for their advice, input and helpful discussions, in particular, Lisa Fogarty and Scott Croom. We acknowledge support from The University of Melbourne, and the Australian Astronomical Observatory (AAO).
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: [email protected]$\,$(CDBD); [email protected]$\,$(ENT); [email protected]$\,$(RLW); [email protected]$\,$(AMH)
[^2]: the Emcee Hammer, http://dan.iel.fm/emcee/
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we study the product of Toeplitz operators on the harmonic Bergman space of the unit disk of the complex plane $\mathbb{C}$. Mainly, we discuss when the product of two quasihomogeneous Toeplitz operators is also a Toeplitz operator, and when such operators commute.'
address:
- |
King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals\
Department of Mathematics & Statistics\
Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
- |
High Institute of Technology\
201 Antsiranana\
Madagascar
author:
- Issam Louhichi
- Lova Zakariasy
title: Quasihomogeneous Toeplitz Operators on the Harmonic Bergman Space
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $L^2({\mathbb D},dA)$ be the space of all square integrable functions on the unit disk ${\mathbb D}$ with respect to the normalized Lebesgue measure $\displaystyle{dA=rdr\frac{d\theta}{\pi}}$. The harmonic Bergman space, denoted by $L^2_h$, is the closed subspace of $L^2({\mathbb D},dA)$ consisting of all harmonic functions on ${\mathbb D}$. Let $Q$ be the orthogonal projection of $L^2({\mathbb D},dA)$ onto $L^2_h$. For a bounded function $f$ on ${\mathbb D}$, the Toeplitz operator $T_f$ with symbol $f$ is defined by $$T_f(u) = Q(fu), \text{ for } u \in L^2_h.$$
The function $f$ defined on ${\mathbb D}$ is said to be quasihomogeneous of order $p$, if it can be written as $$f(re^{i\theta}) = e^{ip\theta}\phi(r)$$ where $p$ is an integer and $\phi$ is a radial function on ${\mathbb D}$. In this case, the associated Toeplitz operator $T_f$ is also called quasihomogeneous Toeplitz of order $p$. Quasihomogeneous Toeplitz operators were first introduced by the authors while generalizing the results of [@cr].
A major goal in the theory of Toeplitz operators on the Bergman space over $\mathbb{D}$ is to completely describe the commutant of a given Toeplitz operator, that is, the set of all Toeplitz operators that commute with it. Choe and Lee first in [@cl1] and [@cl2], then recently Ding in [@D], studied the commutants of Toeplitz operators with harmonic symbol, defined on $L^2_h$. In this paper, we present new results about the commutant of a given quasihomogeneous Toeplitz operator. We shall start by studying the product of such operator with a radial Toeplitz operator. Then, we shall highlight the relationship between the symbols of two commuting quasihomogeneous Toeplitz operators of positive degrees.
Before we state our results, we need to introduce the Mellin transform which is going to be our main tool. The Mellin transform $\widehat{f}$ of a radial function $f$ in $L^1([0,1],rdr)$ is defined by $$\widehat{f}(z)=\int_{0}^{1} f(r) r^{z-1}\,dr.$$ It is well known that, for these functions, the Mellin transform is well defined on the right half-plane $\{z : \Re z\geq 2\}$ and it is analytic on $\{z:\Re z>2\}$. It is important and helpful to know that the Mellin transform $\widehat{f}$ is uniquely determined by its values on any arithmetic sequence of integers. In fact we have the following classical theorem [@rem p.102].
\[blk1\] Suppose that $f$ is a bounded analytic function on $\{ z : \Re z>0\}$ which vanishes at the pairwise distinct points $z_1, z_2 \cdots$, where
- $\inf\{|z_n|\}>0$\
and
- $\sum_{n\ge 1}\Re(\frac{1}{z_n})=\infty$.
Then $f$ vanishes identically on $\{ z : \Re z>0\}$.
\[blk2\] Now one can apply this theorem to prove that if $f\in
L^1([0,1],rdr)$ and if there exist $n_0, p\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $$\widehat{f}(pk+n_0)=0\textrm{ for all } k\in\mathbb{N},$$ then $\widehat{f}(z)=0$ for all $z\in\{z:\Re z>2\}$ and so $f=0$.
Quasihomogeneous and radial Toeplitz operators
==============================================
In [@lsz], the authors gave a necessary and sufficient conditions for the product of any two quasihomogeneous Toeplitz operators, defined on the Bergman space of the unit disk, to be a Toeplitz operator. Recently in [@dz], Dong and Zhou investigated the same question for Toeplitz operators defined on $L^2_h$ but with symbol of the form $e^{ip\theta}r^m$, where $p\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $m$ positive integer. In the following theorem, we prove that the product in $L^2_h$ of two Toeplitz operators, one quasihomogeneous and the other radial, is a Toeplitz operator only in the trivial case.
Let $p$ be a nonzero integer and $\phi$ be a bounded radial function such that $\widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2)\neq 0$ for $k\geq 0$. If there exists a radial symbol $\psi$ such that $T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}T_{\psi}$ is a Toeplitz operator, then $\psi$ must be constant function.
First consider $p > 0$. By [@dz Theorem 1.2, p 1767], if the product $T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}T_{\psi}$ is a Toeplitz operator, then it must be of the form $$\label{h}
T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}T_{\psi}=T_{e^{ip\theta}h},$$ where $h$ is a radial function. Now, using [@dz Lemma 2.1, p 1767], we show that $$T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}T_{\psi}(z^k)=2(k+1)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2)2(k+p+1)\widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2) z^{k+p}\ \textrm{ if } k\geq 0,$$ and $$T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}T_{\psi}(\bar{z}^k)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
2(k+1)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2)2(k-p+1)\widehat{\phi}(2k-p+2)\bar{z}^{k-p}&\textrm{ if } k\geq p\\
2(k+1)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2)2(p-k+1)\widehat{\phi}(p+2) z^{p-k}&\textrm{ if } 0\leq k<p.
\end{array}\right.$$ Similarly we have $$T_{e^{ip\theta}h}(z^k)=2(k+p+1)\widehat(2k+p+2)z^{k+p}\ \textrm{ if }k\geq 0,$$ and $$T_{e^{ip\theta}h}(\bar{z}^k)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
2(k-p+1)\widehat{h}(2k-p+2)\bar{z}^{k-p}&\textrm{ if } k\geq p\\
2(p-k+1)\widehat{h}(p+2)z^{p-k}&\textrm{ if } 0\leq k< p.
\end{array}\right.$$ Therefore, Equation (\[h\]) together with the above equalities imply $$\begin{aligned}
2(k+1)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2)\widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2)&=&\widehat{h}(2k+p+2), \textrm{ if }k\geq 0\\
2(k+1)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2)\widehat{\phi}(2k-p+2)&=&\widehat{h}(2k-p+2), \textrm{ if }k\geq p\\
2(k+1)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2)\widehat{\phi}(p+2)&=&\widehat{h}(p+2), \textrm{ if }0\leq k< p\end{aligned}$$ (3) and (4) imply that $$2(k+1)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2)\widehat{\phi}(p+2)=\widehat{h}(p+2),\textrm{ for all } 0\leq k\leq p.$$ Since we are assuming that $\widehat{\phi}(p+2)\neq 0$, we have $$\label{c1}
2(k+1)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2)=c, \textrm{ for all }0\leq k\leq p,$$ where $\displaystyle{c=\frac{\widehat{h}(p+2)}{\widehat{\phi}(p+2)}}$. Combining equations (2) and (\[c1\]) yields $$\label{c2}
c\widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2)=\widehat{h}(2k+p+2),\textrm{ for all } 0\leq k\leq p.$$ Now, for any choice of $0\leq k_0\leq p$, we take $k=k_0+p$ in (3) and we obtain $$2(k+1)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2)\widehat{\phi}(2k_0+p+2)=\widehat{h}(2k_0+p+2).$$ Combining the above equation with Equation (\[c2\]) and since $k_0$ is any arbitrary integer between $0$ and $p$, we have that $$\label{c3}
2(k+1)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2)=c,\textrm{ for all } 0\leq k\leq 2p.$$ Therefore, equations (2) and (\[c3\]) imply $$\label{c4}
c\widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2)=\widehat{h}(2k+p+2),\textrm{ for all } 0\leq k\leq 2p.$$ Redoing the same argument (for any choice of $p+1\leq k_1\leq 2p$, we take $k=k_1+p$ in (3)), we show using equations (2) and (\[c4\]) that for all $0\leq k\leq 3p$ $$2(k+1)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2)=c\textrm{ and } c\widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2)=\widehat{h}(2k+p+2).$$ In fact, applying the same argument above repeatedly, we end up proving that $$\label{c5}
2(k+1)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2)=c, \textrm{ for all }k\geq 0,$$ and also $$\label{c6}
c\widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2)=\widehat{h}(2k+p+2), \textrm{ for all }k\geq 0.$$ Let ${1\hskip -1.25mm 1}$ denotes the constant function with value one. Since $\widehat{{1\hskip -1.25mm 1}}(z)=\frac{1}{z}$, Equation (\[c5\]) is equivalent to $$\label{c7}
\widehat{\psi}(2k+2)=c\widehat{{1\hskip -1.25mm 1}}(2k+2),\textrm{ for all }k\geq 0.$$ Hence, Remark \[blk2\] together with equations (\[c7\]) and (\[c5\]) imply that $\psi=c{1\hskip -1.25mm 1}$ and $c\phi=h$.
The same result is obtained for $p < 0$ by still using [@dz Lemma 2.1, p 1767], which completes the proof.
In [@lz], the authors showed that a quasihomogeneous Toeplitz operator, defined on the analytic Bergman space, commutes with a radial one, only when the radial symbol of the latter is constant. The same result remains true in $L^2_h$.
\[th3\] Let $p$ be a nonzero integer and $\phi$ be a non-constant bounded radial function. If there exists a radial symbol $\psi$ such that $T_\psi$ commutes with $T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}$, then $\psi$ is a constant function.
Let $p \geq 0$. If $T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}T_\psi = T_\psi T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}$, then using [@dz Lemma 2.1,p 1767], we obtain that for all $k \geq 0$ $$2(k+p+1) \widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2) \widehat{\psi}(2k+2p+2) = 2(k+1) \widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2) \widehat{\psi}(2k+2).$$ Let $Z=\{ k\geq 0: \widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2)=0\}$. If $\displaystyle{\sum_{k\in Z}\frac{1}{2k+p+2}=\infty}$, then Theorem \[blk1\] would imply that $\phi$ is zero function, which would contradict our hypothesis of $\phi$ being a non-constant function. Otherwise $\displaystyle{\sum_{k\in Z^c}\frac{1}{2k+p+2}=\infty}$, where $Z^c$ is the complementary of $Z$ in $\mathbb{N}$. Now, for all $k\in Z^c$ we have $$(2k+2p+2) \widehat{\psi}(2k+2p+2) = (2k+2) \widehat{\psi}(2k+2),$$ which is equivalent to $$\label{c8}
\widehat{{1\hskip -1.25mm 1}}(2k+2)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2p+2)=\widehat{{1\hskip -1.25mm 1}}(2k+p+2)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2),\textrm{ for all }k\in Z^c.$$ Consequently, Remark \[blk2\] and [@l Lemma 6, p 1468] imply that $\psi = c{1\hskip -1.25mm 1}$ for some constant $c$.
If $p < 0$, the same result is obtained by considering the adjoint operators.
Quasihomogeneous Toeplitz operators of positive degree
======================================================
In this section, we shall study the conditions under which two quasihomogeneous Toeplitz operators of positive degree commute. Direct calculations using [@dz Lemma 2.1,p 1767] give the following lemma.
\[lm1\] Let $p$, $s$ be positive integers and $\phi$, $\psi$ be bounded radial functions. If $T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}T_{e^{is\theta}\psi} = T_{e^{is\theta}\psi}T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}$, then the following equations hold:
- For all $k\geq 0$ $$\label{eq1}
(k+p+1)\widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2)\widehat{\psi}(2k+2p+s+2) = (k+s+1)\widehat{\phi}(2k+2s+p+2)\widehat{\psi}(2k+s+2).$$
- For all $ k \geq p+s$ $$\label{eq2}
(k-p+1)\widehat{\phi}(2k-p+2)\widehat{\psi}(2k-2p-s+2) = (k-s+1)\widehat{\phi}(2k-2s-p+2)\widehat{\psi}(2k-s+2).$$
- For all $\max(p,s)\leq k \leq p+s$ $$\label{eq3}
(k-p+1)\widehat{\phi}(2k-p+2)\widehat{\psi}(s+2) = (k-s+1)\widehat{\phi}(p+2)\widehat{\psi}(2k-s+2).$$
- For all $0 \leq k \leq \min(p,s)$ $$\label{eq6}
(p-k+1)\widehat{\phi}(p+2)\widehat{\psi}(2p-2k+s+2) = (s-k+1)\widehat{\phi}(2s-2k+p+2)\widehat{\psi}(s+2).$$
Moreover,
- If $p \leq s$, then for all $p \leq k \leq s$ $$\label{eq4}
(k-p+1)\widehat{\phi}(2k-p+2)\widehat{\psi}(s+2) =(s-k+1)\widehat{\phi}(2s-2k+p+2)\widehat{\psi}(s+2).$$
It is important to make the distinction between the cases “$p\leq s$” and “$p>s$”. These two distinct conditions are crucial for the results of Theorem \[th6\] and Theorem \[th7\].
The following theorem shows the uniqueness of the commutant.
Let $p$, $s$ be positive integers and let $\phi$ be a non-constant bounded radial function. If there exists a radial function $\psi$ such that $T_{e^{is\theta}\psi}$ commutes with $T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}$, then $\psi$ is unique up to a multiplicative constant.
Assume there exist two nonzero functions $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ such that both $T_{e^{is\theta}\psi_1}$ and $T_{e^{is\theta}\psi_2}$ commute with $T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}$. By Equation (\[eq1\]), we obtain for all $k \geq 0$ : $$\begin{aligned}
(k+p+1)\widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2)\widehat{\psi_1}(2k+2p \;+&\; s+2) = \\&(k+s+1)\widehat{\phi}(2k+2s+p+2)\widehat{\psi_1}(2k+s+2),
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(k+p+1)\widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2)\widehat{\psi_2}(2k+2p \;+&\; s+2) = \\&(k+s+1)\widehat{\phi}(2k+2s+p+2)\widehat{\psi_2}(2k+s+2).
\end{aligned}$$ Let $Z=\{ k\geq 0: \widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2)=0\}$. Using the same argument as in the proof of Theorem \[th3\], we have that $\displaystyle{\sum_{k\in Z^c}\frac{1}{2k+p+2}=\infty}$ and also that for all $k \in Z^c$ : $$\widehat{\psi_1}(2k+2p+s+2)\widehat{\psi_2}(2k+s+2) = \widehat{\psi_1}(2k+s+2)\widehat{\psi_2}(2k+2p+s+2).
\label{eq7}$$ By Theorem \[blk2\], Equation (\[eq7\]) is equivalent to $$\widehat{r^s\psi_1}(z+2p)\widehat{r^s\psi_2}(z) = \widehat{r^s\psi_1}(z)\widehat{r^s\psi_2}(z+2p) \textrm{ for }\Re z>0.$$ Hence, [@l Lemma 6, p 1468] implies $\psi_1 = c \psi_2$ for some constant $c$.
If two quasihomogeneous symbols have the same degree, then the product of the associated Toeplitz operators is commutative only in the obvious case.
\[th5\] Let $\phi$ and $\psi$ be bounded radial functions and $p$ be an integer. If $T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}$ commutes with $T_{e^{ip\theta}\psi}$, then $\phi = c\psi$ where $c$ is a constant.
Let $p > 0$ and assume $T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}T_{e^{ip\theta}\psi} = T_{e^{ip\theta}\psi}T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}$. Then Equation (\[eq1\]) implies $$\widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2)\widehat{\psi}(2k+p+2+2p) = \widehat{\phi}(2k+p+2+2p)\widehat{\psi}(2k+p+2),\ \forall k\geq 0.$$ Now Theorem \[blk2\] yields $$\widehat{\phi}(z)\widehat{\psi}(z+2p) = \widehat{\phi}(z+2p)\widehat{\psi}(z)\ \textrm{ for } \Re z>0.$$ Therefore, [@l Lemma 6, p 1468] provides $\phi = c\psi$. If $p < 0$, the same result is obtained by taking the adjoint operators.
Now we shall consider a Toeplitz operator with a monomial symbol. Its product with a quasihomogeneous Toeplitz operator might be either commutative or not.
\[th6\] Let $p$, $s$ be two positive integers with $p \leq s$, and $\alpha$ be a positive real number. If there exists a radial function $\psi$ such that $T_{e^{is\theta}\psi}$ commutes with $T_{e^{ip\theta}r^\alpha}$, then either $s=p$ and $\psi = cr^\alpha$ for some constant $c$, or $\psi = 0$.
First, let us assume that $\widehat{\psi}(s+2) \ne 0$. Since the Mellin coefficients of $\phi(r) = r^\alpha$ are $\hat{\phi}(n) = \frac{1}{n+\alpha}$, for $n \geq 0$ and since $T_{e^{ip\theta}r^\alpha}$ commutes with $T_{e^{is\theta}\psi}$, Equation (\[eq4\]) implies $$\frac{k-p+1}{2k-p+2+\alpha} = \frac{s-k+1}{2s-2k+p+2+\alpha}, \textrm{ for } p \leq k \leq s.$$ Solving the above equality for $k$ yields to $2k = s+p$, for $k = p, p+1, \ldots, s$, which is impossible unless $p = s$. Using Theorem \[th5\], we conclude that $\psi = cr^\alpha$.
Now, assume that $\widehat{\psi}(s+2) = 0$. Then Equality (\[eq6\]) implies $$\label{k_0}
\widehat{\psi}(2k+s+2) = 0, \textrm{ for } 0\leq k\leq p.$$ Combining (\[eq1\]) and (\[k\_0\]), we obtain $$\widehat{\psi}(2k+2p+s+2)=0, \textrm{ for all } 0\leq k\leq p,$$ or $$\widehat{\psi}(2k+s+2)=0, \textrm{ for all } 0\leq k\leq 2p.$$ Repeating the same argument, using each time Equation (\[eq1\]), we show that $$\widehat{\psi}(2k+s+2)=0, \textrm{ for all } k\geq 0.$$ Hence, Remark \[blk2\] implies $\psi = 0$.
In [@l], the first author proved that for any choice of triple of positive integers $(m,p,s)$, there always exists a radial function $\psi$ such that the Toeplitz operators $T_{e^{ip\theta}r^{(2m+1)p}}$ and $T_{e^{is\theta}\psi}$, defined on the analytic Bergman space of the unit disk, commute. We shall show that it is not the case anymore for the analogous Toeplitz operators defined on $L^2_h$.
\[th7\] Let $p$, $s$, $m$ be positive integers with $p > s > 0$ and $m \geq 0$, and let $\phi(r)=r^n$, where $n=(2m+1)p$.
- If $p\geq m+1$ and if there exists a radial function $\psi$ such that $T_{e^{is\theta}\psi}$ commutes with $T_{e^{ip\theta}r^n}$, then $\psi$ must be the zero function.
- If $p\leq m$, there exists a nonzero radial function $\psi$ such that $T_{e^{is\theta}\psi}$ commutes with $T_{e^{ip\theta}r^n}$
If $T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}$ commutes with $T_{e^{is\theta}\psi}$, then we must have $$T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}T_{e^{is\theta}\psi}(z^k)=T_{e^{is\theta}\psi}T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}(z^k),\textrm{ for all }k\geq 0,$$ and $$T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}T_{e^{is\theta}\psi}(\bar{z}^k)=T_{e^{is\theta}\psi}T_{e^{ip\theta}\phi}(\bar{z}^k),\textrm{ for all }k\geq 0.$$ Therefore, by Lemma \[lm1\] and since $\widehat{\phi}(z)=\frac{1}{z+n}$, we obtain the following equalities $$\label{eq22}
2(k+s+1)\displaystyle{\frac{\widehat{\psi}(2k+s+2)}{2k+p+2s+n+2}}=2(k+p+1)\displaystyle{\frac{\widehat{\psi}(2k+2p+s+2)}{2k+p+n+2}},\forall k\geq 0.$$ $$\label{eq23}
2(k-s+1)\frac{\widehat{\psi}(2k-s+2)}{2k-p-2s+n+2}=2(k-p+1)\displaystyle{\frac{\widehat{\psi}(2k-2p-s+2)}{2k-p+n+2}},\forall k\geq p+s.$$ $$\label{eq24}
2(k-s+1)\frac{\widehat{\psi}(2k-s+2)}{p+n+2}=2(k-p+1)\displaystyle{\frac{\widehat{\psi}(s+2)}{2k-p+n+2}},\forall p\leq k<p+s.$$ $$\label{eq25}
2(k-s+1)\frac{\widehat{\psi}(2k-s+2)}{p+n+2}=2(p-k+1)\displaystyle{\frac{\widehat{\psi}(2p+s-2k+2)}{p+n+2}},\forall s\leq k<p.$$ $$\label{eq26}
(s-k+1)\frac{\widehat{\psi}(s+2)}{p+2s-2k+n+2} =(p-k+1)\displaystyle{\frac{\widehat{\psi}(2p+s-2k+2)}{p+n+2}},\forall 0\leq k<s.$$ Now it is easy to see that equations and are equivalent. In fact, by taking $j=k-p-s$ in Equation , we obtain Equation . We shall then use Equation to determine the form of the radial symbol $\psi$. By setting $z=2k+2$, we complexify Equation and we obtain $$\frac{z+2s}{z+p+2s+n}\widehat{\psi}(z+s)=\frac{z+2p}{z+p+n}\widehat{\psi}(z+2p+s) \textrm{ for } \Re z>0.$$ Here, we notice that the function $$f(z)=\frac{z+2s}{z+p+2s+n}\widehat{\psi}(z+s)-\frac{z+2p}{z+p+n}\widehat{\psi}(z+2p+s)$$ is analytic and bounded in the right half-plane and vanishes for $z=2k+2$, for any $k\geq 0$. Hence, by Theorem \[blk1\], we have $f(z)\equiv 0$. Therefore, we obtain that in the right half-plane $$\label{period}
\frac{\widehat{r^s\psi}(z+2p)}{\widehat{r^s\psi}(z)}=\frac{(z+2s)(z+p+n)}{(z+p+2s+n)(z+2p)}, \textrm{ for } \Re z>0.$$ Since $n=(2m+1)p$ and using the well-known identity $\Gamma(z+1)=z\Gamma(z)$, where $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function, we can rewrite Equation (\[period\]) as $$\label{gamma}
\frac{\widehat{r^s\psi}(z+2p)}{\widehat{r^s\psi}(z)}=\frac{F(z+2p)}{F(z)}\textrm{ for }\Re z>0,$$ where $F(z)=\displaystyle{\frac{\Gamma(\frac{z}{2p}+\frac{s}{p})\Gamma(\frac{z}{2p}+m+1)}{\Gamma(\frac{z}{2p}+\frac{s}{p}+m+1)\Gamma(\frac{z}{2p}+1)}}$. Next, Equation (\[gamma\]), combined with [@l Lemma 6, p 1468], implies there exists a constant C such that $$\label{equal}
\widehat{r^s\psi}(z)=CF(z),\textrm{ for }\Re z>0.$$ Now, we shall show that $F(z)$ is the Mellin transform of a bounded function. Using the well-known property of the Gamma function namely $$\Gamma(z+n)=(z+n-1)(z+n-2)\ldots z\Gamma(z)\textrm{ for }n\in\mathbb{N},$$ and after simplification, we obtain that $$F(z)=\frac{(\frac{z}{2p}+m)\ldots(\frac{z}{2p}+1)}{(\frac{z}{2p}+\frac{s}{p}+m)\ldots(\frac{z}{2p}+\frac{s}{p})},$$ which is a proper fraction in $z$ and can be written as sum of partial fractions $$F(z)=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\frac{a_j}{z+2s+2jp}=\sum_{j=0}^{m}a_j\widehat{r^{2s+2jp}}(z).$$ Therefore, Equation (\[equal\]) and Remark \[blk2\] imply that $$\label{form}
\psi(r)=\sum_{j=0}^{m}c_jr^{s+2jp}.$$ At this point, let us summarize what we have done so far. We proved that if there exists a radial function $\psi$ such that $T_{e^{is\theta}\psi}$ commutes with $T_{e^{ip\theta}r^n}$, then $\psi$ is given by Equation (\[form\]). The rest of the proof will be dedicated to whether or not there exist nonzero coefficients $c_j$, $ 0\leq j\leq m$, such that $\psi$ verifies equations (14), (15) and (16). In fact, since $\displaystyle{\widehat{\psi}(z)=\sum_{j=0}^{m}\frac{1}{z+s+2jp}}$, these three equations can be written as a homogeneous linear system in the following way $$\label{(S)}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
A\\
----\\
B\\
----\\
C\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}c_0\\ \vdots\\c_m\end{array}\right)=
\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \vdots\\ 0 \end{array}\right),$$ where
- The block $A$ is of size $s\times (m+1)$ and its entries are given by: $$a_{kj}=\frac{s-k+1}{(p+2s-2k+n+2)(s+jp+1)}-\frac{p-k+1}{(p+n+2)(p+s-k+jp+1)},$$ for $0\leq k<s$ and $0\leq j\leq m$.
- The block $B$ is of size $(p-s)\times(m+1)$ and its entries are given by: $$b_{kj}=\frac{p-k+1}{(j+1)p+s-k+1}-\frac{k-s+1}{k+jp+1},$$ for $s\leq k<p$ and $0\leq j\leq m$.
- The block $C$ is of size $s\times (m+1)$ and its entries are given by: $$c_{kj}=\frac{k-p+1}{(2k-p+n+2)(s+jp+1)}-\frac{k-s+1}{(p+n+2)(k+jp+1)},$$ for $p\leq k<p+s$ and $0\leq j\leq m$.
Before discussing the existence of solutions for our homogeneous system (\[(S)\]), we will make three crucial observations:
- $a_{s-l,j}=c_{p+l,j},$ for all $1\leq l\leq s-1$ and $0\leq j\leq m$,
- $c_{pj}=-\frac{b_{sj}}{p+n+2}$, for all $0\leq j\leq m$,
- The rows of the blocks $A$ and $B$ are linearly independent.
Hence we can reduce the system (\[(S)\]) to only the blocks $A$ and $B$ and get rid of the block $C$. Moreover our system will be always of rank $p$ (the $s$ rows of the block $A$ are linearly independent of the $p-s$ rows of the block $B$). Finally, we conclude by saying the following:
- If $p\geq m+1$, the homogeneous system (\[(S)\]) has more linearly independent equations than unknowns. In this case the only possible solution is the trivial solution i.e. $c_j=0$ for all $0\leq j\leq m$, and therefore $\psi$ is the zero function.
- If $p\leq m$, the system (\[(S)\]) has less equations than unknowns. In this case, there exist coefficients $c_j$ which verifies (\[(S)\]), and hence $\psi$ exists.
**Acknowledgments.** The authors would like to thank Elizabeth Strouse for useful discussions. The second author is grateful to Institut de Mathématiques de Bordeaux UMR 5251, which hosted her for a scientific stay while a part of this article was in progress.
[9]{} B.R.Choe and Y.J. Lee, Commuting Toeplitz operators on the harmonic Bergman space, *Michigan Math. J.* **46** (1999), 163 - 174. B.R.Choe and Y.J. Lee, Commutants of analytic Toeplitz operators on the harmonic Bergman space, *Integral Equations Operator Theory* **50** (2004) 559 - 564. Z. Cucković and N. V. Rao, Mellin transform, monomial Symbols, and commuting Toeplitz operators, *J. Funct. Anal.* [**[154]{}**]{} (1998), 195-214. X. Ding, A question of Toeplitz operators on the harmonic Bergman space, *J. Math. Anal. Appl.***344**(2008) 367 - 372. X. T. Dong and Z. H Zhou, Products of Toeplitz operators on the harmonic Bergman space, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* [**[138]{}**]{}, (2010), 1765-1773. I. Louhichi, Powers and roots of Toeplitz operators, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* [**[135]{}**]{}, (2007), 1465-1475. I. Louhichi, E. Strouse and L. Zakariasy, Products of Toeplitz operators on the Bergman space, *Integral Equations Operator Theory* [**[54]{}**]{} (2006), 525-539. I. Louhichi and L. Zakariasy, On Toeplitz operators with quasihomogeneous symbols, *Arch. Math.* **85** (2005), 248-257. R. Remmert, Classical Topics in Complex Function Theory, *Graduate Texts in Mathematics*, Springer, New York, 1998.
[^1]: The second author was partially supported by *Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie*
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider a model where right-handed neutrinos and sneutrinos are introduced to the minimal supersymmetric standard model. In the scalar potential of this model, there exist trilinear and quartic terms in scalar potential that are proportional to Yukawa couplings of neutrinos. Due to these trilinear and quartic terms, Color and/or Charge Breaking (CCB) and Unbounded-From-Below (UFB) directions appear along which sneutrinos have a vacuum expectation value, making the vacuum of the electroweak symmetry breaking unstable. We analyze scalar potential of this model and derive necessary conditions for CCB and UFB directions to vanish.'
author:
- Tatsuo Kobayashi
- Takashi Shimomura
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Constraints from Color and/or Charge Breaking Minima in the $\nu$SSM'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Neutrino oscillation experiments [@Fukuda:2002pe; @Ahmad:2002jz; @Ahn:2002up; @Araki:2004mb; @Ashie:2005ik] have confirmed that neutrinos have very tiny but non-zero masses. This is a clear evidence of physics beyond the standard model (SM) because neutrinos are massless in the SM. The simplest way to generate their tiny masses is to introduce right-handed neutrinos. There are two scenarios in this regard. One is that right-handed neutrinos are Majorana particles and neutrinos acquire masses via the famous seesaw mechanism [@Minkowski:1977sc; @Yanagida:1979; @Gell-mann:1979; @Mohapatra:1979ia; @Schechter:1980gr]. The other scenario is that right-handed neutrinos are Dirac particles and neutrinos obtain masses via electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB).
Combined these right-handed neutrino scenarios with a supersymmetric standard model, which we call $\nu$SSM, many works have been done so far. In the seesaw mechanism, it has been investigated recently that Majorana masses are as low as between $100$ GeV and $10$ TeV. In fact, such low scale Majorana masses can be realized as a consequence of supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking [@ArkaniHamed:2000bq; @Borzumati:2000mc; @MarchRussell:2004uf]. This class of models predict relatively small Yukawa couplings of neutrinos compared to those of other fermions. In scenarios of Dirac neutrinos, tiny neutrino masses are solely explained by tiny Yukawa couplings. One might think it is unnatural because the Yukawa couplings of neutrinos are too small compared with those of other fermions. However, as was emphasized in [@Asaka:2005cn], it is natural in ’tHooft’s sense [@thooft1980] that a symmetry (i.e. chiral symmetry in the neutrino sector) is recovered in the limit of vanishing neutrino Yukawa coupling constants. In these scenarios, right-handed neutrinos and sneutrinos are light, and therefore the scenarios are testable in astrophysical observations and terrestrial experiments. Studies of these scenarios are, e.g. the dark matter physics [@Asaka:2005cn; @McDonald:2006if; @Asaka:2006fs; @Ishiwata:2009gs], lepton flavour violation searches [@Ilakovac:2009jf] and collider physics [@Porod:2002zy; @Cho:2006sm].
The presence of the scalar partners generally leads color and/or charge breaking (CCB) directions and unbounded from below (UFB) directions [@Frere:1983ag; @AlvarezGaume:1983gj; @Derendinger:1983bz; @Kounnas:1983td; @Claudson:1983et; @Drees:1985ie; @Gunion:1987qv; @Komatsu:1988mt; @Gamberini:1989jw]. Along CCB directions, the scalar potential has minima on which color and/or charge symmetries are spontaneously broken. The CCB minimum can be deeper than that of EWSB when the Yukawa coupling of the particle along CCB direction is small. Along UFB directions, the scalar potential has no global minimum and falls down to negative infinity. These directions make the vacuum of EWSB unstable, hence must be avoided. In the minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM (MSSM), conditions to avoid the UFB and CCB directions were systematically investigated in [@Casas:1995pd][^1]. Those conditions constrain soft SUSY breaking parameters, mainly trilinear couplings, and exclude a certain region of the parameter space of the MSSM. In the $\nu$SSM, due to right-handed sneutrinos, not only new UFB and CCB directions but also false EWSB directions appear. Along false EWSB directions, neither color nor charge symmetry is broken but Higgses and sneutrinos acquire large vacuum expectation values. Such minima result in too heavy masses of gauge bosons and are excluded by precise electroweak measurements. Since the EWSB vacuum can become unstable along these directions due to small neutrino Yukawa couplings, conditions to avoid those directions should be investigated. In this article, we refer false EWSB directions as CCB directions in view point of incorrect vacuum.
In this article, we consider the $\nu$SSM where either right-handed Dirac or Majorana (s)neutrinos are introduced to a supersymmetric standard model. We assume that the Majorana masses are below or around TeV scale so that the neutrino Yukawa coupling is small as it is in the Dirac neutrinos case. Then, we analyze the potential along UFB and CCB directions at tree level and derive necessary conditions to avoid dangerous minima and directions. Necessary conditions are generally modified due to radiative corrections [@Ford:1992mv; @Casas:1994us]. The conditions from tree-level analysis coincide with those from one-loop analysis when analysis is performed at a scale that vacuum expectation values of Higgses with and without radiative corrections coincide [@Ford:1992mv; @Casas:1994us]. We assume that our analysis is performed at this scale.
The outline of this article is organized as follows. In section \[sec:gener-prop-ufb-ccb\], we briefly review general properties of UFB and CCB directions in the MSSM. Then we analyze the scalar potential and derive necessary conditions in Dirac and Majorana neutrino cases in the section \[sec:constraints-from-ccb\] and \[sec:constraints-from-ufb\]. We show numerical results of constraints on the soft SUSY breaking parameters in section \[sec:numerical-analysis\]. Finally we summarize and discuss our analysis in the section \[sec:summary-discussion\]. The scalar potential of the MSSM and notations of fields and couplings are given in Appendix \[apd:scal-potent-mssm\], and EWSB of the MSSM is summarized in Appendix \[sec:higgs-potent-electr\]. In Appendix \[apx:scal-potent-numssm\], $F$ terms and soft SUSY breaking terms in the $\nu$SSM are shown.
General Properties for UFB directions and CCB minima in the MSSM {#sec:gener-prop-ufb-ccb}
================================================================
We start our discussion with briefly reviewing general properties of UFB and CCB directions in the MSSM [@Casas:1995pd]. Following the general properties, it is possible to classify all dangerous directions in a field space. As was studied in [@Casas:1995pd], there are three types of UFB directions and CCB directions, respectively. Throughout the main part of this paper, we refer $H_1$ and $H_2$ to a neutral component of down-type and up-type Higgs scalars, and use a symbol “tilde” to denote scalar partners of the SM fermions. Notations of couplings and fields and the scalar potential of the MSSM are summarized in Appendix. \[apd:scal-potent-mssm\].
General Properties of UFB directions {#sec:gener-prop-ufb}
------------------------------------
In general, UFB directions appear along field configurations such that terms of scalars in a potential are vanishing or kept under control. Along these directions, the potential is unstable and its minimum is driven to negative infinity if quadratic terms of the fields are negative. Two general properties for UFB directions are shown below.
[*Property 1*]{}. Trilinear scalar terms can not play a significant role along a UFB direction. This can be understood as follows. If a trilinear term does not vanish, $F$ terms give rise to (positive) quartic terms which lift the potential up for large values of scalar fields. Let us show an example. Suppose that the trilinear term corresponding to the Yukawa couplings of charged sleptons is non-vanishing, at least one of $F$ term of the scalar fields involved in the trilinear term is nonzero, e.g. $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\tilde{e}_R} = Y_e (H_1 \tilde{e}_L - H_1^- \tilde{\nu}_L),\end{aligned}$$ where $H_1^-$ is a charged component of the down-type Higgs. It is obvious that a positive quartic $F$ term which is proportional to $|Y_e|^2$ arises from the square of this term in the potential.
[*Property 2*]{}. Any UFB direction must involve $H_2$ and perhaps $H_1$. This is because the terms $|H_2|^2$ and $H_1 H_2$ can have negative soft masses for EWSB to successfully occur, while the other masses must be positive. Furthermore, since these terms are quadratic, all quartic terms coming from $F$ and $D$ terms must be vanishing or kept under control. Thus some additional fields are required except for $H_2$.
According to these properties, UFB directions are classified into three. A direction along which $H_1$ and $H_2$ have an equal vacuum expectation value (vev) and other fields have no vev’s, that is the so-called UFB-1 direction. Another direction, the so-called UFB-2 direction, is the direction with nonzero vev’s of $H_1$, $H_2$ and $\tilde{L}$. Along the last direction called the UFB-3, $H_2$, $\tilde{L}$ and $\tilde{d}_L$, $\tilde{d}_R$ are non-vanishing. In the following, we show details of the UFB-2 and 3 directions. We will see that absence of the neutrino Yukawa coupling plays an essential role on these directions.
Along the UFB-2 direction, left-handed sleptons have non-vanishing vev’s to cancel quartic terms from $D$ terms. According to the property 1, the trilinear term involving left-handed sleptons must be vanishing in order not to give a quartic term proportional to the Yukawa coupling squared. The only possibility for this direction is that the left-handed slepton has a vev along sneutrino direction since neutrinos are massless hence do not have Yukawa couplings. Then, the potential is given $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{UFB-2}} &= m_1^2 |H_1|^2 + m_2^2 |H_2|^2 -2 |m_3^2| |H_1| |H_2| \nonumber \\
&+ m_{\tilde{L}}^2 |\tilde{L}|^2 + \frac{g_1^2 + g_2^2}{8}( |H_2|^2 - |H_1|^2 - |\tilde{L}|^2)^2. \label{eq:1}\end{aligned}$$ The potential along the UFB-2 direction is obtained by minimizing Eq. (\[eq:1\]) with respect to $|\tilde{L}|$ and $|H_1|$, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{UFB-2}} = \left( m_2^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2 - \frac{|m_3^2|^2}{| m_1^2 - m_{\tilde{L}}^2 |} \right) |H_2|^2
- \frac{2 m_{\tilde{L}}^4}{g_1^2 + g_2^2},\label{eq:2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&(m_1^2 - m_{\tilde{L}}^2)^2 > |m_3^2|^2,\\
&|H_2|^2 > \frac{4 m_{\tilde{L}}^2}{(g_1^2 + g_2^2)(1-|m_3^2|^2/(m_1^2 - m_{\tilde{L}}^2)^2)},\end{aligned}$$ are assumed. Notice that the condition for the minimum with respect to $|H_2|$, $\partial V/\partial |H_2| = 0$, can not be satisfied simultaneously, therefore $|H_2|$ is a free parameter in Eq. (\[eq:2\]). The potential becomes unbounded from below if the quadratic term of $|H_2|$ is negative. Therefore the condition to avoid the UFB-2 direction is $$\begin{aligned}
m_2^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2 - \frac{|m_3^2|^2}{| m_1^2 - m_{\tilde{L}}^2 |} \ge 0.\end{aligned}$$
Along the UFB-3 direction, $H_1$ is vanishing and vev’s of down squarks are chosen to cancel $F$ term of $H_1$, $$\begin{aligned}
F_{H_1} = \mu H_2 + Y_d \tilde{d}_L \tilde{d}_R^\ast = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Then, as we will explain in the next section, vev’s of down squarks are much smaller than those of the Higgs and the sleptons, and can be neglected in the scalar potential. Taking the vev’s along $\tilde{d}_L = \tilde{d}_R^\ast = \tilde{d}$ so that $SU(3)$ $D$ term also vanishes, the potential becomes $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{UFB-3}} &= ( m_2^2 - |\mu|^2 ) |H_2|^2 + (m_{\tilde{Q}}^2 + m_{\tilde{d}_R}^2)|\tilde{d}|^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2 |\tilde{L}|^2 \nonumber \\
&\quad + \frac{g_1^2 + g_2^2}{8}( |H_2|^2 + |\tilde{d}|^2 - |\tilde{L}|^2)^2, \label{eq:25}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde{d}|^2 = \frac{|\mu|}{|Y_d|}|H_2|.\end{aligned}$$ Repeating the procedure of the UFB-2 direction, we can obtain the constraint preventing from the UFB-3 direction $$\begin{aligned}
m_2^2 - |\mu|^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2 \ge 0,\end{aligned}$$ assuming $$\begin{aligned}
|H_2| > \sqrt{ \frac{|\mu|^2}{4 |Y_d|^2} + \frac{4 m_{\tilde{L}}^2}{g_1^2 + g_2^2} } - \frac{|\mu|}{2|Y_d|}.\end{aligned}$$ It is important to emphasize here that the quartic terms from $F$ and $D$ terms can vanish simultaneously because the neutrino Yukawa coupling is absent.
General Properties of CCB minima
--------------------------------
CCB minima appear along directions in which a negative trilinear term dominates a potential against quadratic and quartic terms at a certain region of field space. CCB minima become deeper as Yukawa couplings of scalars are smaller. In the following, we show five general properties of CCB minima in the MSSM.
[*Property 1*]{}. The deepest CCB direction involves only one particular trilinear soft term of one generation. When more than two trilinear terms are non-vanishing, quartic terms arising from $F$ terms are also non-vanishing. Different quartic terms hardly deepen the potential cooperatively, rather lift up the potential.
[*Property 2*]{}. It can not be determined a priori which trilinear coupling gives the strongest constraints. Non-vanishing trilinear terms lead quartic terms which are proportional to the square of a Yukawa coupling. Since the quartic terms are more important than the trilinear term for large values of fields, larger Yukawa couplings do no always deepen the potential.
[*Property 3*]{}. If the trilinear term under consideration has a very small Yukawa coupling, $D$ terms must be vanishing or negligible along the corresponding CCB direction. If $D$ terms are non-vanishing, it lifts up the potential faster than $F$ terms. Then, that direction can not be the deepest direction.
[*Property 4*]{}. There are two directions to be explored for CCB. For example, for $A_u Y_u \tilde{Q} \cdot H_2 \tilde{u}_R^\ast$, one is the direction along which $H_2$, $\tilde{Q}$ and $\tilde{u}_R$ are non-vanishing, and $|\tilde{d}_L|^2 = |\tilde{d}_R|^2 = |\tilde{d}|^2$ so that $D_{SU(3)}$ and $F_{H_1}$ vanish. This direction is similar to UFB-3 and called the direction (a) according to Casas, et al [@Casas:1995pd]. The other direction is along $H_1$, $H_2$ and $\tilde{Q}$, $\tilde{u}_R$ are nonzero. Possibly $\tilde{L}$ is also nonzero along this direction. The direction is similar to UFB-2 and called the direction (b).
[*Property 5*]{}. There are two choices of the phases of soft SUSY breaking terms in the direction (b). For the same example as the above, the relevant soft terms are $$\begin{aligned}
&2|A_u Y_u \tilde{Q} H_2 \tilde{u}_R| \cos\varphi_1 + 2 |\mu Y_u \tilde{Q} H_1 \tilde{u}_R| \cos\varphi_2 \nonumber \\
&+ 2 |B\mu H_1 H_2|\cos\varphi_3,\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi_1$, $\varphi_2$ and $\varphi_3$ represent phases combined with signs of the couplings and phases of the fields. If sign$(A_u) = -$ sign$(B)$, the three phases can be taken $\pi$, so the three terms are negative. On the other hand, if sign$(A_u) = $ sign$(B)$, two of them can be taken $\pi$ and the other one should be $0$. Therefore one of the three terms are positive. For the direction (a), only one term with an undetermined phase is $A_u Y_u \tilde{Q} H_2 \tilde{u}_R$. The sign of the term can always be taken negative by rotating the fields involved.
Constraints from CCB minima with Dirac neutrinos {#sec:constraints-from-ccb}
================================================
In this section, we analyze the scalar potential of the $\nu$SSM with Dirac neutrinos. We consider not only the directions explained in the previous section (MSSM directions) but also new directions along which right-handed sneutrinos have vev’s. In our analysis, we assume that only one sneutrino has non-vanishing vev.
Constraints from MSSM UFB directions
------------------------------------
Let us consider the MSSM UFB-2 direction along which Higgses and left-handed sneutrinos have non-vanishing vev’s. As we emphasized in the sec. \[sec:gener-prop-ufb\], absence of the neutrino Yukawa coupling played an important role in the UFB-2 direction. The situation changes when the neutrino Yukawa coupling is introduced. $F$ terms given in Appendix \[apx:scal-potent-numssm\] can not be vanishing simultaneously. According to the property 2 of the UFB direction, a positive quartic term remains in the scalar potential, $V_{\mathrm{UFB-2}}^{\mathrm{Dirac}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{UFB-2}}^{\mathrm{Dirac}} &= V_{\mathrm{UFB-2}} + |Y_\nu|^2 |H_2|^2 |\tilde{\nu}_L|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{\mathrm{UFB-2}}$ is given in Eq. (\[eq:2\]). The last term lifts up the potential for large values of the fields. Thus, the MSSM UFB-2 direction disappears and turns to a CCB direction. We analyze this CCB direction below.
We parametrize the vev’s for convenience, $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde{\nu}_L| = \alpha |H_2|,\quad |H_1| = \gamma |H_2|,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ are real numbers. The potential is written using this parametrization, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{UFB-2}}^{\mathrm{Dirac}} = |Y_\nu|^2 F(\alpha,\gamma) \alpha^2 \gamma^2 |H_2|^4 + \hat{m}^2(\alpha,\gamma) |H_2|^2,\label{eq:19}\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
F(\alpha,\gamma) &= \frac{1}{\gamma^2} + \frac{1}{\alpha^2 \gamma^2} f(\alpha,\gamma), \\
f(\alpha,\gamma) &= \frac{1}{8} \frac{g_1^2 + g_2^2}{|Y_\nu|^2} (\alpha^2 + \gamma^2 -1)^2, \\
\hat{m}^2(\alpha,\gamma) &= m_1^2 \gamma^2 -2|m_3^2| \gamma + m_2^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2 \alpha^2. \label{eq:23}\end{aligned}$$
The minimum of the potential is obtained by differentiating Eq. (\[eq:19\]) with respect to $|H_2|$, $$\begin{aligned}
|H_2|^2_{ext} = -\frac{1}{2} \frac{\hat{m}^2(\alpha,\gamma)}{|Y_\nu|^2 F(\alpha,\gamma) \alpha^2 \gamma^2}, \label{eq:20}\end{aligned}$$ where $|H_2|_{ext}$ is the vev of $H_2$ at extremal. Here we assumed that $\hat{m}^2(\alpha,\gamma)$ is negative. According to the property 3 of the CCB direction, we set $\alpha^2 = 1 - \gamma^2$ to cancel the $D$ term or $f(\alpha,\gamma)$. Inserting Eq. (\[eq:20\]) into the potential, the minimum is expressed $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{UFB-2~min}}^{\mathrm{Dirac}} = -\frac{1}{4} \frac{\big(\hat{m}^2(\gamma)\big)^2}{|Y_\nu|^2 (1 - \gamma^2)},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{m}^2(\gamma) = ( m_1^2 - m_{\tilde{L}}^2) \gamma^2 -2|m_3^2| \gamma + m_2^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2. \label{eq:24}\end{aligned}$$ The minimum would be much deeper than that of the EWSB, (\[eq:18\]), because the neutrino Yukawa coupling is very small. A necessary condition to avoid the dangerous minimum is that $\hat{m}^2$ is positive for any $\gamma$. It imposes a constraint on the soft masses as $$\begin{aligned}
0 \le |m_3^2|^2 - m_1^2 m_2^2 \le m_{\tilde{L}}^2 (m_1^2 - m_2^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2), \label{eq:21}\end{aligned}$$ where the left inequality is imposed by Eq. (\[eq:14\]). The constraint forbids a small soft mass for the left-handed sleptons unless $|m_3^2|^2$ is close to $m_1^2 m_2^2$.
For the MSSM UFB-3 direction, the same quartic term remains in the potential, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{UFB-3}}^{\mathrm{Dirac}} &= V_{\mathrm{UFB-3}} + |Y_\nu|^2 |H_2|^2 |\tilde{\nu}_L|^2,\end{aligned}$$ and alters the MSSM UFB-3 direction to a CCB direction. $V_{\mathrm{UFB-3}}$ is given in (\[eq:25\]). As is shown below, the vev’s of the Higgses and sneutrinos are of order $m_{soft}/Y_\nu$ where $m_{soft}$ is a typical scale of the soft SUSY breaking masses. These vev’s are much larger than those of the down squarks. Therefore, we can neglect down squarks in the following discussion. Similarly to the UFB-2 direction, the potential is expressed using a parametrization, $|\tilde{\nu}_L| = \alpha |H_2|$, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{UFB-3}}^{\mathrm{Dirac}} = |Y_\nu|^2 F(\alpha) \alpha^2 |H_2|^4 + \hat{m}^2(\alpha) |H_2|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
F(\alpha) &= 1 + \frac{1}{\alpha^2} f(\alpha), \\
f(\alpha) &= \frac{1}{8}\frac{(g_1^2 + g_2^2)}{|Y_\nu|^2} (\alpha^2 -1)^2, \\
\hat{m}^2(\alpha) &= m_2^2 - |\mu|^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2 \alpha^2.\end{aligned}$$
Minimizing the potential with respect to $|H_2|$, the value of the $|H_2|$ at extremal, $|H_2|_{ext}$, is obtained, $$\begin{aligned}
|H_2|^2_{ext} &= -\frac{1}{2} \frac{\hat{m}^2(\alpha)}{|Y_\nu|^2 F(\alpha) \alpha^2},\end{aligned}$$ and the minimum of the potential is given by $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{UFB-3~min}}^{\mathrm{Dirac}} = -\frac{1}{4}\frac{(\hat{m}^2)^2}{|Y_\nu|^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha^2 = 1$ is used and $\hat{m}^2 = \hat{m}^2(\alpha^2=1)$. Again, the minimum is much deeper than that of the EWSB, (\[eq:18\]). A necessary condition to avoid the CCB minimum is $$\begin{aligned}
m_2^2 - |\mu|^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2 \ge 0. \label{eq:22}\end{aligned}$$
Constraint from CCB-1 minimum
-----------------------------
In the following, we analyze the scalar potential along CCB directions. Along the CCB directions of the MSSM, there are no important modifications on the constraints given in [@Casas:1995pd] since the trilinear term involving right-handed sneutrinos is vanishing and the quartic term proportional to the neutrino Yukawa coupling is very small. Once we consider directions that right-handed sneutrinos are non-vanishing, there appear new directions along which the minimum can become much deeper than that of EWSB. We focus our analysis on new CCB directions and derive constraints to evade such CCB minima.
Firstly, we consider a direction similar to the MSSM CCB direction (a). From the properties 1 and 3 of the CCB direction, we assume $$\begin{aligned}
&H_2,~\tilde{\nu}_L,~\tilde{\nu}_R \neq 0,\\
&|\tilde{d}_L|^2 = |\tilde{d}_R|^2 = |d|^2,\end{aligned}$$ and sign$(A_\nu) = -$sign$(B)$ for simplicity. Other fields are vanishing. The assumption $|\tilde{d}_L|^2 = |\tilde{d}_R|^2$ is made to cancel the $SU(3)~D$ term. Furthermore $\tilde{d}_L \tilde{d}_R^\ast$ is chosen to cancel $F_{H_1}$. Analogous to the MSSM UFB-3 direction, the vev’s of the Higgses and the sneutrinos are inversely proportional to the Yukawa coupling of neutrinos and are much larger than those of the down squarks. Hence we neglect down squarks in the potential.
The scalar potential from $F$, $D$ terms and the soft SUSY breaking terms is given in Appendix \[apx:scal-potent-numssm\] and also Appendix \[apd:scal-potent-mssm\]. Following the procedure of the MSSM UFB-3 direction, we parametrize vev’s as $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde{\nu}_L| = \alpha |H_2|,~~ |\tilde{\nu}_R^\ast| = \beta |H_2|,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are real numbers. Then, the scalar potential is written $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{CCB-1}}^{\mathrm{Dirac}} &= |Y_\nu|^2 F(\alpha, \beta) \alpha^2 \beta^2 |H_2|^4 -2 |Y_\nu| \hat{A} \alpha \beta |H_2|^3 \nonumber \\
&\quad + \hat{m}^2(\alpha,\beta) |H_2|^2, \label{eq:3}\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
F(\alpha,\beta) &= 1 + \frac{1}{\alpha^2} + \frac{1}{\beta^2} + \frac{1}{\alpha^2 \beta^2} f(\alpha), \\
f(\alpha) &= \frac{1}{8} \frac{g_1^2 + g_2^2}{|Y_\nu|^2} (\alpha^2 -1)^2, \\
\hat{A} &= |A_\nu|, \\
\hat{m}^2(\alpha,\beta) &= m_{H_2}^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2 \alpha^2 + m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2 \beta^2.\end{aligned}$$
Here, $|H_2|_{ext}$ is obtained by minimizing the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:3\]) with respect to $|H_2|$ for fixed values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, $$\begin{aligned}
|H_2|_{ext} &= \frac{3 \hat{A}}{4 |Y_\nu| F(\alpha,\beta) \alpha \beta}
\left( 1 + \sqrt{1 - \frac{8 \hat{m}^2(\alpha,\beta) F(\alpha,\beta)}{ 9 \hat{A}^2}} \right).\label{eq:4}\end{aligned}$$ The minimum is given by inserting Eq. (\[eq:4\]) into Eq. (\[eq:3\]), $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{CCB-1~min}}^{\mathrm{Dirac}}= -\frac{1}{2} \alpha \beta |H_2|_{ext}^2
\left(Y_\nu \hat{A} |H_2|_{ext} - \frac{\hat{m}^2(\alpha,\beta)}{\alpha \beta} \right). \label{eq:5}\end{aligned}$$ The CCB-1 minimum would be much deeper than the EWSB minimum, (\[eq:18\]), because it is inversely proportional to $|Y_\nu|^2$. A necessary condition to avoid the minimum is that $V_{\mathrm{CCB-1~min}}$ becomes positive, which reads $$\begin{aligned}
|A_\nu|^2 \le \frac{1 + 2 \beta^2}{\beta^2} \big( m_{H_2}^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2 + m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2 \beta^2 \big), \label{eq:6}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha^2 = 1$ is set to cancel $D$ term, according to the property 3 of the CCB direction. We can further simplify the condition by minimizing the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:6\]). Differentiating the right-hand side with respect to $\beta^2$, $\beta^2$ for extremal is obtained, $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^4_{ext} = \frac{ m_{H_2}^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2 }{2 m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2}, \label{eq:7}\end{aligned}$$ and inserting Eq. (\[eq:7\]), the condition becomes $$\begin{aligned}
|A_\nu| &\le \sqrt{2 (m_{H_2}^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2) } + m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}, \label{eq:8}\end{aligned}$$ and the trilinear term is bounded from above. It is important to notice that the condition (\[eq:22\]) appears in the right-hand side. Therefore one can avoid both dangerous CCB minima once the constraint (\[eq:8\]) is satisfied.
Constraint from CCB-2 minimum
-----------------------------
Next, we analyze a direction similar to the MSSM CCB direction (b). We assume $$\begin{aligned}
H_1,~ H_2,~\tilde{\nu}_L,~\tilde{\nu}_R \neq 0,\end{aligned}$$ and other fields are zero. It is also assumed that sign$(A_\nu) = -$sign$(B)$. Note that neither color nor charge symmetry is broken along this direction. Instead vev’s of Higgses and sneutrinos are so large that weak gauge bosons are too heavy, therefore EWSB does not occur correctly. As we mentioned in the introduction, we call this direction as CCB direction. Then, we parametrize vev’s as $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde{\nu}_L| = \alpha |H_2|,\quad |\tilde{\nu}_R| = \beta |H_2|,\quad |H_1| = \gamma |H_2|,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are real numbers. Then, the scalar potential is written $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{CCB-2}}^{\mathrm{Dirac}} &= Y_\nu^2 F(\alpha, \beta, \gamma) \alpha^2 \beta^2 |H_2|^4
-2 Y_\nu \hat{A}(\gamma) \alpha \beta |H_2|^3 \nonumber \\
&\quad + \hat{m}^2(\alpha,\beta,\gamma) |H_2|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
F(\alpha,\beta,\gamma) &= 1 + \frac{1}{\alpha^2} + \frac{1}{\beta^2} + \frac{1}{\alpha^2 \beta^2} f(\alpha,\gamma), \\
f(\alpha,\gamma) &= \frac{1}{8} \frac{g_1^2 + g_2^2}{|Y_\nu|^2} (\alpha^2 + \gamma^2 -1)^2, \\
\hat{A}(\gamma) &= |A_\nu| + \gamma |\mu|, \\
\hat{m}^2(\alpha,\beta,\gamma) &= m_1^2 \gamma^2 + m_2^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2 \alpha^2 + m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2 \beta^2 \nonumber \\
&\quad -2 |m_3^2| \gamma,
\end{aligned}$$
and sign$(A_\nu) = -$sign$B$ is assumed. The constraint from the CCB-2 direction is obtained by iterating the same procedure of the CCB-1 or the MSSM UFB-2 direction, $$\begin{aligned}
|A_\nu| \le - |\mu| \gamma +\left( 1 + \frac{2-\gamma^2}{1-\gamma^2} \beta^2_{ext}(\gamma) \right) m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}, \label{eq:9}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_{ext}(\gamma)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^4_{ext}(\gamma) = \frac{1-\gamma^2}{2-\gamma^2}
\frac{(m_1^2 - m_{\tilde{L}}^2) \gamma^2 -2 |m_3^2| \gamma + m_2^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2}{m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2}, \label{eq:10}\end{aligned}$$ and $\alpha^2 = 1 - \gamma^2$ is used. It is seen that the constraint (\[eq:21\]) is satisfied, hence the MSSM UFB-2 can be evaded if $\beta^4_{ext}(\gamma)$ is positive for any $\gamma$.
The stringent constraint on $|A_\nu|$ is given by minimizing the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:9\]) with respect to $\gamma$, but it is not easy to obtain $\gamma_{ext}$ analytically because of complications. Therefore we just give an equation that $\gamma_{ext}$ must be satisfied, $$\begin{aligned}
&-|\mu|\beta^2_{ext}(\gamma_{ext}) + m_{\tilde{\nu}_R} \bigg[ \frac{\gamma_{ext}}{(1-\gamma^2_{ext})^2} \beta^4_{ext}(\gamma_{ext}) \nonumber \\
&\quad + \frac{(m_1^2 - m_{\tilde{L}}^2) \gamma_{ext} - |m_3^2|}{m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2}
\bigg] =0. \label{eq:11} \end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[eq:11\]) should be solved numerically. If $\gamma_{ext}$ is negative, $\gamma_{ext}=0$ is chosen and the condition from CCB-1 direction is obtained by replacing $m_{H_2}^2$ with $m_2^2$. If $\gamma_{ext}$ is larger than unity, $\gamma_{ext}=1$ and $\alpha = 0$ are chosen. Then, the potential becomes $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{CCB-2}}^{\mathrm{Dirac}} &= Y_\nu^2 \beta^2 |H_2|^4 + \hat{m}^2(0,\beta,1) |H_2|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{m}^2(0,\beta,1) &= m_1^2 + m_2^2 -2 |m_3^2| + m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2 \beta \nonumber \\
&~ \ge m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2 > 0,\end{aligned}$$ and we used Eq. (\[eq:14\]). Thus, the potential has a global minimum at $H_1 = H_2 = \tilde{\nu}_L = \tilde{\nu}_R = 0$.
Constraint from CCB-3 minimum
-----------------------------
The CCB-3 direction is defined as the CCB-2 with sign$(A_\nu) =$ sign$(B)$. Along this direction, one of the signs among $|A_\nu|$, $|\mu|$ and $|m_3^2|$ is flipped according to the property 5.
When the sign of $|A_\nu|$ or $|\mu|$ is flipped, the condition to avoid the CCB minimum is given $$\begin{aligned}
|A_\nu| \le |\mu| \gamma + \left( 1 + \frac{2-\gamma^2}{1-\gamma^2} \beta^2_{ext}(\gamma) \right) m_{\tilde{\nu}_R},\label{eq:12}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta^4_{ext}$ is the same as Eq. (\[eq:10\]).
When the sign of $|m_3^2|$ is flipped, the constraint becomes $$\begin{aligned}
|A_\nu| \le |\mu| \gamma + \left(1 + \frac{2-\gamma^2}{1-\gamma^2}\tilde{\beta}^2_{ext}(\gamma) \right) m_{\tilde{\nu}_R},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\beta}^4_{ext}(\gamma) = \frac{1-\gamma^2}{2-\gamma^2}
\frac{(m_1^2 - m_{\tilde{L}}^2) \gamma^2 + 2 |m_3^2| \gamma + m_2^2 + m_{\tilde{L}}^2}{m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding sign of $|\mu|$ or $|m_3^2|$ in Eq. (\[eq:11\]) for $\gamma_{ext}$ should be also flipped appropriately.
Constraints from UFB and CCB minima with Majorana neutrinos {#sec:constraints-from-ufb}
===========================================================
We consider the $\nu$SSM with Majorana neutrinos and analyze its potential given in Appendix \[apx:scal-potent-numssm\]. Differences from the Dirac case are the Majorana mass term in the superpotential and the corresponding soft SUSY breaking mass. These additional terms result in linear and quadratic terms of the right-handed sneutrinos in the scalar potential.
It is immediately understood that the constraints from the MSSM UFB directions are the same as those of the Dirac case, (\[eq:21\]) and (\[eq:22\]), because the right-handed sneutrinos do not have vev’s. There appears a new UFB direction along $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\nu}_R \neq 0,\quad \mathrm{other~fields}=0,\end{aligned}$$ and sign$(B_\nu M_R) = -1$. The potential along this direction is given $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{UFB}}^{\mathrm{Majorana}}=( m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2 - |B_\nu M_R| + |M_R|^2 )|\tilde{\nu}_R|^2,\end{aligned}$$ and it is unbounded from below unless $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2 - |B_\nu M_R| + |M_R|^2 \ge 0.\end{aligned}$$
Along the CCB directions, we simply show results because the procedure to find the conditions is the same as in the Dirac case. The conditions are obtained by making replacements, $$\begin{aligned}
|A_\nu| &~\rightarrow~ |A_\nu| + |M_R|, \\
m_{\tilde{\nu}_R} &~\rightarrow~ m_{\tilde{\nu}_R} + |B_\nu M_R| + |M_R|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where sign$(B_\nu M_R) = 1$ is assumed. From the CCB-1 minimum, it is given from Eq. (\[eq:8\]), $$\begin{aligned}
|A_\nu| &\le - |M_R| + \sqrt{ 2(M_{H_2}^2 + M_{\tilde{L}}^2) } \nonumber \\
&\quad + \sqrt{m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2 + |B_\nu M_R| + |M_R|^2}.\end{aligned}$$ From the CCB-2 minimum, the condition is obtained from Eq. (\[eq:9\]), $$\begin{aligned}
|A_\nu| &\le -( |\mu|\gamma_{ext} + |M_R| ) + \left( 1 + \frac{2-\gamma^2}{1-\gamma^2} \beta^2_{ext}(\gamma_{ext}) \right) \nonumber \\
&\qquad \times \sqrt{m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2 + |B_\nu M_R| + |M_R|^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^4_{ext}(\gamma) = \frac{1-\gamma^2}{2-\gamma^2}
\frac{ (m_1^2 - M_{\tilde{L}}^2)\gamma^2 -2 |m_3^2|\gamma + m_2^2 + M_{\tilde{L}}^2}{m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2 + |B_\nu M_R| + |M_R|^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\gamma_{ext}$ is determined from $$\begin{aligned}
&-|\mu|\beta^2_{ext}(\gamma_{ext}) + m_{\tilde{\nu}_R} \bigg[ \frac{\gamma_{ext}}{(1-\gamma^2_{ext})^2} \beta^4_{ext}(\gamma_{ext}) \nonumber \\
&\quad + \frac{(m_1^2 - m_{\tilde{L}}^2) \gamma_{ext} - |m_3^2|}{m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}^2 + |B_\nu M_R| + |M_R|^2}
\bigg] =0.\end{aligned}$$ Along the CCB-3 direction, the same replacement should be done. For the case of sign$(B_\nu M_R)=-1$, the sign of $|B_\nu M_R|$ is flipped.
Numerical Analysis {#sec:numerical-analysis}
==================
We show numerical results for the Dirac neutrino case to demonstrate a strategy to constrain the soft SUSY parameters with the conditions from UFB and CCB-1, 2, i.e. (\[eq:21\]), (\[eq:8\]) and (\[eq:9\]). The conditions are important for relatively light sneutrinos, therefore we vary masses of sneutrinos fixing the Higgs masses.
We calculate the Higgs soft masses using SPS1a point[@Allanach:2002nj] as an example. The parameters we use are $$\begin{aligned}
&\mu = 3.57\times 10^2,~B=47.2,\\
&m_{H_1}^2=3.24 \times 10^4,~m_{H_2}^2 = -1.28 \times 10^5,\end{aligned}$$ in the unit of GeV, and $m_{\tilde{L}}$ is taken as $360$ and $560$ GeV so that $\beta^4_{ext}$ along the CCB-1 direction is positive. It is assumed that sign$(A_\nu)= -$ sign$(B)$. The EWSB occurs correctly and the lighter Higgs mass is above $114$ GeV with these parameters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![$\hat{m}^2(\gamma)$ in terms of $\gamma$. $m_{\tilde{L}}$ is taken $360$ GeV in the upper panel, and $560$ GeV in the lower panel, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:mhat"}](./figures/MSSMUFB2_MsL360.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"}
![$\hat{m}^2(\gamma)$ in terms of $\gamma$. $m_{\tilde{L}}$ is taken $360$ GeV in the upper panel, and $560$ GeV in the lower panel, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:mhat"}](./figures/MSSMUFB2_MsL560.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We start with checking that Eq. (\[eq:24\]) is positive between $0 \le \gamma \le 1$ for a given set of the parameters. Figures \[fig:mhat\] show Eq. (\[eq:24\]) with respect to $\gamma$. The upper panel is for $m_{\tilde{L}}= 360$ GeV and the lower panel is for $m_{\tilde{L}}=560$ GeV. It is seen that $\hat{m}^2$ is positive in both cases, and hence Eq. (\[eq:21\]) is satisfied.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The left-hand side of the equation (\[eq:11\]) normalized by $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ in terms of $\gamma$ for various $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$. The values of $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ are shown in the figures. The left-handed slepton soft mass is $360$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_ext\].(1), and $560$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_ext\].(2), respectively.[]{data-label="fig:gamma_ext"}](./figures/Gamma_ext_MsL360.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"}
![The left-hand side of the equation (\[eq:11\]) normalized by $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ in terms of $\gamma$ for various $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$. The values of $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ are shown in the figures. The left-handed slepton soft mass is $360$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_ext\].(1), and $560$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_ext\].(2), respectively.[]{data-label="fig:gamma_ext"}](./figures/Gamma_ext_MsL560.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, we calculate $\gamma_{ext}$ using Eq. (\[eq:11\]). Figures \[fig:gamma\_ext\] show the left-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:11\]) normalized by $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ in terms of $\gamma$. $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ is varied from $100$ GeV to $500$ GeV. The mass of the left-handed slepton for each curve is shown in figures. $m_{\tilde{L}}$ is $360$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_ext\].(1) and $560$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_ext\].(2). The crossing point of each curve to zero corresponds to $\gamma_{ext}$. It is seen that $\gamma_{ext}$ is independent of $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$. This is because $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ can be factored out by inserting the concrete form of $\beta_{ext}$. From figures, we can obtain $\gamma_{ext}=0.62$ and $0.73$ respectively. It is also seen that $\gamma_{ext}$ for $m_{\tilde{L}}=560$ GeV is larger than that for $360$ GeV. Generally $\gamma_{ext}$ becomes larger as $m_{\tilde{L}}$ increases for fixed values of other parameters although the dependence of $\gamma_{ext}$ on other parameters is so complicated that it can not be understood easily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The constraints from CCB minimum normalized with $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ in terms of $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$. The left-handed slepton soft mass is $360$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:Anu\_over\_MR\].(1), and $560$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:Anu\_over\_MR\].(2), respectively. The solid (red) curve represents Eq. (\[eq:8\]) and the dashed (green) represents Eq. (\[eq:9\]).[]{data-label="fig:Anu_over_MR"}](./figures/CCB_constraints_MsL360.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"}
![The constraints from CCB minimum normalized with $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ in terms of $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$. The left-handed slepton soft mass is $360$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:Anu\_over\_MR\].(1), and $560$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:Anu\_over\_MR\].(2), respectively. The solid (red) curve represents Eq. (\[eq:8\]) and the dashed (green) represents Eq. (\[eq:9\]).[]{data-label="fig:Anu_over_MR"}](./figures/CCB_constraints_MsL560.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirdly, the constraints from CCB-1 and CCB-2 are calculated. In Figs. \[fig:Anu\_over\_MR\], we plot the constraints normalized with $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ by varying the right-handed slepton mass from $100$ to $1000$ GeV. The mass of the left-handed slepton is taken $360$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:Anu\_over\_MR\].(1), and $560$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:Anu\_over\_MR\].(2), respectively. The solid (red) curve represents Eq. (\[eq:8\]) and the dashed (green) curve represents Eq. (\[eq:9\]). It is seen from Figs. \[fig:Anu\_over\_MR\] that the constraint of CCB-1 is stronger than that CCB-2 for $m_{\tilde{L}}=360$ GeV while the constraint of CCB-2 is stronger for $560$ GeV. The dependence of Eq. (\[eq:8\]) on $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ is trivial, and that of Eq. (\[eq:9\]) can be understood as follows. As we explained in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_ext\], $\gamma_{ext}$ becomes large as $m_{\tilde{L}}$ increases. Then, the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:9\]) increases due to a factor of $1-\gamma^2$ in the denominator. This result is nontrivial, therefore we always have to check both constraints. The CCB-1 and CCB-2 constraint curves approach to $|A_\nu|/m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}=1$ as $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ becomes large. In the large $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ limit, the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:8\]) is dominated by $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$, and $\beta_{ext}$ goes to zero since $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ appears in the denominator in Eq. (\[eq:7\]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The upper bound on $A_\nu$ in terms of $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$. The left-handed slepton soft mass is $360$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:Anu\].(1), and $560$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:Anu\].(2), respectively.[]{data-label="fig:Anu"}](./figures/Anu_MsL360.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"}
![The upper bound on $A_\nu$ in terms of $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$. The left-handed slepton soft mass is $360$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:Anu\].(1), and $560$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:Anu\].(2), respectively.[]{data-label="fig:Anu"}](./figures/Anu_MsL560.eps "fig:"){width="80mm"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figures \[fig:Anu\] show the upper bound on $|A_\nu|$ in terms of $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$. The value of the left-handed slepton mass is indicated in the figures. The upper bound is more strict as $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ is smaller and $m_{\tilde{L}}$ is smaller. In our example, $|A_\nu|$ must be smaller than $153$ GeV for $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}=100$ GeV and $1550$ GeV for $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R} = 1000$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:Anu\].(1) and $640$ GeV and $2020$ GeV in Fig. \[fig:Anu\].(2), respectively. From numerical analysis, if the mass of the right-handed slepton is between a several $100$ GeV, $A_\nu$ term must be smaller than $1$ TeV.
Summary and discussion {#sec:summary-discussion}
======================
We have considered the $\nu$SSM where either Dirac or Majorana (s)neutrinos are introduced to the MSSM, and analyzed its scalar potential along the MSSM UFB/CCB directions as well as new CCB directions which appear due to non-vanishing vev’s of right-handed sneutrinos.
We have found that the MSSM UFB directions disappear and turn to CCB directions because the quartic term proportional to the square of the neutrino Yukawa coupling lifts up the potential for large values of fields. We have shown that depth of the minima along these directions is inversely proportional to the square of the neutrino Yukawa coupling, therefore it would be much deeper than that of EWSB. We derived necessary conditions to avoid the CCB minima along the MSSM UFB directions. The conditions impose constraints among the soft SUSY breaking masses of the Higgses and the left-handed sneutrinos.
Then we have analyzed the potential along which the right-handed sneutrinos have non-vanishing vev’s. We showed that CCB and incorrect EWSB minima exist along these directions. The minima are inversely proportional to the square of the neutrino Yukawa coupling hence very deep in cases of the Dirac neutrinos and Majorana neutrinos in TeV scale seesaw. Necessary conditions to evade these minima are derived for both Dirac and Majorana neutrinos. The conditions constrain the trilinear coupling of the sneutrino with respect to the soft masses. In the Majorana neutrino case, we found that one UFB direction appears due to the presence of the soft SUSY breaking mass terms of sneutrinos. A necessary condition to avoid the potential unbounded from below was also found.
In section \[sec:numerical-analysis\], we have performed numerical analysis of the conditions to demonstrate a strategy to avoid the UFB and CCB minima. The strategy is that for a given set of the parameters consistent with the EWSB, firstly we check the condition from the MSSM UFB directions, (\[eq:21\]) and (\[eq:22\]). Next, we calculate $\gamma_{ext}$ using Eq. (\[eq:11\]) for the CCB-2 direction. Finally we check the conditions from CCB minima, (\[eq:8\]) and (\[eq:9\]). In figures \[fig:Anu\_over\_MR\], we have shown that the condition (\[eq:8\]) is severer for $m_{\tilde{L}} = 360$ GeV and (\[eq:9\]) is for $m_{\tilde{L}} = 560$ GeV. We have also shown in Figs. \[fig:Anu\] that the trilinear coupling is strictly constrained for smaller sneutrino masses. In the case that the right-handed sneutrinos are the lightest SUSY particles, this constraint is important to calculate their lifetime.
The conditions we found in this article are necessary conditions but not sufficient conditions. With these conditions satisfied, one can avoid dangerous UFB and CCB directions when radiative corrections are small compared with tree-level potential. As we mentioned in the introduction, it would be needed to include radiative corrections to obtain viable conditions at the electroweak scale. Since finite temperature effects would lift up the potential, it would be also important to consider finite temperature effects. We leave these for our future work.
The authors would like to thank Y. Kanehata and Y. Konishi for fruitful discussion and careful reading of this manuscript. T. K. is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 20540266 and the Grant-in-Aid for the Global COE Program “The Next Generation of Physics, Spun from Universality and Emergence” from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan. T. S is the Yukawa Fellow and the work of T. S is partially supported by Yukawa Memorial Foundation.
Scalar potential of the MSSM {#apd:scal-potent-mssm}
============================
In this appendix, we give notations of the scalars and the full scalar potential of the MSSM. The down-type and the up-type Higgs scalars are denoted as $$\begin{aligned}
H_1 =
\begin{pmatrix}
H^1_1 \\
H^2_1
\end{pmatrix},\quad
H_2 =
\begin{pmatrix}
H^1_2 \\
H^2_2
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $H_1^1$ and $H_2^2$ are electrically neutral. The left-handed squarks and the right-handed squarks are denoted as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{Q} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\tilde{u}_L \\
\tilde{d}_L
\end{pmatrix},\quad
\tilde{u}_R,~\tilde{d}_R,\end{aligned}$$ and the left-handed sleptons and the right-handed sleptons are denoted as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{L} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\tilde{\nu}_L \\
\tilde{e}_L
\end{pmatrix},\quad
\tilde{e}_R.\end{aligned}$$
The scalar potential is divided into three parts which consist of $F$ terms, $D$ terms and soft SUSY breaking terms, $$\begin{aligned}
V = V_F + V_D + V_{soft}.\end{aligned}$$ The $F$ term potential, $V_F$, is given by a sum of absolute square of all matter auxiliary fields, $$\begin{aligned}
V_F &= \sum_{i=\mathrm{matter}} |F_i|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
F_{H^1_1}^\ast & = \mu H^2_2 + Y_e \tilde{e}_L \tilde{e}_R^\ast + Y_d \tilde{d}_L \tilde{d}_R^\ast ,\\
F_{H^2_1}^\ast & = -\mu H^1_2 - Y_e \tilde{\nu}_L \tilde{e}_R^\ast - Y_d \tilde{u}_L \tilde{d}_R^\ast,\\
F_{H^1_2}^\ast & = -\mu H^2_1 + Y_u \tilde{d}_L \tilde{u}_R^\ast,\\
F_{H^2_2}^\ast & = \mu H^1_1 - Y_u \tilde{u}_L \tilde{u}_R^\ast,\\
F_{\tilde{e}_R} & = Y_e (H^1_1 \tilde{e}_L - H^2_1 \tilde{\nu}_L),\\
F_{\tilde{e}_L}^\ast & = Y_e H^1_1 \tilde{e}_R^\ast,\\
F_{\tilde{\nu}_L}^\ast & = -Y_e H^2_1 \tilde{e}_R^\ast,\\
F_{\tilde{d}_R} & = Y_d (H^1_1 \tilde{d}_L - H^2_1 \tilde{u}_L),\\
F_{\tilde{d}_L}^\ast & = Y_d H^1_1 \tilde{d}_R^\ast + Y_u H^1_2 \tilde{u}_R^\ast,\\
F_{\tilde{u}_R} & = Y_u (H^1_2 \tilde{d}_L - H^2_2 \tilde{u}_L),\\
F_{\tilde{u}_L}^\ast & = -Y_d H^2_1 \tilde{d}_R^\ast - Y_u H^2_2 \tilde{u}_R^\ast.\end{aligned}$$
Here $\mu$ is a supersymmetric Higgs mass and $Y_i~(i=u,d,e)$ are Yukawa couplings.
The $D$ term potential, $V_D$, is given by a sum of square of all gauge auxiliary fields, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{D} &= \frac{1}{2}\bigg( (D^a_{SU(3)})^2 + (D^a_{SU(2)})^2 + (D_{U(1)})^2 \bigg),\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ runs from $1$ to $8~(3)$ for $SU(3)~(SU(2))$ and the summation should be understood. The auxiliary fields, $D^a_{SU(3)}$, $D^a_{SU(2)}$ and $D_{U(1)}$, are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
D^a_{SU(3)} &= g_3 \left( \tilde{Q}^\dagger \frac{\lambda^a}{2} \tilde{Q}
- \tilde{u}^\ast_R \frac{\lambda^a}{2} \tilde{u}_R
- \tilde{d}^\ast_R \frac{\lambda^a}{2} \tilde{d}_R \right), \\
D^a_{SU(2)} &= g_2 \big( \tilde{Q}^\dagger T^a \tilde{Q} + \tilde{L}^\dagger T^a \tilde{L}
+ H_1^\dagger T^a H_1 + H_2^\dagger T^a H_2 \big),\\
D_{U(1)} &= g_1 \left( \frac{1}{6} \tilde{Q}^\dagger \tilde{Q} -\frac{2}{3} \tilde{u}_R^\ast \tilde{u}_R
+ \frac{1}{3} \tilde{d}^\ast_R \tilde{d}_R -\frac{1}{2}\tilde{L}^\dagger \tilde{L}\right. \nonumber \\
&\qquad \left. + \tilde{e}_R^\ast \tilde{e}_R -\frac{1}{2}H_1^\dagger H_1 + \frac{1}{2}H_2^\dagger H_2 \right),\end{aligned}$$
where $g_i~(i=1,2,3)$ is a gauge coupling constant, and $\lambda^a$ and $T^a$ are Gell-Mann and Pauli matrix respectively.
The soft SUSY breaking terms, $V_{soft}$, are $$\begin{aligned}
V_{soft} & = m^2_{H_1} H_1^\dagger H_1 + m^2_{H_2} H_2^\dagger H_2
+ \big(B\mu H_1 \cdot H_2 + h.c.\big) \nonumber \\
&~~+ m^2_{\tilde{Q}} \tilde{Q}^\dagger \tilde{Q} + m^2_{\tilde{u}_R} \tilde{u}_R^\ast \tilde{u}_R
+ m^2_{\tilde{d}_R} \tilde{d}_R^\ast \tilde{d}_R \nonumber \\
&~~+ m^2_{\tilde{L}} \tilde{L}^\dagger \tilde{L}
+ m^2_{\tilde{e}_R} \tilde{e}_R^\ast \tilde{e}_R \nonumber \\
&~~+ \big(A_d Y_d H_1 \cdot \tilde{Q} \tilde{d}_R^\ast + A_u Y_u H_2 \cdot \tilde{Q} \tilde{u}_R^\ast \nonumber \\
&~~+ A_e Y_e H_1 \cdot \tilde{L} \tilde{e}_R^\ast + h.c.\big),\end{aligned}$$ where $m_i~(i=H_1,H_2,Q,u,d,L,E)$ are soft masses and $B\mu$ is a soft term for Higgses. A symbol “dot” represents an inner product for $SU(2)$ doublets, $A \cdot B = A^1B^2 - A^2 B^1$. The trilinear terms, $A_i~(i=u,d,e)$, are defined to be proportional to the corresponding Yukawa coupling.
Electroweak Symmetry Breaking of the MSSM {#sec:higgs-potent-electr}
=========================================
We review the Higgs potential and the constraint from EWSB of the MSSM.
The Higgs potential of the MSSM is given by $$\begin{aligned}
V &= m_1^2 H_1^2 + m_2^2 H_2^2 - (m_3^2 H_1 H_2 + h.c.) \nonumber \\
&\quad + \frac{1}{8}(g_1^2 + g_2^2) \big( |H_1|^2 - |H_2|^2 \big)^2, \label{eq:17}\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
m_1^2 &= m_{H_1}^2 + |\mu|^2,\\
m_2^2 &= m_{H_2}^2 + |\mu|^2,\\
m_3^2 &= - B \mu.\end{aligned}$$
A UFB direction is found along $D$ flat direction, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
|H_1|^2 = |H_2|^2,\end{aligned}$$ and the potential becomes $$\begin{aligned}
V = (m_1^2 + m_2^2 - 2 |m_3^2|) |H_1|^2.\end{aligned}$$ The potential is unbounded from below if the quadratic term is negative. Thus the constraint from UFB direction is given as $$\begin{aligned}
m_1^2 + m_2^2 -2 |m_3^2| \geq 0.\label{eq:13}\end{aligned}$$ This is so-called UFB-1 condition in [@Casas:1995pd]. For the EWSB to occur correctly, the potential must be a saddle point at the origin. The condition for such a saddle point is $$\begin{aligned}
&\left( \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial |H_1| \partial |H_2| }\right)^2
- \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial |H_1|^2} \frac{\partial^2 V}{\partial |H_2|^2} \nonumber \\
&=|m_3^2|^2 - m_1^2 m_2^2 > 0. \label{eq:14}\end{aligned}$$ The EWSB vacuum is found by minimizing the potential, (\[eq:17\]), with respect to the Higgses under the conditions, Eq. (\[eq:13\]) and (\[eq:14\]).
The EW symmetry is successfully broken at $|H_1| = v \cos\beta/\sqrt{2}$ and $|H_2| = v \sin\beta/\sqrt{2}$ if the following relations are satisfied, $$\begin{aligned}
m_1^2 + m_2^2 &= - \frac{2 m_3^2}{\sin 2\beta}, \label{eq:15} \\
m_1^2 - m_2^2 &= - \cos 2\beta (m_Z^2 + m_1^2 + m_2^2), \label{eq:16} \end{aligned}$$ where $m_Z^2 = \frac{1}{4}(g_1^2 + g_2^2) v^2$. The minimum of the potential is obtained using Eq. (\[eq:15\]) and (\[eq:16\]), $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\mathrm{real~min}} = - \frac{1}{2} \frac{m_Z^4}{g_1^2 + g_2^2} \cos^2 2\beta. \label{eq:18}\end{aligned}$$
scalar potential of the $\nu$SSM {#apx:scal-potent-numssm}
================================
We list up here modifications of the MSSM scalar potential to the $\nu$SSM for Dirac neutrino and Majorana neutrino cases. The gauge auxiliary fields are the same as that of the MSSM because the right-handed (s)neutrinos are gauge singlets.
Firstly, we list up modifications in the Dirac neutrino case. Three of the matter auxiliary fields are replaced with
$$\begin{aligned}
F_{H^1_2}^\ast & = -\mu H^2_1 + Y_\nu \tilde{e}_L \tilde{\nu}_R^\ast + Y_u \tilde{d}_L \tilde{u}_R^\ast,\\
F_{H^2_2}^\ast & = \mu H^1_1 - Y_\nu \tilde{\nu}_L \tilde{\nu}_R^\ast - Y_u \tilde{u}_L \tilde{u}_R^\ast,\\
F_{\tilde{\nu}_L}^\ast & = -Y_e H^2_1 \tilde{e}_R^\ast - Y_\nu H^2_2 \tilde{\nu}_R^\ast,\\
F_{\tilde{e}_L}^\ast & = Y_e H^1_1 \tilde{e}_R^\ast + Y_\nu H^1_2 \tilde{\nu}_R^\ast,\end{aligned}$$
where $\tilde{\nu}_R$ is the right-handed sneutrinos and $Y_\nu$ is the Yukawa couplings of neutrinos. The auxiliary fields of the right-handed neutrinos are added, $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\tilde{\nu}_R} = Y_\nu (H^1_2 \tilde{e}_L - H^2_2 \tilde{\nu}_L).\end{aligned}$$ For the soft SUSY breaking term, a trilinear term $A_\nu$ and a soft mass $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ for sneutrinos are added, $$\begin{aligned}
m^2_{\tilde{\nu}_R} \tilde{\nu}_R^\ast \tilde{\nu}_R + \big( A_\nu Y_\nu \tilde{L} \cdot H_2 \tilde{\nu}_R^\ast + h.c.\big).\end{aligned}$$ Here $m_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ is a soft SUSY breaking mass of the right-handed sneutrinos.
Next, we show two modifications in the Majorana neutrino case. One is on $F_{\tilde{\nu}_R}$ such as $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\tilde{\nu}_R}=Y_\nu (H^1_2 \tilde{e}_L - H^2_2 \tilde{\nu}_L) + M_R \tilde{\nu}^\ast_R,\end{aligned}$$ where $M_R$ is the masses of the right-handed neutrinos. The other one is on the soft SUSY breaking term, that is, the following soft SUSY breaking mass is added, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}B_\nu M_R \tilde{\nu}^\ast_R \tilde{\nu}_R^\ast + h.c,\end{aligned}$$ where $B_\nu M_R$ is a soft mass for the right-handed sneutrinos.
[^1]: See also recent work [@Gioutsos:2002pd]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The inner part of a thin accretion disk around a Kerr black hole can serve as an important tool to study the physics of the strong gravity regime. A tilt in such a disk with respect to the black hole spin axis is particularly useful for this purpose, as such a tilt can have a significant effect on the observed X-ray spectral and timing features via Lense-Thirring precession. However, the inner disk has been predicted to become aligned with the spin direction of the black hole by the well-known Bardeen-Petterson effect. Here we calculate, both analytically and numerically, the radial profile of the thin accretion disk tilt angle in the viscous regime (i.e., $\alpha > H/R$; $\alpha$ is the Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity parameter, $H$ is the disk thickness and $R$ is the radial distance). We show that the inner disk may not be aligned at all for certain reasonable ranges of parameter values. This makes the inner accretion disk particularly promising to probe the black hole parameters, and the accretion process in the strong gravity region.'
author:
- Srimanta Banerjee
- Chandrachur Chakraborty
- Sudip Bhattacharyya
title: A study of a tilted thin inner accretion disk around a spinning black hole
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Warped accretion disks, i.e., disks with planes changing with the radius, are found in a wide variety of systems, e.g., protostars, X-ray binaries and active galactic nuclei (AGN). For example, warped disks are observed in the AGN NGC 4258 [@Herrnstein; @Papaloizou], the X-ray binaries SS433 [@Begelman], Her X-1 [@Wijers1999] and GRO J1655-40 [@Martin], and pre-main-sequence stars KH 15D [@Chiang; @Facchini] and HD 142527 [@Cas]. Although these warps are ubiquitous in astrophysics, the torques producing such a warp can have different origins, and depend on the astrophysical system under consideration. Usually, if there is a non-axisymmetric force acting on such a disk, a warp is generated. An initially planar disk may become warped because of relativistic effects induced by a misaligned black hole [@BP75], radiation effect [@Pringle96], or tidal interaction with a companion star [for protostellar disks; @Larwood].
An analytical theory for such a warped thin disk around a spinning black hole was developed by Bardeen and Petterson in 1975 [@BP75]. They proposed that the relativistic Lense-Thirring precession (LT) [@LT] may have a significant effect on the disk around a misaligned black hole, and aligns the inner disk with the spin direction of the black hole. This is the Bardeen-Petterson (BP) effect. As the LT torque falls off with the radial distance ($R$) rapidly (roughly as $1/R^3$), the viscous torque gradually takes over. Hence the outer part remains tilted with respect to the spin axis of the black hole, whereas the inner part of the disk stays aligned. In between these two regions, the disk tilt angle gradually transits from an aligned inner disk to a misaligned outer disk, resulting in a warp in the disk. Although the transfer of the angular momentum in a warped disk is three dimensional, the above mentioned work, along with [@Petterson77a], [@Petterson77b] and [@Hatchett] where similar scenarios were investigated, considered viscosity to be described by the same turbulent viscosity $\nu=\alpha c_s H$ [@Shakura], where $c_s$ is the local sound speed, $H$ is the thickness of the disk and $\alpha$ is the Shakura-Sunyaev parameter, in all directions. Besides, the evolution equations that they had considered, did not conserve the angular momentum. The first self-consistent analysis of a thin warped viscous disk was possibly done by [@Pap83], where they considered two viscosities arising due to azimuthal and vertical shears, and obtained the evolution equations of the warped disk in two ways. In their ‘naive’ approach, they generalized the standard treatment of the flat disk, and took into account the correct forms of the torques corresponding to two viscosities to conserve the angular momentum on each annulus of the disk. They also considered detailed analyses of internal fluid dynamics in linear regime, and obtained evolution equation for a slightly tilted (tilt angle $\ll$ $H/R$) viscous disk ($\alpha>H/R$). Later, [@Pringle92], following the ‘naive’ approach of [@Pap83], obtained the general evolution equation of a warped viscous disk, valid for arbitrary warps and viscosities, simply by demanding mass and angular momentum to be conserved in each annulus of the disk. In [@Pringle92], the BP effect was also considered, and numerical simulations were done to study the evolution of the disk tilt angle radial profile in the presence of the LT precession. The linear hydrodynamical analysis of [@Pap83] was extended to the non-linear regime later by [@Ogilvie1999], and the evolution equations, valid for arbitrary warp amplitudes, were obtained. This derivation confirmed the equations obtained by [@Pringle92] in the viscous regime, except for two differences, which can be neglected for small amplitude warps, and small $\alpha$. [@SF96] examined the Pringle’s equation with the LT torque in steady state limit, solved the differential equation to obtain the radial profile of the disk tilt angle assuming viscosities to be independent of radius, and used this radial profile to calculate the alignment timescale for the black hole. But the contribution of the inner disk was neglected in the [@SF96], as they assumed a priori that the inner disk is aligned up to a radius with the spin direction of the black hole. [@Armitage] considered the viscosities to be functionally dependent upon radius, matched their numerical result with [@SF96], and also calculated the alignment time scale for supermassive black holes in AGN with a realistic profile of column density. Later, [@Rebecca] also assumed a power law form of viscosities and surface density with the same power law factor for all of them, obtained the steady state profile for the disk tilt angle analytically, and calculated alignment timescale as well as precession timescale for black hole for different values of the power law factor. [@Chen] improved the above analytical calculations by considering two viscosities to be a function of $R$ with different power law factors, and obtained an analytical solution of the warped disk equation, apart from giving the numerical solution. But all of them assumed the alignment of the inner disk a priori, and therefore mainly focused on the behavior of the warped region of the disk.
Interestingly, [@Lodato] numerically solved the time-dependent evolution equation of a warped viscous disk obtained by [@Pringle92], and compared their disk inclination radial profile with the steady state radial profiles obtained by [@SF96]. [@Lodato] found that, for certain ranges of parameter values, their solution deviated largely from what [@SF96] had obtained. They also showed that there are scenarios where the inner disk may not be able to align itself with the black hole spin direction, contrary to what has been assumed by some authors. However, the misalignment of the inner accretion disk was earlier shown by [@Lubow] in the context of a thick disk or a low viscous disk, in which the warping disturbances are transmitted through waves (not diffusively as in the case of a thin viscous disk). Recently, [@Zhuravlev] found no evidence for alignment of the inner disk in GRMHD simulations for their semi-analytic models of moderately thin prograde tilted accretion disks, but found partial alignment for retrograde disks. On the observational side, X-ray observations of the black hole H1743-322 have suggested that the inner disk could be tilted [@Ingram; @Tom]. @CB17 [hereafter CB17] solved the full steady state warped disk equation analytically for the first time, using the [@SF96] formalism and considering the contribution of the inner disk, and obtained an analytical expression for the tilt angle up to first order in Kerr parameter.
Here, we revisit the case of a tilted thin accretion disk around a Kerr black hole in the viscous regime motivated by the observations of [@Ingram; @Tom] and the theoretical investigations of [@Lodato], [@Zhuravlev] and CB17. In this work, we develop a model of the warped disk following the formalism of [@Pringle92], and study the steady state behavior of the entire disk as a function of several parameters like the Kerr parameter, inner edge disk tilt, etc., which can be useful to confront observations. We take into account the contributions of the inner disk, which were ignored in many earlier works, in our calculations. We solve the full warped disk equation (equation (6) of [@SF96]) analytically, show explicitly the incompleteness of the analytical expression obtained in CB17, and obtain the correct expression for disk tilt angle up to first order in the Kerr parameter. We numerically solve the full warped disk equation in the steady state to obtain the radial profile of the disk tilt angle, and explore how the radial profile of the tilt angle depends on different sets of parameter values. Also, as our solution is valid for the entire disk, we probe the behavior of the inner disk explicitly as a function of the parameters of the system.
This paper is organized as follows. In section \[formalism\], we derive all the equations required for the analyses roughly following the discussions in [@Pringle92] and [@SF96]. We solve the warped disk equations analytically to obtain an expression for tilt angle up to the first order in the Kerr parameter in section \[an\], and discuss the numerical setup for solving the same equations in section \[num\]. We discuss the implications of our inner boundary conditions on viscous torques in section \[vis\]. The results obtained from analytical as well as numerical computations, and a brief description of their implications are given in section \[result\]. We summarize our work in section \[sum\].
Formalism
=========
We consider a geometrically thin (i.e., the disk aspect ratio $H/R\ll1$), and a Keplerian accretion disk around a slowly rotating Kerr black hole at the center. The Kerr black hole is described by its mass $M$, and the Kerr parameter $a$. The spin axis of the black hole is directed along the $z$ axis in our coordinate system. The disk is tilted with respect to the spin axis of the black hole.
We divide the disk into circular rings of width $\Delta R$, and define surface density $\Sigma(R,t)$, radial velocity $V_R(R,t)$ and angular momentum density (angular momentum per unit surface area of the disk) $\textbf{L}(R,t)=\Sigma R^2 \Omega(R)\textbf{l}(R,t)$ on each annulus of the disk, where $\textbf{l}$ is the unit tilt vector directed normal to the plane of the disk and $\Omega(R)$ is the Keplerian angular speed. We assume the tilt angle to be small, i.e. $\textbf{l}\simeq(l_{x},l_{y},1)$, and the disk to be sufficiently viscous, i.e., $\alpha>H/R$. In this viscous regime, warp is transported diffusively in the disk [@Pap83]. However, in the opposite regime, i.e. $\alpha<H/R$ , which would not be considered in this work, warping disturbances propagate in a wave-like manner [@Lubow; @Ivanov].
The local mass, and angular momentum conservation equations in the viscous regime ($\alpha>H/R$) take the following form [@Pap83; @Pringle92] $$\label{MD}
\frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial t}+\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left(RV_R\Sigma\right)=0,$$ and $$\label{AM2}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left(\Sigma R^{2}\Omega \textbf{l}\right)+\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left(\Sigma V_R R^3 \Omega \textbf{l}\right)=\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left(\nu_1 \Sigma R^3 \Omega^{'}\textbf{l}\right)+\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left(\frac{1}{2}\nu_2 \Sigma R^3 \Omega \frac{\partial \textbf{l}}{\partial R}\right),$$ where $\nu_1$ is the viscosity associated with the azimuthal shear, i.e., $(R,\phi)$ component of shear, $\nu_2$ is the viscosity associated with the vertical shear, i.e., $(R,z)$ component of shear [@Pap83], and $\Omega^{'}=d\Omega/dR$. The first torque term on the right hand side (rhs), which acts perpendicular to the plane of the disk, appears also in the case of a flat disk (i.e., $\partial\textbf{l}/\partial R$ is zero). On the other hand, the second torque term acting in the plane of the disk arises, only when the disk is warped. The first torque term acts on the differential rotation in the plane of the disk driving the accretion process, where the second term helps to make the disk flat. The ratio between the two viscosities, i.e. viscous anisotropy $\nu_2/\nu_1$, can be shown to be related to $\alpha$ for a small amplitude warp in the following way [@Ogilvie1999] $$\label{alpha}
\frac{\nu_2}{\nu_1}=\frac{1}{2\alpha^2}.\frac{4(1+7\alpha^2)}{4+\alpha^2}.$$ In our formalism, we assume both these viscosities $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ to be constant.
The expression for radial velocity can be obtained from the above Equations (\[MD\]) and (\[AM2\]). It gives [@Pringle92] $$\label{VR}
V_R=\frac{\partial/\partial R\left(\nu_1\Sigma R^3 \Omega^{'}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\nu_2\Sigma R^3 \Omega\vert\partial \textbf{l}/\partial R\vert^2}{R\Sigma(\partial/\partial R)\left(R^2 \Omega\right)}.$$ Since we are considering the tilt angle to be small in this paper, the term $\vert\partial \textbf{l}/\partial R\vert^2$ can be dropped.
If the expression for radial velocity (equation (\[VR\])) is used to substitute the same in the local angular momentum density Equation (\[AM2\]), one gets [@Pringle92] $$\label{AM1}
\frac{\partial \textbf{L}}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left[\frac{\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left\lbrace\nu_1\Sigma R^3\left(-\Omega^{'}\right)\right\rbrace}{\Sigma\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left(R^2\Omega\right)}\textbf{L}\right]+\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left[\frac{1}{2}\nu_2 R \vert\textbf{L}\vert \frac{\partial \textbf{l}}{\partial R}\right]+\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left[\nu_1 \left(\frac{R\Omega^{'}}{\Omega}\right)\textbf{L}\right].$$ The above equation describes the evolution of angular momentum density for an annulus of the thin tilted disk in the diffusive regime. The first two terms on the right hand side of the above equation are diffusive, whereas the last term is advective [@Pringle92]. Here, we stress that, although the equation (\[AM1\]) does not emerge from the discussions of the internal hydrodynamics of the system, [@Ogilvie1999] has shown that the above equation is valid for small tilt angles and small $\alpha$ (see sections 7.1 and 7.3 of [@Ogilvie1999]) from the detailed three dimensional hydrodynamical analysis of warped viscous disk in the non-linear regime. Later, [@Price2010] have found a remarkable agreement between this analytic theory, and their numerical investigations of a warped accretion disk in viscous regime from SPH (smoothed particle hydrodynamic) simulations.
In the case of a Keplerian thin disk around a slowly rotating black hole [@Pringle92], where $$\label{omega}
\Omega(R)=\sqrt{GM}R^{-3/2},$$ and $$\label{L}
\textbf{L}(R,t)=\sqrt{GMR}\Sigma \textbf{l}(R,t),$$ the above evolution equation becomes $$\label{AM}
\frac{\partial \textbf{L}}{\partial t}=\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left[\frac{3R^{1/2}}{\Sigma}\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left(\nu_1 \Sigma R^{1/2}\right)\textbf{L}-\frac{3}{2}\nu_1 \textbf{L}+\frac{1}{2}\nu_2 R \vert \textbf{L}\vert \frac{\partial \textbf{l}}{\partial R}\right].$$
Equation (\[AM\]) describes the evolution of angular momentum density subjected to internal torques only. In order to capture the relativistic effect acting on the disk as a consequence of the presence of a Kerr black hole, we will have to add the external torque due to LT precession, given by $$\label{LT}
\frac{\partial \textbf{L}}{\partial t}=\boldsymbol{\Omega}_p\times\textbf{L},$$ to the rhs of the Equation (\[AM\]) [@Pringle92]. The precession rate $\Omega_p$ is given by $\Omega_p\approx\omega_p/R^3$ in the slow rotation limit of Kerr black hole (CB17). Here, $$\omega_p=\frac{2GJ_{\rm BH}}{c^2}=\frac{2a G^2 M^2}{c^3}=2acR_g^2,$$ where $G$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant, $c$ is the speed of light in free space, $J_{\rm BH}$ is the angular momentum of the black hole, and $R_g=GM/c^2$ is the gravitational radius.
In this paper, we are interested in studying the interplay between the viscous and LT torques in the disk in steady state, and how their relative dominance determines the essential physics of the disk. In steady state, the evolution Equation (\[AM\]) subjected to LT torque takes the following form [@SF96] $$\label{M}
\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left[\left(\frac{3R}{L}\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left(\nu_1 L\right)-\frac{3}{2}\nu_1 \right)\textbf{L}+\frac{1}{2}\nu_2 R L \frac{\partial \textbf{l}}{\partial R}\right]+\frac{\boldsymbol{\omega}_p\times\textbf{L}}{R^3}=0,$$ where we have used the expression of $L=\vert\textbf{L}\vert$ (Equation (\[L\])).
The distribution of $L(R)$ in the disk in steady state can be obtained by taking the scalar product of $\textbf{l}$ with the Equation ($\ref{M}$). It gives [@SF96] $$\frac{1}{R}\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left[R\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left(\nu_1 L\right)-\frac{1}{2}\nu_1 L\right]=0,$$ under the small tilt angle approximation (we have ignored the term $\vert\partial \textbf{l}/\partial R\vert^2$). Solving the above equation, one obtains $$\label{Ld}
L(R)=C_2 R^{1/2}-2 C_1,$$ where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are the integration constants. Upon using the Equations (\[L\]) and (\[Ld\]), one obtains $$C_2=\sqrt{GM}\Sigma+2 C_1 R^{-1/2}.$$ Now the expression for $C_2$ can be derived from the above equation upon using the boundary condition $\Sigma \rightarrow \Sigma_{\infty}$ as $R \rightarrow \infty$. It gives [@SF96] $$\label{C2}
C_2=\sqrt{GM}\Sigma_{\infty}.$$ In order to find an expression for $C_1$, we substitute the expression of $C_2$ (Equation (\[C2\])) into Equation (\[Ld\]), use the inner edge boundary condition $\Sigma(R_{\rm in})=\Sigma_{\rm in}$ [$\Sigma_{\rm in}>\Sigma_{\infty}$; @Lubow CB17], and we get $$\label{C1}
C_1=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{GMR_{\rm in}}\left(\Sigma_{\infty}-\Sigma_{\rm in}\right),$$ where $R_{\rm in}$ corresponds to the inner edge radius of the disk, which is essentially identical to the ISCO radius $R_{\rm ISCO}$ for a Kerr black hole. Upon substituting the above expressions for $C_1$ and $C_2$ into Equation (\[Ld\]), we obtain the following expression for $L(R)$ in steady state: $$\label{gl}
L(R)=\sqrt{GM}\left[R^{1/2}\Sigma_{\infty}+R^{1/2}_{\rm in}\left(\Sigma_{\rm in}-\Sigma_{\infty}\right)\right].$$ Since the inner disk was always assumed to be aligned with the black hole spin axis, the behavior of inner disk was not mostly considered earlier. Consequently, as the term $C_1$ is associated with the inner edge boundary condition, $C_1$ was mostly ignored in the steady state expression of L (equation \[gl\]).
The steady state distribution of the surface density can similarly be obtained from the above equation (\[gl\]) upon substituting the rhs by Equation (\[L\]) $$\label{sig}
\Sigma(R)=\Sigma_{\infty}+\left(R_{\rm in}/R\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\Sigma_{\rm in}-\Sigma_{\infty}\right).$$ Although the contribution of $C_1$ was mostly neglected earlier, several different functional forms of surface density have been considered. For example, [@Rebecca] assumed $\Sigma(R)$ of the form $R^{-\beta}$ where $\beta$ is a free parameter. Therefore, from Equations (\[gl\]) and (\[sig\]), we find that in steady state $L(R)\propto R^{1/2}$ and $\Sigma\propto R^{-1/2}$ as a consequence of the diffusion process driving between the two edges of the disk [@Frank].
Now substituting equation (\[Ld\]) into (\[M\]), we obtain the following equations for $l_x$ and $l_y$ (i.e., $x$ and $y$ components of tilt vector) in steady state $$\label{warp1}
\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left(3\nu_1 C_1 l_x+\frac{1}{2}\nu_2 R L \frac{\partial l_x}{\partial R}\right)=\omega_p \frac{L}{R^2}l_y,$$ and $$\label{warp2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left(3\nu_1 C_1 l_y+\frac{1}{2}\nu_2 R L \frac{\partial l_y}{\partial R}\right)=-\omega_p \frac{L}{R^2}l_x,$$ where $\boldsymbol{\omega}_p\times\textbf{l}=\left(-\omega_p l_y,\omega_p l_x,0\right)$ in our construction. We can also combine the above equations to arrive at [@SF96] $$\label{warp}
\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left(3\nu_1 C_1 W+\frac{1}{2}\nu_2 R L \frac{\partial W}{\partial R}\right)=-i\omega_p \frac{L}{R^2}W,$$ where $W=l_x+i l_y=\beta e^{i\gamma}$. Here, $\beta=\sqrt{l_x^2+l_y^2}$ and $\gamma=\tan^{-1}\left(l_y/l_x\right)$ represent the tilt angle and twist angle respectively. The Equation (\[warp\]) or Equations (\[warp1\]) and (\[warp2\]) (we would be referring them as warped disk equation(s) hereafter) encapsulate the basic features of a warped accretion disk around a spinning black hole in steady state. As the inner disk was always a priori assumed to be aligned with the black hole spin direction due to the BP effect in earlier works, the main focus was paid mostly on the physics of warped part of the disk. As a result, the terms associated with $C_1$ have been ignored in the past (except in CB17, and [@Lodato]). Our aim is to solve the full warped disk equation (\[warp\]) analytically as well as numerically with realistic boundary conditions to obtain the radial profile of the disk tilt angle, and to explore how the radial profile of the disk tilt angle in the inner as well as the outer disk depend on parameters like the Kerr parameter, viscosity etc.
Solution of the warped disk equation
====================================
Analytical Solution of the warped disk equation {#an}
-----------------------------------------------
In this section we present the analytical solution of the warped disk Equation (\[warp\]) or Equations (\[warp1\]) and (\[warp2\]). We solve the equation(s) using perturbative method, and obtain an expression for the tilt angle $\beta=\vert W \vert$ up to first order in $a$. In order to achieve this, we consider an expansion of $W$ in orders of $a$, $$W=l_x^{(0)}+i l_y^{(0)}+a\left(l_x^{(1)}+i l_y^{(1)}\right)+a^2 \left( l_x^{(2)}+i l_y^{(2)}\right)+...,$$ where $l_x^{(0)}$, $l_x^{(1)}$, $l_x^{(2)}$ and $l_y^{(0)}$, $l_y^{(1)}$, $l_y^{(2)}$ are the the zeroth, first, and second order terms of the real and complex part of $W$, respectively (see the definition after Equation (\[warp\])). Here, we consider only spinning black holes, as there is no preferred axis of a non-spinning black hole to define the tilt angle. Besides, we do not define $l_x^{(0)}$ and $l_y^{(0)}$ for exactly $a = 0$, but we define them for $a \approx 0$ (that is, $a$ is extremely small, but nonzero), which is a practical way to have a well-defined black hole spin axis to measure the tilt angle. We ignore the contribution of $l_y^{(0)}$ as the twist angle becomes negligibly small in the limit of very small LT precession (see the expression of twist angle mentioned just after equation (\[warp\])). Hence, the expression for tilt angle $\beta$ up to first order in $a$ is given by $$\label{beta_1}
\beta^{(1)}=\sqrt{\left(l_x^{(0)}\right)^2+2 a l_x^{(0)} l_x^{(1)}+2 a^2 l_x^{(0)} l_x^{(2)}+a^2 \left(l_x^{(1)}\right)^2+a^2\left(l_y^{(1)}\right)^2}.$$ Therefore, we will have to solve the warped disk Equation (\[warp\]) up to second order in $a$ in order to obtain the analytical expression of tilt angle $\beta$ up to first order in $a$ (see the equation above, which includes the second order term $l_x^{(2)}$). The expressions of $l_x^{(0)}$, $l_x^{(1)}$ and $l_y^{(1)}$ were already calculated in CB17 by solving the Equation (\[warp\]) using some specific boundary conditions. In CB17, $l_x^{(0)}$ and $al_y^{(1)}$ were designated by $W_0$ (zeroth order term in the expansion of $W$) and $B$ (imaginary part of $aW_a$, where $W_a$ is the first order term in the expansion of $W$) respectively, and $l_x^{(1)}$ is essentially the term containing $W_{a,\rm in}$, i.e., the real part of $W_{a}$ (see Equations (33) and (35) of CB17; their $A$ has a contribution from both $W_0$ and the real part of $W_{a}$). But in CB17, the authors did not calculate $l_x^{(2)}$ as they did not include the term $2 a^2 l_x^{(0)} l_x^{(2)}$ in their expression of the tilt angle up to first order in $a$ (see equations (35), (36) and (37) of CB17). Hence, the expression of $\beta$ ($=\sqrt{A^2+B^2}$ in their paper) that they got, claimed to be up to first order in $a$, is incomplete. Here, we include all the terms (i.e., all the terms present in Equation (\[beta\_1\])) required to compute the tilt angle up to the first order in $a$, and use general boundary conditions to solve the warped disk Equation (\[warp\]). Hence, we report here the new corrected analytical expression of the disk tilt angle up to first order in the Kerr parameter. We also explore the importance of the term $2 a^2 l_x^{(0)} l_x^{(2)}$, which CB17 did not include, and show the hump feature CB17 obtained is an artifact of using an incomplete expression in the section \[res1\].
### Analytical solution of the warped disk equation up to first order {#old}
Here, we briefly mention the solutions of the Equation (\[warp\]) up to the first order, as discussed in CB17, for the sake of completeness. Then, in the section \[next\], we present the detailed new calculations required for obtaining the second order term $l_x^{(2)}$ (in order to get the expression for $2 a^2 l_x^{(0)} l_x^{(2)}$), which was not considered in CB17.
The solution of the Equation (\[warp1\]) of order zero in $a$ is given by (Equation (22) of CB17) $$l_x^{(0)}=\frac{z^n\left(W_{\infty}-W_{0,\rm in}\right)+\left(W_{\rm 0,in}-W_{\infty} z^n_{\rm in}\right)}{1-z^n_{\rm in}},$$ where $$z_{\rm in}=1+\frac{2 C_1}{L(R_{\rm in})}=\frac{\Sigma_{\infty}}{\Sigma_{\rm in}},$$ and $$z=1+\frac{2C_1}{L}=\frac{z_{\rm in}\sqrt{R}}{z_{\rm in}\sqrt{R}+(1-z_{\rm in})\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}}.$$ Here, $n=6\nu_1/\nu_2$. So, we see that $n$ is inversely proportional to the viscous anisotropy $\nu_2/\nu_1$, which is related to $\alpha$ (Equation (\[alpha\])). We use the boundary conditions, $l_x^{(0)}\rightarrow W_{\infty}$ as $R\rightarrow\infty$, and $l_x^{(0)}=W_{0,\rm in}$ at $R=R_{\rm in}$ for arriving at the above solution. The Equations (\[C1\]) and (\[gl\]) are used in arriving at the expressions for $z_{\rm in}$ and $z$.
The solutions of the Equations (\[warp1\]) and (\[warp2\]) of first order in $a$ will take the following forms (Equation (33) of CB17) $$\label{lx1}
l_x^{(1)}=\frac{W^r_{a,\rm in}\left(1-z^n\right)}{1-z_{\rm in}^n},$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ly1}
l_y^{(1)} &=&\frac{W^i_{a,\rm in}\left(1-z^n\right)}{1-z_{\rm in}^n}+ \frac{8q}{\nu_2 (n^2-4)(1-z_{\rm in}^n)}.\left[-\frac{2z_{\rm in}\sqrt{R}
+\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}(1-z_{\rm in})}{R(1-z_{\rm in})\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}}. \right. \nonumber
\\
&& \left. [(n-2)(W_{0,\rm in}-W_{\infty}z_{\rm in}^n)-(n+2)(W_{\infty}-W_{0,\rm in})z^n] \right. \nonumber
\\
&&\left. +\left(\frac{1-z^n}{1-z_{\rm in}^n}.\frac{1+z_{\rm in}}{R_{\rm in}(1-z_{\rm in})}\right). \right. \nonumber
\\
&&\left. [W_{0,\rm in}((n-2)+(n+2)z_{\rm in}^n)-2nW_{\infty}z_{\rm in}^n]~\right].\end{aligned}$$ Here, $q=G^2M^2/c^3$. In order to obtain the above solutions, we use the following boundary conditions: $l_x^{(1)}(R_{\rm in})=W^r_{\rm a,in}$, $l_y^{(1)}(R_{\rm in})=W^i_{a,\rm in}$, and $l_x^{(1)}\rightarrow0$, $l_y^{(1)}\rightarrow0$ for $R\rightarrow\infty$ (which is reasonable as we do not expect the outer disk tilt to depend on the frame-dragging effect).
The solution (i.e., Equations (\[lx1\]) and (\[ly1\])) of the first order warped disk equations differ a little from the solution (Equation (33)) given in CB17. In particular, CB17 focused on the disk inner edge tilt, and thus assumed the inner edge twist to be zero. Here, we retain the disk inner edge twist term, and hence Equations (\[lx1\]) and (\[ly1\]) are more general than Equation (33) of CB17.
### Analytical solution of the second order warped disk equation {#next}
We now consider the Equation (\[warp\]) of order $a^2$ for computing the expression of $l_x^{(2)}$. As mentioned before, these calculations were not performed in CB17. For this, we first make the Equation (\[warp1\]) dimensionless using $R_g$ as the length scale, i.e. $R\rightarrow R/R_g$, and $C_1$ as the scale for angular momentum density. Upon using the above scheme, the dimensionless expression for $L$ can be given by $$L\rightarrow L/C_1=C\sqrt{R}-2,$$ where, $$C=\frac{2z_{\rm in}}{z_{\rm in}-1}\frac{1}{\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}}.$$ The Equation (\[warp1\]) of order $a^2$ takes the following dimensionless form upon implementing the above scheme: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nd}
\frac{\partial}{\partial R}\left[n l_x^{\left(2\right)}+R L \frac{\partial l_x^{\left(2\right)}}{\partial R}\right]&=&4 \xi \frac{L}{R^2}l_y^{\left(1\right)}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{L}{R^2}\left[K.(1-z^n)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{R}}.\left(F-\frac{D}{\sqrt{R}}\right).\left(H-J z^n\right)\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{constants}
H&=&(n-2)(W_{0,\rm in}-W_{\infty}z_{\rm in}^n),\ J=(n+2)(W_{\infty}-W_{0,\rm in}),\ \xi=\frac{c R_g}{\nu_2}, \nonumber\\
D&=&\frac{32\xi^2}{(n^2-4)(1-z_{\rm in}^n)},
\ F=D.\frac{2z_{\rm in}}{z_{\rm in}-1}.\frac{1}{\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}},
\ P=\frac{4\xi W_{a,\rm in}^i}{1-z_{\rm in}^n},\nonumber\\
K&=&P+D.\left[\frac{1+z_{\rm in}}{1-z_{\rm in}}.\frac{1}{R_{\rm in}.(1-z_{\rm in}^n)}.\lbrace W_{0,\rm in}((n-2)+(n+2)z_{\rm in}^n)-2nW_{\infty}z_{\rm in}^n\rbrace\right].\end{aligned}$$ Integrating the Equation (\[nd\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&n l_x^{(2)}+R L \frac{\partial l_x^{(2)}}{\partial R}=Q_1-\frac{D.H}{R^2}+\frac{2}{3}.\frac{
(C.D+2F).H}{R^{3/2}}- \frac{C.F.H-2K}{R}-\frac{2.C.K}{\sqrt{R}}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{L^2z^n}{2R^2(n-4)(n-3)(n-2)}\times\left[(n-4)\lbrace F.J.(C\sqrt{R}-2n+4)-2.K.(n-3)\sqrt{R}\rbrace\sqrt{R}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+D.J.\lbrace 12+2n^2-2n\left(5+C\sqrt{R}\right)+4C\sqrt{R}+C^2 R\rbrace\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_1$ is the integration constant. Now solving the above equation, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lx2}
l_x^{(2)}&=&Q_2\left(\frac{\sqrt{R}}{L}\right)^n+\frac{z^n}{3R^2(n-2)(n-3)(n-4)}\times\left[-\sqrt{R}(n-4)\left(6K(n-3)(C\sqrt{R}-1)\sqrt{R}\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&+&\left.\left.F.J.\left(8-4n-3C\sqrt{R}+3nC\sqrt{R}-3C^2R\right)\right)+D.J.\left(-18+n^2\left(2C\sqrt{R}-3\right)+4C\sqrt{R}\right.\right.\nonumber \\
&+&\left.\left.3C^2R+3C^3R^{3/2}-3n\left(-5+2C\sqrt{R}+C^2 R\right)\right)\right]+\frac{1}{n(n+2)(n+3)(n+4)}.\frac{1}{6R^2}.\left[D.H\right.\nonumber\\
&.&\left.\left(n^3\left(-6+4C\sqrt{R}\right)+3C^4R^2+6n^2\left(-5+2C\sqrt{R}+RC^2\right)+n\left(-36+8C\sqrt{R}+6C^2R\right.\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&+&\left.\left.\left.6C^3R^{3/2}\right)\right)+(n+4)\sqrt{R}\left(6(n+3)\sqrt{R}\left(Q_1 R(n+2)-K\left(2n\left(-1+C\sqrt{R}\right)+C^2 R\right)\right)-F.\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&.&H .\left.\left.\left(n^2\left(-8+6C\sqrt{R}\right)+3C^3R^{3/2}+2n\left(-8+3C\sqrt{R}+3C^2R\right)\right)\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_2$ is an integration constant. In order to obtain the expressions for $Q_1$ and $Q_2$, we assume the boundary condition, $l_x^{(2)}=0$ as $R\rightarrow\infty$, since we do not expect the outer edge of the disk to be affected by the frame-dragging effect. This condition, upon implementing on (\[lx2\]), gives $$Q_2=-\frac{(-C)^n.Q_1}{n}-\frac{(-C)^n}{6n(n+2)(n+3)(n+4)}.\left[3C^4.D.H-6C^2(n+3)(n+4)K-3.F.H.C^3(n+4)\right].$$ We also consider $l_x^{(2)}$ to be zero at the inner edge $R=R_{\rm in}$. This is also reasonable when $a$ is small. Using this, we obtain the following expression of $Q_1$ $$\begin{aligned}
Q_1&=&\frac{n}{1-z_{\rm in}^n}\left[\frac{z_{\rm in}^n}{6n(n+2)(n+3)(n+4)}.\left(3C^4.D.H-6C^2(n+3)(n+4)K-3F.H.C^3(n+4)\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&-&\left.\frac{z^n}{3R_{\rm in}^2(n-2)(n-3)(n-4)}\times\left[-\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}(n-4)\left(6K(n-3)(C\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}-1)\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}\right.\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&+&\left.\left.\left.F.J.\left(8-4n-3C\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}+3nC\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}-3C^2R_{\rm in}\right)\right)+D.J.\left(-18+n^2\left(2C\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}-3\right)+4C\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}\right.\right.\right.\nonumber \\
&+&\left.\left.\left.3C^2R_{\rm in}+3C^3R^{3/2}_{\rm in}-3n\left(-5+2C\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}+C^2 R_{\rm in}\right)\right)\right]-\frac{1}{n(n+2)(n+3)(n+4)}.\frac{1}{6R_{\rm in}^2}.\left[D.H\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&.&\left.\left.\left(n^3\left(-6+4C\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}\right)+3C^4R^2_{\rm in}+6n^2\left(-5+2C\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}+R_{\rm in}C^2\right)+n\left(-36+8C\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}+6C^2R_{\rm in}\right.\right.\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&+&\left.\left.\left.\left.6C^3R^{3/2}_{\rm in}\right)\right)+(n+4)\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}\left(-6(n+3)\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}K\left(2n\left(-1+C\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}\right)+C^2 R_{\rm in}\right)\right.\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&-&F.H\left. .\left.\left.\left(n^2\left(-8+6C\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}\right)+3C^3R^{3/2}_{\rm in}+2n\left(-8+3C\sqrt{R_{\rm in}}+3C^2
R_{\rm in}\right)\right)\right)\right]\right].\end{aligned}$$ Thus we derive the expressions for the quantities that are required to calculate the disk tilt angle up to linear order in $a$. One should note that all these expressions are valid up to a critical value of $a$ ($a_c$). Beyond $a_c$, the series expansion breaks down as the higher order terms become more dominant than the zeroth order term. We would discuss the regime of validity of the expression of the tilt angle (equation (\[beta\_1\])) in the section \[res2\].
Numerical Solution of the warped disk equation {#num}
----------------------------------------------
In this section, we discuss the setup for obtaining the numerical solution of the full warped disk Equations (\[warp1\]) and (\[warp2\]). We see that the Equations (\[warp1\]) and (\[warp2\]) form a set of second order coupled differential equations. In order to solve these equations, we would use the following boundary conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b1}
l_x(R_{\rm in})&=&\beta_i \cos(\gamma_i),\ l_y(R_{\rm in})=\beta_i \sin(\gamma_i),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b2}
l_x(R_{f})&=&\beta_f, \ l_y(R_{f})=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $R_f$, $\gamma_i$, $\beta_i$ and $\beta_f$ are the outer edge radius, twist angle at the inner boundary, the tilt angle at the inner edge, and the outer edge of the disk, respectively. We assume the twist angle to be zero at the outer edge of the disk as the effect of LT precession on the outer boundary is negligible. Hence, $l_y$ can be assumed to be zero at the outer edge (see the expression of twist angle below Equation (\[warp\])). As mentioned before, $R_{\rm in}$ is the ISCO radius ($R_{\rm ISCO}$) of a prograde disk, which for a Kerr black hole takes the following form ([@Teukolsky]) $$R_{\rm in}=R_{\rm ISCO}=\left[3+Z_2-\lbrace{\left(3-Z_1\right)\left(3+Z_1+2Z_2\right)\rbrace}^{1/2}\right],$$ where $Z_1=1+(1-a^2)^{1/3} \left[(1+a)^{1/3}+(1-a)^{1/3}\right]$, and $Z_2=\left(3 a^2+Z_1^2\right)^{1/2}$ ($R_{\rm in}$ has been made dimensionless using $R_g$). So, in our construction the solution of the coupled differential equations depend upon the values of $\beta_i$, $\beta_f$, and $\gamma_i$ through the boundary conditions. In this paper, we fix the values of $\beta_f$ and $\gamma_i$, and keep the value of $\beta_i$ as a free parameter. The above inner boundary condition (\[b1\]) can lead to nonzero viscous torques at the inner edge, when the surface density is nonzero at the inner boundary. We discuss such a possibility in the next section.
We derive the dimensionless versions of the Equations (\[warp1\]) and (\[warp2\]) using the scheme mentioned in the previous subsection, and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{noeq}
R\frac{\partial^2 l_x}{\partial R^2}+\left[(n+1)\frac{C_1}{L}+3/2\right]\frac{\partial l_x}{\partial R}&=&4 a \xi \frac{l_y}{R^2},\\ \nonumber
R\frac{\partial^2 l_y}{\partial R^2}+\left[(n+1)\frac{C_1}{L}+3/2\right]\frac{\partial l_y}{\partial R}&=&-4 a \xi \frac{l_x}{R^2}.\end{aligned}$$ We now solve the above Equations (\[noeq\]) subjected to the boundary conditions mentioned in (\[b1\]) and (\[b2\]). We see from the above equations that the ratio $aM/\nu_2$ ($\nu_2$ and $M$ appear in $\xi$) captures the essence of the problem.
Viscous torques at the inner boundary {#vis}
-------------------------------------
In this section, we discuss the implications of our inner boundary conditions on viscous torques. As discussed in section \[formalism\], there are two viscous torques acting on the accretion disk, one acting perpendicular to the disk ($\textbf{G}_1$), and the other in the plane of the disk ($\textbf{G}_2$). The first torque can be given by [@Pap83; @Nixon] $$\label{per}
\textbf{G}_1=2\pi R\nu_1 \Sigma R \Omega^{'} R \textbf{l}.$$ Using the expressions of $\Omega$ (Equation (\[omega\])) and angular momentum density (Equation (\[L\])) for a Keplerian disk, we can arrive at the following expression of $\textbf{G}_1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\textbf{G}_1&=&-3\pi \nu_1 \Sigma \sqrt{GM} R^{1/2} \textbf{l}\nonumber\\
&=&-3\pi \nu_1 L(R) \textbf{l}.\end{aligned}$$ Since in our formalism $L(R)$ and $\Sigma(R)$ are nonzero at the inner edge (see the Equations (\[b1\]), (\[sig\]) and (\[gl\]), and the text after Equation (\[C2\])), we see from the above equation that the $x$ and $y$ components of the torque $\textbf{G}_1$ vanish (although, the $z$ component of $\textbf{G}_1$ remains nonzero) at the inner boundary only when the tilt angle at the disk inner edge is zero. In this paper, we also consider the scenario, in which the inner edge tilt angle is nonzero. In such a case, even the $x$ and $y$ components of the torque $\textbf{G}_1$ do not vanish at the inner boundary.
Now we discuss the implication of the disk inner edge tilt on the torque $\textbf{G}_2$, which arises only if the disk is warped. This torque can be given by [@Pap83; @Nixon] $$\label{par}
\textbf{G}_2=\pi R\nu_2\Sigma \Omega R^2 \frac{\partial \textbf{l}}{\partial R}.$$ Again, using the Equations (\[omega\]) and (\[L\]) for $\Omega$ and angular momentum density respectively for a Keplerian disk, we can arrive at the following expression of $\textbf{G}_2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\textbf{G}_2&=&\pi R\nu_2\Sigma(R) \sqrt{GM} R^{1/2}\frac{\partial \textbf{l}}{\partial R}\nonumber\\
&=&\pi \nu_2 R L(R) \frac{\partial \textbf{l}}{\partial R}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\Sigma(R)$ and $L(R)$ do not vanish at $R_{\rm in}$ in our formalism (see above), the $x$ and $y$ components of $\textbf{G}_2$ are zero at the inner edge only when the corresponding components of $\partial \textbf{l}/\partial R$ vanish at the inner boundary. Note that $\partial \textbf{l}/\partial R$ at $R_{\rm in}$ is zero when the inner part of the disk is aligned with the black hole spin equator, but is nonzero for a non-aligned inner disk, even when the inner edge tilt angle is zero.
We stress that the inner boundary conditions we choose both for analytical and numerical calculations are quite general, and we do not invoke any additional constraints on the inner edge, like that considered in [@Pringle92] and [@Lodato] to maintain an accreting torque-free inner boundary. The nonzero viscous torque at the inner boundary has been discussed earlier in [@Kulkarni],[@Penna], [@Zhu], and [@McClintock].
Results and Discussion {#result}
======================
In this section, we first discuss the quantitative differences between our analytical radial profiles of the disk tilt angle, and the same mentioned in CB17. Then, we explore the validity of the numerical results by comparing the same with that obtained from analytical calculations, and up to what extent the analytical results remain relevant. Finally, we present numerically computed radial profiles of the disk tilt angle for various sets of parameter values, and discuss the implications of the results.
![Radial profiles of the disk tilt angle, including and excluding the term $2a^2l_x^{(0)}l_x^{(2)}$ as given in the Equation (\[beta\_1\]). The parameter values ($a=0.007$, $M=10M_{\odot}$, $n=6$, $\nu_1=\nu_2=10^{14}$ $\rm cm^2$ $\rm s^{-1}$ and $z_{\rm in}=0.75$) are chosen in accordance with CB17. $W_{0,\rm in}=0^{\circ}$ for the left panel and $=8^{\circ}$ for the right panel (see section \[res1\] for details).](compn0 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Radial profiles of the disk tilt angle, including and excluding the term $2a^2l_x^{(0)}l_x^{(2)}$ as given in the Equation (\[beta\_1\]). The parameter values ($a=0.007$, $M=10M_{\odot}$, $n=6$, $\nu_1=\nu_2=10^{14}$ $\rm cm^2$ $\rm s^{-1}$ and $z_{\rm in}=0.75$) are chosen in accordance with CB17. $W_{0,\rm in}=0^{\circ}$ for the left panel and $=8^{\circ}$ for the right panel (see section \[res1\] for details).](compn1 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
\[fig1\]
In order to discuss the behavior of analytically as well as numerically obtained radial profiles of disk tilt angle, we have to choose suitable values of different parameters relevant to the astronomical scenario we are considering. Since in this paper we are mostly interested in the case of Galactic accreting black holes, we choose the mass of the black hole in the range of $5-15 M_{\odot}$ ([@Fragos]). We consider the viscosity $\nu_2$ in the range $10^{14}-10^{15}$ $\rm cm^2$ $\rm s^{-1}$ ([@Frank]), a range of $0.0012-0.94$ for $n$, which translates to the range $0.01-0.4$ for $\alpha$ ([@King]) (Equation (\[alpha\]) has been used for calculating the range of $\alpha$), and a range of $0.3-0.75$ for $z_{\rm in}$ (as in our formalism $\Sigma_{\rm in}>\Sigma_{\infty}$). We set the inner edge twist and outer edge tilt to $5^\circ$ and $10^\circ$, respectively, throughout the paper. We consider $\beta_i$ as a free parameter, and use the range $0^\circ-10^\circ$ for the purpose of demonstration. Also in this paper we take into account only the case of prograde rotation $(a>0)$.
![Relative contributions of the terms present in the expression of the tilt angle (Equation \[beta\_1\]) for two different initial tilt angles (also considered in CB17 for demonstration). We use the same parameter values that have been used in Figure (\[fig1\]). All the quantities (e.g. $l_x^{(2)}$) in each term are expressed in degrees. The disk inner edge tilt angle in the left panel and right panel are $0^{\circ}$ and $8^{\circ}$ respectively (see section \[res1\] for details).[]{data-label="fig2"}](compn20 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Relative contributions of the terms present in the expression of the tilt angle (Equation \[beta\_1\]) for two different initial tilt angles (also considered in CB17 for demonstration). We use the same parameter values that have been used in Figure (\[fig1\]). All the quantities (e.g. $l_x^{(2)}$) in each term are expressed in degrees. The disk inner edge tilt angle in the left panel and right panel are $0^{\circ}$ and $8^{\circ}$ respectively (see section \[res1\] for details).[]{data-label="fig2"}](compn2 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Comparison between analytical results obtained in CB17 and our analysis {#res1}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned earlier in the section \[an\], the expression of the tilt angle obtained in CB17 is incomplete, as the term $2a^2l_x^{(0)}l_x^{(2)}$ was ignored. In order to appreciate the significance of this term, we compare the radial profiles of the disk tilt angle in Figure \[fig1\] obtained by including this term, and without including this term. We also consider same range of the parameters used in CB17 for this purpose, and perform the comparison for two different inner edge tilt angles ($W_{0,\rm in}$). The mismatch between the results can be seen to be severe for nonzero $W_{0,\rm in}$, whereas for the zero inner edge tilt angle, the tilt angle profile remains qualitatively the same to some extent. We find that the inclusion of the term $2a^2l_x^{(0)}l_x^{(2)}$ replaces the hump part of the radial profile as reported in CB17 with a dip. To probe this difference closely, we have compared the contributions of the term $2a^2l_x^{(0)}l_x^{(2)}$ along with the terms $a^2(l_y^{(1)})^2$ and $(l_x^{(0)})^2$ in Figure \[fig2\], for the same parameter values used in Figure \[fig1\], to check their relative dominance. We see that the term $2a^2l_x^{(0)}l_x^{(2)}$ completely suppresses the effect of the term involving $l_y^{(1)}$, which is responsible for the hump. This is exactly why we find a dip instead of a hump reported in CB17. The results match qualitatively for the case, when the tilt angle at the inner edge is zero, as the higher order terms are quite smaller than the zeroth order term for this particular scenario than the cases for which inner edge tilt angle is nonzero. We also check that the other two terms $a^2\left(l_x^{\left(1\right)}\right)^2$ and $2al_x^{(1)}l_x^{(0)}$ (see the terms present in equation (\[beta\_1\])), which have been set to zero for the demonstration purposes in CB17, do not change the result as their contributions are quite small compared to the ones mentioned in Figure \[fig2\].
![Radial profiles of the disk tilt angle obtained using the analytical equation (\[beta\_1\]), and by numerically solving the warped disk equations (\[noeq\]) for $a=0.05$ and two different disk inner edge tilt angles ($0^\circ$ for the left panel and $5^\circ$ for the right panel). The other parameter values are $M=10M_{\odot}$, $W_{a,\rm in}^r=1^{\circ}$, $W_{a,\rm in}^i=1^{\circ}$, $\nu_2=10^{15}$ $\rm cm^2 $ $\rm s^{-1}$, $n=0.25$ and $z_{\rm in}=0.75$. In the case of the numerical result, we have to specify the disk inner edge twist angle, and we choose $\gamma_i=1^{\circ}$ (see section \[res2\] for details).[]{data-label="fig3"}](compn251 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Radial profiles of the disk tilt angle obtained using the analytical equation (\[beta\_1\]), and by numerically solving the warped disk equations (\[noeq\]) for $a=0.05$ and two different disk inner edge tilt angles ($0^\circ$ for the left panel and $5^\circ$ for the right panel). The other parameter values are $M=10M_{\odot}$, $W_{a,\rm in}^r=1^{\circ}$, $W_{a,\rm in}^i=1^{\circ}$, $\nu_2=10^{15}$ $\rm cm^2 $ $\rm s^{-1}$, $n=0.25$ and $z_{\rm in}=0.75$. In the case of the numerical result, we have to specify the disk inner edge twist angle, and we choose $\gamma_i=1^{\circ}$ (see section \[res2\] for details).[]{data-label="fig3"}](compn252 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Same as Figure \[fig3\], with the exception of $a=0.08$ (see section \[res2\] for the discussion related to the panels).[]{data-label="fig4"}](compn253 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Same as Figure \[fig3\], with the exception of $a=0.08$ (see section \[res2\] for the discussion related to the panels).[]{data-label="fig4"}](compn254 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![The upper limit of the Kerr parameter $a_u$ (up to which the analytical result matches with the numerical result within $10\%$) for three different masses of the black hole against $\nu_2$. Other parameter values are $\beta_i=5^{\circ}$, $n=0.25$, and $z_{\rm in}=0.75$. The curves depend very weakly upon these latter mentioned parameters (see section \[res2\] for details).[]{data-label="fig5a"}](m5){width="49.00000%"}
Comparison between analytical and numerical results {#res2}
---------------------------------------------------
Now we compare the radial profile of the disk tilt angle obtained using the analytical expression (\[beta\_1\]) with the same obtained by numerically solving the warped disk Equations (\[noeq\]). We also like to find the critical value of the Kerr parameter $a_c$, up to which the analytical expression is valid, and the upper limit of the Kerr parameter $a_u$, up to which the analytical result matches with the numerical result within $10\%$. The critical value of the Kerr parameter $a_c$ depends strongly on the values of $\nu_2$ and $M$ as the dominance of the terms $l_y^{(1)}$ and $2a^2l_x^{(0)}l_x^{(2)}$ (main contributor to $\beta^{(1)}$ apart from $l_x^{(0)}$, see the section \[res1\] for details) are controlled by $\nu_2$ or $M$ through $\xi$ or $q$ (see the Equations (\[ly1\]) and (\[lx2\])). When $\nu_2=10^{15}$ $\rm cm^2$ $\rm s^{-1}$, the analytical expression remains valid up to $a\sim0.08$, whereas for $\nu_2=10^{14}$ $\rm cm^2$ $\rm s^{-1}$ it remains defined up to $a\sim0.008$ for $M=10M_{\odot}$. Beyond this value of $a_c$, the higher order terms become more dominant than the zeroth order term. The upper limit of the Kerr parameter $a_u$ also similarly depends upon $\nu_2$ and $M$. When $\nu_2=10^{15}$ $\rm cm^2$ $\rm s^{-1}$, the numerically obtained radial profile matches well (within $\sim 10\%$) with the same obtained using analytical expression (\[beta\_1\]) up to $a\sim0.05$ (see Figure \[fig3\]), beyond which the mismatch becomes prominent (see Figure \[fig4\] where $a=0.08$).
![Radial profiles of the disk tilt angle for different values of the Kerr parameter $a$ ($\beta_i=$ $0^{\circ}$ for the left panel and $5^{\circ}$ for the right panel) for $\nu_2=10^{14}$ $\rm cm^2$ $s^{-1}$. The other parameter values are $M=10M_{\odot}$, $n=0.25$, and $z_{\rm in}=0.75$ (see section \[res3\] for details).[]{data-label="fig5"}](nu140 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Radial profiles of the disk tilt angle for different values of the Kerr parameter $a$ ($\beta_i=$ $0^{\circ}$ for the left panel and $5^{\circ}$ for the right panel) for $\nu_2=10^{14}$ $\rm cm^2$ $s^{-1}$. The other parameter values are $M=10M_{\odot}$, $n=0.25$, and $z_{\rm in}=0.75$ (see section \[res3\] for details).[]{data-label="fig5"}](nu145 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
For $\nu_2=10^{14}$ $\rm cm^2$ $s^{-1}$ and $M=10M_{\odot}$, the analytical result matches with the numerical result up to $10\%$ for $a\lesssim0.005$. To probe this limit more closely, we plot $a_u$ against $\nu_2$ for three different values of $M$ (Figure \[fig5a\]), and this plot elucidates the relation among these three quantities.
We see that the analytical result is valid only for very small $a$ values. Therefore, numerical computation, which is valid also for large $a$ values, is required to confront the observations. The analytical calculation, however, is important to gain an insight into the system, and to test the numerical results for the same parameter values.
![Same as Figure \[fig5\], with the exception of $\nu_2=10^{15}$ $\rm cm^2$ s$^{-1}$ (see section \[res3\] for details).[]{data-label="fig6"}](nu150 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Same as Figure \[fig5\], with the exception of $\nu_2=10^{15}$ $\rm cm^2$ s$^{-1}$ (see section \[res3\] for details).[]{data-label="fig6"}](nu155 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Radial profiles of the disk tilt angle for different values of $\nu_2$ ($\beta_i=$ $0^{\circ}$ for the left panel and $5^{\circ}$ for the right panel). The other parameter values are $a=0.2$, $M=10M_{\odot}$, $n=0.25$, and $z_{\rm in}=0.75$ (see section \[res3\] for the details).[]{data-label="fig7a"}](varynu2 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Radial profiles of the disk tilt angle for different values of $\nu_2$ ($\beta_i=$ $0^{\circ}$ for the left panel and $5^{\circ}$ for the right panel). The other parameter values are $a=0.2$, $M=10M_{\odot}$, $n=0.25$, and $z_{\rm in}=0.75$ (see section \[res3\] for the details).[]{data-label="fig7a"}](varynu3 "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
Numerically computed radial profiles of the disk tilt angle and their implications {#res3}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We investigate in detail the behavior of the tilt angle radial profile as a function of the parameters $a$, $\beta_i$, $\nu_2$ and $n$. As discussed earlier, the interplay between the LT torque (controlled by the parameters $M$, $a$ and $\beta_i$) and viscous torque ($\bf{G_2}$) in the plane of the disk (controlled by $\nu_2$) strongly decides the tilt profile of the disk. A higher Kerr parameter ($a$) value implies a stronger LT torque, for fixed values of other parameters. Hence, for a higher $a$, the angle between the inner disk angular momentum vector and the black hole spin axis is smaller (see Figure \[fig5\] and Figure \[fig6\]).
![Radial profiles of the disk tilt angle for different values of the disk inner edge tilt angle $\beta_i$. The other parameter values are $a=0.3$, $M=10M_{\odot}$, $\nu_2=10^{15}$ $\rm cm^2$ $s^{-1}$, $n=0.25$ and $z_{\rm in}=0.75$. The vertical line refers to the warp radius as estimated by the relation $\omega_p/\nu_2$. This figure exhibits the dip feature, and also there is a nonzero tilt at the inner disk for all the values of $\beta_i$ (see section \[res3\] for details).[]{data-label="fig7"}](varytilt){width="49.00000%"}
But this tilt angle also depends on $\nu_2$, since a higher $\nu_2$ value would imply a larger viscous torque, which would alleviate the effect of the stronger LT torque (see Figure \[fig7a\]). For example, when $\nu_2=10^{14}$ $\rm cm^2$ $s^{-1}$ (see Figure \[fig5\]), we find that the alignment of the disk with the black hole equatorial plane occurs for $a\gtrsim0.3$, whereas for $\nu_2=10^{15}$ $\rm cm^2$ $s^{-1}$ (see Figure \[fig6\]) this alignment occurs for $a\gtrsim0.8$. These show that the competition between LT torque and viscous torque determines the alignment of the disk.
![Radial profiles of the disk tilt angle for different values of $\alpha$ or $n$. The other parameter values are $a=0.1$, $M=10M_{\odot}$, $\nu_2=10^{14}$ $\rm cm^2$ $s^{-1}$, $z_{\rm in}=0.3$, and $\beta_i=5^{\circ}$ (see section \[res3\] for details).[]{data-label="fig8"}](varyn){width="49.00000%"}
Suppose the inner part of the disk is partially aligned for a set of parameter values. In such a case, as the above discussion indicates, the radius $R_{\rm align}$, up to which the disk remains aligned, is higher for a higher value of the Kerr parameter. Note that, in our computation, we use $R_{\rm align}$ as the radius up to which the tilt angle is less than 0.01 degree (implying an alignment for practical purposes). On the other hand, the characteristic warp radius $R_{\rm warp}$, inside which the LT effect dominates, is defined as the distance at which the timescale for warp diffusion (i.e., $R^2/\nu_2$) equals the local LT precession timescale (i.e., $R^3/\omega_p$) [@SF96; @Lodato]. This gives $$\label{warping}
R_{\rm warp}=\frac{\omega_p}{\nu_2}.$$ The alignment radius was approximated earlier by the warp radius in various works [e.g., @Natarajan; @Martin], and the expression for $R_{\rm warp}$ was used in [@Martin] to calculate the alignment radius for the X-ray binary V4641 Sgr. But, in reality, the disk can remain significantly tilted at $R_{\rm warp}$. For example, according to the solution of [@SF96], the tilt angle at this position is $\sim0.13$ times the tilt angle at the disk outer edge, although their solution may not be valid at the inner disk. The relation between $R_{\rm align}$ and $R_{\rm warp}$ was found to be $R_{\rm align}=0.165R_{\rm warp}$ by [@Armitage], from comparing their numerical computations with the Equation (\[warping\]) (although [@Armitage] did not use the term $R_{\rm warp}$ explicitly). Note that [@Armitage] defined $R_{\rm align}$ as the radius up to which the tilt angle is small, but the value was not given. We find this proportionality factor to be roughly $0.094$ from our computations.
In this context of disk alignment, here we qualitatively compare our results with those of [@Lodato]. Lodato and Pringle (2006) discussed their results in two regimes when $R_{\rm warp}>>R_{\rm in}$ (i.e., large warp radius case) and $R_{\rm warp}\simeq R_{\rm in}$ (i.e., small warp radius case). When the warp radius is large and $\nu_2/\nu_1$ is smaller, they found their tilt angle radial profile to deviate more from the same derived by [@SF96]. This is consistent with our work in the following way. The term associated with $C_1$ in the equation (\[warp\]), which was ignored in [@SF96], is proportional to $(n+1)$ (see the term associated with $C_1$ in the equation (\[noeq\])). Hence, for a higher value of $n$, implying a lower value of $\nu_2/\nu_1$, the deviation from the results obtained in [@SF96] is expected to be higher. When the warp radius is small, [@Lodato] found from their numerical investigations that the inner disk could be tilted with respect to the black hole spin. This result is similar to what we found, as smallness of warp radius implies a weak LT torque (for a fixed $\nu_2$; see the equation (\[warping\])) or a strong viscous torque (for a fixed $a$), both would imply an inner disk tilt, as discussed above. The scaling relation mentioned above, i.e., $R_{\rm align}=0.094R_{\rm warp}$, is also in line with this.
Now we explore how the radial profile of the disk tilt angle is affected due to different choices of inner edge tilt angles, and $\alpha$ parameters (or $n$) of the disk. In the right panels of the Figures \[fig3\] and \[fig4\], which are for nonzero disk inner edge tilt angle ($\beta_i$), one finds a dip in the radial profile for the disk tilt angle in the analytical as well as numerical results. We explore the $\beta_i$ dependence of the plots more closely in Figure \[fig7\]. We find that although the depth of the dip (i.e., the difference between $\beta_i$ and tilt angle at the dip) takes a higher value for higher $\beta_i$, the disk tilt angle profiles assume similar shapes far from the black hole. We note that, as $\beta_i$ increases, the dominance of the LT torque near the disk inner edge also increases. This is because the strength of the LT torque depends also on the relative mismatch between the black hole spin axis and the disk angular momentum vector (see the equation (\[LT\])). Hence, for a higher value of $\beta_i$, the LT torque is stronger near the inner edge, and it sharply reduces the mismatch in the disk orientation. The disk tilt angle attains a minimum value, which may not be zero, depending on the magnitudes of $\nu_2$, $a$ and $M$. However, the LT torque becomes weak far from the black hole, and the viscous torque plays the main role in deciding the radial tilt profile, resulting in similar profiles for different values of $\beta_i$.
In Figure \[fig8\], we study the variation of the tilt angle profile for two different values of $n$ or $\alpha$. We find that the warp is slightly shifted towards the black hole for a higher value of $n$ (a lower value of $\alpha$ or a higher value of $\nu_1$ as $\nu_2$ is fixed), when the other parameters are fixed. We also find that the parameter $n$ or $\alpha$ (or $\nu_1$) affects the radial profile of the disk tilt angle weakly.
Summary and conclusions {#sum}
=======================
In this paper, we analytically solve the prograde warped accretion disk equation in the viscous regime for a slowly spinning Kerr black hole, and obtain an analytical expression for disk tilt angle up to the first order in Kerr parameter $a$. We take into account the contribution from the inner disk, which has been ignored in most earlier works. We also solve the warped disk equation numerically, and examine to what extent the analytical results, within their regime of validity, capture the essential features of this scenario by comparing the same with numerical results. We finally analyze the behavior of the radial profile of the disk tilt angle as a function of several parameters using our numerical results. The alignment of the inner disk strongly depends upon the relative dominance between LT torque (controlled mainly by $a$ and $M$), and viscous torque in the plane of the disk (controlled by $\nu_2$). We find that the inner disk could even be entirely misaligned for a reasonable range of parameter values, and report an empirical relationship between the alignment radius and the warp radius, which could be used to confront observations. There exists a critical value of Kerr parameter $a$, mainly depending upon the values of $\nu_2$ and $M$, beyond which the disk starts aligning itself with the black hole spin direction, i.e., the BP effect switches on.
The inner accretion disk can play an important role to probe the physics of the strong gravity regime. A tilt in the inner disk with respect to the black hole spin axis can affect the spectral and timing properties of the X-ray emission through the LT precession, and hence can be particularly useful to study this regime. A strong connection between the spectral (Fe K$\alpha$ line) and timing (quasi-periodic oscillation or QPO) features of X-ray emission has been reported in [@Miller], in which they showed that the flux of the spectral Fe K$\alpha$ emission line from the Galactic black hole GRS 1915+105 varies with the phase of low frequency QPOs in X-rays. Their results indicate that both the observed QPO and Fe K$\alpha$ line could originate due to LT precession of the warped inner accretion disk. Later, [@Schnittman] developed a simple model based on an inclined ring of hot gas orbiting around a Kerr black hole to explain the above mentioned connection, and used their model to make predictions on black hole parameters, spectral features, and light curves of similar X-ray binaries. Recently, [@Ingram] have also reported that the broad relativistic Fe line centroid energy from the accreting black hole H1743–322 systematically varies with the phase of a QPO. This could also be explained assuming LT precession of a tilted thin inner accretion disk, which being a reflector, can give rise to the observed Fe line (e.g., see sections 6.1 and 6.3 of [@Tom]). Therefore, as our results show that the inner disk may remain tilted for a reasonable range of parameter values, our solution of the radial profile of the disk tilt angle could be useful to observationally probe the strong gravity region around black holes.\
C. C. gratefully acknowledges support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), Grant No. 11750110410.
Bardeen, J. M., Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1972, ApJ, 178, 347 Bardeen, J. M., & Petterson, J. A. 1975, ApJ, 195, L65 Begelman, M. C., King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 399 Casassus S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 92 Chakraborty, C., & Bhattacharyya, S. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 3062 (CB17) Chen, L., Wu, S., & Yuan, F. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1900. Chiang, E. I., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2004, ApJ, 607, 913 Fragos, T., & McClintock, J. E. 2015, ApJ, 800, 17 Frank, J., King, A. R., & Raine, D. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics, 3rd Edition, Cambridge University Press Hatchett, S. P., Begelman, M. C., & Sarazin, C. L. 1981, ApJ, 247, 677 Herrnstein, J. R., Greenhill, L. J., & Moran, J. M. 1996, ApJL, 468, L17 Ingram, A., van der Klis, M., Middleton, M., Done, C., Altamirano, D., Heil, L., Uttley, P., & Axelsson, M. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1967 Ingram, A., van der Klis, M., Middleton, M., Done, C., Altamirano, D., & Uttley, P. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2979 Ivanov, P.B, & Illarianov, A.F 1997, MNRAS, 285, 394 King, A. R., Pringle, J. E., & Livio, M. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1740 Kulkarni, A. K. et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1183. Larwood, J. D., Nelson, R. P., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Terquem C. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 597 Lense, J., & Thirring, H. 1918, Phys. Z., 19, 156 Lodato, G., & Price, J. D. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1212 Lodato, G., & Pringle, J. E. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1196 Lodato, G., & Facchini S. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 2157 Lubow, S., Ogilvie, G. I., & Pringle, J. 2002, MNRAS, 337, 706 Martin, R. G., Reis, R. C., & Pringle, J. E. 2008, MNRAS, 391, L15 Martin, R. G., Pringle, J. E., & Tout, C. A. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1617 McClintock, J.E., Narayan, R., & Steiner, J.F 2014, SSRv, 183, 295 Miller, J. M., & Homan, J. 2005, ApJL, 618, L107 Natarajan, P., & Armitage, J. P. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 961 Natarajan, P., & Pringle, J. E. 1998, ApJL, 506, L97 Nixon, C., & King, A. R. 2016, LNP, 905, 45 Ogilvie, G. I. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 557 Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Pringle, J. E. 1983, MNRAS, 202, 1181 Papaloizou, J. C. B., Terquem, C., & Lin, D. N. C. 1995, ApJ, 438, 841 Penna, R.F, Sadowski, A., & McKinney, J.C. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 684 Petterson, J. A. 1977a, ApJ, 214, 550 Petterson, J. A. 1977b, ApJ, 218, 783 Pringle, J. E. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 811 Pringle, J. E. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 357 Scheuer, P. A. G., & Feiler, R. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 291 Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, AA, 24, 337 Schnittman, J. D., Homan, J., & Miller, J. M. 2006, ApJ, 642, 420. Wijers, R. A. M. J., & Pringle, J. E. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 207 Zhuravlev, V. V., Ivanov, P. B., Fragile, P. C., & Teixeira, D. M. 2014, ApJ, 796, 104 Zhu, Y. et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2504
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Quantum information protected by the topology of the storage medium is expected to exhibit long coherence times. Another feature are topologically protected gates generated through braiding of Majorana bound states. However, braiding requires structures with branched topological segments which have inherent difficulties in the semiconductor-superconductor heterostructures now believed to host Majorana bound states. In this paper, we construct quantum bits taking advantage of the topological protection and non-local properties of Majorana bound states in a network of parallel wires, but without relying on braiding for quantum gates. The elementary unit is made from three topological wires, two wires coupled by a trivial superconductor and the third acting as an interference arm. Coulomb blockade of the combined wires spawns a fractionalized spin, non-locally addressable by quantum dots used for single-qubit readout, initialization, and manipulation. We describe how the same tools allow for measurement-based implementation of the Clifford gates, in total making the architecture universal. Proof-of-principle demonstration of topologically protected qubits using existing techniques is therefore within reach.'
author:
- Stephan Plugge
- Asbjørn Rasmussen
- Reinhold Egger
- Karsten Flensberg
title: Majorana box qubits
---
Majorana bound states (MBSs) in topological superconductors (TSs) have been identified as promising candidates for topological carriers of quantum information [@Nayak2008; @Alicea2012; @Leijnse2012; @Beenakker2013]. They may be realized as end states of proximitized semiconductor nanowires, and experimental evidence for their existence is rapidly mounting [@Mourik2012; @Higginbotham2015; @Albrecht2016; @Zhang2016]. The topological nature of MBS systems gives rise to quantum information being stored in a non-local state, not measurable by local operators. This property is intimately connected to non-Abelian braiding of MBSs, meaning that readout results depend on the order in which MBSs are brought together and measured [@Nayak2008; @Clarke2011; @Alicea2011; @Hyart2013; @Aasen2016]. Experimentally, however, the required branching of topological wires ($T$-junctions) is challenging. The question how topological qubits could otherwise be verified naturally arises. Here our purpose is to design circuits allowing for topologically protected storage and manipulation of quantum information in structures without branched topological segments.
{width="2.1\columnwidth"}
The core of our design is the Majorana box qubit (MBQ) formed in a floating superconducting island with two long TS nanowires, marked $TS$ in Fig. \[fig1\](a). This structure is experimentally attractive because the parallel wires can be driven simultaneously into the TS phase by a uniform magnetic field, and because the connecting transverse superconductor ($S$) can be a conventional $s$-wave superconductor. In addition, the designs require reference arms that can be non-proximitized semiconductors, and hence there are no $T$-junctions of topological superconducting wire segments. The wire geometry is natural for interfacing the qubit with quantum dots, employed to read out and manipulate the stored quantum information. The quantum dots can be defined by gates at the segments of the wire which are not part of the box, see Fig. 1. The parity of the MBQ is protected by its charging energy which is supposed to be large. It is important to note that the charging energy scales linearly $\sim 1/L_W$ with the size of the box, while the residual energy splittings of the Majorana modes are exponentially suppressed for increasing TS wire length $L_W$. Moreover, for the quantum dot schemes discussed below, the charge of the isolated MBQ system is fixed, thus protecting the qubit from quasiparticle poisoning.
The MBQ has four MBSs with corresponding Majorana operators $\gamma_j=\gamma_j^\dagger$. Under strong Coulomb blockade, the fermion parity of the island is a good quantum number, $\gamma_1\gamma_2\gamma_3\gamma_4=\pm 1$, and with negligible Majorana overlaps the four Majorana operators correspond to a degenerate spin-$1/2$ degree of freedom [@Beri2012; @Altland2013; @Landau2016; @Plugge2016]. Pauli operators for the MBQ can be represented as $$\label{pauli}
{\hat{x}}=i\gamma_1\gamma_2,\quad{\hat{y}}=i\gamma_3\gamma_1,\quad{\hat{z}}=i\gamma_2\gamma_3,$$ expressing the fractionalization of spin into spatially separated MBSs. This spin also appears in the topological Kondo effect [@Beri2012; @Altland2013] and enters the definition of stabilizers in Majorana surface codes [@Landau2016; @Plugge2016]. Its non-local topological origin suggests excellent qubit properties, where the MBQ state can be addressed by electron tunneling via weak links between MBSs and either normal leads, Fig. \[fig1\](a), or quantum dots, Figs. \[fig2\](a,d). Coulomb blockade permits only cotunneling processes, where an electron enters the box through tunneling link $i$ and exits via link $j$. The effective tunneling amplitude then contains a Majorana bilinear $i\gamma_{i}\gamma_j$ [@Beri2012; @Altland2013; @Landau2016; @Plugge2016] amounting to one of the Pauli operators in equation [(\[pauli\])]{}.
The simplest MBQ experiment involves interferometric conductance measurements, which provide a natural way to qubit readout and/or initialization in the Pauli eigenbasis [@Landau2016; @Plugge2016]. The setup is shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a) and we model it by the Hamiltonian $$\label{Ha}
H_a = H_\mathrm{leads}+\left[\left(t_0+t_1 {\hat{z}}\right) d^\dagger_{1} d^{}_{2} + {\mathrm{h.c.}}\right],$$ where $H_\mathrm{leads}$ describes the two uncoupled leads with density of states $\nu_{1,2}$ and electron operators $d_{1,2}$ near the respective tunnel contact. The cotunneling amplitude via the MBQ is $t_1{\hat{z}}$, and $t_0$ refers to tunneling through the reference arm in Fig. \[fig1\](a).
In \[CondreadoutApp\], we discuss measurement-induced decoherence [@Bonderson2007] in this setup, showing that on time scales $t>1/V$, where $V$ is the bias voltage, conductance measurements are projective. There are two possible conductance outcomes, cf. Fig. \[fig1\](b), $$\label{conductance1}
G_{z}=\frac{e^2}{h}\nu_1\nu_2\left|t_0+ t_1 z\right|^2,$$ and the interference term enables readout of the ${\hat{z}}$-eigenvalue $z=\pm 1$. After the measurement, the MBQ is prepared in the eigenstate determined by the conductance outcome. Since phase coherence in the reference arm requires small $V$, and cotunneling conductances are small, we expect the current-based readout schemes to be limited by the time needed for data accumulation.
{width="2\columnwidth"}
We next discuss quantum-dot-based readouts relying on well-known techniques with anticipated faster measurement times compared to the conductance readout. In the setup of Fig. \[fig2\](a), electrons can tunnel back and forth between the two dots either through the box (amplitude $t_1{\hat{z}}$) or via the reference arm ($t_0$). The corresponding Rabi oscillation period thus depends on the qubit state and its measurement allows for MBQ readout. Similar ideas have been implemented in spin qubit systems [@Petta2005] and proposed for single Majorana wires [@Hoving2016]. Assuming that the dots have well-resolved single-particle levels, we include only one level per dot (spin-degenerate or spin-polarized). For a single electron occupying the two dots, corresponding to the basis $\{ |1_d\rangle , |2_d\rangle\}$ with detuning energy $\pm \varepsilon$, the system is described by $$\label{Hchargereadout}
H_b =H_s + \left(\begin{array}{cc} \varepsilon & t_0+t_1{\hat{z}}\\
t^*_0+t^*_1{\hat{z}}\, & \, -\varepsilon + \lambda \hat{Q}_s
\end{array}\right),$$ where $H_s$ models a charge sensor with weak capacitive coupling $\lambda$ between its charge, described by the operator $\hat{Q}_s$, and the dot-2 charge operator $\hat{q}_2=|2_d\rangle\langle 2_d|$.
The readout protocol in Fig. \[fig2\](b) is controlled by $\varepsilon(t)$, i.e., through dot gate voltages. Starting in dot state $|2_d\rangle$ at $t=0$, the electron undergoes Rabi oscillations between the dots (see \[SMB\]). Since the Rabi frequency $\omega_{z}=\sqrt{\varepsilon^2+ |t_0+z t_1|^2}$ depends on the qubit state $z=\pm 1$, with carefully timed charge measurements, projective MBQ readout then becomes possible, Fig. \[fig2\](c). For optimal contrast [(large $\delta\omega = |\omega_+-\omega_-|$),]{} one can tune $t_0$ and/or the phase $\varphi$ in Fig. \[fig2\](a). The visibility of the Rabi-oscillation readout will of course be reduced by the rather short dephasing time known from similar charge qubits [@Nakamura2002].
Alternatively, we may switch to frequency domain and employ charge reflectometry readout [[@Petersson2010; @Colless2013; @Frey2012; @Liu2014]]{}, for which charge dephasing can be compensated by longer integration times. This setup is illustrated in Fig. \[fig2\](d), where a resonator is capacitively coupled to $q_2$, replacing the sensor dot in Fig. \[fig2\](a). The Hamiltonian $H_c$ is as in equation (\[Hchargereadout\]) but $H_s$ now describes the resonator circuit with frequency $\omega_0$, and $\hat{Q}_s = a+a^\dagger$ denotes the coupling to resonator photons $a$. Since the resonator-dot coupling $\lambda$ is weak, we transform from dot basis $\{ |1_d\rangle, |2_d\rangle\}$ to the Rabi basis with Pauli matrices $\tau_{x,y,z}$. In the strong-coupling regime with $\omega_0$ near-resonant with the Rabi frequencies $\omega_{z=\pm}$, the rotating-wave approximation then gives the effective Hamiltonian (\[SMB3\], Refs. [@Frey2012; @Liu2014]) $$\label{HcRWA}
H_c^\mathrm{RWA} = \omega_z\tau_z + \omega_0 a^\dagger a + g_z(a\tau_++a^\dagger\tau_-)~,$$ with coupling $g_z = -\lambda|t_0+zt_1|/2\omega_z$. Now adding a drive $H_\mathrm{dr} = i\sqrt{\kappa_\mathrm{in}}[E(t)a^\dagger-E^\ast(t)a]$ on the resonator input port, with single-tone signal $E(t) = \sqrt{I_0} e^{-i\omega t}$ and photon decay rate $\kappa_\mathrm{in}$ into the drive line, the transmitted signal at the output port ($\kappa_\mathrm{out}$) follows from the transmission amplitude $A_\omega = \sqrt{\kappa_\mathrm{out}}\langle a\rangle_{\omega} /\sqrt{I_0}$. Using a master equation approach, we find (\[SMB3\] and Refs. [@Frey2012; @Liu2014]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{transmission}
&& A_\omega = \frac{-i\sqrt{\kappa_\mathrm{in}\kappa_\mathrm{out}}}{ -\frac{i}{2}(\kappa_\mathrm{in}+\kappa_\mathrm{out})+(\omega_0-\omega)+\chi_z}~,\\\nonumber
&& \chi_z = g_z^2/[i\Gamma_\mathrm{tot}-(2\omega_z-\omega)]~.\end{aligned}$$ The broadening $\Gamma_\mathrm{tot}$ stems from decay and dephasing of the double dot. MBQ readout is now possible either by observing a peak in the amplitude of the transmitted photon spectrum ($I_\mathrm{out}(\omega) = |A_\omega|^2I_0$) at frequency $\omega = \Omega_z$ determined by minimizing $|(\omega_0 - \omega) + \mathrm{Re}(\chi_z)|$ in equation [(\[transmission\])]{}, Fig. \[fig2\](e), or by measuring the [$z$]{}-dependent phase shift of the transmitted signal ($\Delta\phi(\omega) = -\arg(A_\omega)$), Fig. \[fig2\](f).
As a variant of the quantum-dot-based readout proposed here, we mention the possibility of using the regime where the tunneling through the reference arm ($t_0$) is much stronger than the (co-)tunneling through the MBQ ($t_1$). In this limit, the two dots are effectively hybridized into a single dot tunnel coupled to two Majorana operators, say $\gamma_2$ and $\gamma_3$. The energy shift of the quantum dot depends on $\hat{z}=i\gamma_2\gamma_3$ which therefore can be read out by a measurement of the dot charge [@Flensberg2011] or the quantum capacitance [@Karzig2016].
At this point, it is worth stressing that all the above readout schemes are topologically protected in the sense that imperfections that may reduce the readout fidelity (which can be compensated for by longer integration times) do not change the the projection caused by the measurement. This is because the measure operator is uniquely defined by the dots or leads being addressed. The robustness of the projection is a consequence of the non-local and fractionalized nature of the MBQ quantum spin.
So far we discussed readout and preparation of ${\hat{z}}$-eigenstates. Using the three-dot device with an interference link in Fig. \[fig3\](a), the ${\hat{z}}$-measurement is readily generalized to readout of all three Pauli operators (${\hat{x}}, {\hat{y}}, {\hat{z}}$). Here, a phase-coherent reference arm connecting far ends of the box is needed, e.g., between $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$. For this purpose, a floating TS wire (top) acts as a single fermion level stretched out over the entire wire length [@Semenoff2006; @Fu2010]. Thereby, readout and manipulations along the far side of the MBQ become possible. Fig. \[fig3\](b) lists the corresponding dot pairs to access all Pauli operators. This simple geometry allows for nontrivial test experiments, e.g., to first prepare an eigenstate in one basis, and then measure a different Pauli operator.
Similar protocols allow to manipulate arbitrary MBQ states $|\psi\rangle$. For instance, consider an electron transfer from dot $2\to 3$ in Fig. \[fig3\](a), implemented by ramping the detuning parameter $\varepsilon$. With interference links turned off ($t_0= 0$), the tunneling amplitude is $t_1{\hat{z}}$, see equation [(\[Hchargereadout\])]{}. The protocol begins with an electron on dot 2, $|\Psi(0)\rangle=|\psi\rangle \otimes | 2_d\rangle$. Assuming that a later measurement detects an electron on dot 3, the final state is $$\label{etransfer}{
|\Psi_f\rangle= |3_d\rangle\langle 3_d| \left( \mathrm{T}_t\left[e^{-i\int_0^t H dt'}\right]|\Psi(0)\rangle \right)
= ({\hat{z}}|\psi\rangle) \otimes |3_d\rangle.}$$ In effect, the Pauli-${\hat{z}}$ operator has thus been applied, $|\psi\rangle\to {\hat{z}}|\psi\rangle$. Equation [(\[etransfer\])]{} holds because all odd-in-$t_1$ terms are proportional to ${\hat{z}}$ and because the final measurement has confirmed the transfer $2\to 3$. This protocol works beyond the adiabatic regime [@Landau2016; @Plugge2016] and allows for fast high-fidelity operations. Moreover, after a failed transfer attempt, $|\Psi_f'\rangle= |2_d\rangle\langle 2_d|(|\Psi(t)\rangle) = |\Psi(0)\rangle$, one can simply retry. Likewise, other Pauli operators are accessible, see Fig. \[fig3\](b). Such manipulations are protected and, without any fine tuning, uniquely determined by the initial and final dot occupations.
![\[fig4\] Four-qubit device. [**a**]{}, Similar to Fig. \[fig3\](c) but with four MBQs allowing for implementation of measurement-based topologically protected Clifford group operations, see Fig. \[fig5\]. Two data qubits, denoted target (T) and control (C) for a CNOT implementation in Fig. \[fig5\](a), are coupled and manipulated by two ancilla qubits A1 and A2 (in the CNOT, A1 serves as active ancilla). The choice of data and ancilla qubits is arbitrary and can be freely interchanged. Using the two ancilla qubits, one can implement $\pi/2$-rotations (i.e., $\hat S$-gates) around both qubit axes ${\hat{z}}$ and ${\hat{x}}$ of both data qubits C and T. [**b**]{}, Extension of the protocols in Figs. \[fig3\](b,c). With the indicated dot pairs, any single-qubit operator and the product operators of adjacent qubits can be addressed.](f4){width=".95\columnwidth"}
Arbitrary single-qubit rotations are generally not protected to such a degree. Nevertheless, with interference links and fine tuning of tunneling phases, e.g., via the flux $\varphi$ in Fig. \[fig2\], semi-protected operations are possible [@Flensberg2011]. Consider dots 2 and 3 in Fig. \[fig3\](a), modelled by equation [(\[Hchargereadout\])]{} with $\hat t_z= t_0+t_1{\hat{z}}$. For Re$(t_0^\ast t_1) = 0$, since $|t_z|$ is independent of $z=\pm 1$, the MBQ degeneracy remains intact and no dynamical phase is picked up during the electron transfer. One thereby obtains a phase gate, $|\psi\rangle\to e^{i\theta{\hat{z}}}|\psi\rangle$, with $\theta=\tan^{-1}[$Im$(t_1/t_0)]$. When combined with other dot pairs, arbitrary rotations are possible. Without phase tuning, protection may be achieved by a four-step pumping protocol [@Plugge2016]. In both cases, projective dot charge measurements can eliminate diabatic errors.
A quantum computer is universal if one has full one-qubit control and a two-qubit entangling gate [@Nielsen2000]. The above single-qubit measurements can easily be extended to the joint readout of two qubits, which makes the design ideal for measurement-based [gate]{} protocols [@Preskill; @Nielsen2000; @Bonderson2008]. We first consider an entangling measurement for the two-qubit device in Fig. \[fig3\](c). (See \[JointParityApp\] for additional details.) With interference links turned off, an electron transfer process from dot $4 \to 5$ has the tunneling amplitude $\hat{t}_{ab} = t_a {\hat{z}}_a + t_b {\hat{z}}_b$, where $t_{a/b}$ represents cotunneling via MBQ a$/$b. The corresponding Rabi frequency, $\omega_{z_a z_b=\pm} = \sqrt{\varepsilon^2 + |t_{ab}|^2}$, depends solely on the joint parity $\langle {\hat{z}}_a{\hat{z}}_b\rangle=\pm 1$, which can thus be read out as in Fig. \[fig2\]. After preparation of ${\hat{x}}_{a,b}$-eigenstates, this operation yields an entangled two-qubit state, and subsequent readout of ${\hat{z}}_{a,b}$ and/or ${\hat{x}}_{a,b}$ can detect Bell-type correlations [@Nielsen2000].
Finally, the device in Fig. \[fig4\] allows for measurement-based topologically protected implementation of the Clifford gates $\lbrace \hat C, \hat S_z, \hat H\rbrace$, see Fig. \[fig5\] for the relevant logic circuits. First, the controlled-NOT (CNOT) gate acts as $|\psi_C\rangle\otimes |\psi_T\rangle\to \hat C(|\psi_C\rangle\otimes|\psi_T\rangle)$, where the operator $\hat C= \frac12(\hat 1+{\hat{z}})_C\otimes \hat 1_T+\frac12(\hat 1-{\hat{z}})_C\otimes {\hat{x}}_T$ flips the target (T) qubit if and only if the control (C) qubit is in the $|1\rangle$-state, cf. Fig. \[fig5\](a). Next, single-qubit gates $\hat S_z = \mathrm{diag}(1,i)$ and $\hat S_x = e^{-i\pi{\hat{x}}/4}$ in Fig. \[fig5\](b,c) together allow for $\pi/2$-rotations around any qubit axis. The Hadamard gate $\hat H = ({\hat{x}}+{\hat{z}})/\sqrt2$, effectively exchanging ${\hat{x}}$- and ${\hat{z}}$-eigenstates, then follows by combined rotations $\hat H = \hat S_z \hat S_x \hat S_z$.
In conclusion, we have described readout, initialization, manipulation, and entangling operations for Majorana box qubits, all of which can be tested in current state-of-the-art experiments. Using these tools, we devised a two-qubit universal quantum computer with protected Clifford gates. Naturally, the performance of the setup will depend on the fidelity of the readout operation. We have argued that one expects high fidelities because of the topological nature of the qubits, but this of course needs to be confirmed by experimental implementation. Successful demonstration of our proposed devices could pave the way towards fault-tolerant scalable quantum computation, e.g., using surface code architectures and/or hybrid strategies. Finally, we note that interesting generalizations with six or more MBSs on the box could implement measurement-induced braiding operations on a single box [@Bonderson2008; @Karzig2016].
We thank J. Alicea, A. Altland, P. Bonderson, M. Freedman, L.P. Kouwenhoven, F. Kuemmeth, L.A. Landau, R.M. Lutchyn, C.M. Marcus, C. Nayak, K.D. Petersson, D. Reilly, M.S. Rudner and E. Sela for useful discussions. We acknowledge funding by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Bonn) within the network CRC TR 183 (project C01) and by the Danish National Research Foundation.
Conductance-interferometric readout {#CondreadoutApp}
===================================
Here we briefly discuss under which conditions the interferometric conductance readout of the MBQ in Fig. \[fig1\](a) will implement a projective measurement. Assuming that the amplitudes $t_{0,1}$ in equation [(\[Ha\])]{} are switched on at initial time $t=0$ and that the initial state of the MBQ is $|\psi\rangle=\alpha|0\rangle+\beta|1\rangle$, we obtain for the time-dependent reduced density matrix of the qubit $$\label{rhot}
\rho_\mathrm{MBQ}^{{}}(t) =\left( \begin{array}{cc}
|\alpha|^2 & \alpha\beta^*e^{-F(t)} \\
\alpha^*\beta e^{-F^*(t)} & |\beta|^2 \\
\end{array}\right).$$ The decay of off-diagonal elements is encoded in the real part of the decoherence function $$\label{Ft}
{\rm Re} F(t)= 4\nu_1\nu_2|t_1|^2 \times \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
2\ln (Dt) + \frac12(Vt)^2 ,& \frac{1}{D}\ll t< \frac{1}{V}, \\
\pi Vt , & t> \frac{1}{V},
\end{array}\right.$$ where $V$ is the applied bias voltage, and the leads have density of states $\nu_{1,2}$ and bandwidth $D$. Once the off-diagonal elements have died out, the conductance measurement can therefore be considered projective. The MBQ will then either be in state $|0\rangle$, with probability $|\alpha|^2$, or in state $|1\rangle$, with probability $|\beta|^2=1-|\alpha|^2$. From the decoherence function $F(t)$ we can thus extract the minimal measurement time needed for a readout based on conductance interferometry, cf. equations (2) and (3) of the main text.
We now turn to the derivation of the above result. We first write the operators $d_{\ell = 1,2}$ at the contact points to the MBQ in terms of conventional lead fermion modes, $d_\ell = \sum_k c_{\ell,k}$. The uncoupled leads Hamiltonian in equation (2) then follows as $H_{\mathrm{leads}} = \sum_{\ell, k} \xi_{\ell,k} c_{\ell,k}^\dagger c_{\ell,k}~,$ where $\xi_{\ell,k}$ is the occupation energy of lead state $(\ell,k)$. The reduced density matrix can then be calculated by time-evolving states through $H_a$ in equation (2), with $\hat U(t) = \mathrm{T}_t \exp\left[-i\int_0^t H_a(t')dt'\right],$ where $\mathrm{T}_t$ is the time-ordering operator, followed by performing a trace over the lead degrees of freedom. In our case, $H_a(t)$ is time-independent after initial switch-on of tunnel couplings. Prior to the measurement, the MBQ is detached from the leads and therefore we assume an initial density matrix in product form, $\rho(t=0) = \rho_\mathrm{MBQ}(t=0)\otimes \rho_\mathrm{leads}$, with initial MBQ density matrix $\rho_\mathrm{MBQ}(t=0) = \sum_{i,j}c_{ij}|i\rangle\langle j|$. The leads are in a thermal state, $\rho_\mathrm{leads} \sim e^{-\beta H_\mathrm{leads}}$ with $\beta = 1/T$, where [the applied bias voltage $V$ determines the chemical potential difference.]{} With these ingredients, we obtain the reduced density matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rho_t}
\rho_{\mathrm{MBQ}}(t)
&= \mathrm{Tr}_{\mathrm{leads}}\left[\hat{U}(t)\left(\sum_{i,j}c_{ij}{|i\rangle}{\langle j |}\otimes\rho_{\mathrm{leads}}\right) \hat{U}^\dagger(t) \right] \nonumber \\
& = \sum_{i,j} c_{ij} {|i\rangle}{\langle j |} {\left< U_j^\dagger(t) U_i(t) \right>}_{\mathrm{leads}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $U_{i}(t)$ follows by substituting the MBQ Pauli operator $\hat z$ in $H_a$ with its eigenvalue, $\hat z |i\rangle = z_i|i\rangle$ and $\hat U(t)|i\rangle = U_i(t)|i\rangle$, and similar for $U_j^\dagger(t)$. This is possible since the MBQ-mediated tunneling Hamiltonian $H_a$ generically contains only a single Pauli operator per MBQ (in this case $\hat z$), such that the MBQ density matrix can be expressed in the corresponding eigenbasis, here $|i/j\rangle = |0\rangle,~|1\rangle$. It is also clear that diagonal elements (with respect to MBQ tunneling in $H_a$) are conserved, $U_i(t)U_i^\dagger(t) = 1$. Since the off-diagonal density matrix elements decay, we obtain $\rho_\mathrm{MBQ}(t\to\infty) =$ diag$(|c_{00}|^2,|c_{11}|^2)$, cf. equations [(\[rhot\])]{} and [(\[Ft\])]{}.
To obtain an expression for the decay of off-diagonal elements,
we take the lead trace and perform a second-order cumulant expansion in equation [(\[rho\_t\])]{}. Considering only the real part (responsible for decay) and noting that elements $\langle 0|\rho_\mathrm{MBQ}|1\rangle$ and $\langle 1|\rho_\mathrm{MBQ}|0\rangle$ are related by Hermitian conjugation, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ftequation}
&\mathrm{Re} F(t) = -\mathrm{Re} \ln {\left< U_1^\dagger(t) U_0(t) \right>}_{\mathrm{leads}}=\\
&4\nu_1\nu_2|t_1|^2 \sum_{s = \pm} \int {\mathrm{d} \omega \,} n_B(\omega + sV) \frac{\omega + sV}{\omega^2}(1-\cos \omega t),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $n_B(\omega)$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution function. We now evaluate this expression at zero temperature, $n_B(\omega) \to -\Theta(-\omega)$, and introduce a lead bandwidth $D$ as frequency cutoff, $|\omega| \leq D$. The integrals in equation [(\[Ftequation\])]{}, summing over $s=\pm$, can then be simplified to give $$\begin{aligned}
\label{integral}
g(t)=\int_{V}^{D}{\mathrm{d} \omega \,}\frac{2(1-\cos(\omega t))}{\omega} +
V\int_{-V}^{V}{\mathrm{d} \omega \,}\frac{1-\cos(\omega t)}{\omega^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The short-time decay (with $t\ll D^{-1},~V^{-1}$) is Gaussian, $g(t) \approx \frac12(V^2+D^2)t^2$, while for intermediate times, $D^{-1} \ll t < V^{-1}$ we have $g(t) \simeq ~~2\ln(Dt) +\frac12 V^2t^2~$. The (asymptotic) for $t > V^{-1}$ the behavior is $g(t) \simeq ~~2\ln(D/V) + \pi Vt -2(1-\cos(Vt))~$, where in equation [(\[Ft\])]{} we discarded constant/oscillating parts and kept only the term $\sim t$.
The absolute value of the cotunneling amplitude is given by $|t_1| \simeq |\lambda_1\lambda_2|/E_C$, with lead-Majorana tunnel couplings $\lambda_\ell$ and island charging energy $E_C$ [@Beri2012]. The timescale for decay of the off-diagonal elements (i.e., dephasing) of the MBQ state then follows from $\tau_\varphi^{-1}= (\Gamma_1\Gamma_2/E_C^2) V$, containing the lead-island broadenings $\Gamma_{\ell = 1,2} = 2\nu_\ell |\lambda_\ell|^2$ weighted vs the charging energy $E_C$, and the bias voltage $V$ itself. Since we have to be in the cotunneling regime with $\Gamma_{1,2},V\ll E_C$, for typical device parameters [@Albrecht2016], we find $\tau_\varphi \approx 10~$ns. Conductance readout therefore is most likely not limited by $\tau_\varphi$ but rather by data allocation towards sufficient signal-to-noise ratio to resolve the two conductance outcomes, cf. equation (3) and discussion in main text. Under Coulomb valley conditions (where our MBQ is operated) the corresponding cotunneling currents are small [@Albrecht2016].\
Finally, we note that the interference link with tunneling amplitude $t_0$ outside of the MBQ (cf. equation (2)) does not affect the dephasing time of the MBQ, see equation [(\[Ftequation\])]{}. Here, tracing out the leads in equation [(\[rho\_t\])]{} is the crucial step, where we assume that no knowledge of the leads state is retained, in particular not about the number parity of transferred electrons. For $t_0=0$, when this number parity is fixed by a measurement, decoherence will not set in because the parity and the number of applications of the corresponding Pauli operator are perfectly correlated. This fact is exploited by the quantum dot readout and confirmed charge transfer schemes in the main text. With interference links turned off, such protocols do not involve dephasing of the MBQ state (cf. equation (7)) but instead correspond to the application of a Pauli operator to the MBQ state if an electron has been transferred. The same statement holds true for the number parity of transferred electrons in the case of normal leads. If we now include the interference link, $t_0\ne 0$, such correlations between the number parity of transferred electrons and the number of Pauli operator applications will be absent, since the leads are effectively shorted. In this case, the decoherence is of the more conventional type because the information loss is distributed across a continuum of lead states. For $t_0=0$, decoherence is only caused by our lack of knowledge about the number parity of transferred electrons. In any case, the value of $t_0$ does not affect the dephasing time.
Quantum-dot-based readout {#SMB}
=========================
\[RabireadoutApp\]
Here we discuss details on MBQ readout via (double) quantum dots (QDs), as illustrated in Fig. \[fig2\] of the main text. We first translate the bare MBQ plus QDs Hamiltonian into its eigenbasis (\[SMB1\]), and then analyze the functionality of measurement devices in time-domain (\[SMB2\]) and frequency-domain readout schemes (\[SMB3\]).
Rabi oscillations for double quantum dot coupled to MBQ {#SMB1}
-------------------------------------------------------
Since the coupling between dot 2 and the readout device is either intermediately turned off or considered weak, it is convenient to switch to the eigenbasis of $H_b$ in equation [(\[Hchargereadout\])]{} with $\lambda=0$. We refer to the hybridized double dot as Rabi system. For given Pauli eigenvalue $z=\pm 1$ of the MBQ, the Rabi eigenstates follow from the dot basis $\lbrace |1_d\rangle, |2_d\rangle\rbrace$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RabiBasis}
|\omega_z\rangle &=& \left[t_z|1_d\rangle +(\omega_z-\varepsilon) |2_d\rangle\right]/\sqrt{2\omega_z(\omega_z-\varepsilon)},\\
|\overline{\omega}_z\rangle &=& \left[t_z|1_d\rangle - (\omega_z+\varepsilon)|2_d\rangle\right]/\sqrt{2\omega_z(\omega_z+\varepsilon)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $t_z = t_0 +t_1 z$ is total inter-dot tunneling and $\omega_z = \sqrt{\varepsilon^2+|t_z|^2}$ is the Rabi frequency. Since $H_b$ contains a single Pauli operator, the corresponding eigenvalue $z$ is a good quantum number. The same holds true for more participating MBQs where we have a set of good quantum numbers $(z_1,z_2,\ldots)$. We can therefore focus on two Rabi eigenstates $|\omega_z\rangle,~|\overline{\omega}_z\rangle$ throughout, and beyond that refer to the block-diagonal structure of $H_b$ in either quantum dot or Rabi basis. Defining Pauli matrices in the Rabi basis $$\label{RabiPauli}
\tau_z = |\omega_z\rangle \langle\omega_z| - |\overline{\omega}_z\rangle \langle\overline{\omega}_z|,\quad \tau_x = |\omega_z\rangle \langle\overline{\omega}_z| + |\overline{\omega}_z\rangle\langle\omega_z|,$$ the bare system Hamiltonian reads $H_0 = \omega_z\tau_z$. Note the hidden $4\times 4$ structure, with two distinct Rabi systems for $z=\pm 1$, cf. Fig. \[fig2\](b) and equation [(\[RabiBasis\])]{}.
Real-time observation of Rabi oscillations {#SMB2}
------------------------------------------
For real-time readout of Rabi oscillations on the dots, we first prepare the system at $\varepsilon \gg |t_z|$ locked in the $|2_d\rangle$ state of the dots with charge on dot 2. Next we pulse diabatically to small $\varepsilon$, ideally $\varepsilon \to 0$. The system thus is initialized in the state $$\label{psi0}
|\Psi_0\rangle = \left(\alpha |0\rangle +\beta |1\rangle\right)\otimes |2_d\rangle.$$ Switching to the Rabi basis and letting the system evolve up to the wait time $\tau_m$, it will perform Rabi oscillations between the dot states $|2_d\rangle$ and $|1_d\rangle$. The oscillation period depends on the qubit state via the Rabi frequency $\omega_z$, cf. Fig. 2(b) of the main text, leading to an entangled state of MBQ and QDs. The time-evolved state of the QDs is then given by $$\label{evolve}
|\Psi(t)\rangle=
\frac{it_z}{\omega_z}\sin(\omega_z t)|1_d\rangle +
\left(\cos(\omega_z t) - \frac{i\varepsilon}{\omega_z}\sin(\omega_z t)\right)|2_d\rangle~.$$ As the next step, we diabatically pulse back to large $\varepsilon$ such that the remaining dynamics follow from effectively decoupled dots. Inserting the wait time $\tau_m$ spent at the measurement point $\varepsilon = 0$, we find the charge measurement outcome probabilities $p_z(q)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{measure_probability}
p_+(2) &=& |\alpha|^2\left[\cos^2(\omega_+\tau_m)+\frac{\varepsilon^2_m}{\omega_+^2}\sin^2(\omega_+\tau_m)\right],\\ \nonumber
p_+(1) &=& |\alpha|^2\left[\frac{|t_+|^2}{\omega_+^2}\sin^2(\omega_+\tau_m)\right],\\ \nonumber
p_-(2) &=& |\beta|^2\left[\cos^2(\omega_-\tau_m)+\frac{\varepsilon^2_m}{\omega_-^2}\sin^2(\omega_-\tau_m)\right],\\ \nonumber
p_-(1) &=& |\beta|^2\left[\frac{|t_-|^2}{\omega_-^2}\sin^2(\omega_-\tau_m)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $q = 1,~2$ indicates whether the charge was found on QD 1 or 2, and $\varepsilon_m$ is the value of the detuning during the time-evolution described by equation [(\[evolve\])]{}. As prescribed by the initial state [(\[psi0\])]{}, we find $p_+(1)+p_+(2) = |\alpha|^2$ and $p_-(1)+p_-(2) = |\beta|^2$. Further, maximum oscillation amplitudes of the probabilities are achieved for $\varepsilon = 0$ at the measurement point, giving $$\begin{aligned}
\bar p_+(2) = |\alpha|^2\cos^2(\omega_+\tau_m)~,~~\bar p_+(1) = |\alpha|^2\sin^2(\omega_+\tau_m),\nonumber\\
\bar p_-(2) = |\beta|^2\cos^2(\omega_-\tau_m)~,~~\bar p_-(1) = |\beta|^2\sin^2(\omega_-\tau_m),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the Rabi frequency reduces to $\omega_z(\varepsilon= 0) = |t_z|$. Maximum contrast is achieved for $\tau_m$ where $p_+(2)\ll p_-(2)$ (modulo amplitudes $|\alpha|$ and $|\beta|$). A charge measurement finding $q=2$ thus identifies the qubit state to be $|1\rangle$ ($z = -1$) with high fidelity. Conversely, finding $q = 1$ with $p_+(1) \gg p_-(1)$ identifies the qubit to be in state $|0\rangle$ ($z=+1$). As an example, we plot the probabilities $\langle q_2(t)\rangle = \cos^2(\omega_z t)$ (i.e., $\bar p_z(2)$) for initial qubit states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ in Fig. 2(c) of the main text.
Let us now consider the action of a dot-charge measurement on the dynamically evolved state $|\Psi(\tau_m)\rangle$ defined through equations [(\[psi0\])]{} and [(\[evolve\])]{}. Assuming the initial state as above ($\varepsilon=0$) and for a measurement finding $q = 2$, the qubit will be in the state $$|\Psi(\tau_m;2)\rangle = \frac{\alpha\cos(\omega_+\tau_m)|0\rangle + \beta\cos(\omega_-\tau_m)|1\rangle}{\sqrt{\bar p(\tau_m;2)}},$$ with total measurement probability $\bar p(\tau_m;2) = \bar p_+(2) + \bar p_-(2)$ as normalization. Conversely, if one measures $q = 1$ the qubit state is $$|\Psi(\tau_m;1)\rangle = \frac{\alpha e^{i\varphi_+} \sin(\omega_+\tau_m)|0\rangle + \beta e^{i\varphi_-}\sin(\omega_-\tau_m)|1\rangle}{\sqrt{\bar p(\tau_m;1)}},$$ with $\bar p(\tau_m;1) = \bar p_+(1) + \bar p_-(1)$. The phases $\varphi_z = t_z/|t_z| = \arg(t_z)$ stem from the prefactor of the $|1_d\rangle$-term in equation [(\[evolve\])]{}.
Above we saw that the action employed by measuring the dot state $q = 1,~2$ will not fully project the qubit state in the general case. Only when one of the probabilities vanishes is the projection complete, which however requires perfect timing of $\tau_m$. Deviations from this perfect value, together with imperfections due to noise, limits the readout fidelity. Unfortunately, one cannot simply re-measure multiple times to obtain better statistics. Instead, the upper limit to improvements through repetition is set by the visibility of charge oscillations. In other words, re-measuring with updated coefficients $\alpha' = \alpha\cos(\omega_+\tau_m) / \sqrt{\bar p(\tau_m;2)}$ and $\beta' = \beta\cos(\omega_-\tau_m) / \sqrt{\bar p(\tau_m;2)}$ after initially measuring $|2_d\rangle$ and repeating will not completely converge the qubit state. For further discussions on measurement details of the time-domain readout method, see e.g. Ref. [@Hoving2016].
Charge reflectometry readout {#SMB3}
----------------------------
Here we discuss the charge reflectometry readout of MBQ-QD hybrid systems in more detail. As discussed above, readout based on coherent charge oscillations in Fig. 2(b,c) will be limited by charge fluctuations and noise. Driven high-frequency charge oscillations might be more robust in this regard and the technique is well-known in the context of double-dot spin or charge qubits [@Frey2012; @Liu2014]. As illustrated in Fig. 2(d), a resonator is capacitively coupled to the QD charge to be read out.
We translate the coupling term $\sim \lambda \hat{Q}_s \hat{q}_2$ in equation [(\[Hchargereadout\])]{} into the Rabi basis. Replacing $q_2$, one finds $$\label{Hc}
H_c = H_0 + H_s + \frac12\lambda \hat{Q}_s\left(1-\frac{\varepsilon} {\omega_z}\tau_z-\frac{|t_z|}{\omega_z}\tau_x\right)~.$$ Now consider a resonator with bare frequency $\omega_0$, modeled by $H_s = \omega_0 a^\dagger a$, and capacitive coupling to the resonator photons, $\hat{Q}_s = a+a^\dagger$. When resonator and double dot are near-resonant, $\omega_0 \approx 2\omega_z$ and $|\omega_0-2\omega_z|\ll $ min$(\omega_0,\omega_z,|\omega_0+2\omega_z|)$, the rotating-wave approximation gives $H_c^\mathrm{RWA}$ in equation [(\[HcRWA\])]{} of the main text.
### Strong-coupling regime {#strongcoupApp}
First we consider the strong coupling regime (focused on in main text), where the hybridized double dot (Rabi system) is at resonance with the resonator, $\omega_0 \simeq 2\omega_z$. Within the rotating-wave approximation, see equation (5), one can re-express the system in terms of dressed states, see e.g. Ref. [@Blais2004]. Similar calculations as done here for the strong-coupling regime can be found in Refs. [@Petersson2010; @Colless2013; @Frey2012; @Liu2014] along with experiments. In order to allow readout of the energy spectrum of the system we add a drive term $H_\mathrm{dr} = i\sqrt{\kappa_\mathrm{in}}\left[E(t)a^\dagger -E^\ast(t)a\right]$, with field $E(t) = \sqrt{I_0}e^{-i\omega t}$ incident at the resonator. Switching to the rotating frame of the drive, the full Hamiltonian reads $$H = \frac12 \Delta_z\tau_z + \Delta_0 a^\dagger a + g_z(a\tau_++a^\dagger\tau_-)+ i\sqrt{\kappa_\mathrm{in} I_0}(a^\dagger-a)~,$$ where the effective coupling $g_z= -\lambda|t_z|/2\omega_z$ describes emission and absorption of resonator photons. Pauli matrices $\tau_\pm =(\tau_x\pm i\tau_y)/2$ are defined in accordance with equation [(\[RabiPauli\])]{}. The dots and photon energies in the rotating frame are shifted to $\Delta_z = 2\omega_z-\omega$ and $\Delta_0 = \omega_0 -\omega$.\
The time evolution now follows from a standard master equation approach. In the presence of coupling to baths, the Liouville equation for the density matrix reads $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\rho} =& -i\left[H,\rho\right] + \frac{\Gamma_\phi}{2}\mathcal{D}[\tau_z]\rho \\
&+\gamma(n_\mathrm{th}+1)\mathcal{D}[\tau_-]\rho
+\gamma n_\mathrm{th}\mathcal{D}[\tau_+]\rho~\nonumber\\
&+ (\kappa_\mathrm{in}+\kappa_\mathrm{out})\left[(1+N_\mathrm{th})\mathcal{D}[a]\rho+
N_\mathrm{th}\mathcal{D}[a^\dagger]\rho\right]~,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{D}[A]\rho = A\rho A^\dagger -\frac12 \lbrace A^\dagger A,\rho\rbrace$ is the Lindblad dissipator. Terms $\sim\kappa_\mathrm{in/out}$ model decay of resonator photons into the input/output line, while $\gamma$ and $\Gamma_\phi$ quantify decay and dephasing of the hybridized double dot. The baths set the temperature $T$ of the system, where $n_\mathrm{th} = 1/(e^{2\omega_z/kT}-1)$ and $N_\mathrm{th}=1/(e^{\omega_0/kT}-1)$. We then find the equations of motion $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\dot{a}\rangle &=& -i\Delta_0\langle a\rangle -ig_z\langle \tau_-\rangle + \sqrt{\kappa_\mathrm{in}I_0} -\frac12(\kappa_\mathrm{in}+\kappa_\mathrm{out})\langle a\rangle~,\\
\langle\dot{\tau}_-\rangle &=& -i\Delta_z\langle \tau_-\rangle +ig_z\langle a\tau_z\rangle -\Gamma_\mathrm{tot}\langle \tau_-\rangle~,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with total decay rate $\Gamma_\mathrm{tot} = \Gamma_\phi + \frac12 \gamma(1+2n_\mathrm{th})$. For the steady-state solution we take the semiclassical decoupling approximation, $\langle a\tau_z\rangle_\mathrm{ss} \approx \langle a\rangle_\mathrm{ss}\langle \tau_z\rangle_\mathrm{ss}$. Due to external dephasing and decay ($\Gamma_\mathrm{tot}$), once the steady state is reached, the double dot then is assumed to be in a thermal equilibrium with the environment, i.e., $\langle\tau_z\rangle_\mathrm{ss} = -\tanh(\omega_z/kT)$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\tau_-\rangle_\mathrm{ss} &=& -\frac{\chi_z}{g_z}\langle a\rangle_\mathrm{ss}\langle \tau_z\rangle_\mathrm{ss}~,\\
\langle a\rangle_\mathrm{ss} &=& \frac{-i\sqrt{\kappa_\mathrm{in}I_0}}{ -\frac{i}{2}(\kappa_\mathrm{in}+\kappa_\mathrm{out})+\Delta_0-\chi_z\langle \tau_z\rangle_\mathrm{ss}}~,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we defined the susceptibility $\chi_z = g_z^2/(i\Gamma_\mathrm{tot}-\Delta_z)$. From here, we directly obtain the transmission amplitude $$\label{transamp}
A_\omega = \frac{\sqrt{\kappa_\mathrm{out}}\langle a\rangle_\mathrm{ss}}{\sqrt{I_0}} = \frac{-i\sqrt{\kappa_\mathrm{in}\kappa_\mathrm{out}}}{ -\frac{i}{2}(\kappa_\mathrm{in}+\kappa_\mathrm{out})+\Delta_0-\chi_z\langle \tau_z\rangle_\mathrm{ss}}.$$ In equation [(\[transmission\])]{} of the main text we took for simplicity the zero-temperature limit ${\left< \tau_z \right>}_\mathrm{ss}\to -1$. One sees that the real part of $\chi_z$ describes shifts of the transmission resonances, where a maximum of $|A_\omega|^2$ follows by minimizing $|\Delta_0-\mathrm{Re}(\chi_z){\left< \tau_z \right>}_\mathrm{ss}|$, while the imaginary part modifies the resonator decay rates. Finite temperature $T$ diminishes the relative shifts $\sim \chi_z{\left< \tau_z \right>}_\mathrm{ss}$, with ${\left< \tau_z \right>}_\mathrm{ss} \to 0$ for $kT\gg \omega_z$. We plot the transmission $I_\mathrm{out}(\omega) = |A_\omega|^2 I_0$ and the phase shift $\Delta \phi_\omega = -\arg(A_\omega)$ in Figs. \[fig2\](e,f) of the main text, where for illustration purposes we take the idealized situation $\Gamma_\mathrm{tot} = 0$ and $T=0$. Other parameters are $\lambda = 2$ (then $|g_z(\varepsilon = 0)| = 1$), $\omega_0 = 10$, $\kappa_{\mathrm{in/out}} = 0.2$ and Rabi frequencies $\omega_+ = 6$, $\omega_- = 4$ in arbitrary units. In this case $\omega_0$ is centered between the transition frequencies $2\omega_z$ of the double dot. Therefore also the resulting transmission peak shifts ($\Omega_z$) and phase shifts ($\Delta \phi$) are symmetric around $\omega_0$, cf. Figs. \[fig2\](e,f). Other choices of $\omega_{z=\pm}$ relative to $\omega_0$, e.g., by adjusting the detuning $\varepsilon$, may yield better contrast ($\delta\Omega$ and/or $\delta\phi$ in Figs. \[fig2\](e,f)) depending on the remaining parameters, cf. equation [(\[transmission\])]{} and the discussion below.
Taking experimentally relevant parameters from the cavity - double dot experiments in Refs. [@Frey2012; @Liu2014] in combination with Majorana wire experiments [@Albrecht2016] as guideline, we next consider: bare coupling $\lambda = 1$ (then $|g_z(\varepsilon = 0)| = 0.5$), $\omega_0 = 10$, $\kappa = \kappa_\mathrm{in/out}/2 = 0.02$ (i.e., resonator quality factor $Q=\omega_0/\kappa = 500$) and tunnel couplings $|t_+| = |t_0+t_1| = 6$, $|t_-| = |t_0-t_1| = 4$ in units of $200$ MHz. Further, we consider decay and dephasing of the hybridized double dot (Rabi system) as $\gamma = 0.5$ and $\Gamma_\phi = 5$ (cf. [@Frey2012; @Liu2014]), respectively, and temperature $T = 5$ (corresponding to $1$ GHz $\simeq$ $50$ mK on-chip base temperature). With these parameters the plots in Fig. 2(e,f) change to Fig. \[f1supp\](a,b). If the Rabi frequencies are centered around the bare resonator frequency $\omega_0$, one of the frequency shifts is negative ($\Omega_+ < \omega_0$) and the other positive ($\Omega_->\omega_0$). However, they are no longer symmetric around $\omega_0$ which is caused by the broadening and finite-temperature effects. Similarly, the phase shift for the $z=+(-)$ MBQ state at resonant drive $\omega_0 = \omega$ is negative (positive). The point $\Delta\phi = 0$ is crossed when running across the transmission resonance, i.e., for $\omega = \Omega_{+(-)}$, as indicated by the [vertical dashed]{} lines in the figure. The configuration of energy scales/frequencies with double dot transition energies $2\omega_z$ centered around $\omega_0$ is advantageous for phase shift readout, where the contrast $\delta\phi$ is maximized for a resonant drive $\omega = \omega_0$ matching the bare resonator frequency. Such differential phase shifts of order $\delta\phi {>}10^\circ$ can be clearly resolved in experiments, cf. [@Frey2012], and readout of the qubit state should be possible with integration times in the sub-$\mu$s regime.
Last, we show the resonator response as function of the double-dot detuning $\varepsilon$, see Figs. \[f2supp\](a,b), where the resonator is driven at its bare resonance frequency, $\omega = \omega_0$. As long as the double-dot is far-detuned from the resonator, $|2\omega_z -\omega_0| \gg g_z$, the two systems effectively decouple and the drive signal is transmitted resonantly by the bare resonator, with full transmission $|A_\omega|^2 = 1$, cf. Fig. \[f2supp\](a). As the hybridized double dot energy splitting $2\omega_z$ approaches the bare resonance frequency $\omega_0$, the systems eigenstates are transformed into dressed states, cf. also Refs. [@Frey2012; @Liu2014; @Blais2004]. Consequently, first due to dispersive and ultimately the strong-coupling shifts of the resonance frequency $\omega_0 \to \Omega_z$, the drive and resonator become off-resonant. The transmission is therefore suppressed at smaller values of $\varepsilon$, cf. Fig. \[f2supp\](a), and a large part of the input signal is back-reflected. In addition, decay and dephasing of the double-dot cause energy loss of the drive, which diminishes the transmitted signal. As can be seen in Fig. \[f2supp\](a), while a measurement of the resonator transmission in principle can give information about the qubit state, the differences for MBQ states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ (blue/red curve) are quite small. This is because the readout configuration chosen for Fig. \[f2supp\] (and Fig. \[f1supp\]) is targeted towards transmission-phase-shift readout, with drive frequency near the resonator frequency, $\omega = \omega_0$.
In Fig. \[f2supp\](b) the phase shift is seen to go to zero when the double dot is far-detuned from the resonator, whereas when the double dot is close to resonance it pulls the resonator frequency $\omega_0 \to \Omega_z$. Consequently, a finite phase shifts arises with $\Delta\phi < 0$, as long as $2\omega_z$ is larger than the resonator frequency. Since we consider parameters with $2|t_+|> \omega_0$ and $2|t_-|<\omega_0$, for the MBQ state $z=+$ the resonance $2\omega_z = \omega_0$ is never crossed, and the transmission phase shift stays negative for any $\varepsilon$. Conversely, for MBQ state $z = -$ the resonance condition $2\omega_- = \omega_0$ is fulfilled at finite $\varepsilon = \pm \sqrt{\omega_0^2/4-|t_-|^2}$ (red dashed line in Figs. \[f2supp\](a,b)), and the transmission phase shift changes sign. A measurement finding a positive phase shift $\Delta\phi$ at $\varepsilon\to 0$ (for this parameter setting) thus detects the MBQ state $z = -1$, and a negative shift indicates $z=+$. Very similar experiments as suggested here have been successful in detecting such shifts (of similar magnitude as predicted here) when tuning the tunnel coupling of a double dot, cf. Ref. [@Frey2012]. While in the case of Frey *et al.* [@Frey2012] the tuning of tunnel couplings was introduced by a gate, here the different tunnel couplings $|t_z|$ (or Rabi frequencies $\omega_z$) encode the MBQ state. It should be noted that the strong coupling regime also has more complex bistability behaviors [@Peano2010], which should be avoided in order not to confuse the readout measurements. Unwanted multi-photon phenomena can of course complicate the readout, but they cannot, as discussed in the main text, alter the operator being projected by the measurement.
### Dispersive regime {#SMB32}
Secondly we discuss readout in the dispersive regime, cf. Refs. [@Ohm2015; @Yavilberg2015] for similar models and discussion of Majorana systems coupled to microwave resonators. Depending on experimental details, operation of the resonator and readout devices either in the strong-coupling or dispersive regime may be more practical. We again start from $H_c$ in equation [(\[Hc\])]{}, now in the dispersive regime. In this situation, only virtual photon processes are relevant, and expansion to second order in $\lambda/\omega_0$ and $\lambda/(\omega_0\pm2\omega_z)$ yields the effective Hamiltonian (cf. Refs. [@Ohm2015; @Yavilberg2015]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{shift}
&& H_c^{\rm eff}= \left( \omega_z +\frac{\delta_z}{2} +\frac{\chi_z}{2} \right) \tau_z
+ \left(\omega_0+\chi_z \tau_z \right) a^\dagger a + c_z ,\\\nonumber
&& \delta_z = \frac{\lambda^2\varepsilon}{\omega_0\omega_z},
\quad \chi_{z} = \frac{\lambda^2|t_0+t_1 z|^2}{\omega_z(\omega_0^2-4\omega_z^2)},\quad c_z=
-\frac{\varepsilon\delta_z+\omega_0\chi_z}{4\omega_z}.\end{aligned}$$ The dispersive shift $\chi_z$ becomes large for $\omega_0\to2\omega_z$, where the perturbative expansion breaks down and the photon field resonantly drives Rabi oscillations between the dots (i.e., we are back to the strong-coupling case). From the Hamiltonian [(\[shift\])]{} we can directly read off the shifted resonance frequencies $\Omega_z = \omega_0 +\chi_z\langle\tau_z\rangle_\mathrm{ss}$ when taking the steady-state expectation value $\tau_z \to \langle\tau_z\rangle_\mathrm{ss}$. Note that in this simplified approach neither resonance broadening due to decay and dephasing of the Rabi system ($\Gamma_\mathrm{tot}$) nor decay of the resonator photons ($\kappa_\mathrm{in/out}$) are considered. Both effects (along with the drive) can be included as for the strong-coupling case following the same steps as above.
Finally, the precise form of the strong-coupling or dispersive shifts $\sim \Omega_z$ depends on the type of coupling between system and resonator. However, we expect that there is no sizable [direct]{} coupling $\sim |1_d\rangle\langle 2_d| ,~|2_d\rangle\langle 1_d|$ between the QDs apart from tunneling via the interference link or the MBQ. Therefore any resonator or gate couples only to the QD charge operators $\hat{q}_1$ and $\hat{q}_2$, and the resulting shifts appear to contain only information about the tunneling amplitudes $|t_z|$. This property is highly desirable in particular for joint-parity readouts used to entangle adjacent qubits.
Joint-parity measurements {#JointParityApp}
=========================
In the main text we have discussed single-qubit and joint-parity measurements using quantum dots. For example, for two-qubit readout with tunneling $t_{ab} = t_a z_a + t_b z_b$, see Fig. 3(c), the readout signal depends through the Rabi frequency $\omega_{z_az_b} = \sqrt{\varepsilon^2+|t_{ab}|^2}$ only on the joint parity $z_az_b = \pm 1$. It is, however, not obvious that the state of the two-qubit system is only projected onto a subspace with $z_az_b=\pm1$, and not further affected within this subspace. In this Appendix, we show that measurement-induced dephasing or accidental qubit rotations are completely avoided, a property inherited from the geometric protection of [MBQ]{} spins. Any single-qubit and joint-parity measurements performed by these methods thus are expected to offer exceptionally high readout fidelities and low probability of readout-induced errors. We also note that joint-parity measurements (or stabilizers in more complex devices [@Landau2016; @Plugge2016]) can be accessed directly without ancilla qubits and initial entanglement operations which are necessary in transmon architectures [@Kelly2015].
To understand how this works, we study the final reduced density matrix of the qubit system, $\rho_\mathrm{MBQ,f}$, given that it started with density matrix $\rho_\mathrm{MBQ,0}$. For the dot system initially in state $|2_d\rangle$, one finds $$\label{MBQredfinal}
\rho_\mathrm{MBQ,f}=\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{env-meas}\,\left[U^\dagger(t)\left(\rho_\mathrm{MBQ,0}\otimes |2_d\rangle\langle2_d|\right)U(t)\right],$$ where $U(t)$ is the time-evolution operator, and the trace runs over the measurement apparatus and environmental degrees of freedom. The Hamiltonian of the system in dot basis $\lbrace |1_d\rangle,|2_d\rangle\rbrace$ takes the form (cf. equation (4)) $$\label{Henv}
H = H_Q + \left(\begin{array}{cc} \varepsilon +\hat Q_1& \hat{t}\\
\hat{t}^\dagger\, & \, -\varepsilon + \hat Q_2
\end{array}\right),$$ where $\hat{Q}_{1,2}$ are operators that describe coupling of the charges $q_{1,2}$ on dots 1 and 2 to the environment (described by $H_Q$). For the two-qubit example mentioned above, the tunneling-amplitude is given by $\hat{t}=t_a \hat{z}_a + t_b \hat{z}_b$. At the end of the qubit readout procedure, the dot system is tuned out of resonance and the electron ends up in either $|2_d\rangle$ or $|1_d\rangle$, which can be confirmed by a measurement [as used for MBQ readout before]{}. We therefore consider two cases: either the electron ends up in the original state in [$|2_d\rangle$]{}, or in the other dot state $|1_d\rangle$.
If we find the dot state $|2_d\rangle$, the reduced density matrix is $\langle 2_d| \rho_\mathrm{MBQ,f}|2_d\rangle$. It is straightforward to see (by expansion of the time-evolution operator in powers of $\hat{t},~\hat{t}^\dagger$) that then only terms with exactly as many forward ($\hat{t}$) as backward-tunneling ($\hat{t}^\dagger$) events survive, i.e., terms that depend on $|\hat{t}|$ but not on the tunneling amplitude $\hat t$ itself. For the two-qubit example these terms depend only on $\hat{z}_a\hat{z}_b$. In other words, even though the dot system is collapsed and dephases during the readout process, only the relative phase - encoded in $|\hat t|$ - is affected. Thus, with a successful readout of the Rabi frequency $\omega_{z_az_b=\pm1}$ the desired projection of the MBQ density matrix to a coherent subspace, $z_az_b=+1$ or $z_az_b=-1$ is ensured.
On the other hand, if we find a final dot state $|1_d\rangle$ the electron has been transferred to the other dot during the readout procedure, such that there must be exactly one extra tunneling $\hat{t}= t_a\hat z_a + t_b\hat z_b$ (not balanced by back-tunneling $\hat{t}^\dagger$), and the MBQ states have acquired an additional phase factor. To recover the desired final density matrix, we can apply a confirmed electron transfer between the two dots, $1\to 2$. As discussed in the main text, such a transfer then applies the tunneling operator $\hat{t}^\dagger$, independent of adiabaticity. After the confirmed transfer to the final state $|2_d\rangle$, we are in the same situation as before, ending up with the desired projection. Moreover, we note that after a joint-parity readout with result (say) $z_az_b = +$, because of $t^{(+,+)} = -t^{(-,-)}$, the recovery operation is identified by a relative sign between the two allowed states $|00\rangle_{ab}$ and $|11\rangle_{ab}$ in that subspace. In fact, by keeping track of the initial and final quantum dot states one can take this phase into account without physically applying the recovery operation. The above arguments can be generalized to situations with more MBQs between the quantum dots and to stabilizers in more complex systems [@Plugge2016].
We have thus established that MBQ quantum information is well-protected during readout and manipulation because it is hosted in cotunneling links. This is in contrast to, e.g., spin qubits where the quantum information is transferred to quantum dot states themselves. Nevertheless, there will still be residual mechanisms for dephasing. One source could be charged two-level systems that couple to the excited charge states of the MBQ such that the fluctuator acquires which-path information during cotunneling events. This effect is, however, suppressed because the relevant time scale for tunneling is $\sim E_C^{-1}$ and therefore fluctuators with characteristic times longer than this cannot obtain significant which-path information. Moreover, near the center of the Coulomb valley where the MBQ is charge symmetric addition and removal of charges cost the same energy $E_C$, and MBQ charge fluctuations due to different cotunneling events thus tend to average out. Finally, we mention that coupling to electromagnetic fluctuations that mixes the MBS with above-gap states could lead to dephasing. This effect is suppressed by the topological gap, but a more detailed calculation is needed to determine its importance.
[40]{}
Nayak C, Simon S H, Stern A, Freedman M and Das Sarma S 2008 *Rev. Mod. Phys.* [**80**]{} 1083
Alicea J 2012 *Rep. Prog. Phys.* [**75**]{} 076501
Leijnse M and Flensberg K 2012 *Semicond. Sci. Techn.* [**27**]{} 124003
Beenakker C W J 2013 *Annu. Rev. Con. Mat. Phys.* [**4**]{} 113
Mourik V *et al.* 2012 *Science* [**336**]{} 1003
Higginbotham A P *et al.* 2015 *Nat. Phys.* [**11**]{} 1017
Albrecht S M *et al.* 2016 *Nature* [**531**]{} 206
Zhang H *et al.* 2016 Ballistic Majorana nanowire devices arXiv:1603.04069.
Clarke D J, Sau J D and Tewari S 2011 *Phys. Rev. B* [**84**]{} 035120
Alicea J, Oreg Y, Refael G, von Oppen F. and Fisher M P A 2011 *Nat. Phys.* [**7**]{} 412
Hyart T *et al.* 2013 *Phys. Rev. B* [**88**]{} 03512
Aasen D *et al.* 2016 *Phys. Rev. X* [**6**]{} 031016
B[é]{}ri B and Cooper N 2012 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**109**]{} 156803
Altland A and Egger R 2013 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**110**]{} 196401
Landau L A, Plugge S, Sela A, Altland A, Albrecht S and Egger R 2016 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**116**]{} 050501
Plugge S, Landau L A, Sela A, Altland A, Flensberg K and Egger R 2016 *Phys. Rev. B* **94** 174514
Bonderson P, Shtengel K and Slingerland J K 2007 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**98**]{} 070401
Petta J R *et al.* 2005 *Science* [**309**]{} 2180
Gharavi K, Hoving D and Baugh J 2016 *Phys. Rev. B* **94** 155417
Nakamura Y, Pashkin Yu A, Yamamoto T, Tsai J S 2002 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **88** 047901
Petersson K D *et al.* 2010 *Nano Lett.* [**10**]{} 2789
Colless J I *et al.* 2013 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**110**]{} 046805
Frey T *et al.* 2012 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**108**]{} 046807
Liu Y-Y, Petersson K D, Stehlik J, Taylor J M and Petta J R 2014 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**113**]{} 036801
Flensberg K 2011 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**106**]{} 090503
Semenoff G W and Sodano P 2006 *Electron. J. Theor. Phys.* [**3**]{} 157
Fu L 2010 *Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**104**]{} 056402
Nielsen M A and Chuang I L 2000 *Quantum Computation and Quantum Information* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000).
Preskill J 2015 *Physics 219 Lecture Notes* (Caltech), [http://www.theory.caltech.edu/ preskill/ph219/]{}
Bonderson P, Freedman M and Nayak C 2008 *Phys Rev. Lett.* [**101**]{} 010501
Karzig T *et al.* 2016 Scalable Designs for Quasiparticle-Poisoning-Protected Topological Quantum Computation with Majorana Zero Modes arXiv:1610.05289
Blais A, Huang R S, Wallraff A, Girvin S M and Schoelkopf R J 2004 *Phys. Rev. A* [**69**]{} 062320
Peano V and Thorwart M 2010 *Phys. Rev. B* [**82**]{} 155129
Ohm C and Hassler F 2015 *Phys. Rev. B* [**91**]{} 085406
Yavilberg K, Ginossar E and Grosfeld E 2015 *Phys. Rev. B* [**92**]{} 075143
Kelly J *et al.* 2015 *Nature* [**519**]{} 7541
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study a competition model on ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$ where the two infections are driven by supercritical Bernoulli percolations with distinct parameters $p$ and $q$. We prove that, for any $q$, there exist at most countably many values of $p<\min{\{q,{\overrightarrow{p_c}}\}}$ such that coexistence can occur.'
address:
- |
Laboratoire de Math[é]{}matiques, Applications et Physique Math[é]{}matique d’Orl[é]{}ans UMR 6628\
Universit[é]{} d’Orl[é]{}ans\
B.P. 6759\
45067 Orl[é]{}ans Cedex 2 France
- |
Institut Elie Cartan Nancy (math[é]{}matiques)\
Universit[é]{} Henri Poincar[é]{} Nancy 1\
Campus Scientifique, BP 239\
54506 Vandoeuvre-l[è]{}s-Nancy Cedex France
author:
- Olivier Garet
- 'R[é]{}gine Marchand'
bibliography:
- 'ncd.bib'
title: Competition between growths governed by Bernoulli Percolation
---
\[section\] \[theorem\][Conjecture]{}
\[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{}
[ ]{}
Introduction
============
Consider two infections, say *blue* and *yellow*, which attempt to conquer, in discrete time, the space ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$. At time $0$, all sites are empty but two: one is *active blue*, source of the blue infection, the other one is *active yellow*, source of the yellow infection. To evolve from time $t$ to time $t+1$, the process is governed by the following rules. Each infection is only transmitted by *active* sites of its color to *empty* sites. Each active site tries to infect each of its empty neighbors, and succeeds with probability $p_{\blue}$ or $p_{\yellow}$, according to its color, blue or yellow. In case of success, the non-occupied site becomes an active site with the color of the infection; otherwise, it remains empty. In any case, the active site becomes a *passive* site of the same color, and can not transmit any infection anymore. Moreover, we make the following assumptions:
- the success of each attempt of contamination at a given time does not depend on the past,
- the successes of simultaneous attempts of contamination are independent.
The first point allows a modelization of this competition model by a homogeneous Markov chain while Markov chains satisfying the second point are sometimes called *Probabilistic Cellular Automata (PCA)*. Note that if the two initial sources are at an *odd* $\|.\|_1$-distance from each other, no empty site will be infected at the same time by the two distinct infections. To extend the definition of the model to more general initial configurations, we will add some extra rules in the next section.
Thus the two infections compete to invade space: once a site is colored, it keeps its color for ever and cannot be used by the other infection as a transmitter. As in other competition models, it is natural to ask whether coexistence, [*i.e.* ]{}unbounded growth of the two infections, can occur. We propose the following conjecture:
\[Introconj\] If $p_{\blue}=p_{\yellow}>p_c$ then coexistence occurs with positive probability, while if $p_{\blue} \neq p_{\yellow}$ and at least one them is strictly smaller than $\overrightarrow{p_c}$ then coexistence cannot occur.
We will soon see that this competition model is closely linked to Bernoulli bond percolation on ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$, where, as usually, $p_c=p_c(d)$ denotes the critical probability and $\overrightarrow{p_c}=\overrightarrow{p_c}(d)$ the critical probability in the oriented setting. This link will easily explain the fact that if $p_{\blue}<p_c$ – [*resp.* ]{}$p_{\yellow}<p_c$ – then with probability one the blue – [*resp.* ]{}yellow – infection dies out. Thus the interesting case is when each infection has a parameter larger than $p_c$. In the same manner, it is not difficult to see, using properties of supercritical oriented Bernoulli percolation, that if both $p_{\blue}$ and $p_{\yellow}$ exceed ${\overrightarrow{p_c}}$, then the blue and yellow infections can simultaneously grow unboundedly.
The coexistence statement of the conjecture has already been proved in a previous paper of the authors [@GM-coex]. To precise the second part, and before stating the corresponding main result of this paper, we would like to recall the state of the art in competition problems of this type. A very natural way to obtain a competition model is to extend some well understood one-type interacting particle system in such a way that each infection behaves like the one-type model does in each region where only one of both types is present. Some famous one-type interacting particle have been considered: the contact process by Neuhauser [@neuhauser], the Richardson model by Häggström and Pemantle [@Haggstrom-Pemantle-1; @Haggstrom-Pemantle-2], or by another way by Kordzakhia and Lalley [@KL], Deijfen’s continuous version of Richardson model [@deijfen] by Deijfen, Haggström and Bagley [@DHB] and Deijfen and Häggström [@DH]. Each of these models actually corresponds to a family of stochastically comparable processes indexed by a continuous parameter and it is natural to ask if coexistence is possible when the two infections are governed by the same parameter – [*resp.* ]{}by different parameters. Note that in all these models, the stochastically comparable processes are governed by exponential families. The following dichotomy seems to emerge.
Either the two infections have the same strength, or same speed of propagation. In this case, coexistence occurs with positive probability: it has been proved at first for the two-type Richardson model when $d=2$ by Häggström and Pemantle [@Haggstrom-Pemantle-1] and then extended by Garet and Marchand [@GM-coex] for a wide class of first-passage percolation models, including the percolation model that is studied here. An alternative proof is also given by Hoffman [@hoffman]. Similarly, Deijfen and Häggström [@DH] proved the possibility of coexistence for Deijfen’s continuous version of Richardson model. The same result is also proved by Kordzakhia and Lalley [@KL] for their own extension of Richardson model. Nevertheless, their proof is conditioned by a difficult and reasonable conjecture on the curvature properties of the asymptotic shape for Richardson model.
Or one infection is stronger – or faster than the other one. It is then conjectured that coexistence is not possible. The first and famous result in this direction was done by Häggström and Pemantle [@Haggstrom-Pemantle-2]: they proved that for their model, coexistence is not possible, except perhaps for a denumerable set for the ratio of the speeds. The result of Deijfen, Häggström and Bagley [@DHB] is submitted to the same irritating restriction rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
$p_{\blue}=p_{\yellow}=0.6$ $p_{\blue}=0.7\ p_{\yellow}=0.6$
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
For our model, we prove, in this paper, the similar following result:
\[THEtheorem\] Let $p_{\blue}>p_c$ be fixed: there exists a denumerable set $\text{Bad}\subset [p_c,{\overrightarrow{p_c}})$ such that for each $p_{\yellow}\in [0,\min\{p_{\blue},{\overrightarrow{p_c}}\})\backslash \text{Bad}$, the probability that both infections infinitely grow is null.
Before commenting this result, and to complete the survey, let us mention the recent paper by Deijfen and Häggström [@DH-nonmon], where they exhibit graphs where coexistence occurs for several values for the ratio of the speeds. This should prevent researchers from unsuccessful attempts to fill the gap with the only help of stochastic comparisons.
In its main lines, the present paper follows the strategy initiated by Häggström and Pemantle [@Haggstrom-Pemantle-2], but it has to overcome some extra difficulties. Our model also depends on one simple parameter – the parameter of the related Bernoulli percolation – which allows coupling and stochastic comparisons. However, note that:
- The memoryless properties of the exponential laws are lost: one active site tries to infect an empty neighbor only once.
- Scaling properties of the asymptotic shape in first-passage percolation with exponential times are lost: asymptotic shapes corresponding to different values of the parameter are not homothetic anymore.
The paper is organized as follows. First, in Section \[Sectiondefinition\], we describe precisely the PCA underlying this competition process, exhibit its reformulation in terms of Bernoulli percolation, and give some related coupling properties and stochastic comparison results. Then, Section \[Sectionbernoulli\] gives a primer of results concerning Bernoulli percolation and the related chemical distance: we particularly recall there the convergence result of the chemical distance in Bernoulli percolation with supercritical parameter $p$ to a norm $\|.\|_p$, and an associated large deviation result.
The first key point of the proof of the main result is the strict comparison of the norms associated to the asymptotic behavior of chemical distance in Bernoulli percolation with different parameters, which will replace the homothetic properties of asymptotic shapes in the case of exponential laws. Section \[Sectionstrictecomp\] is devoted to the proof of this result:
\[Introstrictecomp\] Assume that $p_c<p<\overrightarrow{p_c}$ and $p<q \le 1$. There exists a positive constant $C_{p,q}<1$ such that $$\forall x \in {\mathbb{R}^d}\quad \|x\|_q \le C_{p,q}\|x\|_p.$$
Although the large comparison $\|x\|_q \le \|x\|_p$ is quite natural, the strict comparison will be necessary to ensure, roughly speaking, that in every direction, the stronger infection can take a real advantage and grow strictly faster than the other one.
The second key step is to prove that when coexistence occurs, the global growth of the infected sites is governed by the norm of the weaker infection: denote by $\eta(t)$ is the set of already infected sites at time $t$ and $|A|_p=\sup\{\|x\|_p: \; x\in A\}$. Then
\[Introslowspeed\] Let $p$ and $q$ be such that $p_c<q\le 1$ and $0\le p<\min\{q,{\overrightarrow{p_c}}\}$. On the event “the weak infection survives”, we have almost surely: $${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
{\overline{\lim}}\\
{\scriptstyle t\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac{|\eta(t)|_{p}}t\le 1.$$
The proof of this proposition – in fact the core of the paper – is given in Section \[Sectionslowspeed\]. It relies both on the previous proposition and on the large deviation result on the set of infected points with respect to the asymptotic shape in the corresponding one infection model which is recalled in Section \[Sectionbernoulli\].
Finally, in Section \[Section\_proof\_theo\], we collect all these results to prove the main theorem via coupling results that are in the spirit of Häggström and Pemantle’s work [@Haggstrom-Pemantle-2].
The competition model {#Sectiondefinition}
=====================
This section has several goals:
- to complete the progression rules exposed in the introduction and to define the model for general initial configurations. This will correspond to the artificial introduction of *green* sites.
- to define the PCA by describing the transition matrix of the homogeneous Markov chain in terms of local rules.
- to give an alternative description (\[THEdefinition\]) in terms of Bernoulli percolation and chemical distance and to prove the equivalence between the two definitions in Lemma \[randomset\]. This definition will be the one used in the next sections.
- Use this last definition to give monotonicity properties in Lemma \[yal\] and comparisons properties between the one-type growth and the two-types growth model in Lemma \[comparaison\].
Suppose from now on that $p_{\yellow}\le p_{\blue}$, which means that the blue infection is stronger than the yellow one. To complete the description of the model, let us first describe the interface between the two infections via the introduction of *green* sites. A green site is to be understood as a superposition of a blue site and a yellow site. To be coherent with the previous rules, we assume that an active green site transmits to each of its empty neighbors either both infections with probability $p_{\yellow}$, or only the blue infection with probability $p_{\blue}-p_{\yellow}$, or fails in its infection attempts with probability $1-p_{\blue}$; it then becomes a passive green site. Note that this rule is quite arbitrary. The necessary part is that a green site transmits to one of its neighbor a yellow – [*resp.* ]{}blue – infection with probability $p_{\yellow}$ – [*resp.* ]{}$p_{\blue}$ – and we choose the coupling between these two transmissions to simplify some coupling in the sequel, but it has no real influence on the behavior of the model.
To determine the state at time $t+1$ of an empty site $x$ at time $t$, we then check the types of infections that are transmitted to it: either they are all of the same color, blue or yellow, and $x$ becomes an active site of this color, or they are of both colors, and $x$ becomes an active green site, or no infection is transmitted to $x$, which then remains empty. We can now give the formal definition of the PCA.
Definition of the Probabilistic Cellular Automata (PCA)
-------------------------------------------------------
### Definition of the graph ${\mathbb{L}^d}$ {#definition-of-the-graph-mathbbld .unnumbered}
We endow the set ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$ with the set of edges ${\mathbb{E}^d}$ between sites of ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$ that are at distance 1 for the Euclidean distance: the obtained graph is denoted ${\mathbb{L}^d}$. Two sites $x$ and $y$ that are linked by an edge are said to be *neighbors* and this relation is denoted: $x \sim y$.
### State space {#state-space .unnumbered}
Let us introduce the set $S=\{0,\blue,\yellow,\green,\bluestar,\yellowstar,\greenstar\}$ of possible states of a site: $0$ is the state of an empty site, $\blue,\yellow,\green$ – corresponding respectively to colors blue, yellow and green – the states of active sites, and $\bluestar,\yellowstar,\greenstar$ the states of passive colored sites.
In the sequel, we will restrict our Markov chain to start from a configuration with a finite number of colored sites, whence the only configurations appearing during the whole process will also have a finite numbers of colored sites. Our Markov chain will thus live in the following denumerable state set: $$S^{({\mathbb{Z}^d})}=\{\xi\in S^{{\mathbb{Z}^d}}: \; \exists \Lambda\text{ finite},\; \xi_k=0\text{ for }k\in{\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash\Lambda\}.$$
### Local rules {#local-rules .unnumbered}
To complete the definition of the Markov chain, it only remains to define its transition probabilities, via *local rules*, describing the evolutions of the infections exposed in the introduction. Define, for $c \in \Act=\{\blue,\yellow,\green\}$, the number $n_x^\xi(c)$ of active neighbors with color $c$ of the site $x\in {\mathbb{Z}^d}$ in the configuration $\xi \in S^{({\mathbb{Z}^d})}$: $$n_x^\xi(c)=|\{y\in{\mathbb{Z}^d}: \; x \sim y \text{ and }\xi_y=c\}|,$$ and define the probability $p_x^\xi(c, \tilde c)$ that the site $x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}$, in the configuration $\xi \in S^{({\mathbb{Z}^d})}$, swaps from color $c$ to color $\tilde c$:
- If $x$ is an empty site, [*i.e.* ]{}if $\xi_x=0$, set: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
p_x^\xi(0,0)
& = & (1-p_\blue)^{n_x^\xi(\blue)+n_x^\xi(\green)} (1-p_\yellow)^{n_x^\xi(\yellow)} \\
p_x^\xi(0,\yellow)
& = & (1-p_\blue)^{n_x^\xi(\blue)+n_x^\xi(\green)} \left[ 1-(1-p_\yellow)^{n_x^\xi(\yellow)} \right] \\
p_x^\xi(0,\blue)
& = & \left[ 1-(1-p_\blue)^{n_x^\xi(\blue)} \right] (1-p_\yellow)^{n_x^\xi(\yellow)+n_x^\xi(\green)} \\
& & + (1-p_\blue)^{n_x^\xi(\blue)} (1-p_\yellow)^{n_x^\xi(\yellow)} \left[ 1-(1-p_\blue+p_\yellow)^{n_x^\xi(\green)} \right] \\
p_x^\xi(0,\green)
& = & 1- p_x^\xi(0,0)-p_x^\xi(0,\yellow)-p_x^\xi(0,\blue).
\end{array}
\right.$$
- If $x$ is an active site, it becomes passive: $\forall c \in \Act, \; p_x^\xi(c, c^*) = 1$.
- If $x$ is an passive site, it remains passive: $\forall c \in \Act, \; p_x^\xi(c^*, c^*) = 1$.
- In any other case, the probability is null.
### Transition probabilities {#transition-probabilities .unnumbered}
We can then define the following transition probabilities on the state set $S^{({\mathbb{Z}^d})}$: $$\label{matrix}
\forall (\xi^1,\xi^2)\in S^{({\mathbb{Z}^d})}\times S^{({\mathbb{Z}^d})}\quad p(\xi^1,\xi^2)=\prod_{x\in{\mathbb{Z}^d}} p_x^{\xi^1}(\xi^1_x,\xi^2_x).$$ Note that, as only a finite number of terms differ from $1$, the previous product is convergent.
Realization of the Markov chain via Bernoulli percolation {#partbernouill}
---------------------------------------------------------
The aim of this part is to link this PCA with some natural Bernoulli percolation structures on ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$, and to give an alternative description of the model in terms of random sets and of a specific first-passage percolation model. We begin with some classical notations of Bernoulli percolation on ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$.
### Bernoulli percolation {#bernoulli-percolation .unnumbered}
On the set $\Omega=[0,1]^{{\mathbb{E}^d}}$ endowed with its Borel $\sigma$-algebra, consider the probability measure ${\mathbb{P}}=\text{Unif}[0,1]^{\otimes{\mathbb{E}^d}}$. For each $p\in [0,1]$ and $\omega\in\Omega$, we denote by $\mathcal G_p(\omega)$ the subgraph of ${\mathbb{L}^d}$ whose bonds $e$ are $p$-*open*, which means that they are are such that $\omega_e\le p$.
For $A\subset{\mathbb{Z}^d}$ and $p\in [0,1]$, we also note $$\label{bordaleatoire}
\partial_{p} A (\omega)=\{y\in{\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash A: \; \exists x\in A\quad \{x,y\}\in \mathcal G_p(\omega)\}.$$
On this probability space, we now define a homogeneous Markov chain $(X_t)_{t \ge 0}$ with values in $S^{{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$ and with transition probabilities as in (\[matrix\]).
### Definition of the process {#definition-of-the-process .unnumbered}
Let $\xi^0 \in S^{{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$ be a fixed initial configuration. We define $$\begin{array}{lll}
A^{\blue}_0=\{x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}: \; \xi^0_x \in \{ {\blue},{\green}\}\}
& \text{and} & A^{\yellow}_0=\{x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}: \; \xi^0_x \in \{ {\yellow},{\green}\}\}, \\
B^{\blue}_0=\{x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}: \; \xi^0_x \in \{ \blue,\green,
{\blue}^*,{\green}^*\}\}
& \text{and} & B^{\yellow}_0=\{x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}: \; \xi^0_x \in \{ \yellow,\green,{\yellow}^*,{\green}^*\}\}.
\end{array}$$ Note that by intersection and difference, we can exactly recover through these four sets the whole configuration $\xi^0$.
Let $0\le p_{\yellow} \le p_{\blue}\le 1$, and consider a Bernoulli configuration $\omega \in \Omega$, which will give the evolution rules of the process. An infection can only travel from an active site of the corresponding color to an empty site, via an edge which is $p$-open in $\omega$ for the parameter $p$ associated to this infection, [*i.e.* ]{}either $p_{\yellow}$ or $p_{\blue}$. As before, an active green site is to be imagined as a superposition of an active yellow site and an active blue site. So, if $e$ is an edge between an active green site and an empty site, then three cases arise: if $0\le \omega_e \le p_{\yellow}$ then $e$ will transmit to $x$ both infections, if $p_{\yellow} \le \omega_e \le p_{\blue}$ then $e$ will only transmit to $x$ the blue infection, while if $p_{\blue} \le \omega_e$ then no infection will travel through $e$ to $x$.
To determine the state at time $t+1$ of an empty site $x$ at time $t$, we look simultaneously at all edges between active sites at time $n$ and $x$: if all these edges transmit the same infection – blue or yellow – then $x$ takes this color and becomes active, if these edges transmit infections of the two different types, then $x$ becomes green and active, and otherwise, $x$ remains empty. Active sites at time $t$ become passive sites of the same color at time $t+1$. These rules are translated in the following recursive definitions: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
A^{\yellow}_{t+1}(\omega)
& = & \partial_{p_{\yellow}}A^{\yellow}_t(\omega) \backslash (B^{\blue}_t (\omega)\cup B^{\yellow}_t(\omega)), \\
B^{\yellow}_{t+1} (\omega)
& = & B^{\yellow}_t(\omega)\cup A^{\yellow}_{t+1}(\omega)
= B^{\yellow}_t (\omega)\cup (\partial_{p_{\yellow}}B^{\yellow}_t(\omega) \backslash
B^{\blue}_t(\omega)), \\
A^{\blue}_{t+1} (\omega)
& = & \partial_{p_{\blue}}A^{\blue}_t(\omega) \backslash (B^{\blue}_t (\omega)\cup B^{\yellow}_t(\omega)), \\
B^{\blue}_{t+1} (\omega)
& = & B^{\blue}_t\cup A^{\blue}_{t+1}(\omega))
= B^{\blue}_t (\omega)\cup (\partial_{p_{\blue}}B^{\blue}_t(\omega) \backslash
B^{\yellow}_t(\omega)).
\end{array}
\right.$$ The set $A^{\blue}_t$ ([*resp.* ]{}$A^{\yellow}_t$) is the set of active sites at time $t$ in that are either blue or green ([*resp.* ]{}yellow or green), while $B^{\blue}_t$ ([*resp.* ]{}$B^{\yellow}_t$) is the set of sites at time $t$ that are either blue or green ([*resp.* ]{}yellow or green). Note that by these definitions, a given site can be active at one time at most. We define then, for every $t\ge 0$, the value of the process $X_t$ at time $t$ as the element of $S^{{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$ encoded by the four random sets $A^{\yellow}_t$, $B^{\yellow}_t$, $A^{\blue}_t$ and $B^{\blue}_t$.
\[randomset\] The process $(X_{t})_{t\ge 0}$ is a homogeneous Markov chain governed by the transition probabilities defined in (\[matrix\]).
Fix $\xi_0 \in S^{{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$, and define $A^{\blue}_0$, $A^{\yellow}_0$, $B^{\blue}_0$ and $B^{\yellow}_0$ as previously.
The only point is to prove that $(X_{t})_{t\ge 0}$ is a homogeneous Markov chain, the identification of the transition probabilities is clear by construction. The ideas of the proof stay in the following easy remarks:
- During the process, any site can only be active at one time at most.
- Suppose that at time $t$, the process is in state $\xi$. To decide in which state it will switch at time $t+1$, the only edges that are to be examined are the ones between an active site and an empty site in $\xi$.
- Thus, during the process, each edge is examined only once at most.
So knowing the present, the past will not affect the future. In the rest of the proof, we try to turn this crude argument into a more rigorous one.
In order to define the four random sets at time $t+1$ from the four random sets at time $t$ and $\omega$, we introduce, for any subsets $A,B,C$ of ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$, any Bernoulli configuration $\omega \in \Omega$ and any probability $0\le p\le 1$, define the two following functions: $$\begin{aligned}
F(p,\omega,A,B,C) & = & \partial_{p}A(\omega) \backslash (B\cup C), \\
G(p,\omega,A,B) & = & A\cup (\partial_{p}A(\omega) \backslash B). \end{aligned}$$ Then, the previous definitions are equivalent to: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rcl}
A^{\yellow}_{t+1}(\omega)
& = & F(p_{\yellow},\omega,A^{\yellow}_t(\omega) ,B^{\yellow}_t(\omega) ,B^{\blue}_t(\omega) ), \\
B^{\yellow}_{t+1}(\omega)
& = & G(p_{\yellow},\omega,B^{\yellow}_t(\omega) ,B^{\blue}_t(\omega) ), \\
A^{\blue}_{t+1} (\omega)
& = & F(p_{\blue},\omega,A^{\blue}_t(\omega) ,B^{\yellow}_t(\omega) ,B^{\blue}_t(\omega) ), \\
B^{\blue}_{t+1} (\omega)
& = & G(p_{\blue},\omega,B^{\blue}_t(\omega) ,B^{\yellow}_t(\omega) ),
\end{array}
\right.$$ which is equivalent to say that $(X_t)_{t\ge 0}$ satisfies a recurrence formula of the type $X_{t+1}=f(X_t,\omega)$, where the function $f$ can be expressed in terms of the two functions $F$ and $G$.
To obtain the canonical Markov Chain representation $X_{t+1}=f(X_t,\omega^{t+1})$, we are going to build a coupling between a random variable uniformly distributed on $\Omega$ and an independent and identically distributed sequence $(\omega^t)_{t\ge 1}$ with the same law. Let $(\tilde{\Omega}, \tilde{\mathcal{F}},\tilde{{\mathbb{P}}})$ be a probability space and let $(\omega^t)_{t \ge 1}$ be independent $[0,1]^{{\mathbb{E}^d}}$-valued random variables with $\text{Unif}([0,1])^{\otimes{\mathbb{E}^d}}$ as common law. We define $A^{\blue}_0$, $A^{\yellow}_0$, $B^{\blue}_0$ and $B^{\yellow}_0$ exactly as previously. But now, we set recursively: $$\begin{aligned}
A^{\yellow}_{t+1} = F(p_{\yellow},\omega^{t+1},A^{\yellow}_t,B^{\yellow}_t,B^{\blue}_t)
& \text{and} &
B^{\yellow}_{t+1} = G(p_{\yellow},\omega^{t+1},B^{\yellow}_t,B^{\blue}_t), \\
A^{\blue}_{t+1} = F(p_{\blue},\omega^{t+1},A^{\blue}_t,B^{\yellow}_t,B^{\blue}_t)
& \text{and} &
B^{\blue}_{t+1} = G(p_{\blue},\omega^{t+1},B^{\blue}_t,B^{\yellow}_t),\end{aligned}$$ Note that these four sets are measurable with respect to the $\sigma$-algebra generated by $(\omega^1,\dots,\omega^{t+1})$. Let $\tilde{\omega}^0$ be a random variable defined on $(\tilde{\Omega}, \tilde{\mathcal{F}},\tilde{{\mathbb{P}}})$, with law $\text{Unif}([0,1])^{\otimes{\mathbb{E}^d}}$, and independent of the sequence $(\omega^t)_{t \ge 1}$, and define $(\tilde{\omega}^t)_{t \ge 0}$ recursively as follows: for any edge $e=\{x,y\}\in {\mathbb{E}^d}$, set $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\omega}_e^{t+1} = &
\begin{cases}
\omega_e^{t+1} & \text{if }
x \in (A^{\yellow}_t \cup A^{\blue}_t) \text{ and }y \notin (B^{\yellow}_t \cup B^{\blue}_t),\\
\tilde{\omega}_e^t & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ By natural induction, we prove that the law of $\tilde{\omega}^t$ under $\tilde{{\mathbb{P}}}$ is $\text{Unif}([0,1])^{\otimes{\mathbb{E}^d}}$. By construction, each edge $e$ writes $e=\{x,y\}$ with $x \in (A^1_t \cup A^2_t) \text{ and } y \notin (B^1_t \cup B^2_t)$ for at most one value of $t$. It follows that the sequence $(\tilde{\omega}^t)_{t \ge 0}$ converges in the product topology to a limit that we denote $\tilde{\omega}^{\infty}$. Since the law of $\tilde{\omega}^t$ under $\tilde{{\mathbb{P}}}$ is $\text{Unif}([0,1])^{\otimes{\mathbb{E}^d}}$, it follows that the law of $\tilde{\omega}^{\infty}$ under $\tilde{{\mathbb{P}}}$ is also $\text{Unif}([0,1])^{\otimes{\mathbb{E}^d}}$.
Now, it is not difficult to see that the sequence $(X_t)_{t\ge 0}$ defined from $\tilde{\omega}^{\infty}$ as previously, satisfies the recurrence formula $X_{t+1}=f(X_t,\tilde{\omega}^{\infty})$, but also $X_{t+1}=f(X_t,\omega^{t+1})$, which proves that $(X_{t})_{t\ge 0}$ is an homogeneous Markov chain.
Monotonicity properties and notations
-------------------------------------
>From now on, we will denote by $(X_{t}^{\xi,p,q})_{t\ge 0}$ the competition process where
- $\xi \in S^{({\mathbb{Z}^d})}$ is the initial configuration: $X_{0}^{\xi,p,q}=\xi$,
- $0 \le p \le q \le 1$: the weakest (also called yellow) infection uses parameter $p$ while the strongest (also called blue) uses $q$.
The corresponding random sets are now denoted by: $$\begin{cases}
\eta^{1}_{\xi,p,q}(t)=\{x\in{\mathbb{Z}^d}: \; X^{\xi,p,q}_t(x)\in
\{\yellow,\yellowstar,\green,\greenstar\}\}, \\
\eta^{2}_{\xi,p,q}(t)=\{x\in{\mathbb{Z}^d}: \; X^{\xi,p,q}_t(x)\in
\{\blue,\bluestar,\green,\greenstar\}\}.
\end{cases}$$ Thus for $t\ge1$, they are also defined by the following recursive rules – remember that the notation $\partial_p$ was defined in (\[bordaleatoire\]): $$\label{THEdefinition}
\begin{cases}
\eta^{1}_{\xi,p,q}(t)= \eta^{1}_{\xi,p,q}(t-1)\cup (\partial_{p} \eta^{1}_{\xi,p,q}(t-1) \backslash \eta^{2}_{\xi,p,q}(t-1)) , \\
\eta^{2}_{\xi,p,q}(t)= \eta^{2}_{\xi,p,q}(t-1)\cup (\partial_{q} \eta^{1}_{\xi,p,q}(t-1) \backslash \eta^{2}_{\xi,p,q}(t-1)).
\end{cases}$$ This particular realization of our competition process will be used in the sequel of the paper, because it presents the advantage to give an easy access to coupling and monotonicity properties. Note that the function $$\begin{array}{rrcl}
G: & [0,1] \times \Omega \times \mathcal{P}({\mathbb{Z}^d}) \times \mathcal{P}({\mathbb{Z}^d}) & \longrightarrow & \mathcal{P}({\mathbb{Z}^d}) \\
& (p,\omega,A,B) & \longmapsto & G(p,\omega,A,B)=A\cup (\partial_{p}A(\omega) \backslash B)
\end{array}$$ introduced in the proof of Lemme \[randomset\] is non-decreasing in $p$ and $A$, and non-increasing in $B$. As it defines the random sets at time $t+1$ from the random sets at time $t$, this implies in particular that:
$\;$ \[yal\]
- $\eta^{1}_{\xi,p,q}(t+1)$ is non-decreasing in $p$ and non-increasing in $q$,
- $\eta^{2}_{\xi,p,q}(t+1)$ is non-decreasing in $q$ and non-increasing in $p$.
The next Lemma is trivial, but it is an illustration of the fundamental role played by the chemical distance in Bernoulli percolation in our analysis of this competition model: it says that the set of sites infected by any of the two infections at time $n$ can be compared with the single weaker infection.
\[comparaison\] Let us define, for any $0\le p\le 1$ and any $s \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}$, the process $(B^s_p(t))_{t\in{\mathbb{Z}_{+}}}$ by : $$B^s_p(0)=\{s\}
\text{ and } \forall t \ge0, \;
B^s_p(t+1)=B^s_p(t) \cup \partial_{p} B^s_p(t).$$ Let $s_1$ and $s_2$ be two distinct sites of ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$ and $\xi$ be the element of $S^{{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$ where all sites are empty, but $\xi_{s_1}=\yellow$ and $\xi_{s_2}=\blue$. Suppose that $0\le p\le q \le 1$. Then $$\forall t\in{\mathbb{Z}_{+}}\quad
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
B^{s_1}_p(t)\subset \eta^1_{\xi,p,q}(t)\cup \eta^2_{\xi,p,q}(t), \\
\eta^1_{\xi,p,q}(t) \subset B^{s_1}_p(t) \text{ and }
\eta^2_{\xi,p,q}(t) \subset B^{s_2}_q(t).
\end{array}
\right.$$
It is easy to see that $B^s_p(t)=\{x\in{\mathbb{Z}^d}: \; D_p(s,x)\le t\},$ where $D_p(x,y)$ is the cardinal of the shortest $p$-open path from $x$ to $y$ and is called the *chemical distance* between $x$ and $y$. Note that the inclusion $\eta^1_{\xi,p,q}(t) \subset B^{s_1}_p(t)$ implies that if $p<p_c$, then the infection with parameter $p$ almost surely dies out.
This description (\[THEdefinition\]) of the competition model leads us to recall notations and results about chemical distance in Bernoulli percolation.
Chemical distance in Bernoulli percolation {#Sectionbernoulli}
==========================================
In this section, we recall results concerning chemical distance in supercritical Bernoulli percolation:
- almost-sure convergence results (\[asymptotic-speed\]) and (\[asymptotic-shape\]) of the chemical distance to a deterministic norm,
- large deviations inequalities (\[ap-enrhume\]) and (\[shapeGD\]) associated to this convergence,
- classical estimates (\[amasfini\]) and (\[amasinfini\]) on the geometry of clusters.
We first complete the notations introduced at the beginning of Subsection \[partbernouill\]: the connected component of the site $x$ in the random graph $\mathcal{G}_p$ is denoted $C_p^x$, and the event that two sites $x$ and $y$ are in the same connected component of this graph is denoted $x {\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}y$. Bernoulli percolation is in particular famous for its phase transition: there exists $0<p_c=p_c(d)<1$ such that
- if $p < p_c$ then with probability $1$, the random graph $\mathcal G_p$ has only finite connected components,
- if $p > p_c$ then with probability $1$, the random graph $\mathcal G_p$ has at least one infinite connected component, which is moreover almost surely unique and denoted $C_p^\infty$.
See the reference book by Grimmett [@Grimmett-book] for instance.
A *path* is a sequence $\gamma=(x_1,
e_1,x_2,e_2,\ldots,x_n,e_n,x_{n+1})$ such that $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$ are neighbors and $e_i$ is the edge between $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$. We will also sometimes describe $\gamma$ only by the vertices it visits $\gamma=(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n,x_{n+1})$ or by its edges $\gamma=(e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_n)$. The number $n$ of edges in $\gamma$ is called the *length* of $\gamma$ and is denoted by $|\gamma|$. A path is said to be $p$-*open* in the configuration $\omega$ if all its edges are $p$-open in $\omega$. The *chemical distance* $D_p$ is the usual graph distance in $\mathcal G_p$: $$\forall x,y \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\quad D_p(x,y)=\inf\{|\gamma|: \; \gamma \text{ $p$-open path between $x$ and $y$}\}.$$ We also define the random balls associated to this random distance: $$\forall x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}, \, \forall t \ge 0 \quad
B_p^x(t)=\{y \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}: \quad D_p(x,y)\le t \}.$$ The formulation in terms of random distance comes from classical first-passage percolation, and indeed, this model can be seen as first-passage percolation, where the passage-time of an edge takes value $1$ with probability $p$ and value $\infty$ with probability $1-p$. An asymptotic shape result is also available for this model: in a previous paper [@GM-fpppc], we proved the existence of a deterministic norm $\|.\|_p$ on ${\mathbb{R}^d}$ such that $B^0_p(t)/t$ converges to the unit ball for $\|.\|_p$ on the event $\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}\infty\}=\{0 \in C_p^\infty\}$, for the Hausdorff distance between two non empty compact subsets of ${\mathbb{R}^d}$. For $x\in{\mathbb{R}^d}$ and $t\ge 0$, first define the deterministic balls associated to the norm $\|.\|_p$: $$\mathcal{B}_{p}^x(t)=\{y\in{\mathbb{R}^d}: \; \|x-y\|_p\le t\}.$$ The Hausdorff distance between two non empty compact subsets $A$ and $B$ of ${\mathbb{R}^d}$ is defined by $$\mathcal{D}(A,B)=\inf\{t\ge 0: \; A\subset B+\mathcal{B}_{p}^0(t)\text{ and }
B\subset A+\mathcal{B}_{p}^0(t)\}.$$ Note that the equivalence of norms on ${\mathbb{R}^d}$ ensures that the topology induced by this Hausdorff distance does not depend on the choice of the norm $\|.\|_p$. The convergence result writes then: for every $p>p_c(d)$,
- Existence of an asymptotic speed (Lemma 5.7 in [@GM-fpppc]). $$\label{asymptotic-speed}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
{\overline{\lim}}\\
{\scriptstyle \|x\|_p \to \infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}} {1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\{0 {\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}x\}} \left( \frac{D_p(0,x)}{\|x\|_p} -1\right) =0 \quad {\mathbb{P}}{\text{ a.s.}}$$
- Asymptotic shape result (Theorem 5.3 and Corollary 5.4 in [@GM-fpppc]).\
If ${\overline{\mathbb{P}}}_p(A)={\mathbb{P}}(A| 0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}\infty)$, then $$\label{asymptotic-shape}
\lim_{t\to +\infty}\mathcal{D}\left(\frac{B_p^0(t)}t,\mathcal{B}_{p}^0(1)\right)=0\quad{\overline{\mathbb{P}}}_p{\text{ a.s.}}$$
In the sequel, we will also use a corollary of these results. For $A\subset{\mathbb{Z}^d}$, we denote $$|A|_p=\sup\{\|x\|_p: \; x\in A\} \quad
\text{ and }
\quad |A|_{*,p}=\inf\{\|x\|_p: \; x\in C_{p}^\infty \backslash A\}.$$
\[shape\] Let $p>p_c(d)$. On the event $\{a\in C^{\infty}_p\}$, we have ${\mathbb{P}}$ almost surely: $$\frac{|B^a_{p}(t)|_{p}}t\to 1 \quad
\text{ and }
\quad \frac{|B^a_{p}(t)|_{*,p}}t\to 1.$$
The identities ${\overline{\lim}}_{t\to +\infty}\frac{|B^a_{p}(t)|_{p}}t= 1$ and ${\overline{\lim}}_{t\to +\infty}\frac{|B^a_{p}(t)|_{*,p}}t\le 1$ obviously follows from (\[asymptotic-shape\]). It remains to show that for each $\delta>0$, $${\mathbb{P}}\left( \frac{|B^a_{p}(t)|_{*,p}}t\le 1-\delta\ {\text{ i.o.}}\right)=0.$$ Suppose $\frac{|B^a_{p}(t)|_{*,p}}t\le 1-\delta\ {\text{ i.o.}}$: there exists sequences $(x_n)_{n\ge 1}$ and $(t_n)_{n\ge 1}$, with $x_n\in C^\infty_{p}$, $\|x_n\|_p\le t_n(1-\delta)$, $D_p(0,x_n)\ge t_n$ and $t_n\to +\infty$. The sequence $(x_n)_{n\ge 1}$ is necessary unbounded, otherwise there would exist a limiting value $x$, with $D_p(0,x)=+\infty$ and $x \in C^\infty_p$, which is not possible. It follows that there exist infinitely many $x\in C^\infty_p$ with $D_p(0,x)\ge (1+\delta)\|x\|_p$. By (\[asymptotic-speed\]), this happens with a null probability.
As a direct consequence of these convergence results and of the coupling identity $$D_q(0,nx) {1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\}}
\le D_p(0,nx) {1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\}},$$ we obtain the natural large comparison between norms for different parameters. It will be improved in Section \[Sectionstrictecomp\] to prove Proposition \[Introstrictecomp\].
\[Lemmelargecomp\] If $p_c(d)<p \le q \le 1$, then for every $x \in {\mathbb{R}^d}$, $\|x\|_q \le \|x\|_p$.
In another paper [@GM-large], we gave further information on the speed of convergence by establishing the following large deviation inequalities corresponding to the previous convergence results: for every $p>p_c(d)$, for every ${\varepsilon}>0$, we have:
- Directional large deviation result. $$\label{ap-enrhume}
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
{\overline{\lim}}\\
{\scriptstyle \Vert x\Vert_1\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}
\frac{1}{\|x\|_1} \ln {\mathbb{P}}\left( 0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}x, \; \frac{D_p(0,x)}{\|x\|_p}\notin (1-{\varepsilon}, 1+{\varepsilon})
\right)<0.$$
- Shape large deviation result. There exist two strictly positive constants $A$ and $B$ such that $$\label{shapeGD}
\forall t>0 \quad {\overline{\mathbb{P}}}_p \left(
\mathcal{D}\left(\frac{B_p^0(t)}t,\mathcal{B}^0_{p}(1)\right) \ge {\varepsilon}\right) \le A e^{-Bt}.$$
As a consequence, we obtain the next lemma, which enables the control of minimal paths:
\[chemin-pas-loin\] Note $H_p(x,y,{\varepsilon})$ the event: “There exists a $p$-open minimal path from $x$ to $y$ which is completely inside $\mathcal{B}_{p}^y((1+{\varepsilon})\|x-y\|_p)$ and whose length is smaller than $(1+{\varepsilon})\|x-y\|_p$”.
Then for every $p>p_c(d)$, for every ${\varepsilon}>0$, there exist two strictly positive constants $A$ and $B$ such that: $$\forall x,y\in{\mathbb{Z}^d}\quad {\mathbb{P}}(y\in C_p^\infty,\, x\in C_p^\infty, \;
H_p(x,y,{\varepsilon})^c)\le A \exp(-B \|x-y\|_1).$$
Using translation invariance, we can assume that $y=0$. Note that $H(x,0,{\varepsilon})^c$ contains the event $\{D_p(0,x) \le \|x\|_p (1+{\varepsilon}/2) \} \cap
\{B_p^0(t (1+ {\varepsilon}/2)) \subset
\mathcal{B}_p^0((1+{\varepsilon})\|x\|_p)\}$ and apply the large deviation inequality for the chemical distance (\[ap-enrhume\]) and the large deviation inequality (\[shapeGD\]) for the asymptotic shape.
We also recall here some classical results concerning the geometry of clusters in supercritical percolation. Thanks to Chayes, Chayes, Grimmett, Kesten and Schonmann [@CCGKS], we can control the radius of finite clusters: there exist two strictly positive constants $A$ and $A$ such that $$\label{amasfini}
\forall r>0 \quad
{\mathbb{P}}\left( |C^0_p|<+\infty, \; 0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}\partial_1 \mathcal{B}_1^0(r) \right)
\le A e^{-B r}.$$ The size of holes in the infinite cluster can also be controlled: there exist two strictly positive constants $A$ and $B$ such that $$\label{amasinfini}
\forall r>0 \quad
{\mathbb{P}}\left( C^\infty_p \cap \mathcal{B}_1^0(r) =\varnothing \right)
\le Ae^{-B r}.$$ When $d=2$, this result follows from large deviation estimates by Durrett and Schonmann [@DS]. Their methods can easily be transposed when $d\ge 3$. Nevertheless, when $d\ge 3$, the easiest way to obtain it seems to use Grimmett and Marstrand [@Grimmett-Marstrand] slab’s result.
Note that in Lemma \[chemin-pas-loin\], in $(\ref{amasfini})$ and in $(\ref{amasinfini})$, thanks to the norm equivalence, the choice of the norm $\|.\|_1$ is of course irrelevant, but in the very values of the positive constants.
Strict inclusion of asymptotic shapes for chemical distance {#Sectionstrictecomp}
===========================================================
Inequalities on asymptotic shapes are already known for classical first-passage percolation – see the papers by Van den Berg and Kesten [@vdb-kes] and by Marchand [@marchand]. The aim of this section is to prove Proposition \[Introstrictecomp\], which is the analogous result in this context. We recall that the large inequality was easily established in Lemma \[Lemmelargecomp\], but that strict comparisons will be crucial to handle the competition problem.
The proof of Proposition \[Introstrictecomp\] is based on renormalization techniques. We thus begin by stating an adapted renormalization lemma, which is the one used by Van den Berg and Kesten in [@vdb-kes].
A renormalization lemma.
------------------------
### The renormalization grid {#the-renormalization-grid .unnumbered}
Let $N$ be a strictly positive integer. We introduce the following notations.
- $C_N$ is the cube $[-1/2,N-1/2]^d$. We call $N$-[cubes]{} the cubes $C_N(k)=kN+C_N$ obtained by translating $C_N$ according to $Nk$ with $k
\in {\mathbb{Z}^d}$. The coordinates of $k$ are called the coordinates of the $N$-cube $C_N(k)$. Note that $N$-cubes induce a partition of ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$.
- $L_N$ is the large cube $[-N-1/2,2N-1/2]^d$, and the large cube $L_N(k)$ is obtained by translating $L_N$ according to $Nk$ with $k \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}$. The boundary of $L_N(k)$, denoted by $\partial L_N(k)$, is the set of sites outside $L_N(k)$ that have a neighbor in $L_N(k)$.
- $R_{N}$ is the rectangular box $[-1/2,N-1/2]^{d-1}
\times[-N-1/2,2N-1/2]$. In the large cube $L_N(k)$, the $N$-cube $C_N(k)$ is surrounded by the $2d$ $N$-[boxes]{}, obtained by rotations and translations of $R_N$. For instance, in $L_N(0)$, the $N$-cube $C_N(0)$ is surrounded by the $2d$ following $N$-boxes: for $1\le i \le d$, and for $\signe \in \{-1,+1\}$, we define $$R_{N}^{i,\signe}(0)=\left[-N-\frac12,2N-\frac12 \right]^{i-1}
\times \left[\signe N- \frac12 ,(1+\signe)N-\frac12 \right] \times
\left[-N-\frac12,2N-\frac12\right]^{d-i}.$$ The set of all these surrounding boxes is denoted $\mathcal R_N$.
An edge is said to be *in a subset $E$* of ${\mathbb{R}^d}$ if at least one of its two extremities is in $E$. We now define the *inner* and *outer* boundaries of a $N$-box associated to a pair $(C_N(k),L_N(k))$ of cubes. Let’s do this for $R_{N}^{1,+}(0)$ and extend the definition to other boxes by rotation and translation: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\partial_{out}R_{N}^{1,+1}(0) & = & \{ (2N, y), \; y \in [-N, \dots,
2N-1]^{d-1}\}, \\
\partial_{in}R_{N}^{1,-1}(0) & = & \{ (N, y), \; y \in [-N, \dots, 2N-1]^{d-1}\}.
\end{array}$$ Note that $\partial L_N(k)$ is the disjoint union of the sets $(\partial_{out}R_{N}^{i,\signe}(k))_{1 \leq i \leq d, \; \signe\in \{+1,-1\}}$, and that a path entering in $C_N(k)$ and getting out of $L_N(k)$ has to cross one of the $2d$ $N$-boxes surrounding $C_N(k)$ in $L_N(k)$, from its inner boundary to its outer boundary. We can then define the crossing associated to a $N$-cube $C_N(k)$ – see also Figure \[DESSgrille\]:
\[DEFcrossing\] Let $\gamma=(x_0, \dots , x_l)$ be a path such that $x_0 \in C_N(k)$ and $x_l \not\in L_N(k)$. We set $j_f=\min \{0\leq k \leq l, \; x_k \in
\partial L_N(k)\}$. There exists a unique $(i,\signe)$ such that $x_{j_f} \in
R_{N}^{i, \signe}(k)$. Let then $j_0=\max \{0 \leq k \leq j_f, \; x_k \notin
R_{N}^{i, \signe}(k)\}$. The portion $(x_{j_0+1}, \dots , x_{j_f})$ of $\gamma$ is the crossing of $\gamma$ associated to $C_N(k)$.
### Main crossings of a path. {#main-crossings-of-a-path. .unnumbered}
Let $N$ be a strictly positive integer, $x$ be a point in ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$ and $\gamma$ be a path without any double point from $0$ to $x$. We want to associate to $\gamma$ a sequence of crossings of $N$-boxes (the main crossings of $\gamma$), in a way that two different crossings are edge-disjoint. Consider first the sequence $\sigma_0=(k_1,
\dots, k_{\tau_0})$ made of the coordinates of the $N$-cubes successively visited by $\gamma$. As the $N$-cubes induce a partition of ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$, this sequence is well defined, and has the following properties: $$(\mbox{\textnormal{P}}_0) \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
0 \in C_N(k_1), \; \; x \in C_N(k_{\tau_0}), \\
\forall \; 1 \leq i \leq \tau_0-1, \; \|k_{i+1}-k_i\|_1=1.
\end{array}
\right.$$ But $\sigma_0$ can have doubles points; we remove them by the classical loop-removal process described in [@grimmett-kesten]. We thus obtain a sequence $\sigma_1=(k_{{\varphi}_1(1)},
\dots, k_{{\varphi}_1(\tau_1)})$ extracted from $\sigma_0$ , with the following properties: $$(\mbox{\textnormal{P}}_1) \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
0 \in C_N(k_{{\varphi}_1(1)}), \; \; x \in C_N(k_{{\varphi}_1(\tau_1)}), \\
\forall \; 1 \leq i \leq \tau_1-1, \; \|k_{{\varphi}_1(i+1)}-k_{{\varphi}_1(i)}\|_1=1,\\
\sigma_1 \mbox{ has no double point.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ To every cube $C_N(k)$ in this sequence such that $\gamma$ gets out of $L_N(k)$, that means for every $N$-cube in $\sigma_1$ with the possible exception of the $2d$ last, we associate a crossing of a $N$-box in the following way: let $z$ be the first point of $\gamma$ to be in $C_N(k)$, and let $z_2$ be the first point of $\gamma$ after $z$ to be in $\partial L_N(k)$. Then the crossing associated to the $N$-cube $C_N(k)$ is the crossing of the portion of $\gamma$ between $z$ and $z_2$ associated to $C_N(k)$ in Definition \[DEFcrossing\].
The problem now is that two distinct cubes in $\sigma_1$ can have the same associated crossing. We have to extract a subsequence once again in order to obtain edge-disjoint crossings. Set ${\varphi}_2(1)=1$, and define ${\varphi}_2$ by induction: $${\varphi}_2(i+1)= \inf \{ j>{\varphi}_2(i) \mbox{ such that }
\|k_{{\varphi}_1(j)}-k_{{\varphi}_1 \circ {\varphi}_2(i)}\|_\infty>1\} -1$$ if the infimum exists, and let $\tau$ be the smallest index $i$ for which ${\varphi}_2(i+1)$ is not defined. Set ${\varphi}={\varphi}_1 \circ {\varphi}_2$; the elements of $\sigma=(k_{{\varphi}(i)})_{1 \leq i \leq \tau}$ are called the [main cubes]{} of $\gamma$, and their associated crossings the *main crossings of* $\gamma$. This sequence has the following properties (see [@vdb-kes]): $$(P) \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
0 \in C_N(k_{{\varphi}(1)}), \\
\|k_{{\varphi}(\tau)}-k_{\tau_0}\|_\infty \leq 1,\\
\forall \; 1 \leq i \leq \tau-1, \; \|k_{{\varphi}(i+1)}-k_{{\varphi}(i)}\|_\infty =1,\\
\mbox{the main crossings of }\gamma \mbox{ are edge-disjoint.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ >From Properties $(P)$ we can deduce that for every $x$ in ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$, the number $\tau$ of main $N$-cubes of a path with no double point from $0$ to $x$ satisfies the following inequality: $$\label{LEMmintau}
\tau \geq \frac{\|x\|_\infty}{N}.$$
### A renormalization lemma. {#a-renormalization-lemma.-1 .unnumbered}
The following lemma is an adaptation of Lemma (5.2) in [@vdb-kes], and its proof is a standard Peierl’s argument (see proof of (3.12) in [@grimmett-kesten]). We thus just state it without any proof.
\[LEMren\] For each $N \in {\mathbb{Z}_{+}}$, we give to the $N$-cubes a random color, black or white, according to the states of the edges in the initial model, such that:
- For each $N \in {\mathbb{Z}_{+}}^*$, the colors of the $N$-cubes are identically distributed.
- For each $N \in {\mathbb{Z}_{+}}^*$, for each $k \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}$, the color of the $N$-cube $C_N(k)$ depends only on the states of the edges in $L_N(k)$.
- $ \displaystyle \lim_{N \rightarrow + \infty} {\mathbb{P}}(C_N(k) \mbox{is black})=1$.
Then for every $\rho \in ]0,1[$, there exists $N_\rho$ such that for all $N \geq N_\rho$, there exist two strictly positive constants $A$ and $B$ such that for every $x \in {\mathbb{R}^d}$: $$\label{LEMrenEQU}
{\mathbb{P}}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{There exists a path } \gamma \mbox{ from } 0 \mbox{ to } x
\mbox{ that, among }\\
\mbox{its } \tau \mbox{ main $N$-cubes, has less than } \rho \tau \mbox{ black cubes}
\end{array}
\right)
\leq A \exp (-B \|x\|_\infty).$$
Proof of the strict comparison result Proposition \[Introstrictecomp\].
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
$\;$ Fix $p$ and $q$ such that $p_c(d)<p<\overrightarrow{p_c}(d)$ and $p<q \le 1$. Roughly speaking, as $p<{\overrightarrow{p_c}}(d)$, we can find along a $p$-minimal path from $0$ to $nx$ a certain number of crossing of rectangular boxes such that:
- the restriction of the $p$-minimal path of one box is not direct,
- by adding $q$-open edges, as $q>p$, we can find in this box a direct $q$-minimal path with the same extremities, which is thus an improvement of the $p$-minimal path.
By using these improvements, we can exhibit a significant discrepancy, [*i.e.* ]{}of order $n$, between $D_p(0,nx)$ and $D_q(0,nx)$. The proof consists in giving estimates to these crude arguments.
Consider the space $\Omega=\{0,1\}^{{\mathbb{E}^d}}\times \{0,1\}^{{\mathbb{E}^d}},$ endowed with the classical Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $\Omega$ and the probability measure $${\mathbb{P}}={\text{Ber}}(p)^{\otimes{\mathbb{E}^d}}\otimes {\text{Ber}}\left(\frac{q-p}{1-p} \right)^{\otimes{\mathbb{E}^d}}.$$ Write points of $\Omega$ in the following manner $$\omega=(\omega^1, \omega^2) \text{ with } \omega^1 =(\omega^1_e)_{e \in {\mathbb{E}^d}} \in \{0,1\}^{{\mathbb{E}^d}} \text{ and }\omega^2 =(\omega^2_e)_{e \in {\mathbb{E}^d}} \in \{0,1\}^{{\mathbb{E}^d}}.$$ Define then, for every $e \in {\mathbb{E}^d}$, $\omega^3_e=\omega^1_e \vee \omega^2_e$. Clearly, the law of $(\omega^1_e)_{e\in{\mathbb{E}^d}}$ under ${\mathbb{P}}$ is ${\text{Ber}}(p)^{\otimes{\mathbb{E}^d}}$ whereas the law of $(\omega^3_e)_{e\in{\mathbb{E}^d}}$ under ${\mathbb{P}}$ is ${\text{Ber}}(q)^{\otimes{\mathbb{E}^d}}$. We denote by $\mathcal{G}_p$ – [*resp.* ]{}$\mathcal{G}_q$ – the corresponding random graphs and by $D_p(x,y)$ – [*resp.* ]{}$D_q(x,y)$ – the random distance from $x$ to $y$ in $\mathcal{G}_p$ – [*resp.* ]{}$\mathcal{G}_q$. Note that in this special coupling, $$\mathcal{G}_p \subset \mathcal{G}_q \text{ and } D_q(x,y) \le D_p(x,y).$$
For each $N \in {\mathbb{Z}_{+}}$, we consider the same renormalization grid as previously and give to each $N$-box ${R}_N^{i, \signe}(k)$ a random color:
The box ${R}_N^{i, \signe}(k)$, with $k \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}$, is said to be black if and only if it satisfies the following property: $$\begin{array}{c}
\forall y \in \partial_{in}R_N^1(k), \;
\forall z \in \partial_{out}R_N^1(k), \;
\forall \gamma \mbox{ $p$-open path from } y \mbox{ to } z
\mbox{ included in } R_N^1(k), \\
|\gamma|\geq \|z-y\|_1+1.
\end{array}$$ It is said to be white otherwise. This definition is naturally extended to other boxes by translation and rotation.
Thus a box is black if and only if it can not be directly crossed from its inner boundary to its outer boundary by a $p$-open path. Let us verify that this coloring satisfies the conditions of renormalization Lemma \[LEMren\]. It is clear that the colors of the different cubes are identically distributed, and that the color of ${C}_N(k)$ only depends on the states of the edges in $L_N(k)$. Let us now estimate the probability $p_N$ for ${C}_N(0)$ to be white. It is clear by translation invariance that $p_N \leq 2d {\mathbb{P}}\left({R}_N^{1, +1}(0) \mbox{ is white}
\right)$ and that the probability for ${R}_N^{1, +1}(0)$ to be white is bounded by $${\mathbb{P}}\left({R}_N^{1, +1}(0) \mbox{ is white}
\right) \le (3N+1)^{d-1} 2^{d-1} {\mathbb{P}}\left( \max \{ \|x\|_1: \; x \in \overrightarrow{C_p}^0 \} \ge N \right),$$ where $\overrightarrow{C_p}^0$ is the cluster containing $0$ in *oriented* percolation with parameter $p$. The term $(3N+1)^{d-1}$ counts the possible starting points of the oriented open path, while the term $2^{d-1}$ counts its possible orientations. As in the non-oriented case, when $p <\overrightarrow{p_c}(d)$, the probability in the left-hand side member decreases exponentially fast with $N$ – see the paper by Aizenman and Barsky [@aizenman-barsky] – which proves that: $$\lim_{N \rightarrow
+\infty} p_N =0.$$ We can then apply the renormalization Lemma \[LEMren\] with a fixed parameter $\rho$ satisfying $0<\rho<1$. Let $N$ be large enough to have (\[LEMrenEQU\]) with positive $A$ and $B$. These $\rho$ and $N$ are now fixed for the sequel of the proof.
For each $n \ge 1$ and every $x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash \{0\}$, if the event $\{0 {\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\}$ occurs, we denote by $\gamma_{n,x}$ be a $p$-open path from $0$ to $nx$ whose length is equal to $D_p(x,y)$. Let $\sigma_{n,x}=(k_1, \dots, k_{\tau_{n,x}})$ be the sequence of its main cubes and denote by $A_{n,x}$ the event that among these $\tau_{n,x}$ main cubes, at most $\rho
\tau_{n,x}$ cubes are black. With Lemma \[LEMren\] we have: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}(A_{n,x}\cap \{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\}) & = & {\mathbb{P}}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\mbox{there exists a $p$-open path } \gamma \mbox{ from } 0 \mbox{ to } nx \\
\mbox{that, among its } \tau \mbox{ main $N$-cubes,} \\
\mbox{has less than } \rho \tau \mbox{ black cubes}
\end{array}
\right) \nonumber \\
& \leq & A \exp (-B n\|x\|_\infty).
\label{LEMmajPAn}\end{aligned}$$
We define now the notion of *good rectangular boxes*
A rectangular box $R$ is *good* if it is black and if, moreover, for every $e \in R$, $\omega^3(e)=1$.
In other words, in a good box, edges that are not $p$-open are $q$-open. Let $n$ be large enough and let $R\in \mathcal R_N$ be a good box. Suppose that the path $\gamma_{n,x}$ crosses $R$ and that this crossing, denoted by ${\gamma_{n,x}}_{|R}$, is a main crossing of $\gamma_{n,x}$. Denote by $y$ and $z$ the extremities of the restriction ${\gamma_{n,x}}_{|R}$ of the path $\gamma_{n,x}$ to the box $R$. Then, by definition of *black* and *good* boxes, $$\label{cestmieux}
\|z-y\|_1=D_q(y,z) \le D_p(y,z)-1.$$ Note that moreover, in this case, any $q$-open path between $y$ and $z$ with length $\|z-y\|_1=D_q(y,z)$ is completely inside $R$. Choose one and call it an *improvement* for $D_q$ of $\gamma_{n,x}$ in $R$.
Now, on the event $\{0 {\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\}$, replace in $\gamma_{n,x}$ all the restrictions associated to main crossings of $\gamma_{n,x}$ by their improvements for $D_q$, to obtain a modified path $\hat \gamma_{n,x}$ from $0$ to $nx$: this is possible, because by definition, main crossings are in non-intersecting boxes. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&& {1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\}} (D_p(0,nx)-D_q(0,nx)) \\
& \ge & {1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\}}
\sum_{R \in \mathcal R_N}
{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\{R \mbox{\scriptsize{ is good}}\}}
{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{
\left\{
\begin{subarray}{c}
\gamma_{n,x} \text{ crosses } R, \text{ and} \\
\text{this is a main crossing of } \gamma_{n,x}
\end{subarray}
\right\}
}\\
& \ge & {1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\}}
\sum_{R \in \mathcal R_N}
\left(
\prod_{e \in R}
{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\omega^3_e=1}
\right)
{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\{R \mbox{\scriptsize{ is black}}\}}
{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{
\left\{
\begin{subarray}{c}
\gamma_{n,x} \text{ crosses } R, \text{ and} \\
\text{this is a main crossing of } \gamma_{n,x}
\end{subarray}
\right\}
} \\
& \ge & {1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\}}
\sum_{R \in \mathcal R_N}
\left(
\prod_{e \in R}
{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\omega^2_e=1}
\right)
{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\{R \mbox{\scriptsize{ is black}}\}}
{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{
\left\{
\begin{subarray}{c}
\gamma_{n,x} \text{ crosses } R, \text{ and} \\
\text{this is a main crossing of } \gamma_{n,x}
\end{subarray}
\right\}
}.\end{aligned}$$ Note $G(R)$ the event $\{\forall e \in R \quad \omega^2_e=1\}$. As $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ are independent, the conditional law of the random variable $$Y_{n,x} \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} \sum_{R \in \mathcal R_N}
{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{G(R)} {1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\{R \mbox{\scriptsize{ is black}}\}}
{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{
\left\{
\begin{subarray}{c}
\gamma_{n,x} \text{ crosses } R, \text{ and} \\
\text{this is a main crossing of } \gamma_{n,x}
\end{subarray}
\right\}
}$$ knowing $\omega^1$ is a binomial law $\text{Bin}(Z_{n,x},r)$ with parameters $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{n,x} & \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} & \sum_{R \in \mathcal R_N}
{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\{R \mbox{\scriptsize{ is black}}\}}
{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{
\left\{
\begin{subarray}{c}
\gamma_{n,x} \text{ crosses } R, \text{ and} \\
\text{this is a main crossing of } \gamma_{n,x}
\end{subarray}
\right\}
}, \\
r & = & {\mathbb{P}}\left( G(R)\right) \ge \left( \frac{q-p}{1-p} \right) ^{c_d N^d} >0.\end{aligned}$$ We have then, using Estimate (\[LEMmintau\]) on the event $A^c_{n,x}$: $${{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}}_{A^c_{n,x}}
{{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}}_{\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\}} Z_{n,x}
\geq \rho \tau_{n,x} {{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}}_{A^c_{n,x}}{{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}}_{\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\}}
\geq \rho \frac{n\|x\|_\infty}{N} {{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}}_{A^c_{n,x}}{{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}}_{\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\}}.$$ Thus, if $\delta>0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\mathbb{P}}\left( 0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx,\;
Y_{n,x} \le \frac{ \rho n\|x\|_{\infty}}N r(1-\delta) \right) \\
& \le & {\mathbb{P}}(\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\} \cap A_{n,x})+
\sum_{k=\frac{\rho n\|x\|_{\infty}}N}^\infty {\mathbb{P}}\left( Z_{n,x}=k, \; Y_{n,x} \le \frac{\rho n\|x\|_{\infty}}N r (1-\delta) \right), \\
& \le & {\mathbb{P}}(\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\} \cap A_{n,x})+
\sum_{k \ge \frac{\rho n\|x\|_{\infty}}N} {\mathbb{P}}\left( Z_{n,x}=k, \; Y_{n,x} \le k r (1-\delta) \right), \\
& \le & {\mathbb{P}}(\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\} \cap A_{n,x})+
\sum_{k \ge \frac{\rho n\|x\|_{\infty}}N} {\mathbb{P}}\left( Z_{n,x}=k \right)
2 \exp\left( -\frac{k \delta^2}{4r(1-r)}\right) \\
&& \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \text{by Chernov inequality},\\
& \le & {\mathbb{P}}(\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx\} \cap A_{n,x})+
2 \exp\left( -\frac{ \rho n\|x\|_{\infty}\delta^2}{4Nr(1-r)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ By (\[LEMmajPAn\]) and Borel-Cantelli Lemma, this leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\mathbb{P}}\left( 0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}nx, \; \frac{D_p(0,nx)}n-\frac{D_q(0,nx)}n\le \frac{\rho\|x\|_{\infty}(1-\delta)r}N\ {\text{ i.o.}}\right)=0.\end{aligned}$$ On the event $\{0{\stackrel{p}{\leftrightarrow}}\infty\} \subset \{0{\stackrel{q}{\leftrightarrow}}\infty\}$, by the convergence result (\[asymptotic-speed\]), we obtain $\| x \|_p-\| x \|_q\ge \frac{\rho\| x \|_{\infty}(1-\delta)r}{N}$, and finally, by letting $\delta$ going to $0$, $$\forall x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\quad \| x \|_p-\| x\|_q\ge \frac{\rho r}{N}\| x\|_{\infty}.$$ Since norms are homogeneous and continuous, this ends the proof.
Coexistence can only happen at slow speed {#Sectionslowspeed}
=========================================
We tackle in this section the core of the paper: the proof of Proposition \[Introslowspeed\]. For $p$ and $q$ larger than $p_c$, we define $$C_{p,q}= \sup_{x \in {\mathbb{R}^d}\backslash \{0\}} \frac{\|x\|_q}{\|x\|_p}.$$ We fix here $p_1<p_2$ and two distinct sites $s_1$ and $s_2$ of ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$: the initial state $\xi$ is the configuration where every site is empty, but $s_1$, which is active yellow, and $s_2$, which is active blue. In the sequel, to lighten notations, we omit the subscripts $p_1,p_2,\xi$: for instance, $$\eta^2(t)=\eta^2_{p_1,p_2,\xi}(t).$$ By Proposition \[Introstrictecomp\], we know that $C_{p_1,p_2}<1$.
In fact, Proposition \[Introslowspeed\] will appear as a by-product of the following theorem, which ensures that if the $p_1$-infection survives, then the time of infection of $x$ by the $p_2$-infection, when it is finite, should be of order $\|x\|_{p_1}$ rather than $\|x\|_{p_2}$, expected time of infection for one simple $p_2$-infection.
Define, for $x\in{\mathbb{Z}^d}$ : $$\begin{aligned}
&& t(x) = \inf \{ t\ge 0: \; x\in\eta^2(t) \}, \\
&& \mathcal{G}^i = \left\{ \sup_{t \ge 0} |\eta^i(t)|=+\infty \right\} \text{ for } i=1,2.\end{aligned}$$
\[avantage2\] Let $\delta>0$. Then there exist $A,B>0$ such that $$\forall x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\quad {\mathbb{P}}\left( \mathcal{G}^1\cap \{t(x) \le (1-\delta)
\|x\|_{p_1} \} \right)\le A\exp(-B\|x\|).$$
At first, let us see how Theorem \[avantage2\] implies Proposition \[Introslowspeed\]:
Let $\delta>0$. We must prove that ${\mathbb{P}}(\mathcal{G}^1, \;|\eta^2(t)|_{p_1}\ge (1+\delta)t {\text{ i.o.}})=0$. Obviously, it is equivalent to prove that $${\mathbb{P}}(\mathcal{G}^1,\; (1+\delta)t(x)\le \|x\|_{p_1} \text{ for infinitely many }x)=0.$$ This comes from Theorem \[avantage2\], with the help of Borel-Cantelli’s lemma.
We still need some extra notations and lemmas.\
**Definitions.**\
We note $\mathcal{S}=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}^d}\ : \|x\|_{p_2}=1\}$ and define the *shells*: for each $A \subset \mathcal{S}$, and every $0<r<R$, we set $$\begin{aligned}
\hat x & = & x/ \|x\|_{p_2}, \\ \shell(A,r,R) & = & \{x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}: \; \hat x \in A \text{ and } r \le \|x\|_{p_2}
\le R\}.\end{aligned}$$ So roughly speaking, $A$ is to think about as the set of possible directions for the points in the shell, while $[r,R]$ is the set of radii.
For $A \subset \mathcal{S}$ and ${\varphi}>0$, define the following enlargement of $A$: $$\begin{aligned}
A \oplus {\varphi}& = & (A+\mathcal{B}^0_{p_2}({\varphi}))\cap \mathcal{S}.
$$
\[direction\] For any norm $|.|$ on ${\mathbb{R}^d}$, one has $$\forall x,y \in {\mathbb{R}^d}\backslash\{0\} \quad
\left| \frac{x}{|x|}-\frac{y}{|y|} \right|
\le\frac{2|x-y|}{\max\{|x|,|y|\}}.$$
\[contunif\] For every $\rho>0$, there exists $\theta>0$ such that $$\forall x,y \in {\mathbb{R}^d}\backslash\{0\} \quad
\|\hat x -\hat y\|_{p_2} \le \theta \; \Longrightarrow \;(1-\rho)
\frac{\|x\|_{p_1}}{\|x\|_{p_2}} \le \frac{\|y\|_{p_1}}{\|y\|_{p_2}} \le (1 +\rho) \frac{\|x\|_{p_1}}{\|x\|_{p_2}}.$$
Note $F(x)=\frac{\|x\|_{p_1}}{\|x\|_{p_2}}$. Then, $\left|\frac{F(y)}{F(x)}-1\right|=\frac{|F(y)-F(x)|}{F(x)}\le C_{p_1,p_2}|F(x)-F(y)|$.\
Now we have $$|F(x)-F(y)| = | F(\hat{x})-F(\hat{y})|
= | \,\| \hat{x}\|_{p_1} -\|\hat{y}\|_{p_1} |
\le \| \hat{x}-\hat{y}\|_{p_1}
\le C_{p_2,p_1}\| \hat{x}-\hat{y}\|_{p_2}.$$ Thus, we can take $\theta=\frac{\rho}{C_{p_1,p_2}C_{p_2,p_1}}>0$.
We can now begin the proof of Theorem \[avantage2\], which is cut into three main steps.
Initialization of the spread
----------------------------
The aim of the next lemma is to see that if the event $\{ t(x) \le
(1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1} \}$ is realized, then with high probability, at the slightly largest time $(1-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1}$, the $p_2$-infection has colonized a small shell, and this will provide it a strategic advantage for the next steps of the spread.
\[petit-bout-de-coquille\] Let $\delta>0$ and choose any $0<\delta'<\delta$.
For any $x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash \{0\}$, any $1<\gamma<\gamma'$ and any $\theta>0$, we define the following events, depending on $x,\gamma,
\gamma'$ and $\theta$: $$\begin{aligned}
E_0 & = & \{x\in C_{p_2}^\infty\}, \\
E_1 & = & \{\eta^1( (1-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1}) \subset
\mathcal{B}_{p_1}^0(\|x\|_{p_1}) \}, \\
E_2 & = & \{\eta^2((1-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1}) \, \supset \, C_{p_2}^\infty \cap
\shell(\{\hat x\}\oplus\theta, \gamma\|x\|_{p_2},\gamma'\|x\|_{p_2}) \}, \\
E & = & E_0 \cap E_1 \cap E_2.\end{aligned}$$
Then there exist $\gamma'_0>1$ and $\theta_0>0$ such that for any $1<\gamma<\gamma'<\gamma'_0$ and any $0<\theta<\theta_0$, there exist two strictly positive constants $A$ and $B$ such that $$\forall x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\quad {\mathbb{P}}( \{ t(x) \le (1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1} \}
\backslash E ) \le
A\exp(-B\|x\|).$$
Let $\delta>0$ and choose any $0<\delta'<\delta$. We first need to introduce a certain number of parameters: Let $$\begin{aligned}
0< & \rho & < \frac1{1-\delta'/2}-1 \label{rhoa} \end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[contunif\], we can then choose $\theta_1$ such that $$\label{theta1a}
\|\hat x -\hat y\|_{p_2} \le \theta_1
\quad \Longrightarrow \quad (1-\rho)
\frac{\|x\|_{p_2}}{\|x\|_{p_1}} \le \frac{\|y\|_{p_2}}{\|y\|_{p_1}} \le (1 +\rho)
\frac{\|x\|_{p_2}}{\|x\|_{p_1}}.$$ Choose now $\gamma'_0>1$ and $\theta_0>0$ small enough to fulfill the three following conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
2(\gamma'_0-1)+3 \theta_0 & < & \theta_1 \\
1-\theta_0 & > & (1-\delta'/2)(1+\rho) \\
\gamma'_0-1 +\theta_0 & < & \frac{\delta-\delta'}{C_{p_1,p_2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the second condition is allowed by the choice (\[rhoa\]) for $\rho$. As these conditions are monotone, they are still fulfilled for any $\gamma' \in(1,\gamma'_0)$ and any $\theta \in (0,\theta_0)$. Choose then such a $\theta$ and such a $\gamma'$, and choose $\alpha>0$ small enough to have: $$\begin{aligned}
2(1+\alpha)(\gamma'-1+\theta)+ \theta & < & \theta_1
\label{C1}\\
(1+\alpha)(1-\theta)-\alpha \gamma' & > & (1-\delta'/2)(1+\rho)
\label{C2}\\
(1+\alpha)(\gamma'-1 +\theta) & < & \frac{\delta-\delta'}{C_{p_1,p_2}}.
\label{C3}\end{aligned}$$ Note that these conditions are allowed by the three previous ones. Finally, choose any $1<\gamma<\gamma'$.
Suppose that $t(x) \le (1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1}$. This implies that there exists a $p_2$-open finite path from the source $s_2$ to $x$, and by the classical estimate (\[amasfini\]) on the radius of finite open clusters in supercritical percolation, there exist two strictly positive constants $A_0$ and $B_0$ such that $$\label{equationa0}
\forall x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\quad {\mathbb{P}}(\{t(x) \le (1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1}\} \backslash
E_0 )\le A_0 \exp(-B_0\|x\|).$$
In this step, we use the typical spread of first-passage percolation with parameter $p_1$ in a amount of time of $(1-\delta') \|x\|_{p_1}$. Note $$E_1'= \left\{
\eta^1( (1-\delta') \|x\|_{p_1} )
\subset \mathcal{B}_{p_1}^0 \left((1-\delta'/2) \|x\|_{p_1}
\right)
\right\} \subset E_1.$$ The large deviations result associated to the shape theorem (\[shapeGD\]) ensures that there exist two strictly positive constants $A_1$ and $B_1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equationa1}
{\mathbb{P}}((E_1')^c) & \le & A_1 \exp(-B_1 \|x\|).\end{aligned}$$
In this step, we control the spread of first-passage percolation with parameter $p_2$. Let us first prove the geometrical fact: $$\label{geoa1}
\left( \bigcup_{y \in \shell(\{\hat x\}\oplus\theta,
\gamma\|x\|_{p_2},\gamma'\|x\|_{p_2})}
\mathcal{B}_{p_2}^y((1+\alpha)\|y-x\|_{p_2}) \right) \cap
\mathcal{B}_{p_1}^0((1-\delta'/2)\|x\|_{p_1})=\varnothing$$ Note that since $y-x=(\|y\|_{p_2}-\|x\|_{p_2})\hat{y}+\|x\|_{p_2}
(\hat{y}-\hat{x})$, we have, for every $y\in \shell(\{\hat x\}\oplus\theta,
\gamma\|x\|_{p_2},\gamma'\|x\|_{p_2})$, $$\label{lecone}
\|y-x\|_{p_2}\le
\|y\|_{p_2}-\|x\|_{p_2}+\theta \|x\|_{p_2}\le (\gamma'-1+\theta)\|x\|_{p_2}.$$ Then, if $y\in \shell(\{\hat x\}\oplus\theta,
\gamma\|x\|_{p_2},\gamma'\|x\|_{p_2})$ and $z \in
\mathcal{B}_{p_2}^y (
(1+\alpha)\|y-x\|_{p_2})$, we obtain first: $$\begin{aligned}
\|z\|_{p_2}
& \ge & \|y\|_{p_2} - \|z-y\|_{p_2} \nonumber
\ge \|y\|_{p_2} - (1+\alpha)\|y-x\|_{p_2} \nonumber \\
& \ge & \|y\|_{p_2} - (1+\alpha) \left( \|y\|_{p_2}-\|x\|_{p_2}+\theta
\|x\|_{p_2} \right) \quad \text{with (\ref{lecone})} \nonumber \\
& \ge & (1+\alpha)(1-\theta) \|x\|_{p_2} -\alpha \|y\|_{p_2} \nonumber \\
& \ge & \left( (1+\alpha)(1-\theta) -\alpha \gamma' \right) \|x\|_{p_2},
\label{mod2z}\end{aligned}$$ and then: $$\begin{aligned}
\|\hat z-\hat x \|_{p_2}
& \le & \|\hat z-\hat y \|_{p_2} + \|\hat y-\hat x \|_{p_2} \\
& \le & \frac{2\|z-y\|_{p_2}}{\|y\|_{p_2}} + \theta \quad \text{ with
Lemma~\ref{direction}}\\
& \le & \frac{2(1+\alpha)\|x-y\|_{p_2}}{\|y\|_{p_2}} + \theta
\le \frac{2(1+\alpha)(\gamma'-1+\theta)}{\gamma} + \theta \quad
\text{with (\ref{lecone})} \\
& \le & 2(1+\alpha)(\gamma'-1+\theta) + \theta < \theta_1
\text{ with assumption (\ref{C1}).}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by definition (\[theta1a\]) of $\theta_1$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\|z\|_{p_1}
& \ge & \left( \frac1{1+\rho} \right) \frac{\|z\|_{p_2}}{\|x\|_{p_2}} \|x\|_{p_1}
\ge \frac{(1+\alpha)(1-\theta) -\alpha \gamma' }{1+\rho} \|x\|_{p_1}\quad
\text{ with (\ref{mod2z})} \\
& > & (1-\delta'/2) \|x\|_{p_1}\quad \text{ with assumption (\ref{C2})},\end{aligned}$$ which proves inclusion (\[geoa1\]).
Now, if we denote $$E_2'=\bigcap_{y \in
\shell(\{\hat x\}\oplus\theta, \gamma\|x\|_{p_2},\gamma'\|x\|_{p_2}) \cap
C_{p_2}^\infty }
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
x \stackrel{p_2}{{\leftrightarrow}} y \text{ in }
\mathcal{B}_{p_2}^y((1+\alpha)\|y-x\|_{p_2}) \\
\text{by a path of length smaller} \\
\text{than } (1+\alpha)\|y-x\|_{p_2}
\end{array}
\right\}$$ Lemma \[chemin-pas-loin\] ensures that there exist two strictly positive constants $A_2,B_2$ such that $$\label{equationa2}
\forall x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\quad {\mathbb{P}}\left( \{x \in C_{p_2}^\infty\} \backslash E_2'
\right)
\le C_d (\gamma'\|x\|_{p_2})^d A_2 \exp(-B_2 (\gamma-1)\|x\|).$$
To conclude, it only remains to see that: $$\label{geoa3}
\forall y \in \shell(\{\hat x\}\oplus\theta,
\gamma\|x\|_{p_2},\gamma'\|x\|_{p_2}) \quad
(1+\alpha)\|y-x\|_{p_2}
\le (\delta-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1}.$$ Indeed, we have, for any $y \in \shell(\{\hat x\}\oplus\theta,
\gamma\|x\|_{p_2},\gamma'\|x\|_{p_2})$: $$\begin{aligned}
(1+\alpha)\|y-x\|_{p_2}
& \le & (1+\alpha)(\gamma'-1+\theta)\|x\|_{p_2} \quad \text{ with
(\ref{lecone})} \\
& \le & (1+\alpha)(\gamma'-1+\theta)C_{p_1,p_2}\|x\|_{p_1} \\
& \le & (\delta-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1} \quad \text{ with assumption (\ref{C3})}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, if $E'=E_0 \cap
E'_1 \cap E'_2$, then Equation (\[geoa1\]) and inclusion (\[geoa3\]) imply that $\{t(x) \le (1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1} \}\cap
E' \subset \{t(x) \le (1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1} \}\cap E$, and thus $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}( \{ t(x) \le (1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1} \}
\backslash E )
& \le & {\mathbb{P}}( \{ t(x) \le (1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1} \} \backslash E_0) \\
&& + {\mathbb{P}}( \{ t(x) \le (1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1} \} \backslash E'_1) \\
&& + {\mathbb{P}}( \{ t(x) \le (1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1} \} \backslash E'_2 \cap E_0).\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[equationa0\]), (\[equationa1\]), (\[equationa2\]) and the fact that if $t(x) \le (1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1}$, then $t(x)+(\delta-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1} \le (1-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1}$ give the desired result.
Typical progression of the stronger infection from one shell to the next one
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\;$
In this subsection, we forget for a moment the competition model, and study the progression of one infection with parameter $p_2$. For simplicity, we omit, only in this subsection, the subscript $p_2$. In the next lemma, we want to bound the minimal time needed for the infection to colonize the big $\shell(T,
(1+h)r, (1+h)^2 r)$ from the small $\shell(S, r, (1+h)r)$.
\[progressionter\] Let ${\varphi}\in (0,2]$, $h \in (0,1)$ and $\alpha \in (1,2)$ be fixed parameters such that $$(1+h)^2 (1+ {\varphi}) - (1+h)
< \alpha h <2 \label{C11}.$$
For any $S$ and $T$ subsets of $\mathcal{S}$ and for any $r>0$, we define the following event $E=E(S,T,r)$: "Any point in the big $\shell(T, (1+h)r, (1+h)^2 r)\cap C^\infty$ is linked to a point in the small $\shell(S, r, (1+h)r)$ by an open path whose length is less than $\alpha h r$.” Two subsets $S$ and $T$ of $\mathcal{S}$ are said to be “good” if $$\forall \hat z \in T \quad \exists \hat v_z \in \mathcal{S}\text{ such that }
\{\hat v_z\} \oplus \frac{{\varphi}}{2} \subset S \text{ and } \|\hat z -\hat v_z\|
\le {\varphi}.$$
Then there exist two strictly positive constants $A$ and $B$, only depending on ${\varphi}, h, \alpha$, such that for any $r>0$ and for any two “good” subsets $S$ and $T$ of $\mathcal{S}$, we have ${\mathbb{P}}(E^c) \le A \exp(-Br)$.
Moreover, we can assume that all the infection paths needed in $E$ are completely included in the bigger $\shell(T\oplus(2\alpha h), [1- 3{\varphi}] (1+h)r, \infty)$.
Let ${\varphi}\in (0,2]$, $h \in (0,1)$ and $\alpha \in (1,2)$ be fixed parameters satisfying Equation (\[C11\]) and choose, in this order, $\alpha'>1$, ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $\rho>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
(1+h)^2 (1+ {\varphi}) - (1+h-2\rho)
& \le & \alpha' h < \alpha h, \label{C21} \\
\frac{2\rho \alpha' h }{1+h -2 \rho}
& \le & \frac{{\varphi}}{2}, \label{C22} \\
h-2\rho-\rho \alpha' h & > & 0 ,\label{C24} \\
(1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho)\alpha' & \le & \alpha.\label{C25}\end{aligned}$$ Take any two “good” subsets $S$ and $T$ of $\mathcal{S}$. For any $z \in \shell(T, (1+h)r, (1+h)^2 r)$, we can choose $\hat v_z \in \mathcal{S}$ such that $$\begin{array}{l}
\{\hat v_z\} \oplus \frac{{\varphi}}{2} \subset S \quad \text{and} \quad \|\hat z -\hat v_z\|
\le {\varphi},
\end{array}
\nonumber$$ and we set $v_z=(1+h-2\rho)r \hat v_z$. Let us first estimate $\|z-v_z\|$: on the one hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\|z-v_z\| & \le & \|z-\|z\|\hat{v}_z\|+| \, \|z\|- (1+h-2\rho)r| \nonumber \\
& \le & \|z\| {\varphi}+ \|z\|- (1+h-2\rho)r \nonumber \\
& \le & \|z\| (1+ {\varphi})-(1+h-2\rho)r \label{modulezvMaj} \\
& \le & [(1+h)^2 (1+ {\varphi}) - (1+h-2\rho) ] r
\le \alpha' h r \text{ thanks to (\ref{C21})} \label{majax},\end{aligned}$$ and, on the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\|z-v_z\| & \ge & \|z\|-\|v_z\| \ge 2 \rho r \label{modulezvMin}.\end{aligned}$$
The idea of the proof is the following. Take $z$ in $C^\infty_{p_2}$ and in $\shell(T, (1+h)r,
(1+h)^2 r)$. The ball $\mathcal{B}^{v_z}( \rho \|z-v_z\| )$ is included in the $\shell(S, r, (1+h)r)$ and in the ball $\mathcal{B}^{z}( (1+\rho) \|z-v_z\| )$. As it is of radius of order $r$, it contains with high probability some point of the infinite cluster, and this point should be with high probability, thanks to Lemma \[chemin-pas-loin\], linked to $z$ by an open path inside $\mathcal{B}^{z}( (1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho) \|z-v_z\| )$ with length less than $(1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho) \|z-v_z\| )$. We chose the parameters to ensure that $(1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho) \|z-v_z\| \le
\alpha h r$. It will then only remain to control the positions of the points in the union of the $\mathcal{B}^{z}( (1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho) \|z-v_z\|)$. Let us make all this more precise.
Let us first note that, by the triangular inequality, $$\label{fact1}
\forall z \in \shell(T, (1+h)r, (1+h)^2 r) \quad \mathcal{B}^{v_z}( \rho \|z-v_z\|) \subset \mathcal{B}^{z}( (1+\rho) \|z-v_z\|).$$ Let us see now that $$\label{fact2}
\forall z \in \shell(T, (1+h)r, (1+h)^2 r) \quad \mathcal{B}^{v_z}( \rho
\|z-v_z\|) \subset \shell(S , r, (1+h)r).$$ Let $u \in \mathcal{B}^{v_z}( \rho \|z-v_z\| )$, then, by Lemma \[direction\], $$\begin{aligned}
\|\hat u-\hat v_z\| & \le & \frac{2\rho \|z-v_z\|}{\|v_z\|}
\le \frac{2\rho \alpha' h}{1+h-2\rho} \text{ by Equation~(\ref{majax}) and
definition of } v_z \\
& \le & \frac{{\varphi}}{2} \text{ thanks to Equation~(\ref{C22})}\end{aligned}$$ and thus $\hat u \in S$. For the norm of $u$, by definition of $v_z$ and Equation (\[majax\]), we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\|v_z\|- \rho \|z-v_z\| \le & \|u\| & \le \|v_z\|+
\rho \|z-v_z\| \\
(1+h-2\rho)r - \rho \alpha' h r \le & \|u\| & \le (1+h-2\rho)r +
\rho \alpha' h r \\
r \le & \|u\| & \le (1+h)r, \end{aligned}$$ thanks to Equations (\[C24\]) and (\[C21\]). This proves the second geometrical fact (\[fact2\]).
We can then estimate the probability of $E$. Note first $$E_1=\bigcup_{z \in \shell(T,(1+h) r, (1+h)^2r)} \left\{
\mathcal{B}^{v_z} \left(\rho\|z-v_z\|\right) \cap C^\infty_{p_2} =\varnothing
\right\}.$$ By estimate (\[modulezvMin\]), we know that $\|z-v_z\|\ge 2\rho r$; moreover, for each $z\in\shell(T,(1+h) r, (1+h)^2r)$, the point $v_z$ is in $ \shell(S, r, (1+h)r)$. Thus, using the estimate on the holes of the infinite cluster (\[amasinfini\]), there exist two strictly positive constants $A_1$ and $B_1$ such that for every “good” $S$ and $T$, for every $r>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}(E_1) & \le &
{\mathbb{P}}\left(
\bigcup_{v \in \shell(S, r, (1+h)r)} \left\{
\mathcal{B}^{v} \left( 2\rho^2 r \right) \cap C^\infty_{p_2} =\varnothing
\right\}
\right) \\
& \le & C_d [(1+h)r]^d A_1 \exp (-B_1 2\rho^2 r).\end{aligned}$$ Then, note $$E_2=
\bigcup_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
{z \in \shell(T, (1+h)r, (1+h)^2 r) }\\
u \in \mathcal{B}^{v_z}( \rho \|z-v_z\|)
\end{subarray}}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
u \in C^\infty_{p_2}, \;
z \in C^\infty_{p_2}, \text{ and $u$ is not linked to } \\
z \text{ by an open path of length smaller} \\
\text{than } (1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho) \|z-v_z\|\\
\text{inside } \mathcal{B}^{z}((1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho) \|z-v_z\|)
\end{array}
\right\}.$$ By Lemma \[chemin-pas-loin\], Equations (\[modulezvMin\]) and (\[majax\]), there exist two strictly positive constants $A_2$ and $B_2$ such that for every “good” $S$ and $T$, for every $r>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}(E_2)& \le &
\sum_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
{z \in \shell(T, (1+h)r, (1+h)^2 r) }\\
u \in \mathcal{B}^{v_z}( \rho \|z-v_z\|)
\end{subarray}
}
{\mathbb{P}}\left(
H(u,z,(1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho)-1)^c
\right)
\\
& \le & \sum_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
{z \in \shell(T, (1+h)r, (1+h)^2 r) }\\
u \in \mathcal{B}^{v_z}( \rho \|z-v_z\|)
\end{subarray}
} A_2 \exp (-B_2 (1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho) \|z-v_z\|)\\
& \le & C_d [(1+h)^2r]^d \times C_d (\rho \alpha' h r)^d \times A_2 \exp (-B_2 (1+\rho)2 \rho r).\end{aligned}$$
For every $z \in \shell(T, (1+h)r, (1+h)^2 r)$, thanks to (\[majax\]) and (\[C25\]), one has $(1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho)
\|z-v_z\|_{p_2}\le \alpha h r $. This, combined with geometrical facts (\[fact1\]) and (\[fact2\]), implies that $E^c \subset E_1 \cup E_2$, which proves the exponential estimate of the lemma.
It remains to estimate the minimal room needed to perform this infection, or in other words to control $$\bigcup_{z \in \shell(T, (1+h)r, (1+h)^2 r)} \mathcal{B}^{z}(
(1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho) \|z-v_z\| ).$$ Let $z \in \shell(T , (1+h)r, (1+h)^2 r)$ and $u \in \mathcal{B}^{z}(
(1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho) \|z-v_z\|)$. We have: $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\| & \ge & \|z\| - (1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho) \|z-v_z\|
\\
& \ge & (1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho)(1+h-2\rho)r -
[(1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho)(1+{\varphi})-1]\|z\| \\
& & \quad \quad \text{
thanks to (\ref{modulezvMaj})} \\
& \ge & (1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho)(1+h-2\rho)r -
[(1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho)(1+{\varphi})-1](1+h)^2r \\
& \ge & [1-3{\varphi}] (1+h)r.\end{aligned}$$ The last inequality is obtained by looking at the the limit of the right-hand side term, when ${\varepsilon}$ and $\rho$ tend to $0$, and by decreasing if necessary ${\varepsilon}$ and $\rho$. Finally, by applying Lemma \[direction\] and then Inequality (\[majax\]), we have $$\|\hat u -\hat z\|
\le \frac{2\|u-z\|}{\|z\|}
\le \frac{2 (1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho)\alpha' h}{(1+h)^2}
\le 2\alpha h.$$ Thus $u \in \shell(T\oplus(2\alpha h), r_{min},\infty)$, which ends the proof of the lemma.
Final step: proof of Theorem \[avantage2\]
------------------------------------------
We come back now to the competition context, with a weaker infection with parameter $p_1$ and a stronger infection with parameter $p_2>p_1$.
Let $\delta>0$.
The idea is quite natural: start the progression by the initialization Lemma \[petit-bout-de-coquille\], and apply recursively the progression Lemma \[progressionter\] until the stronger infection surrounds the weaker one. The point is to ensure that this progression is not disturbed by the spread of the weaker infection.
Remember that $C_{p_1,p_2}<1$ and choose: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta'>0 & \text{such that} & \delta'<\delta \text{ and }
\delta'<1-C_{p_1,p_2}, \label{D1}
\\
\rho>0 & \text{such that} & (1+\rho)(1-\delta')<1. \label{D6}\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[contunif\], there exists ${\theta}>0$ such that for any $x,y \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash \{0\}$, we have: $$\|\hat x -\hat y\| \le {\theta} \Rightarrow (1-\rho)
\frac{\|x\|_{p_2}}{\|x\|_{p_1}} \le \frac{\|y\|_{p_2}}{\|y\|_{p_1}} \le (1
+\rho) \frac{\|x\|_{p_2}}{\|x\|_{p_1}}. \label{D9}$$ Choose then $h$ and $\alpha$ such that: $$\begin{aligned}
0<h<1 & \text{such that} & (1+h)C_{p_1,p_2}<1-\delta',
\nonumber \\
1<\alpha< 2 & \text{such that} & \alpha > 1+h \text{ and } \alpha
C_{p_1,p_2}<1-\delta', \label{D3} \\
2\alpha h < {\theta}. & \label{D2}\end{aligned}$$ The first condition is allowed by condition (\[D1\]) on $\delta'$, and allows itself the choice (\[D3\]) for $\alpha$. We obtain (\[D2\]) by decreasing $h$ if necessary. Let $\gamma'_0>1$ and $\theta_0>0$ be given by Lemma \[petit-bout-de-coquille\]. Choose $\gamma',\gamma,{\varepsilon}$ and ${\varphi}$ in the following manner: $$\begin{aligned}
1<\gamma'<\gamma'_0 & \text{such that} & \alpha \gamma'
C_{p_1,p_2}<1-\delta', \label{D4} \\
1<\gamma<\gamma' & \text{such that} & \gamma=\frac{\gamma'}{1+h}, \label{D5}
\\
{\varepsilon}>0 & \text{such that} &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
& \alpha C_{p_1,p_2}(1+{\varepsilon})<1, \\
\text{and} & (1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho)(1-\delta')<\gamma,
\end{array}
\right.
\label{D7} \\
0<{\varphi}<\theta_0 & \text{such that} &
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
& \alpha C_{p_1,p_2}(1+{\varepsilon})<1 -3 {\varphi}, \\
\text{and} & (1+{\varepsilon})(1+\rho)(1-\delta')<\gamma (1-3{\varphi}), \\
\text{and} & (1+h)^2 (1+ {\varphi}) - (1+h) < \alpha h.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{D8} \end{aligned}$$ Note that condition (\[D4\]) is allowed by the choice (\[D3\]), and condition (\[D5\]) is obtained by decreasing $h$ if necessary. Conditions (\[D7\]) are respectively permitted by (\[D3\]) and (\[D6\]), and allow the first two conditions on ${\varphi}$. The last condition in (\[D8\]) is allowed by (\[D3\]) and (\[D2\]). Choose now $K\ge2$ large enough to have for every $k \ge K$ $$\label{D10}
C_{p_1,p_2}(1+{\varepsilon}) \left[ (1-\delta') {C_{p_2,p_1}}
+ \alpha \gamma ((1+h)^{k-1}-1) \right]< \gamma [1-3{\varphi}](1+h)^{k-1},$$ which is allowed by (\[D8\]). By decreasing ${\varphi}$ if necessary, we can assume, thanks to (\[D2\]), that $$\label{D12}
(1+K)\frac{{\varphi}}{2}+ 2 \alpha h < {\theta}.$$
By Lemma \[petit-bout-de-coquille\], there exist two strictly positive constants $A_1$ and $B_1$ such that for every $x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash
\{0\}$, we have $${\mathbb{P}}( \{ t(x) \le (1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1} \}
\backslash \{ E_1(x) \cap \{x\in C_{p_2}^\infty\} \} ) \le
A_1\exp(-B_1\|x\|), \label{D11}$$ where we use the following notations: $$\begin{aligned}
E_1^1(x) & = & \{\eta^1( (1-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1}) \subset
\mathcal{B}_{p_1}^0(\|x\|_{p_1}) \}, \\
E_1^2(x) & = & \left\{\eta^2((1-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1}) \supset
\left( \shell\left(\{\hat x\}\oplus\frac{{\varphi}}{2}, \gamma\|x\|_{p_2},\gamma'\|x\|_{p_2}\right)
\cap C_{p_2}^\infty \right) \right\}, \\
E_1(x) & = & E_1^1(x) \cap E_1^2(x).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, if $t(x) \le (1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1}$, then at the slightly larger time $t_1(x)=(1-\delta') \|x\|_{p_1}$, the first shell $$S_1(x)=C_{p_2}^\infty \cap \shell\left( \{\hat x\}\oplus\frac{{\varphi}}{2},
\gamma\|x\|_{p_2},\gamma'\|x\|_{p_2}\right)$$ is with high probability colonized by the $p_2$-infection.
We want now to extend this colonization to larger and larger shells by applying recursively Lemma \[progressionter\].
We still need to introduce a certain number of notations, inspired by Lemma \[progressionter\]: $$\begin{array}{|l|}
\hline
k=1 \\
\hline
r_1=\gamma \\
A_1(x)=\{\hat x\} \oplus \frac{{\varphi}}{2} \\
S_1(x)=C^\infty_{p_2} \cap \shell(A_1(x), \gamma \|x\|_{p_2}, \gamma'\|x\|_{p_2}) \\
t_1(x)=(1-\delta') \|x\|_{p_1} \\
\hline
k \ge 2 \\
\hline
r_k=(1+h)^{k-1}r_1
\quad \text{and} \quad r_k^{min}=[1-3{\varphi}](1+h)r_{k-1} \\
A_k(x)=A_{k-1}(x)\oplus \frac{{\varphi}}{2} \\
S_k(x)=
C^\infty_{p_2} \cap \shell(A_k(x), r_k\|x\|_{p_2},r_{k+1}\|x\|_{p_2}) \\
t_k(x)=t_{k-1}(x)+h \alpha \gamma r_{k-1}\|x\|_{p_2} =(1-\delta') \|x\|_{p_1} +
\alpha[(1+h)^{k-1}-1] \|x\|_{p_2} \\
\quad \quad =t_1(x)+ \alpha(r_k-r_1) \|x\|_{p_2}\\
\hline
\end{array}$$ Define also the following events, for $k \ge 2$ and $x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash
\{0\}$: $$\begin{aligned}
E_k^1 (x) & = & \{\eta^1(t_k(x)) \subset
\mathcal{B}_{p_1}^0((1+{\varepsilon})t_k(x)) \}, \\
E_k^2 (x)& = & \{\eta^2(t_k(x)) \supset S_k(x)
\}, \\
E_k (x)& = & E_k^1 (x) \cap E_k^2(x).\end{aligned}$$ The aim is the following: we want to apply Lemma \[progressionter\] to prove that if $E_k^2 (x)$ is realized, then with high probability $E_{k+1}^2 (x)$ is also realized. But we need first to control the spread of the slow $p_1$-infection, and to see that it will not disturb the spread of the fast $p_2$-infection from $S_k(x)$ to $S_{k+1}(x)$.
Let us prove that there exist two strictly positive constants $A_2$ and $B_2$ such that $$\label{EE2}
\forall x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash\{0\} \quad
{\mathbb{P}}\left( \complement \left( {\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
\bigcap\\
{\scriptstyle k \ge 2}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}} E_k^1(x) \right) \right) \le A_2 \exp (-B_2 \|x\|).$$ Indeed, by the large deviation result (\[shapeGD\]), for any $x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash\{0\}$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\mathbb{P}}\left( \complement \left( \bigcap_{k \ge 2} E_k^1(x) \right) \right) \\
& \le & \sum_{k \ge 2} {\mathbb{P}}\left( \eta^1(t_k(x)) \not\subset
\mathcal{B}_{p_1}((1+{\varepsilon})t_k(x))) \right)
\le \sum_{k \ge 2} A \exp \left( -B t_k(x) \right) \\
& \le & \sum_{k \ge 2} A \exp \left( -B
\left[(1-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1}+\alpha((1+h)^{k-1}-1)\gamma
\|x\|_{p_2}\right] \right) \\
& \le & A \exp \left( -B \left[ (1-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1} -\alpha \gamma
\|x\|_{p_2} \right] \right) \sum_{k \ge 2} \exp \left( -B
\alpha(1+h)^{k-1}\gamma \|x\|_{p_2} \right).\end{aligned}$$
1\. As there exists $B'>0$ such that $\forall k \ge 2, \;B \alpha(1+h)^{k-1}\gamma \ge B' k,$ the last sum is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k \ge 2} \exp \left( -B
\alpha(1+h)^{k-1}\gamma \|x\|_{p_2} \right)
& \le & \sum_{k \ge 2} \exp \left( -B' k\|x\|_{p_2} \right) \\
& \le & \frac{\exp \left( -2B' \|x\|_{p_2} \right)}{1-\exp \left( -B'
\|x\|_{p_2} \right)} \le A' \exp \left( -2B' \|x\|_{p_2} \right)\end{aligned}$$ with $A'>0$ because $\displaystyle \inf \{\|x \|_{p_2}: \; x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash\{0\} \} >0$.
2\. For the first factor, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(1-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1} -\alpha \gamma \|x\|_{p_2}
& = & (1-\delta'-\alpha \gamma C_{p_1,p_2})\|x\|_{p_1} + \alpha \gamma
(C_{p_1,p_2} \|x\|_{p_1}-\|x\|_{p_2}) \\
& \ge & (1-\delta'-\alpha \gamma C_{p_1,p_2})\|x\|_{p_1} \text{ by
definition of } C_{p_1,p_2} \\
& \ge & B''\|x\|_{p_1},\end{aligned}$$ with $B''>0$ thanks to conditions (\[D4\]) and (\[D5\]). This proves (\[EE2\]).
But we will also need a more precise control of this slow infection in order to prevent it from bothering the fast one while applying Lemma \[progressionter\].
Remember that $K$ was defined in (\[D10\]). Let us prove the following geometrical fact: $$\label{EE3}
\forall k \ge K \quad \forall x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash\{0\} \quad
\mathcal{B}_{p_1}^0((1+{\varepsilon})t_k(x))
\subset\mathcal{B}_{p_2}^0(r_k^{min}\|x\|_{p_2}).$$ Let $k \ge K $, $x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash\{0\}$ and $u \in \mathcal{B}_{p_1}^0((1+{\varepsilon})t_k(x))$. Then: $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_{p_2}
& \le & C_{p_1,p_2} \|u\|_{p_1} \le C_{p_1,p_2} (1+{\varepsilon})t_k(x) \\
& \le & C_{p_1,p_2}
(1+{\varepsilon})[(1-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1}+\alpha \gamma ((1+h)^{k-1}-1)
\|x\|_{p_2}] \\
& \le & C_{p_1,p_2} (1+{\varepsilon}) \left[ (1-\delta') {C_{p_2,p_1}}
+ \alpha \gamma ((1+h)^{k-1}-1) \right] \|x\|_{p_2} \\
& \le & [1-3{\varphi}](1+h)^{k-1}\gamma\|x\|_{p_2}=r_k^{min}\|x\|_{p_2},\end{aligned}$$ thanks to (\[D10\]), which proves (\[EE3\]).
\
To look at the $p_1$-infection in the early stage of the process, we need to focus on a small cone around $\hat x$ in order to control more precisely the discrepancy between the two norms $\|.\|_{p_1}$ and $\|.\|_{p_2}$. Let us see that for every $k$, for every $x\in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash \{0\}$ and for every $z \in
{\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash \{0\}$ $$(\|\hat z -\hat x \|_{p_2} \le {\theta} \text{ and } \|z\|_{p_1} \le
(1+{\varepsilon})t_k(x)) \Longrightarrow \|z\|_{p_2} \le
r_k^{min}\|x\|_{p_2}. \nonumber$$ We recall that ${\theta}$ was defined in (\[D9\]). Then, $$\begin{aligned}
&& r_k^{min}\|x\|_{p_2}-\|z\|_{p_2}
\ge r_k^{min}\|x\|_{p_2}-(1+\rho)\|z\|_{p_1}
\frac{\|x\|_{p_2}}{\|x\|_{p_1}} \\
& \ge & (1-3{\varphi})r_k\|x\|_{p_2}-
(1+\rho)(1+{\varepsilon})\frac{\|x\|_{p_2}}{\|x\|_{p_1}} t_k(x) \\
& \ge & (1-3{\varphi})r_k\|x\|_{p_2}-
(1+\rho)(1+{\varepsilon})\frac{\|x\|_{p_2}}{\|x\|_{p_1}}
(t_1(x)+\alpha(r_k-r_1)\|x\|_{p_2}). \end{aligned}$$ As $(r_k)_{k}$ is increasing, the worst case is for $k=1$: $$\begin{aligned}
r_k^{min}\|x\|_{p_2}-\|z\|_{p_2}
& \ge & (1-3{\varphi})r_1\|x\|_{p_2} - (1+\rho)(1+{\varepsilon}) \frac{\|x\|_{p_2}}{\|x\|_{p_1}} (1-\delta')\|x\|_{p_1} \\
& \ge & ((1-3{\varphi})\gamma - (1+\rho)(1+{\varepsilon})(1-\delta'))\|x\|_{p_2}>0\end{aligned}$$ thanks to Conditions (\[D8\]). Thus, thanks to Equation (\[D12\]), we obtain that for every $k \le K $, for every $x\in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash \{0\}$ and for every $z \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash \{0\}$ $$\label{EE4}
(\; \hat z \in A_k \oplus(2 \alpha h) \quad \text{and} \quad \|z\|_{p_1} \le
(1+{\varepsilon})t_k(x) \; ) \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \|z\|_{p_2} \le
r_k^{min}\|x\|_{p_2}.$$
Equations (\[EE3\]) and (\[EE4\]) ensure that for every $k \ge 2 $, for every $x\in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash \{0\}$, we have $$\label{EE6}
\mathcal{B}_{p_1}^0((1+{\varepsilon})t_k(x)) \; \cap \;
\shell( A_k(x) \oplus(2 \alpha h), r_k^{min} \|x\|_{p_2}, \infty)
= \varnothing.$$ Thus, the spread of the (single) fast $p_2$-infection from $S_{k-1}(x)$ to $S_{k}(x)$, ensured by Lemma \[progressionter\], is not disturbed by the slow $p_1$-infection on the event $E_{k}^1(x)\cap E_{k-1}^2(x)$. Let $A_3$ and $B_3$ be the two strictly positive constants given by Lemma \[progressionter\]; we apply the lemma with $$\begin{aligned}
S & = & A_{k-1}(x), \\
T & = & A_{k}(x)=A_{k-1}(x)\oplus \frac{{\varphi}}{2} , \\
r & = & r_{k-1} \|x\|_{p_2}. \end{aligned}$$ But we must first be sure that $S$ and $T$ are “good” subsets of $\mathcal S$, in the sense $$\forall z \in T \quad \exists v \in S \text{ such that } v \oplus \frac{{\varphi}}{2} \subset S \text{ and } \|z-v\|_{p_2} \le {\varphi}.$$ Indeed, let $k \ge 2$ and $z \in A_{k}(x)=A_{k-1}(x)\oplus \frac{{\varphi}}{2}$: by definition, there exist $w \in A_{k-1}(x)$ and $u_1 \in \mathcal{B}^0_{p_2}({\varphi}/2)$ such that $z=w+u_1$. But $A_{k-1}(x)=A_{k-2}(x)\oplus \frac{{\varphi}}{2}$, where, for $k=2$, we set $A_0(x)=\{ \hat x\}$. So there exist $v \in A_{k-2}(x)$ and $u_2 \in \mathcal{B}^0_{p_2}({\varphi}/2)$ such that $w=v+u_2$. Now, $z=v+u_1+u_2$ and
- as $v \in A_{k-2}(x)\subset S$ and $S=A_{k-1}(x)=A_{k-2}(x)\oplus \frac{{\varphi}}{2}$, we have $v \oplus \frac{{\varphi}}{2} \subset S$,
- as $u_1 \in \mathcal{B}^0_{p_2}({\varphi}/2)$ and $u_2 \in \mathcal{B}^0_{p_2}({\varphi}/2)$, we have $\|z-v\|_{p_2} =\|u_1+u_2\|_{p_2}\le \|u_1\|_{p_2}+\|u_2\|_{p_2} \le {\varphi}$.
Thus any point in $S_{k}(x)$ can be infected by the $p_2$-infection from a point in $S_{k-1}(x)$ in a time less than $\alpha h
r_{k-1}\|x\|_{p_2}=t_{k}(x)-t_{k-1}(x)$ using only paths inside $\shell( A_k(x) \oplus(2 \alpha h), r_k^{min} \|x\|_{p_2}, \infty)$, if it is not bothered by the slow $p_1$-infection. But on the event $E_{k}^1(x)$, this is ensured by Equation (\[EE6\]). Thus, the application of Lemma \[progressionter\] implies that for any $x \in {\mathbb{Z}^d}\backslash
\{0\}$, for every $k\ge2$, $${\mathbb{P}}((E_k^2(x))^c \backslash (E_k^1(x) \cap E_{k-1}^2(x))\le A_3 \exp(-B_3r_{k-1}\|x\|_{p_2}).
\nonumber$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k \ge 2} {\mathbb{P}}\left( (E_k^2(x))^c\cap (E_k^1(x) \cap
E_{k-1}^2(x)\right)
& \le & A_3 \sum_{k \ge 2} \exp(-B_3r_{k-1} \|x\|_{p_2}) \nonumber \\
& \le & A_3 \sum_{k \ge 2} \exp \left( -B_3(1+h)^{k-2}\gamma\|x\|_{p_2}
\right)\nonumber \\
& \le & A_4 \exp(-B_4\|x\|)\label{EE5} \end{aligned}$$ where $A_4$ and $B_4$ are two strictly positive constants.
For $k$ large enough, the set $S_k(x)$ disconnects $0$ from infinity, and thus the event $\bigcap_{k\ge1} E_k$ implies that the slow $p_1$-infection is surrounded by the fast $p_2$-infection and thus dies out. So, using (\[D11\]), (\[EE2\]) and (\[EE5\]), we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\mathbb{P}}(\mathcal{G}^1\cap \{t(x) \le (1-\delta)
\|x\|_{p_1}\}) \\
& \le & {\mathbb{P}}\left( \{t(x) \le (1-\delta)
\|x\|_{p_1} \} \cap \bigcup_{k\ge 1} E_k(x)^c \right) \\
& \le & {\mathbb{P}}\left( \{t(x) \le (1-\delta)\|x\|_{p_1} \} \cap
(E_1(x) \cap\{x \in C_{p_2}^\infty\}) \right)
+ {\mathbb{P}}\left( \bigcup_{k\ge 1} (E_k^1(x))^c \right) \\
&& + \sum_{k \ge 2} {\mathbb{P}}\left( (E_k^2(x))^c\cap (E_k^1(x) \cap
E_{k-1}^2(x)\right) \\
& \le & A\exp(-B\|x\|),\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.
Proof of the main Theorem \[THEtheorem\] {#Section_proof_theo}
========================================
In all this section, $s_1$ and $s_2$ are two distinct sites in ${\mathbb{Z}^d}$ and $\xi$ is the element of $S^{{\mathbb{Z}^d}}$ where all sites are empty, but $\xi_{s_1}=\yellow$ and $\xi_{s_2}=\blue$. This initial configuration is now fixed. We will thus, in the following, omit the explicit dependence in $\xi$.
Suppose that $0\le p \le q \le 1$. In our competition process, the survival of the weaker – [*resp.* ]{}stronger – infection is represented by the event $\mathcal{G}^1_{p,q}$ – [*resp.* ]{}$\mathcal{G}^2_{p,q}$ – where, for $i=1,2$: $$\mathcal{G}^i_{p,q}=\left\{ \sup_{t \ge 0} |\eta^i_{p,q}(t)|=+\infty\right\}.$$ The main Theorem \[THEtheorem\] can be reformulated now in the following form:
\[THETHEtheorem\] Let $ q>p_c$. The set of parameters $p$ such that $p<\min(q,{\overrightarrow{p_c}})$ and ${\mathbb{P}}(\mathcal{G}^1_{p, q}\cap \mathcal{G}^2_{p, q})>0$ is at most denumerable.
The corresponding Conjecture \[Introconj\] can be formulated as follows:
Let $ q>p_c$ and $p<\min(q,{\overrightarrow{p_c}})$. Then ${\mathbb{P}}\left( \mathcal{G}^1_{p,q} \cap \mathcal{G}^2_{p,q} \right) =0$.
### Proof of Theorem \[THETHEtheorem\] {#proof-of-theoremthethetheorem .unnumbered}
It strongly relies on Propositions \[Introstrictecomp\] and \[Introslowspeed\] and the coupling arguments that are also used are widely inspired by the proof of Häggström and Pemantle [@Haggstrom-Pemantle-2].
Let us prove that if $p<q<\min(r,{\overrightarrow{p_c}})$, then ${\mathbb{P}}(\mathcal{G}^1_{p,r}\cap \mathcal{G}^2_{q,r})=0$.
Since, by the coupling Lemma \[yal\], $\mathcal{G}^2_{p,r}\subset \mathcal{G}^2_{q,r}$, we have $\mathcal{G}^1_{p,r}\cap \mathcal{G}^2_{q,r}=(\mathcal{G}^1_{p,r}\cap \mathcal{G}^2_{p,r})\cap \mathcal{G}^2_{q,r}$. So, we can assume that $\mathcal{G}^1_{p,r}\cap \mathcal{G}^2_{p,r}$ occurs and prove that $\mathcal{G}^2_{q,r}$ can not happen. By Proposition \[Introslowspeed\], we have $${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
{\overline{\lim}}\\
{\scriptstyle t\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac{|\eta^2_{p,r}(t)|_{p}}t\le 1,
\text{ which implies }
{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
{\overline{\lim}}\\
{\scriptstyle t\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac{|\eta^2_{q,r}(t)|_{p}}t\le 1.$$ Indeed, by the coupling Lemma \[yal\], $\eta^2_{q,r}(t) \subset \eta^2_{p,r}(t)$. Now, by Proposition \[Introstrictecomp\], we have $${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
{\overline{\lim}}\\
{\scriptstyle t\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac{|\eta^2_{q,r}(t)|_{q}}t\le C_{p,q}.$$ On the other hand, $\mathcal{G}^1_{q,r}\subset\{s_1\in C^\infty_{q}\}$, so using Lemma \[comparaison\] and Lemma \[shape\] together, we get $${\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0.6}
\begin{array}{c}
{\scriptstyle }\\
{\underline{\lim}}\\
{\scriptstyle t\to +\infty}
\end{array}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}}\frac{|\eta^1_{q,r}(t)\cup \eta^2_{q,r}(t)|_{*,q}}t\ge 1.$$ Now, let $t$ be large enough to ensure that $$\frac{|\eta^2_{q,r}(t)|_{p}}t\le\frac{C_{p,q}+2}3=\alpha \;
\text{ and } \;
\frac{|\eta^1_{q,r}(t)\cup \eta^2_{q,r}(t)|_{*,q}}t\ge \frac{2C_{p,q}+1}3=\beta.$$ Then every point $x$ such that $x\in C^\infty_{q}$ and $\alpha <\|x\|_{q}< \beta$ belongs to $\eta^1_{q,r}(t)\backslash\eta^2_{q,r}(t)$, which prevents the occurrence of the event $\mathcal{G}^2_{q,r}$.
Let $q>0$. Let us prove that ${\mathbb{P}}$ almost surely, there exists at most one value $p \le \min(q,{\overrightarrow{p_c}})$ such that $\mathcal{G}^1_{p,q} \cap \mathcal{G}^2_{p,q}$ occurs.
Assume that there exist $p$ and $p'$ with $p<p'\le q$ and such that $\mathcal{G}^1_{p, q}\cap \mathcal{G}^2_{p, q}$ and $\mathcal{G}^1_{p', q}\cap \mathcal{G}^2_{p', q}$ are satisfied. Denote by $A$ this event. Let $r$ and $s$ be two rational numbers such that $p<r<s<p'$.
By the coupling Lemma \[yal\], $\mathcal{G}^1_{p,q} \subset \mathcal{G}^1_{r,q}$ and $\mathcal{G}^2_{p',q} \subset \mathcal{G}^2_{s,q}$, whence $$A\subset\bigcup_{
\begin{subarray}{c}
0\le r < s \le q \\
(r,s)\in{\mathbb{Q}}^2
\end{subarray}}
\mathcal{G}^1_{r, q}\cap \mathcal{G}^2_{s, q}.$$ Then, it follows from the previous step that $A$ has probability $0$.
Proof of Theorem \[THETHEtheorem\]. Let $ q>0$.
Let $n\ge 1$, and let $E$ a finite subset of the set of real numbers $p\in[0,\min(q,{\overrightarrow{p_c}}))$ such that ${\mathbb{P}}(\mathcal{G}^1_{p, q}\cap \mathcal{G}^2_{p, q})\ge 1/n$. By the previous step $$\sum_{p\in E}{1\hspace{-1.3mm}1}_{\mathcal{G}^1_{p, q}\cap \mathcal{G}^2_{p, q}}\le 1,
\text{ which implies that }
\sum_{p\in E} {\mathbb{P}}(\mathcal{G}^1_{p, q}\cap \mathcal{G}^2_{p, q})\le 1.$$ Thus the set of $p$ such that $p\le q$ and ${\mathbb{P}}(\mathcal{G}^1_{p, q}\cap \mathcal{G}^2_{p, q})\ge 1/n$ contains at most $n$ points, which proves the theorem.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper can be seen as an exercise in how to adapt quantum mechanics from a strict relativistic perspective while being respectful and critical towards the experimental achievements of the contemporary theory. The result is a fully observer independent relativistic quantum mechanics for $N$ particle systems without tachyonic solutions. A remaining worry for the moment is Bell’s theorem.'
author:
- 'Johan Noldus[^1]'
title: 'Towards a fully consistent relativistic quantum mechanics and a change of perspective on quantum gravity.'
---
Introduction
============
As is often stated, quantum mechanics and general relativity are the great accomplishments of the previous century. However, their unification is particularly troublesome because of the contradictory axioms they are constructed from. General relativity is a theory of space time, reality, objectivity, locality of interaction …while quantum theory is about space plus time, predicting outcomes of experiments, subjectivity, the instantaneous character of as well measurement and interaction. There has been an immense effort during the last forty years in trying to force general relativity into quantum theory with very little success. In this paper, we boldly address the opposite task and reexamine quantum mechanics in a Bohmian spirit from a strict, die hard relativistic point of view and see how far it brings us. The first obstacle we meet is the multi particle Schroedinger equation and I shall discuss objections against it in section (2) where also new multi particle equations are derived which admit straightforward observer independent relativistic generalizations. The key property is that the single $N$ particle wave which lives on configuration space cross time is replaced by $N$ single particle waves which live on *space time*. Of course our new equations have the correct classical limit. Moreover, interactions between the different waves are mediated by classical gauge fields such as the electromagnetic four vector which implies that there are no instantaneous processes taking place which jeopardize causality. The physical picture we end up with is one of wave packages moving around in space time containing one particle each. The wave packages do not spread faster than with the speed of light and interact through fields which satisfy hyperbolic equations of motion. This weltanschaung is the complete opposite of the one employed in quantum field theory which deals with wave functions on infinite dimensional configuration space. In my opinion, a covariant set of field equations which unite gravitation which quantum mechanics and matter is more in our reach now and I shall present some ideas of how to proceed in that direction in the epilogue.\
\
In section $3$, I shall present an elegant solution to the de Broglie mass problem which was already mentioned in the literature [@Shojai]. Furthermore, in section (3.2) I discuss the same objections against the $N$ particle Schroedinger equation from a relativistic point of view and present the appropriate relativistic equations. The conclusion from the latter exercise is that it is possible to slightly modify quantum mechanics into an objective, realistic and causal theory. However, as good relativists, we obviously reject spooky action at a distance and therefore subjective entangled states. The price to pay is the rejection of quantum mechanics and some of the *interpretations* of the measurement results which contain some trivial hidden assumptions which might not be as innocent as they seem. Also, it might be that the assumptions behind some of the Bell inequalities were too naive and this is discussed a bit more at the end of section (3.2). As a matter of notational convenience, Greek letters such as $\alpha, \beta$ are space indices while $\mu$ and $\nu$ denote space time indices. The signature of the metric is taken to be $+ - - -$ and $D$ is the dimension of space.
Non relativistic Bohm - de Broglie quantum mechanics
====================================================
In this section, I present the main concepts of Bohmian QM and shall not refrain from going into a rather detailed interpretation. The latter which, in my opinion, was the cause of all confusion. Let us start with the one particle case in $R^D$, the Schroedinger equation reads: $$\label{1}
i \hbar \partial_{t} \Psi (x^{\alpha},t) = - \frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m} \Delta
\Psi (x^{\alpha},t) + V(x^{\beta},t) \Psi
(x^{\alpha},t).$$ Going over to polar coordinates $\Psi
(x^{\alpha},t) = R(x^{\alpha},t) \exp{(iS(x^{\beta})/\hbar)}$, (\[1\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
\partial_{t} S + \frac{1}{2m} \left| \vec{\nabla} S
\right|^{2} + V - \frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m} \frac{\Delta R}{R} & = & 0 \\
\partial_{t} R^{2} + \frac{1}{m} \vec{\nabla} . \left(R^{2} \vec{\nabla}S
\right) & = & 0\end{aligned}$$ The first equation is of the Hamilton Jacobi type with a dynamical, nonlocal term $Q_{cl} = - \frac{\hbar^{2}}{2m} \frac{\Delta R}{R}$, the so called quantum potential. The second equation is a classical continuity equation for the probability density $R^2$ provided the fluid lines satisfy the differential equation: $$\label{4} \dot{x}^{\alpha} = \frac{1}{m} \partial^{\alpha} S.$$ Now, it is easy to check that $$\label{5} m \ddot{x}^{\alpha}
= -
\partial^{\alpha} (V + Q)$$ which is nothing but Newton’s equation.\
\
Hence, in Bohmian QM one extends reality by saying that the particle *has* a well defined position and momentum at each moment in time; the probability density $R^2$ being nothing but a nonlocal guidance mechanism for the particle. This interpretation is somewhat unsatisfying because of the role played by $Q_{cl}$ and we shall improve upon this in section (3.1) where the latter shall be given a space time geometrical meaning. We continue this section by elucidating the geometrical meaning of the argument field $S(x^{\alpha},t)$, i.e. a small introduction into the geometry of Hamilton Jacobi theory is given.\
\
Let $\mathcal{L}(x^{\alpha},v^{\beta},t)$ be a time dependent Lagrangian with corresponding functional $$I(\gamma,t) = \int_{t_{0}}^{t} \mathcal{L}(\gamma^{\alpha}(s), \dot{\gamma}^{\beta}(s),s) ds$$ on the space of curves $\gamma :[t_0 , t_1 ] \rightarrow R^{D} $ and $t_0 \leq t \leq t_1$. The function $S(x^{\alpha},t)$ determines hypersurfaces in $R^{D+1}$ and we can ask how the parameter $S(x^{\alpha},t) = \sigma $ changes with $dI(\gamma,t) =
\mathcal{L}(\gamma^{\alpha}(t), \dot{\gamma}^{\beta}(t),t) dt$. Assuming that an initial surface $S(x^{\alpha},t) = \sigma_{0}$ has been chosen so that $\frac{dt}{d\sigma}|_{\sigma_0} \neq 0$, we can locally choose a sigma orientation such that $$\frac{d\sigma}{dt} = \partial_{t} S(x^{\alpha},t) +
\partial_{\beta} S(x^{\alpha},t) \dot{x}^{\beta}
> 0.$$ Now, given $d\sigma$ fixed, the curve $(\gamma^{\alpha}(t),t)$ in $R^{D+1}$ shifts by $(\frac{d\gamma^{\alpha}(t)}{dt}\frac{dt}{d\sigma},\frac{dt}{d\sigma})d\sigma$. Therefore $\frac{d\gamma^{\alpha}(t)}{dt}$ is invariant under reparametrisations of $\sigma$ and we can meaningfully ask in which directions $\frac{dI(\gamma^{\alpha}(t),t)}{d\sigma}$ is extremal, that is: $$\partial_{\dot{x}^{\alpha}} \left( \frac{dI(\gamma^{\alpha}(t),t)}{d\sigma} \right) = 0.$$ An elementary calculation reveals that $$\label{3}
\partial_{x^{\alpha}} S(\gamma^{\beta}(t),t) =
\frac{\Delta}{\mathcal{L}(\gamma^{\beta}(t),\dot{\gamma}^{\beta}(t),t)}
p_{\alpha}$$ where $\Delta =
\frac{d\sigma}{dt}(\gamma^{\beta}(t),\dot{\gamma}^{\beta}(t),t)$, which is homogeneous in first degree in the velocities, and $p_{\alpha} = \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial
\dot{x}^{\alpha}}$. Now, it is an elementary exercise to show that $S(x^{\alpha},t)$ satisfies the Hamilton Jacobi equation if and only if $\Delta(\gamma^{\beta}(t),\dot{\gamma}^{\beta}(t),t) =
\mathcal{L}(\gamma^{\beta}(t),\dot{\gamma}^{\beta}(t),t)$ for any member $\gamma$ of the congruence determined by equation (\[3\]). The latter implies that any action integral of any member of the congruence between $S(x^{\alpha},t) = \sigma_i$ equals $\sigma_2 -
\sigma_1$. The latter is inviting one to call the surfaces $S(x^{\alpha},t)$ satisfying the Hamilton Jacobi equation to be *geodetically* equidistant. Moreover, it is fairly elementary to show that $S$ satisfies the Hamilton Jacobi equation if and only if any member of its congruence satisfies the Euler Lagrange equations. The reader can find a more extensive treatment in [@Butterfield]\
\
Historically, Schroedinger knew that the Hamilton Jacobi function determines a family of surfaces which are geodetically equidistant and crossed orthogonally by the specified congruence of solutions to Hamilton’s equations [@de; @Broglie]. Therefore, it appeared natural to him that these surfaces correspond to the phase factor of a *monochromatic* wave which consequently has to satisfy the Schroedinger equation; $\hbar$ being needed for dimensional reasons only. In those days, one was aware of the wave-particle aspect of any *substance* and since monochromatic waves would not be physically adequate (substance would interfere periodically at arbitrary large spatial separations) it deemed necessary to include an amplitude. Scaling invariance of the Schroedinger equation with respect to this amplitude hinders it from having a *physical* meaning and consequently a probability interpretation becomes natural. This is all very well for *one* particle: one started from a natural idea inspired by classical mechanics, saw that it needed extension in order to correspond to localized substance in reality and then became immersed in the casino game. Moreover, at this stage there is no real conflict with Einstein’s principles of locality and causality since it *is* possible to give a geometrical meaning to the one particle wave function assuming a Bohmian point of view. This can be realized by taking a Weyl geometrical approach as followed by Santamato, leaving the relativistic Klein Gordon equations intact [@Santamoto1] [@Santamato2]. He writes down an action principle for a relativistic particle and a connection in an external electromagnetic field and background space time. It turns out that the connection $\Gamma$ is semi-metrical and that the gauge freedom in $\Gamma$ (which determines the curvature $R$ of the connection in a flat background) is dynamically determined such that $R$ equals the quantum potential. Another approach consists in asserting that quantum mechanics *really* changes the conformal factor of the space time metric which results in a modification of the continuity equation for the probability density in $D>1$.\
\
In my personal opinion, quantum mechanics went in the wrong direction when Schroedinger wrote down his equations for a system of $N$ particles. In doing so, he started from the Hamilton Jacobi equations for the *composite* system of particles, interacting *instantaneously* through global forces. Thereby, he completely ignored the lesson Einstein presented in his theory of general relativity that interaction occurs causally and moreover is mediated by fields satisfying hyperbolic partial differential equations, a comment which was also made by Louis de Broglie [@de; @Broglie] (p. 140). Another valuable lesson of that theory was that a conserved *energy* has only a global meaning in a static, asymptotically flat space time and therefore is an highly inappropriate concept to start from. Inevitably, this brought Schroedinger to the conclusion that the wave function has to live in *configuration* space cross some time, instead of in real physical space time, making it devoid of any realistic interpretation[^2]. However, what is not well stressed at all in the standard literature, is that the *probabilistic* interpretation of the multi particle wave function is quite unsatisfying too. If I were a real Newtonian, I would demand that the fact that the probability of having some particle at time $t$ present is one, is *independent* of the consideration of other particles. This is in conflict with the contemporary dogma which only allows a particle to exist in space *given* that all other particles do. Therefore, it seems to me that each particle should have its own wave function with the corresponding continuity equation. In the remaining part of this paper, I will gradually restore a *realistic* interpretation of the $N$ particle quantum mechanical system and, as highlighted in section (3.2), such enterprise is intimately connected to the principle of relativistic invariance. The first step consists in recognizing that indeed each particle has its own wave function living in space time and that the latter are interacting causally through gauge fields. Next, a natural space time geometrical meaning is given to the quantal guidance mechanism and this is discussed in more detail in section (3.1). Therefore, the only probabilistic remnant in the theory concerns the unknown initial positions of the particles. The measurement process is, in this context, a multi particle (scattering) problem and deeper insight into this subject will require a lot of future computational work.\
\
From now on, the reader should refrain from any Newtonian thought and reason as a proper relativist (or at least switch off his/her Galilean preconceptions). As a warmup, consider a system of two particles whose wave functions $\Psi_i(x^{\alpha},t_0)$ have disjoint support and spreads $\Delta
E_i$, $\Delta x_{i}^{\alpha}$ of the order $\sqrt{\hbar}$ around center values $\tilde{E}_i$ and $\tilde{x}_{i}^{\alpha}$ respectively. Although the two particles might interact after we have prepared the system, it is very reasonable to think that they are independent initially[^3]. Therefore, we *can* speak of the separate energies of the particles (and they could be determined after some time by letting the particles hit a screen and by measuring the impact factors) which logically implies the need for *two* Galilean time parameters. One can formalize this intuition by studying the classical problem of $N$ particles with charge $e_j$ and mass $m_j$ interacting through the Coulomb force. In this case, the Hamiltonian is: $$\mathcal{H}(x^{\alpha_1}_1, \ldots, x^{\alpha_N}_N, p_{\alpha_1}^1, \ldots , p_{\alpha_N}^N) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{p_i^2}{2 m_i} + \sum_{i < j}
\frac{\alpha e_ie_j}{r_{ij}}$$ with $\alpha$ a positive coupling constant. However, this theory neglects the facts that interactions between the different particles occur with finite speed and that the couplings between the particles and the fields generated by the others are local as well. Taking into account the latter considerations results in the following correct theory: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{i}(x^{\alpha}_i,p_{\alpha}^i,t) & = & \frac{ | p^{i} -
\frac{e_i}{c} \sum_{j} A_{j}(x^{\alpha}_i,t)|^2}{2 m_i} + e_i
\sum_{j} \phi_j(x^{\alpha}_i,t) \\
\partial_{\mu} F^{i \mu \nu}(x^{\alpha},t) & = & 4 \pi c^{-1} J_{i}^{\nu}(x^{\alpha},t) \\
\partial_{\mu} J_{i}^{\mu}(x^{\alpha},t) & = & 0\end{aligned}$$ where the $\phi_j$ and the $A_{j}^{\alpha}$ are the field and vector potentials respectively, $A^{j}_{\mu} = \left( \phi_j , A_{j}
\right)$ is the $j$’th gauge four vector and $F^{j}_{\mu \nu} =
\partial_{j [ \mu} A^{j}_{\nu ]}$ is the $j$’th field strength. The $N$ Hamilton functions enable one to write down the orbits of the particles as explicit functions of time and the electromagnetic fields of the other particles, given the initial positions and momenta, i.e. $x^{\alpha}_i(t) \equiv x_{i \, \{A_{j}^{\mu}
\}}^{\alpha}(t)$. However, strictly speaking, the four currents are $$\left( J_{i}^{\mu}(x^{\alpha},t) \right) = e_i \left(c ,
\frac{p^{i}(t) - \frac{e_i}{c} \sum_{j}
A_{j}(x^{\alpha}_i(t),t)}{m_i} \right) \delta^{(3)}\left( x^{\alpha}
- x^{\alpha}_i(t) \right)$$ and these obviously satisfy the conservation laws in the distributional sense on shell (that is when the Hamilton equations are satisfied). Now, it becomes very clear why the j’th particle determines its own wave function satisfying a one particle Schroedinger equation with a time dependent Hamiltonian. Therefore, the new $N$ particle quantum mechanical equations read: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{t_j} S_j(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j) + e_j \sum_{i} \phi_i(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j) - \frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_j} \frac{\Delta_j
R_j(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j)}{R_j(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j)} + & & \\
\frac{\left| \vec{\nabla}_j S_j(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j) - \frac{e_j}{c}
\sum_{i} A_{i}(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j) \right|^2}{2 m_j}
& = & 0 \\
\partial_{t_j} R_{j}^2(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j) + \frac{\vec{\nabla}_j .
\left( R_{j}^2(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j) \left( \vec{\nabla}_j
S_j(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j) - \frac{e_j}{c} \sum_{i}
A_{i}(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j) \right) \right)}{m_j} & = & 0 \\
\dot{x}_{j}^{\alpha} - \frac{\vec{\nabla}_j S_j(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j)
- \frac{e_j}{c} \sum_{i} A_{i}(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j)}{m_j} & = & 0\end{aligned}$$ We still need $N$ Maxwell’s equations for the electromagnetic fields, that is we need to identify the correct electric currents. Obviously, the probability currents determine the charge currents with charge densities $\rho_j = e_j R^{2}_{j}$ and spatial currents $\boldmath{\vec{j}}_{j} = e_j R_{j}^{2} \frac{\vec{\nabla}_j
S_j(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j) - \frac{e_j}{c} \sum_{i}
A_{i}(x_{j}^{\alpha},t_j)}{m_j}$. The latter is equivalent to stating that the *possibility* of the particle being at some place influences the dynamics of the other particles and the quantum mechanical continuity equations imply that $\partial_{\mu}
J_{j}^{\mu} = 0$. Therefore, the remaining equations are (in cgs units): $$\partial_{\mu} F^{j \mu \nu} = 4 \pi c^{-1} J_{j}^{\nu}.$$ The above system obviously produces good Newtonian laws with the correct classical limits. Restricting to the two particle case, it becomes possible to ask questions like: given the fact that particle one passed at time $t_1$ through the region $\mathcal{O}_1$ of space, what is the probability that particle two shall pass through $\mathcal{O}_2$ at a later time $t_2
> t_1$? Or, assuming that particle one shall pass through $\mathcal{O}_1$ in five seconds from now, what is the probability that the second particle goes through $\mathcal{O}_2$ now? Obviously, performing an experiment to check the above assertions will change the particles momentum and therefore the outcome of the result, but that does not invalidate the possibility for addressing such questions. So in this interpretation, God does still play dice but in real physical space *time* and not in configuration space.
Comments
--------
Verschelde kindly pointed out to me that the formulae I end up with coincide - in the case of *vanishing* vector potentials - with those of Hartree theory, the latter being known not to give correct results for the Helium atom[^4]. Does this mean that (a) my reasoning is abundant and (b) one of my assumptions is incorrect? The answer to both arguments is clearly no for me, since (a) all derivations of Hartree assume the multi particle Schroedinger equation to be correct and set up a global variational principle to *approximate* its solution by a product state while I simply get my formulas in a much more elegant way by *rejecting* the N particle equation. Concerning (b): let me note that spin is not included yet in my theory, something which is likely to be done by making use of the ideas behind Einstein Cartan theory instead of spinors. One reason for this is that anti-symmetrization is not going to lower the energy for the Helium atom since the lowering terms in Hatree Fock only involve wave functions of equal spin. Moreover, anti-symmetrization would not be allowed in my theory a priori since we have previously rejected the notion of *one* wave function for $N$ particles. Further evidence against the Pauli-Dirac description of spin is provided by the fact that the *spin statistics* theorem is essentially a *kinematical* result while one would intuitively expect it to be of a *dynamical* nature [@Sorkin]. Although the topological observations involved concerning the swap operation on the space of $\epsilon$-localized basis states - which is mathematically a principal $U(1)$[^5] fiber bundle over (non-relativistic) configuration space modulo permutation operations corresponding to identical particles - are cute, they are themselves questionable and have no real physical underpinning[^6]. Therefore, we need to find a spin dynamics which results in a repulsion of equally spinning[^7] and attraction of opposite spinning particles. The energy lowering effect in Helium could therefore be accomplished by a specific anti-symmetric tensor field (a *spin* field if you want) which obeys the above dynamical rules and this brings us into the realms of Einstein Cartan theory. Moreover, gravitation is expected to indirectly play - say by gravitationally induced electromagnetism - a significant role too.\
\
So, the above result has to be interpreted as follows: *given* flat space time physics, taken into account that a *proper* form of spin has not been included yet and assuming that the description of a particle by a mathematical point is fairly accurate in these circumstances[^8], *then* it follows that the above theory is the preferred candidate from the relativistic point of view; the latter which is derived from first principles in section (3.2). This, by itself, is a worthwhile result in my opinion since it clearly indicates the direction in which a (deterministic?) reformulation of quantum mechanics could be found.
Relativistic Bohm - de Broglie quantum mechanics for a zero spin particle revisited.
====================================================================================
In this section, we derive a proper nonlinear extension of the classical Klein Gordon equation which has no tachyonic solutions for one particle as well for multiple particles.
The single particle
-------------------
Polar decomposition of the Klein Gordon field $\Psi(x^{\mu}) = R(x^{\mu}) \exp{\left(i S(x^{\mu})/\hbar \right)}$ gives the following pair of equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{\mu} \left(R^2 \partial^{\mu}S \right) & = & 0 \\
\partial_{\mu}S \partial^{\mu}S = m^2 c^2 \left( 1 + Q_{rel} \right) & \equiv & \mathcal{M}^2 c^2\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{rel} = \frac{\hbar^2}{m^2 c^2} \frac{\partial_{\mu}
\partial^{\mu} R}{R}$ is the dimensionless relativistic quantum potential and $ \partial_{\mu}
\partial^{\mu} = \frac{1}{c^2}
\partial^{2}_{t} - \Delta$ is the d’Alembertian. Now, there exist solutions of the KG equation for which $Q_{rel} < -1$ so that the relativistic current defined by $$\frac{dx^{\mu}(\lambda)}{d\lambda}
= \frac{\partial^{\mu} S}{m}$$ gets spacelike as is illustrated in the next example.
For ease of notation, we shall work in the so called natural units $\hbar = c = 1$ and examine the problem of one relativistic particle moving in two dimensional Minkowski space time. The family of normalized wave packages we are interested in is given by: $$\phi_{\epsilon}(x,t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon}\sqrt{1 + A^2}} \left( \int_{-\epsilon/2}^{\epsilon/2} \exp{(-i (\omega t - kx))} dk + A \int_{s - \epsilon/2}^{s + \epsilon/2}
\exp{(-i(\omega t - kx))} dk \right)$$ where $\omega^2 - k^2 = m^2$ and $A,s$ are real nonzero constants. For any $L$ we can take $\epsilon$ sufficiently small such that for all $(x,t) \in [-L,L]^2$ we have: $$\phi_{\epsilon}(x,t) \sim \frac{\sqrt{\epsilon}}{ \sqrt{1 + A^2}} \left( \exp{(-i m t)} + A \exp{(-i(\omega t - sx))}
\right)$$ To calculate the particle’s paths, note that with some slight abuse of notation $S = -\frac{i}{2} \ln{\left(
\frac{\phi}{\overline{\phi}} \right)}$. Then, $E = - \partial_{t}S
= \frac{\epsilon}{(1+A^2)R^2} \left( m + A^2 \omega + A(m + \omega)
\cos((m-\omega)t - sx) \right)$ and the momentum $P =
\frac{\epsilon}{(1 + A^2)R^2} As \left( A + \cos((m - \omega)t - sx)
\right)$. Now the ratio $\frac{P}{E}$ equals: $$\frac{P}{E} = \frac{As \left( A + \cos((m - \omega)t - sx)
\right)}{\left( m + A^2 \omega + A(m + \omega) \cos((m-\omega)t -
sx) \right)}.$$ For $\cos((m - \omega)t - sx) = -1$ the above expression reduces to: $$\frac{P}{E} = \frac{As(A - 1)}{ m + A^2 \omega - A(m + \omega)}.$$ For $A = \frac{2}{\omega}$, one obtains $\frac{P}{E} =
\frac{2s}{\omega(2 - m)}$. Obviously, for $0 < m < 2$ and $\omega >
\frac{2\sqrt{m}}{\sqrt{4+m}}$ we have $\frac{P}{E} > 1$ which is what we wanted to show.\
\
Restoring dimensions in the above example makes one aware that, since $A$ has to be dimensionless, the factor $2$ must have dimension of $1/s$. Hence one needs an invariant length, that is the Planck length $\l_p$. Recall that in standard units, $\l_p \sim 1,6. 10^{-35}$, $\hbar \sim 6,6.
10^{-34}$ and $c \sim 3. 10^{8}$. Putting $A = \frac{2 \alpha
c}{\l_p \omega}$, where $\alpha$ is a dimensionless numerical constant, leads to $$\frac{Pc}{E} = \frac{2 c^2 \l_{p}^{-1} \alpha s \hbar }{\omega(2c \l_{p}^{-1} \hbar \alpha - m c^2
)}$$ and we may safely assume that $m c^2 < c \l_{p}^{-1} \hbar
\alpha$ or $0 < m < \frac{\l_{p}^{-1} \hbar \alpha}{c} \sim (1,4)
\alpha. 10^{-7}$ kilo. In order for the above expression to exceed one, it is necessary that: $$\omega > \sqrt{\frac{4 m c^4 \l_{p}^{-2} \alpha^2}{\left(4 c \l_{p}^{-1} \hbar \alpha - mc^2\right)}}$$ For $\alpha = 10^{-22}$ and $m = 10^{-30}$ which is about the electron mass, the above estimate reduces to $\omega > 10^{21}$ Hertz, which is in the gamma ray frequency spectrum with wave vector $s$ larger than about $10^{13}$. All these numbers fall well within the reach of conventional space time physics.\
\
This result is making a consistent Bohmian interpretation of the relativistic KG equation impossible. However, there is no good reason why the KG equation should be the physically correct one, i.e. it might very well be that the equation requires non linear corrections. This is not strange at all, since it is well known that the superposition principle in -say- an environmental decoherence interpretation of QM is responsible for the measurement problem[^9]. The latter problem is solved in a Bohmian interpretation and therefore one can take the point of view that a correct relativistic equation should be Poincaré invariant, have a probability interpretation (scaling invariance with respect to $R$) and no acausal Bohmian trajectories. The most obvious ansatz which satisfies all these requirements (and does not affect the classical limit) is given by $\mathcal{M}^2 = m^2 \exp{(Q_{rel})}$ instead of $m^2(1 + Q_{rel})$. Actually, the latter formula is suggested by the following series of arguments[^10]. Equation (8) can be rewritten as $$\frac{dx^{\mu}(\tau)}{d\tau} =
\frac{\partial^{\mu}S(x^{\nu}(\tau))}{\mathcal{M}}$$ where the parameter $\tau$ yields the eigentime of the congruence. Direct calculation yields: $$\label{6}
\mathcal{M}(x^{\gamma}(\tau)) \frac{d^{2}x^{\mu}(\tau)}{d\tau^{2}} =
\left( c^2 \eta^{\mu \nu} -
\frac{dx^{\mu}(\tau)}{d\tau}\frac{dx^{\nu}(\tau)}{d\tau} \right)
\partial_{\nu} \mathcal{M}(x^{\gamma}(\tau)).$$ Now, we study the non-relativistic limit of the above equation. That is: $\tau \equiv
t$, where $t$ is the time coordinate associated to a freely falling congruence of observers, $(x^{\mu}(t)) = (ct, x^{\alpha}(t))$ with $| \dot{x}^{\alpha} | \ll c$. The geodesic equation (\[6\]) is decomposed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\dot{x}^{\alpha}(t)}{c}\right)^2 & = & c
\dot{x}^{\alpha} \partial_{\alpha} \mathcal{M} \\
\mathcal{M} \ddot{x}^{\alpha} & = & c^2 \partial^{\alpha}
\mathcal{M} + \dot{x}^{\alpha} \dot{x}^{\beta} \partial_{\beta}
\mathcal{M} - \dot{x}^{\alpha} \partial_t \mathcal{M}\end{aligned}$$ The second equation has only a good non relativistic limit provided that $\partial_{\beta} \mathcal{M} \sim \frac{\mathcal{M}}{c^2}$ which implies that the first equation is identically satisfied. Because of the former equation, it is reasonable to think that $\partial_t \mathcal{M} \sim \frac{\mathcal{M}}{c^2}$ and therefore $$\mathcal{M} \ddot{x}^{\alpha} = c^2 \partial^{\alpha}
\mathcal{M} .$$ Recalling the non-relativistic equation implies: $$m \ddot{x}^{\alpha} = - \partial_{\alpha}\left( m c^2 \ln \left( \frac{\mathcal{M}}{\mu} \right) \right) = - \partial_{\alpha} Q_{cl}$$ where $\mu$ is any mass scale. This latter implies that $\mathcal{M} = m \exp{\left( \frac{Q_{cl}}{m c^2} \right)}$ which suggests that the relativistic mass satisfies $\mathcal{M} = m
\exp{\left( \frac{Q}{2} \right)}$. An important aspect is that equation (\[6\]) is the *geodesic* equation associated to the space time metric $g_{\mu \nu} = \frac{\mathcal{M}^2}{m^2} \eta_{\mu
\nu}$, a remark which seems to go back to de Broglie. Since in the Bohmian interpretation, a point particle is localized somewhere within the wave package, it seems unnatural to attribute a mass field $\mathcal{M}$ to it. Moreover, the fact that equation (8) is equivalent to $$g^{\mu \nu} \partial_{\mu} S \partial_{\nu} S = m^2 c^2$$ strongly suggests that one *really* should see the quantum effects on the motion of the relativistic particle as being given by the above conformal transformation of the space time metric. Consequently, the continuity equation should be modified[^11] to $$\nabla_{\nu} ( R^2 \nabla^{\nu} S ) = 0$$ where $\nabla$ is the metric connection associated to $g_{\mu \nu}$ and, moreover $$\frac{dx^{\mu}(\tau)}{d\tau} = \frac{\nabla^{\mu} S}{m}
.$$ The latter considerations bring us to the anticipated conclusion that one can attribute a natural space time geometrical meaning to the non local quantal guidance mechanism which takes away its mystery. That is: the wave character of the particle deforms space time geometry in such a way that the geodesic pattern of point particles equals the extremely chaotic congruence of curves in Bohm’s theory. The only remaining uncertainty being the initial position of the particle.\
\
It is unfortunately not well known that the one particle Klein Gordon theory as enunciated above has a consistent interpretation [@Santamato2]. The theory is time reversal invariant which allows for particles to travel the same space time curves but in opposite time directions. It is the choice of time of the observer which determines the notion of particle and antiparticle. Obviously, this can give rise to negative probabilities but this is *not* a problem as explained in [@Santamato2].
Multiple particles
------------------
In this section, I approach the objections in section (2) from a relativistic point of view and show that the standard formalism is incomplete. The same comment applies anyway to any approach aiming to solve the Unitary/Reduction problem in quantum mechanics, without addressing the issue of *local* coordinate (*active* Lorentz) invariance of the quantum mechanical equations in a curved (flat) background properly. For simplicity, I present the equations in the $D+1$ dimensional special relativistic case; the extension to a curved background being straightforward. In relativity, configuration space is $R^{N(D+1)}$ (!) and it is therefore natural to demand the wave function $\Psi$ to depend on the $N$ tuple of *space time* coordinates (unlike what is done in quantum field theory where a split of space and time is made from the start), i.e. $\Psi(x_{1}^{\mu_1}, \ldots , x_{N}^{\mu_ N})$. Then, the $N$ particle relativistic equations in Minkowski *would* look as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j = 1}^{N} \frac{1}{m_j} \partial_{j \mu} S \partial_{j}^{\mu}
S & = & \sum_{j = 1}^{N} \frac{\hbar^2}{m_j} \frac{ \partial_{j \mu}
\partial_{j}^{\mu} R}{R} + \sum_{j = 1}^{N} m_j c^2 \\
\sum_{j = 1}^{N} \partial_{j \mu} \left( \frac{R^2
\partial_{j}^{\mu} S}{m_j} \right) & = & 0\end{aligned}$$ where $\partial_{j \mu}$ denotes the partial derivative to the $\mu$’th coordinate of the $j$’th particle. The latter equation is again the usual continuity equation in configuration space. Both equations being second order hyperbolic partial differential equations in $R$ and $S$. In the above equations, each particle is allowed to have its own independent Lorentz *coordinate* system and unless we fix a gauge by specifying the relative boost and rotation factors between the different coordinate systems, the above system leaves $2(N-1)$ variables undetermined[^12]. The point is that from a relativistic perspective, one should not know these relative Lorentz transformations in order to find a unique solution. This becomes very clear when one imagines the $N$ particles to be initially spatially separated meaning that the initial $N$ particle wave function is the product of $N$ one particle wave functions whose supports are a distance $> \epsilon$ apart in the Riemannian metric determined by the initial hypersurface. In this setup, it is completely irrelevant to even wonder about the relative Lorentz transformations since in case interactions are present, they are mediated by gauge fields and therefore the *coupling* to other particles is of a local nature. This argument becomes even more compelling in the context of true local coordinate transformations in a fixed curved background space time where, in case transition functions would exist, nothing is said about that part of the coordinate patches which have no overlap anyway[^13].\
\
In quantum field theory, a very special form of the above discussed gauge fixing is accomplished by setting the relative boost and rotation factors to zero, i.e. a globally consistent coordinate system is chosen. In order to avoid all possible confusion, let me stress that this kind of gauge freedom should not be mixed up with the so called local Lorentz invariance which lives on the *tangent bundle*; a symmetry the above equations obviously posses also. Moreover, the *active* Lorentz invariance of QFT (independence of the observer) is not the same as the above coordinate symmetry, since the relative boost and rotation factors remain null. In the latter context, it is well known that the necessity of a *globally well defined* observer for a *fundamental* equation of physics to be written down becomes a highly problematic matter, in particular in the standard interpretation of quantum gravity where the status of the observer him/herself gets jeopardized. For all the above reasons, it seems very natural and necessary to me that the laws of physics are observer independent and that the well known problems that observers bring along are indeed problems (of global geometrical or topological nature) of the observers themselves and not of fundamental physics.\
\
Since standard quantum mechanics is shown to be incomplete, we need to add $2(N-1)$ hyperbolic equations to the above system. Taken into account the results of section (2) and the discussion about the positivity of $\mathcal{M}^2$ in section (3.1), the extension to the relativistic case becomes obvious and the result reads: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\partial_{j \mu} S_j(x^{\nu}_j) + \frac{e_j}{c} \sum_{i} A_{i \mu} (x^{\nu}_j) \right)
\left( \partial_{j}^{\mu} S_j(x^{\nu}_j) + \frac{e_j}{c} \sum_{i}
A_{i}^{ \mu} (x^{\nu}_j) \right) & = & \mathcal{M}_{j}^{2}(x
_{j}^{\nu}) c^2 \\
\partial_{j \mu} \left( \frac{R_{j}^2(x^{\nu}_j)
\left( \partial_{j}^{\mu} S_j(x^{\nu}_j) + \frac{e_j}{c} \sum_{i} A_{i}^{ \mu} (x^{\nu}_j) \right) }{m_j} \right) & = & 0 \\
\partial_{j}^{\gamma} F^{j}_{\gamma \mu}(x^{\nu}_j) & = & 4 \pi c^{-1}
J^{j}_{\mu}(x^{\nu}_j) \\
\frac{dx_{j}^{\mu}(\tau_j)}{d\tau_j} - \frac{\left(
\partial_{j}^{ \mu} S_j(x^{\nu}_j) + \frac{e_j}{c} \sum_{i} A_{i}^{\mu} (x^{\nu}_j)
\right)}{\mathcal{M}_j} & = & 0
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{M}_{j}^{2}(x^{\nu}_j) = m_{j}^{2}
\exp{ \left( \frac{\hbar^2}{m_j^2 c^2} \frac{\partial_{j \mu} \partial_{j}^{\mu}
R_j (x^{\nu}_j)}{R_j (x^{\nu}_j)} \right) }$ and $$J^{j}_{\mu}(x^{\nu}_j) =
e_j R_{j}^2(x^{\nu}_j) \frac{\left( \partial_{j \mu} S_j(x^{\nu}_j) + \frac{e_j}{c} \sum_{i} A_{i \mu} (x^{\nu}_j)
\right)}{m_j}.$$ Again, one notices that the distributional charge and mass densities are smeared out by the amplitude $R_j^2$ and $\mathcal{M}_j$ respectively, which is different from the well known result in quantum field theory where the dressed mass and charge are still parameters and not fields. A discussion about the geometrization of the relativistic multi particle system will appear elsewhere.\
\
In this section, we have shown that the principle of local coordinate invariance forces one to extend standard quantum mechanics. In the latter extension, each particle has its own wave package and interaction is mediated causally through (electromagnetic) gauge fields. We used the modification of the standard KG equation proposed in [@Shojai], meaning that the superposition principle is abandoned. At this point, the reader may wonder how it will be possible to describe entanglement between, say, two spin $1/2$ particles as in the Einstein Podolsky Rosen experiments since, in the standard description, this requires use of states of the form $ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( | \uparrow > |
\downarrow > - | \downarrow > | \uparrow > \right)$. Now one can take two points of view: either the above state has no space time meaning and belongs to a preordained Clifford bundle with the canonically induced connection, or spin has a space time interpretation. Let me discuss the former point of view first: the problem is that a change of spinor *bundle* generically gives rise to different physics which implies that the Dirac picture is a subjective one, that is the left (right) up and down states do not correspond to a physical reality of the left (right) particle, but to the outcome of a so called spin (in reality a position) measurement on it[^14]. Therefore, from an objective point of view, it is entirely meaningless to speak about a delocalized state of total spin zero. The same holds for the notion of angular momentum since its very definition requires a global preferred coordinate system, something which has generically no canonical meaning. Of course, one might dismiss these objections just on practical grounds but I am afraid that such attitude is against any serious attempt of unification and I shall grasp this opportunity to take a strict relativistic point of view[^15]. The only relativistically sane explanation is that correlations in the outcome of measurements are the consequence of interactions between the wave packages (and perhaps both measurement apparatus) in their common causal past (assuming that both particles have the same time orientation!) and no singlet state should be needed to describe that. Since we are aiming for an objective world view and rejected measurement as it stands in the Copenhagen interpretation, the standard explanation cannot be maintained here. Therefore, the reason for the *correct* amount of correlations in experiments must be of an entirely different *physical* nature. Hence, we are forced to take the position that a particle simply *has* a definite spin vector which obeys a deterministic equation of motion and that, in case of the EPR setup, it are merely the initial spin vectors which have opposite directions[^16]. As mentioned before, this cannot be realized within the context of conventional Dirac theory and another set of equations will be necessary. Let me also note that there is no conflict with the so called Kochen Specker theorems: the fact that a particle has classical properties does not imply that these can be determined simultaneously through experiments, just as momentum and position of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured in classical physics[^17]. However, I am contradicting some *interpretations* of experiments concerning Bell’s theorem [@Bell] (as did de Broglie and more recently ’t Hooft[@Hooft]) and there exists a vast literature about possible loopholes in the relevant experiments which still allow for the possibility of a local hidden variable theory. However, this is not the place to enter into this subject in detail. The reader will most likely feel uncomfortable with my urge for reinstating classical concepts, but let me point out that I merely came to these conclusions by respecting well known relativistic principles. Moreover, the possible states which can occur in nature are narrowed down immensely due to the exclusion of delocalized multi particle entangled states which I believe, is good news.\
\
The construction is this section is remarkably similar to the so called *u*-wave description in the double wave theory of de Broglie [@de; @Broglie] as I found out later. He also recognized some of the afore mentioned problems with the standard formalism but did not want to give up the multi particle Schroedinger equation. Instead, he forced himself to think of the $\Psi$ wave as an entirely fictitious object, living on configuration space cross one (!) time, which had only a probabilistic meaning. I can only imagine that the reason for his obstinate recognition of the Schroedinger wave must have been rooted in a long tradition of classical Newtonian mechanics[^18] which was only questioned by then for about $10$ years and which is still today the prevalent view on physical reality. This claim is supported by the fact that de Broglie frequently speaks about three dimensional *physical space*, indicating the presumption of a globally preferred notion of time.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, I constructed a fully consistent relativistic quantum theory of particles in which each particle has its own wave function which lives in space time. It remains to be seen how the theory could account for particle-anti particle pair creation, this could in principle happen in case the phase factors $S_j$ get singular. At least, our theory has the potentiality to make such process explicit or at least indicate in which direction one should extend it. This is in sharp contrast to quantum field theory where this process happens instantaneously and is put in by hand through the specific form of the Lagrangian density. Moreover, the theory is observer independent implying that particles have an objective existence. Consequently: the distinction particle - antiparticle and particle energy are just observer dependent concepts which can be introduced later. Moreover, we have *deduced* by pretty airtight arguments that a (deterministic) hidden variable model for spin is necessary, something Einstein has maintained for most of his life. The latter implies that somehow the derivation of the Bell inequalities must be incomplete and I believe that a careful reexamination is a necessary and extremely worthwhile enterprise, taken into account the possible reward. If this turns out to be successful, then quantum mechanics is compatible with the laws of general relativity and the objective of a universal field theory suddenly seems a lot more realistic. In case any imaginable attempt to give a hidden variable explanation for the experimental outcome would fail, then and only then would I see myself obliged to resign from one of relativity’s beautiful principles.\
\
Regarding this universal field theory, I see the program being developed in two steps. The first step consists in ignoring particle spin for the moment, keeping the description of point particles and writing down a geometrical action principle which contains gravitation, electromagnetism and point matter. I believe we are prepared to take that step now and I have commented a few times on how this could be done. A second, and much more difficult step, consists in probing the geometrical structure of an elementary particle. I am entirely convinced of the idea that elementary particles are just bound states of an interacting ensemble of a fundamental substance of *space time*[^19] and that quantum numbers such as particle spin should be encoded into this geometrical form. Therefore, the contemporary bundle descriptions of external quantum numbers (how elegant they may be) are in my opinion merely subjective pictures of a much deeper physical reality. Insight into the latter subject would also throw more light upon the *how* of the particle scattering processes.\
\
Let me end by recalling the historical happening of $1949$, where on the occasion of Einstein’s $70$’th birthday quantum physicists such as Born, Pauli and Heitler, members of the orthodox school, shamelessly expressed in their articles their disappointment at seeing Einstein persist in a negative attitude towards the purely probabilistic approach to Wave Mechanics. Perhaps people should be more careful in making claims about issues which are not settled yet, especially towards the great scientist who was the main actor in both revolutions.
Acknowledgements
================
I would like to thank Lode Wylleman for carefully reading this manuscript and for useful suggestions concerning its presentation. Also, I am indebted to my old mentor Norbert Van den Bergh for continuous encouragement and his insistence upon a locally causal quantum mechanics.
[99]{}
Ali and Fatimah Shojai, About some problems raised by the relativistic form of the de Broglie-Bohm theory of pilot wave, quant-ph/0109025
Enrico Santamato, Geometric derivation of the Schroedinger equation from classical mechanics in curved Weyl spaces, Phys Rev D 29, 1984
Enrico Santamato, Statistical interpretation of Klein Gordon equation in term of space time Weyl curvature, J. Math. Phys. 25, 1984
Prince Louis de Broglie, Non linear wave mechanics - a causal interpretation, Elsevier publishing 1960
Jeremy Butterfield, On Hamilton-Jacobi theory as a classical root of quantum theory, Quo vadis quantum mechanics Springer 2005
J.S. Bell, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, Cambridge university press.
Gerard ’t Hooft, How does God play dice? (Pre-)Determinism at the Planck scale, hep-th/0104219
Rafael Sorkin, Particle statistics in three dimensions, Phys Rev D, 27, 1787-1797 (1983).
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: Bohm, quite incomprehensively, does give a realistic meaning to this wave!
[^3]: Although, ardent quantum physicists of the environmental decoherence clan might question this. However, I have never seen any detailed *microscopic* model for long range entanglement between the subsystem under study and the environment. One typically proposes, however, the most convenient possible effective interaction Hamiltonian. Moreover, this attitude is highly counterintuitive since one would expect the gun of particle $2$ to shelter it from any long range influence from particle $1$ as well as to destroy any preexisting correlations.
[^4]: In case the vector potentials do not vanish, one typically resorts to an operator formalism for the latter which coincides with my ansatz in the first order when doing perturbation theory around the stationary solution.
[^5]: When we ignore internal degrees of freedom or demand that the latter trivially factorize. This so called absolute recognizability constraint is to say the least very questionable and not satisfied in most practical situations.
[^6]: The treatment of the $U(1)$ factor is entirely similar to the mathematics behind the Bohm Aharonov effect. In the latter however, the topological defect is generated by the fact that the vector potential - which dictates the coupling between the particle’s momentum and the electromagnetic field - cannot be continuously defined on a simply connected domain in space. As such, this effect has a *dynamical* reason while the spin statistics theorem is entirely kinematical.
[^7]: Perhaps there should be attraction on very tiny scales.
[^8]: Something which I strongly disagree with.
[^9]: In this particular approach, one has the so called pointer basis problem as well as the problem of Poincaré recurrence times.
[^10]: I have no conclusive proof here.
[^11]: A simple calculation reveals that $\nabla_{\mu} ( R^2 \nabla^{\mu} S )
= \frac{m^2}{\mathcal{M}^2} \partial_{\mu} ( R^2
\partial^{\mu} S ) + \frac{m^2}{\mathcal{M}^3}(D-1) R^2
\partial_{\mu} \mathcal{M} \partial^{\mu} S$. Therefore the continuity equation changes for $D>1$.
[^12]: Even in case $R_0, S_0$ and the first time derivatives would be equal to a product, respectively a sum of one particle initial conditions (expressed in the different local Lorentz coordinate systems), there would not exist a unique solution. In the specific case of a two particle system, this is reflected in the existence of a free mass parameter. Obviously, for entangled (in the standard meaning of the word) initial conditions, the situation is far worse.
[^13]: Note that coordinate transformations in a curved background have nothing to do with diffeomorphism invariance as is often mistakingly quoted. The correct behavior under coordinate transformations is a property of tensors while diffeomorphism invariance is a dynamical property of spacetime.
[^14]: This raises again the question about the meaning of a spin observable whose existence is not, in any sense, proven to be necessary. Likewise, one can question the need for a momentum observable which is a (infinitely) delocalized concept and therefore highly unphysical.
[^15]: In case the multi particle Schroedinger equation were more criticized before, this attitude would perhaps not be a rarity now.
[^16]: That is, a hidden variable model is needed. Something which has always been maintained by Einstein.
[^17]: Even classically, a measurement of position is going to influence the momentum of the particle. Therefore, in my opinion, the Kochen Specker theorems deal with the wrong question.
[^18]: Not to speak about the success of its application! An argument which, even more today, is supposed to kill all resistance.
[^19]: This in contrast to string theory where elementary particles correspond to vibration modes of a string which lives in a background space time.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We analyze the weak gravity in the braneworld model proposed by Dvali-Gabadadze-Porrati, in which the unperturbed background spacetime is given by five dimensional Minkowski bulk with a brane which has the induced Einstein Hilbert term. This model has a critical length scale $r_c$. Naively, we expect that the four dimensional general relativity (4D GR) is approximately recovered at the scale below $r_c$. However, the simple linear perturbation does not work in this regime. Only recently the mechanism to recover 4D GR was clarified under the restriction to spherically symmetric configurations, and the leading correction to 4D GR was derived. Here, we develop an alternative formulation which can handle more general perturbations. We also generalize the model by adding bulk cosmological constant and the brane tension.'
address: 'Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan'
author:
- 'Takahiro Tanaka[^1]'
title: Weak gravity in DGP braneworld model
---
introduction
============
A braneworld model, whose gravity behaves as four dimensional at short distance scale but it shows higher dimensional nature at larger distances, was proposed by Dvali, Gabadadze, and Porrati (DGP)[@DGP]. In this model, the brane, on which the fields of the standard model are confined, has the induced Einstein-Hilbert term[@akama; @Rubakov:1983bz]. This model has various cosmologically interesting features[@Dvali:2000xg; @Dvali:2001gm; @Deffayet:2001aw; @Deffayet:2001pu; @Deffayet:2002sp; @Dvali:2001ae; @Dvali:2002pe]. Particularly in the model with five dimensional bulk, an interesting cosmological solution was found, in which accelerated expansion of the universe at late epoch is realized without introducing the cosmological constant[@Deffayet:2001pu]. Based on this model, a novel mechanism that dilutes the cosmological constant was also proposed[@Dvali:2002pe].
Although we have mentioned above that the gravity in this model at short distances is expected to behave as four dimensional, it is not so transparent if the model actually mimics four dimensional general relativity (4D GR). The linear analysis of this model shows that the tensor structure of the induced metric perturbations takes the five dimensional form even at short distance[@DGP]. The situation is analogous to the case of models with massive gravitons. In this case the deviation from 4D GR does not vanish even in the massless limit, which is known as the van Dam-Veltoman-Zakharov discontinuity[@vDV; @Zakharov]. In this context, the possibility that the 4D GR is recovered by non-linear effect was suggested by[@Vainshtein]. There have been many discussions about this issue[@Damour]. We have in particular a clear statement that the discontinuity disappears when we introduce the cosmological constant[@Higuchi; @KMP2001]. Although the analysis with the cosmological constant is quite suggestive, the discontinuity is absent only when the limit is taken keeping the length scale determined by the cosmological constant much smaller than the compton wavelength of the massive graviton. The length scale determined by the cosmological constant must be longer than the Hubble horizon size. Hence, the recovery of 4D GR cannot be proven by introducing negligibly small cosmological constant as far as the graviton mass is not completely negligibly small.
Also specialized to the context of five dimensional DGP model, there are various works aiming at answering the question whether 4D GR is recovered at short distances or not, and many evidences that indicate the recovery of 4D GR were reported[@Deffayet:2001uk; @Lue:2001gc; @Porrati2002; @Gruzinov; @new]. It was shown that the evolution equation for homogeneous isotropic universe becomes identical to that for 4D GR when the Hubble expansion rate is much larger than the inverse of the critical length scale, $r_c^{-1}$[@Deffayet:2001uk]. In Ref. [@Porrati2002] it was clearly shown that the linear analysis breaks down at scale shorter than $(r_c^2 r_g)^{1/3}$ since the brane bending becomes non-linear there. Further, a consistent form of a black hole metric induced on the brane was presented. Approximate black hole solution including the bulk was constructed under the restriction to spherically symmetric configurations[@Gruzinov]. The same paper also gave the leading order correction to 4D GR, which is potentially observable by the future development of precision measurement of solar system[@Dvali:2002vf; @new]. The results in Ref. [@Gruzinov] were extended to the case with the background of expanding universe[@new].
In this paper, we develop an alternative formalism which can handle general perturbations in weak gravity regime. To handle general perturbations, we restrict our consideration to the case that the unperturbed metric on the brane is given by Minkowski spacetime. We also make further generalization to the model that also takes into account the bulk cosmological constant and the brane tension balanced with it. (Such generalized DGP model was discussed before in Refs. [@Collins:2000yb; @Shtanov:2000vr; @Sahni:2002dx; @Park].) We confirm the recovery of 4D GR at short distances and rederive the leading order correction to it.
setup
=====
The model that we consider is defined by the five dimensional action $$S={M_4^2\over 4 r_c}\int d^5x\, \sqrt{-g}
\left(R^{(5)}+{12\over \ell^2}\right)
+\int d^4x\, \sqrt{-g^{(4)}}\left({M_4^2\over 2} R^{(4)}
-{3M_4^2\over r_c\ell}+L_{matter}\right),$$ where $M_4, r_c$ and $\ell$ are constants. $R^{(5)}$ and $R^{(4)}$ are, respectively, the curvature scalars corresponding to the five dimensional metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ and the four dimensional one $g^{(4)}_{\mu\nu}$ induced on the brane. Here, we added both the bulk cosmological constant and the brane tension terms to the original DGP model. They are tuned to admit the Minkowski brane as a vacuum solution. The model is reduced to the original one by setting $\ell\to\infty$. The unperturbed background geometry is given by five dimensional anti-de Sitter spacetime $$ds^2= g^{(0)}_{ab}dx^a dx^b=dy^2+\gamma_{\mu\nu}(y)dx^\mu dx^\nu
=dy^2+e^{-2y/\ell}\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu,$$ with a brane located at $y=0$, where $Z_2$-symmetry is imposed. Here $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is 4 dimensional Minkowski metric.
semi non-Linear perturbations
=============================
We follow the method of Ref. [@GT] introduced for the purpose of analyzing weak gravity in the Randall-Sundrum model [@RS]. We prepare two coordinate systems. In the coordinates $\{x^a\}$, the gauge is chosen so that the metric perturbations $h_{ab}$ can be easily computed in the five dimensional bulk. Namely, we use the Randall-Sundrum gauge, $$h_{5a}=0,\qquad h_{\mu}^{~\mu}=0,\qquad
h_{\mu~,\nu}^{~\nu}=0.$$ In this paper the fifth direction is the direction of extra-dimension. The greek and latin indices represent four and five dimensional coordinates, respectively. The other coordinate system $\{\bar x^a\}$ satisfies the Gaussian normal conditions $$\bar h_{5a}=0,$$ and also keeps the location of the brane unperturbed at $\bar y=0$. Under the coordinate transformation $x^a=\bar x^a-\xi^a(\bar x)$, the metric perturbation transforms as $$\begin{aligned}
\bar h_{ab} & = & h_{ab}(\bar x-\xi(\bar x))
+\left(
-g^{(0)}_{ab,5}\xi^5 +{1\over 2} g^{(0)}_{ab,55}(\xi^{5})^2
-\cdots\right)\cr
&& -\left\{ \xi^c_{~,a}\left(
g^{(0)}_{cb}(\bar x-\xi)
+ h_{cb}(\bar x-\xi))\right)+
\left(a\leftrightarrow b\right)
\right\} +\left(g^{(0)}_{cd}(\bar x-\xi)
+h_{cd}(\bar x-\xi)\right)
\xi^c_{~,a}\xi^d_{~,b}~.\end{aligned}$$ The argument of the variables is supposed to be $\bar x$ unless otherwise is specified, and “${}_{,a}$” denotes a differentiation with respect to $\bar x^a$.
The conditions that the $\{00\}$ component and $\{0\mu\}$ components are zero in both coordinates provide equations for the gauge parameters, which are solved up to second order as $$\begin{aligned}
\xi^5 & = & \hat \xi^5 + \stackrel{(2)}\xi{}\!\!^5,
\cr
\xi^\mu & = & {\ell\over 2}(\eta^{\mu\nu}-\gamma^{\mu\nu})
\hat \xi^5_{~,\nu}
+\hat\xi^\mu + \stackrel{(2)}\xi{}\!\!^\mu,\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat \xi^5(\bar x^\rho)$ and $\hat \xi^\mu(\bar x^\rho)$ are the values of the gauge parameters evaluated on the brane, and $$\begin{aligned}
\stackrel{(2)}\xi{}\!\!^5 & = & \int_0^{\bar y} d\bar y
\, \gamma^{\mu\nu}\hat\xi^5_{~,\mu}\hat\xi^5_{~,\nu},\cr
\stackrel{(2)}\xi{}\!\!^\mu & = & \int_0^{\bar y} d\bar y
\, \gamma^{\mu\rho}\left[\hat\xi^5_{~,\nu}
\left(\bar h_\rho^{~\nu}+{2\over \ell}
\delta_\rho^{~\nu}\hat\xi^5\right)
-\xi^\sigma_{~,\rho}
\hat\xi^5_{~,\sigma}-\stackrel{(2)}\xi{}\!^5_{~,\rho}
\right].\end{aligned}$$ We assume the following order counting, $$\hat\xi^5_{,\mu}\lesssim \epsilon,
\quad
{\hat\xi^5\over \ell}, {\hat\xi^5\over r_c},
\hat\xi^\rho_{~,\mu}, \left. \bar h^\rho_{~\mu}\right\vert_{\bar y=0}
\lesssim \epsilon^2,$$ and keep the terms up to $O(\epsilon^2)$. Here $\epsilon^2$ is the order of the Newton potential $\Phi=-{1\over 2}\bar h_{00}$. Later we will verify the consistency of this order counting. Then, the transformation for $\{\mu\nu\}$ components reduces to $$\bar h_{\mu\nu}(\bar x)=h_{\mu\nu}(\bar x-\xi(\bar x))+ \delta h_{\mu\nu},
\label{transfin}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\delta h_{\mu\nu} =
{2\over \ell}\gamma_{\mu\nu}\xi^5
- \xi_{\mu,\nu} - \xi_{\nu,\mu}
+ \hat \xi^5_{~,\mu}\hat \xi^5_{~,\nu}. \end{aligned}$$ Hereafter, the Greek indices are lowered or raised by the metric $\gamma_{\mu\nu}$.
The brane location is given by $\bar y=0$. Hence in the $\{x^a\}$-coordinates the brane is bent. For simplicity, we impose the harmonic gauge condition, $\bar h_{\mu~,\nu}^{~\nu}={1\over 2}\bar h_{,\mu}$ for the induced metric on the brane. To the second order in $\epsilon$, this condition gives $$\hat\xi_\mu=\Box^{-1}\left[
-{2\over \ell}\hat \xi^5_{,\mu}
+\left(\Box\hat\xi^5\right)\hat\xi^5_{,\mu}\right].
\label{hatximu}$$ From this relation, we find that the assumption $\hat \xi^\mu_{~,\nu}=O(\epsilon^2)$ is consistent if the assumed order of $\hat\xi^5$ is correct. Substituting (\[hatximu\]), the gauge transformation $\delta h_{\mu\nu}$ evaluated on the brane becomes $$\delta h_{\mu\nu}\vert_{\bar y=0}={2\over \ell}\gamma_{\mu\nu}\hat\xi{}^5
+\Box^{-1}\left[{4\over \ell}\hat \xi{}^5_{,\mu\nu}
+2\gamma^{\rho\sigma}\hat\xi{}^5_{,\rho\mu}\hat\xi{}^5_{,\sigma\nu}
-2(\Box\hat\xi{}^5)\hat\xi{}^5_{,\mu\nu}\right].$$ Then, the trace of the induced metric is also evaluated as $$\begin{aligned}
\bar h %& = & {8\over \ell}\hat\xi^5-2\xi^\rho_{,\rho}
% +\gamma^{\rho\sigma}\hat\xi{}^5_{,\rho}\hat\xi{}^5_{,\sigma}\cr
& = & {12\over \ell}\hat\xi^5+2\Box^{-1}
\left(\gamma^{\mu\nu}\gamma^{\rho\sigma}
\hat\xi{}^5_{,\mu\rho} \hat\xi{}^5_{,\nu\sigma}
-(\Box\hat\xi{}^5)^2\right). \end{aligned}$$
Next we consider the junction condition. After a straightforward calculation, we can show $$\left(\partial_{\bar y}+2\ell^{-1}\right)\bar h_{\mu\nu}
= \left(\partial_{\bar y}+2\ell^{-1}\right)h_{\mu\nu}(\bar x-\xi)
+2\hat\xi^5_{,\mu\nu}+{2\over \ell}\Xi_{\mu\nu}~,
\qquad ({\rm at}~~\bar y=0),$$ with $$\Xi_{\mu\nu}:= \gamma_{\mu\nu}
\gamma^{\rho\sigma}\hat\xi^5_{,\rho}\hat\xi^5_{,\sigma}
+\hat\xi^5_{,\mu}\hat\xi^5_{,\nu}~.$$ Using this relation, the junction condition becomes $$T_{\mu\nu}-{1\over 2}\gamma_{\mu\nu} T
+{M_4^2\over 2} \Box \bar h_{\mu\nu}
=-{M_4^2\over 2r_c}\left[
\left.\left(\partial_{\bar y}+2\ell^{-1}\right)h_{\mu\nu}(\bar x-\xi)
\right\vert_{\bar y=0}+2\hat\xi^5_{,\mu\nu}+{2\Xi_{\mu\nu}\over \ell}+
\gamma_{\mu\nu}\left(\Box\hat\xi^5 + {\Xi\over \ell}\right)\right].
\label{eq:junction}$$ The equation that determines the brane bending is obtained from the trace of the above equation as $$\begin{aligned}
\Box^{-1}{1\over M_4^2} T & = & {\bar h\over 2} +{3\over r_c}\left(
\hat\xi^5 +\Box^{-1}{\Xi\over \ell}\right)\cr
& = & {3\over r_c^*} \hat\xi^5
+\Box^{-1}\left(\gamma^{\mu\nu}\gamma^{\rho\sigma}
\hat\xi{}^5_{,\mu\rho} \hat\xi{}^5_{,\nu\sigma}
-(\Box\hat\xi{}^5)^2\right)+{3\over r_c \ell}\Box^{-1}\Xi,
\label{bending}\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced $r_c^*:= [({1/ r_c})+({2/ \ell})]^{-1}$. We can neglect the last term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[bending\]) because it is always higher order compared with the first term. The left hand side is something like the Newton potential $\Phi$, hence we assume it to be $O(\epsilon^2)$. Outside the matter distribution with the total mass $m$, the left hand side can be expressed as $\approx r_g/r$, where $r_g:=m/4\pi M_4^2$. At large scale, $r\gtrsim (r_g r_c^2)^{1/3}$, the first term on the right hand side dominates, while at small scale, $r\lesssim (r_g r_c^2)^{1/3}$, the second term dominates. Therefore we have $$O(\epsilon^2)=\max \left(
\left\vert{\hat\xi^5\over r_c^*}\right\vert,
\left\vert\hat\xi^5_{~,\mu}\right\vert^2 \right).$$ Thus we find that our assumption as to the order counting for $\hat\xi^5$ is justified.
mechanism for recovering four dimensional general relativity
============================================================
The remaining task is to evaluate $\left(\partial_{\bar y}+2\ell^{-1}\right) h_{\mu\nu}(\bar x-\xi(\bar x))
\vert_{\bar y=0}$. Here we need to solve the bulk field equations. Different from the R-S case, we solve the bulk equations with the Dirichlet boundary condition (\[transfin\]). Here, we note that the location of the brane is not a straight sheet in the coordinates in the R-S gauge $\{x^a\}$.
We can give the general solution for the bulk field equations as a superposition of homogeneous mode solutions with purely outgoing boundary condition: $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\mu\nu}(x)
& = & \int {\cal H}_{\mu\nu}(p) e^{ip_{\mu}x^\mu}
K_2(p\ell e^{y/\ell})\, d^4p\cr
& = & \int {\cal H}_{\mu\nu}(p) e^{ip_{\mu}(\bar x^\mu-\xi^\mu(\bar x))}
K_2(p\ell e^{\bar y-\xi^5(\bar x)/\ell})\, d^4p~.\end{aligned}$$ where $K_2(p\ell)$ is the modified Bessel function and ${\cal H}_{\mu\nu}$ is the expansion coefficient. The coefficient ${\cal H}_{\mu\nu}$ is to be determined so as to satisfy the Dirichlet boundary condition $$h_{\mu\nu}|_{\bar y=0}(\bar x)=
\int {\cal H}_{\mu\nu}(p) e^{ip_{\mu}(\bar x^\mu-\xi^\mu(\bar x))}
K_2(p\ell e^{-\hat \xi^5(\bar x)/\ell})\, d^4p~.$$ If we are allowed to approximate the above expression by setting $\xi^a=0$, we have $\tilde h_{\mu\nu}(p):=
(2\pi)^{-4}\int d^4\bar x\, e^{-ip_\rho \bar x^\rho} h_{\mu\nu}(\bar
x) = {\cal H}_{\mu\nu}(p)$, and therefore we have $$\begin{aligned}
(2\pi)^{-4}\int d^4\bar x\, e^{-ip_\rho \bar x^\rho}
\left.\left(\partial_{\bar y}+2\ell^{-1}\right)
h_{\mu\nu}\right\vert_{\bar y=0}(\bar x) =
-{pK_1(p\ell)\over K_2(p\ell)}\tilde h_{\mu\nu}(p)
=-{pK_1(p\ell)\over K_2(p\ell)}
(\tilde{\bar h}_{\mu\nu}-\delta\tilde h_{\mu\nu}).
\label{crudeapp}\end{aligned}$$ We think that the errors caused by this naive approximation are not large, although any rigorous proof is not ready yet. If the leading errors are simply proportional to $h_{\mu\nu}\xi$, we can neglect them since they are higher order in $\epsilon$. Such a naive expansion with respect to $\xi$ will be justified for small $p$. But for large $p$, we will not be allowed to expand the combination $p\xi$ in the exponent. However, as we will see below, even the leading correction to the gravitational potential coming from the contribution of this part is suppressed to be irrelevantly small at small scale $r\lesssim r_c$. Hence, the errors due to this naive approximation can be crucial only if this approximation significantly underestimate the magnitude of $(\partial_{\bar y}+2\ell^{-1}) h_{\mu\nu}|_{\bar y=0}$, which is quite unlikely.
Using (\[crudeapp\]), the junction condition (\[eq:junction\]) is written down explicitly as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\bar h}_{\mu\nu} -
{2\over M_4^2}{\cal D}
\left(\tilde T_{\mu\nu}-{1\over 2}\gamma_{\mu\nu}
\tilde T\right)
& = & {\cal D} \Biggl[
\left(-{p^2\over r_c}+{2 p K_1(p\ell)\over r_c \ell
K_2(p\ell)}\right)
\gamma_{\mu\nu}\tilde{\hat \xi}{}^5
-{2\over r_c} p_\mu p_\nu \tilde{\hat\xi}{}^5 \cr
& & \qquad
+{p K_1(p\ell)\over r_c K_2(p\ell)}\delta\tilde h^{(2)}_{\mu\nu}
+{1\over r_c\ell}\left(\tilde \Xi_{\mu\nu}+{1\over
2}\gamma_{\mu\nu}\tilde \Xi\right) \Biggr],
\qquad ({\rm at}\quad \bar y=0),
\label{barhfin}\end{aligned}$$ where $${\cal D}={1\over p^2+
\displaystyle{p K_1(p\ell)\over r_c K_2(p\ell)}}~,$$ and $$\delta h_{\mu\nu}^{(2)}=
\Box^{-1}\left[
2\gamma^{\rho\sigma}\hat\xi{}^5_{,\rho\mu}\hat\xi{}^5_{,\sigma\nu}
-2(\Box\hat\xi{}^5)\hat\xi{}^5_{,\mu\nu}\right]~.$$ Here the quantitiy with $\tilde{~}$ represents the Fourier coefficient of the corresponding variable as before. We show that in the square brackets on the right hand side of Eq. (\[barhfin\]) the first term gives the dominant contribution. We can drop the last two terms simply because they are always higher order in $\epsilon$ compared with the first term. The second term is irrelevant since it can be eliminated by a four-dimensional gauge transformation. As a result, the equation that determines the metric induced on the brane $\bar h_{\mu\nu}$ is reduced to the one for the linear theory. The only difference is in the equation that determines the brane bending (\[bending\]).
The order of magnitude of the first term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[bending\]) is estimated as $\hat\xi^5/r_c\sim \Phi^{1/2} r/r_c$ at small scale, and hence it is suppressed by the factor $\Phi^{-1/2} r/r_c$ compared with the Newton potential $\Phi$. The leading behavior of the induced metric is therefore determined by setting the left hand side of Eq. (\[barhfin\]) to zero. Thus we conclude that 4D GR is recovered by taking into account the non-linear brane bending for weak gravity at small scale $r\lesssim (r_c^2 r_g)^{1/3}$. If we take the limit $r_c\to\infty$, all length scales come into this regime. Hence, we have confirmed the absence of van Dam-Veltman-Zakharov discontinuity. However, because of the factor $\Phi^{-1/2}$ the leading order deviation from 4D GR at small scale is less strongly suppressed than the naively expected suppression $r/r_c$, as first pointed out in Ref. [@Gruzinov].
At large scale, this term becomes more and more important. For $r\gtrsim (r_c^2 r_g)^{1/3}$, we have $$\tilde {\hat \xi}{}^5\approx -{r_c^* \tilde T\over 3 M_4^2 p^2}.
\label{linearxi}$$ This is nothing but the result for the linearized case. In the next section, we discuss the regime where the linear theory is valid. After that, in the succeeding section, we discuss the leading order correction to the 4D GR at short distance scale assuming static and spherically symmetric configurations.
linear regime
=============
In this section we consider perturbations at large scale $r\gg (r_c^2 r_g)^{1/3}$, where the linear theory is valid. Substituting Eq. (\[linearxi\]) into Eq. (\[barhfin\]), we obtain $$\tilde{\bar h}_{\mu\nu} \approx
{2\over M_4^2}{\cal D}
\left(\tilde T_{\mu\nu}-{1\over 2}\alpha \gamma_{\mu\nu}
\tilde T\right),$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha & = & {r_c +{\ell \over 3}\left(
1+{1\over \ell p}{K_1(p\ell)\over K_2(p\ell)}\right)
\over r_c+{\ell\over 2}}. \end{aligned}$$
First we look at the behavior of the propagator $D$, which is already discussed in Ref. [@Park]. When we consider the length scale much smaller than $\ell$, we have $${\cal D}\to {1\over p^2+ r_c^{-1}p},\qquad (p\ell\gg 1).$$ At the length scale smaller than $r_c$ ($p r_c\gg 1$), the propagator ${\cal D}$ behaves as that for a four dimensional field. On the other hand, at the intermediate scale between $r_c$ and $\ell$ ($r_c \gg p^{-1} \gg \ell$), the propagator behaves as that for a five dimensional field. When the length scale is much larger than $\ell$, $K_1(p\ell)/K_2(p\ell)$ goes to $p\ell/2$. Thus we have $${\cal D}\to {2r_c \over (\ell+2r_c) p^2}, \qquad (p\ell\ll 1).$$ Hence again the propagator ${\cal D}$ behaves as a four dimensional field, but the Newton’s constant is not given by $2 M_4^{-2}$ but by $2 M_4^{-2}/(1+\ell/2r_c)$.
Next we turn to the tensor structure specified by $\alpha$. For four dimensional massless graviton we have $\alpha=1$, while $\alpha={2\over 3}$ for the case of massive graviton. For $p\ell \gg 1$, we have $$\alpha \to {1+{\ell\over 3r_c}\over 1+{\ell\over 2r_c}}~.$$ We have $\alpha\to 1$ for $\ell \ll r_c$, while $\alpha\to 2/3$ for $\ell \ll r_c$. On the other hand, for $p\ell \ll 1$, we have $\alpha\to 1$ irrespective of the ratio between $\ell$ and $r_c$.
The results are summarized in Fig.1. When $r\gtrsim \ell$, the 4D GR is realized by the Randall-Sundrum mechanism. The effective Planck mass differs from $M_4$ in this case. On the other hand, when $r\lesssim r_c$, the gravity becomes four dimensional again, but the tensor structure differs from 4D GR.
static spherical symmetric non-relativistic star {#sec:static}
================================================
We consider a static spherical symmetric non-relativistic star. Assuming that the energy momentum tensor is dominated by the $\{00\}$-component $T_{00}=\rho$, we neglect the effect of pressure when we solve the metric perturbation. First we solve non-linear equation for $\hat\xi^5$ (\[bending\]). Under the present assumptions, Eq. (\[bending\]) is simplified as $$-{1\over M_4^2} \rho ={1\over r^2}\partial_r
\left({3r^2\over r_c^*}\hat\xi^5_{,r}
- 2r(\hat\xi^5_{,r})^2\right).$$ This equation can be immediately integrated once, and we obtain $$2(\hat\xi^5_{,r})^2-{3 r\over r_c^*}\hat\xi^5_{,r}-{r_g(r)\over r}=0,$$ where $$r_g(r)={1\over M_4^2}\int_0^r dr\, r^2\rho.$$ Outside the star, we have $r_g(r)=r_g=m/4\pi M_4^2$. Solving the above equation with respect to $\hat\xi^5_{,r}$, we have $$\hat\xi^5=\int dr \,
\left({3r\over 4r_c^*}-{1\over 4}\sqrt{\left({3r\over r_c^*}\right)^2+
{8 r_g(r)\over r}}\right).$$ Here we have chosen the signature in front of the square root imposing the condition that $\hat\xi^5_{,r}$ does not become large at $r\to\infty$. The other branch with “+” sign is outside the scope of the present formalism since we have assumed the Minkowski brane background. At small scale, this expression reduces to $\displaystyle
\hat\xi^5\approx -\int dr \,
\sqrt{r_g(r)/ 2r}.
$ Outside the matter distribution, we simply have $\hat\xi^5=-\sqrt{2r\, r_g}$. Hence, the correction to the Newton potential is given by $$\delta\Phi \approx \sqrt{{r r_g\over 2r_c^2}}~,$$ which recovers the result obtained in Ref. [@Gruzinov].
conclusion
==========
We developed a formalism to calculate the metric perturbations induced by the matter localized on the brane in the generalized DGP model, in which the bulk cosmological constant and the brane tension terms are added. Here we clarified the mechanism for disappearing the van Dam-Veltman-Zakharov discontinuity in this model. In our approach, the crucial point was to take into account a part of second order perturbations of the brane bending. This method was largely motivated by the recent works by [@Porrati2003; @Rubakov2003]. Our scheme almost completely controls the order of magnitude of the neglected higher order correction terms. In this sense, we think that this work gives an alternative sufficiently satisfactory proof of the absence of the van Dam-Veltman-Zakharov discontinuity in the DGP model. Under the restriction to the static and spherically symmetric source, we confirmed that our formulation correctly reproduces the leading order correction to 4D GR at short distances obtained in [@Gruzinov].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author would like to thank T. Wiseman for useful suggestions and discussions. To complete this work, the discussion during and after the YITP workshop YITP-W-02-19 was useful. This work was supported in part by the Monbukagakusho Grant-in-Aid No. 14740165.
[ederf]{}
G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B [**485**]{}, 208 (2000). K. Akama, Lect. Notes Phys. [**176**]{}, 267 (1982).
V. A. Rubakov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B [**125**]{}, 139 (1983).
G. R. Dvali and G. Gabadadze, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 065007 (2001).
G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, M. Kolanovic and F. Nitti, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 084004 (2001). C. Deffayet, G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and A. Lue, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 104002 (2001). C. Deffayet, G. R. Dvali and G. Gabadadze, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 044023 (2002). C. Deffayet, S. J. Landau, J. Raux, M. Zaldarriaga and P. Astier, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 024019 (2002). G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, X. r. Hou and E. Sefusatti, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 044019 (2003). G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Shifman, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 044020 (2003). H. van Dam and M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. [**B22**]{}, 397 (1970).
V. I. Zakharov, JETP Lett. [**12**]{}, 312 (1970).
A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. [**39B**]{}, 393 (1972).
T. Damour, I. I. Kogan and A. Papazoglou, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 064009 (2003). A. Higuchi, Nucl. Phys. [**B282**]{}, 397 (1987); ibid. [**B325**]{}, 745 (1989).
I.I. Kogan, S. Mouslopoulos, and A. Papazoglou, Phys. Lett. [**B503**]{}, 173 (2001).
C. Deffayet, G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 044026 (2002). A. Lue, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 043509 (2002). M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. [**B534**]{}, 209-215 (2002).
A. Gruzinov, astro-ph/0112246.
A. Lue and G. Starkman, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 064002 (2003). G. Dvali, A. Gruzinov and M. Zaldarriaga, hep-ph/0212069. tH. Collins and B. Holdom, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 105009 (2000). Y. V. Shtanov, arXiv:hep-th/0005193. V. Sahni and Y. Shtanov, astro-ph/0202346. D. K. Park, arXiv:hep-th/0304056. J. Garriga and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**84**]{}, 2778 (2000).
L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**83**]{}, 3370 (1999); ibid. [**83**]{}, 4690 (1999).
M. A. Luty, M. Porrati and R. Rattazzi, hep-th/0303116. V. A. Rubakov, hep-th/0303125.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study measurements of the unitary generalization of Pauli operators. First, an analytical (constructive) solution to the eigenproblem of these operators is presented. Next, in the case of two subsystems, the Schmidt form of the eigenvectors is derived to identify measurements which are easy to implement. These results are utilized to show that quantum cryptography with two bases, when operating on a two-component qudit, can be realized with measurements on individual subsystems, assisted with classical communication. We also discuss feasible devices which perform tomography of polarisation-path qudits.'
author:
- Tomasz Paterek
title: Measurements on Composite Qudits
---
Introduction
============
Compared to qubits, higher-dimensional quantum systems improve performance of many protocols and algorithms of quantum information processing. For example, additionally to their increased capacity, they make quantum cryptography more secure [@1PERES; @1BRUS; @MOHAMED], or lead to a greater reduction of communication complexity [@PRL_CCP; @IJQI_CCP]. One way to deal with a qudit is to find a convenient physical system representing it. A beautiful example is a photon with many accessible propagation paths [@1MULTIPATH; @2MULTIPATH]. Another approach, studied here, is to treat many systems of lower dimensions as a global higher-dimensional object – a composite qudit. The challenge is to prepare and operate on entangled states of subsystems and to experimentally realize all global observables. This usually requires difficult conditional operations.
The preparation of entangled states (at least some of them) is well within a reach of current technology. For example, entanglement of two photons, in all degrees of freedom, was demonstrated in Ref. [@HYPERENTANGLEMENT]. Each of these photons can be regarded as a composite qudit, with subsystems represented by different degrees of freedom. Further, a system of two photons can be thought of as an even higher dimensional qudit.
Here, measurements on such qudits are studied. Some examples are already proposed and realized in a context of Bell’s theorem [@PROPOSAL; @1EXP; @2EXP]. The present paper is a generalization of that work. First, the requirements for an arbitrary global observable are given. Next, a specific class of operators, unitary generalizations of Pauli operators [@SCHWINGER; @FIVEL; @GOTTESMAN; @PR], is described in detail. The importance of this class comes from its applications. For example, the operators form a full tomographic set (allow for a reconstruction of a density matrix), appear in quantum cryptography [@1PERES; @1BRUS; @MOHAMED], or tests of local realism [@PROPOSAL; @1EXP; @2EXP; @1BELL; @2BELL; @3BELL]. A solution to the eigenproblem of these operators is constructed in full generality and, for a two-component case, the Schmidt representation of the eigenstates is derived. All the eigenvectors are shown to have the same Schmidt number. Thus, the sets of entangled and disentangled eigenbases are identified, which respectively define the sets of “more difficult” and “easier” realizable operators. A beautiful method to solve the eigenproblem of the generalized Pauli operators, based on Euclid’s algorithm, was given by Nielsen *et al.* [@NIELSEN]. However, since their interests were different, they did not present an explicit solution. The generalized Pauli operators have been studied in various levels of detail in many other papers. Nevertheless, the present author could not find a general form of the eigenbasis. Here, an explicit compact formulae for eigenvectors and eigenvalues are given, as well as a practical procedure how to compute them.
Although unitary, the generalized Pauli operators are measurable. In quantum mechanics, different outcomes of a measurement apparatus correspond to different orthogonal states of a system. Due to the fact that most often measurement outcomes are expressed in form of real numbers we are used to connect Hermitian operators with observables. However, there are measurement apparatuses which *do not* output a number. Take a device which clicks if a photon is detected or a bunch of such photo-detectors which monitor many possible propagation paths of a photon. The operator associated with this apparatus has a specific spectral decomposition (different clicks find the system in different orthogonal states). However, the eigenvalues assigned to the clicks can be arbitrary, as long as the assignment is consistent, i.e. clicks of the same detector always reveal the same eigenvalue. If one finds it useful to work with complex eigenvalues, as it is often the case when considering higher-dimensional quantum systems, one can use operators which are unitary, with eigenvalues given by the complex roots of unity.
With any generalized Pauli operator one can associate a measurement device capable to measure it. We present such devices for polarisation-path qudits, and prove that quantum cryptography with two bases is relatively easy to realize as it does not require any joint measurements on the subsystems. As the unitary operators correspond to certain measurement apparatuses, they will be often called “observables”.
General measurements
====================
Consider a qudit composed of many subsystems, possibly of different dimensions. The measurement of any global observable can be viewed as a unitary evolution of the whole system which transforms the eigenvectors of the observable into the eigenvectors which can be distinguished by the measurement apparatus. For subsystems of equal dimensions arbitrary global unitary operation can be decomposed into local and two-body conditional operations [@SPECTRAL_QUDITS]. This proof can be almost directly applied to the problem studied here, and it will not be repeated. Individual measurements, local and conditional two-body operations are sufficient to realize any global measurement on a composite qudit.
Instead of finding the evolution, one can decompose a global observable into (possibly joint) measurements on subsystems and classical communication. Eigenbases of individual measurements form a product basis in a global Hilbert space. Eigenvectors of any global observable can be decomposed in this basis. If the eigenvectors factorize, that is $| j \rangle = | j_{N-1} \rangle_{N-1} |j_{N-2} \rangle_{N-2} ... |j_{0} \rangle_0$, where $|j_{n} \rangle_n$ is a state of subsystem $n$, then there are two possible scenarios: (A) a global measurement can be performed with individual measurements on separate subsystems, (B) it can be done with an additional use of a feed-forward technique, i.e. a subsequent measurement setting depends on the outcomes of all previous measurements. To see this, note that orthogonality of vectors $| j \rangle$ implies certain orthogonalities of the states of subsystems, $| j_n \rangle_n$. In the simplest case, for each subsystem the vectors $| j_n \rangle_n$ form a basis. Then, the first scenario, (A), can be applied. The other possibility is that vectors, say $| j_0 \rangle_0$, form an orthogonal basis, and for every $| j_0 \rangle_0$ one has a *different* set of orthogonal vectors of another subsystem, say $| j_1 \rangle_1$, and so on. In this case, one first measures the particle the states of which span the full basis (in our case subsystem “0”). Next, depending on the outcome, another subsystem is measured in a suitable basis. Further on, depending on both previous outcomes, yet another subsystem is measured, etc. This is what is called feed-forward technique, (B). If some eigenstates of a multisystem observable do not factorize, joint measurements are necessary to measure it.
Eigenproblem of the generalized Pauli operators
===============================================
In any case, the realisation of a global observable is based on the solution of its eigenproblem. Here, a general solution to the eigenproblem of the generalized Pauli operators is presented.
In the Hilbert-Schmidt space of operators acting on vectors in a Hilbert space of dimension $d$, one can always find a basis set of $d^2$ unitary operators. It has been shown that one can construct such a set using the following relation [@SCHWINGER; @FIVEL; @GOTTESMAN; @PR]: $$S_{kl} = S_x^k S_z^l \quad \textrm{with} \quad k,l=0,...,d-1,$$ where the action of the two operators on the right-hand side, on the eigenvectors of $S_z$ operator, $| \kappa \rangle_z$, is defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
S_z |\kappa \rangle_z &=& \alpha_d^{\kappa} |\kappa \rangle_z, \label{S_DEFINITION} \nonumber \\
S_x |\kappa \rangle_z &=& |\kappa + 1 \rangle_z, \quad \textrm{where} \quad \kappa=0,1,...,d-1,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\alpha_d = e^{i 2\pi/d}.
\label{ALPHA}$$ The number $\alpha_d$ is a primitive complex $d$th root of unity, whereas the addition, here $\kappa+1$, is taken modulo $d$. Unless explicitly stated all additions are taken modulo $d$. The operators $S_{kl}$ are called generalized Pauli operators as for $d=2$ they reduce to standard Pauli operators. They share some features with them [@PR]. The matrix of any $S_{kl}$, written in the $S_z$ basis, has only $d$ non-vanishing entries, one per column and row: $$S_{kl} =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
0 & 0 & & 0 & \alpha_d^{(d-k)l} & & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & & 0 & 0 & & \alpha_d^{(d-1)l} \\
1 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0\\
0 & \alpha_d^l & & 0 & 0 & & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & & \alpha_d^{(d-k-1)l} & 0 & & 0
\end{array}
\right).$$ The only non-vanishing element of the first column, a “1”, appears in the $k$th row (recall that $k=0,1,...,d-1$). Generally, the matrix elements of $S_{kl}$ operator, $[S_{kl}]_{rm}$, are given by $[S_{kl}]_{rm} = \delta_{r-k,m} \alpha_d^{ml}$, where $\delta_{x,y}$ is the Kronecker delta. Since every $S_{kl}$ is unitary it can be diagonalized: $$S_{kl} = V D V^{\dagger},
\label{DIAGONALIZATION}$$ where $V$ is a unitary matrix the columns of which are eigenstates of $S_{kl}$, $V = (|0 \rangle, ..., |d-1 \rangle)$, and $D$ is a diagonal matrix with entries being eigenvalues of $S_{kl}$, denoted by $\lambda_{j}$. The form of $[S_{kl}]_{rm}$ and (\[DIAGONALIZATION\]) imply conditions, which must be satisfied by the eigenvectors $|j \rangle$: $$\sum_{j = 0}^{d-1} \lambda_{j} v_{k+m,j} v_{m,j}^{*} = \alpha_d^{ml}, \quad \textrm{for all} \quad m=0,...,d-1,
\label{CONDITION}$$ where $v_{i,j}$ is the element of the matrix $V$ in the $i$th row and $j$th column, i.e. the $i$th coefficient of the eigenvector $|j \rangle$. A study of this condition allows one to construct the eigenbasis.
We first present the result, that is give a candidate for an eigenbasis, and then prove that this is indeed the eigenbasis. Depending on $k$ , the eigenstates of $S_{kl}$ are given by superposition of different number of states $| \kappa \rangle_z$. Let us denote by $f$ the greatest common divisor of $k$ and $d$. Within this definition $k=wf$ is a multiple of $f$. The eigenstates $| j \rangle$ involve every $f$th state of the $S_z$ basis: $$| \kappa \rangle_z = |a + \eta' f \rangle_z = |a + \eta k \rangle_z,
\label{STATES_INVOLVED}$$ where $\eta'=0,...,d/f-1$ and $a=0,...,f-1$, and of course $\eta' = w \eta$. Both $\eta'$ and $\eta$ enumerate different states $| \kappa \rangle_z$ into which $| j \rangle$ is decomposed, i.e. $\eta=0,...,d/f-1$. All other coefficients vanish. The whole eigenbasis splits into $f$ groups of eigenvectors which are superpositions of vectors $|\kappa \rangle_z$ with fixed $a$. There are $d/f$ eigenvectors within each group. To uniquely identify the eigenvector $| j \rangle$ one needs to specify $a$, and additionally an integer $g=0,...,d/f-1$, i.e. $j = j_{g,a}$. With these definitions we can present the form of eigenvectors (a candidate): $$|j \rangle = |j_{g,a} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{d/f}}
\sum_{\eta=0}^{d/f-1} \lambda_{j_{g,0}}^{- \eta} \alpha_d^{\frac{ \eta (\eta -1)}{2}kl} | a + \eta k \rangle_z,
\label{EIGENVECTORS}$$ where generally the eigenvalues $\lambda_{j_{g,a}}$ are given by: $$\lambda_{j_{g,a}} = e^{i \varphi} \alpha_d^{gf+al},
\label{EIGENVALUES}$$ and $e^{i \varphi}$ is a phase factor common to all the eigenvalues.[^1] We will show below how to compute this phase. Note that the coefficients in (\[EIGENVECTORS\]) are independent of $a$. This can be intuitively explained by noting that for different $a$’s the eigenvectors $|j_{g,a} \rangle$ are orthogonal just due to the fact that they involve orthogonal vectors $| a + \eta k\rangle_z$. For a fixed $a$, but different $g$’s, the vectors (\[EIGENVECTORS\]) are also orthogonal. Their scalar product $\langle j_{g',a} | j_{g,a} \rangle = (d/f)^{-1} \sum_{\eta = 0}^{d/f-1}(\lambda_{j_{g',0}} \lambda_{j_{g,0}}^{-1})^{\eta}$ involves the product of $\lambda_{j_{g',0}} \lambda_{j_{g,0}}^{-1} = \alpha_d^{(g'-g)f} = \alpha_{d/f}^{(g'-g)}$, and the whole sum is equal to Kronecker delta $\delta_{g',g}$. Thus, the vectors $| j_{g,a} \rangle$ form an orthonormal basis.
To prove that this basis is the eigenbasis one needs to check whether $$S_{kl} |j_{g,a} \rangle = \lambda_{j_{g,a}} |j_{g,a} \rangle.
\label{EIGEN_JA}$$ The action of $S_{kl}$, defined by (\[S\_DEFINITION\]), on the state $|j_{g,a} \rangle$ is given by: $$S_{kl} |j_{g,a} \rangle =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{d/f}} \sum_{\eta =0}^{d/f-1} \lambda_{j_{g,0}}^{- \eta} \alpha_d^{\frac{ \eta (\eta -1)}{2}kl}
\alpha_d^{l(a+ \eta k)}| a+(\eta+1)k\rangle_z,$$ Changing the summation index to $\eta_1 = \eta+1$ one finds: $$S_{kl} |j_{g,a} \rangle =
\lambda_{j_{g,0}} \alpha_d^{al}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{d/f}} \sum_{\eta_1=1}^{d/f} \lambda_{j_{g,0}}^{-\eta_1} \alpha_d^{\frac{\eta_1(\eta_1-1)}{2}kl}
| a+\eta_1 k\rangle_z.
\label{S_J}$$ The coefficients within the sum are equal to the coefficients of the initial $| j_{g,a} \rangle$ state if for the last term in (\[S\_J\]), for which $\eta_1 = d/f$, one has: $$\lambda_{j_{g,0}}^{-d/f} = \alpha_d^{-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{f}(\frac{d}{f}-1)kl}.
\label{COMPUTE_EIGENVALUES}$$ This equation gives the eigenvalues $\lambda_{j_{g,0}}$. If one takes one of the solutions to (\[COMPUTE\_EIGENVALUES\]), say $\lambda_{j_{0,0}}$, in the form $\lambda_{j_{0,0}} = e^{i \varphi}$, then the remaining solutions are given by $\lambda_{j_{g,0}} = e^{i \varphi} \alpha_{d/f}^g$. Indeed, if $\lambda_{j_{0,0}}$ satisfies (\[COMPUTE\_EIGENVALUES\]), then also $\lambda_{j_{g,0}}$ satisfy it. The eigenvalues for other $a$’s are given by: $$\lambda_{j_{g,a}} = \lambda_{j_{g,0}} \alpha_{d}^{al}.
\label{LAMBDA_A_DEF}$$ Note that degeneracies in the eigenproblem can only appear for $f \ne 1$. (since for $f=1$ one has only $a=0$, and $g$ takes all $d$ different values).
The eigenvalues of $S_{kl}$ operator are rotated in the complex plane by $e^{i \varphi}$ from the complex roots of unity. If one puts $e^{i \varphi} = \alpha_d^x$ to be some power of $\alpha_d$, from Eq. (\[COMPUTE\_EIGENVALUES\]) this power is given by $x = \frac{kl}{2}(\frac{d}{f}-1)$. Thus, the eigenvalues of operator $\alpha_d^{-\frac{kl}{2}(\frac{d}{f}-1)} S_{kl}$ are rotated back to the complex roots of unity, which can be a useful property.
Practically, to compute the eigenvectors one should find the value of $f$. If it is different than unity, set $a=0$ and compute the coefficients according to Eq. (\[EIGENVECTORS\]). For other values of $a$ the coefficients are the same, but now they multiply orthogonal vectors $| a + \eta k\rangle_z$. To compute the eigenvalues of $S_{kl}$ one needs to solve Eq. (\[COMPUTE\_EIGENVALUES\]). It has the following solutions: $\lambda_{j_{0,0}} = \alpha_d^{\frac{kl}{2}(\frac{d}{f}-1)}$; The other eigenvalues for $a=0$ are obtained by multiplication of $\alpha_{d/f}$; The eigenvalues for $a \ne 0$ can be found from (\[LAMBDA\_A\_DEF\]).
*Example*. Take $S_{43}$ for $d=6$, i.e. $k=4, l=3$ and one finds $f=2$. Put $a=0$. From (\[COMPUTE\_EIGENVALUES\]) one has $\lambda_{j_{g,0}} = e^{ig\frac{2\pi}{3}} = \alpha_6^{2g}=\alpha_3^{g}$ ($e^{i \varphi}=1$). According to (\[LAMBDA\_A\_DEF\]), the eigenvalues $\lambda_{j_{g,1}}$ are equal to $\lambda_{j_{g,1}} = -\lambda_{j_{g,0}}$. This can be summarized in the eigenbasis: $$\begin{aligned}
|0 \rangle &=& (1/\sqrt{3})\Big[|0\rangle_z + |2\rangle_z + |4\rangle_z \Big], \nonumber \\
|1 \rangle &=& (1/\sqrt{3})\Big[|1\rangle_z + \alpha_3^2 |3\rangle_z + \alpha_3 |5\rangle_z \Big], \nonumber \\
|2 \rangle &=& (1/\sqrt{3})\Big[|0\rangle_z + \alpha_3 |2\rangle_z + \alpha_3^2 |4\rangle_z \Big], \nonumber \\
|3 \rangle &=& (1/\sqrt{3})\Big[|1\rangle_z + |3\rangle_z + |5\rangle_z \Big], \nonumber \\
|4 \rangle &=& (1/\sqrt{3})\Big[|0\rangle_z + \alpha_3^2 |2\rangle_z + \alpha_3 |4\rangle_z \Big], \nonumber \\
|5 \rangle &=& (1/\sqrt{3})\Big[|1\rangle_z + \alpha_3 |3\rangle_z + \alpha_3^2 |5\rangle_z \Big].\end{aligned}$$
Two-component system
====================
Consider measurements of the generalized Pauli operators on a system composed of two subsystems, of dimension $d = d_1 d_0$. The subsystems are described in Hilbert spaces of dimensions $d_1$ and $d_0$. We first present a parameterization of states of subsystems into which the eigenvectors are decomposed, and next utilize it to describe the structure of the eigenbases. It is proven that all of the eigenvectors are either entangled or disentangled. Thus, one identifies the operators which can be measured on individual subsystems (with additional feed-forward), and those which require joint measurements.
Recall that, according to Eq. (\[STATES\_INVOLVED\]), each eigenvector $| j_{g,a} \rangle$ involves every $f$th state of the $S_z$ basis, $|a + \eta' f \rangle_z$, with $\eta' = 0,...,d/f-1$. In turn, each of these states can be written in terms of subsystems, using base-$d_1d_0$ representation: $$|a + \eta' f \rangle_z = |d_0 \kappa_1 + \kappa_0 \rangle_z = |\kappa_1 \rangle_1 |\kappa_0 \rangle_0,$$ where $\kappa_0 = [a + \eta' f]_{d_0}$ (the symbol $[x]_{d_0}$ denotes $x$ modulo $d_0$), and $\kappa_1= \lfloor (a + \eta' f)/d_0 \rfloor = 0,...,d_1-1$, where $\lfloor x \rfloor$ denotes an integer part of $x$. The number of distinct states of subsystem “0” is given by the number of different values of $\kappa_0$. Since other values of $a$ only shift $\kappa_0$, leaving the number of distinct values unaffected, one can put $a=0$, and thus $\kappa_0 = [\eta' f]_{d_0}$. To calculate $\kappa_0$’s one divides $f$ by $d_0$, and denotes the integer part of this division by $\xi$. Thus, one can write $f/d_0 = \xi + p/d_0$. The integers $p$ and $d_0$ can have common factors, and the fraction $p/d_0$ may be simplified to an irreducible form $P/D_0$. Thus, for $\eta'=0$ and $\eta'=D_0$ (and any multiple of $D_0$) $\kappa_0$ equals zero.
For $\eta' > D_0$ the values of $\kappa_0$ repeat themselves. If one takes an integer $x$ and computes the value of $\kappa_0$ for $\eta'=D_0+x$: $\kappa_0 = [(D_0+x)f]_{d_0} = [[D_0f]_{d_0}+[xf]_{d_0}]_{d_0} = [xf]_{d_0}$, it is the same as for $\eta'=x$ (we have used the properties of addition in modulo calculus). Thus there are $D_0$ different values of $\kappa_0$, or orthogonal states $|\kappa_0 \rangle_0$ in the decomposition of every $| j_{g,a} \rangle$.
Moreover, for $\eta' = d/f = d_1d_0/f$ the value of $\kappa_0$ again equals zero, i.e. each state $|\kappa_0 \rangle_0$ (one of $D_0$ distinct states) appears in $| j_{g,a} \rangle$ exactly the same number of times. This gives the number of orthogonal states $|\kappa_1 \rangle_1$ associated with any given $|\kappa_0 \rangle_0$, which will be denoted as $D_1$. Since for different $\eta'$ vectors $|a + \eta' f \rangle_z$ are orthogonal, the states of subsystem “1”, associated with the same $|\kappa_0 \rangle_0$ must be orthogonal. Notice that $d/f$ factorizes into $d/f = D_1D_0$, and this is a general property of an $S_{kl}$ operator.
One can introduce an integer $K_0 = 0,...,D_0-1$ to enumerate distinct states of subsystem “0”. In a similar way, for a fixed state $|\kappa_0 \rangle_0$, one can enumerate orthogonal states of subsystem “1” with an integer $K_1=0,...,D_1-1$. Since $\eta=0,...,D_1D_0-1$, it can be decomposed within the new variables $K_0$ and $K_1$ as: $$\eta = D_0 K_1 + K_0.
\label{ETA}$$ Within this decomposition every state $| a + \eta k \rangle_z$, into which the eigenvectors are decomposed, (\[EIGENVECTORS\]), can be written as $|a + K_0 k + D_0 k K_1 \rangle_z$. To find its base-$d_1d_0$ form one needs to divide $a + K_0 k + D_0 k K_1$ by $d_0$, and extract integer and modulo parts. Since $k=wf$ one finds that $D_0 k/d_0 = w D_0 f/d_0 = w D_0 \xi + P$ is an integer, or equivalently $D_0 k$ is a multiple of $d_0$. That is, $D_0 k$ does not contribute to the modulo part, and one can write: $$| a + \eta k \rangle_z = | \lfloor (a + k K_0)/d_0 \rfloor + \frac{D_0}{d_0} k K_1 \rangle_1 | a + k K_0\rangle_0.
\label{EIGEN_Z_SUBST}$$
Let us summarize the parameterization just described. In the decomposition of any $| j_{g,a} \rangle$ one finds $D_0$ distinct states of subsystem “0”, $|\kappa_0(a,K_0) \rangle_0 \equiv | a + k K_0\rangle_0$, with $K_0 = 0,...,D_0-1$. In turn, for a fixed $K_0$, there are $D_1$ distinct states of subsystem “1”, $|\kappa_1(a,K_1,K_0) \rangle_1 \equiv | \lfloor (a + k K_0)/d_0 \rfloor + \frac{D_0}{d_0} k K_1 \rangle_1$.
Within this parameterization any eigenstate has the following form: $$| j_{g,a} \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1D_0}}
\sum_{K_0=0}^{D_0-1} \sum_{K_1=0}^{D_1-1} c_{(D_0 K_1 + K_0)k,j_{g,a}}
| \kappa_1(a,K_1,K_0) \rangle_1 | \kappa_0(a,K_0) \rangle_0,
\label{EIGEN_DECOMP_SUBSYST}$$ where the coefficients $c_{(D_0 K_1 + K_0)k,j_{g,a}}$ denote the phase of coefficients in Eq. (\[EIGENVECTORS\]).
To understand the structure of the eigenbasis take for a fixed state $|\kappa_0(a,K_0) \rangle_0$ in Eq. (\[EIGEN\_DECOMP\_SUBSYST\]), the state of subsystem “1” with which it is associated, namely: $$| \psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1 =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{D_1}} \sum_{K_1 = 0}^{D_1-1}
c_{(D_0 K_1 + K_0)k,j_{g,a}} | \kappa_1(a,K_1,K_0) \rangle_1.$$ It will be shown that within the same eigenvector $| j_{g,a} \rangle$, any two states $| \psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1$ and $| \psi_{\kappa_0',j_{g,a}} \rangle_1$, for $\kappa_0 \ne \kappa_0'$, are either *orthogonal* or *the same*. A similar result holds for the states of different eigenvectors, with the same value of $\kappa_0$.
Let us first consider states of subsystem “1” within the same eigenvector. Their scalar product, $_1 \langle \psi_{\kappa_0',j_{g,a}}| \psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1$, is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{K_1' = 0}^{D_1-1} \sum_{K_1 = 0}^{D_1-1}
c_{(D_0 K_1' + K_0')k,j_{g,a}}^{*}
c_{(D_0 K_1 + K_0)k,j_{g,a}} \textrm{ }_1\langle \kappa_1(a,K_1',K_0')| \kappa_1(a,K_1,K_0) \rangle_1.\end{aligned}$$ Since for different $\kappa_0$’s the states $| \kappa_1(a,K_1,K_0) \rangle_1$ are shifted, the scalar product $_1\langle \psi_{\kappa_0',j_{g,a}}| \psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1$ is either equal to zero, if the individual states involved are orthogonal, or it is equal to the sum of $D_1$ terms: $\sum_{K_1=0}^{D_1-1}
c_{(D_0 K_1 + K_0')k,j_{g,a}}^{*} c_{(D_0 K_1 + K_0)k,j_{g,a}}$. Using explicit form of the coefficients one finds that the scalar product is proportional to: $$_1\langle \psi_{\kappa_0',j_{g,a}} |\psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1
\sim
\frac{1}{D_1} \sum_{K_1=0}^{D_1-1} \alpha_{d}^{K_1 klD_0(K_0-K_0')},$$ where the only relevant terms are given, involving in the exponent the products of $K_1$ and $K_0$. Since $k=wf$ and $d = D_1 D_0 f$, right-hand side equals to the Kronecker delta: $$_1\langle \psi_{\kappa_0',j_{g,a}} |\psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1
\sim
\delta_{wl(K_0-K_0'),\mu D_1},$$ with $\mu = 0,1,2,...$. The states of subsystem “1” are either orthogonal or the same (up to a global phase, which can be put to multiply them). If the Kronecker delta is equal to one, one has $|\psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1 = e^{i \phi} |\psi_{\kappa_0',j_{g,a}} \rangle_1$, i.e. a vector of subsystem “1” is multiplied by a superposition of corresponding $|\kappa_0\rangle_0$’s, with coefficients defined by (\[EIGEN\_DECOMP\_SUBSYST\]), respectively multiplied by the phase $e^{i \phi}$. Since different $|\kappa_0\rangle_0$’s are orthogonal, every vector $|j_{g,a} \rangle$ can be written as a superposition of bi-orthogonal product states. In other words, one has a Schmidt decomposition of the eigenvectors.
Moreover, for different eigenvectors, the states $|\psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1$ and $|\psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g',a'}} \rangle$, which correspond to the same state of subsystem “0”, are also either orthogonal or the same. Their scalar product $_1 \langle \psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g',a'}} |\psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1$ involves scalar products $_1\langle \kappa_1(a',K_1',K_0)| \kappa_1(a,K_1,K_0) \rangle_1$. For different eigenvectors the states $| \kappa_1(a,K_1,K_0) \rangle_1$ can be shifted, and one has: $$_1 \langle \psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g',a'}} |\psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1
\sim
\frac{1}{D_1} \sum_{K_1=0}^{D_1-1} [\lambda_{j_{g',0}}\lambda_{j_{g,0}}^{-1}]^{K_1 D_0}.$$ Since the product of eigenvalues, $\lambda_{j_{g',0}}\lambda_{j_{g,0}}^{-1}$, is equal to $\alpha_{d/f}^{g'-g} = \alpha_{D_1D_0}^{g'-g}$, one has: $$_1 \langle \psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g',a'}} |\psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1
\sim
\frac{1}{D_1} \sum_{K_1=0}^{D_1-1} \alpha_{D_1}^{K_1 (g'-g)} = \delta_{g'-g,\mu D_1},$$ with $\mu = 0,1,2,...$. Notice that the last Kronecker delta does not depend on $\kappa_0$. E.g., if for some $\kappa_0$ one finds that vectors $|\psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g',a'}} \rangle_1$ and $|\psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1$ are orthogonal, then the same relation holds for any other $\kappa_0$, i.e. all the eigenstates have exactly the same number of terms in the Schmidt form (the same Schmidt number). If $\delta_{g'-g,\mu D_1} = 1$ all the states $|\psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1$ in the decomposition of $|j_{g,a} \rangle$ are the same (up to a global phase) as those entering $|j_{g',a'} \rangle$. In this case the coefficients which multiply products $|\psi_{\kappa_0,j_{g,a}} \rangle_1 |\kappa_0(a,K_0) \rangle_0$ make the two eigenvectors orthogonal.
To conclude, given that only individual measurements on subsystems are available to an experimenter, she/he can learn from above considerations whether it is possible to measure a generalized Pauli operator defined on the whole system (of two components).
Two-Bases quantum cryptography
==============================
Let us apply the developed formalism. Consider a two-bases quantum cryptography protocol with higher-dimensional systems, as described in Ref. [@MOHAMED]. One has a qudit randomly prepared in a state of a certain basis, or of another basis, which is unbiased with respect to the first one [@MUBS; @MUBS2]. The measurement basis is also randomly chosen between these two [^2]. Interestingly, if a qudit is composed of two subsystems, the measurements involved in the protocol do not require any joint actions.
The two mutually unbiased bases can be chosen as the eigenbases of $S_z$ and $S_x$ operators. Using the above construction to $S_x = S_{10}$ one immediately finds, for arbitrary dimension, the well-known Fourier relation between the $S_z$ and $S_x$ eigenbases: $$|j\rangle_x = \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_{\kappa = 0}^{d-1} \alpha_d^{- \kappa j} |\kappa \rangle_z.$$ Let us define the eigenbasis of a global $S_z$ operator as: $$| \kappa \rangle_z = | d_0 \kappa_1 + \kappa_0 \rangle_z \equiv |\kappa_1 \rangle_1 |\kappa_0 \rangle_0,
\label{DEFINITION}$$ where $\kappa_i = 0,...,d_i - 1$, and $|\kappa_0 \rangle_0$, $|\kappa_1 \rangle_1$ denote the states of subsystems “0” and “1”, respectively. Within this definition a measurement of the global observable $S_z$ is equivalent to individual measurements on the components. These individual measurements reveal the values of $\kappa_0$ and $\kappa_1$, and the eigenvalue of $S_z$ is $\alpha_d^{d_0 \kappa_1 + \kappa_0}$ \[due to Eq. (\[S\_DEFINITION\])\].
To measure $S_x$ one uses the definition (\[DEFINITION\]) and the fact that $d=d_1d_0$, and finds that: $$| j \rangle_x = \frac{1}{\sqrt{d_1}}
\sum_{\kappa_1=0}^{d_1-1} \alpha_d^{-d_0 \kappa_1 j} |\kappa_1 \rangle_1 \otimes
\frac{1}{\sqrt{d_0}}
\sum_{\kappa_0=0}^{d_0-1} \alpha_d^{-\kappa_0 j}|\kappa_0 \rangle_0,
\label{SEPARATED}$$ where we have used the symbol $\otimes$ to stress the factorization of this state. For $j = j_1 + d_1 j_0$ the state of subsystem “1” reads: $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{d_1}} \sum_{\kappa_1=0}^{d_1-1} \alpha_d^{-d_0 \kappa_1 j_1-d_0 \kappa_1 d_1 j_0} |\kappa_1 \rangle_1.$$ Since $\alpha_d^{d_0} = \alpha_{d_{1}}$, see (\[ALPHA\]), and $e^{-i 2\pi \kappa_1 j_0} = 1$ a measurement on this subsystem in the basis: $$|\phi_{j_1} \rangle_1 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{d_1}} \sum_{\kappa_1=0}^{d_1-1} \alpha_{d_1}^{-\kappa_1 j_1} |\kappa_1 \rangle_1,$$ reveals the value of $j_1$. The value of $j_0$ can be measured once $j_1$ is known. A measurement in the basis: $$|\psi_{j_0} \rangle_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{d_0}} \sum_{\kappa_0=0}^{d_0-1} \alpha_{d}^{-(j_1 + d_1 j_0) \kappa_0} |\kappa_0 \rangle_0,$$ on the subsystem “0” reveals the value of $j_0$. In this way all values of $j$ can be measured using individual measurements only, where the measurement on subsystem “0” depends on the outcome of the measurement on subsystem “1” (feed-forward technique).
Quantum tomography
==================
Another application utilizes the fact that the $S_{kl}$ operators form a basis in a Hilbert-Schmidt space, and thus can be used in quantum tomography. Quantum tomography (reconstruction of a density matrix) aims at an estimation of an unknown quantum state. The tomography of qubits was described in [@JAMES]. Soon after, the generalization to higher-dimensional systems was given in [@THEW]. The approach described there is based on Hermitian operators. Here we follow the unitary operators approach, and explicitly present, in the next section, suitable devices to perform tomography of polarisation-path qudits.
Since $d^2$ qudit operators $S_{kl}$ form a basis in the Hilbert-Schmidt space, they uniquely describe an arbitrary state of a qudit: $$\rho = \frac{1}{d} \sum_{k,l=0}^{d-1} s_{kl} S_{kl},$$ where $s_{00}=1$ for normalisation as all $S_{kl}$ operators are traceless, except the identity. Tomography means to establish (measure) all of the $s_{kl}$ coefficients. Since the $S_{kl}$ operators have the spectral decomposition $S_{kl} = \sum_{j=0}^{d-1} \lambda_{j} |j\rangle \langle j |$, the coefficients $s_{kl}$ can be written as: $$s_{kl} = \textrm{Tr}(S_{kl}^{\dagger} \rho)
= \sum_{j=0}^{d-1} \lambda_{j}^* \textrm{Tr}(|j\rangle \langle j | \rho).
\label{TOMOGRAPHY}$$ The eigenvectors $| j \rangle$ form an orthonormal set, and the trace gives the probability, $p_{j}$, to obtain the $j$th outcome in the measurement of $S_{kl}$ on the system prepared in the state $\rho$. Finally, to perform tomography one needs to build the devices capable to measure $S_{kl}$, and collect data to estimate probabilities (relative frequencies) of different outcomes, $p_{j}$. We focus on measurement devices for polarisation-path qudits.
Polarisation-path qudits
========================
Although the general requirements for a measurement involve feed-forward and joint operations on subsystems, there are certain physical realisations of composite qudits which incorporate these requirements in a simple way. The polarisation-path qudit is an example. There, a qudit is encoded in a polarized photon, which has many possible propagation paths [^3]. First, we explicitly present devices capable to measure all $S_{kl}$ operators in the simplest case of two paths. Next, the setups for any number of paths are discussed.
Consider a polarized photon with two accessible paths. Its state is described in a four dimensional Hilbert space, i.e. there are $15$ different $S_{kl}$ operators to measure (we put $s_{00} = 1$ from the very definition). However, some of them commute (contrary to the qubit case) and the measurement of one of them reveals the values of the others.
From the definition, the eigenstates of $S_z$ are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
|0\rangle_z = |0_z\rangle_1 |0_z\rangle_0, & \quad & |1\rangle_z = |0_z\rangle_1 |1_z\rangle_0, \nonumber \\
|2\rangle_z = |1_z\rangle_1 |0_z\rangle_0, & \quad & |3\rangle_z = |1_z\rangle_1 |1_z\rangle_0,
\label{QUQUAT}\end{aligned}$$ where subsystem “0” is a polarisation of a photon, and subsystem “1” is a path. E.g. $|2 \rangle_z = |1_z\rangle_1 |0_z\rangle_0$ denotes a horizontally polarised photon in the path $|1_z\rangle_1$. The $z$ index inside the two-level kets denotes the fact that they are chosen as the eigenstates of the individual $\sigma_z^{(n)}$ operators, i.e. $\sigma_z^{(n)} |b_z \rangle_n = (-1)^b |b_z \rangle_n$. The device that measures $S_z$ simply checks which polarisation a photon has in a certain path. This can easily be achieved with polarizing beam-splitters. Moreover, the same device also measures the values of $S_z^2$ and $S_z^3$, as these operators commute with $S_z$. Their eigenvalues are powers of the $S_z$ eigenvalues. Interestingly, the observables $S_{21}$ and $S_{23}$ can be measured in a similar way. After expressing the eigenvectors of, say, $S_{21}$ in the $|\kappa \rangle_z$ basis, and with definitions (\[QUQUAT\]), one finds: $$\begin{aligned}
|0 \rangle = |0_y\rangle_1 |1_z\rangle_0, & \quad & |1 \rangle = |0_y\rangle_1 |0_z\rangle_0, \nonumber \\
|2 \rangle = |1_y\rangle_1 |1_z\rangle_0, & \quad & |3 \rangle = |1_y\rangle_1 |0_z\rangle_0,\end{aligned}$$ where $|b_y\rangle_n$ is the eigenbasis of the individual $\sigma_y^{(n)}$ operator, $|b_y\rangle_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_z\rangle_n + i(-1)^b |1_z \rangle_n)$. To measure this observable the paths meet on a beam-splitter (which gives a phase $\frac{\pi}{2}$ to the reflected beam) where different eigenstates $|b_y\rangle_1$ are directed into different output ports, followed by polarizing beam-splitters.
The $S_x = S_{10}$ observable (and its powers) can be measured individually with an additional feed-forward. Also $S_{12}$ and $S_{32}$ are measurable in this way. To see how the feed-forward method is realized, let us study the $S_x$ observable. Its eigenvectors read: $$\begin{aligned}
|0 \rangle = |0_x\rangle_1 |0_x\rangle_0, & \quad & |1 \rangle = |1_x\rangle_1 |0_y\rangle_0, \nonumber \\
|2 \rangle = |0_x\rangle_1 |1_x\rangle_0, & \quad & |3 \rangle = |1_x\rangle_1 |1_y\rangle_0,
\label{SX_EIGEN}\end{aligned}$$ where the index $x$ denotes the eigenbasis of the individual $\sigma_x^{(n)}$ operator, given by $| b_x \rangle_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(| 0_z \rangle_n + (-1)^b | 1_z \rangle_n)$. Depending on the outcome of the path measurement in the $\sigma_x^{(1)}$ basis, polarisation is measured in the $\sigma_x^{(0)}$ or $\sigma_y^{(0)}$ basis. However (here comes the beauty of the approach utilizing the paths), appropriate phase and a beam-splitter drive different $\sigma_x^{(1)}$ path eigenstates into different output ports of the beam-splitter. In this way feed-forward is not needed. It is now enough to put polarisation checking devices behind the proper outputs of the beam-splitter (see Fig. \[SX\]).
![Feed-forward is not needed for polarization-path qudits – it is automatically realized behind the beam-splitter. This setup measures the operator $S_x$, for $d=4$. The $\frac{\pi}{2}$ phase shift (PS($\pi/2$)) in the path $|1_z\rangle_1$ and the beam-splitter (BS) perform the path measurement, $\sigma_x^{(1)}$. The path state $| 0_x \rangle_1$ goes to the upper arm where the polarisation is measured in the $\sigma_x^{(0)}$ basis with the polarizing beam-splitter which transmits $| 0_x \rangle_0$ (denoted as PBS45). In case of the path state $| 1_x \rangle_1$ the photon goes to the lower arm, where its $| 1_z \rangle_0$ polarisation component is phase shifted by $-\frac{\pi}{2}$ (PPS($-\pi/2$)). Next, the photon enters PBS45, and is detected in one of its outputs. The eigenvalues corresponding to clicks of each detector are also written.[]{data-label="SX"}](sx)
The eigenstates of the last five observables are maximally entangled states of subsystems. Some of these observables, to keep the spectrum in the domain of fourth roots of unity, need to be multiplied by $\gamma \equiv \alpha_4^{1/2} = e^{i \pi/4}$. Take as an example $S_{11}$ operator in the form $S_{11} = \gamma S_x S_z$. Its eigenstates are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
|0 \rangle &=& (1/\sqrt{2})\Big[|0_x\rangle_1 |1_z\rangle_0 - i\gamma |1_x\rangle_1 |0_z\rangle_0 \Big], \nonumber \\
|1 \rangle &=& (1/\sqrt{2})\Big[|0_x\rangle_1 |0_z\rangle_0 - i\gamma |1_x\rangle_1 |1_z\rangle_0 \Big], \nonumber \\
|2 \rangle &=& (1/\sqrt{2})\Big[|0_x\rangle_1 |1_z\rangle_0 + i\gamma |1_x\rangle_1 |0_z\rangle_0 \Big], \nonumber \\
|3 \rangle &=& (1/\sqrt{2})\Big[|0_x\rangle_1 |0_z\rangle_0 + i\gamma |1_x\rangle_1 |1_z\rangle_0 \Big].
\label{SXSZ_EIGEN}\end{aligned}$$ To distinguish between these states one needs to build an interferometer like the one in the Fig. \[SXSZ\].
![Mach-Zehnder interferometer, with a polarisation rotator in one arm, followed by polarizing beam-splitters, is the most advanced device used in measurements of $S_{kl}$, for $d=4$. This setup, which measures the operator $\gamma S_x S_z$ (with $\gamma = e^{i \pi/4}$), distinguishes maximally entangled states of paths and polarisations. First, with the $\frac{\pi}{2}$ phase shift (PS($\pi/2$)) and the beam-splitter (BS), the $\sigma_x^{(1)}$ eigenstates are converted into $\sigma_z^{(1)}$ eigenstates. Next, the $\pi/4$ phase (PS($\pi/4$)) is applied in the lower arm, where $| 1_x \rangle_1$ is directed. In the upper arm polarization is rotated (with the plate $\curvearrowright$), such that in both arms it is the same. Finally, specific clicks behind the beam-splitter and polarising beam-splitters distinguish the states (\[SXSZ\_EIGEN\]).[]{data-label="SXSZ"}](sxsz)
The same setup measures $S_{22}$ and $S_{33}$, which commute with $S_{11}$. Finally, when different phase shifts are used, this setup also measures the remaining $S_{13}$ and $S_{31}$ observables.
To sum up, the most involved device, used in the measurements of generalized Pauli operators on a composite qudit encoded in two paths and polarization of a photon, involves Mach-Zehnder interferometer with a polarization rotator in one arm, followed by polarizing beam-splitters (Fig. \[SXSZ\]). Most of the observables are realizable with a single beam-splitter followed by polarizing beam-splitters.
Generally, it is possible to perform arbitrary $S_{kl}$ measurement on polarized photons with many, $d_1$, accessible paths. With polarising beam-splitters in each propagation path one transforms initial polarisation-path state $| j \rangle$ into a double-number-of-paths state $|p \rangle$, in $2d_1$ dimensional Hilbert space (each polarising beam-splitter generates two distinct spatial modes). According to Ref. [@RECK] one can always realize a unitary which brings the states $|p \rangle$ to the states of well-defined propagation direction. Thus, $2d_1$ detectors monitoring these final paths distinguish all the eigenvectors $| j \rangle$.
Conclusions
===========
Higher-dimensional quantum systems can find many applications, both in foundations of physics and in applied quantum information. A method of construction of qudits, studied here, is to compose them of other, lower dimensional, subsystems. In such a case, if a global observable has some entangled eigenvectors, its measurement naturally requires joint actions on subsystems. If eigenvectors factorize, the observable is measurable individually, sometimes with an additional feed-forward. Thus, in order to design a setup capable to measure an observable, its eigenproblem must be solved.
Here, the eigenproblem of the unitary generalizations of Pauli operators is solved, for arbitrary dimensions, and Schmidt decomposition of the eigenvectors, for qudits composed of two components, is derived. Using these results quantum cryptography with two bases, operating on a two-component qudit, is shown not to involve any joint measurements.
Finally, simple optical devices, capable to measure all generalized Pauli operators on polarisation-path qudits, are presented. These experimentally feasible devices allow full state tomography. In case of two different paths, the most complicated device is a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, with a polarisation rotator in one arm, followed by polarizing beam-splitters.
Acknowledgements
================
The author is extremely grateful to Professor Marek Żukowski for useful comments. Marcin Wieśniak is also gratefully acknowledged. The work is part of the MNiI Grant No. 1 P03B 049 27 and the $6$th EU Framework programme QAP (Qubit Applications) Contract No. 015848. The author is supported by the Foundation for Polish Science.
[00]{}
H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci and A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3313 (2000). D. Bru[ß]{} and C. Macchiavello, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 127901 (2002).
N. J. Cerf, M. Bourennane, A. Karlsson, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 127902 (2002).
. Brukner, M. Żukowski, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 197901 (2002). . Brukner, T. Paterek, M. Żukowski, Int. J. Quant. Inf. [**1**]{}, 519 (2003).
A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and M. Żukowski in *Quantum Control and Measurement*, edited by H. Ezawa and Y. Murayama (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993). A. Zeilinger, M. Żukowski, M. A. Horne, H. J. Bernstein, and D. M. Greenberger in [*Quantum Interferometry*]{}, edited by F. DeMartini and A. Zeilinger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994).
J. T. Barreiro, N. K. Langford, N. A. Peters, and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 260501 (2005).
Z.-B. Chen, J.-W. Pan, Y.-D. Zhang, [Č]{}. Brukner, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 160408 (2003). T. Yang, Q. Zhang, J. Zhang, J. Yin, Z. Zao, M. Żukowski, Z.-B. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 240406 (2005). C. Cinelli, M. Barbieri, R. Perris, P. Mataloni, and F. De Martini, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 240405 (2005).
J. Schwinger, Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci. [**46**]{}, 570 (1960). D. I. Fivel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 835 (1995). D. Gottesman, in *Quantum Computing and Quantum Communications: First NASA International Conference*, edited by C. P. Williams (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999). A. O. Pittenger and M. H. Rubin, Phys. Rev. A **62**, 32313 (2000).
N. J. Cerf, S. Massar, and S. Pironio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 80402 (2002). W. Son, J. Lee, and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 60406 (2006). J. Lee, S.-W. Lee, and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. A [**73**]{}, 32316 (2006).
M. A. Nielsen, M. J. Bremner, J. L. Dodd, A. M. Childs, and C. M. Dawson, Phys. Rev. A [**66**]{}, 22317 (2002).
A. Muthukrishnan and C. R. Stroud, Jr., Phys. Rev. A [**62**]{}, 52309 (2000).
W. K. Wooters and B. D. Fields, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) [**191**]{}, 363 (1989).
S. Bandyopadhyah, P. O. Boykin, V. Roychowdhury, and F. Vatan, Algorithmica [**34**]{}, 512 (2002).
D. F. V. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{}, 52312 (2001).
R. T. Thew, K. Nemoto, A. G. White, and W. J. Munro, Phys. Rev. A [**66**]{}, 12303 (2002).
M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H. J. Bernstein, and P. Bertani, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 58 (1994).
[^1]: To get rid of this phase, instead of $S_{kl}$ one can consider an operator $e^{-i \varphi} S_{kl}$.
[^2]: The performance of the two-bases protocol is only slightly worse than the performance of a many-bases protocol (compare Table I of Ref. [@MOHAMED]).
[^3]: Note that only qudits of an even dimension can be realized in this way.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Zhao Dong$^{1,2}$ Rangrang Zhang$^{3,}\footnote{Corresponding author.}$\
[$^1$ RCSDS, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China.]{}\
[$^2$ School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences.]{}\
[$^3$ School of Mathematics and Statistics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China.]{}\
([[email protected]]{}, [[email protected]]{} )
title: '**On the small time asymptotics of scalar stochastic conservation laws** '
---
**Abstract**: In this paper, we established a small time large deviation principles for scalar stochastic conservation laws driven by multiplicative noise. The doubling variables method plays a key role.
**AMS Subject Classification**: 60F10, 60H15, 60G40
**Keywords**: small time asymptotic; large deviations; scalar stochastic conservation laws
Introduction
============
In this paper, we investigate the small time asymptotics of the first-order scalar conservation laws with stochastic forcing. Precisely, fix any $T>0$ and let $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P},\{\mathcal{F}_t\}_{t\in
[0,T]},(\{\beta_k(t)\}_{t\in[0,T]})_{k\in\mathbb{N}})$ be a stochastic basis. Without loss of generality, here the filtration $\{\mathcal{F}_t\}_{t\in [0,T]}$ is assumed to be complete and $\{\beta_k(t)\}_{t\in[0,T]}(k \in\mathbb{N})$ are one-dimensional i.i.d. real-valued $\{\mathcal{F}_t\}_{t\in [0,T]}-$Wiener processes. The symbol $\mathbb{E}$ denotes the expectation with respect to $\mathbb{P}$. For any fixed $N\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\mathbb{T}^N\subset\mathbb{R}^N$ be the $N-$dimensional torus with the periodic length to be $1$. We are concerned with the following Cauchy problem for the scalar conservation laws with stochastic forcing $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P-19}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
du+div(A(u))dt=\Phi(u) dW(t) \quad {\rm{in}}\ \mathbb{T}^N\times (0,T),\\
u(\cdot,0)=\eta(\cdot) \quad {\rm{on}}\ \mathbb{T}^N,
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $u:(\omega,x,t)\in\Omega\times\mathbb{T}^N\times[0,T]\mapsto u(\omega,x,t):=u(x,t)\in\mathbb{R}$ is a random field, the flux function $A:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}^N$ and the coefficient $\Phi:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ are measurable and fulfill certain conditions (see Section 2 in below), and $W$ is a cylindrical Wiener process defined on a given (separable) Hilbert space $U$ with the form $W(t)=\sum_{k\geq 1}\beta_k(t) e_k,t\in[0,T]$, where [$\{e_k\}_{k\geq 1}$ is an orthonormal base]{} of the Hilbert space $U$. Moreover, the initial value [$\eta\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^N)$]{} is a deterministic function.
When $\Phi\equiv0$, the system (\[P-19\]) is reduced to the deterministic scalar conservation law, which is fundamental to our understanding of the space-time evolution laws of interesting physical quantities. For more background on this model, we refer the readers to the monograph [@Dafermos], the work of [Ammar, Wittbold and Carrillo]{} [@K-P-J] and references therein. As we know, the Cauchy problem for the deterministic first-order PDE (\[P-19\]) does not admit any (global) smooth solutions, but there exist infinitely many weak solutions to the deterministic Cauchy problem. To solve the problem of non-uniqueness, an additional entropy condition was added to identify the physical weak solution. Under this condition, the notion of entropy solutions for the deterministic first-order scalar conservation laws was introduced by Kružkov [@K-69; @K-70]. The kinetic formulation of weak entropy solution of the Cauchy problem for a general multi-dimensional scalar conservation laws (also called the kinetic system), was derived by Lions, Perthame and Tadmor in [@L-P-T]. The authors of [@L-P-T] also discussed the relationship between entropy solutions and the kinetic system. Adding a stochastic forcing (i.e., a noise) to this physical model is quite natural as it either represents an external random perturbation or gives a remedy for lack of (empirical) knowledge of certain involved physical parameters. Along with the great successful developments of deterministic scalar conservation laws, the random situation has also been developed rapidly. For example, in [@K], Kim studied the Cauchy problem for the scalar stochastic conservation laws (\[P-19\]) driven by additive noise. Later, these results were extended to the multi-dimensional Dirichlet problem with additive noise by Vallet and Wittbold in [@V-W]. The authors of [@V-W] succeed to show the existence and uniqueness of the stochastic entropy solutions by utilising the vanishing viscosity method, Young measure techniques, and Kružkov doubling variables technique. Concerning the multiplicative noise, for the Cauchy problem over the whole spatial space, Feng and Nualart [@F-N] introduced a notion of strong entropy solutions to prove the uniqueness of the entropy solution. Moreover, the authors in [@F-N] established the existence of strong entropy solutions in one dimensional case by using the vanishing viscosity and compensated compactness method. Recently, Debussche and Vovelle [@D-V-1] proved the existence and uniqueness of kinetic solution to the Cauchy problem for (\[P-19\]) in any dimension by utilizing a kinetic formulation developed by Lions, Perthame and Tadmor for deterministic first-order scalar conservation laws in [@L-P-T]. Due to the equivalence between kinetic formulation and entropy solution, the existence and uniqueness of the entropy solutions were obtained in [@D-V-1]. [It is worth mentioning that [@D-V-1] is the starting point of the present paper.]{} In addition, the long-time behavior of the first-order scalar conservation laws has also attracted a lot of interests. For example, Debussche and Vovelle established the existence and uniqueness of invariant measures of scalar conservation laws driven by additive stochastic forcing in [@D-V-2]. Concretely, for sub-cubic fluxes, the authors of [@D-V-2] show the existence of an invariant measure, and for sub-quadratic fluxes, they proved the uniqueness of the invariant measure. Recently, combining techniques used in the context of kinetic solutions as well as new results on large deviations, Dong et al. [@DWZZ] established Freidlin-Wentzell’s type large deviation principles (LDP) for the kinetic solution to the scalar stochastic conservative laws.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the small time LDP of the kinetic solution to the scalar stochastic conservation laws, which describes the behaviors of the solution at a very small time. Specifically, we focus on the limiting behavior of the kinetic solution to the scalar stochastic conservation laws in a time interval $[0,t]$ as $t$ goes to zero. An important motivation for such a problem comes from Varadhan identity $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}2t\log \mathbb{P}\big(u(0)\in B,\ u(t)\in C\big)=-d^2(B,C),\end{aligned}$$ where $u$ is the kinetic solution to the scalar stochastic conservation laws and $d$ is an appropriate Riemann distance associated with the diffusion generated by $u$. The mathematical study of the small time LDP for finite dimensional processes was initiated by Varadhan [@V]. Since then, the cases for the infinite dimensional diffusion processes were extensively studied (see [@A-K; @A-Z; @F-Z; @H-R; @ZTS] and the references therein). On the other hand, many researchers have also studied the small time LDP for infinite dimensional stochastic partial differential equations. For instance, Xu and Zhang [@X-Z] established the small time LDP of 2D Navier-Stokes equations in the state space $C([0,T];H)$. Dong and Zhang [@D-Z] proved the small time LDP of 3D stochastic primitive equations in the state space $C([0,T];H^1)$. In this paper, we will prove that the small time LDP of the kinetic solution to the scalar stochastic conservation laws holds in the space $L^1([0,T];L^1(\mathbb{T}^N))$. To our knowledge, the present paper is the first work towards proving the small time LDP directly for the kinetic solution to the scalar stochastic conservation laws. Due to the fact that the kinetic solutions are living in a rather irregular space, we will use the doubling variables method as in the work of Debussche and Vovelle [@D-V-1]. Our new contribution is the estimation of martingale terms and error terms, which are highly nontrivial.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall the mathematical formulation of scalar stochastic conservation laws. In Section 3, we introduce the small time asymptotics and state our main result. Section 4 is devoted to the proof of exponential equivalence.
Framework
=========
In the following, we will follow closely the framework of [@D-V-1] to introduce some notations. Let $\|\cdot\|_{L^p}$ denote the norm of usual Lebesgue space $L^p(\mathbb{T}^N)$ for $p\in [1,\infty]$. In particular, set $H=L^2(\mathbb{T}^N)$ with the corresponding norm $\|\cdot\|_H$. $C_b$ represents the space of bounded, continuous functions and $C^1_b$ stands for the space of bounded, continuously differentiable functions having bounded first order derivative. Define the function $f(x,t,\xi):=I_{u(x,t)>\xi}$, which is the characteristic function of the subgraph of $u$. We write $f:=I_{u>\xi}$ for short. Moreover, denote by the brackets $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ the duality between $C^{\infty}_c(\mathbb{T}^N\times \mathbb{R})$ and the space of distributions over $\mathbb{T}^N\times \mathbb{R}$. In what follows, with a slight abuse of the notation $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$, we denote the following integral by $$\langle F, G \rangle:=\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}F(x,\xi)G(x,\xi)dxd\xi, \quad F\in L^p(\mathbb{T}^N\times \mathbb{R}), G\in L^q(\mathbb{T}^N\times \mathbb{R}),$$ where $1\leq p\leq +\infty$, $q:=\frac{p}{p-1}$ is the conjugate exponent of $p$. In particular, when $p=1$, we set $q=\infty$ by convention. For a measure $m$ on the Borel measurable space $\mathbb{T}^N\times[0,T]\times \mathbb{R}$, the shorthand $m(\phi)$ is defined by $$m(\phi):=\langle m, \phi \rangle([0,T]):=\int_{\mathbb{T}^N\times[0,T]\times \mathbb{R}}\phi(x,t,\xi)dm(x,t,\xi), \quad \phi\in C_b(\mathbb{T}^N\times[0,T]\times \mathbb{R}).$$ In the sequel, the notation $a\lesssim b$ for $a,b\in \mathbb{R}$ means that $a\leq \mathcal{D}b$ for some constant $\mathcal{D}> 0$ independent of any parameters.
Hypotheses
----------
For the flux function $A$ and the coefficient $\Phi$ of (\[P-19\]), we assume that
**Hypothesis H**
: The flux function $A$ belongs to $C^2(\mathbb{R};\mathbb{R}^N)$ and its derivative $a:=A'$ is polynomial growth with degree $q_0>1$. That is, there exists a constant $\mathcal{N}(q_0)\geq0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qeq-22}
|a(\xi)|\leq \mathcal{N}(q_0)(1+|\xi|^{q_0}),\quad |a(\xi)-a(\zeta)|\leq \Upsilon(\xi,\zeta)|\xi-\zeta|,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Upsilon(\xi,\zeta):=\mathcal{N}(q_0)(1+|\xi|^{q_0-1}+|\zeta|^{q_0-1})$.
For each $u\in \mathbb{R}$, the map $\Phi(u): U\rightarrow H$ is defined by $\Phi(u) e_k=g_k(\cdot, u)$, where $(e_k)_{k\geq 1}$ is the orthonormal base in the Hilbert space $U$ and each $g_k(\cdot,u)$ is a regular function on $\mathbb{T}^N$. More precisely, we assume that $g_k\in C(\mathbb{T}^N\times \mathbb{R})$ satisfies the following bounds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e-5}
|g_k(x,u)|&\leq& C^0_k(1+|u|), \quad \sum_{k\geq 1}|C^0_k|^2\leq \frac{D_0}{2},\\
\label{e-6}
|g_k(x,u)-g_k(y,v)|&\leq& C^1_k(|x-y|+|u-v|),\quad \sum_{k\geq 1}|C^1_{k}|^2\leq \frac{D_1}{2},\end{aligned}$$ for $x, y\in \mathbb{T}^N, u,v\in \mathbb{R}$, where $C^0_k, C^1_k, D_0, D_1$ are positive constants.
From (\[e-5\]) and (\[e-6\]), we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ-28}
G^2(x,u)&:=&\sum_{k\geq 1}|g_k(x,u)|^2\leq D_0(1+|u|^2),\\
\label{equ-29}
\sum_{k\geq 1}|g_k(x,u)-g_k(y,v)|^2&\leq& D_1\Big(|x-y|^2+|u-v|^2\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Based on the above notations, equation (\[P-19\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P-19-1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
du(t,x)+div A(u(t,x))dt=\sum_{k\geq 1}g_k(x,u(t,x)) d\beta_k(t) \quad {\rm{in}}\ \mathbb{T}^N\times (0,T],\\
u(\cdot,0)=\eta(\cdot) \quad {\rm{on}}\ \mathbb{T}^N.
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
Kinetic solution
----------------
Let us recall the notion of a kinetic solution to equation (\[P-19\]) from [@D-V-1]. Keeping in mind that we are working on the stochastic basis $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P},\{\mathcal{F}_t\}_{t\in [0,T]},(\beta_k(t))_{k\in\mathbb{N}})$.
(Kinetic measure)\[dfn-3\] A map $m$ from $\Omega$ to the set of non-negative, finite measures over $\mathbb{T}^N\times [0,T]\times\mathbb{R}$ is said to be a kinetic measure, if
1.
: $ m $ is measurable, that is, for each $\phi\in C_b(\mathbb{T}^N\times [0,T]\times \mathbb{R}), \langle m, \phi \rangle: \Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is measurable,
2.
: $m$ vanishes for large $\xi$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ-37}
\lim_{R\rightarrow +\infty}\mathbb{E}[m(\mathbb{T}^N\times [0,T]\times B^c_R)]=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $B^c_R:=\{\xi\in \mathbb{R}, |\xi|\geq R\}$,
3.
: for every $\phi\in C_b(\mathbb{T}^N\times \mathbb{R})$, the process $$(\omega,t)\in\Omega\times[0,T]\mapsto \langle m,\phi\rangle([0,t]):= \int_{\mathbb{T}^N\times [0,t]\times \mathbb{R}}\phi(x,\xi)dm(x,s,\xi)\in\mathbb{R}$$ is predictable.
\[r-1\] For any $\phi\in C_b(\mathbb{T}^N\times \mathbb{R})$ and kinetic measure $m$, define $A_t:=\langle m, \phi\rangle([0,t]),$ then a.s., $t\mapsto A_t$ is a right continuous function of finite variation. Moreover, the function $A$ has left limits in any $t\in (0,T]$. We write $A_{t^-}=\lim_{s\uparrow t}A_s$ and set $A_{0^-}=0$. As a result, $A_{t^-}=\langle m, \phi\rangle([0,t))$, which is càglàd (left continuous with right limits).
(Kinetic solution)\[dfn-1\] Let $\eta\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^N)$. A measurable function $u: \mathbb{T}^N\times [0,T]\times\Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is called a kinetic solution to (\[P-19\]) with initial datum $\eta$, if
1.
: $(u(t))_{t\in[0,T]}$ is predictable,
2.
: for any $p\geq1$, there exists $C_p\geq0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qq-8}
\mathbb{E}\left(\underset{0\leq t\leq T}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|u(t)\|^p_{L^p(\mathbb{T}^N)}\right)\leq C_p,\end{aligned}$$
3.
: there exists a kinetic measure $m$ such that $f:= I_{u>\xi}$ satisfies: for all $\varphi\in C^1_c(\mathbb{T}^N\times [0,T)\times \mathbb{R})$, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\int^T_0\langle f(t), \partial_t \varphi(t)\rangle dt+\langle f_0, \varphi(0)\rangle +\int^T_0\langle f(t), a(\xi)\cdot \nabla \varphi (t)\rangle dt\\ \notag
&=& -\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^T_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N} g_k(x, u(t,x))\varphi (x,t,u(x,t))dxd\beta_k(t) \\ \label{P-21}
&& -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^T_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\partial_{\xi}\varphi (x,t,u(x,t))G^2(x,u(t,x))dxdt+ m(\partial_{\xi} \varphi), \ a.s. ,\end{aligned}$$ where $f_0=I_{\eta>\xi}$, $u(t)=u(\cdot,t,\cdot)$ and $G^2=\sum^{\infty}_{k=1}|g_k|^2$.
Let $u$ be a kinetic solution to (\[P-19\]) and $f=I_{u>\xi}$. We use $\bar{f}:=1-f$ to denote its conjugate function. Define $\Lambda_f:=f-I_{0>\xi}$, which can be viewed as a correction to $f$. Note that $\Lambda_f$ is integrable on $\mathbb{T}^N\times [0,T]\times\Omega$ if $u$ is. In addition, it is shown in [@D-V-1] that almost surely, the function $f=I_{u>\xi}$ admits left and right weak limits at any point $t\in[0,T]$.
([@D-V-1], Left and right weak limits)\[prp-3\] Let $f=I_{u>\xi}$ satisfy (\[P-21\]) with initial value $f_0=I_{\eta>\xi}$. Then $f$ admits, almost surely, left and right limits respectively at every point $t\in [0,T]$. More precisely, for any $t\in [0,T]$, there exist kinetic functions $f^{t\pm}$ on $\Omega\times \mathbb{T}^N\times \mathbb{R}$ such that $\mathbb{P}-$a.s. $$\begin{aligned}
\langle f(t-r),\varphi\rangle\rightarrow \langle f^{t-},\varphi\rangle, \quad
\langle f(t+r),\varphi\rangle\rightarrow \langle f^{t+},\varphi\rangle\end{aligned}$$ as $r\rightarrow 0$ for all $\varphi\in C^1_c(\mathbb{T}^N\times \mathbb{R})$. Moreover, almost surely, $$\langle f^{t+}-f^{t-}, \varphi\rangle=-\int_{\mathbb{T}^N\times[0,T]\times \mathbb{R}}\partial_{\xi}\varphi(x,\xi)I_{\{t\}}(s)dm(x,s,\xi).$$ In particular, almost surely, the set of $t\in [0,T]$ fulfilling $f^{t+}\neq f^{t-}$ is countable.
For the above function $f=I_{u>\xi}$, define $f^{\pm}$ by $f^{\pm}(t)=f^{t \pm}$, $t\in [0,T]$. Since we are dealing with the filtration associated to Brownian motion, both $f^{+}$ and $f^{-}$ are clearly predictable as well. Also $f=f^+=f^-$ almost everywhere in time and we can take any of them in an integral with respect to the Lebesgue measure or in a stochastic integral. However, if the integral is with respect to a measure, typically a kinetic measure in this article, the integral is not well-defined for $f$ and may differ if one chooses $f^+ $ or $f^-$.
At the end of this part, we mention that with the aid of Proposition \[prp-3\], the following result was verified by [@D-V-1].
\[lem-1\] The weak form (\[P-21\]) satisfied by $f=I_{u>\xi}$ can be strengthened to be weak only with $x$ and $\xi$. Concretely, for all $t\in [0,T)$ and $\varphi\in C^1_c(\mathbb{T}^N\times \mathbb{R})$, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\langle f^+(t),\varphi\rangle&=&\langle f_{0}, \varphi\rangle+\int^t_0\langle f(s), a(\xi)\cdot \nabla \varphi\rangle ds\\
\notag
&&+\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}g_k(x,\xi)\varphi(x,\xi)d\nu_{x,s}(\xi)dxd\beta_k(s)\\
\label{qq-17}
&& +\frac{1}{2}\int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\partial_{\xi}\varphi(x,\xi)G^2(x,\xi)d\nu_{x,s}(\xi)dxds- \langle m,\partial_{\xi} \varphi\rangle([0,t]), \quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ with $\nu_{x,s}=-\partial_{\xi}f=\delta_{u(x,s)=\xi}$ and we set $f^+(T)=f(T)$.
By making modifications, we have for all $t\in (0,T]$ and $\varphi\in C^1_c(\mathbb{T}^N\times \mathbb{R})$, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\langle f^-(t),\varphi\rangle&=&\langle f_{0}, \varphi\rangle+\int^t_0\langle f(s), a(\xi)\cdot \nabla \varphi\rangle ds\\
\notag
&&+\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}g_k(x,\xi)\varphi(x,\xi)d\nu_{x,s}(\xi)dxd\beta_k(s)\\
\label{e-80}
&& +\frac{1}{2}\int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\partial_{\xi}\varphi(x,\xi)G^2(x,\xi)d\nu_{x,s}(\xi)dxds- \langle m,\partial_{\xi} \varphi\rangle([0,t)), \quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ and we set $ f^-(0)=f_0$.
The following result was shown by Theorem 24 in [@D-V-1].
\[thm-4\] ([@D-V-1], Existence and Uniqueness) Let $\eta\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^N)$. Assume Hypothesis H holds, then there is a unique kinetic solution $u$ to equation (\[P-19\]) with initial datum $\eta$.
Moreover, by Corollary 16 in [@D-V-1], it follows that
\[cor-1\] (Continuity in time). Let $\eta\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^N)$. Assume Hypothesis H is in force, then for every $p\in [1, +\infty)$, the kinetic solution $u$ to (\[P-19\]) with initial datum $\eta$ has almost sure continuous trajectories in $L^p(\mathbb{T}^N)$.
Small time asymptotics and statement of our main result
=======================================================
In the rest part, we take $T=1$. Let $0<\varepsilon\leq 1$, by the scaling property of the Brownian motion, it is readily to deduce that $u(\varepsilon t)$ coincides in law with the solution of the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqq-5}
u^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}(t,x)+\varepsilon\int^t_0 div (A(u^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}(s)))ds=\eta(x)
+\sqrt{\varepsilon} \int^t_0 \sum_{k\geq 1}g_k(x,u^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}(s,x)) d\beta_k(s).\end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \[thm-4\], there is a unique kinetic solution $u^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}$. Applying Sections 6 and 7 in [@DHV] with $A=0$, we obtain for any $p\geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qq-27}
\sup_{0<\varepsilon\leq 1}\mathbb{E} \underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|u^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}(s)\|^p_{L^p(\mathbb{T}^N)}<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lem-1\], there exists a kinetic measure $m^{\varepsilon}_1$ such that $f_1(x,t,\xi):=I_{u^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}(x,t)>\xi}$ satisfies that for all $t\in [0,1)$ and $\varphi\in C^1_c(\mathbb{T}^N\times \mathbb{R})$, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\langle f^+_1(t),\varphi\rangle&=&\langle f_{1,0}, \varphi\rangle+\varepsilon\int^t_0\langle f_1(s), a(\xi)\cdot \nabla \varphi\rangle ds\\
\notag
&&+\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}g_k(x,\xi)\varphi(x,\xi)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}(\xi)dxd\beta_k(s)\\
\label{eq-11}
&& +\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\partial_{\xi}\varphi(x,\xi)G^2(x,\xi)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}(\xi)dxds- \langle m^{\varepsilon}_1,\partial_{\xi} \varphi\rangle([0,t]), \quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}(\xi)=-\partial_{\xi}f_1(x,s,\xi)=\delta_{u^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}(x,s)=\xi}$ and we set $f^+_1(1)=f_1(1)$.
For $h\in L^2([0,1];U)$ with the form $h(t)=\sum_{k\geq 1}h_k(t)e_k$, consider the following deterministic equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
du^h(t,x)=\sum_{k\geq 1}g_k(x,u^h(t,x))h_k(t)dt, & \\
u^h(0)=\eta. &
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ [Applying Theorem 5.1 and Theorem 5.3 in [@DWZZ] with $A=0$, there exists a unique kinetic solution $u^h_{\eta}$ in the space $L^1([0,1];L^1(\mathbb{T}^N))$.]{} Define $$R(h)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^1_0|h_k(t)|^2dt.$$ For $\varrho\in L^1([0,1];L^1(\mathbb{T}^N))$, define $$\mathcal{L}_{\varrho}=\Big\{h\in L^2([0,1];U): \varrho(\cdot)=u^h_{\eta}(\cdot)\Big\}$$ Set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqq-6}
I(\varrho)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\inf_{h\in \mathcal{L}_{\varrho}}R(h) , & {\rm{if}}\ \mathcal{L}_{\varrho}\neq \emptyset \\
+\infty , & {\rm{if}}\ \mathcal{L}_{\varrho}= \emptyset
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$
[For any initial value $\eta\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^N)$, let $u^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}$ be the kinetic solution of (\[eqq-5\]). Denote by $\mu^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}$ the law of $u^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}$ on the space $L^1([0,1];L^1(\mathbb{T}^N))$.]{} The main result of this article reads as follows.
\[thm-1\] Let the initial value $\eta\in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^N)$. Assume Hypotheses H is in force, then $\{\mu^{\varepsilon}_{\eta},\varepsilon>0\}$ satisfies a large deviation principle with the rate function $I(\cdot)$ defined by (\[eqq-6\]), that is,
(i)
: For any closed subset $F\subset L^1([0,1];L^1(\mathbb{T}^N)) $, $$\limsup_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\varepsilon \log \mu^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}(F)\leq -\inf_{\varrho\in F}I(\varrho).$$
(ii)
: For any open subset $G\subset L^1([0,1];L^1(\mathbb{T}^N)) $, $$\liminf_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\varepsilon \log \mu^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}(G)\geq -\inf_{\varrho\in G}I(\varrho).$$
Applying Theorem 24 in [@D-V-1] with $A=0$, we know that there exists a unique kinetic solution $v^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}$ to the following stochastic equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-7}
v^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}(t,x)=\eta(x)+\sqrt{\varepsilon}\int^t_0\sum_{k\geq 1}g_k(x, v^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}(s,x))d\beta_k(s).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\vartheta^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}$ be the law of $v^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}(\cdot)$ on $L^1([0,1];L^1(\mathbb{T}^N))$. According to [Theorem 4.2]{} in [@DWZZ] with $A=0$, it follows that $\vartheta^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}$ satisfies a large deviation principle with the rate function $I(\cdot)$. Based on Theorem 4.2.13 in [@DZ], it suffices to show that two families of the probability measures $\mu^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}$ and $\vartheta^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}$ are exponentially equivalent, that is, for any $\iota >0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-8}
\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\varepsilon \log \mathbb{P}\Big(\|u^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}-v^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}\|_{L^1([0,1];L^1(\mathbb{T}^N))}>\iota\Big)=-\infty.\end{aligned}$$
**From now on, for the sake of simplicity, we denote by $u^{\varepsilon}=u^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}$ and $v^{\varepsilon}=v^{\varepsilon}_{\eta}$ when the initial value is not emphasized.**
Proof of the main result
========================
Recall that $v^{\varepsilon}$ is the unique kinetic solution to (\[eq-7\]). Applying Sections 6 and 7 in [@DHV] with $A=0, B=0$, we obtain that, for any $p\geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qq-28}
\sup_{0<\varepsilon\leq 1}\mathbb{E}\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|v^{\varepsilon}(s)\|^p_{L^p(\mathbb{T}^N)}<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by Lemma \[lem-1\], there exists a kinetic measure $m^{\varepsilon}_2$ such that $f_2(x,t,\xi):=I_{v^{\varepsilon}(x,t)>\xi}$ satisfies that for all $t\in [0,1)$ and $\varphi\in C^1_c(\mathbb{T}^N\times \mathbb{R})$, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\langle f^+_2(t),\varphi\rangle&=&\langle f_{2,0}, \varphi\rangle+\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}g_k(x,\xi)\varphi(x,\xi)d\nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{x,s}(\xi)dxd\beta_k(s)\\
\label{eq-15}
&& +\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\partial_{\xi}\varphi(x,\xi)G^2(x,\xi)d\nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{x,s}(\xi)dxds- \langle m^{\varepsilon}_2,\partial_{\xi} \varphi\rangle([0,t]), \quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{2,0}=I_{\eta>\xi}$, $\nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{x,s}=-\partial_{\xi} f_2=\delta_{v^{\varepsilon}(x,s)=\xi}$ and we set $ f^+_2(1)=f_2(1)$.
Following the idea of Proposition 13 in [@D-V-1] and by utilizing the doubling variables method, we have the following result relating $u^{\varepsilon}$ and $v^{\varepsilon}$.
\[prp-1\] Assume Hypothesis H is in place. Let $u^{\varepsilon}$ and $v^{\varepsilon}$ be the kinetic solution of (\[eqq-5\]) and (\[eq-7\]), respectively. Then, for all $0< t< 1$, and non-negative test functions $\rho\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^N), \psi\in C^{\infty}_c(\mathbb{R})$, the corresponding functions $f_1(x,t,\xi):=I_{u^{\varepsilon}(x,t)>\xi}$ and $f_2(y,t,\zeta):=I_{v^{\varepsilon}(y,t)>\zeta}$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\rho (x-y)\psi(\xi-\zeta)(f^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\zeta)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi)f^{\pm}_2(y,s,\zeta))d\xi d\zeta dxdy\\
\notag
&\leq & \int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\rho (x-y)\psi(\xi-\zeta)(f_{1,0}(x,\xi)\bar{f}_{2,0}(y,\zeta)+\bar{f}_{1,0}(x,\xi)f_{2,0}(y,\zeta))d\xi d\zeta dxdy\\
\label{eq-14-1}
&& +I(t)+J(t)+K(t), \quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
I(t)&=&\varepsilon\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(f_1\bar{f}_2+\bar{f}_1f_2)(a (\xi)\cdot\nabla_x)\alpha d\xi d\zeta dxdyds\\
J(t)&=&\varepsilon\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\alpha \sum_{k\geq 1}|g_k(x,\xi)-g_k(y,\zeta)|^2d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyds\\
K(t)&=& 2\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(g_k(x,\xi)-g_k(y,\zeta))\rho(x-y)\chi_1(\xi,\zeta)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyd\beta_k(s),\end{aligned}$$ with $f_{1,0}(x,\xi)=I_{\eta(x)>\xi}, f_{2,0}(y,\zeta)=I_{\eta(y)>\zeta}$, $\alpha=\rho (x-y)\psi(\xi-\zeta)$, $\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}=-\partial_{\xi}f_1(s,x,\xi)=\delta_{u^{\varepsilon}(x,s)=\xi}, \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}=\partial_{\zeta}\bar{f}_2(s,y,\zeta)=\delta_{v^{\varepsilon}(y,s)=\zeta}$ and $\chi_1(\xi,\zeta)=\int^{\xi}_{-\infty}\psi(\xi'-\zeta)d\xi'=\int^{\xi-\zeta}_{-\infty}\psi(y)dy$.
Let $\varphi_1\in C^{1}_c(\mathbb{T}^N_x\times \mathbb{R}_{\xi})$ and $\varphi_2\in C^{1}_c(\mathbb{T}^N_y\times \mathbb{R}_{\zeta})$. For all $t\in (0,1)$, according to (\[eq-11\]), it yields $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\langle f^+_1(t),\varphi_1\rangle=\langle m^*_1, \partial_{\xi}\varphi_1\rangle([0,t])+F_1(t), \quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\langle m^*_1, \partial_{\xi}\varphi_1\rangle([0,t])&=&\langle f_{1,0}, \varphi_1\rangle\delta_0([0,t])+\varepsilon\int^t_0\langle f_1(s), a(\xi)\cdot \nabla_x \varphi_1(s)\rangle ds\\
&& +\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\partial_{\xi}\varphi_1(x,\xi)G^2(x,\xi)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}(\xi)dxds- \langle m^{\varepsilon}_1,\partial_{\xi} \varphi_1\rangle([0,t]),
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
F_1(t)=\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}g_k(x,\xi)\varphi_1(x,\xi)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}(\xi)dxd\beta_k(s).
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, by utilizing (\[eq-15\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\langle \bar{f}^+_2(t),\varphi_2\rangle=\langle \bar{m}^*_2, \partial_{\zeta}\varphi_2\rangle([0,t])+\bar{F}_2(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\langle \bar{m}^*_2, \partial_{\zeta}\varphi_2\rangle([0,t])&=&\langle \bar{f}_{2,0}, \varphi_2\rangle\delta_0([0,t]) -\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\partial_{\zeta}\varphi_2(y,\zeta)G^2(y,\zeta)d\nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\zeta)dyds\\
&& +\langle m^{\varepsilon}_2,\partial_{\zeta} \varphi_2\rangle([0,t]),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{F}_2(t)=-\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}g_k(y,\zeta)\varphi_2(y,\zeta)d\nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\zeta)dyd\beta_k(s).\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, $F_1(t)$ and $\bar{F}_2(t)$ are continuous martingales, $t\mapsto\langle m^*_1, \partial_{\xi}\varphi_1\rangle([0,t])$ and $t\mapsto\langle \bar{m}^*_2, \partial_{\zeta}\varphi_2\rangle([0,t])$ are functions of finite variation. Moreover, it is shown in Remark 12 of [@D-V-1] that $\langle m^*_1, \partial_{\xi}\varphi_1\rangle(\{0\})=\langle f_{1,0}, \varphi_1\rangle$ and $\langle \bar{m}^*_2, \partial_{\zeta}\varphi_2\rangle(\{0\})=\langle \bar{f}_{2,0}, \varphi_2\rangle$.
Denote the duality distribution over $\mathbb{T}^N_x\times \mathbb{R}_\xi\times \mathbb{T}^N_y\times \mathbb{R}_\zeta$ by $\langle\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle\rangle$. Let $\alpha(x,\xi,y,\zeta)=\varphi_1(x,\xi)\varphi_2(y,\zeta)$. Applying Itô formula to $F_1(t)\bar{F}_2(t)$, it yields $$\begin{aligned}
F_1(t)\bar{F}_2(t)=\int^t_0F_1(s)d\bar{F}_2(s)+\int^t_0\bar{F}_2(s)dF_1(s)+[F_1,\bar{F}_2]_t,\end{aligned}$$ where $[F_1,\bar{F}_2]_t$ is the quadratic variation of $F_1$ and $\bar{F}_2$ at time $t$. Moreover, according to Proposition (4.5) on P6 in [@RY99] and by using integration by parts for $\langle m^*_1, \partial_{\xi}\varphi_1\rangle([0,t])\langle \bar{m}^*_2, \partial_{\zeta}\varphi_2\rangle([0,t])$, it yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle m^*_1, \partial_{\xi}\varphi_1\rangle([0,t])\langle \bar{m}^*_2, \partial_{\zeta}\varphi_2\rangle([0,t])&=&\langle m^*_1, \partial_{\xi}\varphi_1\rangle(\{0\})\langle \bar{m}^*_2, \partial_{\zeta}\varphi_2\rangle(\{0\})\\
&& +\int_{(0,t]}\langle m^*_1, \partial_{\xi}\varphi_1\rangle([0,s))d\langle \bar{m}^*_2, \partial_{\zeta}\varphi_2\rangle(s)\\
&& +\int_{(0,t]}\langle \bar{m}^*_2, \partial_{\zeta}\varphi_2\rangle([0,s])d\langle m^*_1, \partial_{\xi}\varphi_1\rangle(s).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\bar{F}_2$ is continuous, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle m^*_1, \partial_{\xi}\varphi_1\rangle([0,t])\bar{F}_2(t)=\int^t_0\langle m^*_1, \partial_{\xi}\varphi_1\rangle([0,s])d\bar{F}_2(s)+\int^t_0\bar{F}_2(s)\langle m^*_1, \partial_{\xi}\varphi_1\rangle(ds),\end{aligned}$$ and we have the similar formula for $\langle \bar{m}^*_2, \partial_{\zeta}\varphi_2\rangle([0,t])F_2(t)$.
Based on the above formulas and using (\[e-80\]), we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle f^+_1(t), \varphi_1\rangle\langle \bar{f}^+_2(t),\varphi_2 \rangle=\langle\langle f^+_1(t)\bar{f}^+_2(t), \alpha \rangle\rangle\end{aligned}$$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\langle\langle f^+_1(t)\bar{f}^+_2(t), \alpha \rangle\rangle
&=& \langle\langle f_{1,0}\bar{f}_{2,0}, \alpha \rangle\rangle
+\varepsilon\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f_1\bar{f}_2(a(\xi)\cdot \nabla_x) \alpha d\xi d\zeta dxdyds\\ \notag
&& -\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f_1(s,x,\xi)\partial_{\zeta}\alpha G^2(y,\zeta)d\xi d\nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\zeta)dxdyds\\ \notag
&& +\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\bar{f}_2(s,y,\zeta)\partial_{\xi}\alpha G^2(x,\xi)d\zeta d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}(\xi)dxdyds\\ \notag
&& -\varepsilon \int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}G_{1,2}(x,y,\xi,\zeta)\alpha d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyds\\ \notag
&& +\int_{(0,t]}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f^{-}_1(s,x,\xi)\partial_{\zeta} \alpha dm^{\varepsilon}_2(y,\zeta,s)d\xi dx\\ \notag
&& -\int_{(0,t]}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\bar{f}^+_2(s,y,\zeta)\partial_{\xi} \alpha dm^{\varepsilon}_1(x,\xi,s)d\zeta dy\\ \notag
&& -\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f_1(s,x,\xi)g_k(y,\zeta)\alpha d\nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\zeta)dydxd\xi d\beta_k(s)\\ \notag
&& +\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\bar{f}_2(s,y,\zeta)g_k(x,\xi)\alpha d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}(\xi)dydxd\zeta d\beta_k(s)\\
\label{P-10}
&=:& \langle\langle f_{1,0}\bar{f}_{2,0}, \alpha \rangle\rangle+\sum^8_{i=1}I_i(t), \quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ where $G^2(x,\xi)=\sum_{k\geq 1}|g_k(x,\xi)|^2$ and $G_{1,2}(x,\xi,y,\zeta)=\sum_{k\geq 1}g_k(x,\xi)g_k(y,\zeta)$.
Similarly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\langle\langle \bar{f}^+_1(t)f^+_2(t), \alpha \rangle\rangle
&=& \langle\langle \bar{f}_{1,0}f_{2,0}, \alpha \rangle\rangle
+\varepsilon\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\bar{f}_1{f}_2(a(\xi)\cdot \nabla_x) \alpha d\xi d\zeta dxdyds\\ \notag
&& +\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\bar{f}_1(s,x,\xi)\partial_{\zeta}\alpha G^2(y,\zeta)d\xi d\nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\zeta)dxdyds\\ \notag
&& -\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}{f}_2(s,y,\zeta)\partial_{\xi}\alpha G^2(x,\xi)d\zeta d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}(\xi)dxdyds\\ \notag
&& -\varepsilon \int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}G_{1,2}(x,y,\xi,\zeta)\alpha d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyds\\ \notag
&& -\int_{(0,t]}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\bar{f}^+_1(s,x,\xi)\partial_{\zeta} \alpha dm^{\varepsilon}_2(y,\zeta,s)d\xi dx\\ \notag
&& +\int_{(0,t]}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}{f}^{-}_2(s,y,\zeta)\partial_{\xi} \alpha dm^{\varepsilon}_1(x,\xi,s)d\zeta dy\\ \notag
&& +\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\bar{f}_1(s,x,\xi)g_k(y,\zeta)\alpha d\nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\zeta)dydxd\xi d\beta_k(s)\\ \notag
&& -\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}{f}_2(s,y,\zeta)g_k(x,\xi)\alpha d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}(\xi)dydxd\zeta d\beta_k(s)\\
\label{P-10-1}
&=:& \langle\langle \bar{f}_{1,0}{f}_{2,0}, \alpha \rangle\rangle+\sum^8_{i=1}\bar{I}_i(t), \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Noting that $C^{1}_c(\mathbb{T}^N_x\times \mathbb{R}_\xi)\otimes C^{1}_c( \mathbb{T}^N_y\times \mathbb{R}_\zeta)$ is dense in $C^{1}_c(\mathbb{T}^N_x\times \mathbb{R}_\xi\times \mathbb{T}^N_y\times \mathbb{R}_\zeta)$ and the assumption that $\alpha$ is compactly supported can be relaxed thanks to (\[equ-37\]), (\[qq-27\]) and (\[qq-28\]). By truncation, we can take $\alpha\in C^{\infty}_b(\mathbb{T}^N_x\times \mathbb{R}_\xi\times \mathbb{T}^N_y\times \mathbb{R}_\zeta)$ compactly supported in a neighbourhood of the diagonal $$\Big\{(x,\xi,x,\xi); x\in \mathbb{T}^N, \xi\in \mathbb{R}\Big\},$$ with the form $\alpha=\rho(x-y)\psi(\xi-\zeta)$, which implies the following remarkable identities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P-11}
(\nabla_x+\nabla_y)\alpha=0, \quad (\partial_{\xi}+\partial_{\zeta})\alpha=0.\end{aligned}$$
From now on, we devote to making estimates of $I_i, \bar{I}_i,$ for $i=1,\cdot\cdot\cdot, 8$. Clearly, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
I_1(t)+\bar{I}_1(t)&=&\varepsilon\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(f_1\bar{f}_2+\bar{f}_1{f}_2)(a(\xi)\cdot \nabla_x) \alpha d\xi d\zeta dxdyds\\
&=:&I(t).\end{aligned}$$ [In view of (\[P-11\]), it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
I_5&=&-\int_{(0,t]}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f^-_1(s,x,\xi)\partial_{\xi} \alpha dm^{\varepsilon}_2(y,\zeta,s)d\xi dx\\
&=&-\int_{(0,t]}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \alpha dm^{\varepsilon}_2(y,\zeta,s)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon,-}_{x,s}(\xi)\leq 0, \quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
I_6&=&\int_{(0,t]}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\bar{f}^+_2(s,y,\zeta)\partial_{\zeta} \alpha dm^{\varepsilon}_1(x,\xi,s)d\zeta dy\\
&=&-\int_{(0,t]}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2} \alpha dm^{\varepsilon}_1(x,\xi,s)d\nu^{2,\varepsilon,+}_{y,s}(\zeta)\leq 0, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ By the same method as above, we deduce that $\bar{I}_5+ \bar{I}_6\leq 0$, a.s.. ]{}
Moreover, it is readily to deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
I_2+I_3+I_4&=&\bar{I}_2+\bar{I}_3+\bar{I}_4\\
&=&\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\alpha (G^2(x,\xi)+G^2(y,\zeta)-2G_{1,2}(x,y,\xi,\zeta))d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyds\\
&=& \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\alpha \sum_{k\geq 1}|g_k(x,\xi)-g_k(y,\zeta)|^2d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyds,\end{aligned}$$ hence, $$\sum^{4}_{i=2}(I_i+\bar{I}_i)=\varepsilon\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\alpha \sum_{k\geq 1}|g_k(x,\xi)-g_k(y,\zeta)|^2d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyds=:J(t).$$ Define $\chi_1(\xi,\zeta)=\int^{\xi}_{-\infty}\psi(\xi'-\zeta)d\xi'$, then [ $$\begin{aligned}
I_7(t)&=&-\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f_1(s,x,\xi)g_k(y,\zeta)\rho(x-y)\partial_{\xi}\chi_1(\xi,\zeta) d\nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\zeta)dydxd\xi d\beta_k(s)\\
&=&-\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}g_k(y,\zeta)\rho(x-y)\chi_1(\xi,\zeta)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyd\beta_k(s).\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Define $\chi_2(\xi,\zeta)=\int^{+\infty}_{\zeta}\psi(\xi-\zeta')d\zeta'$, then [ $$\begin{aligned}
I_8(t)&=&-\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\bar{f}_2(s,y,\zeta)g_k(x,\xi)\rho(x-y)\partial_{\zeta}\chi_2(\xi,\zeta)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}(\xi)dydxd\zeta d\beta_k(s)\\
&=&\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}g_k(x,\xi)\rho(x-y)\chi_2(\xi,\zeta)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyd\beta_k(s).\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Since $\chi_1(\xi,\zeta)=\chi_2(\xi,\zeta)=\int^{\xi-\zeta}_{-\infty}\psi(y)dy$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
I_7(t)+I_8(t)
=\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(g_k(x,\xi)-g_k(y,\zeta))\rho(x-y)\chi_1(\xi,\zeta)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyd\beta_k(s).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{I}_7(t)+\bar{I}_8(t)
=\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(g_k(x,\xi)-g_k(y,\zeta))\rho(x-y)\chi_1(\xi,\zeta)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyd\beta_k(s).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, it yields $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^8_{i=7}(I_i+\bar{I}_i)&=&2\sqrt{\varepsilon}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(g_k(x,\xi)-g_k(y,\zeta))\rho(x-y)\chi_1(\xi,\zeta)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyd\beta_k(s)\\
&=:&K(t).\end{aligned}$$ Combining all the previous estimates, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\rho (x-y)\psi(\xi-\zeta)(f^+_1(x,t,\xi)\bar{f}^+_2(y,t,\zeta)+\bar{f}^+_1(x,t,\xi)f^+_2(y,t,\zeta))d\xi d\zeta dxdy\\
\notag
&\leq & \int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\rho (x-y)\psi(\xi-\zeta)(f_{1,0}(x,\xi)\bar{f}_{2,0}(y,\zeta)+\bar{f}_{1,0}(x,\xi)f_{2,0}(y,\zeta))d\xi d\zeta dxdy\\
\label{eq-14}
&&\ +I(t)+J(t)+K(t), \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Taking $t_n\uparrow t$, we have (\[eq-14\]) holds for $f^+_i(t_n)$ and let $n\rightarrow \infty$, we get (\[eq-14\]) holds for $f^-_i(t)$. We complete the proof.
Now, we are ready to proceed with the proof of (\[eq-8\]), which implies the main result Theorem \[thm-1\].
\[prp-2\] For any $\iota>0$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\varepsilon\rightarrow 0}\varepsilon \log \mathbb{P}\left(\|u^{\varepsilon}-v^{\varepsilon}\|_{L^1([0,1];L^1(\mathbb{T}^N))}>\iota\right)=-\infty.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\rho_{\gamma}, \psi_{\delta}$ be approximations to the identity on $\mathbb{T}^N$ and $\mathbb{R}$, respectively. That is, let $\rho\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^N)$, $\psi\in C^{\infty}_c(\mathbb{R})$ be symmetric non-negative functions such as $\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\rho =1$, $\int_{\mathbb{R}}\psi =1$ and supp$\psi \subset (-1,1)$. We define $$\rho_{\gamma}(x)=\frac{1}{\gamma^N}\rho\Big(\frac{x}{\gamma}\Big), \quad \psi_{\delta}(\xi)=\frac{1}{\delta}\psi\Big(\frac{\xi}{\delta}\Big).$$ Letting $\rho:=\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)$ and $\psi:=\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)$ in Proposition \[prp-1\], we get from (\[eq-14-1\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\rho_{\gamma} (x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)(f^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,t,\zeta)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)f^{\pm}_2(y,t,\zeta))d\xi d\zeta dxdy\\
&\leq & \int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\rho_{\gamma} (x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)(f_{1,0}(x,\xi)\bar{f}_{2,0}(y,\zeta)+\bar{f}_{1,0}(x,\xi)f_{2,0}(y,\zeta))d\xi d\zeta dxdy\\
&&\ +\tilde{I}(t)+\tilde{J}(t)+\tilde{K}(t),\quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{I}, \tilde{J}, \tilde{K}$ are the corresponding $I,J,K$ in the statement of Proposition \[prp-1\] with $\rho$, $\psi$ replaced by $\rho_{\gamma}$, $\psi_{\delta}$, respectively. For simplicity, we still denote by $\chi_1(\xi,\zeta)$ with $\psi$ replaced by $\psi_{\delta}$.
For any $t\in [0,1]$, define the error term $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\mathcal{E}_t(\gamma,\delta)\\ \notag
&:=&\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(f^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,t,\zeta)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(y,t,\zeta))\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)dxdyd\xi d\zeta\\
\label{qq-3}
&&-\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(x,t,\xi)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)f^{\pm}_2(x,t,\xi))d\xi dx.\end{aligned}$$ By utilizing $\int_{\mathbb{R}}\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)d\zeta=1$, $\int^{\xi}_{\xi-\delta}\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)d\zeta=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)dxdy\leq1$, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\Big|\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)f^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,t,\xi)d\xi dxdy\\ \notag
&&-\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,t,\zeta)\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)dxdyd\xi d\zeta\Big|\\ \notag
&=&\Big|\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\int_{\mathbb{R}}I_{u^{\varepsilon, \pm}(x,t)>\xi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)(I_{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)\leq\xi}-I_{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)\leq \zeta})d\zeta d\xi dxdy\Big|\\ \notag
&\leq&\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)I_{u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,t)>\xi}\int^{\xi}_{\xi-\delta}\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)I_{\zeta<v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)\leq\xi} d\zeta d\xi dxdy\\ \notag
&&\ +\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)I_{u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,t)>\xi}\int^{\xi+\delta}_{\xi}\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)I_{\xi<v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)\leq\zeta} d\zeta d\xi dxdy\\ \notag
&\leq& {\color{rr}\frac{1}{2}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)I_{{u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,t)>v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)}}\int^{min\{u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,t),v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)+\delta\}}_{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)}d\xi dxdy}\\ \notag
&&\ {\color{rr}+\frac{1}{2}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)I_{{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)-\delta<u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,t)}}\int^{min\{u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,t),v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)\}}_{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)-\delta}d\xi dxdy}\\ \notag
&=& {\color{rr}\frac{\delta}{2}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y) I_{{ u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,t)>v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)+\delta }}dxdy}\\ \notag
&&{\color{rr}+\frac{1}{2}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)I_{{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)< u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,t)\leq v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)+\delta }}(u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,t)-v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t) dxdy}\\ \notag
&&{\color{rr}+\frac{\delta}{2}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)I_{{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)<u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,t)}}dxdy}\\ \notag
&&{\color{rr}+\frac{1}{2}\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)I_{{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)-\delta<u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,t)\leq v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)}}(u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,t)-v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,t)+\delta) dxdy}\\
\label{e-23}
&\leq & 2\delta, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\Big|\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(y,t,\xi)d\xi dxdy\\
\label{e-22}
&&-\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(y,t,\zeta)\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)dxdyd\xi d\zeta\Big|
\leq 2\delta, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\Big|\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)f^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,t,\xi)d\xi dxdy-\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}f^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(x,t,\xi)d\xi dx\Big|\\ \notag
&=&\Big|\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{|z|<\gamma}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho_{\gamma}(z)f^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(x-z,t,\xi)d\xi dxdz-\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{|z|<\gamma}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho_{\gamma}(z)f^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(x,t,\xi)d\xi dxdz\Big|\\ \notag
&\leq&\sup_{|z|<\gamma}\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}f^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)|\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(x-z,t,\xi)-\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(x,t,\xi)|d\xi dx\\ \notag
&\leq& \sup_{|z|<\gamma}\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}|-f^{\pm}_2(x-z,t,\xi)+I_{0>\xi}-I_{0>\xi}+f^{\pm}_2(x,t,\xi)|d\xi dx\\
\label{e-43}
&=& \sup_{|z|<\gamma}\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}|\Lambda_{f^{\pm}_2}(x-z,t,\xi)-\Lambda_{f^{\pm}_2}(x,t,\xi)|d\xi dx, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ In view of the integrability of $\Lambda_{f^{\pm}_2}$, it yields that for a countable sequence $\gamma_n\downarrow 0$, (\[e-43\]) holds a.s. for all $n$, hence, passing to the limit $n\rightarrow \infty$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qq-1}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\Big|\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)f^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,t,\xi)d\xi dxdy-\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}f^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(x,t,\xi)d\xi dx\Big|= 0, \ a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qq-2}
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\Big|\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)f^{\pm}_2(y,t,\xi)d\xi dxdy-\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)f^{\pm}_2(x,t,\xi)d\xi dx\Big|=0, \ a.s..\end{aligned}$$ By a similar argument, passing to the limit $\delta\rightarrow 0$, it follows from (\[e-23\])-(\[qq-2\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\mathcal{E}_t(\gamma_n,\delta_n)=0, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Without confusion, from now on, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qq-4}
\lim_{\gamma, \delta\rightarrow 0}\mathcal{E}_t(\gamma,\delta)=0, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ In particular, when $t=0$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qq-5}
\lim_{\gamma, \delta\rightarrow 0}\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)=0.\end{aligned}$$ In the following, we aim to make estimates of $\tilde{I}(t)$, $\tilde{J}(t)$ and $\tilde{K}(t)$. We start with the estimation of $\tilde{I}(t)$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{I}(t)&=& \varepsilon\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f_1\bar{f}_2(a(\xi)\cdot \nabla_x) \alpha d\xi d\zeta dxdyds\\
&& +\varepsilon\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\bar{f}_1{f}_2(a(\xi)\cdot \nabla_x) \alpha d\xi d\zeta dxdyds\\
&=:& \tilde{I}_1(t)+\tilde{I}_2(t).\end{aligned}$$ By Hypothesis H, we know that $a(\cdot)$ is polynomial growth with degree $q_0$, then $|a(\xi)|\leq \mathcal{N}(q_0)(1+|\xi|^{q_0})$ with $\mathcal{N}(q_0)<\infty$. As a result, it yields $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde{I}_1(t)|\leq\varepsilon \mathcal{N}(q_0)\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f_1\bar{f}_2(1+|\xi|^{q_0})\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)|\nabla_x \rho_{\gamma}(x-y)| d\xi d\zeta dxdyds, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Define $$\Gamma(\xi,\zeta)=\int^{\infty}_{\zeta}\int^{\xi}_{-\infty}(1+|\xi'|^{q_0})\psi_{\delta}(\xi'-\zeta')d\xi'd\zeta',$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde{I}_1(t)|\leq \varepsilon \mathcal{N}(q_0)\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}|\nabla_x \rho_{\gamma}(x-y)| \int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\Gamma(\xi,\zeta)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta) dxdyds, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, it yields $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(\xi,\zeta)&\leq&\int^{\infty}_{\zeta}\int_{|\xi''|<\delta, \xi''<\xi-\zeta'}(1+|\xi''|^{q_0}+|\zeta'|^{q_0})\psi_{\delta}(\xi'')d\xi''d\zeta'\\
&\leq& \int^{\xi+\delta}_{\zeta}(1+|\delta|^{q_0}+|\zeta'|^{q_0})\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}}\psi_{\delta}(\xi'')d\xi''\Big)d\zeta'\\
&\leq& \int^{\xi+\delta}_{\zeta}(1+|\delta|^{q_0}+|\zeta'|^{q_0})d\zeta'\\
&\leq& C(q_0)(1+|\xi|^{q_0+1}+|\zeta|^{q_0+1}+|\delta|^{q_0+1}).\end{aligned}$$ Then, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
&&|\tilde{I}_1(t)|\\
&\leq& \varepsilon \mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}|\nabla_x \rho_{\gamma}(x-y)| \int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(1+|\xi|^{q_0+1}+|\zeta|^{q_0+1}+|\delta|^{q_0+1})d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)d\xi d\zeta dxdyds\\
&\leq& \varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)(1+|\delta|^{q_0+1})\\
&& +\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\Big(\underset{0\leq s\leq t}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|u^{\varepsilon}(s)\|^{q_0+1}_{L^{q_0+1}(\mathbb{T}^N)}+\underset{0\leq s\leq t}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|v^{\varepsilon}(s)\|^{q_0+1}_{L^{q_0+1}(\mathbb{T}^N)}\Big), \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ For $\tilde{I}_2(t)$, we have the same estimation as $\tilde{I}_1(t)$. Hence, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
|\tilde{I}(t)|&\leq& 2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)(1+|\delta|^{q_0+1})\\
\label{qq-29}
&&+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\Big(\underset{0\leq s\leq t}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|u^{\varepsilon}(s)\|^{q_0+1}_{L^{q_0+1}(\mathbb{T}^N)}+\underset{0\leq s\leq t}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|v^{\varepsilon}(s)\|^{q_0+1}_{L^{q_0+1}(\mathbb{T}^N)}\Big),\quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ By (\[equ-29\]) in Hypothesis H, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{J}(t)&=&\varepsilon\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\alpha \sum_{k\geq 1}|g_k(x,\xi)-g_k(y,\zeta)|^2d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyds\\
&\leq& \varepsilon D_1\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)|x-y|^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyds\\
&& +\varepsilon D_1\int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)|\xi-\zeta|^2d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyds\\
&=:& \tilde{J}_{1}(t)+\tilde{J}_{2}(t).\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\psi_{\delta}(\xi,\zeta)d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta)&\leq& \delta^{-1}, \quad a.s.,
\\
\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)|x-y|^2dxdy&\leq&\gamma^2,
$$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e-12}
\tilde{J}_{1}(t)\leq \varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Referring to (35) in [@D-V-1], it yields $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\tilde{J}_{2}&\leq& \varepsilon \delta D_1 \int^t_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{|\xi-\zeta|\leq \delta}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)|\xi-\zeta|d\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,s}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,s}(\xi,\zeta) dxdyds\\
\label{e-11}
&\leq& \varepsilon \delta D_1C_{\psi}, \quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{\psi}:=\sup_{\xi\in \mathbb{R}}\|\psi(\xi)\|$. In view of (\[e-12\]) and (\[e-11\]), we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{J}(t)\leq \varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Combining all the above estimates, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\rho_{\gamma} (x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)(f^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,t,\zeta)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,t,\xi)f^{\pm}_2(y,t,\zeta))d\xi d\zeta dxdy\\
\notag
&\leq & \int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\rho_{\gamma} (x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)(f_{1,0}(x,\xi)\bar{f}_{2,0}(y,\zeta)+\bar{f}_{1,0}(x,\xi)f_{2,0}(y,\zeta))d\xi d\zeta dxdy\\
\notag
&& +2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)(1+|\delta|^{q_0+1})+ \varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta\\
\label{e-20}
&& +2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\Big(\underset{0\leq s\leq t}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|u^{\varepsilon}(s)\|^{q_0+1}_{L^{q_0+1}(\mathbb{T}^N)}+\underset{0\leq s\leq t}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|v^{\varepsilon}(s)\|^{q_0+1}_{L^{q_0+1}(\mathbb{T}^N)}\Big)+\tilde{K}(t), \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ For any $s\in (0,1)$, denote by $$R(s):=\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\rho_{\gamma} (x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)(f^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\zeta)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi)f^{\pm}_2(y,s,\zeta))d\xi d\zeta dxdy.$$ Then, we deduce from (\[e-20\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\underset{0\leq s\leq t}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ R(s)&\leq& \int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f_{1,0}\bar{f}_{2,0}+\bar{f}_{1,0}f_{2,0})d\xi dx+\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)\\
&&+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)(1+|\delta|^{q_0+1})+ \varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta\\
&& +2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\Big(\underset{0\leq s\leq t}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|u^{\varepsilon}(s)\|^{q_0+1}_{L^{q_0+1}(\mathbb{T}^N)}+\underset{0\leq s\leq t}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|v^{\varepsilon}(s)\|^{q_0+1}_{L^{q_0+1}(\mathbb{T}^N)}\Big)\\
&& +\sup_{0\leq s\leq t}|\tilde{K}|(s), \quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ where $\lim_{\gamma,\delta\rightarrow 0}\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)=0$.
Further, by Hölder inequality, it gives that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq t}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ R(s)\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}
&\lesssim & \int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f_{1,0}\bar{f}_{2,0}+\bar{f}_{1,0}f_{2,0})d\xi dx+\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)\\
\notag
&& +2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)(1+|\delta|^{q_0+1})+ \varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta\\
\label{e-1}
&& +2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\mathcal{R} +\left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\sup_{s\in [0,t]}|\tilde{K}(s)|\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}:=\sup_{0<\varepsilon\leq 1}\left\{\Big(\mathbb{E}\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|u^{\varepsilon}(s)\|^{p(q_0+1)}_{L^{p(q_0+1)}(\mathbb{T}^N)}\Big)^{\frac{1}{p}}+\Big(\mathbb{E}\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|v^{\varepsilon}(s)\|^{p(q_0+1)}_{L^{p(q_0+1)}(\mathbb{T}^N)}\Big)^{\frac{1}{p}}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Based on (\[qq-27\]) and (\[qq-28\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qq-29-1}
\mathcal{R}<+\infty.\end{aligned}$$ To estimate the stochastic integral term, we will use the following remarkable result from [@B-Y; @Davis] that there exists a universal constant $C_0$ such that, for any $p\geq 2$ and for any continuous martingale $M_t$ with $M_0=0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq-10-1}
\mathbb{E}(|M^*_t|^p)\leq C^{\frac{p}{2}}_0 p^{\frac{p}{2}}\mathbb{E}\langle M\rangle^{\frac{p}{2}}_t,\end{aligned}$$ where $M^*_t=\sup_{s\in [0,t]}|M_s|$.
Utilizing (\[eq-10-1\]), we derive that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e-7}
&&\mathbb{E}\Big|\sup_{s\in [0,t]}|\tilde{K}|(s)\Big|^p\\ \notag
&=& \varepsilon^{\frac{p}{2}}\mathbb{E}\Big|\sup_{s\in [0,t]}\sum_{k\geq 1}\int^s_0\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\chi_1(\xi,\zeta) \rho_{\gamma}(x-y)(g_k(x,\xi)-g_{k}(y,\zeta)) d \nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,r}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,r}(\xi,\zeta)dxdyd\beta_k(r)\Big|^p\\
\notag
&\leq& \varepsilon^{\frac{p}{2}}p^{\frac{p}{2}}C^{\frac{p}{2}}_0\mathbb{E}\Big[\int^t_0\sum_{k\geq 1}\Big|\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}|g_k(x,\xi)-g_k(y,\zeta)|\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\chi_1(\xi,\zeta) d \nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,r}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,r}(\xi,\zeta)dxdy\Big|^2dr\Big]^{\frac{p}{2}}.
$$ Recall (\[e-6\]) in Hypothesis H, it gives that $$|g_k(x,\xi)-g_k(y,\zeta)|\leq C^1_k(|x-y|+|\xi-\zeta|),\quad \sum_{k\geq 1}|C^1_k|^2\leq \frac{D_1}{2}:=D_2,$$ hence, by (\[e-7\]), we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathbb{E}\Big|\sup_{s\in [0,t]}|\tilde{K}|(s)\Big|^p\\
&\leq& \varepsilon^{\frac{p}{2}}p^{\frac{p}{2}}C^{\frac{p}{2}}_0D^{\frac{p}{2}}_2\mathbb{E}\Big[\int^t_0\Big|\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(|x-y|+|\xi-\zeta|)\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\chi_1(\xi,\zeta) d \nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,r}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,r}(\xi,\zeta)dxdy\Big|^2dr\Big]^{\frac{p}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\chi_1(\xi,\zeta)\leq 1$, it yields $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}|x-y|\rho_{\gamma}(x-y) \chi_1(\xi,\zeta)d \nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,r}\otimes \nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,r}(\xi,\zeta)dxdy\leq \gamma, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account that $\nu^{1,\varepsilon}_{x,r}(\xi)=\delta_{u^{\varepsilon}(x,r)=\xi}$, $\nu^{2,\varepsilon}_{y,r}(\zeta)=\delta_{v^{\varepsilon}(y,r)=\zeta}$, and by Corollary \[cor-1\], it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\mathbb{E}\Big|\sup_{s\in [0,t]}|\tilde{K}|(s)\Big|^p\\ \notag
&\leq& \varepsilon^{\frac{p}{2}}p^{\frac{p}{2}}C^{\frac{p}{2}}_0D^{\frac{p}{2}}_2\mathbb{E}\Big[\int^t_0\Big|\gamma+\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}|u^{\varepsilon}-v^{\varepsilon}|\rho_{\gamma}(x-y) dxdy\Big|^2dr\Big]^{\frac{p}{2}}\\
\label{e-24}
&=&\varepsilon^{\frac{p}{2}}p^{\frac{p}{2}}C^{\frac{p}{2}}_0D^{\frac{p}{2}}_2\mathbb{E}\Big[\int^t_0\Big|\gamma+\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}|u^{\varepsilon,\pm}-v^{\varepsilon,\pm}|\rho_{\gamma}(x-y) dxdy\Big|^2dr\Big]^{\frac{p}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ With the help of the following identities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e-4}
\int_{\mathbb{R}}I_{u^{\varepsilon,\pm}>\xi}\overline{I_{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}>\xi}}d\xi=(u^{\varepsilon,\pm}-v^{\varepsilon,\pm})^+,
\quad
\int_{\mathbb{R}}\overline{I_{u^{\varepsilon,\pm}>\xi}}I_{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}>\xi}d\xi=(u^{\varepsilon,\pm}-v^{\varepsilon,\pm})^-,\end{aligned}$$ we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&& \int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}|u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,r)-v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,r)|\rho_{\gamma}(x-y) dxdy\\ \notag
&=& \int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\Big((u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,r)-v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,r))^++(u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,r)-v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,r))^{-}\Big)\rho_{\gamma}(x-y) dxdy\\
\notag
&=&\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,r,\xi)f^{\pm}_2(y,r,\xi)+f^{\pm}_1(x,r,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,r,\xi))\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)d \xi dxdy\\ \notag
&\leq& 4\delta+\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,r,\xi)f^{\pm}_2(y,r,\zeta)+f^{\pm}_1(x,r,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,r,\zeta))\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta) d \xi d\zeta dxdy\\
\label{e-25}
&=& 4\delta+R(r), \quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used (\[e-23\]) and (\[e-22\]). Combining (\[e-24\]) and (\[e-25\]), we deduce that for $0< t<1$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\mathbb{E}\Big|\sup_{s\in [0,t]}|\tilde{K}(s)|\Big|^p
&\leq& \varepsilon^{\frac{p}{2}}p^{\frac{p}{2}}C^{\frac{p}{2}}_0D^{\frac{p}{2}}_2\mathbb{E}\Big[\int^t_0\Big|\gamma+4\delta+R(r)\Big|^2dr\Big]^{\frac{p}{2}}\\
\notag
&\leq & \varepsilon^{\frac{p}{2}}p^{\frac{p}{2}}C^{\frac{p}{2}}_0D^{\frac{p}{2}}_22^{\frac{p}{2}}\mathbb{E}\Big[\int^t_0\Big|\gamma+4\delta\Big|^2dr+\int^t_0|R(r)|^2dr\Big]^{\frac{p}{2}}
\\
\label{e-2}
&\leq &
\varepsilon^{\frac{p}{2}}p^{\frac{p}{2}}C^{\frac{p}{2}}_0D^{\frac{p}{2}}_2 2^p|\gamma+4\delta|^p+\varepsilon^{\frac{p}{2}}p^{\frac{p}{2}}C^{\frac{p}{2}}_0D^{\frac{p}{2}}_22^p\mathbb{E}\Big(\int^t_0R^2(r)dr\Big)^{\frac{p}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, it follows from (\[e-1\]) and (\[e-2\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq t}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ R(s)\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\\
&\lesssim & \int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f_{1,0}\bar{f}_{2,0}+\bar{f}_{1,0}f_{2,0})d\xi dx+\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)(1+|\delta|^{q_0+1})\\
&&+ \varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\mathcal{R}+\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}p^{\frac{1}{2}}C^{\frac{1}{2}}_0D^{\frac{1}{2}}_2
|\gamma+4\delta|\\ \notag
&& +\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}p^{\frac{1}{2}}C^{\frac{1}{2}}_0D^{\frac{1}{2}}_2\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big(\int^t_0R^2(r)dr\Big)^{\frac{p}{2}}\Big)^{\frac{1}{p}}.\end{aligned}$$ For any $p\geq 2$, by Minkowski’s integral inequality, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\mathbb{E}\Big[\int^t_0R^2(r)dr\Big]^{\frac{p}{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}
&=& \Big[\Big(\mathbb{E}(\int^t_0R^2(r)dr)^{\frac{p}{2}}\Big)^{\frac{2}{p}}\Big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\leq& \Big[\int^t_0\Big(\mathbb{E}R^p(r)\Big)^{\frac{2}{p}}dr\Big]^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\leq& \Big[\int^t_0\Big(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq r}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ R(s)\Big|^p\Big)^{\frac{2}{p}}dr\Big]^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we reach $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\Big(\mathbb{E}|\underset{0\leq s\leq t}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ R(s)|^p\Big)^{\frac{2}{p}}\\ \notag
&\leq & \mathcal{D}^2 \Big[\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f_{1,0}\bar{f}_{2,0}+\bar{f}_{1,0}f_{2,0})d\xi dx+\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)(1+|\delta|^{q_0+1})\\ \notag
&&+ \varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\mathcal{R}+\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}p^{\frac{1}{2}}C^{\frac{1}{2}}_0D^{\frac{1}{2}}_2
|\gamma+4\delta|\Big]^2\\
\label{e-8}
&& +\mathcal{D}^2 \varepsilon pC_0D_2\int^t_0\left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq r}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ R(s)\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{2}{p}}dr,\end{aligned}$$ [where $\mathcal{D}$ is defined in section 2.]{} Let $G(t):=\left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq t}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ R(s)\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{2}{p}}$, applying Gronwall inequality to (\[e-8\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
G(t)&\leq& \mathcal{D}^2e^{\mathcal{D}^2\varepsilon pC_0D_2}\Big[\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f_{1,0}\bar{f}_{2,0}+\bar{f}_{1,0}f_{2,0})d\xi dx+\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)(1+|\delta|^{q_0+1})\\
\label{e-9}
&& \quad \quad + \varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\mathcal{R}+\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}p^{\frac{1}{2}}C^{\frac{1}{2}}_0D^{\frac{1}{2}}_2
|\gamma+4\delta|\Big]^2,\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ R(s)\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\\ \notag
&\lesssim& e^{\mathcal{D}^2\varepsilon pC_0D_2}\Big[\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f_{1,0}\bar{f}_{2,0}+\bar{f}_{1,0}f_{2,0})d\xi dx+\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)(1+|\delta|^{q_0+1})\\
\label{qq-10}
&& +\varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\mathcal{R}+\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}p^{\frac{1}{2}}C^{\frac{1}{2}}_0D^{\frac{1}{2}}_2
|\gamma+4\delta|\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Recall the definition of $R(s)$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{(\mathbb{R})^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\psi_{\gamma}(\xi-\zeta)(f^{\pm}_1(s,x,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(s,y,\zeta)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(s,x,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(s,y,\zeta))d\xi d\zeta dxdy\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\\ \notag
&\lesssim& e^{\mathcal{D}^2\varepsilon pC_0D_2}\Big[\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f_{1,0}\bar{f}_{2,0}+\bar{f}_{1,0}f_{2,0})d\xi dx+\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)(1+|\delta|^{q_0+1})\\
\label{qq-11}
&&+ \varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\mathcal{R}+\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}p^{\frac{1}{2}}C^{\frac{1}{2}}_0D^{\frac{1}{2}}_2
|\gamma+4\delta|\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Applying the same procedure to $f^{\pm}_2$ and $\bar{f}^{\pm}_2$ (in this case, $A=0$ and $\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f_{2,0}\bar{f}_{2,0}+\bar{f}_{2,0}f_{2,0})d\xi dx=0$), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{(\mathbb{R})^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\psi_{\gamma}(\xi-\zeta)(f^{\pm}_2(s,x,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(s,y,\zeta)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(s,x,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(s,y,\zeta))d\xi d\zeta dxdy\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\\
&\lesssim& e^{\mathcal{D}^2\varepsilon pC_0D_2}\Big[\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)+\varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta+\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}p^{\frac{1}{2}}C^{\frac{1}{2}}_0D^{\frac{1}{2}}_2
|\gamma+4\delta|\Big].\end{aligned}$$ For the sake of convenience, denote by $$Q(s):=\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{(\mathbb{R})^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\psi_{\gamma}(\xi-\zeta)(f^{\pm}_2(s,x,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(s,y,\zeta)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(s,x,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(s,y,\zeta))d\xi d\zeta dxdy,$$ then, it yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qq-12}
\left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ Q(s)\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}
\lesssim e^{\mathcal{D}^2\varepsilon pC_0D_2}\Big[\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)+\varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta+\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}p^{\frac{1}{2}}C^{\frac{1}{2}}_0D^{\frac{1}{2}}_2
|\gamma+4\delta|\Big].\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, from (\[qq-3\]), it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\left(\mathbb{E} \Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f^{\pm}_1(s,x,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(s,x,\xi)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(s,x,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(s,x,\xi))d\xi dx\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\\ \label{eee-1}
&\lesssim& \left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ |\mathcal{E}_s(\gamma,\delta)|\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}+\left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ R(s)\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}.\end{aligned}$$ [ In the following, we devote to making estimates of $ \left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ |\mathcal{E}_s(\gamma,\delta)|\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}$. For any $s\in (0,1)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_s(\gamma, \delta)&=&\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(f^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\zeta)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\zeta))\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)dxdyd\xi d\zeta
\\
&&-\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(x,s,\xi)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(x,s,\xi))d\xi dx\\
&=& \Big[\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)(f^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\xi)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\xi))d\xi dxdy\\
&& -\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(x,s,\xi)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(x,s,\xi))d\xi dx\Big]\\
&& +\Big[\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}(f^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\zeta)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\zeta))\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)dxdyd\xi d\zeta\\
&& -\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)(f^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\xi)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(x,s,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\xi))d\xi dxdy \Big]\\
&=:&H_1+H_2,\end{aligned}$$ By (\[e-23\]) and (\[e-22\]), it gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qq-15}
|H_2|\leq 4\delta, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, it is easy to deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
|H_1|&\leq& \Big|\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\int_{\mathbb{R}}I_{\bar{u}^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,s)>\xi}(I_{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,s)\leq \xi}-I_{v^{\varepsilon}(y,s)\leq \xi})d\xi dxdy\Big|\\
&& +\Big|\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\int_{\mathbb{R}}I_{\bar{u}^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,s)\leq\xi}(I_{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,s)> \xi}-I_{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,s)> \xi})d\xi dxdy\Big|\\
&\leq& 2\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)|v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,s)-v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,s)|dxdy, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Utilizing (\[e-23\]) and (\[e-22\]) again, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)|v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(x,s)-v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(y,s)|dxdy\\
&=& \int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)(f^{\pm}_2(x,s,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\xi)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(x,s,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\xi))d\xi dxdy\\
&\leq& \int_{(\mathbb{T}^N)^2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^2}\rho_{\gamma}(x-y)\psi_{\delta}(\xi-\zeta)(f^{\pm}_2(x,s,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\zeta)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(x,s,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(y,s,\zeta))d\xi d\zeta dxdy+4\delta\\
&=&Q(s)+4\delta, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qq-14}
|H_1|\leq 2Q(s)+8\delta, \quad a.s..\end{aligned}$$ Collecting (\[qq-15\]) and (\[qq-14\]), it yields $$\begin{aligned}
|\mathcal{E}_s(\gamma, \delta)|\leq 2Q(s)+12\delta, \quad a.s.,\end{aligned}$$ hence, by (\[qq-12\]), we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\Big(\mathbb{E}\big|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ |\mathcal{E}_s(\gamma,\delta)|\big|^p\Big)^{\frac{1}{p}}\\ \notag
&\lesssim& \Big(\mathbb{E}|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ Q(s)|^p\Big)^{\frac{1}{p}}+\delta\\
\label{qq-16}
&\lesssim&e^{\mathcal{D}^2\varepsilon pC_0D_2}\Big[\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)+\varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta+\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}p^{\frac{1}{2}}C^{\frac{1}{2}}_0D^{\frac{1}{2}}_2
|\gamma+4\delta|\Big]+\delta.\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Combining (\[qq-10\]) and (\[qq-16\]), we deduce from (\[eee-1\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&\left(\mathbb{E} \Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f^{\pm}_1(s,x,\xi)\bar{f}^{\pm}_2(s,x,\xi)+\bar{f}^{\pm}_1(s,x,\xi){f}^{\pm}_2(s,x,\xi))d\xi dx\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\\ \notag
&\lesssim&e^{\mathcal{D}^2\varepsilon pC_0D_2}\Big[\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f_{1,0}\bar{f}_{2,0}+\bar{f}_{1,0}f_{2,0})d\xi dx+2\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)(1+|\delta|^{q_0+1})\\
&& +2\varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+2\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\mathcal{R}+2\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}p^{\frac{1}{2}}C^{\frac{1}{2}}_0D^{\frac{1}{2}}_2
|\gamma+4\delta|\Big]+\delta.\end{aligned}$$ Note that we have $f^{\pm}_1=I_{u^{\varepsilon,\pm}>\xi}$ and $f^{\pm}_2=I_{v^{\varepsilon,\pm}>\xi}$ with initial data $f_{1,0}=I_{\eta>\xi}$ and ${f}_{2,0}=I_{\eta>\xi}$, respectively. With the help of (\[e-4\]), we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e-26}
\left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(s)-v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(s)\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^N)}\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}
\lesssim r(\varepsilon,p, \gamma, \delta),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&&r(\varepsilon,p, \gamma, \delta)\\ \notag
&:=&e^{\mathcal{D}^2\varepsilon pC_0D_2}\Big[\int_{\mathbb{T}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(f_{1,0}\bar{f}_{2,0}+\bar{f}_{1,0}f_{2,0})d\xi dx+2\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)(1+|\delta|^{q_0+1})\\
\label{e-10}
&& +2\varepsilon D_1\delta^{-1}\gamma^2+2\varepsilon D_1C_{\psi}\delta+2\varepsilon \gamma^{-1}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\mathcal{R}+2\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}p^{\frac{1}{2}}C^{\frac{1}{2}}_0D^{\frac{1}{2}}_2
|\gamma+4\delta|\Big]+\delta.\end{aligned}$$ Taking $$\delta=\gamma=\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}},$$ and letting $p=\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$, by (\[qq-5\]) and (\[qq-29-1\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
r(\varepsilon,p, \gamma, \delta)&=&e^{\mathcal{D}^2C_0D_2} \Big[2\mathcal{E}_0(\gamma,\delta)+2\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0) \varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+\varepsilon^{\frac{q_0+1}{2}})+2D_1\varepsilon^{\frac{3}{2}} +2D_1C_{\psi}\varepsilon^{\frac{3}{2}}\\
&& +2\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{N}(q_0)C(q_0)\mathcal{R}+10\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}C^{\frac{1}{2}}_0D^{\frac{1}{2}}_2\Big]+\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\rightarrow& 0, \quad {\rm{as}}\ \ \varepsilon\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we deduce from (\[e-26\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
\left(\mathbb{E}\Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(s)-v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(s)\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^N)}\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}
\rightarrow 0, \quad {\rm{as}}\ \ \varepsilon\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ By using Chebyshev inequality and (\[e-26\]), for any $\iota>0$, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\varepsilon \log \mathbb{P}\Big(\|u^{\varepsilon}-v^{\varepsilon}\|_{L^1([0,1];L^1(\mathbb{T}^N))}>\iota\Big)\\
&\leq& \varepsilon \log \Big[\mathbb{E}\Big( \|u^{\varepsilon,\pm}-v^{\varepsilon,\pm}\|^p_{L^1([0,1];L^1(\mathbb{T}^N))}\Big)/{\iota}^p\Big]\\
&\leq& -\log \iota+\log\left[\left(\mathbb{E} \Big|\underset{0\leq s\leq 1}{{\rm{ess\sup}}}\ \|u^{\varepsilon,\pm}(s)-v^{\varepsilon,\pm}(s)\|_{L^1(\mathbb{T}^N)}\Big|^p\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\right]\\
&\rightarrow& -\infty, \quad {\rm{as}}\ \ \varepsilon\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ We complete the proof.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}This work is partly supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11931004,11801032,11971227), Key Laboratory of Random Complex Structures and Data Science, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. 2008DP173182) and Beijing Institute of Technology Research Fund Program for Young Scholars.
[2]{} S. Aida, H. Kawabi: *Short time asymptotics of a certain infinite dimensional diffusion process.* Stochastic analysis and related topics, VII (Kusadasi, 1998), 77-124, Progr. Probab., 48, Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 2001. S. Aida, T. Zhang: *On the small time asymptotics of diffusion processes on path groups.* Potential Anal. 16, no. 1, 67-78 (2002).
K. Ammar, P. Wittbold, J. Carrillo: *Scalar conservation laws with general boundary condition and continuous flux function*. J. Differential Equations 228, no. 1, 111-139 (2006). M.T. Barlow, M. Yor: *Semi-martingale inequalities via the Garsia-Rodemich-Rumsey lemma, and applications to local time*. J. Funct. Anal. 49 198-229 (1982). C.M. Dafermos: *Hyperbolic Conservation Laws in Continuum Physics*.2nd edn. Berlin, Springer (2005). B. Davis: *On the $L^p$ norms of stochastic integrals and other martingales*. Duke Math. J. 43 697-704 (1976).
A. Debussche, M. Hofmanová, J. Vovelle: *Degenerate parabolic stochastic partial differential equations: Quasilinear case*. Ann. Probab. 44, no. 3, 1916-1955 (2016).
A. Debussche, J. Vovelle: *Scalar conservation laws with stochastic forcing (revised version). http://math.univ-lyon1.fr/vovelle/DebusscheVovelleRevised*. J. Funct. Anal. 259, no. 4, 1014-1042 (2010). A. Debussche, J. Vovelle: *Invariant measure of scalar first-order conservation laws with stochastic forcing*. Probab. Theory Related Fields 163, no. 3-4, 575-611 (2015).
A. Dembo, O. Zeitouni: *Large deviations techniques and applications*. Jones and Bartlett, Boston, (1993).
Z. Dong, J.-L. Wu, R. Zhang, T. Zhang: *Large derivation principles for first-order scalar conservation laws with stochastic forcing.* Ann. Appl. Probab. 30, no. 1, 324-367 (2020). Z. Dong, R. Zhang: *On the small time asymptotics of 3D stochastic primitive equations*. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 41, no. 16, 6336-6357 (2018). L. Evans: *Partial differential equations.* Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 19. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1998.
S. Fang, T. Zhang: *On the small time behavior of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes with unbounded linear drifts.* Probab. Theory Related Fields 114, no. 4, 487-504 (1999).
J. Feng, D. Nualart: *Stochastic scalar conservation laws.* J. Funct. Anal. 255, no. 2, 313-373 (2008).
M. Hino, J. Ramírez: *Small-time Gaussian behavior of symmetric diffusion semigroups.* Ann. Probab. 31, no. 3, 1254-1295 (2003).
J.U. Kim: *On a stochastic scalar conservation law*. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 52 227-256 (2003).
S.N. Kružkov: *Generalized solutions of the Cauchy problem in the large for first order nonlinear equations.* Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 187 29-32 (1969).
S.N. Kružkov: *First order quasilinear equations with several independent variables.* Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 81 (123) 228-255 (1970).
P.L. Lions, B. Perthame, E. Tadmor: *A kinetic formulation of multidimensional scalar conservation laws and related equations*. J. of A.M.S., 7, 169-191 (1994).
D. Revuz, M. Yor: *Continuous martingales and Brownian motion*. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\], vol. 293, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
G. Vallet, P. Wittbold: *On a stochastic first-order hyperbolic equation in a bounded domain*. Infin. Dimens. Anal. Quantum Probab. Relat. Top. 12, no. 4, 613-651 (2009).
S.R.S. Varadhan: *Diffusion processes in a small time interval.* Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 20 659-685 (1967). T. Xu, T. Zhang: *On the small time asymptotics of the two-dimensional stochastic Navier-Stokes equations*. Ann.Inst.Henri Poincaré Probab. Stat. 45(4) 1002-1019 (2009). T. Zhang: *On the small time asymptotics of diffusion processes on Hilbert spaces.* Ann. Probab. 28, no. 2, 537-557 (2000).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The effects of stochastic absorption and ejection of molecules by growing droplets have been considered. Both analytical and numerical approaches have been used. They demonstrate the satisfactory coincidence. It is proved that in general case corresponding to the asymptotic at big numbers of molecules in the critical embryo the effects of stochastic growth are small in comparison with the effects of stochastic appearance of droplets.'
author:
- 'V.Kurasov'
date: '[email protected] '
title: Stochastic effects in the growth of droplets
---
This paper continues the set of publications [@lanl1], [@lanl2], [@lanl3], [@lanl4] about stochastic effects in nucleation. It is known that the growth of embryos occurs in nucleation kinetics stochastically. Really, in a given moment of time $t$ the probability to absorb a molecule to a given cluster of a size $\nu$ (i.e. containing $\nu$ molecules of a liquid phase) from the time $t$ up to the time $t+dt$ is $W^+ dt$ where $dt$ is an elementary interval and $W^+$ is the absorption coefficient calculated in the free molecular regime of substance exchange as $$W^+ = \frac{1}{4} v_t \rho S \alpha$$ Here $v_t$ is the thermal velocity of motion of the molecule of vapor, $\rho$ is the density of vapor, $S$ is the surface of the cluster, $\alpha$ is the condensation coefficient. This formula can be easily derived from the simple gas kinetic theory.
The evident restriction for $dt$ is $dt \ll
(W^+)^{-1}$.
There exists an analogous probability to eject a molecule into a vapor phase $W^- dt$ where $W^-$ is the ejection coefficient. Ordinary one can put $W^-$ equal to $W^+$ at the density of vapor equal to the saturated vapor over the curved surface of the embryo. Precisely speaking this is one of the postulates of nucleation theory stating that the internal state of embryo does not strongly depend on the state of vapor. So, $$W^- = W^+ |_{\rho=\rho_e(\nu)}$$ where $\rho_e$ is the density of vapor in equilibrium with the embryo of the size $\nu$.
Here the additional restriction for $dt$ is $dt
\ll (W^-)^{-1}$.
Since the most frequent ejections and absorptions take place for big embryos one can check restrictions for the “maximal” droplet in the system. Certainly, this is the supercritical droplet and here $W^- < W^+$. So, one can check only $dt \ll (W^+)^{-1}$.
So, we can see that the process of growth is principally stochastic and required the corresponding description.
From the first point of view to use the law of regular growth the following arguments are presented:
- The characteristic size of droplets is rather big. So, the characteristic dispersion which is about the square root of the total sum of both absorption and ejection events is enough small in comparison with the mean number of molecules inside the cluster.
- Ordinary the number of droplets is so giant that the averaging over the whole volume of the system leads to the compensation of deviations of particular droplets from the mean value of the size coordinate.
Both these remarks explain the negligible character of stochastic corrections in droplets growth and we have to discuss them.
About the first remark one can come to the following notes:
- It is well known that the rate of embryos growth has the avalanche character (see [@TMF]). Namely the avalanche consumption leads to the fact that the dispersion $\delta \nu$ of the number of molecules $\nu$ inside the droplet doesn’t satisfy the ordinary relation $\delta \nu \sim \nu^{1/2}$. Here, in the free molecular regime of growth we shall show that $\delta \nu $ approximately has another power behavior $\delta \nu \sim \nu^{1- \epsilon}$ with $\epsilon$ close to $0$.
So, the relative weight of fluctuations doesn’t disappear rapidly. Fortunately, $\epsilon $ is positive and the formal convergence takes place.
- It is quite possible that due to the complex dependence of $W^+,
W^-$ on $\nu$ the mean value $<\nu>$ of the droplet size $\nu$ averaged over many attempts differs from the value $\nu_{reg}$ calculated on the base of regular law of droplets growth.
So, the special consideration is necessary. Fortunately, in some sense (it will be clear later) one can show that $\nu_{reg}$ is close to $<\nu>$.
The second remark faces the following notes:
- The observed number of droplets in the system isn’t giant, this specific feature has been fully explained in investigation of effects of stochastic appearance of supercritical clusters [@lanl1].
- Even being averaged over the giant number of droplets the mean coordinate can differ from the value predicted on the base of the regular rate of growth. The reason can be the non-linear dependence of $\nu(t)$ on $t$.
Here the role of only discrete values of $\nu$ is also important, but even with account of discrete character of $\nu$ one can not come to coincidence of approach based on the regular growth and approach of stochastic growth. Here the difference is very small but still it exists.
The model
=========
The complex dependence of $W^-$ on $\nu$ occurs mainly through the dependence of $\rho_{e}$ on $\nu$. But one can not get precise final results in analytical form taking into account namely this dependence without extracting asymptotes.
For the supercritical clusters one can use instead of the mentioned density the density of the vapor saturated over the plane surface. Then $$W^- \approx W^-_0 = W^+ |_{\rho=\rho_e(\infty)}$$ where $\rho_e(\infty)$ is the density of the saturated vapor over the plane surface.
In further analysis we shall use $W^-_0$ instead of $W^-$.
In renormalized scale of time which we choose for simplicity one can write that $$W^-_0 = 3 \nu^{2/3}$$ $$W^+ = 3 (\zeta+1) \nu^{2/3}$$ Here $\zeta$ is the supersaturation of the vapor $$\zeta = \rho/\rho(\infty) -1$$
The regular law growth for the supercritical cluster in this time scale can be written as $$\frac{d\nu}{dt} = W^+ - W^-_0 = 3 \zeta
\nu^{2/3}$$ Here this law is written already for the supercritical droplets.
Stochastic model used in numerical simulation will be the following:
- At initial moment of time $t=0$ the droplet is situated at $\nu= \nu_0$
- At every step $dt$ two random numbers $r_+$ and $r_-$ are generated. If $r_+ < W_+ dt$ then $\nu$ goes to $\nu+1$, if $r_2 < W_- dt$ then $\nu$ goes to $\nu -1$.
- At $t=t_{fin}$ the process of growth stops and the attained value $\nu_{fin}$ will be the result of calculations
Several (many) attempts have been made and $<\nu>$ is calculated as $$<\nu> = \frac{\sum \nu_{fin}}{N}$$ where $N$ is the number of attempts. The value of characteristic fluctuation $\delta \nu$ will be calculated as[^1] $$\delta \nu = \sqrt{2 ( \frac{\sum \nu_{fin}^2}{N}
- <\nu>^2)}$$
One has to stress that it is impossible to put $\nu_0$ close to $0$ because we consider the supercritical droplets. Moreover when $\nu_0$ goes to $0$ one can expect divergence of $\delta
\nu$. Fortunately this divergence is rather weak. It will be discussed later.
Another reason to forbid the small values of $\nu_0$ is that in this process one can not attain $\nu=0$ in principle. What shall we do with the totally dissolved embryo? This is the necessary disadvantage of the approach used here. So, one has to take $\nu_0$ greater than $10$. The last value ensured the necessary accuracy and negligible intensity of the process of dissolution.
Example for the mean coordinate
===============================
Let the characteristic size of the cluster be $\nu_{fin} = 1000$ molecules. Let the supersaturation be $\zeta = 4$ (during the nucleation period it falls but not so essentially, so one can take the characteristic value).
We start at $\nu_{0}=20$ and try to attain $\nu_{fin} = 1000$. We calculate the time necessary to attain it according to macroscopic regular law in continuous approximation $$t_{cont} = \frac{\nu_{fin}^{1/3} -
\nu_{st}^{1/3}}{\zeta}$$ (in corresponding time units) and get $t_{cont} = 1.8214 $. Then we recalculate the time according to regular law with discrete jumps $
\zeta t_{disc} = \frac{1}{3} \sum_{i=\nu_{st}}^{i=\nu_{fin}-1}
i^{-2/3} $ and get $t_{disc} = 1.8267 $.
The value $t_{cont}$ has to be corrected up to the integer number of elementary time intervals $dt$. In this example $dt = 0.00002$. Then $\nu_{fin}$ will be slightly another.
It is more profitable to fulfil the simple simulation of regular growth. At every step $dt$ instead of $\nu$ we get $\nu+ 3 \zeta \nu^{2/3}
dt$. The final value will be marked as $\nu_{ff}$. This way allows to estimate the deviation caused by the finite value of $dt$.
The general result of simulations is that the value $\nu_{ff}$ is practically the same as $<\nu>$.
To note the difference between these values one has to see that $$\label{tty}
|<\nu> - \nu_{ff}| \gg \delta \nu / \sqrt{N}$$ So, we have to calculate $\delta \nu$.
Now we turn to the dispersion. The mean number of events can be estimated as $$<E_{tot}> = \frac{(\zeta+2)}{\zeta} \nu_{fin}$$ So, the estimate for the mean standard deviation of the size $\nu$ from the mean value $<\nu>$ in a particular attempt will be $$\delta \nu = \sqrt{2 <E_{tot}>}$$ Namely, $$\delta \nu \approx \sqrt{2000} \approx 45$$
Numerical simulations give $ \delta_{cal} \nu \approx 155 $.
The discrepancy will be a matter of discussions.
For the final values we have the following results $$\nu_{ff} = 1004$$ $$<\nu> = 998$$ To ensure that $$<\nu> \neq \nu_{ff} \neq \nu_{fin} = 1000$$ we fulfilled $10000$ attempts. Formally the necessary inequalities (\[tty\]) are satisfied. But still this discrepancy can be the result of small errors in simulation. Really, the random number generators are not so perfect. Also there has to be a special correction caused by the prescribed sequence of possible adsorption and ejection events. This weak correlation remained without our attention.
Certainly, the deviation in the mean coordinate is out of practical interest. It is much more interesting to consider the deviation in dispersion.
Analytical explanation for the mean value
=========================================
To see that $<\nu> \approx \nu_{ff}$ we start from the master equation in Fokker-Planck approximation for the partial distribution function $n$ over size $\nu$: $$\frac{\partial n}{ \partial t} =
\frac{\partial}{\partial \nu} \large[ W^+ n^e
\frac{\partial}{\partial \nu} \frac{n}{n^e}
\large]$$ where $n^e$ is the formal equilibrium distribution. The last equation is valid for small values of supersaturation.
From the equation of detailed balance it follows that $$W^-(\nu+1) n^e(\nu+1) = W^+ (\nu) n^e(\nu)$$ Since $$n^e \sim \exp(-F(\nu))$$ where $F$ is the free energy of the embryo, one can get explicit kinetic equation on $n$.
In the cappilary approximation $$F = -\ln(\zeta+1) \nu + a \nu^{2/3}$$ where $a$ is a scaled surface tension.
For the supercritical embryos $$\partial F / \partial \nu
\approx - \ln(\zeta+1)$$
Taking into account that $ W^+ = 3 (\zeta+1)
\nu^{2/3} /\tau $, $ W^- = 3 \nu^{2/3} /\tau $ and acting in a scale where $3/\tau = 1$ one can get $$\label{pp}
\frac{\partial n}{\partial t} = - \frac{\partial }{\partial \nu}(
\zeta n \nu^{2/3} - \frac{\zeta + 2}{2} \frac{\partial }{\partial
\nu} n \nu^{2/3} )$$
The next step is to note that asymptotically at $\nu \rightarrow
\infty$ $$\label{rr}
\frac{\partial }{\partial \nu} (n \zeta \nu^{2/3} - \frac{\zeta +
2}{2} \frac{\partial }{\partial \nu} \nu^{2/3} n) \approx \nu^{2/3}
\frac{\partial }{\partial \nu} (n \zeta - \frac{\zeta + 2}{2}
\frac{\partial }{\partial \nu} n)$$
Since the initial condition is $n \sim \delta(\nu - \nu_0)$ one can suppose that $$\frac{\partial}{\partial \nu} \nu^{2/3} n \approx
\nu^{2/3} \frac{\partial}{\partial \nu} n$$ Then the kinetic equation (\[pp\]) can be written as $$\frac{\partial n}{\partial t} = -\nu^{2/3}
\frac{\partial }{\partial \nu} ( \zeta n -
\frac{\zeta
+ 2}{2} \frac{\partial }{\partial \nu} n ) -
\frac{2}{3} \nu^{-1/3} ( \zeta n - \frac{\zeta +
2}{2} \frac{\partial }{\partial \nu} n )$$
The second term $$II =- \frac{2}{3} \nu^{-1/3} ( \zeta n -
\frac{\zeta
+ 2}{2} \frac{\partial }{\partial \nu} n )$$ can be comparable with the fist term $$I = -\nu^{2/3} \frac{\partial }{\partial \nu} (
\zeta n - \frac{\zeta + 2}{2} \frac{\partial
}{\partial \nu} n )$$ only when $$| \frac{\partial }{\partial \nu} ( \zeta n - \frac{\zeta + 2}{2}
\frac{\partial }{\partial \nu} n )| \simeq
\nu^{-1}
| \zeta n - \frac{\zeta + 2}{2} \frac{\partial }{\partial \nu} n |$$ which means that we are near the stationary solution corresponding to $$( \zeta n - \frac{\zeta + 2}{2} \frac{\partial
}{\partial \nu} n ) = J_s = const$$ where $J_s$ is the stationary flow. But here we consider the growth of a single droplet, the situation is opposite and the true initial condition is $$n(\nu_0) \sim \delta (\nu- \nu_0)$$ So, here the second term can be neglected and the relation (\[rr\]) can be justified.
Now we can see that having neglected $II$ in kinetic equation one can reduce it to $$\label{r}
\frac{\partial n}{\partial t} = - \frac{1}{3}
\frac{\partial }{\partial r} ( \zeta n -
\frac{\zeta + 2}{2} \frac{1}{3r^2} \frac{\partial
}{\partial r} n )$$ for $r = \nu^{1/3}$.
We see that the last equation is the ordinary diffusion equation with constant velocity of regular growth and the coefficient $D_{r}$ of diffusion along $r$-axis written as $$\label{difco}
D_{r} =\frac{1}{9r^2} \frac{\zeta + 2}{2}$$ Since $D_{r}$ is a decreasing function, one can see that the distribution function over $\nu$ (as a function of $r$) will be a well localized function in $r$-scale (and, hence, in $\nu$-scale). So, the characteristic relative width of $n$ will be small.
This conclusion will also lead to the self consistency of negligible character of the second term in kinetic equation.
Under the constant value of $D_{r}$ the characteristic width $\delta r$ will have an order $r^{1/2}$ and the characteristic value of $r$ is many times greater than the characteristic width. Here the situation leads to a more strong inequality.
To see the effects of stochastic growth one can also calculate the derivative $<\frac{d}{dt} \nu
>$. The expression is the following $$<\frac{d}{dt} \nu > = \frac{d}{dt}
\int_0^{\infty} \nu n(\nu,t) d\nu$$ Then $$<\frac{d}{dt} \nu > = - \int_0^{\infty} d\nu \nu
\frac{\partial}{\partial \nu} \nu^{2/3}( n \zeta -
\frac{\zeta + 2}{2} \frac{\partial n}{\partial \nu} )$$ or $$<\frac{d}{dt} \nu > = - \int_0^{\infty} n \zeta \nu^{2/3} d \nu +
\frac{\zeta + 2}{2} \int_0^{\infty} d\nu \nu^{2/3}\frac{\partial
n}{\partial \nu}$$ Note that we have to use namely precise equation (\[pp\]) without transformation (\[rr\]). If we use (\[rr\]) we get the additional wrong factor $5/3$.
The first integral $$I_1 = \int_0^{\infty} n \zeta \nu^{2/3} d \nu$$ corresponds to the regular growth and the second integral $$I_2 = \frac{\zeta + 2}{2} \int_0^{\infty} d\nu
\nu^{2/3}\frac{\partial n}{\partial \nu}$$ represents corrections.
One can see that integration by parts gives $$I_2 = \frac{2}{3} \frac{\zeta + 2}{2} \int_0^{\infty} n
\nu^{-1/3} d\nu$$ Since $n$ is well localized in a relatively small region $I_2$ can be presented as $$I_2 \sim \frac{2}{3} \frac{\zeta + 2}{2} <\nu^{-1/3}>$$ and it is rather small in comparison with $I_1$ which can be estimated as $$I_1 \sim \zeta <\nu^{2/3}>$$
So, the smallness of correction to the mean coordinate is proven analytically.
One has to note that the mentioned conclusion is rather typical for the processes of such kind. We can make our arguments more strong if we recall the Uhlenbeck process. One can note that for the Uhlenbeck process $$\frac{
\partial n }{\partial t}
= \gamma \frac{\partial}{\partial x } (xn) + D
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} n$$ with two parameters $\gamma$ and $D$ the Green’s function is known and has the exponent form: $$n(x,t|x',t') = \sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{2 \pi D
(1-\exp(-2\gamma (t-t')))}} \exp(-\frac{\gamma
(x-\exp(-2\gamma (t-t')x'))^2} {
2D(1-\exp(-2\gamma (t-t'))) })$$ This exponent form lies in correspondence with the absence of correction to the regular growth. Really, $$\int \frac{dx}{dt} n(x) dx = \gamma \int x n(x)
dx$$ since $dx/dt \sim \gamma x$. Then $$\int x n(x) dx = x_0 + \int(x-x_0) n(x) dx$$ with arbitrary $x_0$.
The coordinate of the regular growth $x_0$ will be $\exp(-2\gamma (t-t')x')$. Then the Green’s function is the Gaussian symmetrical on $x-x_0$. Then $<x> = x_0$. As the result the first term $x_0 = dx_0 /dt$ describes the regular evolution and the second term $\int(x-x_0) n(x) dx$ is absent. This is one of the reasons why the Green’s function is known here.
In our process the analogous property is absent. But the last example shows that at least the effects of the difference between $d<x>/dt$ and $<dx/dt>$ are moderate because in situations $dx/dt
\sim const$ and $dx/dt \sim x$ (our situation lies between these laws) they are absent.
Numerical results for dispersion as a function of the final size
================================================================
The next task is to calculate dispersion $\delta
\nu$ as a function of $\nu_{fin}$ and $\nu_0$. Here there is no need to average over such a giant number of attempts, it is quite sufficient to take $200$ attempts to get suitable result for dispersion. The results of simulation are the following:
- For $\nu_0 = 20$ one can see in the Figure 1 the following dependence of $\delta \nu$ on $\nu_{fin}$
[ Dispersions for $\nu_0 = 20$ as a function of $x \equiv \nu_{fin}$ ]{}
One can see that it can be approximately the straight line $$\delta \nu = 42+ 0.095 \nu_{fin}$$
- For $\nu_0 = 50$ one can see the analogous dependence of $\delta \nu$ on $\nu_{fin}$ drawn in Figure 2
[ Dispersions for $\nu_0 = 50$ as a function of $x \equiv \nu_{fin}$ ]{}
One can see that it is also approximately the straight line $$\delta \nu = 17 + 0.094 \nu_{fin}$$
The result of these two numerical pictures is that one can not say that the fluctuations disappear when $\nu$ goes to infinity. The result is that $$lim_{\nu \rightarrow \infty} \delta \nu = 0.095
\nu$$
The direct sequence is that one has to take fluctuation effects of growth into account.
Fortunately, the true result is a little bit more optimistic. In reality $\delta \nu / \nu$ becomes small for enough big $\nu$. More precisely the result of mentioned simulations give $$\delta \nu \sim \nu^{1-\epsilon}$$ where $$\epsilon \simeq 0.22 \pm 0.05$$
It can be seen from corresponding pictures drawn in logarithmic scales. The following Figure 3 shows the dependence of $\ln \delta \nu$ on $\nu$ for $\nu_0 = 20$
[ Logarithm of dispersions for $\nu_0 = 20$ as a function of $x \equiv \ln \nu_{fin}$ ]{}
The linear approximation $$\ln \delta \nu = 0.74 \ln \nu - 0.76$$ is also drawn.
The same dependence for $\nu_0 = 50 $ is drawn in Figure 4
[ Logarithm of dispersions for $\nu_0 = 50$ as a function of $x \equiv \ln \nu_{fin}$ ]{}
The best linear approximation $$\ln \delta \nu = 0.83 \ln \nu - 1.03$$ is also drawn.
So, the convergence $\delta \nu / \nu \rightarrow 0$ formally takes place. But for every concrete (finite) situation one has to take this correction into account.
Theoretical explanation for dependence of dispersion on the final size
======================================================================
Here we are interested in the dependence of $\delta \nu$ on $\nu_{fin}$. This dependence will be like a power one and the value of the power has to be determined.
The starting point of explanation will be equation (\[r\]). We can see that $D_r =\frac{1}{3r^2}$ has a singularity at $r=0$. Certainly, $r=0$ is out of range of consideration. At least $D_r$ is a rapidly decreasing function. It means that the main blurring takes place in initial period of time of growth (i.e. some $\delta_{initial} r$ has been formed) and later this blurring is mainly translated along $\nu$-scale.
It is rather easy to estimate the role of translation. Really, due to translation $$\delta \nu = \delta_{initial} r \ (\frac{d\nu}{dr}) =
\delta_{initial}
r \ 3 \nu^{2/3}$$ since the value of initial dispersion $\delta r$ is fixed we come to the power like dependence $$\delta \nu \sim \nu_{fin}^{2/3}$$ The power is $2/3$.
One has also to consider the standard diffusion of purely independent events with blurring in the $r$ scale. This leads to $\delta r \sim
r^{1/2}$. Then $$\delta \nu \sim r^{1/2} = \nu^{1/6}$$
The power like dependence together with scaling invariancy means that some fixed part of evolution forms the dispersion $\delta_{initial}
r $. For this value one can take $$\delta_{initial} \nu \sim r_{initial}^{1/2}
= \nu^{1/6}_{initial}$$
Since $\nu_{initial} = \alpha \nu_{fin}$, where $\alpha$ is some fixed parameter, one can come to $$\delta_{initial} \nu \sim
\nu^{1/6}_{fin}$$ and $$\delta \nu \sim \nu^{1/6}_{fin}
(\frac{d\nu}{dr}) \sim
\nu_{fin}^{2/3+1/6} = \nu_{fin}^{0.83}$$
Numerical simulations confirm this result.
Numerical results for dispersion as a function of the initial size
==================================================================
The problem of establishing the dependence of $\delta \nu$ is not yet solved because there exists the uncomfortable dependence of $\delta
\nu$ on the starting size $\nu_0$.
One can not put $\nu_0$ to zero and solve this problem because in numerical simulation one has to exclude the dissolution of embryos.
The simulations with finite $\nu_0$ shows the irregular behavior of $\delta \nu$ for small $\nu$. Seeking for the power like dependence we shall draw curves in logarithmic scales. The dependence of $\ln \delta \nu$ on $\ln \nu_0$ is drawn in Figure 5 for $\nu_{fin} = 1000$ and Figure 6 for $\nu_{fin} = 2000$
[ Logarithm of dispersions for $\nu_{fin} = 1000$ as a function of $x \equiv \ln \nu_{0}$ ]{}
[ Logarithm of dispersions for $\nu_{fin} = 2000$ as a function of $x \equiv \ln \nu_{0}$ ]{}
The straight lines drawn in these figures are the following
- In Figure 5 $$y = 6 -0.3 x$$
- In Figure 6 $$y = 6.3 - 0.27 x$$
Theoretical explanation of dependence on initial size
=====================================================
Again we are seeking for the power in the power like dependence of $\delta \nu$ on $\nu_0$. Having noticed that $D_r \sim \nu^{-2/3}$ we can rewrite this equation as $$D_r \sim (t-t')^{-2}$$ where $t'$ is the moment corresponding to $r$.
We see that $D_r$ is mainly concentrated in initial moments of time. This allows us to state that approximately $$\delta r \sim (\int D_r dt )^{1/2}$$
Having calculated the last integral and interested in behavior at the lower limit of integration we come to $$t^{-1/2} \sim \delta r$$
In terms of $\nu \sim t^3$ one can rewrite the last equation as $$\nu^{-1/6} \sim \delta r$$
The numerical results confirm in general features the small negative value of the power. But the some discrepancy between theoretical model and results of simulation still remains.
Then we have to use the ideas of the self-similarity. There is no difference between $\nu_0$ and $\nu_{fin}$. Really, the value $\nu_0$ is the final value for the region $[0,\nu_0]$ which is out of consideration. The dispersion was supposed to be like $\nu_0^{1/2}$. But since $\nu_0$ can be interpreted as a final size, we know that dispersion really will be $\nu_0^{\frac{1}{6} +\frac{2}{3}}$.
Then we have to increase the power of the previous result in $$(1/6 + 1/3) / (1/2)$$ times. This leads to $$\delta r \sim \nu^{ - [(2/3+1/6)/(1/2)]*(1/6)} = \nu^{-5/18}$$
Then the coincidence between theoretical and experimental results becomes satisfactory.
Calculations for the kernel
===========================
Since the functional dependence on $\nu_0$ and on $\nu_{fin}$ have been determined we don’t know only the numerical coefficient in the formula $$\delta \nu = const \nu_0^{-5/18} \nu_{fin}^{5/6}$$ This coefficient can be determined by the unique computer simulation or by application of analytical model to one of the concrete situations.
Here we shall show no more than an illustrative example of calculations. The weak feature is that it does not correspond to all approaches used above.
Let us choose the situation used in simulations for the mean value. The value of dispersion has to be calculated as following:
- The moments of time $$\label{t0}
t_0= 3
\nu_0^{1/3}/\zeta$$ and $$\label{tf}
t_f = 3
\nu_{fin}^{1/3}/\zeta$$ have to be determined.
- Dispersion in $r$ scale is $$\delta r = \sqrt{2 N_{total}}$$ where $N_{total}$ is the effective total number of events. It cam be approximately calculated according to the following formula $$N_{total} = 2 \int_{t_0}^{t_f} D_r dt$$to have an analogy with $\delta r = \sqrt{4 D t}$ in a case $D =
const$. Having used (\[difco\]) and keeping in mind $\delta r
\sim \sqrt{4Dt}$ we come to $$\delta r = \sqrt{ 4 \int_{t_0}^{t_f} \frac{1}{9} \frac{\zeta+2}{2}
\frac{3^2}{\zeta^2 t^2} dt} = \sqrt{ 2 (\zeta+2) \frac{1}{\zeta
^2} (\frac{1}{t_0} - \frac{1}{t_f})}$$
- Dispersion in $\nu$ scale will be $$\delta {\nu} = \delta {r} *3 \nu_{fin}^{2/3}$$ After substitution of (\[t0\]) and (\[tf\]) we come to $$\delta {\nu} = 3 \nu_{fin}^{2/3}
\sqrt{\frac{\zeta+2}{\zeta^2}(\frac{\zeta}{3\nu_0^{1/3}} -
\frac{\zeta}{3\nu_{fin}^{1/3}} )} \sqrt{2}$$
- It is quite evident that the dispersion of self blurring $$\delta_0 \nu = \sqrt{2 (\zeta+2)/\zeta
\nu_{fin}}$$ has not to be added. This is because we have not divided the whole region into two parts but integrate $D_r$ over the whole time interval.
The result for dispersion without self blurring will be $$\delta {\nu} = 155$$ The addition of dispersion of self blurring leads to $$\delta {\nu} \sim 200$$ It practically coincides with the result of simulations.
As the result the dependence of $\delta \nu$ will be $$\delta \nu = 155 (\frac{\nu_{fin}}{1000})^{5/6}
(\frac{20}{\nu_0})^{5/18}$$
Application for concrete systems
================================
[ **Decay** ]{}
Now we shall apply the already known formulas for concrete systems. It is known that two typical types of external conditions are the decay of the metastable state [@Novoj] and the so-called dynamic conditions for condensation [@PhysRevE94].
The global theories of evolution based on averaged rates of nucleation (formation of droplets) and droplets growth were given in [@Novoj] for decay and in [@PhysRevE94] for dynamic conditions.
The peculiarities of stochastic appearance of droplets were investigated in [@lanl1], [@lanl2] for decay and in [@lanl3], [@lanl4] for dynamic conditions. In these publications the rate of growth for supercritical embryos of liquid phase is supposed to be the regular one.
The results in description of stochastic effects in [@lanl1], [@lanl2], [@lanl3], [@lanl4] were achieved by application of algebraic structure of the nucleation period. This structure will be very important below.
In the situation of decay the structure was the following one:
- Until the moment when the prescribed (by recipe of the monodisperse approximation) part of the total (averaged total) number of droplets has been appeared the system simply waits. This is the first subperiod of the nucleation period.
- Then the second subperiod begins. In this period the rest droplets appear. The vapor consumption and, thus, the behavior of supersaturation is fully governed by the growth of droplets appeared in the first subperiod.
- Dispersion of the number of droplets appeared in the first subperiod equals to zero, the system is simply waiting for the appearance of the necessary amount of droplets.
- Dispersion of the rest droplets, i.e. of the number of droplets appeared in the second subperiod equals to the standard dispersion. But due to the fact that the number of the rest droplets is less than the total number of droplets the final dispersion will be less than the standard one.
The number of droplets appeared in the first subperiod will be marked by $N_{first}$. The number of droplets appeared in the second subperiod will be marked by $N_{rest}$.
All conclusions except the last one remain valid also under the stochastic model for the droplets growth. The last conclusion has to be reconsidered. Really, earlier the cut off by the vapor consumption was absolutely regular since the number of droplets in the first subperiod has to be absolutely fixed and, hence, the action of these droplets was absolutely prescribed.
Now the situation is changed. The cut off of the rest part of spectrum can be initiated in different moments of time since the droplets from the first part of spectrum (let us call them as the the leading droplets) can grow faster or slower.
One can illustrate the effect of the different velocity of growth by the following picture
- Suppose that the droplets grow slower than the averaged velocity. Then the moment of the cut off will be later and more droplets than the standard value appear in the rest part of spectrum.
- Suppose that the droplets grow faster than the averaged velocity. Then the moment of the cut off will be earlier and less droplets than the standard value appear in the rest part of spectrum.
We shall call this picture as the “unbalanced effects of growth” (UEG)
From the effective monodisperse approximation [@lanl2] we know the “initial” size and the final “size”. The number of droplets in the monodisperse peak in also known.
Certainly, the picture of UEG isn’t absolutely correct. It is clear that the balancing factor appear. This factor is similar to that which leads to the absence of dispersion in formation of the leading droplets.
Suppose that the initially determined leading droplets grow slower than ordinary. Does it mean that only these droplets have to be taken into account in vapor consumption during the nucleation period? Certainly not. We have simply to include into the group of leading droplets some new droplets appeared a few moments later than the initial boundary between the leading droplets and the rest droplets. So, the existence of a balancing force is evident here.
Now suppose that the initially determined leading droplets grow faster than ordinary. Then we have to exclude from the group of leading droplets some the last droplets appeared just before the initial boundary between the leading droplets and the rest droplets. So, the balancing force here also takes place.
It is clear that the picture with unbalanced effects of growth will estimate the stochastic effects of growth from above. We shall use this property to calculate the stochastic effects in this picture and then to see that they are small enough.
In reality the result from stochastic growth will be some times smaller.
Now we turn to the general case of asymptotic of the big number of molecules in critical embryo.
To grasp the stochastic effects from above we use the picture of unbalanced effects of growth and calculate the effects from the stochastic appearance of droplets and from stochastic growth into dispersion. We suppose that one can add dispersions caused by both stochastic causes. It is true at least when one of dispersions is much smaller than another. Namely this situation will take place.
Dispersion of appearance is $$D_{appear} \sim \sqrt{2 N_{rest}}$$ and dispersion of growth will be connected with the fact that the number of the rest droplets $N_{rest}$ will fluctuate.
If we forget that $N_{rest}$ is the argument of the square root which smoothes the result we will get the estimate from above. So, we will forget.
So, we will calculate the dispersion $ \delta_1 $ of one droplet caused by stochastic growth from the size $\nu_{st}$ up to the final size.
Fortunately the initial size is well determined in the advanced monodisperse approximation and it is not zero. In the previous initial monodisperse approximation it was zero and the consideration of stochastic effects required to give in [@lanl2] a new version where the initial position of monodisperse spectrum (the $z$ -coordinate) in renormalized scale is $0.4-0.336$. Namely the new version has to be used.
So, the value of $\nu_0$ for all droplets in the monodisperse spectrum will be $$\nu_0^{1/3} = (0.4 -0.336) \nu_{fin}^{1/3}$$
One can also determine $\nu_0$ in a following simple manner. The actual height of monodisperse spectrum is the unperturbed rate of nucleation (of appearance) $J_0$. Since $$N_{first} \approx
J_0 \delta r$$ we can get the characteristic width of the spectrum $\delta r$. This value will be initial value for $\nu_0^{1/3}$. It is clear that approximately this way leads to the same value of $\nu_0$. Then since the dependence on $\nu_0$ is like $\nu_0^{-1/6}$ we see that the results of two ways to determine $\nu_0$ will be approximately equivalent.
The zero value of $\nu_{0}$ would lead to divergence, now such a danger is over and one can see that the asymptotic at $\nu \rightarrow
\infty$ for characteristic relative deviation in $\nu$ is $$\delta \nu = \nu_{fin}^{5/6}/\nu_{fin}^{5/18}$$ and goes to zero. The total characteristic relative deviation will be
- for one droplet in the monodisperse peak $$D_{unbal} \sim \nu_{fin}^{5/6}/\nu_{fin}^{5/18}$$
- for all droplets in the monodisperse peak $$D_{unbal} \sim \nu_{fin}^{5/6}/\nu_{fin}^{5/18}
* 1/\sqrt{N_{first}}$$
It will be many times less than the relative dispersion $$D_{stoch} \sim 1/\sqrt{N_{rest}} \sim
1/\sqrt{N_{first}}$$ of the number of droplets caused by stochastic appearance.
We have to note the absence of the shift of the averaged value of the final size from the value calculated on the base of the regular law of growth. The order of this deviation is less than the characteristic attained value. If this shift was essential the action on the averaged number of droplets would be significant.
One has to note that the in last remark the regular law means the regular discrete law and the main effects will be the effects of discrete character of the droplets growth.
[**Dynamic conditions** ]{}
In dynamic conditions all previous arguments are valid. The initial size $\nu_0$ has to determined by the following way. Since in the approximation of monodisperse consumption [@lanl4] the monodisperse spectrum is formed already at $z=-3/c$ one can say that it is formed at the ideal conditions (the real supersaturation coincides with the ideal one). Then the characteristic width of spectrum will be $c^{-1}$. Then the starting value value $\nu_0^{1/3}$ will have the order $c^{-1}$ $$\nu_0^{1/3} \sim c^{-1}$$ The final value $\nu_{fin}^{1/3} $ will have the order $(3 \div 4) c^{-1}$ $$\nu_{fin}^{1/3} \sim (3 \div 4) c^{-1}$$ All other constructions are absolutely analogous.
Certainly, the numerical simulation can not give correction terms where the effects of stochastic growth can be noticed because these effects will be corrections for corrections to the main result. The corrections connected with the discrete growth by steps of absorption of one molecule will be more significant.
One has also to note that at the further periods of evolution (after the end of nucleation) the stochastic effects of growth will be more important. This consideration will be presented in a separate publication.
[99]{}
Kurasov V., The form of embryos sizes in the first order phase transitions, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, vol. 131, number 3 , p.503-528
Kurasov V., Preprint cond-mat/0410616, Explicit two cycle model in investigation of stochastic effects in diffusion regime of metastable phase decay, 61 p.
Kuni F.M., Novojilova T.Yu., Terentiev I.A., Kinetics of heterogeneous nucleation under the instantaneous creation of initial supersaturation. Russian Journal of Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, v.60, p.276, (1990)
Kurasov V.B., Phys. Rev. E, vol.49, p.3948 (1994)
Kurasov V., Preprint cond-mat/0410774, Monodisperse approximation as a tool to determine stochastic effects in decay of metastable phase, 19p.
Kuirasov V., Preprint cond-mat/0412142, Corrections to a mean number of droplets in nucleation, 27 p.
Kurasov V., Preprint cond-mat/0412141, Dispersion of nucleation under the smooth variation of external conditions, 25 p.
[^1]: The value $<\nu>$ here is calculated on the base of the separate set of attempts.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[NGC 4993 hosts a binary neutron star merger emitting gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves, GW170817/GRB 170817A. The distance to this galaxy is not well established. We select the globular cluster candidates from the Hubble Space Telescope/ACS F606W images of NGC 4993 in the archive, using the structural parameters of the detected sources. The radial number density distribution of these candidates shows a significant central concentration around the galaxy center at the galactocentric distance $r<50''''$, showing that they are mostly the members of NGC 4993. Also the luminosity function of these candidates is fit well by a Gaussian function. Therefore the selected candidates at $r<50''''$ are mostly considered to be globular clusters in NGC 4993. We derive an extinction-corrected turnover Vega magnitude in the luminosity function of the globular clusters at $20''''<r<50''''$, F606W (max)$_0= 25.36\pm0.08$ ($V_0 =25.52\pm0.11$)]{} mag. Adopting the calibration of the turnover magnitudes of the globular clusters, $M_V({\rm max})=-7.58\pm0.11$, we derive a distance to NGC 4993, $d=41.65\pm3.00$ Mpc ($(m-M)_0=33.10\pm0.16$). The systematic error of this method can be as large as $\pm0.3$ mag. This value is consistent with the previous distance estimates based on the fundamental plane relation and the gravitational wave method in the literature. The distance in this study can be used to constrain the values of the parameters including the inclination angle of the binary system in the models of gravitational wave analysis.'
author:
- 'Myung Gyoon Lee, Jisu Kang, and Myungshin Im'
title: ' A Globular Cluster Luminosity Function Distance to NGC 4993 Hosting a Binary Neutron Star Merger GW170817/GRB 170817A '
---
Introduction
============
Both gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves were detected in NGC 4993 with a time delay of 2s (GW170817/GRB 170817A) on 2017 August 17, and their origin is believed to be the merger of a binary neutron star system located at $10''$ from the galaxy center [@abb17; @gol17; @sav17; @cou17]. This is the first system that was detected directly in both gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves. Since then NGC 4993 hosting GW170817/GRB 170817A has become a target of numerous studies. The distance to NGC 4993 is a critical information to investigate the properties of the progenitor of GW170817/GRB 170817A [@sma17; @tan17; @tanv17; @abb17b].
However, the distance to NGC 4993 is not well established. Previous estimates of the distance to NGC 4993 are based on the fundamental plane relation or the gravitational wave method, ranging from 38 Mpc to 44 Mpc [@im17; @hjo17; @abb17; @abb17b]. Indirect distance indicators such as redshifts or the group membership were also used to provide a value of around 40 Mpc for the distance to NGC 4993 [@hjo17].
The fundamental plane relation provides angular diameter distances for elliptical galaxies or bulges of spiral galaxies [@dre87; @djo87]. However, it is known to suffer from metallicity and environment effects, and its zeropoint is not well established [@jor96; @hjo97; @ber03; @lab10].
On the other hand, the gravitational wave method is based on the models of binary systems with gravitational wave emission, being independent of the cosmic distance ladder [@sch86; @abb17; @abb17b]. But, the distance determination in this method depends on model parameters such as the inclination angle of the binary system.
NGC 4993 provides a unique chance to compare the gravitational wave distances and the cosmic ladder distances, and to constrain the models of binary systems with gravitational wave emission. However, there are, to date, no published luminosity distances to NGC 4993 based on the standard candles.
NGC 4993 is a member of the NGC 4993 group, which is a subgroup of ESO 508 at the distance of about 40 Mpc [@sak00; @kou17; @hjo17]. It is a lenticular galaxy with a morphological type of (R’)SAB(rs)0-[@dev91]. It is also listed as an elliptical galaxy with two shells [@mal83]. NGC 4993 shows some features of recent merger including dust lanes in the central region [@im17; @lev17]. The central velocity dispersion of NGC 4993 is as large as $\sigma_v \approx 170$ [[km s$^{-1}$]{} ]{}[@im17; @hjo17], indicating that NGC 4993 is a massive galaxy. From its early-type morphology and large central velocity dispersion, it is expected that NGC 4993 may host a significant population of globular clusters [@hud14].
In this Letter, we determine a luminosity distance to NGC 4993, using the globular cluster luminosity function (GCLF). The turnover magnitude of the GCLF is one of the well-known standard candles, and has been applied out to Coma galaxies [@har01; @ric03; @dic06; @rej12; @lee16].
Data and Data Reduction
=======================
We used ACS F606W images of NGC 4993 in the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) archive (PI: Andrea Bellini, ID: 14840). These images were obtained on April 28, 2017. There are only one band images of NGC 4993 available in the archive at the time of this study. There are two images each of which has an exposure time of 348 s, and these were combined using AstroDrizzle by the STScI team. The image scale of the combined image is 005 per pixel, and the FWHM value of the point sources is 2.0 pixels.
For better source detection, we subtracted the contribution of galaxy light of NGC 4993 from the original image. We smoothed the original image using IRAF/rmedian (with ring median filter radius = 10 pixels), and subtracted the smoothed image from the original image.
[**Figure \[fig\_finder\]**]{} shows the location of the ACS field on the digitized survey map, and a gray-scale map of the F606W image of NGC 4993. We also display a zoomed-in image of the central $25''\times 25''$ region of NGC 4993, from which the galaxy light was subtracted. The zoomed-in image shows clearly interesting ring-like features of dust lanes around the galaxy center, indicating that NGC 4993 might have had a merger recently. The counterpart of GW170817/GRB 170817A is located at $\sim10''$ (2 kpc) in the north-east from the galaxy center. The point-like sources in the central region marked by red circles are globular cluster candidates. We detected sources with detection threshold of $2\sigma$ that is estimated from the local background on the image where galaxy light was subtracted, using Source Extractor [@ber96]. We obtained aperture photometry of the detected sources with a small aperture for radius of 2.5 pixels = $0\farcs125$, F606W($R<2.5$ pixel), as a first step to select the globular cluster candidates among the detected sources. We use the Vega system for the magnitudes of the sources.
Globular Cluster Candidate Selection
------------------------------------
![Completeness test results for globular cluster-like sources (with FWHM=2.2 pixels) in the galaxy region (Left) and the background region ($r>60''$) (Right). (Top) Magnitude difference (input magnitudes minus output magnitudes) vs. input F606W magnitudes. Blue circles with errorbar denote the mean values of the data with $\pm1 \sigma$. (Bottom) Completeness vs. input F606W magnitudes. In (b), the orange line is for $10''<r<20''$ and the red one for $20''<r<50''$. []{data-label="fig_comptest"}](fig3.eps)
The image scale at the distance of 40 Mpc is 193 pc arcsec$^{-1}$ so one pixel ($0\farcs05$) in the ACS image corresponds about 10 pc. Therefore it is expected that typical globular clusters (with effective radii of 2–3 pc) at the distance of NGC 4993 would appear as point sources or slightly extended sources in the HST/ACS images. We selected the globular cluster candidates among the detected sources with Source Extractor parameter FLAGS $<4$, using three criteria based on structural parameters: two Source Extractor parameters (FLUX\_RADIUS (effective radius $R_{\rm eff}$) and FWHM), and one concentration parameter we derived. We derived the concentration parameter of the sources using the difference in the aperture magnitudes with small and large aperture (with radii of 1.5 pixels and 5 pixels, respectively): $C_{\rm apmag} = {\rm mag(1.5~ pixel) - mag (5~ pixel)}$. This parameter is known to be very effective and reliable for distinguishing point-like sources from extended sources like background galaxies and has been used for selecting globular cluster candidates in other galaxies [@lee16].
For the following analysis, we divided the HST field into two regions using the boundary as described in Section 3.1: the galaxy region at $r<50''$ and the background region at $r>60''$, as marked in [**Figure \[fig\_finder\]**]{}. [**Figure \[fig\_param\]**]{} displays the values of these parameters versus F606W($R<2.5$ pixel) magnitudes of the detected sources in the galaxy region and the background region. Note that there is a narrow horizontal sequence of bright sources in each diagram at $R_{\rm eff} \approx 1.5$ pixels, FWHM $\approx 2$ pixels, and $C_{\rm apmag}\approx 0.6$. The detected sources with much larger values of these parameters are significantly extended sources like background galaxies. It is expected that the globular clusters in NGC 4993 are located around the narrow horizontal sequence in each diagram. Therefore we used the following criteria for selecting the globular cluster candidates: $18.5<$F606W(2.5 pixel)$<27.0$ mag, $1.2<R_{\rm eff}<2.5$ pixels, $1.5<$FHWM$<3.6$ pixels, and $0.2<C_{\rm apmag}<1.2$. We set the lower limit of F606W magnitude to select sources with photometric errors smaller than 0.1 mag. This value is about one magnitude brighter than the 2$\sigma$ detection limit. For comparison we also selected extended sources with F606W(2.5 pixel)$<26.2$ mag and $C_{\rm apmag}>1.3$, which are mostly background galaxies. We inspected visually the images of these globular cluster candidates, removing artefacts, galaxy-like sources, sources close to the image edge, and faint sources close to bright stars. We estimated the aperture correction for the difference between $R=0\farcs125$ magnitudes and $R=0\farcs5$ magnitudes, using the bright point-like sources (globular cluster-like sources). We derived a relation between aperture correction (APC) and $C_{\rm apmag}$: APC$(0\farcs125 - 0\farcs5 )= 0.31 C_{\rm apmag} + 0.04$ with rms=0.005, from the photometry of bright sources in the image. We applied this correction to the magnitudes with $R=0\farcs125$ of the sources. Finally we derived the total magnitudes of the sources, using aperture correction for $0\farcs5$ to infinity radius for F606W given in @sir05, 0.088 mag.
Completeness Test
-----------------
We estimated the completeness of our selection of the globular cluster candidates, using an artificial source experiment. We generated the images of artificial sources with structural parameters similar to the slightly extended sources (FWHM = 2.2 pixel), using IRAF/ARTDATA. We assumed that the magnitude distribution of the artificial sources is uniform from 18 to 28 mag. We added 1000 artificial sources onto the original image to generate one test image. We repeated this procedure 100 times, generating 100 test images. The total number of added artificial sources in 100 test images is 100,000. We analysed these images using the same procedure as done for the original image. We derived the completeness from the number ratio of the recovered sources and the added sources.
[**Figure \[fig\_comptest\]**]{} displays the results of the completeness test for the galaxy region (for $10''<r<20''$ and $20''<r<50''$) and background region. The completeness is lower in the central region at $r<20''$, while it varies only slightly depending on the galactocentric distance in the outer region at $r>20''$. Thus we use only the outer region at $r=20''-50''$ to derive the luminosity function of the globular clusters. The average completeness for $r=20''-50''$ is almost 100% for the bright magnitudes, and decreases in the fainter magnitudes, reaching 50% at F606W$\approx 26.7$ mag. Using this information we corrected the incompleteness in the luminosity function of the globular cluster candidates. The mean difference between the input magnitudes and the output magnitudes is $\sim$0.01 mag for F606W$<27.0$ mag. We correct it for the GCLF turnover magnitude.
Results
=======
Spatial and Radial Distributions of the Globular Clusters
---------------------------------------------------------
[**Figure \[fig\_spat\]**]{} (Top) displays the spatial distribution and radial number density profile of the globular cluster candidates with F606W$<26.4$ mag in the ACS field of NGC 4993. For comparison, [**Figure \[fig\_spat\]**]{} (Bottom) displays same figures but for the extended sources with F606W(2.5 pixel)$<26.2$ mag. We used annular apertures with a bin size of $10''$ to derive the radial number density profile for $r<160''$. The spatial and radial number densities of the globular cluster candidates show a significant central concentration at $r<50''$. Their radial number density decreases as the galactocentric distance increases, and becomes almost flat at $r>60''$. This shows that the selected globular cluster candidates at $r<50''$ are mostly the members of NGC 4993. NGC 4993, with a morphological type of lenticular/elliptical galaxies, do not show any star-forming regions so that the selected candidates are dominated by genuine globular clusters rather than by young supergiant stars in NGC 4993. Most of the sources in the outer region at $r>60''$ are probably foreground stars or unresolved background galaxies. On the other hand, the spatial and radial number densities of the extended sources show almost uniform distributions, indicating that the extended sources are mainly background galaxies in the direction of NGC 4993.
We fit the radial number density profile of the globular cluster candidates for $r<160''$ with a S[é]{}rsic law including the background level [@ser63; @gra05]. The data for $r>60''$ represent mainly the background level. The parameter values we obtained are $n=0.59\pm0.21$, ${r_{\rm eff}=20\farcs84\pm2.20}$, and the background level of $\Sigma = 0.006$ sources arcsec$^{-1}$. To test the binning effect, we performed fitting for different bin sizes of $5''$, $8''$, and $15''$, obtaining $n=0.60\pm0.21$, $n=0.61\pm0.21$, and $n=0.57\pm0.19$, respectively. These values all agree within the errors, showing the binning effect is negligible. We also plotted an exponential profile with $n=1$ as a reference (the dashed line). The value of the S[é]{}rsic’ index we observe is not relevant to the main results for distance estimation. The effective radius of the globular cluster system is larger than that of the galaxy light, $r_{\rm eff,star}=15''-16''$ [@im17; @hjo17].
Luminosity Function of the Globular Clusters
--------------------------------------------
![(a, b) The luminosity functions of the globular cluster candidates in the galaxy and background regions. Black and red histograms represent the luminosity functions before and after completeness correction, respectively. (c) The GCLF for NGC 4993, corrected for background contamination. The dashed line shows a Gaussian fitting for the range of F606W$<26.4$ mag. []{data-label="fig_gclf"}](fig5.eps)
We derived the luminosity function of the globular cluster candidates in NGC 4993, counting the sources in the galaxy region at $20''<r<50''$. We excluded the central region at $r<20''$ to avoid any extinction effect due to dust lanes. We estimated the contribution of the foreground or background sources, counting the sources in the background region at $r>60''$. In [**Figure \[fig\_gclf\]**]{}(a) and (b) we plot the luminosity functions of the globular cluster candidates in the galaxy region and background region, respectively, before and after completeness correction. We display the background-subtracted luminosity function for the galaxy region in [**Figure \[fig\_gclf\]**]{}(c). The luminosity function of the selected globular cluster candidates in the galaxy region in [**Figure \[fig\_gclf\]**]{}(c) appears to be approximately Gaussian, showing a turnover (peak) at F606W$\approx 25.6$ mag. Both of the spatial distribution with central concentration and the luminosity function with a Gaussian form show that the selected globular cluster candidates at $r<50''$ are, indeed, mostly genuine globular clusters in NGC 4993.
We fit the background-subtracted luminosity function for the galaxy region, using a Gaussian function. We use the magnitude range for fitting, F606W$<26.4$ mag where completeness is higher than 60%. The derived values of the turnover magnitude and width are F606W${\rm (max)} = 25.65\pm0.04$ mag and $\sigma = 0.69\pm0.05$, respectively.
We tested the effect of bin sizes, cutoff magnitudes, and galactocentric radii using the Jackknife resampling method. The parameter values we tested are bin sizes of 0.2 and 0.4 mag, cutoff magnitudes of F606W = 26.4 and 26.8 mag, and galactocentric radii of $10''<r<50''$ and $20''<r<50''$. In summary the values of the turnover magnitude are changed by $\pm0.04$ mag, if we use different bin sizes, cutoff magnitudes, and galactocentric radii. We included it in the error calculation. Then, we derive F606W${\rm (max)}_0 = 25.36\pm0.08$ mag after correction for foreground extinction ($A_{\rm F606W}=0.305\pm0.049$)[@sch11] and the magnitude difference (F606W(input) - F606W(output) = $0.01\pm0.00$). We transform F606W turnover magnitudes of NGC 4993 globular clusters to the $V$ magnitudes in the Johnson-Cousins system using the information in @sir05 (in their Table 22). Adopting $(V-I)=1.0\pm0.05$ as a mean color of the globular clusters [@lee16], we obtain $V{\rm (max)}_0 = 25.52\pm0.11$ mag.
GCLF Distance Estimation for NGC 4993
-------------------------------------
The turnover magnitude of the GCLFs has been used as a distance indicator for nearby galaxies with various types (see @har01 [@ric03; @dic06; @rej12; @lee16] and references therein). We adopt the calibration of the turnover $V$-band magnitudes based on the sample of the selected 100 globular clusters in the Milky Way given by @dic06: $M_V {\rm (max)} = -7.58\pm0.11$ mag. This sample consists of the globular clusters with relatively low reddening (with $E(B-V)<1.0$) at the outer region of the Milky Way Galaxy ($2<r_{GC}<35$ kpc). It includes both metal-poor and metal-rich globular clusters, but it is dominated by metal-poor globular clusters. Since we do not have any information on the colors of the globular cluster candidates in NGC 4993, we apply the calibration based on the combined sample of metal-poor and metal-rich globular clusters. Applying this calibration to the measured turnover magnitude of the NGC 4993 globular clusters, we derive a distance to NGC 4993: $(m-M)_0 =33.10\pm0.11{\rm (ran)}\pm0.11{\rm (sys)} = 33.10\pm0.16$ ($d=41.65\pm3.00$ Mpc).
Uncertainties of the GCLF Method
--------------------------------
As a systematic error for our distance modulus estimate, we quote the calibration error of the turnover magnitude, $\pm0.11$ mag, given by @dic06. However, the real systematic error must be larger than this value, considering the intrinsic uncertainties of the GCLF method.
@rej12 presented an extensive review on the uncertainties of the GCLF method, summarizing that the total error of the estimated distance modulus for a galaxy can amount to $\sim$0.3 mag. The sources of errors included in @rej12 are 1) uncertainty in the primary calibrators, 2) intrinsic dispersion of the turnover magnitudes and its dependence on the globular cluster sample, 3) dependence of the turnover magnitudes on environment and dynamical evolution, 4) dependence of the turnover magnitudes on the Hubble type or galaxy luminosity, 5) corrections due to a different metallicity of the target galaxies and the calibrator globular cluster sample, and 6) the uncertainty in the age of the globular cluster sample. Precise quantitative estimation of the errors for each of these sources is not easy so @rej12 presents only an approximate value for the total error.
We discuss the sources relevant to NGC 4993 among the error sources in @rej12. NGC 4993 is located in a loose group, and the Milky Way is in the Local Group. This implies that the effects of environment and dynamical evolution on the turnover magnitudes for NGC 4993 and the Milky Way are similar, leading to a small error. NGC 4993 is as luminous as the Milky Way. Therefore the effects of galaxy luminosity on the turnover magnitudes and corrections due to a different metallicity of the target galaxies and the calibrator globular cluster sample are similar for NGC 4993 and the Milky Way , indicating the error due to these factors must be small. Considering these, the total error for the case of NGC 4993 must be smaller than the value, $\sim$0.3 mag, given in @rej12.
In addition we discuss two more uncertainties of the GCLF method applied to NGC 4993 in this study. First, we checked the effect of reddening on the calibration of the GCLF for the Milky Way sample. The Milky Way globular cluster sample we adopted is one with less extinction of the two sample cases that @dic06 prepared using the Harris 2003 version catalog [@har96]. The globular clusters with higher extinction are mainly located in the direction of the Milky Way. Thus the selected sample with less extinction (also located in the outer region) in the Milky Way would be more similar to the case for the globular clusters in other galaxies we observe, than the entire sample. We checked the effect of reddening on the turnover magnitudes using the updated catalog of the Milky Way Globular Cluster (Harris 2010 version). We derived the turnover magnitudes for the samples at $2<R<35$ kpc with varying $E(B-V)$ limits (there are no GCs with $0.8<E(B-V)<1.0$, so the real range is $E(B-V)<0.8$): $M_V=-7.59\pm0.08$ ($\sigma=0.95\pm0.10$) for $E(B-V)<0.8$ (N=103), which is very similar to the value given by @dic06, $M_V=-7.62\pm0.08$ ($\sigma=0.96\pm0.10$) for $E(B-V)<0.5$ (N=85), and $M_V=-7.68\pm0.12$ ($\sigma=1.01\pm0.14$) for $E(B-V)<0.3$ (N=66). These values agree within the errors, implying that the errors due to the reddening selection are not significant.
Second, we checked the effect of subpopulations of globular clusters. In general, massive galaxies host two subpopulations of globular clusters, metal-poor ones and metal-rich ones. In the case of the Milky Way, the metal-poor sample (\[Fe/H\]$<-1.0$) is about three times larger than the metal-rich sample (\[Fe/H\]$>-1.0$) so the entire sample is dominated by the metal-poor sample. @dic06 show that the turnover magnitude of the metal-poor sample, $M_V = -7.72\pm0.10$, is 0.34 mag and 0.05 mag brighter than the value for the metal-rich sample and the combined sample in the Milky Way. Thus the metal-poor sample calibration leads to a distance modulus that is only 0.05 mag larger than the value based on the entire sample calibration. On the other hand, the metal-rich sample calibration leads to a distance modulus that is 0.29 mag smaller than that based on the entire sample calibration. Similarity of the luminosity of NGC 4993 and the Milky Way indicates that the globular cluster system in NGC 4993 may be dominated by the metal-poor globular clusters.
In summary, the realistic systematic error for the distance estimate in this study is estimated to be $<0.3$ mag.
Discussion
==========
Comparison with Previous Fundamental Plane Distance Estimates
-------------------------------------------------------------
We compare our distance measurement with previous estimates for NGC 4993 based on the fundamental plane in the literature. @im17 determined the distances from multi-band data ($BVRIJHK$) for NGC 4993, adopting seventeen parameter sets of the fundamental plane in the literature. The zeropoint of these calibrations depends on the value of the Hubble constant: $d_A= (R_{\rm eff} h_{70}^{-1} / {\rm kpc}) \times {206265 / {\theta_{\rm eff} /{\rm arcsec}} }$ where $R_{\rm eff}$ and $\theta_{\rm eff}$ are linear and angular effective radii of galaxies, respectively. Adopting a value of $H_0=70$ [[km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$]{} ]{}, @im17 obtained a mean value of the angular diameter distance, $d_A= 37.7\pm8.7$ Mpc (corresponding to a luminosity distance of $d_L = 38.4\pm8.9$ Mpc). Independently @hjo17 used F606W($V$)-band data for NGC 4993, adopting the calibration of the fundamental plane based on the Leo I Group in @hjo97. They presented a luminosity distance, $44.0\pm7.5$ Mpc, which is $\sim$6 Mpc larger than the result given by @im17. The error in this estimate is dominated by the scatter in the fundamental plane relation (about 17%) [@jor96]. The zeropoint of the calibration in @hjo97 is based on the Cepheid distance to M96 ($d=11.3\pm0.09$ Mpc), one of the spiral galaxies in the Leo I Group. This value is similar to the recent estimate for M96 based on the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) [@lee93] given by @jan17, $d=11.08\pm0.28$ Mpc. However, all four galaxies used for deriving the fundamental plane relation of the Leo I Group are elliptical or lenticular galaxies, and the spiral galaxy M96 was used only for adopting the distance to the Leo I Group. It will be better to use the distances to the same galaxies as used for deriving the fundamental plane relation. M105 (NGC 3379), as well as NGC 3377, is the brightest member among the Leo I Group galaxies used for the study of the fundamental plane in @hjo97. Recently @lee16b presented a TRGB distance to M105 derived from deep HST images: $d=10.23\pm0.09$ Mpc ($(m-M)_0=30.05\pm0.12$). The distance to M105 is about 10% smaller than the value for M96 adopted in @hjo97. If we adopt this value as a distance to the Leo I Group to calibrate the zeropoint of the fundamental plane relation, we obtain a 10% smaller distance for NGC 4993 than the value in @hjo17.
Thus the GCLF distance for NGC 4993 in this study, $d=41.65\pm3.00$ Mpc, is consistent, within the errors, with the values based on the fundamental plane relation.
Implication for the Gravitational-wave Standard Siren Method
------------------------------------------------------------
Applying the gravitational-wave standard siren method [@sch86] to GW170817, @abb17b derived simultaneously the values of the distance, binary inclination angle, and the Hubble constant: $d=43.8^{+2.9}_{-6.9}$ Mpc, $i=167^{+13}_{-23}$ deg, and $H_0=70.0^{+12.0}_{-8.0}$ [[km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$]{} ]{}for maximum a posteriori (MAP) intervals in their models (MAP value and smallest range including 90% of the posterior), which were presented as representative values in their paper. They also derived slightly different values for a symmetric interval (e.g., median and 5% to 95% range): $d=41.1^{+4.0}_{-7.3}$ Mpc, $i=152^{+14}_{-17}$ deg, and $H_0=74.0^{+16.0}_{-8.0}$ [[km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$]{} ]{}. The GCLF distance for NGC 4993 in this study is in excellent agreement with the values based on the gravitational wave method (being closer to the value for a symmetric interval in @abb17b). This is remarkable, considering that the two methods are entirely independent in deriving a galaxy distance. This shows that the gravitational wave method has a great potential for deriving a precise estimation of the Hubble constant, once the sample of the gravitational wave detection is large enough in the future. If we use an independent measurement of the distance in the analysis of the gravitational-wave standard siren method, we can determine more tightly the values of the inclination angle and the Hubble constant.
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2017R1A2B4004632). J.K. was supported by the Global Ph.D. Fellowship Program (NRF-2016H1A2A1907015) of the National Research Foundation. M.I. was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant (NRF-2017R1A3A3001362).
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 119, 161101
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, , 551, 85 Bernardi, M., Sheth, R. K., Annis, J., et al. 2003, , 125, 1866
Bertin, E., & Arnouts, S. 1996, , 117, 393 Coulter, D. A., Foley, R. J., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2017, arXiv:1710.05452
de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, Jr., H. G., Buta, R. J., Paturel, G., & Fouqu[é]{}, P. 1991, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (RC3), Springer, New York
Di Criscienzo, M., Caputo, F., Marconi, M., & Musella, I. 2006, , 365, 1357 Djorgovski, S., & Davis, M. 1987, , 313, 59 Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell, D., Burstein, D., et al. 1987, , 313, 42 Gall, C., Hjorth, J., Rosswog, S., Tanvir, N. R., & Levan, A. J. 2017, , 849, L19 Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, , 848, L14 Graham, A. W., & Driver, S. P. 2005, PASA, 22, 118
Harris, W. E. 1996, , 112, 1487
Harris, W. E. 2001, in Star Clusters, Saas-Fee Advanced Course 28. Lecture Notes 1998, Swiss Society for Astrophysics and Astronomy, ed. by L. Labhardt and B. Binggeli (Berlin:Springer), 223–408
Hjorth, J., & Tanvir, N. R. 1997, , 482, 68 Hjorth, J., Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2017, ,848, L31 Hudson, M. J., Harris, G. L., & Harris, W. E. 2014, , 787, L5
Im, M., Yoon, Y., Lee, S.-K., et al. 2017, 849, L16 Jang, I. S., & Lee, M. G. 2017, , 836, 74 Jorgensen, I., Franx, M., & Kjaergaard, P. 1996, , 280, 167
Kourkchi, E. & Tully, R. B. 2017, , 843, 16
La Barbera, F., de Carvalho, R. R., de La Rosa, I. G., & Lopes, P. A. A. 2010, , 408, 1335
Lee, M. G., Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 1993, , 417, 553
Lee, M. G., & Jang, I. S. 2013, , 773, 13 Lee, M. G., & Jang, I. S. 2016a, , 819, 77 Lee, M. G., & Jang, I. S. 2016b, , 822, 70
Levan, A. J., Lyman, J. D., Tanvir, N. R., et al. 2017,, 848, L28
Malin, D. F., & Carter, D. 1983, , 274, 534 Rejkuba, M. 2012, , 341, 195 Richtler, T. 2003, In D. Alloin & W. Gieren (ed.) Stellar Candles for the Extragalactic Distance Scale. Lecture Notes in Physics, Berlin Springer Verlag, vol. 635, p. 281. arXiv:astro-ph/0304318
Sakai, S., Mould, J. R., Hughes, S. M. G., et al. 2000, , 529, 698 Savchenko, V., Ferrigno, C., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2017, , 848, L15 Schlafly, E. F., & Finkbeiner, D. P. 2011, , 737, 103 Schutz, B. F. 1986, , 323, 310
S[é]{}rsic, J. L. 1963, Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6, 41 Sirianni, M., Jee, M. J., Ben[í]{}tez, N., et al. 2005, , 117, 1049 Smartt, S. J., Chen, T.-W., Jerkstrand, A., et al. 2017, ,551, 75 Tanaka, M., Utsumi, Y., Mazzali, P. A., et al. 2017, arXiv:1710.05850 Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Gonz[á]{}lez-Fern[á]{}ndez, C., et al. 2017, , 848, L27
Tully, R. B., Courtois, H. M., & Sorce, J. G. 2016, , 152, 50
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Avinash Dhar$^{1}$, Gautam Mandal$^{1}$ and Nemani V Suryanarayana$^{2}$\
$^{1}$ Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road,\
Mumbai 400 005, India,\
$^{2}$ Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics, 31 Caroline Street North\
Ontario, Canada N2L 2Y5.\
\
bibliography:
- 'myrefs.bib'
title: Exact operator bosonization of finite number of fermions in one space dimension
---
Introduction
============
The recent study by Lin, Lunin and Maldacena [@LLM] of a class of half-BPS type IIB geometries in asymptotically spaces, offers an excellent laboratory to explore aspects of quantum gravity. In the boundary super Yang-Mills theory, the corresponding half-BPS states are described by $N$ free fermions in a harmonic potential [@Corley:2001zk; @Berenstein:2004kk; @Takayama:2005yq]. At large $N$, there is a semiclassical description of the states of this system in terms of droplets of fermi fluid in phase space; LLM showed that there is a similar structure in the classical geometries in the bulk. The semiclassical correspondence is already remarkable in the sense that it exhibits a noncommutative structure of two of the space coordinates [@LLM; @Mandal:2005wv]; however, finite $N$ effects, corresponding to fully quantum mechanical aspects of bulk gravity, open up more interesting questions [@Dhar:2005qh]. While it has been shown that semiclassically small fluctuations of the droplet boundaries correspond to small gravitational fluctuations around the classical geometries [@LLM; @Grant:2005qc; @Maoz:2005nk], at finite $N$ only those fluctuations of the fermi system which have low enough excitation energy compared to $N$ can be identified with gravity modes propagating in the bulk (we will elaborate on this in Section \[fuzzy.sec\]). Excitations with energy comparable to or higher than $N$ do not correspond to gravitons but to non-local objects in the bulk, namely giant gravitons or dual giant gravitons [@McGreevy:2000cw; @Grisaru:2000zn; @Hashimoto:2000zp]. Even more remarkable is the fact that the fermi partition function can be mapped onto the partition function for giant gravitons or dual giant gravitons [@Suryanarayana:2004ig] alone, without involving any low-energy gravitational degrees of freedom at all. This seems to suggest that, at least in the half-BPS sector, the bulk geometry has a nontrivial structure at a small enough length scale whose precise value depends on $N$, and that below this length scale gravitational phenomena in the bulk are described by degrees of freedom that are quite different from the degrees of freedom that characterize low-energy gravitational fluctuations. In such an interpretation, low-energy gravity modes would be “composites” of the microscopic degrees of freedom. This provides a motivation to look for an exact bosonization of the finite $N$ fermi system, which should provide the “right” variables to describe bulk gravity consistent with such a structure.
Bosonization of a system of finite number of fermions is an interesting problem in its own right, with many potential applications in quantum field theory as well as in condensed matter theory. For this reason the problem has received attention for more than half a century now. Approximate solutions have long been found in case of free nonrelativistic fermions near the fermi level [@Tomonaga] where the fermion density turns out to be the spatial derivative of the bosonic field. This bosonization becomes exact when the fermions are relativistic and are infinite in number [@Coleman; @Mandelstam]. In the case of free nonrelativistic fermions in an inverted harmonic oscillator potential in one space dimension, arising in the context of $c=1$ matrix models, approximate bosonization in terms of fermion density gives rise to the massless boson of two-dimensional noncritical string theory (usually called the “tachyon”) [@Sengupta-Wadia; @Das-Jevicki; @Gross-Klebanov; @Polchinski]. An exact bosonization of fermions in an arbitrary potential in one space dimension was found in [@DMW-nonrel; @DMW-path] in terms of the Wigner phase space density of the fermions, but the bosonic variable satisfies an infinite dimensional nonabelian algebra (W-infinity), instead of the Heisenberg algebra, and it satisfies a quadratic constraint; the approximate bosonization in terms of the position space density can be derived from it. Recently it has been noticed [@Corley:2001zk; @Berenstein:2004kk; @Itzhaki:2004te; @LLM; @Suryanarayana:2004ig] that the spectrum, and consequently the partition function, of $N$ nonrelativistic fermions in a harmonic oscillator potential (discussed in the previous paragraph) agrees with that of a system of free nonrelativistic bosons which are infinite in number but each of which moves in an equally spaced $N$-level system (similar to harmonic oscillator energy levels with an upper cutoff). Indeed the fermionic spectrum also agrees [@Suryanarayana:2004ig] with that of a second bosonic system with a finite number $N$ of particles, each moving in a harmonic oscillator potential. These two bosonic spectra represent those of giant gravitons [@McGreevy:2000cw] and dual giant gravitons [@Grisaru:2000zn; @Hashimoto:2000zp] respectively.
In the present work, we derive an [*exact operator equivalence*]{} between a system of $N$ fermions in one space dimension and two different bosonic systems satisfying the usual commutation relations (Heisenberg algebra). The two bosonic systems are reminiscent of giant gravitons and dual giant gravitons, but they appear in bosonization of fermions moving in any potential. Perhaps the most remarkable effect of having a finite number of fermions is that it gives rise to fuzziness in coordinate space in the bosonized theory. This fuzziness can be seen directly in the bosonized theory and arises because $N$ provides a high energy cut-off on the basic bosonic degrees of freedom. It can also be seen by reformulating the bosonized theory as a theory on a lattice with spacing given by $1/N$. In the LLM context, what this means is that for finite $N$ we have a direct derivation of the appearance of a short-distance cut-off in the bulk string/gravity theory, at least in the half-BPS sector. This is consistent with what we expect from stringy exclusion principle [@chp3:MalStr98]. Earlier works on the appearance of graininess on the gravity side of AdS/CFT correspondence are [@Jevicki:1998rr; @Jevicki:1998bm; @Ho:1999bn; @Jevicki:2000it].
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we first give the rules for our first bosonization which maps the system of $N$ fermions to a system of bosons each of which can occupy a state in an $N$-dimensional Hilbert space $\H_N$. The finiteness of the number of fermions reappears in the bosonized theory as finite dimensionality of the single-particle Hilbert space. Consequences of this for the bosonized theory are discussed in Section \[prop\]. In particular, we argue that the quantum phase space of the bosons is fuzzy and compact. Actually finite $N$ is responsible for graininess even in coordinate space. This is seen more directly in a lattice formulation of the bosonized theory, with lattice spacing $1/N$, which is also discussed in this section. Section \[prop\] also includes a detailed discussion of the bosonic phase space density. In the LLM context, the bosonic density as a function of the phase space has the appearance of a rugged circular “cake” with an approximately fixed diameter, confirming the interpretation of the bosons as giant gravitons. This is to be contrasted with the fermionic phase space density which looks like droplet configurations. Section \[llm\] is devoted to a detailed discussion of this and other aspects of application of our bosonization in the LLM context. In particular, we argue that at finite $N$, the LLM gravitons must be fuzzy in an essential way. Section \[second\] describes the second bosonization. The essential difference with the first bosonization is that the number $N$ now appears as an upper limit on the total number of bosons. Application of our bosonization to the $c=1$ matrix model is briefly sketched in Section \[c=1\]. Some details of computations are given in Appendices \[details\] and \[husimi.sec\]. In Appendix \[rep\] we discuss an important byproduct of our bosonization, namely the bosonization of $N$ fermions in a finite ($K$) level system and the resulting bosonic construction of representations of $U(K)$, which is different from the well-known Schwinger representation.
\[bose\]The First Bosonization
==============================
Let us first set up the notation. Consider a system of $N$ fermions each of which can occupy a state in an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space $\H_f$. Suppose there is a countable basis of $\H_f:
\{ \ket{m}, m=0,1, \cdots, \infty\}$. For example, this could be the eigenbasis of a single-particle hamiltonian, $\hat h \ket{m} =
{\cal E}(m) \ket{m}$, although other choices of basis would do equally well, as long as it is a countable basis. In the second quantized notation we introduce creation (annihilation) operators $\psi^\dagger_m$ ($\psi_m$) which create (destroy) particles in the state $\ket{m}$. These satisfy the anticommutation relations { \_m, \_n}= \_[mn]{} \[anticom\] The $N$-fermion states are given by (linear combinations of) = \_[f\_1]{}\_[f\_2]{} \_[f\_N]{} \_F \[fermi-state\] where $f_m$ are arbitrary integers satisfying $0\le f_1 < f_2 < \cdots < f_N$, and $\ket{0}_F$ is the usual Fock vacuum annihilated by $\psi_m, m=0,1, \cdots, \infty$.
One can create any of the states $\ket{f_1, \cdots, f_N}$ from the state $\ket{F_0} \equiv \ket{0,1, \cdots, N-1}$ by repeated application of operators \_[mn]{} = \_m \_n \[phi-mn\] Properties of $\Phi_{mn}$ and related operators, including the Wigner and Husimi distributions, are listed in Appendix B.
We will map the above fermionic system to a system of bosons each of which can occupy a state in an $N$-dimensional Hilbert space $\H_N$. Suppose we choose a basis $\{\ket{i},~i=1,\cdots,N\}$ of $\H_N$. In the second quantized notation we introduce creation (annihilation) operators $a^\dagger_i$ ($a_i$) which create (destroy) particles in the state $\ket{i}$. These satisfy the commutation relations = \_[ij]{}, i,j=1, , N \[oscillator\] A state of this bosonic system is given by (a linear combination of) = [(a\_1\^)\^[r\_1]{}(a\_N\^)\^[r\_N]{} ]{} \_B \[bose-state\]
The bosonization formulae
-------------------------
The bosonization formulae are written most economically using the notions of operator delta and theta-functions. These are defined for any operator $\hat O$ as follows: (O) \_0\^[2]{} (i O), \[delta\] and \_+(O) \_[m=0]{}\^(O-m), \_-(O) 1 - \_+(O). \[theta\] Furthermore, we will also need to introduce the following operators: \_k a\_k, \^\_k \_k \[sigmas\] These operators have interesting properties. In particular, the following relations are useful in obtaining the bosonization formulae given below. \_k \^\_k=1, \^\_k \_k=\_+ (\_k a\_k-1). \[sigmarelations\]
Since delta-function operators of the form $\delta (\sum_{i=1}^n
a^\dagger_{k_i} a_{k_i} - p)$ will appear quite often in the formulae given below, we give an alternative, more familiar, expression for it in terms of more elementary operators. First recall the following representation of the operator $|m\rangle \langle n|$ in a harmonic oscillator Hilbert space with raising (lowering) operators $\ad (a)$: $$|m \rangle \langle n| = \frac{1}{\sqrt{m!n!}} :a^{\dagger\, m}
e^{-a^\dagger a} a^n:$$ where $:\,:$ represents normal ordering. This implies $$\delta (a^\dagger a - n) = |n\rangle \langle n| =
\frac{1}{n!} :a^{\dagger\, n}
e^{-a^\dagger a} a^n:$$ which can be used to write $$\begin{aligned}
\delta (\sum_{i=1}^n a^\dagger_{k_i} a_{k_i}-p) &=&
\sum_{r_{k_1}+\cdots + r_{k_n} = p} \prod_{i=1}^n \delta
(a_{k_i}^\dagger a_{k_i} - r_{k_i}) \cr
&=&
\sum_{r_{k_1}+\cdots + r_{k_n} = p} \frac{1}{r_{k_1}! \cdots r_{k_n}!}
: a^{\dagger \, r_{k_1}}_{k_1} \cdots a^{\dagger \, r_{k_n}}_{k_n} \,
e^{- \sum_{i=1}^n a^\dagger_{k_i} a_{k_i}}
a^{r_{k_1}}_{k_1} \cdots a^{r_{k_n}}_{k_n}: \cr
&&\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, one can give alternative definitions of the operators $\delta(\sum_{m=m_1}^{m_2} \psi_m^\dagger \psi_m)$ which appear extensively in Eqns.(\[fermionize1\], \[fermionize2\]) below. We first note the identities $$\delta(\psi_n^\dagger \psi_n) = 1-\psi_n^\dagger \psi_n,
~~~ \delta
(\psi_n^\dagger \psi_n -1) = \psi_n^\dagger \psi_n.$$ These identities enable us to write the following alternative expressions for some fermionic delta-functions: $$\delta(\sum_{m=m_1}^{m_2} \psi_m^\dagger \psi_m)= \prod_{m=m_1}^{m_2}
\delta (\psi_m^\dagger \psi_m) = \prod_{m=m_1}^{m_2} (1-\psi_m^\dagger
\psi_m).$$
We are now ready to describe the bosonization formulae.
### Fermionic representation of bosonic oscillators
We will first define the bosonic creation and annihilation operators in terms of their action on the states of the fermion system. We have, on a general $N$-fermion state (\[fermi-state\]), \_k = && , k=1,...,N-1 \_N = && . \[boson1\] Thus, $\ad_k$ moves each of the top $k$ fermions, counting down from the topmost filled level, up by one step. Similarly, the action of $a_k$ is to move each of the top $k$ fermions down by one step: a\_k = && , k=1,...,N-1 a\_N = && . \[boson2\] The reasoning that led us to these expressions for the bosonic creation and annihilation operators has been explained in Appendix \[origin\]. Here we simply mention that these definitions of the bosonic creation and annihilation operators satisfy the oscillator algebra . The reader can find a proof of this in Appendix \[algebraproof\]. Note that the state $\ket{F_0} = \ket{0,\, 1, \,\cdots,
N-1}$ is special since it is annihilated by all the annihilation operators $a_k,~k=1, \, 2, \, \cdots, \, N$. Therefore, as expected, $\ket{F_0}$ is the oscillator vacuum state $\ket{0}_B$.
One can also give operator expressions for the oscillator creation and annihilation operators in terms of the fermion bilinears. We have, \_k && \_[m\_k> m\_[k-1]{} > > m\_0]{} (\_[m\_0]{}\_[m\_0]{})(\_[m\_1 + 1]{} \_[m\_1]{}) (\_[m\_k + 1]{} \_[m\_k]{}) && (\_[m=m\_0 +1]{}\^[m\_1 -1]{} \_m \_m ) (\_[m=m\_1 +1]{}\^[m\_2 -1]{}\_m \_m ) (\_[m=m\_[k-1]{} +1]{}\^[m\_k -1]{} \_m \_m ) && (\_[m=m\_k +1]{}\^\_m \_m ), k=1, 2, , (N-1) \[fermionize1\] and \_N && \_[m\_N> m\_[N-1]{} > > m\_1]{} (\_[m\_1 + 1]{} \_[m\_1]{}) (\_[m\_N + 1]{} \_[m\_N]{}) && (\_[m=m\_1 +1]{}\^[m\_2 -1]{}\_m \_m ) (\_[m=m\_[N-1]{} +1]{}\^[m\_N -1]{} \_m \_m ) && (\_[m=m\_N +1]{}\^\_m \_m ). \[fermionize2\] The annihilation operators are obtained from these by conjugation. These expressions look complicated, but it is easy to see that when acting on a generic fermion state , because of the operator delta-functions, only that term in the sum survives for which $m_k=f_N, \, m_{k-1}=f_{N-1},\cdots,\, m_0=f_{N-k}$ in and $m_N=f_N, \, m_{N-1}=f_{N-1},\cdots,\, m_1=f_1$ in . This reproduces . One can similarly reproduce from the action of conjugates of and on the generic fermion state .
Note that the bosonic oscillators are mapped into combinations of fermion [*bilinears*]{}, . This is because we are interested in a fixed fermion number sector of the fermion Fock space.
### Fermion bilinears $\psid_m\psi_n$ in terms of bosonic oscillators
The inverse map gives fermions in terms of the bosonic oscillators. Since the total number of fermions is conserved, this bosonization map can only relate fermion bilinears to the bosonic operators. The generic fermion bilinear is $\psid_m \, \psi_n$, where $m, \,n = 0, \,1,
\cdots , \,\infty$, but it is sufficient for us to obtain a bosonized expression for the bilinear for $m \geq n$ only. The bosonized expression for $m < n$ can be obtained from this by conjugation. Before going to the most general expression (see ) we will first describe the relatively simple expressions obtainable for (i) for small values of $(m-n)$ and arbitrary $N$, and (ii) small values of $N$ and $(m-n)$ any positive integer. We list below expressions for a few examples of both kinds.
:
This is the simplest case. Here there is only one creation (annihilation) operator, $\ad$ ($a$). We have, \_n \_n = && (a - n ) \_[n+m]{} \_n = && [\^]{}\^m (a - n ) \[bosonizeN1\]
:
In this case there are two creation (annihilation) operators, $\ad_1$ ($a_1$) and $\ad_2$ ($a_2$). The bosonized expressions are now more complicated than for $N=1$ case, but still manageable. We have, \_n \_n = && (\_1 a\_1 + \_2 a\_2 - n +1) + (\_2 a\_2 - n ) \_[n+m]{} \_n = && [\^\_1]{}\^m (\_1 a\_1 + \_2 a\_2 - n + 1 ) + \_1\^m [\^\_2]{}\^m \_+ (\_1 a\_1 - m) (\_2 a\_2 - n ) && - \_[r\_1=0]{}\^[m-2]{} [\^\_1]{}\^[m-2-r\_1]{} \_1\^[r\_1]{} [\_2\^]{}\^[r\_1+1]{} (\_1 a\_1 - r\_1 ) (\_2 a\_2 - n ) \[bosonizeN2\]
:
In this case relatively simple expressions exist only for small values of $(m-n)$. We give below expressions for $m=n, \, n+1$ and $n+2$. \_n \_n = && \_[k=1]{}\^N (\_[i=k]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-k ) \_[n+1]{} \_n = && \_1\^ (\_[i=1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-1 ) && + \_[k=1]{}\^[N-1]{} \_k \^\_[k+1]{} \_+(\_k a\_k-1) (\_[i=k+1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-k-1 ) \_[n+2]{} \_n = && [\_1\^]{}\^2 (\_[i=1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-1 ) && +\_[k=1]{}\^[N-1]{} \_k\^2 [\_[k+1]{}\^]{}\^2 \_+(\_k a\_k-2) (\_[i=k+1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-k-1 ) && -\_[k=2]{}\^[N-1]{} \_[k-1]{} \^\_[k+1]{} \_+(\_[k-1]{} a\_[k-1]{}-1) (\_k a\_k) (\_[i=k+1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-k-1 ) && -\_2\^ (\_1 a\_1) (\_[i=1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-2 ) \[bosonizetxt\] Bosonized expression for the generic bilinear for arbitrary $N$ is rather complicated and not particularly illuminating. It has therefore been relegated to the Appendix and is given in .
To check the validity of the bosonization formulae, we need to check that the () algebra , expressing the commutation relation of fermion bilinears, works out. The algebra works out for $N=1,~2$ if one uses the bosonized expressions and . The first case is somewhat trivial. However, the second case is nontrivial and the satisfaction of the algebra requires delicate cancellations, as we have shown in Appendix A. We have not yet completed a check of the algebra for general $m,~n$ in the case of arbitrary $N$ because of the complexity of the relevant formula, . However, because of the nontrivial way in which it checks out for $N=2$, we are confident that it will also check out for arbitrary $N$. Moreover, as proved in Appendix A, the algebra works out for arbitrary $N$ for small values of $(m-n)$.
### The bosonized hamiltonian
Let us now discuss the bozonization of the hamiltonian. Before discussing the most generic case , let us first ignore the fermion-fermion interactions. Let ${\cal E}(m),~m=0, 1, 2, \cdots$ be the exact single-particle spectrum of the fermions in that case (${\cal E}(m)$ are the eigenvalues of the matrix $E_{mn}$ of ). Then, the hamiltonian is given by H = \_[m=0]{}\^(m) \_m \_m \[free-ham\] Using the bosonization formula , a bosonized expression for the hamiltonian can be easily worked out: H &=& \_[m=0]{}\^(m) \_[k=1]{}\^N (\_[i=k]{}\^N \_i a\_i-m+N-k ) &=& \_[k=1]{}\^N [E]{} (N-k+\_[i=k]{}\^N \_i a\_i ). \[hamiltonian\] The first equality above follows from the first line of . Notice that, in general, the hamiltonian will not be quadratic in the bosonic creation and annihilation operators. Nevertheless, the bosonic states diagonalize the hamiltonian because it only involves the occupation number operators.
For most potentials, the exact spectrum ${\cal E}(m)$ of the single-particle hamiltonian is unlikely to be known. However, what we need for the purposes of bosonization is any countable basis, which could be provided, for example, by a part of the single-particle hamiltonian $\hat h$ that is exactly diagonalizable. Thus, suppose, $\hat h=\hat h_0+\hat h_1$ such that $\ket{m},~m=0, 1, 2,~ \cdots$ is a countable eigenbasis of $\hat h_0$ with eigenvalues ${\cal E}_0(m)$. Note that we do not require $\hat h_1$ to be small compared to $\hat h_0$. Then, we have H &=& \_[m,n=0]{}\^([E]{}\_0(m) \_[mn]{}+ <m|h\_1|n> ) \_m \_n &=& \_[k=1]{}\^N [E]{}\_0 (N-k+\_[i=k]{}\^N \_i a\_i ) +\_[m,n=0]{}\^ \_m \_n. \[hamiltonian2\] Given $\hat h_1$, the matrix elements $<m|\hat h_1|n>$ can be easily calculated. Typically these matrix elements will not be diagonal [^1]. Thus, to obtain the bosonized form of the hamiltonian, we will need to use not only the bosonized expression for the fermion bilinear in the first of , but also the expression for the general bilinear $\psid_m \, \psi_n$. It follows that in this basis the hamiltonian is not automatically diagonal. The “law of conservation of difficulty” is operative here; the problem of finding the exact fermionic single-particle spectrum has reappeared as the problem of diagonalizing this bosonic hamiltonian!
Let us now consider a few special cases in some detail to illustrate how our bosonization works in practice.
A drastic simplification occurs in this case since this potential gives rise to an equally spaced spectrum, namely ${\cal
E}(m)=c_1~m+c_2$. In this case, an exact expression for the bosonized hamiltonian can be worked out and it corresponds to a bunch of simple harmonic oscillators (see ): H\_[equal-spacing]{}=c\_1 \_[k=1]{}\^N k \_k a\_k + H\_[vac]{}, \[equal-spacing\] where $H_{\rm vac}=\frac{c_1}{2}N(N-1)+c_2 N$ is the energy of the fermi ground state.
In this case the single-particle spectrum is given by ${\cal
E}(n)=cn^2, ~c=2 \pi^2 \hbar^2/mL^2$, where $m$ is the mass of a fermion and $L$ is the circumference of the circle. The novelty here is that except for the ground state, each of the levels is doubly degenerate. We will consider this case in some detail since it illustrates the generality of our bosonization. Moreover, this example is among the rare exactly solvable cases with a nonlinear spectrum.
The normalized single-particle eigenstates (assuming periodic boundary conditions) are $\chi_{\pm n}(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt L}~e^{\pm i 2\pi n
x/L}, ~n=0,\,1,\,2,\,\cdots$ ($\chi_0(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt L}$ is non-degenerate). The mode expansion of the fermion field will involve the corresponding annihilation (creation) operators $\tilde
\psi_{\pm n}$ ($\tilde \psid_{\pm n}$). To make contact with our bosonization, we introduce the following identifications: $\psi_{2n-1}=\tilde \psi_{+n}$ and $\psi_{2n}=\tilde \psi_{-n}$ for $n=1,\,2,\,\cdots$ ($\psi_0$ corresponds to the constant mode $\chi_0(x)$). This identification maps the two fermion modes corresponding to each of the degenerate single-particle levels to two consecutive modes in an auxiliary fermion problem which our bosonization technique can handle. Using this mapping we can now transcribe all the bosonization formulae to this case. In particular, the bosonized hamiltonian can be obtained as follows: H\_[circle]{} &=& c \_[n=1]{}\^n\^2 \[\_[+n]{} \_[+n]{}+\_[-n]{} \_[-n]{} \] &=& c \_[k=1]{}\^N \_[n=1]{}\^n\^2 &=& c \_[k=1]{}\^N \_[n=1]{}\^n\^2 &=& \_[k=1]{}\^N \^2 \[circle\] The second equality above follows from our mapping of the degenerate levels to odd and even level of the auxiliary fermion problem and the third follows from the first of the bosonization formulae in . As an example, let us compute the energy of the vacuum state using the bosonized hamiltonian. On the vacuum state, the oscillator term vanishes. We get H\_[circle]{} \_B= \_[k=1]{}\^N \^2 \_B. For $N$ even, the eigenvalue becomes $2c[1^2+2^2+\cdots+(N/2-1)^2]+c(N/2)^2$, while for $N$ odd we get $2c[1^2+2^2+\cdots+{(\frac{N-1}{2}})^2]$. These are precisely the correct energy eigenvalues of the $N$-fermion ground state in the two cases. One can similarly check that the bosonized hamiltonian in correctly gives the energy eigenvalues for excited states.
For small fluctuations around the Fermi vacuum, one can define a semiclassical limit in which the standard relativistic boson emerges as low energy excitations. These excitations coincide with the ones created by the $\ad$-oscillators. Details of this calculation will be presented elsewhere.
Notice that the fermionic hamiltonian (first line of ) is manifestly invariant under $n \rightarrow -n$, for any given $n$. It is reflected as degeneracies in the spectrum. This manifest symmetry of the hamiltonian is lost in the bosonized form (last line of ), although of course the bosonic spectrum does display the appropriate degeneracies. For example, consider $N$ even. In this case the fermi ground state is doubly degenerate since the single fermion at the top can occupy either of the two degenerate states labeled by $n=\pm N/2$. In the bosonic language, this pair of degenerate states is $\ket{0}_B$ and $\ad_1\ket{0}_B$. Similarly, for $N$ odd, the fermi ground state is unique, but the first excited state has four-fold degeneracy. The corresponding four degenerate bosonic states are $\ad_1\ket{0}_B,~{\ad_1}^2\ket{0}_B,~\ad_2\ket{0}_B$ and $\ad_2~\ad_1\ket{0}_B$. There will be a maximum of $2^N$ degenerate states in the most general case. It is an important problem to understand in a more systematic way this realization of the symmetry structure in the bosonic theory. This would open up the possibility of applications of our bosonization to problems in higher than $1$ space dimension. For example, in $3$ space dimensions in a potential with spherical symmetry, one can proceed as above and give some assignment of degenerate angular momentum states to the auxiliary fermion problem [^2]. The important issue would then be to understand how rotational symmetry is realized in the bosonized theory. A systematic analysis of this is clearly very important, but is beyond the scope of the present work.
### Interacting fermion models
Our discussion so far has been confined to noninteracting fermions for which the full hamiltonian is a sum of single-particle hamiltonians. The generic many-fermion hamiltonian is of the form H\_F = \_[m,n]{} 12 E\_[mn]{} \_m \_n + \_[m,n,l,r]{} V\_[mnlr]{} \_[m]{} \_[n]{} \_[l]{} \_r + \[interacting\] where $E_{mn}= E_{nm}^*$ and $V_{mnlr},...$ satisfy appropriate relations to ensure hermiticity of $H_F$ . By using our bosonization formula we can get the bosonic version of $H_F$ in terms of the $a, \ad$. (Similarly we can write down a second bosonized version, in terms of $b, b^\dagger$ using the results of Section \[second\].) It would be interesting to work out the properties of these bosons for fermions with a Coulomb interaction, for example, and compare with the standard collective excitations.
\[prop\]General properties of the bosonized theory
==================================================
Let us now explore some consequences of our bosonization. We will first comment on the finite dimensionality of the single-particle Hilbert space.
Single particle: Quantum phase space is fuzzy and compact
---------------------------------------------------------
A finite-dimensional single-particle Hilbert space $\H_N$ is equivalent to a noncommutative or fuzzy compact phase space (for reviews on fuzzy spaces, see, e.g. [@Madore-book; @Balachandran:2002ig]). E.g, if the $N$ states $\ket i$ are the first $N$ states of a simple harmonic oscillator:[^3] && i = 0, i=0,1,2,, N-1, 0 =0 && h= (\^+), \[, \^\]=1, hi= (i+)i . \[sho\] then the phase space corresponds to a fuzzy disc (see e.g. [@Lizzi:2003ru] and below.) Similarly, if the $N$ states are the $2j+1
$ states $\ket {j,m}, m=-j, \cdots,+j$ of a rotor then the phase space is a fuzzy sphere [@Madore:1991bw].
The fuzziness or noncommutativity of the quantum phase space ${\cal
M}$ follows from the existence of a finite $\hbar$, irrespective of whether $N$ is finite or infinite(the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space of a one-dimensional particle corresponds to a plane with noncommutative coordinates $[x, p]=i\hbar$). See Section \[husimi.sec\] for more.
The compactness of ${\cal M}$ follows from finite $N$. Intuitively, when the states $\ket i$ are, e.g., “energy levels” of a bounded hamiltonian, the $N$ Bohr orbits occupy a finite area of the phase space. A more precise construction goes as follows [@Lizzi:2003ru]. Consider $\H_N$ as a subspace of an infinite dimensional Hilbert space $\H_\infty$. For definiteness we will consider the case of the harmonic oscillator, given by , the generalization to other cases being straightforward in principle. The quantum phase space can be defined in terms of the algebra ${\cal A}_N$ of operators on $\H_N$, which themselves can be defined from operators on $\H_\infty$ using a projection operator: &&O O\_N P\_N O P\_N= i O j i j \_N, i,j=1, , N && P\_N \_1\^N i i \[trunc\] Of course, the map $\hat O \to \hat O_N$ is many-to-one. In terms of the phase space (Husimi) representation of operators (see Appendix \[husimi.sec\]), reads (z,|z) \_N(z,|z) P\_N(z,|z)\*[O]{}(z,|z)\*P\_N(z,|z) \[trunc-husimi\] where the star product is the Voros star product. The operation on the RHS essentially turns the support of ${\cal O}(z,\bar z)$ into a compact one of an approximate size r\_0\^2 = N\[fuzzy-disc\] with an exponential tail $\sim \exp[- r^2/\hbar]$. This can be seen by noting that $P_N(z,\bar z)=\Gamma(N+1, {r^2\over 2\hbar})/\Gamma(N+1)$ has the above fall-off property.
Note that the truncation to an effectively compact phase space does not depend on taking any semiclassical limit. It is clear that the support of ${\cal O}_N(z,\bar z)$, irrespective of the original $\hat
O$, will be confined to $r \le r_0$. The geometry of the quantum phase space is therefore that of a disc. We have proved this result here for the harmonic oscillator, given by , but similar results hold for other finite dimensional Hilbert spaces.
Another way to see the appearance of the fuzzy disc is to compute the Husimi distribution for any basis of states in $\H_N$. For the harmonic oscillator example , using we see that the Husimi distribution in state $\ket j$ is concentrated around $r =
\sqrt j, j=0,1,2,....,N-1$. The state of the maximum size, with $j=N-1$, has an approximate radius $r_0$. The existence of the maximum size of the Husimi distribution can be easily proved for an arbitrary linear combination of the basis states by a simple generalization of the above argument.
There is another useful basis of states for $\H_N$, the modified coherent states (see, e.g. [@Pinzul:2001qh], Eqn. (4.16)) defined using the projection $P_N$ (see ) $$\ket {z,N} = \frac{P_N \ket z}{|| P_N \ket z ||}$$ which, for the harmonic oscillator example, , becomes = \_[k=0]{}\^[N-1]{} [(\^)]{}\^k 0 where $\hbox{Exp}_N [x] \equiv \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{x^k}{k!}$. The modified coherent states satisfy completeness relations d\^2 z e\^[-|z|\^2]{} = P\_N. The Husimi distribution (regarded in the full phase space of $\H_\infty$) of any $\ket{z,N}$ is H\_[z,N]{}(w,|w)= |\_N \[|w z\]|\^2. which falls off exponentially beyond $|w| = \sqrt{N}$ irrespective of the specific $z$ (it has a peak around $w \sim z$ if $|z| \le \sqrt N$).
In terms of the modified coherent states, the Husimi distribution in a state $\ket\psi$, defined in ), gets modified to H(z, |z, N) =|z, N |\^2 \[husimi-N\]
It is interesting to note that at finite $N$ (and finite $\hbar$) even the coordinate space is “fuzzy”. This is in the sense that, for any ‘polarization’ $(x,p)$ of the phase space, localization in $x$ ($\Delta
x=0$) requires $\Delta p =\infty$, which is impossible for a compact phase space. More precisely, the wavefunction $\delta(x- x_0)$ cannot generically be built by superposing a finite number of wavefunctions $\chi_i(x)=\langle x| i \rangle, ~ i=1,...,N$. Indeed, the projection in implies that $\ket x$ is replaced by the state $\ket x_N
\equiv P_N \ket x$ which has the following position-space wavefunction y [x\_N]{} = \_i y i i x = \_[i=1]{}\^N \^\*\_i(y) \_i(x) \[x-N\] This approaches $\delta (x-y)$ only in the limit $N\to \infty$.
\[cake\]Second quantization: the bosonic phase space density
------------------------------------------------------------
Let us define the following second quantized field (x) \_[i=1]{}\^N a\_i \_i(x), (x) \_[i=1]{}\^N \_i \^\*\_i(x) \[phi-x\] The bosonic Fock space state then has the wavefunction && && = \_[P\_M]{} [1]{} where $\quad \ket{x_1, \cdots, \, x_M}\equiv
\prod_{l=1}^M \phid(x_l)~\ket{0}, ~~M=r_1 + \cdots + r_N $. Just like $\ket x$ is outside the single-particle Hilbert space $\H_N$, the basis $\ket{x_1, ..., x_M}$ is outside of the Fock space built out of states . The more appropriate wavefunctions are products of $\ket x_N$ as in . Nevertheless, is a useful definition to have.
The second quantized (Wigner) phase space density is given in terms of as (cf. ) W\_B(x,p) = d e\^[ip]{} \^(x+ /2) (x - /2) \[def-ub\] The expectation value of $\hat W_B(x,p)$ in the state $\ket{r_1,..., r_N}$ is easily computed: = \_[i=1]{}\^N r\_i W\_i(x,p), \[vev-ub\] where W\_i (x,p) = d e\^[i p]{} \_i(x- /2) \_i\^\*(x+/2) represents the Wigner density for the individual state $\ket i$. The semiclassical picture of for a typical state is described in Figure \[heights.fig\].
For the harmonic oscillator example, one can use to evaluate . The plot of in the $(x,p)$ plane looks like “a rugged circular cake” with a maximum diameter $r_0$ given by and with circular ridges of heights $r_i$ at radii $\sim \sqrt i$. For states which are arbitrary linear combinations of the phase space density still has the shape of a rugged cake of the same maximum diameter $r_0$, but with the circular ridges generically replaced by dips and bumps not necessarily maintaining the circular symmetry.
In the context of LLM, these plots depict the density of giant gravitons in the $(x_1,x_2)$ plane (see Section \[gg.p.d\]).
Another way of seeing the “rugged cake” is to compute z\^1\_1, ..., z\^1\_[r\_1]{}, z\^2\_1,..., z\^2\_[r\_2]{}, z\^N\_1,.. , z\^N\_[r\_N]{} | r\_1, ..., r\_N \~\[\_[i=1]{}\^N \_[j=1]{}\^[r\_i]{} (z\^i\_j)\^i - \[\_[i=1]{}\^N \_[j=1]{}\^[r\_i]{} |z\^i\_j|\^2/2\] which shows that there are $r_k$ particles at radius $\sqrt k$ for each $k=1,\cdots, \, N$. The notation “Sym” represents symmetrization over all the $z$’s.
A more appropriate second quantized phase space density is (cf. ) && H\_[B,N]{}(z, |z) = (z,|z,N) (z, |z, N) && (z,|z, N) \_[i=1]{}\^N a\_i \[husimi2-N\] which are finite $N$ versions of .
\[lattice\] Lattice interpretation
----------------------------------
Another, perhaps more appropriate, description of the coordinate space is in terms of a finite lattice. An easy example is when $\H_N$ is built out of the first $N$ levels of a harmonic oscillator (see Eqn. ). Consider the radial polarization of the phase space where the angle $\varphi$ is the coordinate and the hamiltonian $r^2/2 = - i \del/\del \varphi$ is the conjugate momentum. The ultra-violet cut-off in energy or the radius (see ) implies that there is a finite lattice cutoff in $\varphi$ (this, together with the infra-red cut-off coming from the compactness of $\varphi$, gives a finite lattice, as appropriate for a finite dimensional Hilbert space $\H_N$). Thus $\varphi$ takes discrete values $\varphi_\mu = \mu \eps,~ \eps= 2\pi / N,
~\mu=0,1,..., N-1, ~ \varphi_\mu \equiv
\varphi_{\mu+N} = \varphi_\mu + 2\pi$. The associated ‘position eigenstates’ $\ket{\varphi_\mu}$ are defined as discrete Fourier transforms of the basis states in : \_[k=1]{}\^N e\^[-i [2N]{}k]{} The lattice description of the coordinate space is more appropriate than the continuum description since with a continuous variable $\varphi$ the associated states $\ket \varphi$ are typically outside of $\H_N$. In contrast, $\ket{\varphi_\mu}$ are all in $\H_N$, by definition.
The second quantized field operator $\phi^\dagger (\varphi_\mu) \equiv \phi^\dagger_\mu$, which creates a particle on the $\mu$th site, is defined by \^\_ \_[k=1]{}\^N e\^[-i [2N]{}k]{} \_k \[spin\] Its conjugate, $\phi_\mu$, destroys a particle on the $\mu$th site. It is easy to show that these field operators also satisfy the harmonic oscillator algebra &=& 1 = N &=& 0 . \[spinalgebra\] In terms of these field operators, the $N$-level lattice hamiltonian may be obtained from by using the following relation: \_[i=k]{}\^N \_i a\_i = \_[=0]{}\^[N-1]{} \^\_ \_+ \_[=0]{}\^[N-1]{} \^\_ \_ \[transcribe\] The hamiltonian is essentially the charge $Q_1$, see equation below. Notice that the second term in the above equation gives rise to long-range interactions on the lattice.
Our lattice models inherit higher conserved charges from the underlying free fermion system. There are exactly $N$ conserved charges, which arise due to the conservation of the individual energies of the non-interacting fermions. It is more usual to write these conserved charges as Q\_n = \_[m=0]{}\^{[E]{}(m)}\^n \_m \_m. Here $n$ is any positive integer, but the number of independent charges is only $N$ since the values of these charges in any $N$-fermion state can be expressed in terms of only the $N$ independent energies of the occupied levels. In the lattice formulation of the bosonized theory, these charges translate into the operators Q\_n = \_[k=1]{}\^N { [E]{} ( N-k + \_[=0]{}\^[N-1]{} \^\_ \_+ \_[=0]{}\^[N-1]{} \^\_ \_ ) }\^n \[charges\] By construction these higher charges exist for any potential in which the fermions are moving. In particular, they also exist for fermions moving in a harmonic oscillator potential, which is relevant for the half-BPS sector of ${\cal N}=4$ super Yang-Mills theory. This raises the possibility of some connection of our lattice models with the integrable spin-chain models of ${\cal N}=4$ super Yang-Mills theory [^4] which have been a recent focus of study in connection with AdS/CFT duality. What this connection might be is not clear to us, but investigating this possibility could be worthwhile.
We end this section by mentioning that an explicit expression for the lattice hamiltonian can be given for an equally spaced spectrum of the form ${\cal E}(m)=c_1~m+c_2$. This is relevant for the half-BPS sector mentioned above. The hamiltonian turns out to be H\_[equal-spacing]{} = (N+1) \_[=0]{}\^[N-1]{} \^\_ \_ + \_[=0]{}\^[N-1]{} \[1-i \] \^\_ \_ + H\_[vac]{} \[hamiltonian-sho\] where $H_{\rm vac}=\frac{c_1}{2}N(N-1)+c_2 N$ is the ground state energy. This hamiltonian has long-range interactions. Moreover, unlike in the case of standard SYM spin-chains [@Beisert:2005fw], here there can be multiple excitations at any site since the variables at each site are harmonic oscillators. Whether the reformulation of the half-BPS sector as the spectrum of this lattice hamiltonian has any new insights to offer remains to be seen.
More on Second quantization
---------------------------
In view of the lattice interpretation of coordinate space, it may be appropriate to introduce discrete Wigner/Husimi phase space distributions [@Chaturvedi:2005ug] $W_B(i,j), H_B(i,j)$ in both the first and second quantized formalism (the precursors of this concept are , ). We will not go into the full details here, but consider only the diagonal elements which turn out to be W\_B(i,i) = \_B(i,i) = \_i a\_i \[wb-discrete\] Using , we can relate these to $\psid_n \psi_n$ which, when evaluated on wavefunctions of the form , get related to the fermionic Wigner density $\hat W_F(x,p)$ (see , also footnote \[wf-u\]), = \_n W\_n(x,p) \[w-circular\] Here $W_n$ are the single-particle Wigner distributions. For the corresponding states we find (see ) =\_i W\_i(x,p) Combining all this with we get for these special states (monomials of the form ) = \_n \_[k=1]{}\^N W\_n(x,p) In case of , $\vev{\hat W_B}, \vev{\hat W_F}$ for these states are functions of only $x^2 + p^2$ (“circular configurations”) in which case we get a relation between the bosonic and fermionic phase space densities = \_n \_[k=1]{}\^N (\_[i=k]{}\^N { W\_i(r’) } +N -n -k) W\_n(r) \[uf-ub\] where we have taken the semiclassical limit to perform the average inside the $\delta$-function.
In the next section, we will interpret this as a relation between the LLM metric and the giant graviton density.
Action for $W_B$
----------------
For noninteracting fermions, the second quantized action for the fermions is given by the Kirillov coadjoint orbit action written in terms of the Wigner phase space density $\hat W_F$ [@DMW-nonrel; @DMW-path; @Mandal:2003tj; @Mandal:2005wv; @Dhar:2005qh] [^5] S\[W\_F\] &=& S\_[sympl]{}\[W\_F\] + S\_[ham]{}\[W\_F\], S\_[sympl]{} &=& dt ds W\_F(q,p,t,s)\*\_w {\_t W\_F, \_s W\_F}\_[MB]{}, S\_[ham]{} &=& dt H\_F = dt W\_F(q,p,t)\*\_w h(q,p) \[uf-action\] Here the action is written in the first order form, similar to the single-particle action $\int dt~(p\dot q - H(p,q))$, with $W_F(q,p)$ itself playing the role of the phase space coordinates $(p,q)$. The notation “sympl” denotes the symplectic form ($p\dot q$) term and “ham” denotes the hamiltonian term. The variable $s$ denotes an extension of $W_F(q,p,t)$ to $W_F(q,p,t,s)$, devised to enable us to write down the symplectic term. The physical trajectory is parametrized by $t$ at some $s=s_0$ and the equation of motion is independent of the $s$-extension because the symplectic form is closed. See [@Mandal:2003tj; @Mandal:2005wv; @Dhar:2005qh] for details.
Using the bosonization formulae in Section 2 and Appendix A one gets an action for the bosons in terms of $W_B(q,p)$. For equally spaced fermionic levels we can use to get an action of the form S\[W\_B\] = S\_[sympl]{}\[W\_B\] + dt W\_B(q,p,t) \*\_w h\_B(q,p) \[ub-action\] where $h_B$ is an equally spaced finite-level ($N$) hamiltonian. The symplectic form can be explicitly written down, though we will not do so here.
\[llm\]Application of our bosonization to LLM
=============================================
As discussed in the Introduction, [@Corley:2001zk; @Berenstein:2004kk] made the observation that a half-BPS sector of ${\cal N}=4$ super Yang Mills theory is described effectively by a theory of free fermions moving in a simple harmonic oscillator potential. The semiclassical fermion phase space is described by droplets of uniform density in two dimensions. Ref. [@LLM] uncovered such a droplet structure also in the corresponding sector of type IIB supergravity in asymptotically spacetimes. It was noted in [@Corley:2001zk; @Berenstein:2004kk; @Suryanarayana:2004ig] that states of the fermion theory should have a bosonic description in terms of giant gravitons, since the latter are known to correspond to operators of the Yang Mills theory which can be written in terms of the fermions [@Takayama:2005yq]. The identification between the fermionic and the bosonic states was explicitly stated in [@Suryanarayana:2004ig] as a one-to-one map where && r\_N = f\_1, && r\_k = f\_[N-k+1]{} - f\_[N-k]{} - 1, k = 1,2,, N-1 \[statemap\] This maps the fermionic hamiltonian H\_F = \_[n=0]{}\^(n + 1/2) \_n \_n, with excitation spectrum given by $E=\sum_{k=1}^N (f_k-k+1)$, to a bosonic hamiltonian H\_F - N\^2/2 = H\_B = \_[i=1]{}\^N i \_i a\_i, with excitation spectrum given by $E=\sum_{k=1}^N k r_k$. A few examples of the map are &&\_B \_N \_0 && \_N \_B \_N \_[N+1]{} \_1 \_0 && ( (\_N)\^2/ ) \_B \^\_[N+1]{} \^\_N \_2 \_0 && \_N \_[N-1]{} \_B \[map-example\] The second equation assigns a single hole at the lowest level (costing energy $N$) to a single bosonic particle at level $N$. The 4th equation assigns two holes at levels 0 and 2 (total energy cost $2N-1$) to two bosonic particles, at levels $N$ and $N-1$.
The rationale behind the map is as follows. A fermion configuration can be specified in terms of holes created in the Fermi sea. The idea is to regard a hole (together with the upward shift of the Fermi sea to make space for it) as a bosonic excitation. The correspondence between giant gravitons and gauge invariant operators suggests an identification of these bosonic excitations with giant gravitons.
The above rationale of treating a hole as a boson is somewhat intuitive, so let’s see how it holds in specific examples. Consider the second equation of . Here the hole corresponds to the excitation $A^\dagger _N \equiv \Phi_{N0} = \psid_N \psi_0$, which satisfies the algebra (see ) = \_0\_0 - \_N \_N \[naive\] This evaluates to 1 on $\ket{F_0}$ but not in general. Indeed these operators are related to the fermion phase space density which satisfy the algebra but not satisfy the Heisenberg algebra.
This might seem to suggest that may not hold operatorially [@Berenstein:2005aa], that is, the “hole” operators may not satisfy the usual bosonic commutation rules, after all. On the other hand, it is also known [@Suryanarayana:2004ig] that with this map the fermionic and bosonic partition functions agree. The only way to settle which possibility is realized is to try to see if one can deduce operator maps from . The operator maps described in this paper (Section 2, Appendix A and Section 5) indeed precisely fit the bill [^6]. The precise bosonic excitation is more complicated than the naive guess of and is such that it does satisfy the Heisenberg algebra. Indeed the Heisenberg algebra is implied by the the fermion anticommutation relations (and vice versa) and the bose-fermi equivalence is exact.
\[gg.p.d\]Giant graviton phase space density
--------------------------------------------
The exact bosonic operators $a_i, \ad_i$ are clearly related to creation or destruction of giant gravitons [@Corley:2001zk; @Berenstein:2004kk; @LLM; @Suryanarayana:2004ig; @Mandal:2005wv]. To see this in detail, we now come back to the bosonic phase space discussed in the earlier section.
The correspondences with the last section are:
1\. The states $\ket i \in \H_N$ correspond to giant gravitons in energy eigenstates.
2\. The modified coherent states $\ket{z,N}, |z| < N$ describe a giant graviton state localized near the point $z$.
3\. The giant graviton energy levels are equally spaced, as in the harmonic oscillator example . Thus, the phase space density of giant gravitons ([*i.e.*]{} the density of giant gravitons in the $(x_1, x_2)$ plane)[^7] has (see Eqn. and below) the geometry of a rugged cake[^8], as discussed in section 3.2 (see Figure \[heights.fig\]). Such a geometry (with heights $r_i$ at radii $\sim \sqrt i$) accords with the picture of $r_i$ giant gravitons moving in the $i$-th orbit. This adds to the evidence that the bosons $a_i, a_i^\dagger$ indeed represent giant gravitons.
4\. Arbitrary LLM ‘droplet’ geometries correspond, in a one-to-one fashion, to the “rugged cake” geometries of giant gravitons. It is interesting to note that the giant gravitons [*never leave the original circular region representing* ]{}, even for arbitrary LLM geometries.
5\. For circular configurations, the giant graviton phase space density in the semiclassical limit is directly related to the fermion phase density via . Because of the relation between the fermion phase space density and the LLM metric, also expresses the LLM metric in terms of the giant graviton phase space density in the semiclassical limit. Section \[llm.g.b\] will discuss the finite $N$ version of this relation where we will write down exact expressions for gravitons in terms of the oscillators $a_i, \ad_j$.
a\. The bosonization formula in Section \[bose\] automatically incorporate the fact that although multiple fermions cannot occupy the same energy levels, the giant gravitons can. In the simple examples like , where the RHS of the third line describes two giant gravitons in the $N$-th orbit, the equivalent fermionic description on the LHS describes a spreading out. In general such effects are encoded in the operator maps.
b\. In [@Mandal:2005wv], only non-overlapping giant gravitons were considered, and agreement found with the $W$-action . When overlapping giant gravitons are considered, the data consist of not only the centres of mass of the giant gravitons, but the “heights” (how many on top of each other). It would be an interesting exercise to obtain from considering such overlapping giant gravitons.
\[llm.g.b\]LLM gravitons and our bosons
---------------------------------------
Consider the single trace operators of the boundary theory. In the fermionic realization, these operators correspond to [@Takayama:2005yq] \_m\^= \_[n=0]{}\^ \_[n+m]{} \_n, m=1, 2, , \[graviton\] It is easy to check that $[\beta_m^\dagger,
\beta_n^\dagger]=0=[\beta_m, \beta_n]$, but that $[\beta_m,
\beta_n^\dagger] \neq \delta_{mn}$. In fact, in terms of our bosonic oscillators which do satisfy the standard oscillator algebra, , the single trace operators have complicated expressions, involving creation as well as annihilation operators. The operator expression, which can be obtained by using the bosonization formula, , is quite messy, but the corresponding “single-particle” state, which is obtained by acting on the fermi vacuum, has a simple enough expression: \_m\^ = && \_[n=2]{}\^N (-1)\^[n-1]{} \_+(m-n) [\_1]{}\^[m-n]{} \_n \_B && + [\_1]{}\^m \_B. \[singleparticle\] We see that even a “single-particle” state has in general many excitations of our elementary bosons. For $m<N$, because of the theta-function the sum in the first term on the right-hand side of terminates at $n=m$. So in this case the highest energy creation operator that appears on the right-hand side is $\ad_m$ and it appears by itself. If $m<<N$, the leading term on the right-hand side in $1/N$ expansion has an overall factor of $N^{m/2}$, which is the correct large-N normalization for a single trace operator. We thus begin to see how the usual picture of collective excitations arises in the large-N limit for low-energy states. On the other hand, for any $m>N$ the highest energy creation operator that appears in “single-particle” states is $\ad_N$ and it appears together with other excitations. This is a reflection of the fact that a single trace operator in the boundary theory of higher than $N$th power of a matrix is not independent since it can be rewritten in terms of products of lower traces. Let us now explain the above comments in greater detail.
### \[fuzzy.sec\]Fuzzy gravitons
From we get \^\_1 &&= \_10\_B \^\_2 &&= - \_20\_B + (\_1)\^2 0\_B .. \_[N+1]{}\^ = && \_[n=2]{}\^N (-1)\^[n-1]{} [\_1]{}\^[N+1-n]{} \_n \_B && + [\_1]{}\^[N+1]{} \_B. \[fuzzy-gravitons\] Consider the first equality. Taking inner product with $\ket z$ on both sides, we see that z | \^\_1 = z\_10\_B \~z This is the wave-function (in the coherent state basis) of the “graviton” of unit energy. The “graviton” of energy $m \ll N$, always has a single particle component $\sim z^m \exp[-|z|^2/2]$. These correspond to the gravitons wave-functions of [@Kim:1985ez]. For $m>1$, however, they also have multi-particle components, e.g. for $m=2$, there is a two particle component with wavefunction $\langle z_1, z_2 | (\ad_1)^2 \ket 0_B \sim z_1 z_2 \exp[-(|z_1|^2
+ |z_2|^2)/2]$. For $m>N$ there are no single-particle components of the wave-functions.
1\. It is easy to see from that “gravitons” of energy $>N$ do not exist as single particles and are composed of multiple $\ad_i$ modes of lower energy. This suggests that the existence of an infinite number of gravitons, a hallmark of commutative gravity, is only an approximation valid in the large $N$ limit. For finite $N$, the oscillators $a_i,
\ad_i$, which are by definition $N$ in number and hence independent of each other, provide a more appropriate basis to describe the geometry.
2\. Finite number of independent metric fluctuations is an indication of noncommutative geometry. Thus, e.g., metric fluctuations on a fuzzy sphere will involve spherical harmonics only up to rank proportional to the radius of the fuzzy sphere.
3\. Formulae such as suggest that the large $N$ limit involves nonperturbative effects of the form $\exp[-1/\hbar] \sim
\exp[- N]$.
4\. At finite $N$, superscript effective action should receive interesting corrections from the “compactness” of the phase space which is captured by the difference between the Moyal star product and the ordinary product appearing in the $W_F$ action [@Mandal:2005wv; @Dhar:2005qh] and the corresponding structure in the $W_B$ action .
\[second\]The second bosonization
=================================
Consider a second system of bosons each of which can occupy a state in an infinite Hilbert space $\H_B$. Suppose we choose a basis $\ket{m},
m=0,\cdots,\infty$ of $\H_B$. In the second quantized notation we introduce creation (annihilation) operators $b^\dagger_m$ ($b_m$) which creates (destroys) a particle in the state $\ket{m}$. These satisfy the commutation relations \[sbalgone\] \[b\_m, b\^\_n\]= \_[mn]{}, m, n=0,, A state of this bosonic system is given by (a linear combination of) \_[k=0]{}\^ . Now consider the subspace of the Hilbert space spanned by states with the restriction $\sum_{k=0}^\infty n_k = N$. We label a state of this type by $|s_1, s_2, \cdots, s_N \rangle$ where $s_i$ are non-increasing set of integers representing the energies of $N$ bosons. In [@Suryanarayana:2004ig] a map between these states and the fermionic states was proposed s\_[N-i]{} f\_[i+1]{} - i, i = 0, 1,, N-1 The rationale behind this map was to regard the “particle” excitations (which correspond to dual giant gravitons) as bosons. In the following subsection we describe the operator equivalence of this system with the $N$-fermion system.
The map between fermions and ‘dual-giant’ bosons
------------------------------------------------
Let us start by rewriting the Hilbert space of the fermion system into a disjoint union of subspaces spanned by states with a fixed number of particle excitations. $${\cal H}^{(F)} = \cup_{k=0}^N {\cal H}^{(F)}_k$$ where ${\cal H}^{(F)}_{N-k} = \hbox{Span} \{ |0,1,\cdots, k-1,
f_{k+1}, \cdots, f_N \rangle : f_{k+1} \ne k \}$. The operator that distinguishes the states belonging to different subspaces ${\cal
H}^{(F)}_k$ is $\hat \nu := \sum_{k=1}^\infty b_k^\dagger b_k$ which translates to $$\hat \nu = \sum_{k=1}^\infty b_k^\dagger b_k = N - \sum_{k=1}^N
\prod_{m=0}^{k-1} \psi_m^\dagger \psi_m \, .$$ Further, define $$\begin{aligned}
\hat s_p &=& \sum_{k=1}^\infty (k-1) \sum_{l=0}^{p-1}
\delta(\sum_{i=k}^\infty b^\dagger_i b_i -l)
\sum_{m=p}^N \delta (\sum_{j=k-1}^\infty b_j^\dagger b_j - m ) , \cr
\hat f_p &=& \sum_{k=0}^\infty k \, \delta ( \sum_{i=0}^{k-1}
\psi_i^\dagger \psi_i -p+1 ) ~ \delta ( \sum_{j=0}^k
\psi_j^\dagger \psi_j -p ).
\label{hat-s-p}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{f_p} &=& \sum_{k=0}^\infty \psi_k ~ \delta (
\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} \psi_i^\dagger \psi_i -p+1 ) ~ \delta (
\sum_{j=0}^k \psi_j^\dagger \psi_j -p ) \cr
b_{s_p} &=& \sum_{k=1}^\infty b_{k-1} \sum_{l=0}^{p-1}
\delta(\sum_{i=k}^\infty b^\dagger_i b_i -l)
\sum_{m=p}^N \delta (\sum_{j=k-1}^\infty b_j^\dagger b_j - m ) \end{aligned}$$ for $p = 1, 2, \cdots, N$. The corresponding $\psi_p^\dagger$ and $b_{s_p}^\dagger$’s can be obtained by taking the hermitian conjugates. Since we are to keep the total number of particles fixed we only consider the operators of the type $b_k^\dagger b_m$. Using Eqn.(\[sbalgone\]) we have $$\label{sbalgtwo}
[b_k^\dagger b_m, ~ b_p^\dagger b_q] = \delta_{mp} b_k^\dagger b_q -
\delta_{kq} b_p^\dagger b_m$$ which is again a $W_\infty$-algebra. We want to find the operator correspondences between operators of the kind $b_k^\dagger b_m$ on the bosonic side and $\psi_k^\dagger \psi_m$ type operators on the fermionic side. We present below the expressions of these operators for the special cases of $N =1, \, 2$. The generalization to arbitrary $N$ is a lengthy but straightforward exercise.
For $N=1$, we can associate $b_k^\dagger b_m$ with $\psi_k^\dagger
\psi_m$ (and $b_k b_m^\dagger$ with $2\delta_{km} - \psi_k
\psi_m^\dagger$) and the algebra (\[sbalgtwo\]) follows immediately.
For $N=2$ case we first seek operators $b_k^\dagger b_0$ ($b_0^\dagger
b_k$) which create (annihilate) a particle excitation that takes a state in ${\cal H}^{(F)}_m$ to one in ${\cal H}^{(F)}_{m+1}$ (${\cal
H}^{(F)}_{m+1}$ to one in ${\cal H}^{(F)}_m$). To find these let us observe that each state of the subspace ${\cal H}^{(F)}_k$ is a linear combination of states with $k$ excited bosons (and $N-k$ in the ground state) $|s_1, s_2, \cdots, s_k, s_{k+1} = 0, \cdots, s_N = 0 \rangle$ with $k \le N$. The operator $b^\dagger_k b_0$ excites a particle from level-0 to level-$k$. This operator takes $| s_1=0, \cdots, s_N = 0
\rangle$ to $|s_1 = k, s_2 =0, \cdots, s_N =0 \rangle$. Similarly it takes $|s_1, 0, \cdots, 0 \rangle$ to $|s_1, k, 0, \cdots 0 \rangle$ if $k \le s_1$ or $|k, s_1, 0, \cdots, 0 \rangle$ if $s_1 \le k$ and so on.
We find the following expressions for $b_k^\dagger b_0$ and $b_0^\dagger b_k$: $$\begin{aligned}
b_k^\dagger b_0 &=& \sqrt{2} \, \psi^\dagger_{k+1} \psi_1\,
\delta_{\hat \nu}
+ \Big[ \sum_{l=1}^{k-1} \psi^\dagger_{k+1} \psi_{0}
\psi^\dagger_{k+l} \, \psi_{k-l+1} \, \delta_{k-{\hat f_2}-l+1} \cr
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\, + \psi^\dagger_k \psi_0 \, (
\sum_{l=1}^\infty \delta_{{\hat f_2}-k-l-1} + \sqrt{2} \,
\delta_{k-{\hat f_2}+1})\Big]\, \delta_{{\hat \nu} - 1} , \cr
b_0^\dagger b_m &=&
\psi_1^\dagger \, \psi_{m+1} \, \delta_{m-{\hat f_2}+1} \,
\delta_{{\hat \nu}-1} +
\Big[ \psi^\dagger_0 \, \psi_{{\hat f_2}} \, \psi_{{\hat f_1}}
\psi^\dagger_{{\hat f_1}+1}
\, \delta_{{\hat f_2} - m - 1} \, (1-\delta_{{\hat f_2}-{\hat f_1}-1})
\cr &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\, + \psi_0^\dagger \, \psi_{m} \,
\delta_{{\hat f_1} -m} \, (1 + \sqrt{2} \, \delta_{{\hat f_2}-{\hat
f_1}-1}) \Big] \,
\delta_{{\hat \nu} -2} \,\end{aligned}$$ for $k,m \ge 1$. The general operators of the type $b_k^\dagger b_m$ can be generated out of the above ones using $$b_k^\dagger b_m = \delta_{km} \, b_0^\dagger b_0 + [b_k^\dagger b_0,
b_0^\dagger b_m].$$ The fermion bilinear operators turn out to be: $$\psi_k^\dagger \psi_k = (\delta_k + \delta_{k-1})\, \delta_{\hat \nu}
+ (\delta_k + \delta_{k-{\hat s_1}-1}) \, \delta_{{\hat \nu}-1} +
(\delta_{k-{\hat s_2}}
+ \delta_{k-{\hat s_1}-1}) \, \delta_{{\hat \nu}-2}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{k+1}^\dagger \psi_k &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} b_1^\dagger b_0 \,
\delta_{k-1} \,
\delta_{\hat \nu} + (b_1^\dagger b_0 \, (1-\delta_{{\hat s_1}})
\delta_k + b^\dagger_{k} \, b_{k-1}
\, \delta_{k-{\hat s_1}-1}) \, \delta_{{\hat \nu}-1} \cr && +
(b^\dagger_{k+1} \, b_{k} \, \delta_{k-{\hat s_2}} \,
(1-\delta_{k-{\hat s_1}}) + b^\dagger_{k} \,
b_{k-1} \, \delta_{k-{\hat s_1}-1} (1+\frac{1-\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2}}
\delta_{k-{\hat s_2}-1})) \, \delta_{{\hat \nu}-2}, \cr
\psi_{k+n}^\dagger \psi_k &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[b_n^\dagger b_0 \,
\delta_{k-1} + b_{n-1}^\dagger b_1^\dagger b_0^2 \,
(1+\frac{1-\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2}}\delta_{n-2}) \, \delta_k] \,
\delta_{\hat \nu} \cr
&& + [ b^\dagger_{k+n-1} \, b_{k-1} \, \delta_{k-{\hat s_1}-1} +
(\sum_{l=2}^\infty b^\dagger_n b_0 \, \delta_{{\hat s_1}-n-l+1} \cr
&&
+ \sum_{l=2}^{n-1} b_{n-1}^\dagger \, b_0 \, b^\dagger_{n-l} \,
b_{n-l-1} \, \delta_{n-{\hat s_1}-l-1} \cr
&& + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( (b_{n-1}^\dagger)^2 b_0 \,
b_{n-2} \, \delta_{n-{\hat s_1}-2} + \delta_{{\hat s_1}-n} b_n^\dagger
\, b_0) \, \delta_k] \delta_{{\hat \nu}-1} \cr
&& + [ b^\dagger_{k+n-1} \, b_{k-1} \, \delta_{k-{\hat s_1}-1} +
(\sum_{l=2}^\infty b^\dagger_{k+n} \, b_k \, \delta_{{\hat
s_1}-k-n-l+1} \cr && +
\sum_{l=2}^{n-1} b^\dagger_{k+n-1} \, b^\dagger_{k+n-l} \, b_{k+n-l-1}
\, b_k \, \delta_{k+n-{\hat s_1}-l-1} \cr
&& +
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} ( b^\dagger_{k+n} \, b_k \, \delta_{{\hat s_1}-k-n}
+ (b^\dagger_{k+n-1})^2 \, b_{k+n-2} \, b_k \,
\delta_{k+n-{\hat s_1}-2}) \, \delta_{k-{\hat s_2}}] \, \delta_{{\hat
\nu}-2} \end{aligned}$$ for $n \ge 2$. The $\delta_{\hat O}$’s in these expressions are the same as the operator delta functions $\delta(\hat O)$ used for the first boson in Section \[bose\]. Similar expressions hold for $\psi^\dagger_k \psi_{k+n}$.
The fact that the $N$-fermion system is equivalent to two different bosonic systems implies that the two bosonic systems are also equivalent to each other [@Suryanarayana:2004ig] (see [@Bena:2004qv] also). As in case of the first boson, one can represent various states in this bosonic system by specifying the corresponding phase space densities. One expects that the phase space here is the same as that of a harmonic oscillator (i.e, [**R**]{}$^2$) with the total number of particles being equal to $N$. Since they are bosons, each Planck cell can again be occupied by more than one particles.
We will consider, for simplicity, bosonized expressions for non-interacting fermion hamiltonians of the type . The bosonic hamiltonian, for the $N=2$ system, is H\_B’ = \_[k=0]{}\^(k) \[ (\_k + \_[k-1]{}) \_ + (\_k + \_[k-[s\_1]{}-1]{}) \_[-1]{} + (\_[k-[s\_2]{}]{} + \_[k-[s\_1]{}-1]{}) \_[-2]{}\] - \_[k=0]{}\^[N-1]{} [E]{}(k) \[hamil-b\] where ${\hat \nu} = \sum_{n=1}^\infty b^\dagger_n b_n = N-b_0^\dagger
b_0$. The expression for general $N$ is given in . Bosonization of the second bosonic system can also be worked out.
\[c=1\]Applications to $c=1$ matrix model
=========================================
In this paper we will only report some preliminary observations on $c=1$. Detailed results, the full import of which are yet to be understood, will be presented elsewhere.
As emphasized before, our bosonization formulae do not depend on the choice of a specific fermion hamiltonian. It can thus be applied to the $c=1$ model for which the fermion hamiltonian involves an upside down harmonic oscillator potential: H\_F = \_[n]{} [E]{}(n) \_n \_n = 12 dx (x)\[-1[\^2]{} - x\^2 + A\^2\] (x) Here ${\cal E}(n)$ are the eigenvalues of the hamiltonian $\hat h = [-\frac1{\beta^2} \frac{d^2}{dx^2} -
x^2 + A^2]$ with an infinite wall at $x = \pm A$ [@Moore:1991sf]. The spectrum ${\cal E}(n)$ and the corresponding eigenfunctions can be explicitly evaluated in terms of parabolic cylinder functions. In the scaling limit $N\to \infty, \beta\to\infty,
N/\beta \to A^2/(2\pi)$ one can obtain the following WKB estimate for energy levels close to the Fermi surface: (N+m)- [E]{}(N) = c m + O(m\^2), c \[wkb\] For the first system of bosons, we get a bosonized hamiltonian using . In the scaling limit and for states close to the fermi level in the fermionic description (corresponding to bosonic states involving a small number of low energy bosonic excitations), the hamiltonian becomes, after a simple calculation using : H\_B c \_[k=1]{}\^N \_[i=k]{}\^N \_ia\_i + = c \_[k=1]{}\^N k \_k a\_k + \[ham-1\] We will shortly remark on the relation of this hamiltonian to that of the known relativistic boson. The hamiltonian in terms of the second system of bosons can also be written down (generalizing to arbitrary $N$): H\_B’ = \_[k=1]{}\^N (\_[n=1]{}\^b\_n\^ b\_n - k) \_[p=1]{}\^k . \[ham-2\] where $\hat s_p$ is defined in .
1\. [*D0 branes:*]{}
\(a) The bosonic operators $d^\dagger_n \equiv b^\dagger_n b_0$ correspond to creation operators for D0-branes in two dimensional bosonic string theory (D0 branes in two dimensional string theory were first described in the matrix model language in [@McGreevy:2003kb; @Klebanov:2003km]). This can be verified as follows. In the fermionic language, $d^\dagger_n$ acting on the fermi sea kicks the fermion at the fermi level up by $n$ levels; such an excitation represents a D0 brane at the energy level $N+n$[^9]. Note that the number of $d^\dagger$ excitations in any state of the bosonized theory is bounded by $N$, but the individual energy level of such an excitation is unbounded above (see Section 5), as expected of D0 branes.
\(b) A localized D0 brane corresponds to an appropriate linear combination of $d^\dagger_n$’s so as to form a single-particle coherent state. Such D0 branes are unstable and the corresponding “tachyon potential” [@Sen:1999mg] is described by the D0 brane hamiltonian . The “bottom” of the tachyon potential is, of course, given by the “vacuum” state annihilated by all the $d_n, n=1,..,\infty$ oscillators (in terms of the $b, b^\dagger$ oscillators this state is $(b^\dagger_0)^N \ket{vac}, b_n\ket{vac}=0, n=0,1,...,\infty$). The energy difference $\Delta E$ between the initial energy and the bottom of the potential can be easily computed using , and for a D0 brane described by $d^\dagger_k$, $\Delta E= {\cal E}(N+k)
- {\cal E}(N)$.
\(c) The hamiltonian describes a nonperturbative interacting hamiltonian for D0 branes, thus playing the role of a hamiltonian for open string field theory.
\(d) The $d$-oscillators are composites of the $b$-oscillators and do not have simple Heisenberg commutators. Although $[d^\dagger_m,
d^\dagger_n] =[d_m, d_n]=0,\; [d_n, d^\dagger_m]= b^\dagger_0 b_0
\delta_{mn} - b^\dagger_m b_n$. It will be interesting if this represents interesting statistics among D0 branes.
2\. [*Holes:*]{} The operators $\ad_i$ represent bosonic excitations corresponding to creation of holes (analogues of the LLM giant gravitons). In the finite $N$ theory these are again related to D0 branes, just as for LLM the giant gravitons provide a dual description of the dual giant states (see Section 5). It will be interesting, however, to understand these statements in the double scaling limit, where these holes are distinguished from the “particles” and represent some new states [@Sen:2003iv]. This may provide some nontrivial hints about the double scaling limit as well as the new states.
3\. [*Tachyons:*]{} It is interesting to understand the double-scaled limit of our bosonization formulae to find the relation of these bosons with the tachyon of two-dimensional string theory. This problem is similar to the problem of connecting the graviton to the $a$- and the $b$-oscillators in the LLM case. It turns out that for small fluctuations around the Fermi vacuum, the hamiltonian as well as the creation/annihilation operators ($\ad_i, a_j$) coincide with those for the well-known relativistic [@Sengupta-Wadia; @Das-Jevicki; @Polchinski; @Gross-Klebanov] bosons and hence get connected to the massless closed string tachyon in the double-scaled limit. Details of this will be presented elsewhere.
Discussion
==========
We list below the main results and some comments:
1\. We have found exact operator bosonizations of a finite number of fermions which can be described by states in a countable Hilbert space.
2\. There are two systems of bosons. In the first system of bosons, the number of bosonic particles is not constrained but each bosonic particle moves in a finite dimensional Hilbert space, the dimensionality being the number of fermionic particles. In the second systems of bosons, the number of bosonic particles has an upper bound which is the number of fermions and the single-particle Hilbert space is the same as that of the fermions.
3\. In the LLM example, the first kind of bosons correspond to giant gravitons in the and the second kind of bosons correspond to dual giant gravitons.
4\. In the $c=1$ example, the second kind of bosons correspond to unstable D0 branes. The interpretation of the first kind of bosons, which represent holes in the Fermi sea, is not clear.
5\. The finite number of bosonic energy levels in case of the first bosonization implies a fuzzy compact phase space (equivalently, bosons on a lattice). In the LLM case, it has the important implication that finite rank of the boundary SYM theory corresponds to NC geometry in the bulk, where the fundamental quanta describing such geometry are giant gravitons rather than the perturbative gravitons.
6\. The description of $c=1$ in terms of a finite number of bosonic modes suggests a similar NC structure, although whether it survives in the double-scaled limit, and if so in what form, remains an open question.
7\. The system of fermions on a circle, described in Section \[bose\], is closely related to the problem of formation of baby universes as described in [@Dijkgraaf:2005bp]. It would be interesting to investigate whether in this example also our bosons are related to microscopic gravitational degrees of freedom, as in the LLM case.
It is interesting to speculate whether the NC geometry in the LLM example is a property only of the specific half-BPS sector of type IIB theory or if it is more general. One of the points of emphasis in this paper is that a finite number of modes in the bulk can imply noncommutative gravity. Whether this feature survives in the full theory is an important question that needs further investigation.
One of the intriguing aspects of our exact bosonization (the first system of bosons) is that the symmetries of the fermion system (even the number of spacetime dimensions) are rather intricately hidden in the bosonic theory. Although at first sight this feature may not appear to be particularly welcome, it may hint at a more abstract description of spacetime in which the latter is a derived or emergent concept. In this context, it might be useful to study the application of this bosonization to fermion systems in higher dimensions along the lines briefly outlined in Section 2.1.3.
3
[**Acknowledgement:**]{} G.M. would like to thank Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics for a very fruitful stay and especially Jaume Gomis, Rob Myers and Christian Romelsberger for many discussions throughout his stay. A.D. would like to acknowledge P.I. for a visit during the Summer when the collaboration was started.
4
2
\[details\] Details of computations: The first bosonization
===========================================================
In this Appendix we have put together details of some of the computations summarized in the main text. We will begin by explaining in the first subsection how we arrived at the first bosonization described in section 2. In the second subsection we will give proof of the algebra for the oscillators which are defined in and by their action on arbitrary fermion states. In the third subsection, we will give an expression for the general fermion bilinear, $\psid_{n+m}~\psi_n$, in terms of the bosonic oscillators and indicate some details of its derivation. In the fourth subsection we will prove that this expression satisfies the algebra for small values of $m$ for arbitrary $N$. Finally, in the last subsection we will use the expression for the bilinear for $N=2$ to prove that it satisfies the algebra for arbitrary $m$.
\[origin\] Origin of the Bosonization formulae
----------------------------------------------
Here we will describe the steps involved in deducing the bosonization formulae given in Section 2 from the map . Consider first the action of oscillator creation operators $\ad_k$ for $k < N$ on a general fermi state. We have, \_k =&& \_k = && . = && The first and last equalities above follow from the state map and the second follows from the definition of the creation operator. Similarly, for $\ad_N$ we get \_N = && \_N = && . = && These are exactly the expressions given in equation . Expressions for annihilation operators can be obtained similarly and these coincide with those given in .
Consider now the fermion bilinear $\psid_m~\psi_n$. Let us first set $m=n$. Acting on a general fermion state, we get \_n \_n = && \_[k=1]{}\^[N]{} (f\_k-n) = && \_[k=1]{}\^[N]{} (\_[i=1]{}\^k r\_[N-k+i]{}+k-1-n ) = && \_[k=1]{}\^[N]{} (\_[i=k]{}\^N \_i a\_i+N-k-n ) . The first equality is a simple consequence of the fact that $\psid_n~\psi_n$ kills the state unless one of the fermions is occupying the level $n$. The second and last equalities then follow from the state map . The last expression coincides with the first line of . The bosonized formula for the general bilinear given below in can be obtained by similar manipulations of the state map. The calculation is essentially elementary, though longer and more tedious.
\[algebraproof\] Proof of the oscillator algebra
------------------------------------------------
Let us consider the first of the equations in . Applying $a_l,~l<k$, on both sides of this equation and using , we get a\_l \_k = && a\_l = && && . \[a1proof1\] Reversing the order, starting with the first of the equations in and applying a creation operator on both sides, we get \_k a\_l = && \_k = && && . \[a1proof2\] The right-hand side of this equation is identical to that of . It follows that $[a_l, \ad_k]=0$ for $l<k$. One can similarly prove this for $l>k$. For $l=k$, however, we get a\_k \_k = && a\_k = && (f\_[N-k+1]{}-f\_[N-k]{}) , \[a1proof3\] and \_k a\_k = && \_k = && (f\_[N-k+1]{}-f\_[N-k]{}-1) . \[a1proof4\] If follows that $[a_k, \ad_k]=1$. Combining with the above result, we see that our bosonic operators satisfy the standard oscillator algebra $[a_l, \ad_k]=\delta_{lk}$.
Derivation of the bosonized expression for generic fermion bilinear
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We will first give the bosonized expression for the fermion bilinear and then indicate the key steps in its derivation. The expression given below is valid only for $m>0$. The expression for $m<0$ can be obtained from it by conjugation. We have, && \_[n+m]{} \_n && = \_[k=1]{}\^[N-1]{} && (\_[i=k+1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-k-1 ) && +[\_1\^]{}\^m (\_[i=1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-1 ). \[bosonizeapp\] Let us now explain the main steps in the derivation of this expression. Consider the action of the fermion bilinear on a generic state. The result is zero unless the level $n$ is occupied, that is \_[n+m]{} \_n = && \_[k=1]{}\^N \_[nf\_k]{} \_[f\_1]{} \_[f\_[k-1]{}]{} \_[n+m]{} \_[f\_[k+1]{}]{} \_[f\_N]{} \_F Furthermore, the right-hand side above vanishes unless the level $(n+m)$ is unoccupied. Assuming this is the case, we must consider several possibilities, depending on the exact value of $m$. This is done by rewriting the above equation as follows: && \_[n+m]{} \_n && = \_[k=1]{}\^[N-1]{} \_[nf\_k]{} && + \_[nf\_N]{} \_[f\_1]{} \_[f\_[N-1]{}]{} \_[f\_N+m]{} \_F. The first term in the square brackets above corresponds to the possibility that $(n+m)=(f_k+m)$ lies between $(f_k+1)$ and $(f_{k+1}-1)$, the second term to the possibility that it lies between $(f_{k+1}+1)$ and $(f_{k+2}-1)$ and so on. The term outside the square brackets corresponds to $k=N$, that is to the possibility that $n=f_N$. We can write the above equivalently as && \_[n+m]{} \_n && = \_[k=1]{}\^[N-1]{} \_[nf\_k]{} && + \_[nf\_N]{} . Using the state map , the right-hand side can be re-expressed in terms of the bosonic oscillator states and the oscillator numbers that refer to them. We get, && \_[n+m]{} \_n && = \_[k=1]{}\^[N-1]{} (\_[i=1]{}\^k r\_[N-k+i]{}-n+k-1 ) && + (\_[i=1]{}\^N r\_i-n+N-1 ) . Now, using the bosonic creation and annihilation operators it is easy to re-express every bosonic state appearing on the right-hand side above in terms of the state $\ket{r_1,~\cdots~, r_N}$ to which the fermionic state $\ket{f_1,~\cdots~, f_N}$ corresponds under the state map . This results in the bosonized operator expression for the fermi bilinear which is given in .
Proof of algebra for small values of $m$ for arbitrary $N$
------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the bilinears $\psid_{n+1}~\psi_n$ and $\psid_{n+2}~\psi_{n+1}$. From the algebra , we get =\_[n+2]{} \_n. It is clear from this equation that we can generate bosonized expressions for $\psid_{n+m}~\psi_n$ for any $m$ merely from the knowledge of bosonized expression for $\psid_{n+1}~\psi_n$ by using the algebra. However, here we will use the expressions given in for $m=0,~1$ and $2$, which are special cases of , to compute the commutator and verify that the result agrees with the right-hand side.
To compute the commutator we will need to use the following identities, in addition to those given in : g(\_k a\_k) \_k\^=\_k\^ g(\_k a\_k+1), g(\_k a\_k) \_k=\_k g(\_k a\_k-1) \_+(\_k a\_k-1), \[sigmarelationsapp\] where $g$ is any function of the number operator. We are now ready to do the computation using the second of in the commutator. All terms in the commutator involve products of two delta-functions and several vanish because these are incompatible. The surviving terms are && \[\_[n+2]{} \_[n+1]{}, \_[n+1]{} \_n\] && = \_1\^ (\_[i=1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-2 ) \_1\^ (\_[i=1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-1 ) && + \_1\^ (\_[i=1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-2 ) \_1 \_2\^ \_+(\_1 a\_1-1) (\_[i=2]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-2 ) && - \_1 \_2\^ \_+(\_1 a\_1-1) (\_[i=2]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-2 ) \_1\^ (\_[i=1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-2 ) && + \_[k=1]{}\^[N-1]{} \_k \_[k+1]{}\^ \_+(\_k a\_k-1) (\_[i=k+1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-k-2 ) && \_k \_[k+1]{}\^ \_+(\_k a\_k-1) (\_[i=k+1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-k-1 ) && - \_[k=2]{}\^[N-1]{} \_k \_[k+1]{}\^ \_+(\_k a\_k-1) (\_[i=k+1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-k-1 ) && \_[k-1]{} \_k\^ \_+(\_[k-1]{} a\_[k-1]{}-1) (\_[i=k]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-k-1 ) The first term comes from the commutator of the first term in the bosonized expression for the bilinear. The next two terms come from the cross-commutator between the first term and $k=1$ piece of the second term (which involves sum over $k$). The last two terms are from the commutator of the second term; this survives only when the same $k$ is picked from the two sums or if the $k$’s differ by $1$. Further simplification requires the use of the relations , and $\theta_+(\ad a-1)=\theta_+(\ad a)-\delta(\ad a)=
1-\delta(\ad a)$. The result is precisely the expression on the right-hand side of the of the last of .
Another test of the algebra comes from the use of the bosonized expression of the fermion bilinear conjugate to $\psid_{n+1}~\psi_n$. We have, \_n \_[n+1]{} = && [(\_[n+1]{} \_n )]{}\^ = \_1 (\_[i=1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-2 ) && + \_[k=1]{}\^[N-1]{} \_[k+1]{} \^\_k (\_[i=k+1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-k-2 ). From the algebra we see that = \_[nl]{} (\_[n+1]{} \_[n+1]{}-\_n \_n). \[conjugate\] Using the bosonized expressions in the commutator, we get && \[\_[n+1]{} \_n, \_l \_[l+1]{}\] && = \_[nl]{} { \_+(\_1 a\_1-1) (\_[i=1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-2 )-(\_[i=1]{}\^N \_i a\_i-n+N-1 ) && + \_[k=1]{}\^[N-1]{} } Now, let us replace $\theta_+(\ad a-1)$ by the equivalent expression $(1-\delta(\ad a))$ in all the three places. All the terms containing double delta-functions mutually cancel, except the one coming from $k=(N-1)$ of the first term in square brackets. But this has two incompatible delta-functions and so vanishes. The result for the right-hand side is \_[nl]{} \_[k=1]{}\^N , which is precisely the bosonized expression one gets by using the first of in the the right-hand side of . We see that for this test to work out, delicate cancellations between various terms were required.
Proof of algebra for all $m$ for $N=2$
----------------------------------------
For $N=2$, bosonized expressions for the bilinear for all values of $m$ have been given in . This is the first nontrivial, yet calculationally manageable case. We have checked that in this case the algebra is satisfied. Here we will indicate the main steps in the calculation. Like in the above calculations, delicate cancellations between various terms in the commutator are required for the algebra to work out, as we shall see.
We will be interested in the commutator = \_[l+p,n]{} \_[l+p+m]{} \_l - \_[n+m,l]{} \_[n+m+p]{} \_n, \[algebra\] for $m \geq p>0$. Other cases can be treated similarly.
There are three terms in the bosonized expression for the fermion bilinear given in . It is easy to see that the self-commutator of the first two terms reproduces the first two terms required by the bosonized expression for the right-hand side of . To prove that the bosonized expressions satisfy the , we then need to show that the self-commutator of the third term, together with all the cross-commutator terms, reproduces the required third term on the right-hand side. The self-commutator of the third term works out to be && [\_1\^]{}\^[m-p]{} [\_2\^]{}\^p \_+(p+l-n-1) (\_1 a\_1-n+l+1) (\_2 a\_2-l) && - \_1\^[m-p]{} [\_2\^]{}\^m \_+(p+l-m-n-1) \_+(m+n-l-1) && (\_1 a\_1-l+n+1) (\_2 a\_2-n), \[commutator1\] while the cross-commutator of the first two terms gives && \_1\^[m-p]{} [\_2\^]{}\^m \[\_+(p+l-m-n-1)- \_+(l-n-m-1)\] && (\_1 a\_1-l+n+1) (\_2 a\_2-n) && - [\_1\^]{}\^[m-p]{} [\_2\^]{}\^p \_-(n-p-l-1) (\_1 a\_1-n+l+1) (\_2 a\_2-l). \[commutator2\] The contributions in and are very similar and can be combined. Thus the first term of can be combined with the second term of using $\theta_+(p+l-n-1)-\theta_-(n-p-l-1)=-\delta_{p+l,n}$. Simplifying in this way gives the net combined contribution && - \_[p+l,n]{} [\_1\^]{}\^[m-p]{} [\_2\^]{}\^p (\_1 a\_1-p+1) (\_2 a\_2-l) && + \_[m+n,l]{} \_1\^[m-p]{} [\_2\^]{}\^m (\_1 a\_1-m+1) (\_2 a\_2-n), \[commutator3\] Finally, the cross-commutator between the first two terms and the third term gives && && - . Notice that by changing the summation variable from $r_1$ to $(r_1+m)$ in the second term in the first square brackets, we get a summand that is similar to the first term, but with a summation range for the new variable from $m$ to $(m+p-2)$. This nicely combines with the first term in the second square brackets to give an overall summation range for $r_1$ from $0$ to $(m+p-2)$, as is required if algebra is to be satisfied by the bosonized expressions. To be precise, the summation range in the first term in the second square brackets is from $0$ to $(m-2)$ only, so the contribution for $r_1=(m-1)$ is missing from the extended summation range. Fortunately, the terms in precisely supply this missing contribution. Taking this into account and simplifying, we find that the net result of the commutator calculation is && - \_[p+l,n]{} \_[r\_1=0]{}\^[m+p-2]{} [\^\_1]{}\^[m+p-2-r\_1]{} \_1\^[r\_1]{} [\_2\^]{}\^[r\_1+1]{} (\_1 a\_1-r\_1 ) (\_2 a\_2-l) && + \_[m+n,l]{} \_[r\_1=0]{}\^[m+p-2]{} [\^\_1]{}\^[m+p-2-r\_1]{} \_1\^[r\_1]{} [\_2\^]{}\^[r\_1+1]{} (\_1 a\_1-r\_1) (\_2 a\_2-n). This is exactly the third term in the bosonized form of the right-hand side of . Hence we have proved that our bosonization satisfies the algebra for $N=2$.
\[husimi.sec\] Quantum phase space distributions and star products
==================================================================
Some assorted references carrying more detailed versions of formulae in this Appendix are [@DMW-classical; @Madore-book; @Balachandran:2002ig; @Iso:1994ze; @Lizzi:2003ru; @Pinzul:2001my; @Pinzul:2002fi; @Chaturvedi:2005ug; @Balasubramanian:2005mg].
Single particle
---------------
Consider the (infinite-dimensional) Hilbert space of a particle in one dimension, carrying a representation of the Heisenberg algebra $[\hat x, \hat p] = i\hbar$. The Wigner phase space distribution of the particle in a wavefunction $\ket \psi$ is given by W(q,p) d e\^[-i p /]{} (q - /2) (q + /2) = g\_[q,p]{} , g\_[q,p]{} e\^[i]{} \[wigner1-def\] There are other choices for the phase space distribution, e.g. the Husimi distribution, given by && H(z, |z) | z | |\^2 = W(q’,p’) e\^[-1[2]{}\[(q’- q)\^2 + (p’-p)\^2\]]{}, z q + ip \[husimi1-def\] Using Wigner phase space distribution one can define a map between operators and functions, with an associated star product: && O O\_w(q,p) (O g\_[q,p]{}), O = dq dp O\_w(q,p) W(q,p) && A B A\_w(q,p) \*\_w B\_w(q,p) e\^[i]{} (A\_w(q,p) B\_w(q’,p’))|[q’=q, p’=p]{} The inverse map $O_w \to \hat O$ corresponds to Weyl operator ordering of the function $O_w$. The above star product $*_w$ is called the Moyal star product.
The corresponding definitions for Husimi distribution are && O O\_h(z,|z) z O z, O = dq dp O\_h(q,p) H(q,p) && A B A\_h(z,|z) \*\_h B\_h(z, |z) e\^[i]{} (A\_w(z,|z) B\_w(z’,|z’))|[z’=z]{} where $*_h$ is called the Voros star product.
Example of the harmonic oscillator :
The Wigner and Husimi distributions for the wavefunction $\ket j,
j=0,1,...,\infty$, are && W\_j(q,p) = [(-1)\^j]{} e\^[-]{} L\_j() && H\_j(z, |z) = 1[2(j!)]{} e\^[-|z|\^2]{} |z|\^[2j]{} \[husimi-sho\]
Second quantization
-------------------
Consider a system of $N$ fermions, as in Section 2.
The operators $\Phi_{mn} = \psid_m \psi_n$ (see Eqn. )) satisfy the algebra \[DMW\] = \_[m’n]{}\_[mn’]{} - \_[mn’]{}\_[m’n]{} \[winf\] $\Phi_{mn}$ are the basic operators in any one dimensional fermion field theory in a given fermion number sector. A basis free notation is = \_[m,n]{} \_[mn]{} n m The second quantized Wigner phase space density $\hat W_F(q,p)$ is a linear combination of $\Phi_{mn}$ W\_F(q,p) = Tr (g\_[q,p]{}) = d e\^[-i p /]{} (q - /2) (q + /2) \[wigner-2\] The expectation value of $\hat W_F(q,p)$ in the fermi state is the sum of the single-particle distributions, $\sum_m W_{f_m}(q,p)$. The second quantized Husimi phase space density $\hat H_F(q,p)$ is given by H\_F(z, |z) = Tr (zz) = \_[m,n]{} \_m \_n (\_m(z))\^\* \_n(z), \_n(z) = z n \[husimi-2\]
The second quantized phase space distributions for bosons are given by similar formulas, && W\_B(q,p) = Tr (\_B g\_[q,p]{}) = d e\^[-i p /]{} (q - /2) (q + /2), \_B = \_i \_j i j && H\_B(z, |z) = Tr (z z ) = \_[i,j]{} \_i \_j (\_i(z))\^\* \_j(z), \_i(z) = z i \[husimi-2b\]
\[rep\]New bosonic oscillator representation of $U(K)$
======================================================
We begin by noting that the $W_\infty$ algebra , generated by $ \psid_m \psi_n, m,n=0,1,...\infty$, has the following nested subalgebras U(1) U(2) U(3) ... W\_\[nested\] where the subalgebra $U(K), K=1,...,\infty$ is generated by the finite $\psid_m \psi_n, m,n=0,1,...,K-1$. The structure constants in are easily seen to be the structure constants of $U(K)$.
The representation of the subalgebra $U(K)$, provided by $\F^K_N$, defined as the Hilbert space of $N$ fermions in the first $K$ levels $m=0,1,...,K-1$, is the rank-$N$ antisymmetric tensor representation (dimension $^KC_N$).
We will bosonize $\F^K_N$ and its operators, using and its special cases and in the process will obtain novel[^10] bosonic representations of $U(K)$.
We will start with the simplest examples of small $N$.
The $N=1$ example
-----------------
Here $\F^K_N = \H^K$, the single-particle Hilbert space of fermions, truncated to the first $K$ levels. We rewrite the equations of involving the first $K$ of fermionic oscillators. For $m,n=0,1,...,K-1$, \_[m]{}\_m &&= P\_m (a - m) \_[m]{}\_[n]{} &&= (\^)\^[m-n]{} P\_n, m > n \_[m]{}\_[n]{} &&= P\_m ()\^[n-m]{}, m < n \[n=1bose\] Here $P_m = \ket m \bra m$, the projection operator. $a, \ad$ denote $a_1, \ad_1$ and $\sigma, \sigma^\dagger$ are defined as in .
Now, although $a, \ad$, and consequently $\sigma, \sigma^\dagger$, are infinite dimensional matrices (Heisenberg algebra can only have infinite dimensional representations), the operators on the RHS of have the matrix form (in the basis ${(\ad)^m\over \sqrt{m!}}\ket 0$) 000 \[block\] where $A$ is a $K \times K$ matrix.
Since the operator map ensures that algebra of fermion bilinears is reproduced by the bosonic expressions, the right hand side of provides a bosonic representation of $U(K)$. We will consider some explicit, small $K$, examples below.
For $K=2$ $\Phi_{mn}$ generate the $U(2)$ algebra. The bosonic versions of the generators are $P_0, P_1, \ad P_0, P_0 a$. These correspond to matrices of the form , where $A$ is a $2 \times 2$ matrix, assuming the following values, respectively P\_0 1000, P\_1 0001, P\_0 0100, P\_0 a0010 These provide a bosonic construction of the spin-1/2 representation of SU(2) ($P_0 + P_1$ represents the trace part of $U(2)$ algebra).
now gives the following bosonic generators of $U(3)$: $P_0, P_1, P_2, \ad P_0, {1\over \sqrt 2}(\ad) P_1, (\ad)^2 P_0, P_0
a, {1\over \sqrt 2} P_1 a, P_0 a^2$. $P_0 + P_1 + P_2$ represents the trace part and the rest provide the fundamental representation ${\bf 3}$ of $SU(3)$. The matrix representations are of the form with $A$ equal to standard $3 \times 3$ $SU(3)$ matrices.
For general $K$ ($N=1$) we get a bosonic construction of the fundamental (dim $K$) representation of $SU(K)$.
The $N=2$ example
-----------------
The relevant bosonization formulae are . The bosonic Hilbert space is a linear combination of states $\ket{mn} = {(\ad_1)^m
(\ad_2)^n \over \sqrt{m! n!}} \ket{00}$. Let us define projectors $P_{mn} =\ket {mn} \bra {mn}= \delta(\ad_1 a_1 -m) \delta(\ad_2 a_2
-n)$.
We will start with examples of small $K$. The first non-trivial case is $K=3$, for which gives $$\begin{aligned}
&& \psid_0 \psi_0 = \sum_{m=0}^\infty P_{m0},
\psid_1 \psi_1 = P_{00} + \sum_{m=1}^\infty P_{m1},
\psid_1 \psi_1 = P_{01} + P_{10} + \sum_{m=0}^\infty P_{m2}
\nn
&& \psid_1 \psi_0 = \sigma_1 \sigma^\dagger_2 \sum_{m=0}^\infty P_{m0},
\psid_2 \psi_0 =(\sigma_1 \sigma^\dagger_2)^2
\sum_{m=0}^\infty P_{2m} -\sigma^\dagger_2P_{00},
\psid_2 \psi_1 =\sigma_1^\dagger P_{00} +
\sigma_1 \sigma^\dagger_2 \sum_{m=1}^\infty P_{m1}\end{aligned}$$ The bosonic operators are infinite dimensional matrices, but are of a triangular form (cf. ) A[A’]{} 0 [A”]{} where $A$ is a $3 \times 3$ matrix, corresponding to the subspace $\H_3= Span\{\ket {00}, \ket {01}, \ket{10}\}$. The matrices $A$ can be worked out and they correspond to an irrep. of $SU(3)$ (viz. the representation $\bar {\bf 3}$).
\[lemma\]Bosonization of $N$ fermions in a $K$-level system
-----------------------------------------------------------
We will now give the result for general $N, K$ which is straightforward to derive:
- The bosonization formulae can be applied to bosonize $N$ fermions in a $K$-level system.
- The bosonization formulae give a novel bosonic construction of the general rank-$N$ antisymmetric tensor rep of $SU(K)$ in terms of $N$ bosonic oscillators.
[^1]: The allowed values of $m,~n$ depend on the system under consideration. For example, let $\hat h_0$ be the harmonic oscillator hamiltonian and $\hat h_1$ a quartic anharmonic piece. In this case, the matrix element $<m|\hat h_1|n>$ vanishes unless $|m-n| \leq 4$.
[^2]: One could choose an assignment by switching on a small magnetic field that breaks rotational symmetry. The original problem is recovered by letting the magnetic field go to zero after bosonization is done.
[^3]: We will use $\alpha$, $\alpha^\dagger$ to denote the lowering/raising operators of the single particle Hilbert space of a harmonic oscillator (as against $a_i$, $a_i^\dagger$ which are particle creation and annihilation operators).
[^4]: See, for example, the paper by Beisert and Staudacher [@Beisert:2005fw] for a summary of the current status of the subject and for references to recent literature.
[^5]: \[wf-u\]In these references the notation $u(q,p)$ was used in place of $W_F(q,p)$; notations in this paper are explained in Appendix \[husimi.sec\].
[^6]: We first deduced the operator map for the LLM system, but as mentioned in Section 2, they hold for fermions moving in an arbitrary potential and even in the presence of fermion-fermion interactions
[^7]: The identification of the $(x_1,x_2)$ plane of LLM with the phase space of half-BPS giant gravitons was made in [@Mandal:2005wv].
[^8]: There is a subtlety, however, about the origin of the “cake”. The giant gravitons at the “North pole” have zero energy. If we are not interested in keeping track of the total number of giant gravitons, we can choose to ignore all such giant gravitons and therefore ignore the harmonic oscillator ground state. Our $P_N$ (see ) will therefore consist of the states $\ket i,~
i=1,2,\cdots,\, N$. The formulae in the last section will have to be correspondingly modified, and in this convention, the rugged cake will have a “dip” in the middle.
[^9]: The occasional statements that D0 branes in 2D string theory correspond to fermions are somewhat loose. Taken literally, they would imply that D0 branes cannot be created in a fixed-$N$ theory, at least before the double scaling limit. A more appropriate picture (emphasized in, e.g., [@Mandal:2003tj]) is that D0 branes are to be understood as fermion-antifermion pairs, since kicking a fermion from the fermi level upwards is such an excitation. Our representation of the D0 brane in terms of the bosonic $d_n, d^\dagger_m$ oscillators is a precise formulation of this idea.
[^10]: different from Schwinger representations where the generators are bilinears in bosonic oscillators.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Lilas Alrahis, Muhammad Yasin, Nimisha Limaye, Hani Saleh, Baker Mohammad, Mahmoud Al-Qutayri, and Ozgur Sinanoglu, [^1] [^2]'
title: |
ScanSAT: Unlocking Static and Dynamic\
Scan Obfuscation
---
Conclusion
==========
Obfuscation of scan chains aims to protect against the untrusted testers; static and dynamic scan locking techniques obfuscate the scan operations, hiding the relationship between the scan-in and the delivered stimuli and the relationship between the captured and the scan-out responses. Static scan locking utilizes a single key while dynamic scan locking keeps updating its key, resulting in a sequence of keys that obfuscate scan operations.
In this paper, we propose the ScanSAT attack on obfuscated scan chains, extracting the secret key (sequence) and unlocking the circuit/scan chain. The attack is evaluated by analyzing the security of three representative scan obfuscation techniques–two static and one dynamic–over different scan chain architectures. ScanSAT models the obfuscated scan chains as a logic-locked combinational circuit, paving the way for the application of the powerful SAT attack to reveal the key (sequence), unlocking the scan chains, and thus, restoring access to the oracle. We show that ScanSAT can break naive scan locking techniques even for large key sizes and when scan compression is in place.
We also show that ScanSAT is capable of breaking compound defenses comprising scan locking and logic locking, as long as the logic locking defense is vulnerable to SAT attack. We therefore nullify the presumption that scan locking may protect logic locking by hindering the full scan access that SAT or other logic locking attacks need; we show that a logic locking technique that is resilient to SAT attack is still needed to protect the design IP.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This publication is based upon work supported by the Khalifa University of Science and Technology under Award No$.$ $[$RC2-2018-020$]$, New York University Abu Dhabi Center for Cybersecurity and Intel Corporation.
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\][Lilas Alrahis]{} received the B.S. degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in 2014 and the M.S. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering in 2016, both from Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE, where she is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in Engineering. Her current research interests include Hardware Security and Design for Trust.
-2plus -1fil
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\][Muhammad Yasin]{} is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Texas A&M University. He obtained a Ph.D. degree in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at New York University in 2018; an MS in Microsystems Engineering from Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, UAE in 2013; and a BS in Electrical Engineering from University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Lahore, Pakistan in 2007. His research interests include Hardware Security, Design for Trust, and Logic Locking. He won the US semi-finals of the TTTC’s E.J. McCluskey Best Doctoral Thesis Award in 2018.
-2plus -1fil
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\][Nimisha Limaye]{} received B.E. in Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering from University of Mumbai, India in 2015 and M.S. in Computer Engineering from New York University, USA in 2017. She is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at New York University, USA and is also a Global Ph.D. Fellow with New York University Abu Dhabi, UAE. Her research interests include security of reversible computing and hardware security with particular focus on security of sequential circuits. She is a member of IEEE.
-2plus -1fil
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\][Hani Saleh]{} is an associate professor of electronic engineering at Khalifa University since 2012. He is a co-founder/active researcher in the KSRC (Khalifa University Research Center) and the System on Chip Research Center (SOCC). Hani has a total of 19 years of industrial experience in ASIC chip design.
Prior to academia Hani worked for many leading chip design companies including Apple, Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Synopsys, Fujitsu and Motorola.
Hani received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Jordan, a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Texas at San Antonio, and a Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. Hani research interest includes IoT Devices design, deep learning, DSP algorithms design, computer. Hani has 16 issued US patents, 6 pending patent application, and over 100 articles published in peer reviewed conferences and Journals.
-2plus -1fil
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\][Baker Mohammad]{} earned his PhD from University of Texas at Austin, his M.S. degree from Arizona State University, Tempe, and BS degree from the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, all in ECE. Baker is the director of System on Chip Center and associate professor of ECE at Khalifa University. Prior to joining Khalifa University Baker was a Senior staff Engineer/Manager at Qualcomm, Austin, USA for 6-years, where he was engaged in designing high performance and low power DSP processor used for communication and multi-media application. Before joining Qualcomm he worked for 10 years at Intel Corporation on a wide range of micro-processors design from high performance, server chips $>100$Watt (IA-64), to mobile embedded processor low power sub 1 watt (xscale). His research interest includes VLSI, power efficient computing, Design with emerging technology such as Memristor, STTRAM, In-Memory-Computing, Efficient hardware accelerator for search engine, image processing, and Artificial Intelligent hardware.
-1plus -1fil
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\][Mahmoud Al-Qutayri]{} received the B.Eng. degree from Concordia University, Canada, 1984, the M.Sc. degree from the University of Manchester, U.K., 1987, and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Bath, U.K., 1992 all in electrical and electronic engineering. He is currently a Full Professor with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies, College of Engineering at Khalifa University, UAE. Prior to joining Khalifa University, he worked at De Montfort University, UK and University of Bath, UK. He has authored/co-authored numerous technical papers in peer-reviewed journals and international conferences. He also co-authored a book entitled Digital Phase Lock Loops: Architectures and Applications and edited a book entitled Smart Home Systems. This is in addition to a number of book chapters and patents. Al-Qutayri current research interests include wireless sensor networks, embedded systems design, in-memory computing, mixed-signal integrated circuits design and test, and hardware security.
-1plus -1fil
\[[{width="1in" height="1.25in"}]{}\][Ozgur Sinanoglu]{} is a professor of electrical and computer engineering at New York University Abu Dhabi. He obtained his PhD in Computer Science and Engineering from University of California San Diego in 2004. He has industry experience at TI, IBM and Qualcomm, and has been with NYU Abu Dhabi since 2010. During his PhD, he won the IBM PhD fellowship award twice. He is also the recipient of the best paper awards at IEEE VLSI Test Symposium 2011 and ACM Conference on Computer and Communication Security 2013. Prof. Sinanoglu’s research interests include design-for-test, design-for-security and design-for-trust for VLSI circuits, where he has around 200 conference and journal papers, and 20 issued and pending US Patents. His recent research in hardware security and trust is being funded by US National Science Foundation, US Department of Defense, Semiconductor Research Corporation, Intel Corp and Mubadala Technology.
[^1]: A preliminary version of this work was presented at ASPDAC 2019 Conference [@aspdac19].
[^2]: Manuscript received March 14, 2019; revised August 29, 2019.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We derive various exact results for Markovian systems that spontaneously relax to a non-equilibrium steady-state by using joint probability distributions symmetries of different entropy production decompositions. The analytical approach is applied to diverse problems such as the description of the fluctuations induced by experimental errors, for unveiling symmetries of correlation functions appearing in fluctuation-dissipation relations recently generalised to non-equilibrium steady-states, and also for mapping averages between different trajectory-based dynamical ensembles. Many known fluctuation theorems arise as special instances of our approach, for particular two-fold decompositions of the total entropy production. As a complement, we also briefly review and synthesise the variety of fluctuation theorems applying to stochastic dynamics of both, continuous systems described by a Langevin dynamics and discrete systems obeying a Markov dynamics, emphasising how these results emerge from distinct symmetries of the dynamical entropy of the trajectory followed by the system. For Langevin dynamics, we embed the “dual dynamics” with a physical meaning, and for Markov systems we show how the fluctuation theorems translate into symmetries of modified evolution operators.'
address:
- '$^1$ Centro Atómico Bariloche and Instituto Balseiro, 8400 S. C. de Bariloche, Argentina'
- '$^2$ Laboratoire de Probabilités et Modèles Aléatoires (CNRS UMR 7599), Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI and Université Paris-Diderot - Paris VII, site Chevaleret, 175 rue du Chevaleret, 75013 Paris, France'
author:
- 'Reinaldo Garc[í]{}a-Garc[í]{}a$^1$[^1], Vivien Lecomte$^2$, Alejandro B. Kolton$^1$ and Daniel Dom[í]{}nguez$^1$'
title: Joint probability distributions and fluctuation theorems
---
Introduction
============
The study of the fluctuating heat interchange between a small system and a thermal reservoir is of academic interest but also of direct experimental relevance, as new techniques for microscopic manipulation and detection allow nowadays to measure fluctuations in small experimental systems of relevance in Physics, Chemistry and Biology [@bustamante; @ritort]. At this respect, a group of relations known as fluctuation theorems (FT) [@Evans-Cohen-Morris; @Gallavotti-Cohen; @Kurchan; @Lebowitz; @Jarzynski; @Crooks; @Hatano-Sasa; @Seifert1; @Seifert2] have attracted a lot of attention as they shed a new light into the principles governing energy fluctuations in a family of model systems. Remarkably, these results go beyond linear-response or quasi-equilibrium conditions, and apply to systems driven by non-conservative forces with arbitrary time-dependent protocols, even feedback controlled [@Horowitz; @Sagawa; @Seifert-feedback].
Formally, the generality of the FTs can be attributed to the way probability distribution functions of particular observables behave under symmetry-breaking forcings, such as non-conservative and/or time dependent forces (see [@Kurchan2; @Harris-Schuetz] for reviews on FT). Although the FTs are not expected to hold for every experimental system in contact with a thermal bath, they still provide a nice framework to analyse and understand the fluctuating heat interchange of out of equilibrium systems in general. Here we focus, as in most of the recent works in this field, on the family of systems whose driven dynamics can be well described by Langevin equations (without memory) or by discrete Markov chains. These are the prototypical models for which most FTs can be proven easily, without making any additional assumptions. (Note that fluctuation theorems have also been derived for non-Markovian dynamics [@Zamponi; @Aron].)
FTs are exact relations for the probability distributions for the values $W$ of observables ${\mathcal W}[{\bf x};\sigma]$ which are functionals of the stochastic state-space system trajectories ${\bf x}\equiv
\{x(t)\}_{t=0}^\tau$ (*e.g.* work, heat or more generally, different forms of trajectory-dependent entropy productions) in processes driven by an arbitrary time-dependent protocol $\sigma(t)$ during a time $\tau$. Typically, the so-called integral fluctuation theorems (IFTs) are exact relations for the thermal average over histories such as $\langle e^{- {\mathcal W}} \rangle = 1$ while detailed fluctuations theorems (DFTs) for the same observable are stronger relations, typically of the form $P(W)/P^T(-W)=e^W$, involving the probability distributions $P(W)\equiv \langle \delta({\mathcal W}[{\bf
x};\sigma]-W)\rangle$ and $P^T(W)\equiv \langle \delta({\mathcal W}[{\bf
x};\sigma]-W)\rangle^T$ of the stochastic values $W$ of ${\mathcal W}$, with $T$ denoting that the trajectories $x$ are sampled from a transformed (typically time-reversed) dynamics such that ${\mathcal W}^T = -{\mathcal W}$. The observable ${\mathcal W}$ is thus convenient to measure the asymmetry under the transformation $T$. Indeed, $\langle W \rangle \equiv
D_{KL}(P(W) \parallel P^T(-W))$, with $D_{KL}(P_A \parallel P_B)$ the Kullback-Leibler distance between two distributions $P_A$ and $P_B$. Prominent examples for physically relevant observables ${\mathcal W}$ are the total entropy production ${S_{\tt tot}}$ which yields the Jarzynski IFT [@Jarzynski] and Crooks DFT [@Crooks], the non-adiabatic entropy $S_{{\text{na}}}$ produced in transitions between non-equilibrium steady-states yielding the Hatano-Sasa IFT [@Hatano-Sasa] and DFT [@Jarzynski1], and the adiabatic entropy production $S_{{\text{a}}}$, yielding the Speck-Seifert IFT [@Seifert1] and DFT [@EspositoPRL].
A simple unifying picture for all these seemingly different FTs has emerged recently [@Seifert2; @EspositoPRL; @Jarzynski1]. Although a DFT trivially includes as a particular case an IFT it is now clear that there exist two basic operations $T$ that we can use for generating the DFT version corresponding to each of the above mentioned IFTs. These two operations are [*time-reversal*]{} ($R$), which reverses the protocol maintaining the form of the dynamical equations, and the transformation to the so-called [*dual dynamics*]{} ($\dagger$), which corresponds to different dynamical equations. These transformations are interesting since they are closely related to symmetry operations of equilibrium and non-equilibrium steady-states. The above mentioned FTs can indeed be all unified in three detailed fluctuation theorems [@EspositoPRL; @EspositoPRE1; @EspositoPRE2] satisfied by the the total entropy production ${S_{\tt tot}}$, and by each term of its particular two-fold decomposition, ${S_{\tt tot}}= S_{{\text{a}}} + S_{{\text{na}}}$, into an adiabatic $S_{{\text{a}}}$ and a non-adiabatic part $S_{{\text{na}}}$. This splitting is physically motivated and closely related, for isothermal processes, to the splitting $Q_{{\text{tot}}}=Q_{{\text{hk}}}+Q_{{\text{exc}}}$ of the total work done by all forces, into a house-keeping heat $Q_{{\text{hk}}}$ and an excess heat $Q_{{\text{exc}}}$, proposed by Oono and Paniconi [@Oono-Paniconi] and later formalised by Hatano-Sasa [@Hatano-Sasa] for describing steady-state thermodynamics. The three DFT read $$\begin{aligned}
P({S_{\tt tot}})/P^R(-{S_{\tt tot}}) &=& e^{{S_{\tt tot}}} \\
P(S_{{\text{na}}})/P^{\dagger R}(-S_{{\text{na}}}) &=& e^{S_{{\text{na}}}}, \\
P(S_{{\text{a}}})/P^{\dagger}(-S_{{\text{a}}}) &=& e^{S_{{\text{a}}}}
\label{eq:esposito3dft}\end{aligned}$$ where in the second equation the dual and the the time-reversal operations are composed. As we can see, at variance with the DFT for ${S_{\tt tot}}$, where the distribution of ${S_{\tt tot}}$ for the forward process is compared with the one for the backward process obeying a time-reversed protocol, the detailed fluctuations theorems for $S_{{\text{a}}}$ and $S_{{\text{na}}}$ require comparing the forward process with a process governed by the adjoint dynamics (which can be additionally time-reversed), which is very different from the original physical dynamics and therefore difficult to impose experimentally in general.
In a recent paper we have shown that writing detailed theorems in terms of joint probabilities is a convenient approach for deriving easily a family of relations, including the three detailed FTs, which might prove relevant for diverse applications. Introducing joint distributions is on the other hand natural when we are interested in the path dependent fluctuations of non-scalar observables. Indeed more general transformations $T$ such as vector rotations [@Hurtado] can be also considered for deriving joint-distributions FTs. In this work we provide more detailed calculations and expand the results of [@Garcia-Garcia], and then propose new applications.
The organisation of the paper is as follows. In Section \[sec:rev\] we review various FTs and introduce the notations and basic observables used in the next sections. In Section \[sec:FTjoint\] we review the main results of our previous work, and give their detailed derivation using Langevin dynamics in its path-integral (Onsager-Machlup) representation (paragraph \[ssec:langevin\]) and Markov chains (paragraph \[ssec:markov\]). In Section \[sec:appli\] we discuss some applications of our results. Conclusions and perspectives are gathered in Section \[sec:concl\].
Fluctuation theorems preliminaries {#sec:rev}
==================================
It is clear that given two different dynamical weights ${\mathcal{P}}[{\bf x}; \sigma]$ and ${\mathcal{P}^T}[{\bf x}; \sigma]$ for the stochastic trajectories ${\bf x}\equiv \{x(t)\}_{t=0}^\tau$ of a given system, we can always define a trajectory dependent quantity $${\mathcal W}[{\bf x}; \sigma]=\ln(\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}; \sigma]/{\mathcal{P}^T}[{\bf x}; \sigma]).$$ which satisfies, by construction, the symmetry relation $$\langle \mathcal{O}[{\bf x}; \sigma] \rangle_{p_0} =
\langle \mathcal{O}[{\bf x}; \sigma] e^{{\mathcal W}[{\bf x};\sigma]}\rangle^{T}_{p_1},
\label{eq:dftgeneral}$$ where $\langle...\rangle = \int \mathcal{D}{\bf x}{\mathcal{P}}[{\bf x}; \sigma]...$, $\langle...\rangle^T = \int \mathcal{D}{\bf x}{\mathcal{P}^T}[{\bf x}; \sigma]...$, with initial conditions sampled from the arbitrary distributions $p_0(x)$ and $p_1(x)$ respectively. The functional $\mathcal{O}[{\bf x},\sigma]$ is an arbitrary observable and thus equation (\[eq:dftgeneral\]) can be used to get a detailed statistics. ${\mathcal W}$ is by construction odd under the swapping of the two dynamics, and its average over the first dynamics is the Kullback-Leiber distance between the two trajectory ensembles ${\mathcal{P}}[{\bf x}; \sigma]$ and ${\mathcal{P}^T}[{\bf x}; \sigma]$, that is $\langle {\mathcal W}\rangle = \mathcal{D}_{KL}({\mathcal{P}}[{\bf x}; \sigma]\parallel{\mathcal{P}^T}[{\bf x}; \sigma])$. One may use the general equation (\[eq:dftgeneral\]) in two interesting ways:
- [**Mapping trajectory ensembles:**]{} On one hand we might directly choose two different dynamics (through their transition probabilities or through their Langevin equations for instance) and use the equation to compare them quantitatively and from a purely information theoretical point of view. At this respect it is worth noting equation (\[eq:dftgeneral\]) “maps” averages of arbitrary observables $\mathcal{O}$ in the original trajectory ensemble to another average in a “target ensemble” of trajectories. An interesting case is the one which maps averages in a true non-equilibrium ensemble where detailed balance is broken (e.g. driven by non-conservative forces) to a one satisfying detailed balance (e.g. driven by potential forces). A particular instance where ${\mathcal W}$ does acquires also a clear physical meaning is the mapping to equilibrium dynamics that is discussed in section \[mappingtoeq\].
- [**Symmetry transformations and entropy production:**]{} On the other hand, instead of choosing a “target” dynamics, we might focus on the properties of the original dynamics and directly choose transformations $T$ of it connected to symmetries of their equilibrium and non-equilibrium steady-states (NESS). As it is well known and we briefly review in the next sections, what make this case specially interesting is that for such special transformations usually ${\mathcal W}$ acquires a well defined physical meaning as generalised trajectory entropy productions. As we show in the following sections, time-reversal and the transformation to the so called “dual” dynamics yield the three detailed theorems of (\[eq:esposito3dft\]) and thus many known fluctuations theorems of great relevance in stochastic thermodynamics.
Time-reversed dynamics {#ssec:TR}
----------------------
In the [*time-reversed*]{} dynamics, $T = R$, trajectories are still governed by the original dynamical equations, with a time-reversed protocol $\sigma^R(t) = \sigma(\tau-t)$. When a system is driven out of equilibrium, either by non-conservative or time dependent forces, the resulting asymmetry is *e.g.* measured by comparing the statistical weights of two “twin trajectories” [@Jarzynski1] ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf x}^R$ such that their components are related as $x^R(t)=x(\tau-t)$, that is ${\bf x}$ is evolved with $\sigma(t)$ and and ${\bf x}^R$ with $\sigma^R(t)$. A convenient measure between the two weights is the functional $$\label{totaltrajentroprod}
{\mathcal S}[{\bf x}; \sigma]=\ln(\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}; \sigma]/\mathcal{P}^R[{\bf x}^R; \sigma^R]),$$ defined from the statistical weight $\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}; \sigma]$ of system trajectories ${\bf x}$ evolved, starting from an initial condition distribution [$\operatorname{Prob}[x(0)=s] = p_0(s)$]{}, during a given time interval $\tau$ in a $d$-dimensional state space under the action of forces controlled by an arbitrary set $\sigma \equiv \sigma(t)$ of time-dependent external parameters [@Kurchan; @Lebowitz; @Seifert2]. Here $\mathcal{P}^R[{\bf x}^R; \sigma^R]$ denotes the statistical weight of the trajectory ${\bf x}$ but evolved backwards, $x^R(t)=x(t-\tau)$, and with the backward protocol $\sigma^R(t)=\sigma(\tau-t)$, sampled from an initial condition distribution $\operatorname{Prob}[x^R(0)=s] = p_1(s)$. For instance, for a Langevin dynamics we typically have $\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma]\sim e^{-\int_0^\tau
dt\;\mathcal{L}[x,\dot x;\sigma]+\ln p_0(x(0))}$, and $\mathcal{P}^R[{\bf x}^R;\sigma^R] \sim
e^{-\int_0^\tau dt\;\mathcal{L}[x^R,\dot x^R;\sigma^R]+\ln
p_1(x^R(0))}$, where $\mathcal{L}[x,\dot x;\sigma]$ is the dynamical action of the system which, in general, also contains the logarithm of a Jacobian, whose form depends on the considered stochastic calculus. By making a simple change of variables, we easily derive ${\mathcal S}[{\bf x}; \sigma]\sim -\int_0^\tau dt\;(\mathcal{L}[x,\dot
x;\sigma]-\mathcal{L}[x,-\dot x;\sigma])-\ln (p_0(x(0))/p_1(x(\tau)))$ (see Section \[ssec:langevin\]). From we have, by construction, that ${\mathcal S}$ is odd under $T=R$, that is, ${\mathcal S}[{\bf x}^R; \sigma^R]=-{\mathcal S}[{\bf x}; \sigma]$, since $R$ is an involution. We also note that the definition of ${\mathcal S}$ allows us to write, for the average of any observable $\mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma]$ $$\label{eq:reversingtimeinaverage}
\langle \mathcal{O}[{\bf x}; \sigma]\rangle = \langle \mathcal{O}[{\bf x}^R; \sigma] e^{-S[{\bf x};\sigma^R]} \rangle^R,$$ where $\langle...\rangle = \int \mathcal{D}{\bf x} \;\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma]...$ and $\langle...\rangle^{R} = \int \mathcal{D}{\bf x} \;\mathcal{P}^R[{\bf x};\sigma^R]...$ denotes the average over forward and reversed trajectories respectively. We note also that the concept of twin trajectories used to define ${\mathcal S}$ is irrelevant in the last equation since on each side we integrate over all possible trajectories (i.e. ${\bf x}$ is now a dummy variable) and that $\int\mathcal{D}{\bf x}^R=\int\mathcal{D}{\bf x}$ since $x^R$ is simply a time reflection and shift of the trajectory ${\bf x}$ in time-state space. Equation implies, in particular $$\langle e^{-\lambda {\mathcal S}[{\bf x};\sigma] }\rangle=\langle e^{-(1-\lambda){\mathcal S}[{\bf x};\sigma^R] }\rangle^R,$$ where in the left hand side we recognise the generating function of $P(S)=\langle \delta({\mathcal S}[{\bf x};\sigma]-S) \rangle$ (we use calligraphic symbols to differentiate functionals of stochastic trajectories from their actual values) with $\lambda$ an arbitrary number we can use to compute any cumulant of $S$. Introducing $P^R(S)=\langle \delta({\mathcal S}[{\bf x};\sigma^R]-S) \rangle^R$, it is then straightforward to derive the detailed FT (DFT), $$\label{dft_total}
P(S)/P^R(-S)=e^S$$ which implies, by direct integration or by setting $\lambda=1$ above, the integral FT (IFT) $$\label{ift_total}
\langle e^{-{\mathcal S}[{\bf x};\sigma] }\rangle = 1$$ and thus, by using Jensen’s inequality we get $$\label{jensen_total}
\langle {\mathcal S}[{\bf x};\sigma] \rangle \geq 0.$$ This inequality can also be obtained by noting that $\langle {\mathcal S}\rangle$ is equal to the positively defined Kullback-Leibler distance between two probability distributions, that is, for the present case, $\langle {\mathcal S}\rangle= \int {\cal D}{\bf x}\; \mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma]
{\mathcal S}[{\bf x};\sigma] = {\cal D}_{KL}(\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}; \sigma]||\mathcal{P}^R[{\bf x}^R;
\sigma^{\text{R}}]) \ge 0$. Since the equality above is thus reached for time-reversal symmetric processes, at equilibrium $\langle {\mathcal S}\rangle=0$, as expected. It is easy to show that such symmetry is actually stronger, ${\mathcal S}=0$, due to detailed balance. In addition, if the relaxation time of the equilibrium states is finite, then processes that are driven very slowly compared with it do not produce this quantity either, as the adiabatic process makes the system visit a sequence of the (symmetric) equilibrium states compatible with the instantaneous value $\sigma(t)$. It is also worth remarking here that all the above statistical properties are valid for arbitrary protocols $\sigma(t)$, arbitrary initial conditions for the forward $p_0$ and backward $p_1$ process, and they are time-independent, that is, they are valid for any $\tau \ge 0$. Let us note however that our definition of ${\mathcal S}$ includes a border term containing information about the initial condition , $p_0$ and $p_1$, of the twin processes it compares. We note also that the choice of $p_1$ is free, and not a constraint for the trajectories at the border $t=\tau$ however, a direct connection with “physical” entropy production ${S_{\tt tot}}$ can be done if one chooses $p_1$ being the solution of the Fokker-Planck (or master) equation at time $\tau$ [@Seifert2].
What makes ${\mathcal S}$ physically interesting in connection with stochastic thermodynamics is that it can be identified, up to a time border term, with the stochastic heat dissipated into the reservoir divided by its temperature along the stochastic system trajectory $x$, for an isothermal process. If such process is described for instance by a Langevin dynamics $\dot{x} = f(x;\sigma)+\xi$, where the force $f(x;\sigma)$ might contain both conservative and non-conservative terms, it can be shown that [@Kurchan; @SeifertEPJB] (see paragraphs \[ssec:langevin\] and \[ssec:markov\] for the derivation in Langevin dynamics and Markov chains situations respectively), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kurchan}
{\mathcal S}[{\bf x}; \sigma]&=& \frac{1}{T}\int_0^\tau dt\;f(x;\sigma) \dot{x}
+ \ln \frac{p_0(x(0))}{p_1(x(\tau))} \\
&=& \frac{{Q^{\tt tot}}[{\bf x};\sigma]}{T} + \ln \frac{p_0(x(0))}{p_1(x(\tau))}\end{aligned}$$ where the functional of the trajectory ${Q^{\tt tot}}[{\bf x};\sigma]$ is the total work done by the force $f(x;\sigma)$ on the stochastic trajectory $x$ under the protocol $\sigma$, and the border term $\ln [p_0(x(0))/p_1(x(\tau)]$ depends only on the time boundaries of each stochastic trajectory, sampled by $p_0$ and $p_1$ which remain so far arbitrary. With this identification of ${\mathcal S}$, it is also interesting to note again that since $\langle {\mathcal S}\rangle = {\cal D}_{KL}(\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}; \sigma]||\mathcal{P}^R[{\bf x}^R; \sigma^{\text{R}}])$, (\[jensen\_total\]) and (\[kurchan\]) relate irreversibility and dissipation in an elegant information theoretical way. At this respect it is worth noting that in equilibrium $\sigma$ is constant, $p_{0,1}(x)=e^{-\beta (E(x;\sigma)-F(\sigma))}$, and since all forces are conservative, we have ${Q^{\tt tot}}= E[x(0),\sigma]-E[x(\tau),\sigma]$, yielding ${\mathcal S}[{\bf x}; \sigma]=0$ for each stochastic trajectory ${\bf x}$. By writing ${\mathcal S}$ in terms of transition probabilities one obtains that this is equivalent to the detailed balance condition.
Equations (\[eq:reversingtimeinaverage\]-\[kurchan\]) can be combined to derive many known FTs for Markovian systems. To start, by combining (\[eq:reversingtimeinaverage\]) and (\[kurchan\]), one obtains the generalised Crooks relation for the average of an arbitrary observable $\mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma]$ along a trajectory with the forward and backward protocol, $$\left\langle \mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma]
e^{-\frac{1}{T}{{Q^{\tt tot}}[{\bf x};\sigma]} - \ln \frac{p_0(x(0);\sigma(0))}{p_1(x(\tau);\sigma(\tau))}}
\right\rangle_{p_0} =
\left\langle \mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma]
\right\rangle^R_{p_1}.$$ We have now a lot of freedom to derive FTs, by choosing appropriate values for $\mathcal{O}$, $p_0$ and $p_1$.
- [*Seifert relation*]{}: Choosing $\mathcal{O}=1$ and $p_1(x)=\rho(x,\tau)$ to be the time-dependent solution of the Fokker-Planck equation with initial condition $p_0(x)\equiv
\rho(x,0)$, we obtain the Seifert theorem [@Seifert2], valid for all times $\tau$ and arbitrary initial conditions. This choice defines the so-called [*trajectory dependent total entropy production*]{} ${S_{\tt tot}}= {Q^{\tt tot}}/T + S_s$, with $S_s = \ln [\rho(x,\tau)/\rho(x,0)]$ the [ *trajectory dependent system entropy production*]{}, such that: $$\label{ift_total_siefert}
\left\langle e^{-{S_{\tt tot}}} \right\rangle_{\text{any} \;p_0} = 1.$$ Seifert also made the interesting observation that this choice for $p_1$ is optimal in the sense $\min_{p_1} [\langle {\mathcal S}\rangle_{p_0}]=\langle {\mathcal S}_{{\text{tot}}} \rangle_{p_0}$. This is easy to understand if we write $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\mathcal S}- {\mathcal S}_{{\text{tot}}} \rangle_{p_0}=
\left\langle \ln \frac{\rho(x(\tau),\tau)}{p_1(x(\tau))} \right\rangle_{p_0} =\nonumber\\
=\int dy\; \rho(y,\tau) \ln \frac{\rho(y,\tau)}{p_1(y)} =
\mathcal{D}_{KL}( \rho(y,\tau) \parallel p_1(y))
\ge 0,\end{aligned}$$ and use the positiveness of the Kullback-Leiber distance between any two distributions.
- [*Jarzynski relation for NESS*]{}: By choosing $\mathcal{O}=1$, $p_1(x)=\rho_{{\text{SS}}}(x;\sigma(\tau))$ and $p_0(x)=\rho_{{\text{SS}}}(x;\sigma(0))$ from the steady-state solution of the Fokker-Planck equation $\rho_{{\text{SS}}}(x;\sigma)$ we obtain the generalised Jarzynski relation for transitions between NESS, valid for all times $\tau$ and steady-state initial conditions compatible with $\sigma(0)$. $$\label{ift_jarzynski_gral}
\left\langle e^{-\frac{{Q^{\tt tot}}[{\bf x};\sigma]}{T} - [\phi(x(\tau),\sigma(\tau))-\phi(x(0);\sigma(0))]}
\right\rangle_{{\rho_{\tt SS}}(\sigma(0))} = 1.$$ where $\phi(x;\sigma) \equiv -\ln {\rho_{\tt SS}}(x;\sigma)$. As noted by Hatano and Sasa this relation does not generalise the second law of thermodynamics for NESS, since its corresponding Jensen’s inequality $$\left\langle \frac{{Q^{\tt tot}}[{\bf x};\sigma]}{T} + [\phi(x(\tau),\sigma(\tau))-\phi(x(0);\sigma(0))]
\right\rangle_{{\rho_{\tt SS}}(\sigma(0))} \geq 0,$$ does not reach zero for adiabatic processes due to the presence of non-conservative forces which, even in the steady-state, inject energy and produce the so-called house-keeping heat.
- [*Jarzynski relation*]{}: The IFT of equation reduces to the well known Jarzynski relation if the initial steady-state is the Boltzmann-Gibbs equilibrium state $\rho_{{\text{SS}}}(x;\sigma) = \rho_{{\text{eq}}}(x;\sigma) = e^{-\beta [E(x;\sigma)-F(\sigma)]}$, with $E(x;\sigma)$ the energy of state $x$ and $F(\sigma)$ the free energy, under the constraint $\sigma$ $$\label{ift_jarzynski}
\left\langle e^{-\beta{{\mathcal W}_d}} \right\rangle_{\rho_{{\text{eq}}}(\sigma(0))} = e^{-\beta{\Delta F} }$$ where the dissipated work is ${\mathcal W}_d[{\bf x};\sigma] \equiv {Q^{\tt tot}}[x;\sigma] + E[x(\tau);x(\tau)]-E[x(0);\sigma(0)]$ and $\Delta F = F(\sigma(\tau))-F(\sigma(0))$. Again: $$\left\langle {{\mathcal W}_d} \right\rangle_{\rho_{{\text{eq}}}(\sigma(0))} \ge \Delta F.$$ The equality is achieved in the adiabatic limit, and thus Jensen’s inequality yields the second law for transitions between equilibrium states. Note that (an infinite number) of other second law-like inequalities can be obtained from variational methods [@infinite2ndlawlike].
- [*Crooks relation*]{}: If $p_0(x)=\rho_{{\text{eq}}}(x;\sigma(0))$ and $p_1(x)=\rho_{{\text{eq}}}(x;\sigma(\tau))$, and $\mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma]= \delta({\mathcal W}_d[{\bf x};\sigma]-W_d) $, equation (\[eq:reversingtimeinaverage\]) reduces to $$P(W_d) e^{-\beta \Delta F}= \nonumber \\
P^R(-W_d) e^{-W_d}$$ where $P(W_d)=\langle \delta({\mathcal W}_d[{\bf x};\sigma]-W_d) \rangle$, $P^R(W_d)=\langle \delta({\mathcal W}_d^R[{\bf x};\sigma]-W_d) \rangle^R$,
- [*Fluctuation in NESS*]{}: In the absence of time-dependent forces, $\sigma(t)=\sigma_0$, a system initially prepared in the steady-state $p_0(x) = {\rho_{\tt SS}}(x;\sigma_0)$ remains there and satisfy a particular form of the Crooks relation: $$P(W_d) = P(-W_d) e^{-W_d}$$
Dual dynamics
-------------
Non-equilibrium steady-states (NESS) are already asymmetric with respect to time-reversal due to the lack of detailed balance. This has led Oono and Paniconi [@Oono-Paniconi] to introduce a useful two fold decomposition of the total heat exchange into a “house-keeping heat” part, constantly produced to maintain the non-equilibrium driven steady-state with non-vanishing currents, and an “excess heat” part, produced only during transitions between steady-states. The excess heat is minimised in adiabatic processes, that is when $\sigma(t)$ varies very slowly compared with an assumed finite relaxation time towards the NESS, while the house keeping heat is minimised only at equilibrium, in the absence of non-conservative forces, when detailed balance is recovered. Hatano and Sasa formalised this splitting for Langevin dynamics by defining stochastic trajectory dependent quantities, ${Q^{\tt hk}}[{\bf x};\sigma]$ and ${Q^{\tt ex}}[{\bf x};\sigma]$, for the house-keeping and excess heat respectively, and deriving a IFT which generalised the second law for transitions between NESS. Although they do not use it for its derivation, they point out that the so-called dual dynamics, denoted by the symbol $\dagger$, composed with time-reversal, plays a role analogous to time-reversal alone in the derivation of the Jarzynski equality.
Indeed, the adjoint transformation is defined such that NESS are symmetric with respect to the simultaneous application of time-reversal $R$ and the adjoint transformation $\dagger$ to the original dynamics, that is, with respect to the composed “$T=R \circ \dagger$” transformation: the steady-state of the adjoint dynamics has the same distribution ${\rho_{\tt SS}}^\dagger={\rho_{\tt SS}}$ as the original dynamics but with an inverted steady-state current $J_{{\text{SS}}}^\dagger = - J_{{\text{SS}}}$. Since the original current can be recovered by a time-reversal without changing ${\rho_{\tt SS}}$, the steady-state is symmetric with respect to the composed operation $T=R \circ \dagger$. It is worth remarking that the adjoint transformation changes the dynamics (see paragraph \[ssec:dualdynCT\] for an explicit example). It is then natural to introduce the so-called trajectory-dependent non-adiabatic entropy production $$\label{eq:defSna}
{\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}} [{\bf x}; \sigma]=\ln(\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}; \sigma]/\mathcal{P}^{\dagger R}[{\bf x}^R; \sigma^R]),$$ to measure the asymmetry produced when the system is driven out of the NESS. Here $\mathcal{P}^{\dagger R}[{\bf x}^R; \sigma^R]$ is the weight of the trajectory ${\bf x}$ in the time-reversed dual dynamics. In Section \[sec:FTjoint\] we derive explicit forms for $S_{{\text{na}}}$ for Langevin and Markov chain dynamics. For Langevin dynamics we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ssna}
{\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}} [{\bf x}; \sigma]&=& -\int_0^\tau dt\;\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}(x;\sigma) \dot{x}
+ \ln \frac{p_0(x(0))}{p_1(x(\tau))} \\
&=& \frac{{Q^{\tt ex}}[{\bf x};\sigma]}{T} + \ln \frac{p_0(x(0))}{p_1(x(\tau))}\end{aligned}$$ making a physical connection with the Oono-Paniconi-Hatano-Sasa excess heat. Note that here we have used again the freedom to choose the initial condition distributions $p_0$ and $p_1$ for the “twin trajectories”, the first weighted in the forward protocol of the physical dynamics, the second weighted in the backward protocol of the dual dynamics. By analogy, it is now straightforward to write FTs. The definition of ${\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}$ allows us to write, for the average of any observable $\mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma]$, the FT generator
$$\langle \mathcal{O}[{\bf x}; \sigma] e^{-{\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]} \rangle_{p_0}
= \langle \mathcal{O}[{\bf x}; \sigma] \rangle^{R\dagger}_{p_1},$$
where $\langle...\rangle^{\dagger R} = \int \mathcal{D}{\bf x} \;\mathcal{P}^{\dagger R}[{\bf x};\sigma^R]...$ denotes the average over trajectories generated by the dual dynamics and controlled by a time-reversed protocol and ${\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}^\dagger[{\bf x}^{R};\sigma^R]=-{\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]$. It is worth remarking here that the above statistical relation is valid for any initial condition distributions $p_0$ and $p_1$ and is valid for any $\tau \ge 0$. We can now easily derive several relations by making particular choices for $\mathcal{O}$, and $p_{0,1}$:
- [*Generating function*]{}: By choosing $\mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma] = e^{(1-\lambda) {\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]}$, with $\lambda$ any number, we get $$\label{dft_nonadiabatic}
\langle e^{-\lambda {\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma] }\rangle_{p_0}
=\langle e^{-(1-\lambda){\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma^R] }\rangle^{R \dagger}_{p_1},$$
- [*Non-adiabatic entropy production DFT*]{}: By choosing $\mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma] = \delta({\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]-S)$ and defining $P(S)=\langle \delta({\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]-S) \rangle_{p_0}$ and $P^{R\dagger}(S)=
\langle \delta({\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}^{\dagger R}[{\bf x};\sigma]-S) \rangle^{R\dagger}_{p_1}
= \langle \delta({\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]+S) \rangle^{R\dagger}_{p_1}
$, it is straightforward to derive the DFT [@Jarzynski1; @EspositoPRL] $$P(S_{{\text{na}}})/P^{{\text{R}}\dagger}(-S_{{\text{na}}})=e^{S_{{\text{na}}}}$$ which is the detailed version of the Hatano-Sasa IFT, if the initial condition is the stationary distribution.
- [*Hatano-Sasa IFT*]{}: By choosing $\mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma]=1$ and $p_0(x)={\rho_{\tt SS}}(x;\sigma(0))$ and $p_1(x)={\rho_{\tt SS}}(x;\sigma(\tau))$ we obtain the Hatano-Sasa IFT $$\label{ift_nonadiabatic}
\langle e^{-(\beta {Q^{\tt ex}}[{\bf x};\sigma]+\Delta \phi )}\rangle_{{\rho_{\tt SS}}(\sigma(0))} = 1$$ where $\Delta \phi = \phi(x(\tau);\sigma(\tau))-\phi(x(0);\sigma(0))$. By using Jensen’s inequality we get $$\label{jensen_nonadiabatic}
\beta \langle {Q^{\tt ex}}[{\bf x};\sigma] \rangle_{{\rho_{\tt SS}}(\sigma(0))} \geq \langle \Delta \phi \rangle_{{\rho_{\tt SS}}(\sigma(0))}.$$ which is the generalisation of the second-law for transition between NESS. Again, this inequality can also be obtained by noting that $\langle {\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}} \rangle$ is equal to the positively defined Kullback-Leibler distance between two probability distributions. For the present case, $\langle {\mathcal S}\rangle= {\cal D}_{KL}(\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};
\sigma]||\mathcal{P}^{\dagger R}[{\bf x}^R; \sigma^R]) \ge 0$, and the equality is reached for processes that are time-reversal symmetric in the dual dynamics. Therefore equilibrium in particular, and NESS in general, have $\langle {\mathcal S}\rangle=0$, as expected. The latter is also true for adiabatic processes, slow compared to an assumed finite relaxation time toward the NESS, so that the system is always very close to the NESS corresponding to the instantaneous value of $\sigma(t)$. The absence of non-adiabatic entropy production in NESS is actually “detailed”: ${\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}=0$. As shown in Section \[ssec:dualdynCT\] this can be understood from the definition of dual dynamics and from a detailed balance like relation between the transition probabilities of the direct and dual dynamics for the same pair of states.
Finally, we note that equilibrium states are symmetric with respect to $R$ and $\dagger$. It is thus natural to introduce a new quantity ${\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}$ to measure the asymmetry produced by non-conservative or time-dependent driving forces by using the $\dagger$ operation alone, $$\label{eq:defSa}
{\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}} [{\bf x}; \sigma]=\ln(\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}; \sigma]/\mathcal{P}^\dagger[{\bf x}; \sigma]).$$ where we note that the twin trajectories are actually the same, the first weighted in the direct dynamics and the second in the dual dynamics. In Section \[sec:FTjoint\] we derive an explicit form for $S_{{\text{a}}}$, from Langevin and Markov chain dynamics. For Langevin dynamics the following relation holds $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}} [{\bf x}; \sigma]&=& \frac{1}{T}\int_0^\tau dt\;v_{{\text{SS}}}(x;\sigma) \dot{x}
+ \ln \frac{p_0(x(0))}{p_1(x(0))} \\
&=& \frac{{Q^{\tt hk}}[{\bf x};\sigma]}{T}+\ln \frac{p_0(x(0))}{p_1(x(0))}\end{aligned}$$ where the steady-state velocity $v_{{\text{SS}}}(x;\sigma) \equiv J_{{\text{SS}}}(\sigma)/\rho_{{\text{SS}}}(x;\sigma)$, with $\rho_{{\text{SS}}}(x;\sigma)\equiv e^{-\phi(x;\sigma)}$ the NESS probability distribution, and $J_{{\text{SS}}}$ the probability current in state-space. We also note that the initial condition for trajectories weighted in the dual dynamics $p_1$ is not reversed. The above makes the physical connection with the house-keeping heat. By analogy with the previous cases, it is now straightforward to write a FT generator for this observable: $$\langle \mathcal{O}[{\bf x}; \sigma] e^{-{\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]} \rangle_{p_0} = \langle \mathcal{O}[{\bf x}; \sigma] \rangle^{\dagger}_{p_1},$$ where $\langle...\rangle^{\dagger} = \int \mathcal{D}x \;\mathcal{P}^{\dagger}[{\bf x};\sigma]...$ denotes the average over trajectories weighted in the dual dynamics. We can thus proceed analogously.
- [*Generating function*]{}: $$\langle e^{-\lambda {\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma] }\rangle_{p_0}=\langle e^{-(1-\lambda){\mathcal S}^\dagger_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma] }\rangle^{\dagger}_{p_1},$$
- [*Adiabatic entropy production DFT*]{}: $$P(S_{{\text{a}}})/P^{\dagger}(-S_{{\text{a}}})=e^{S_{{\text{a}}}}$$ which is a detailed version of the Speck-Seifert IFT, if the initial condition is stationary.
- [*Speck-Seifert IFT*]{}: By choosing $\mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma]=1$ and $p_0(x)=p_1(x) = {\rho_{\tt SS}}(x;\sigma(0))$ we obtain the Speck-Seifert IFT $$\langle e^{-\beta {Q^{\tt hk}}[{\bf x};\sigma] }\rangle_{{\rho_{\tt SS}}(x;\sigma(0))} = 1$$ by using Jensen’s inequality we get $$\label{jensen_adiabatic}
\langle \beta {Q^{\tt hk}}[{\bf x};\sigma] \rangle_{{\rho_{\tt SS}}(x;\sigma(0))} \geq 0.$$ Again, this inequality can also be obtained by noting that $\langle {\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}} \rangle$ is equal to the positively defined Kullback-Leibler distance between two probability distributions, that is, for the present case, $\langle {\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}} \rangle= {\cal D}_{KL}(\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}; \sigma]||\mathcal{P}^{\dagger}[{\bf x}; \sigma]) \ge 0$. Since the equality above is reached for dual-symmetric processes by construction, only equilibrium states have $\langle {Q^{\tt hk}}\rangle=0$. NESS do produce ${Q^{\tt hk}}$ because they need house-keeping energy to maintain detailed balance violation. In other words, NESS are dual asymmetric because the $\dagger$ operation, although keeping ${\rho_{\tt SS}}$ invariant, invert the steady-state current $J_{{\text{SS}}}$. Therefore, the equality in equation is never reached by NESS. At equilibrium, the equality is actually reached, and is “detailed” in the sense that ${Q^{\tt hk}}[{\bf x};\sigma]=0$ for each trajectory, since $J_{{\text{SS}}}=0$ exactly.
Splitting
---------
By using the operations $R$ and $\dagger$, related to symmetries of equilibrium and NESS states, we have defined the trajectory dependent total, non-adiabatic, and adiabatic entropy production functionals, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma] &=& \mathcal{P}^R[{\bf x}^R;\sigma^R] e^{{\mathcal S}[{\bf x};\sigma]} \\
\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma] &=& \mathcal{P}^{\dagger R}[{\bf x}^R;\sigma^R] e^{{\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]} \\
\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma] &=& \mathcal{P}^\dagger[{\bf x};\sigma] e^{{\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]}. \end{aligned}$$ From the last equation we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}^{\dagger R}[{\bf x}^R;\sigma^R] &=& \mathcal{P}^R[{\bf x}^R;\sigma^R] e^{{\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}^{\dagger}[{\bf x}^R;\sigma^R]} \end{aligned}$$ therefore, from the second we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma]
= \mathcal{P}^R[{\bf x}^R;\sigma^R] e^{{\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}^{\dagger}[{\bf x}^R;\sigma^R]+{\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]} . \end{aligned}$$ Comparing with the first we conclude: $${\mathcal S}[{\bf x};\sigma] = {\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}^{\dagger}[{\bf x}^R;\sigma^R] + {\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]$$ only using transformation properties. If we define ${\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}$ such that it does not include a border term as it is customary, we see that ${\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}^{\dagger}[{\bf x}^R;\sigma^R]={\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]$. This is so because $R$ and $\dagger$ only change the sign of ${\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}$. Therefore, we get $${\mathcal S}= {\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}} + {\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}$$ which is the starting point of the three detailed theorems [@EspositoPRL]. However, it is worth noting that in [@EspositoPRL], $\mathcal{S}_{\tt tot}$ have been considered instead of ${\mathcal S}$. This splitting is explicitly obtained for Langevin and Markov chains in section \[sec:FTjoint\].
Fluctuation theorems from joint distribution symmetries {#sec:FTjoint}
-------------------------------------------------------
In a previous work [@Garcia-Garcia] we have shown that the use of joint probability distributions for different total entropy production decompositions is a convenient tool for deriving a variety of exact expressions for Markovian systems, including many known fluctuations theorems arising from particular two-fold decompositions of the total entropy production. This was done by first noting that [ *any*]{} decomposition of the total trajectory entropy production for Markov systems, ${\mathcal S}[{\bf x}; \sigma]=\sum_{i=1}^M \mathcal A_i[{\bf x}; \sigma]$, has a joint probability distribution satisfying a generalised detailed fluctuation theorem, when all the contributing terms are odd with respect to time reversal, $\mathcal A_i[{\bf x}^{\text{R}}; \sigma^{\text{R}}]=-\mathcal A_i[{\bf x}; \sigma]$: $$\frac{P(A_1, A_2,..., A_M)}{P^{\text{R}}(-A_1, -A_2,..., -A_M)}=e^{S}
\label{eq:joint0}$$ with ${S}=\sum_{i=1}^M A_i$ and $P(A_1, A_2,..., A_M)=\langle \delta(\mathcal{A}_1-A_1)...\delta(\mathcal{A}_M-A_M) \rangle_{p_0}$. This contains the same information as $$\left\langle e^{-\sum_{i=1}^M \lambda_i \mathcal A_i[{\bf x};\sigma]}\right\rangle_{p_0}
= \left\langle e^{-\sum_{i=1}^M (1-\lambda_i) \mathcal A_i[{\bf x};\sigma^R]} \right\rangle^R_{p_1},$$ for $\{\lambda_i\}$ $M$ arbitrary numbers. It is worth remarking that relations of the kind of the previous equation, have been already derived in [@Lebowitz; @Andrieux-Gaspard] for time independent $\sigma$.
More generally, for a transformation $T$, we can define a quantity ${{\mathcal S}_T}=\ln \{\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma]/\mathcal{P}^T[{\bf x};\sigma]\}$. If we can write ${\mathcal S}_T [{\bf x}; \sigma]=\sum_{i=1}^M \mathcal{B}_i[{\bf x}; \sigma]$ such that each component is odd or even under $T$, $\mathcal{B}^T_i = \epsilon^T_i \mathcal{B}_i$ with $\epsilon^T_i = \pm 1$, we get $$\frac{P(B_1, B_2,..., B_M)}{P^T(\epsilon^T_1 B_1, \epsilon^T_2 B_2,..., \epsilon^T_M B_M)}=e^{{\mathcal S}_T}$$ or, equivalently $$\left\langle e^{-\sum_{i=1}^M \lambda_i \mathcal B_i[{\bf x};\sigma]}\right\rangle_{p_0}
= \left\langle e^{\sum_{i=1}^M (1-\lambda_i) \epsilon^T_i \mathcal B_i^T[{\bf x};\sigma]} \right\rangle^T_{p_1}.$$ On the other hand, for a not constrained list of variables $\{\mathcal{C}_i\}_{i=2}^M$, such that $\mathcal{C}^T_i = \epsilon^T_i \mathcal{C}_i$, we can also write $$\left\langle e^{-\lambda {\mathcal S}_T +\sum_{i=2}^M \lambda_i \mathcal C_i[{\bf x};\sigma]}\right\rangle_{p_0}
= \left\langle e^{-(1-\lambda){\mathcal S}_T^T + \sum_{i=2}^M \lambda_i \epsilon^T_i \mathcal C_i^T[{\bf x};\sigma]} \right\rangle^T_{p_1},$$ or, equivalently $$\frac{P(S_T, C_2, C_3,..., C_M)}{P^T(-S_T, \epsilon^T_2 C_2, \epsilon^T_3 C_3,..., \epsilon^T_M C_M)}=e^{S_T}
\label{eq:generaljointDFT}$$ These relations are interesting as they contain the three detailed fluctuation theorems [@EspositoPRL] as a particular case for $M=1$: For the three transformations $T= (R),\; (\dagger),\; (R \circ \dagger)$ we get, respectively, the DFTs for ${\mathcal S}$, ${\mathcal S}_a$ and ${\mathcal S}_{na}$. As an example, using the above relations for $M=2$ we can get the following useful identities for ${\mathcal S}_a$ and ${\mathcal S}_{na}$: $$\fl{P({\mathcal S}_a, {\mathcal S}_{na} )}={P^\dagger(-{\mathcal S}_a, {\mathcal S}_{na})} e^{{\mathcal S}_a}
={P^{\dagger R}({\mathcal S}_a, -{\mathcal S}_{na})} e^{{\mathcal S}_{na}}
={P^{R}(-{\mathcal S}_a, -{\mathcal S}_{na})} e^{{\mathcal S}}$$ The last one assuming the splitting ${\mathcal S}={\mathcal S}_a+{\mathcal S}_{na}$.
Another interesting consequence of (\[eq:generaljointDFT\]) and Bayes theorem is that $${P(C_2,..., C_M|S_T)}={P^T(C_2^T,..., C_M^T|-S_T)}
\label{eq:generalconditionaljointDFT}$$ meaning that the variables $\{\mathcal{C}_i\}_{i=2}^M$ have identical statistical properties in the trajectory subensembles determined by the constraints ${\mathcal S}_T[{\bf x},\sigma] = S_T$ and ${\mathcal S}_T^T[{\bf x},\sigma] = -S_T$, and can thus not be used to differentiate the original and the transformed dynamics. It is particularly instructive to consider variables $\{\mathcal{C}_i\}_{i=2}^M$ describing a discretized path of a certain duration. Following the discussion for the time-reversal case in Ref.[@gomezmarin] we can now write, for the particular transformations $T= (R),\; (\dagger),\; (R \circ \dagger)$, the subensembles equivalences $$\begin{aligned}
{P(\text{path}|S)}={P^R(\text{path}^R|-S)}\\
{P(\text{path}|S_a)}={P^\dagger(\text{path}|-S_a)}\\
{P(\text{path}|S_{na})}={P^{\dagger R}(\text{path}^R|-S_{na})}\end{aligned}$$ As discussed in Ref.[@gomezmarin], and can be appreciated recalling (\[eq:esposito3dft\]), the above expressions “map” the statistics of typical trajectories in one forward process, to rare trajectories in the transformed process, being the latter backward, the backward-dual or the forward-dual process, according to the corresponding involved transformation.
Markovian dynamics models
=========================
So far we have made mostly general mathematical considerations arising from the definitions of trajectory entropy productions without specifying the dynamics behind the corresponding and different trajectory statistical weights. In this section we analyse two paradigmatic class of Markov dynamics. First we consider the Langevin dynamics for systems with configurations lying in the continuum, and described by first order stochastic differential equations. Second we consider the continuous-time Markov chains describing dynamical systems with discrete configurations, described by master equations with well defined transition probabilities.
Langevin dynamics {#ssec:langevin}
-----------------
### Generalities
For simplicity we consider in the following discussion the case of one dimensional Langevin system coupled with a single thermal bath. Our model consists in a Brownian particle driven by an external force. In the presence of periodic boundary conditions, the steady-state for this system has a non-zero probability current. Our results can be easily generalised to more dimensions and many particles (provided the temperature is the same along every spatial dimension – see *e.g.* [@Puglisi] for a physically relevant situation where it is not the case). We also consider in \[ssec:markov\] the case of discrete Markov chains. We start with the Langevin equation $$\label{langevindynamics}
\dot{x} =-\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x;\alpha)+f+\xi,$$ where $\alpha$ represents a set of parameters of the system, $f$ is a driving force and $\xi(t)$ is a Gaussian white noise with variance $\langle\xi(t)\xi(t')\rangle=2T\delta(t-t')$. The parameters $\alpha$ and $f$ may depend on time and $\sigma=(\alpha,f)$. For this system the probability of a given trajectory in the phase space has the following form $$\label{weight}
\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma]=\int\mathcal{D}\xi
P[\xi]p_0(x(0);\sigma_{0})J[{\bf x};\sigma]\delta\bigg[\dot{x}+\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x;\alpha)-f-\xi\bigg],$$ where $p_0$ is the initial probability density function of the system (at $t=0$), $P[\xi]$ is the probability distribution of the thermal noise and $J[{\bf x};\sigma]$ is a Jacobian to be defined below. $P[\xi]$ takes the following form $$\label{noise}
P[\xi]=\Pi^{-1}(\tau)\exp\bigg[-\frac{1}{4T}\int_{0}^{\tau}dt\,\xi(t)^{2}\bigg],$$ where $\Pi(\tau)$ is a normalisation constant.
It is instructive to make at this point a formal, but important remark. It is essential to specify the discretization scheme (*i.e.* the choice of Itō or Stratonovich stochastic calculus — see [@LauLubensky] for a detailed analysis) of the path integral given in equation (\[weight\]) and all the following ones. In general, the relevant quantities we are interested in (different forms of heat) were originally defined in the Stratonovich scheme, and we work using this picture. Besides, the Stratonovich discretization is easier to use in our context since it is invariant under time-reversal, contrary to the Itō one. In the Stratonovich case, the Jacobian in equation (\[weight\]) reads $$\label{jacobian}
J[{\bf x};\sigma]=\exp\bigg\{\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{\tau}dt\frac{\partial^{2}U}{\partial x^{2}}(x;\alpha)\bigg\}.$$ As regards time-reversal transformations, an important property of this Jacobian is the following: $$\label{jacobiansymmetry}
J[{\bf x};\sigma]=J[{\bf x}_R;\sigma_{R}].$$ Integrating out the noise in equation (\[weight\]) and taking into account equation (\[noise\]) we obtain: $$\label{weight1}
\mathcal{P}[{\bf x},\sigma]=\Pi^{-1}(\tau)J[{\bf x};\sigma]\exp\{-I[{\bf x};\sigma]\},$$ where the Onsager-Machlup action functional $I[{\bf x};\sigma]$ writes $$\label{action}
I[{\bf x};\sigma] =-\ln p_0(x(0);\sigma_0)+\int_{0}^{\tau}dt\bigg\{\frac{1}{4T}
\bigg[\dot{x}^{2}+\bigg(\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x;\alpha)-f\bigg)^{2}\bigg]
+\frac{1}{2T}\dot{x}\bigg(\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x;\alpha)-f\bigg)\bigg\}.$$ Let us now consider the time reversed probability weight given by $$\label{weightreversed}
\mathcal{P}^R[{\bf x}_R,\sigma_R]=\Pi^{-1}(\tau)J[{\bf x}_R;\sigma_R]\exp\{-I_R[{\bf x}_R;\sigma_R]\},$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{actionR}
\fl I_R[{\bf x}_R;\sigma_R]=-\ln p_1(x(\tau);\sigma_\tau)+\int_{0}^{\tau}dt\bigg\{\frac{1}{4T}
\bigg[(\dot{x}_R)^{2}+\bigg(\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x_R;\alpha_R)-f_R\bigg)^{2}\bigg]+\nonumber\\
\quad\qquad\qquad\qquad +\frac{1}{2T}\dot{x}_R\bigg(\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x_R;\alpha_R)-f_R\bigg)\bigg\},\end{aligned}$$ where $p_1$ is from now on the solution of the Fokker-Planck equation of the process at time $\tau$ in order to make a connection with [@Seifert2]. In this case one can immediately write for the total trajectory entropy production $$\label{entropyprodlangevin}
\mathcal{S}[{\bf x}; \sigma]=\ln
(\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}; \sigma]/\mathcal{P}^R[{\bf x}_R; \sigma_R])=I_R[{\bf x}_R;\sigma_R]-I[{\bf x};\sigma]\equiv
\mathcal{S}_s[{\bf x};\sigma]+\mathcal{S}_r[{\bf x};\sigma],$$ where one identifies the system (reservoir) entropy production $\mathcal{S}_s[{\bf x};\sigma]$ ($\mathcal{S}_r[{\bf x};\sigma]$) as $$\label{systementropy}
\mathcal{S}_s[{\bf x};\sigma]=-\ln\frac{ p_1(x(\tau);\sigma_\tau)}{ p_0(x(0);\sigma_0)},$$ $$\label{reservoirentropy}
\mathcal{S}_r[{\bf x};\sigma]=-\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{\tau}dt\dot{x}\bigg(\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x;\alpha)-f\bigg).$$ Consider now the instantaneous stationary probability density function for given values of the set of parameters of the system $\rho_{{\text{SS}}}(x(t);\sigma(t))=e^{-\phi(x(t);\sigma(t))}$ and let us add and subtract the quantity $\int_0^\tau
dt\dot{x}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}(x;\sigma)$ from equation (\[entropyprodlangevin\]). In this case one finds a different decomposition of the total trajectory entropy production in two different contributions, the so-called adiabatic and the non-adiabatic contributions $$\label{adiabaticentropy}
\mathcal{S}_{{\text{a}}}=\int_{0}^{\tau}dt\dot{x}\bigg[\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}(x;\sigma)
-\frac{1}{T}\bigg(\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x;\alpha)-f\bigg)\bigg],$$ $$\label{nonadiabaticentropy}
\mathcal{S}_{{\text{na}}}=\ln\frac{ p_0(x(0);\sigma_0)}{ p_1(x(\tau);\sigma_\tau)}
-\int_0^\tau dt\dot{x}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}(x;\sigma).$$ We thus have two relevant decompositions $$\label{entropy1}
\mathcal{S}[{\bf x}; \sigma]=\mathcal{S}_s[{\bf x};\sigma]+\mathcal{S}_r[{\bf x};\sigma]=\mathcal{S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]+\mathcal{S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma].$$ Note that instead of using the Onsager-Machlup action functional $I[{\bf x};\sigma]$ one could equivalently work in the Martin-Siggia-Rose-Janssen-De Dominicis framework (which is more suitable for non-Markovian dissipation [@Aron]).
### Dual dynamics in continuous time {#ssec:dualdynCT}
When the steady-state probability density function for a given system doesn’t satisfies detailed balance, one usually introduces the dual dynamics in terms of its propagator. In a time discretized picture one defines it via the relation: $$\label{dualdef}
K^{\dagger}(x_{i}|x_{i+1};\sigma_{i})=K(x_{i+1}|x_{i};\sigma_{i})\frac{\rho_{{\text{SS}}}(x_{i};\sigma_{i})}
{\rho_{{\text{SS}}}(x_{i+1};\sigma_{i})}.$$ As can be seen, when detailed balance holds the dual propagator is equal to the corresponding propagator for the dynamics of the system.
In the limit of continuous time we have that $x_{i}=x(s), \; \sigma_{i}=\sigma(s),
\; x_{i+1}=x(s+ds), \; ds\rightarrow 0$. In that case $$\label{propagatorcontinuous}
K(x(s+ds)|x(s);\sigma(s))\simeq\exp\bigg[\frac{1}{2}ds\frac{\partial^{2}U}{\partial x^{2}}(x;\alpha)-
\frac{1}{4T}ds\bigg(\dot{x}+\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x;\alpha)-f\bigg)^{2}\bigg].$$ From (\[dualdef\]) and (\[propagatorcontinuous\]) we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dualcontinuous}
\fl K^{\dagger}(x(s+ds)|x(s);\sigma(s))
\simeq\exp\bigg[\frac{1}{2}ds\frac{\partial^{2}U}{\partial x^{2}}(x;\alpha)-
\frac{1}{4T}ds\bigg(\dot{x}-\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x;\alpha)+f\bigg)^{2}-\nonumber\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad -ds\dot{x}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}(x;\sigma)\bigg]. \end{aligned}$$ Now, from (\[dualcontinuous\]) we obtain for the general dual propagator: $$\label{dualcontinuous1}
K^{\dagger}(x,t|x',t';\sigma)=\Pi^{-1}(t-t')\int_{x(t')=x'}^{x(t)=x}DxJ[{\bf x};\sigma]\exp[-\mathcal{I}^{\dagger}[{\bf x};\sigma]],$$ where $$\label{dualaction}
\mathcal{I}^{\dagger}[{\bf x};\sigma]=\int_{t'}^{t}ds\bigg\{\frac{\beta}{4}\bigg[\dot{x}(s)-\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}
(x(s);\alpha(s))+f(s)\bigg]^{2}+
\dot{x}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}(x(s);\sigma(s))\bigg\}$$ and $J[{\bf x};\sigma]$ is given by equation (\[jacobian\]). Before going beyond, let us write the action (\[dualaction\]) in a more clear way. By adding and subtracting the quantity $\frac{1}{T}\dot{x}(\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}-f)$ in the integrand of equation (\[dualaction\]), we obtain: $$\label{dualaction1}
\mathcal{I}^{\dagger}[{\bf x};\sigma]=\int_{t'}^{t}ds\bigg\{\frac{1}{4T}\bigg[\dot{x}(s)+\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x(s);\alpha(s))-f(s)\bigg]
^{2}\bigg\}+
\mathcal{S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma].$$ We thus confirm the identification of ${\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}$ with the trajectory relative entropy between its weight in the original dynamics with its weight in the dual dynamics, as defined in : $$\label{eq:linkSaPPdagger}
\mathcal{S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma] = \mathcal{I}^{\dagger}[{\bf x};\sigma]-\mathcal{I}[{\bf x};\sigma] =
\ln \frac{P[{\bf x};\sigma]}{P^{\dagger}[{\bf x};\sigma]}$$ The second equality in the previous equation holds for $p_0(x(0))=p_1(x(0))$. From this remark one obtains as an immediate result the validity of an IFT for the adiabatic entropy production $$\label{IFTSa}
\langle e^{-\mathcal{S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]}\rangle=\langle 1\rangle^\dagger\equiv1.$$ To endow the dual dynamics with a physical meaning, one would like to associate the dual propagator to an effective Langevin equation (*i.e.* an effective microscopic dynamics). To do so, let us consider the following action: $$\label{effectiveaction}
\mathcal{I}_{{{\text{eff}}}}[{\bf x},\sigma]= \int_{t'}^{t}ds\frac{1}{4T}\bigg[\dot{x}+\frac{2}{\beta}
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}(x;\sigma)-\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x;\alpha)+f\bigg]^{2}.$$ Simple algebra shows that: $$\label{dual-effective relation}
\mathcal{I}_{{{\text{eff}}}}[{\bf x},\sigma]=
\mathcal{I}^{\dagger}[{\bf x};\sigma]-\int_{t'}^{t}ds\bigg[\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}(x;\sigma)
\bigg(\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x;\alpha)-f\bigg)-T\bigg(\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}(x;\sigma)\bigg)^{2}\bigg].$$ We know that, by definition, $\rho_{{\text{SS}}}(x,\sigma)$ satisfies at fixed $\sigma$ the following stationary Fokker-Planck equation: $$\label{fokker-planck}
T\frac{\partial^{2}\rho_{{\text{SS}}}}{\partial x^{2}}(x;\sigma)+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}
\bigg[\bigg(\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}(x;\alpha)-f\bigg)\rho_{{\text{SS}}}(x;\sigma)\bigg]=0.$$ Now, putting $\rho_{{\text{SS}}}(x;\sigma)=\exp[-\phi(x;\sigma)]$ in (\[fokker-planck\]) one obtains: $$\bigg(\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{\partial U}{\partial x}-f\bigg)
-T\bigg(\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}\bigg)^{2}=
\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}(U-T\phi).$$ We thus get: $$\label{action-jacobian}
\mathcal{I}_{{{\text{eff}}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]=\mathcal{I}^{\dagger}[{\bf x};\sigma]+\frac{1}{2}\int_{t'}^{t}ds\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}
\bigg[2T\phi(x;\sigma)-2U(x;\alpha)\bigg].$$ Substituting (\[action-jacobian\]) in (\[dualcontinuous1\]) yields: $$\label{dualcontinuous2}
K^{\dagger}(x,t|x',t')=\Pi^{-1}(t-t')\int_{x(t')=x'}^{x(t)=x}DxJ_{{{\text{eff}}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]\exp[-\mathcal{I}_{{{\text{eff}}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]],$$ where: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{effectivejacobian}
J_{{{\text{eff}}}}[{\bf x};\sigma] &=& J[{\bf x};\sigma]\exp\bigg\{\frac{1}{2}\int_{t'}^{t}ds\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}
\bigg[\frac{2}{\beta}\phi(x;\sigma)-2U(x;\alpha)\bigg]\bigg\}=\nonumber\\
&=& \exp\bigg\{\frac{1}{2}\int_{t'}^{t}ds
\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}\bigg[\frac{2}{\beta}\phi(x;\sigma)-U(x;\alpha)\bigg]\bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us define now the effective potential: $$\label{effectivepotential}
V_{{{\text{eff}}}}(x;\sigma)=\frac{2}{\beta}\phi(x;\sigma)-U(x;\alpha).$$ With this definition we have that: $$\label{effectiverelations}
\mathcal{I}_{{{\text{eff}}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]=\bigg[\dot{x}+\frac{\partial}{\partial x}V_{{{\text{eff}}}}(x;\sigma)+f\bigg]^{2},\quad J_{{{\text{eff}}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]=\exp\bigg[\frac{1}{2}\int_{t'}^{t}ds\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}V_{{{\text{eff}}}}(x;\sigma)\bigg].$$ From (\[dualcontinuous2\]) and (\[effectiverelations\]) one obtains that the dual propagator is the propagator corresponding, in the Stratonovich scheme, to the Langevin equation: $$\label{duallangevin}
\dot{x}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial x}V_{{{\text{eff}}}}(x;\sigma)-f+\xi,$$ where, as can be seen from (\[langevindynamics\]), the force has reversed sign. It is easy now to see that when detailed balance holds, this dynamics coincides with the real dynamics (\[langevindynamics\]). In fact, in this case we have $\phi(x;\sigma)=\frac{1}{T}[U(x)-fx-F(T;\sigma)]$, where $F(T;\sigma)$ is the free energy. Substitution of this choice for $\phi$ in (\[duallangevin\]) directly leads to (\[langevindynamics\]). Concluding this discussion, we remark that the dual dynamics corresponds to the dynamics of a system having the same steady-state probability density function but with *opposite* probability current in the steady-state.
Finally we can also compute ${\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}$ directly from the path-integral representation of the Langevin dynamics as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}} = I_R^{\dagger}[{\bf x}^R;\sigma^R]-I[{\bf x};\sigma] &=& \ln \frac{p_{0}(x(t');\sigma(t'))}{p_1(x(t);\sigma(t))}+
\mathcal{I}^{\dagger}[{\bf x}^R;\sigma^R]-\mathcal{I}[{\bf x};\sigma]=\nonumber\\
&=& \ln \frac{p_{0}(x(t');\sigma(t'))}{p_1(x(t);\sigma(t))}-\int_{t'}^t ds\;\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}(x;\sigma) \dot{x}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking now $t'=0$ and $t=\tau$, we obtain (\[ssna\]).
### Derivation of known FTs
We now use the general symmetry equation and the two relevant decompositions obtained above for the trajectory entropy production in the considered case in order to reobtain, from an unified point of view, the known FTs. First one sees immediately that $$\label{jointprobs}
P(S_s,S_{r})/P^R(-S_s,-S_{r})=e^{S_s+S_{r}} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
P(S_{{\text{a}}},S_{{\text{na}}})/P^R(-S_{{\text{a}}},-S_{{\text{na}}})=e^{S_{{\text{a}}}+S_{{\text{na}}}},$$ or equivalently $$\label{jointprobs1}
\langle e^{-\lambda_1\mathcal{S}_s-\lambda_2\mathcal{S}_r}\rangle=
\langle e^{-(1-\lambda_1)\mathcal{S}^R_s-(1-\lambda_2)\mathcal{S}^R_r}\rangle_R
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
\langle e^{-\lambda_1\mathcal{S}_{{\text{a}}}-\lambda_2\mathcal{S}_{{\text{na}}}}\rangle=
\langle e^{-(1-\lambda_1)\mathcal{S}^R_{{\text{a}}}-(1-\lambda_2)\mathcal{S}^R_{{\text{na}}}}\rangle_R.$$ It is worth noting that these relations do not involve dual probability distribution functions (PDFs), and thus they can be tested for a physical system with a given dynamics. We also note that while one can show both that $S_{{\text{a}}}$ and $S_{{\text{na}}}$ satisfy separately a DFT by using dual PDFs [@EspositoPRL], $S_s$ and $S_r$ satisfy a joint DFT although they do not satisfy separately a DFT.
Let us now derive from a unified view the known FTs. Using equation (\[eq:linkSaPPdagger\]) we can introduce the dual joint probability density function $$\label{dualjoint}
P^\dagger(S_{{\text{a}}}, S_{{\text{na}}})=P(-S_{{\text{a}}}, S_{{\text{na}}})e^{S_{{\text{a}}}}.$$ This probability density function is, by virtue of equation (\[IFTSa\]), correctly normalised $$\begin{aligned}
\label{norm}
\int dS_{{\text{a}}} dS_{{\text{na}}}P^\dagger(S_{{\text{a}}}, S_{{\text{na}}})=\int dS_{{\text{a}}} dS_{{\text{na}}}P(-S_{{\text{a}}}, S_{{\text{na}}})e^{S_{{\text{a}}}}=\nonumber\\
=\int dS_{{\text{a}}} dS_{{\text{na}}}P(S_{{\text{a}}}, S_{{\text{na}}})e^{-S_{{\text{a}}}}=\langle e^{-S_{{\text{a}}}}\rangle=1.\end{aligned}$$ Let us first derive the Speck-Seifert DFT [@Seifert1]. We have $$\label{speck-seifert}
P(S_{{\text{a}}})=\int dS_{{\text{na}}}P(S_{{\text{a}}}, S_{{\text{na}}})=\int dS_{{\text{na}}}P^\dagger(-S_{{\text{a}}}, S_{{\text{na}}})e^{S_{{\text{a}}}}=P^\dagger(-S_{{\text{a}}})e^{S_{{\text{a}}}}$$ We can also derive the Chernyak-Chertkov-Jarzynski DFT [@Jarzynski1] for the non-adiabatic contribution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{CCJ}
P(S_{{\text{na}}})=\int dS_{{\text{a}}}P(S_{{\text{a}}}, S_{{\text{na}}})=\int dS_{{\text{a}}}P^R(-S_{{\text{a}}},-S_{{\text{na}}})e^{S_{{\text{a}}}+S_{{\text{na}}}}=\nonumber\\
=\int dS_{{\text{a}}}P^{\dagger R}(S_{{\text{a}}},-S_{{\text{na}}})e^{S_{{\text{na}}}}=P^{\dagger R}(-S_{{\text{na}}})e^{S_{{\text{na}}}}.\end{aligned}$$
Markov dynamics {#ssec:markov}
---------------
### Settings
The symmetry holds for any decomposition of the entropy as a sum of terms which are antisymmetric by time reversal. The difficult step is to explicitly write such kinds of decompositions. In this section, we consider a continuous time Markov process for a system described by discrete configurations $\{{\mathcal C}\}$, and work out such decompositions for that dynamics. The master equation for the probability $P({\mathcal C},t)$ for the system to be in configuration ${\mathcal C}$ at time $t$ writes $$\label{eqn:cont_time_Markov_eq}
\partial_t P({\mathcal C},t) =
\sum_{{\mathcal C}'}\big[ W({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C},\sigma)P({\mathcal C}',t)
- W({\mathcal C}\to{\mathcal C}',\sigma)P({\mathcal C},t) \big]$$ where $\sigma$ is an external time-dependent control parameter. A system history consists of a sequence ${\mathcal C}_0,\ldots,{\mathcal C}_K$ of configurations with jumps at times $t_1,\ldots,t_K$ (see Fig \[fig:time\_sequence\]).
![A history of configurations ${\mathcal C}_0\to\ldots\to{\mathcal C}_K$. Between $t_{k}$ and $t_{k+1}$, the system remains in configuration ${\mathcal C}_k$. []{data-label="fig:time_sequence"}](fig_markov-jumps.pdf)
Let us introduce the dual transition rates $W^\dag$ $$W^\dag({\mathcal C}\to{\mathcal C}',\sigma)
\equiv \frac{P_{\text{st}}({\mathcal C}',\sigma)}{P_{\text{st}}({\mathcal C},\sigma)} W({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C},\sigma)
= e^{-[\phi({\mathcal C}',\sigma)-\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma)]} W({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C},\sigma)$$ Note that when detailed balance is obeyed (*i.e.* $P_{\text{eq}}({\mathcal C})W({\mathcal C}\to{\mathcal C}')=P_{\text{eq}}({\mathcal C}')W({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C})$ for some equilibrium distribution $P_{\text{eq}}({\mathcal C})$), the dual dynamics is the same as the original one. We first remark that the dual escape rate $
r^\dag({\mathcal C},\sigma)\equiv \sum_{{\mathcal C}'} W^\dag({\mathcal C}\to{\mathcal C}',\sigma)
$ is the same as the original one: $$r^\dag({\mathcal C},\sigma)=\frac 1{P_{\text{st}}({\mathcal C},\sigma)} \sum_{{\mathcal C}'}
{W({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C},\sigma) P_{\text{st}}({\mathcal C}',\sigma)}
= \frac 1{P_{\text{st}}({\mathcal C},\sigma)} r({\mathcal C},\sigma)P_{\text{st}}({\mathcal C},\sigma)
=r({\mathcal C},\sigma)$$ More importantly, the *steady-state* of the dual dynamics is the same since $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{{\mathcal C}'}W^\dag({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C},\sigma)P_{\text{st}}({\mathcal C}',\sigma)=
\sum_{{\mathcal C}'} W({\mathcal C}\to{\mathcal C}',\sigma)P_{\text{st}}({\mathcal C},\sigma) =\nonumber\\
= r({\mathcal C},\sigma) P_{\text{st}}({\mathcal C},\sigma) = r^\dag({\mathcal C},\sigma) P_{\text{st}}({\mathcal C},\sigma)\end{aligned}$$
### Entropies
The (density of) probability of a trajectory specified as in Figure \[fig:time\_sequence\] writes $$\operatorname{Prob}[{\mathcal C},\sigma] = e^{-\int_0^\tau dt\, r({\mathcal C}(t),\sigma(t))}
\prod_{k=1}^K W({\mathcal C}_{k-1}\to{\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_k})\ P_0({\mathcal C}(0),\sigma(0))$$ where $K$ is the number of events and $P_{0}$ the initial distribution. It precisely means that the average of an observable $\mathcal O$ depending on the history of configurations and on the protocol $\sigma$ writes $$\langle\mathcal O\rangle
= \sum_{K\geq 0}
\sum_{{\mathcal C}_{0}\ldots {\mathcal C}_{K}}
\int_0^t dt_K \int_0^{t_K} dt_{K-1} \ldots \int_0^{t_2} dt_1 \:
\mathcal O[{\mathcal C},\sigma]
\:
\operatorname{Prob}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]$$ By analogy to systems described by Langevin dynamics, one defines the total entropy $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal S}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]
&= \log \frac{ \operatorname{Prob}[{\mathcal C},\sigma] }{ \operatorname{Prob}^R[{\mathcal C}^{\text{R}},\sigma^{\text{R}}] }
\\
&= \sum_{k=1}^K \log \frac{ W({\mathcal C}_{k-1}\to{\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_k})}{W({\mathcal C}_{k}\to{\mathcal C}_{k-1},\sigma_{t_k})}
\ + \ \log \frac{ P_{0}({\mathcal C}(0),\sigma(0))}{ P_{1}({\mathcal C}(t),\sigma(t))}
\label{eq:def_total-entropy}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal C}^{\text{R}}$ is the reversed trajectory and $\sigma^{\text{R}}$ the reverse protocol. Note that ${\mathcal S}[{\mathcal C},\sigma] =-{\mathcal S}[{\mathcal C}^{\text{R}},\sigma^{\text{R}}]$. We now would like to split the action into a sum of different terms, each of them also *antisymmetric* upon time-reversal. To do so, we assume that $P_{0}=P_{1}$ is the steady state $P_{\text{st}}=e^{-\phi}$. Then, we define the ‘house-keeping’ entropy $\mathcal Q^{\text{hk}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\beta \mathcal Q^{\text{hk}}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]
&=
\sum_{k=1}^K \log\frac{W({\mathcal C}_{k-1}\to{\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_k})}{W^\dag({\mathcal C}_{k-1}\to{\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_k})}
\\
&=
\sum_{k=1}^K \log\frac{W({\mathcal C}_{k-1}\to{\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_k})}{W({\mathcal C}_k\to{\mathcal C}_{k-1},\sigma_{t_k})}
+
\sum_{k=1}^K\phi({\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_{k}}) - \phi({\mathcal C}_{k-1},\sigma_{t_k})\end{aligned}$$ note that it is indeed antisymmetric upon time reversal: $ \beta
\mathcal Q^{\text{hk}}[{\mathcal C},\sigma] =- \beta \mathcal Q^{\text{hk}}[{\mathcal C}^{\text{R}},\sigma^{\text{R}}]$. Moreover, we see by direct computation (*e.g.* from below), that the total entropy ${\mathcal S}$ writes in terms of the house-keeping work as $${
{\mathcal S}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]
=
\beta \mathcal Q^{\text{hk}}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]
+
\mathcal Y [{\mathcal C},\sigma]
}$$ where $$\mathcal Y [{\mathcal C},\sigma] = \int_0^\tau dt\:\dot\sigma \frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma}$$ is the Hatano-Sasa functional. Note that each term of the decomposition is antisymmetric.
Note last that defining $\Delta\phi=\phi({\mathcal C}(t),\sigma(t))-\phi({\mathcal C}(0),\sigma(0))$ and $$\beta \mathcal Q^{\text{tot}}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]
=
\sum_{k=1}^K \log \frac{ W({\mathcal C}_{k-1}\to{\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_k})}{W({\mathcal C}_{k}\to{\mathcal C}_{k-1},\sigma_{t_k})}$$ one reads directly from the definition that $${
{\mathcal S}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]
=
\beta \mathcal Q^{\text{tot}}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]
+
\Delta\phi
}$$ where again each term of this decomposition is antisymmetric.
To summarise: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal S}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]
=
\overbrace{\vphantom{\sum_{k=1}^K} \beta \mathcal Q^{\text{tot}}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]}^{{\mathcal S}_1}
\ + \
\overbrace{\sum_{k=1}^K\big[\phi({\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_{k}}) - \phi({\mathcal C}_{k-1},\sigma_{t_k})\big]}^{{\mathcal S}_2}
\ - \ \nonumber\\
\qquad\qquad-\overbrace{\sum_{k=1}^K\big[\phi({\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_{k}}) - \phi({\mathcal C}_{k-1},\sigma_{t_k})\big]}^{{\mathcal S}_2}
\ + \
\overbrace{\vphantom{\sum_{k=1}^K}\Delta\phi}^{{\mathcal S}_3}
\label{eq:decompositionSMarkov}\end{aligned}$$ The first decomposition consists in grouping $\beta \mathcal Q^{\text{hk}}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]={\mathcal S}_1+{\mathcal S}_2$ and $\mathcal Y[{\mathcal C},\sigma]=-{\mathcal S}_2+{\mathcal S}_3$ while the second decompositions simply corresponds to $\beta \mathcal Q^{\text{tot}}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]={\mathcal S}_1$ and $\Delta\phi={\mathcal S}_3$.
We also remark that writing $${\mathcal S}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]
= \beta \mathcal Q^{\text{hk}}[{\mathcal C},\sigma]
\ - \
\sum_{k=1}^K\big[\phi({\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_{k}}) - \phi({\mathcal C}_{k-1},\sigma_{t_k})\big]
\ + \
\Delta\phi$$ one has a decomposition in a sum of *three* antisymmetric terms implying FTs using
### Link to the Hatano-Sasa functional and symmetries of operators
It is instructive to rewrite the Hatano-Sasa functional $\mathcal Y$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal Y[{\mathcal C},\sigma]&=\int_0^\tau dt\:\dot\sigma \frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma}
=\sum_{k=0}^K\int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}} dt\:\dot\sigma \frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma}
=\sum_{k=0}^K\phi({\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_{k+1}}) - \phi({\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_k})
\nonumber \\
&= \big[\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma)\big]_0^\tau - \sum_{k=1}^K\phi({\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_{k}}) - \phi({\mathcal C}_{k-1},\sigma_{t_k})
\label{eq:HSfunctional_decomposed}\end{aligned}$$ We thus have split $\mathcal Y$ in two parts, $\big[\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma)\big]_0^\tau$, which depends explicitly on the final time $\tau$, and the reduced Hatano-Sasa functional $$\begin{aligned}
\hat h_\tau = - \sum_{k=1}^K\phi({\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_{k}}) - \phi({\mathcal C}_{k-1},\sigma_{t_k})
\label{eq:def_hat_h}\end{aligned}$$ which (for fixed protocol $\sigma(t)$) depends only on the sequence of visited configurations ${\mathcal C}_k$ and of the jump times $t_k$. This decomposition helps us to write $\langle e^{-s \mathcal Y}\rangle$ in terms of an $s$-modified evolution operator. We show in appendix \[app:symm\_operators\] that the DFTs arising from the the decomposition of the dynamical entropy translate into symmetries of a modified operators of evolutions $\mathbb W_\lambda$ such that $\langle e^{-\lambda S}\rangle=\langle P_1|\mathcal T e^{t \mathbb W_\lambda}|P_0\rangle$ where $\mathcal T e^\cdot$ is the time-ordered exponential. Compared to the original approach of Hatano and Sasa [@Hatano-Sasa] our derivations bring only into play the properties of the operator of evolution (through the use of the time-ordered exponential) and do not require a time discretization.
Applications {#sec:appli}
============
Experimental errors
-------------------
### General derivation
We now show with some detail how joint FTs provide insights on the experimental error in the evaluation of entropy productions. The results we have shown up to now are rather general and do not depend on the shape of the initial and final PDFs for the considered systems under arbitrary protocols. For concreteness and in order to be closer to experiments, we consider in this section the case of transitions between NESS, so the initial and final PDFs for the system, are taken as the ones corresponding to the steady-states of the system with the given values of the parameters.
In this situation, the non-adiabatic contribution to the total trajectory entropy production is simply the Hatano-Sasa (H-S) functional [@Hatano-Sasa]: $$\label{hasa}
\mathcal{Y}[{\bf x};\sigma]=\int_0^\tau dt\dot{\sigma}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma}(x;\sigma)$$ We are interested in experimental measurements of this quantity, performed for instance in [@Trepagnier]. In a typical experiment one follows in general the following protocol:
- First one measures the particle density in different points and build an histogram from where the steady-state PDF of the system can be inferred for different values of the control parameters (and correspondingly $\phi_{\tt exp}(x;\sigma)=-\ln\rho_{\tt ss}^{\tt exp}(x;\sigma)$).
- Second, one follows a given particle during a prescribed protocol (sampling its position) and build, for the considered realisation of the experiment, the Hatano-Sasa functional: $\mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp};\sigma]=\int_0^\tau dt\dot{\sigma}\frac{\partial\phi_{\tt exp}}
{\partial\sigma}(x_{\tt exp};\sigma)$.
- Finally, one averages over many experimental realisations the quantity of interest, for example one determines the average $\langle\exp[-\mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp};\sigma]]\rangle$ in order to test the validity of the Hatano-Sasa IFT.
Although these settings are very generic, there are cases where the steady-state PDF of the system is known, and one do not need to consider this source of experimental errors, as in [@Trepagnier].
Let us first note that $\phi_{\tt exp}$ and $x_{\tt exp}$ are not the true values for the quantities one is trying to determine in the experiment, but are outcomes from measurements. They thus implicitly carry errors. We can in principle repeat the experiment many times and perform an histogram in order to calculate the probability of the experimental values of the H-S functional. Imagine the hypothetical situation in which we are also able to directly obtain the true value of the H-S functional, from where we can extract for each experiment the corresponding deviation of the measured value of $\mathcal{Y}$ with respect to the real one: $\mathcal{E}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp},x;\sigma]=\mathcal{Y}[{\bf x};\sigma]
-\mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp};\sigma]$. In that case we are able to experimentally build the joint PDF $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expPDF}
P(Y_{\tt exp},E_{\tt exp}) &=& \int_{-i\infty}^{+i\infty}\frac{d\lambda_1 d\lambda_2}{(2\pi)^2}
e^{\lambda_1 Y_{\tt exp}+\lambda_2 E_{\tt exp}} G_{\tt exp}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2),\\
\label{GF}
G_{\tt exp}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2) &=& \overline{\langle e^{-\lambda_1 \mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp};\sigma]
-\lambda_2 \mathcal{E}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp},x;\sigma]}}\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ In equation (\[GF\]), the brackets denote the thermal average while the overbar denotes the average over the distribution of experimental measurements errors. Let the conditional probability of position outcomes be $\mathcal{P}_{\tt err}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp}|x]$, that is, the probability of obtaining the trajectory of outcomes $x_{\tt exp}(t)$ being $x(t)$ the true trajectory of the particle. In this case, we can write a mathematical expression for the experimental generating function (GF) $$\label{average1.1}
G_{\tt exp}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)=\int\mathcal{D}x\mathcal{D}x_{\tt exp}\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma]
\mathcal{P}_{\tt err}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp}|x]
\exp\{-\lambda_1 \mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp};\sigma]
-\lambda_2 \mathcal{E}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp},x;\sigma]\}.$$ Note that, by a suitable rearrangement of terms, we can rewrite the previous expressions as $$\label{average1.3}
G_{\tt exp}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)=\int\mathcal{D}x\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma]
e^{-\lambda_2 \mathcal{Y}[{\bf x};\sigma]}\int\mathcal{D}x_{\tt exp}\mathcal{P}_{\tt err}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp}|x]
e^{-(\lambda_1-\lambda_2) \mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp};\sigma]}.$$ Let us introduce the quantity $$\label{capitalB}
\mathcal{B}[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,x;\sigma]=\int\mathcal{D}x_{\tt exp}\mathcal{P}_{\tt err}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp}|x]
e^{-(\lambda_1-\lambda_2) \mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp};\sigma]}.$$ Then equation (\[average1.3\]) can be written as follows $$\label{average1.4}
G_{\tt exp}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)=\langle\mathcal{B}[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,x;\sigma]e^{-\lambda_2 \mathcal{Y}[{\bf x};\sigma]}\rangle
=\langle\mathcal{B}[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,x_R;\sigma]e^{-\lambda_2 \mathcal{Y}[{\bf x}_R;\sigma]-\mathcal{S}[{\bf x};\sigma_R]}\rangle_R,$$ where the second equality follows from our generalised Crooks-like relation (see part \[ssec:TR\]), identifying the observable $\mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma]$ with the quantity $\mathcal{B}[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,x;\sigma]e^{-\lambda_2 \mathcal{Y}[{\bf x};\sigma]}$.
Now recalling that $\mathcal{Y}[{\bf x}_R;\sigma]=-\mathcal{Y}[{\bf x};\sigma_R]$, and also that the total trajectory entropy production splits into the sum of a non-adiabatic contribution (in this case the Hatano-Sasa functional), and an adiabatic one, and that weighted averages with the exponential of the adiabatic contribution are equivalent to averages over trajectories given by the dual dynamics, one writes $$\label{average1.5}
G_{\tt exp}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)=
\langle\mathcal{B}[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,x_R;\sigma]e^{-(1-\lambda_2) \mathcal{Y}[{\bf x};\sigma_R]}\rangle_R^\dagger.$$ Let us now analyse the behaviour of the quantity $\mathcal{B}[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,x;\sigma]$, when a time reversal operation is performed. For that purpose, let us impose some physically acceptable and general properties on the conditional error distribution: we assume that the source of experimental errors associated to $\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}_{\tt err}|x]$ (the shape of the distribution) does not depend explicitly on time neither on the form of the experimental protocol. This error is basically related to some inherent properties of the measurement apparatus. On the other hand, we assume that there is no memory in this distribution: the outcome of the measurement at time $t$ is only related to the true value of $x$ at the same time (this has indeed being implicitly assumed in the notation for this probability density). We finally assume that this distribution does not depend on any time derivatives of the involved variables. From all this requirements, the distribution $\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}_{\tt err}|x]$ is invariant upon time reversal $$\label{average1.6}
\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}_{\tt err}|x]=\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}^R_{\tt err}|x_R].$$ We can then write $$\label{average1.7}
\mathcal{B}[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,x_R;\sigma]=\int\mathcal{D}x_{\tt exp}\mathcal{P}_{\tt err}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp}|x_R]
e^{-(\lambda_1-\lambda_2) \mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp};\sigma]}.$$ Make now the change of variables $x_{\tt exp}=z_R$. Note that this transformation has a Jacobian identically equal to one, and that $\mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}^R_{\tt exp},\sigma] =
-\mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp},\sigma_R]$, which in fact, comes from the definition of $\mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}$. We then have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{B}[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,x_R;\sigma] &=&
\int\mathcal{D}z_R\mathcal{P}_{\tt err}[z_R|x_R]
e^{-(\lambda_1-\lambda_2) \mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[z_R;\sigma]}=\nonumber\\
&=&\int\mathcal{D}z\mathcal{P}_{\tt err}[z|x]
e^{-\big[(1-\lambda_1)-(1-\lambda_2)\big]\mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[z;\sigma_R]},\end{aligned}$$ which in fact means $$\label{average2.1}
\mathcal{B}[\lambda_1,\lambda_2,x_R;\sigma]=
\mathcal{B}[1-\lambda_1,1-\lambda_2,x;\sigma_R].$$ Using now (\[average1.4\]), (\[average1.5\]), and (\[average2.1\]), we obtain $$\label{average2.2}
G_{\tt exp}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)=G_{\tt exp}^{\dagger R}(1-\lambda_1, 1-\lambda_2),$$ from where one immediately obtains $$\label{average2.3}
P(Y_{\tt exp},E_{\tt exp})/P^{\dagger R}(-Y_{\tt exp},-E_{\tt exp})=e^{Y_{\tt exp}+E_{\tt exp}}.$$ From the last expression, or by simply using $\lambda_1=1$, $\lambda_2=0$ in (\[average2.2\]) we obtain, for example, the relation $$\label{average2.4}
\overline{\langle e^{-\mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp};\sigma]}\rangle}=
\overline{\langle e^{-\mathcal{E}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x},x_{\tt exp};\sigma]}\rangle}_R^{\dagger}.$$ From the analysis of $\overline{\langle e^{-\mathcal{E}_{\tt exp}}\rangle}_R^{\dagger}$ for specific cases of experimental errors, one can estimate the dispersion of the experimentally obtained $\overline{\langle e^{-\mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}}\rangle}$ around $\langle e^{-\mathcal{Y}}\rangle=1$.
### Experimental errors for a driven particle in an harmonic trap
Let’s now consider for concreteness an exactly solvable case illustrating the validity of the derivation we made above. We focus on the experiment of Trepagnier *et al* [@Trepagnier]. In the considered experimental situation, a microscopic bead is dragged through water by using a steerable harmonic optical trap. In this case, treating the bead as a Brownian particle in a harmonic potential, the steady-state distribution for the system was obtained theoretically. In the experiment the velocity of the trap plays the role of the tunable control parameter. For more details on the experimental setup and on the definitions, see [@Trepagnier]. In the given case, the Hatano-Sasa functional writes $$\label{HStrep}
\mathcal{Y}[{\bf x};v]=\frac{\beta\gamma}{\kappa}\int_0^\tau dt\dot{v}\big(\kappa x+\gamma v\big),$$ where $\kappa$ is the trap constant, $\gamma$ is the friction coefficient of the bead in the solution and $\beta$ is the inverse temperature.
The experimental Hatano-Sasa functional and the error, can then be written as follows $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp};v]=\frac{\beta\gamma}{\kappa}\int_0^\tau dt\dot{v}\big(\kappa x_{\tt exp}+\gamma v\big),\\
& \mathcal{E}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x},x_{\tt exp};v]=\beta\gamma\int_0^\tau dt\dot{v}\big(x- x_{\tt exp}\big).\end{aligned}$$ We assume that the general conditions we assumed for $\mathcal{P}_{\tt err}[{\bf x}|x_{\tt exp}]
\equiv\mathcal{P}_{\tt err}[{\bf x}-x_{\tt exp}]$ are valid here. Consider now the generating functional of this conditional probability, which we denote by $G_{\tt err}^J$ $$\label{trepGJ}
G_{\tt err}^J[J]=\int\mathcal{D}\eta\mathcal{P}_{\tt err}[\eta]e^{-i\int_0^\tau dtJ(t)\eta(t)}.$$ Then, rearranging equation (\[average1.1\]) one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{trepG}
\fl G_{\tt exp}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)=\int\mathcal{D}x\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma]
e^{-\lambda_1 \mathcal{Y}[{\bf x};v]}\int\mathcal{D}x_{\tt exp}\mathcal{P}_{\tt err}[{\bf x}-x_{\tt exp}]
e^{-(\lambda_2-\lambda_1) \mathcal{E}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}-x_{\tt exp};\sigma]}=\nonumber\\
=G_{\tt err}^J\big[-i(\lambda_2-\lambda_1)\beta\gamma\dot{v}\big]\langle e^{-\lambda_1 \mathcal{Y}[{\bf x};v]}\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account that $\dot{v}=-\dot{v}_R$, we have $$\label{trepG1}
G_{\tt exp}(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)=
G_{\tt err}^J\big[-i\big((1-\lambda_2)-(1-\lambda_1)\big)\beta\gamma\dot{v}_R\big]
\langle e^{-(1-\lambda_1)\mathcal{Y}[{\bf x};v_R]}\rangle^\dagger=G_{\tt exp}^{\dagger R}(1-\lambda_1, 1-\lambda_2),$$ which is the result we have obtained before.
In order to conclude with this section, let us exploit the solvability of this model in order to show that indeed there is a link between the apparatus precision and the experimentally relevant measured quantities. For example, in this case one has $$\label{trepG2}
\overline{\langle e^{-\mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp};v]}\rangle}=G_{\tt exp}(1,0)
\equiv G_{\tt err}^J\big[i\beta\gamma\dot{v}\big],$$ from where we see that the experimental mean value of the exponential of the Hatano-Sasa functional, is solely and directly determined by the distribution of measurement errors in the position of the particle. For example, in the case of an extremely precise measurement, one has $G_{\tt err}^J=1\Rightarrow\overline{\langle e^{-\mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}}\rangle}=\langle e^{-\mathcal{Y}}\rangle
\equiv1$. Consider now the case in which the experimental error conditional distribution is Gaussian, *i.e.* $$\label{trepG3}
\mathcal{P}_{\tt err}[\eta]\sim \exp\bigg\{-\frac{1}{2\Delta^2}\int_0^\tau dt\eta^2(t)\bigg\}
\Rightarrow G_{\tt err}^J[J]=\exp\bigg\{-\frac{\Delta^2}{2}\int_0^\tau dt J^2(t)\bigg\}$$ In this case, one sees that the experimental deviation from the Hatano-Sasa IFT is linked to the accuracy of the measurement apparatus: $$\label{trepG4}
-\log\overline{\langle e^{-\mathcal{Y}_{\tt exp}[{\bf x}_{\tt exp};v]}\rangle}=
-\frac{\Delta^2\beta^2\gamma^2}{2}\int_0^\tau dt \dot{v}^2(t)<0,$$ which is compatible with the experimental results of [@Trepagnier]. We learn from the last expression that, at very high temperatures, the “violation” of the fluctuation theorem introduced by the lack of accuracy of the apparatus can be cured by thermal fluctuations. On the other hand, rapidly varying protocols may induce a remarkable enhancement of the referred “violation” factor.
Generalised FDT, identities on correlation functions
----------------------------------------------------
In this section, we use the second equality in (\[jointprobs1\]) in order to find some symmetries on correlation functions related to a generalised fluctuation dissipation theorem (FDT) derived *e.g.* in [@Richardson; @Agarwal; @Risken; @Falcioni; @Parrondo; @Maes; @LacosteEPL; @Lacoste] (see [@Marconi] for a review). Let us consider the situation in which the system, initially prepared in a NESS, is submitted to the variation of its parameters $\sigma_i(t)=\sigma_i^0+\delta\sigma_i(t)$ in such a way that $|\frac{\delta\sigma_i(t)}{\sigma_i^0}|\ll1$, with $\sigma_i^0=\sigma_i(0)$ and $\delta\sigma_i(0)=0$. In this context, within the particular form of [@Parrondo], this generalised FDT can be written as follows $$\label{FDT1}
\bigg\langle\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)\bigg\rangle=\sum_j
\int_0^t \chi_{ij}(t-t')\delta\sigma_j(t')dt',$$ where $$\label{FDT2}
\chi_{ij}(t-t')=\frac{d}{dt}C_{ij}(t-t')=\frac{d}{dt}\bigg\langle\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}(x(t'),\sigma_0)\bigg\rangle_{\tt ss}.$$
For a system performing equilibrium dynamics, where detailed balance holds, this correlation function satisfies the well known Onsager symmetry relation $C_{ij}(t-t')=C_{ij}(t'-t)\equiv C_{ji}(t-t')$, however, in the most general case of a NESS, this relation breaks down because of the lack of detailed balance. However, a similar relation can be easily obtained for this case: $C_{ij}(t-t')=C^\dagger_{ij}(t'-t)$. The physical meaning of this expressions is clear. One is performing a time reversal operation. When detailed balance holds, there are no probability currents in the system and this implies invariance upon time reversal. In this case the system and its dual are the same. When detailed balance breaks down, there is a finite current in the steady-state, which is odd under time-reversal. In this case, the original dynamics is equivalent to the time reversed dual one (which as expected has a current opposite to the original one). This relation, although conceptually clear, however, does not seems to be useful: it involves correlations in two different physical systems. The question which comes now is: does it exist a suitable correlation function capable to exhibit a symmetry involving only the system under study? The answer is yes. We now discuss briefly the physical grounds behind this correlation function.
### Dynamical ensembles and weighted averages
In a full equivalence with equilibrium thermodynamic ensembles, one can build trajectory-based ensembles for stochastic non-equilibrium systems, together with quantities equivalent to the partition function and the free-energy — in a dynamical thermodynamic formalism [@Lecomte]. For equilibrium systems with a Hamiltonian $H(C)$ depending on configurations in the phase space, one defines in the canonical ensemble a free energy $F(\beta)=-(1/\beta)\ln\sum_C\exp\{-\beta H(C)\}$, and averages of observables can be computed as $\langle y\rangle=\sum_C y(C)\exp\big\{\beta\big(F(\beta)-H(C)\big)\big\}$. The inverse temperature $\beta$, is a Lagrange multiplier fixing the mean value of the energy, so that plugging a given $\beta$ privileges in the sum the configurations compatible with a prescribed value of the mean energy.
Now consider, for a dynamical system, a time extensive functional $\mathcal{K}[{\bf x}]=\int_0^t dt'f\big(x(t')\big)$. The $s$-ensemble, very similar to the canonical ensemble in equilibrium statistical mechanics, is defined by the average $$\label{FDT3}
\langle y\rangle^s=\frac{\int\mathcal{D}[{\bf x}]\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}]y[{\bf x}]e^{-s\mathcal{K}[{\bf x}]}}
{\int\mathcal{D}[{\bf x}]\mathcal{P}[{\bf x}]e^{-s\mathcal{K}[{\bf x}]}}.$$ This approach has proven to be useful in the study of dynamical phase transitions [@GarrahanPRL; @GarrahanJPA; @Bodineau; @Gorissen; @Turci].
The conceptual idea behind the use of the parameter $s$ is the same as in the case of the inverse temperature in canonical ensembles: in the long time limit, fixing the value of $s$ allows one to calculate averages of functionals, not for typical trajectories but for atypical ones, where the mean value of the time extensive functional $\mathcal{K}[{\bf x}]$ is fixed. In other words, weighted averages select trajectories compatible with a prescribed physical scenario. The presence of this parameter imposes some constraints on the system in favour of rare events, by introducing a well-chosen bias on the evolution of the system.
Even if the question of dealing experimentally with those biased trajectories is actually far from being answered in a closed form (see however [@NemotoSasa]), the procedure is interesting from a conceptual and numerical [@GKP; @LecomteTailleur; @GKLT] point of view.
Let us now turn again to our problem. The symmetric nature of the correlation function when the system is in equilibrium breaks down as detailed balance does for systems with finite currents in the steady-state. However, one can guess that, if one finds an appropriate time-extensive functional defining weighted averages, the symmetry will be restored for a given value of the Lagrange multiplier. The only thing we need is to average, in non-equilibrium systems, only over trajectories compatible with some equilibrium effective dynamics. We deal with this in more detail in what follows.
### Restoring the symmetry of the correlation function using weighted averages
We first combine equation (\[jointprobs1\]) with equation (\[eq:reversingtimeinaverage\]) to write $$\label{FDT4}
\bigg\langle\mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma]e^{-\lambda_1{\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma] -\lambda_2{\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]}\bigg\rangle=
\bigg\langle\mathcal{O}[{\bf x}^R;\sigma]e^{-(1-\lambda_1){\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma^R] -(1-\lambda_2){\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma^R]}\bigg\rangle^R.$$ Let us now choose $\mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma]=\exp\{-\lambda_2\mathcal{F}[{\bf x};\sigma]\}$, with $\mathcal{F}[{\bf x};\sigma]=
\mathcal{F}[{\bf x}^R;\sigma]$. With this we can write $$\label{FDT5}
\bigg\langle e^{-\lambda_1{\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma] -\lambda_2{\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]-\lambda_2\mathcal{F}[{\bf x};\sigma]}\bigg\rangle=
\bigg\langle e^{-(1-\lambda_1){\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma^R] -(1-\lambda_2){\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma^R]-\lambda_2\mathcal{F}[{\bf x};\sigma]}
\bigg\rangle^R.$$ Let us note now that we can write, to second order in the small perturbations $\delta\sigma$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FDT6}
e^{-\lambda_1{\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]}\approx 1-\lambda_1\sum_i\int_0^\tau dt\delta\dot{\sigma}_i(t)
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)-\nonumber\\
-\lambda_1\sum_{ij}\int_0^\tau dt\delta\dot{\sigma}_i(t)\delta\sigma_j(t)
\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial\sigma_i\partial\sigma_j}(x(t),\sigma_0)+\nonumber\\
+\frac{\lambda_1^2}{2}\sum_{ij}\int_0^\tau dt dt'\delta\dot{\sigma}_i(t)\delta\dot{\sigma}_j(t')
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}(x(t'),\sigma_0),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FDT7}
e^{-(1-\lambda_1){\mathcal S}_{{\text{na}}}[{\bf x};\sigma^R]}\approx 1-(1-\lambda_1)\sum_i\int_0^\tau dt\delta\dot{\sigma}^R_i(t)
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)-\nonumber\\
-(1-\lambda_1)\sum_{ij}\int_0^\tau dt\delta\dot{\sigma}^R_i(t)\delta\sigma^R_j(t)
\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial\sigma_i\partial\sigma_j}(x(t),\sigma_0)+\nonumber\\
+\frac{(1-\lambda_1)^2}{2}\sum_{ij}\int_0^\tau dt dt'\delta\dot{\sigma}^R_i(t)\delta\dot{\sigma}^R_j(t')
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}(x(t'),\sigma_0),\end{aligned}$$ Plugging (\[FDT6\]) and (\[FDT7\]) in (\[FDT5\]) and equating the terms with the same power of $\lambda_1$, we obtain a set of equalities. Let us consider the one corresponding to $\lambda_1^2$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{FDT8}
\fl\bigg\langle\sum_{ij}\int_0^\tau dtdt'\delta\dot{\sigma}_i(t)\delta\dot{\sigma}_j(t')
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}(x(t'),\sigma_0)
e^{-\lambda_2{\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma_0]-\lambda_2\mathcal{F}[{\bf x};\sigma_0]}\bigg\rangle_{\tt SS}=\nonumber\\
\fl\bigg\langle\sum_{ij}\int_0^\tau dtdt'\delta\dot{\sigma}^R_i(t)\delta\dot{\sigma}^R_j(t')
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}(x(t'),\sigma_0)
e^{-(1-\lambda_2){\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma_0]-\lambda_2\mathcal{F}[{\bf x};\sigma_0]}
\bigg\rangle_{\tt SS}.\end{aligned}$$
In the previous equation, the averages and the functionals in the exponentials can be taken in the steady-state $\sigma=\sigma_0$, because we are considering only the second order in $\delta\sigma$. In the second term of the previous equation, we perform the change of variables $t\rightarrow\tau-t$ and $t'\rightarrow\tau-t'$ in the double integral. Then, the last equation is equivalent to the following identity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FDT9}
\fl\bigg\langle\sum_{ij}\int_0^\tau dtdt'\delta\dot{\sigma}_i(t)\delta\dot{\sigma}_j(t')
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}(x(t'),\sigma_0)
e^{-\lambda_2{\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma_0]-\lambda_2\mathcal{F}[{\bf x};\sigma_0]}\bigg\rangle_{\tt SS}=\nonumber\\
\fl\bigg\langle\sum_{ij}\int_0^\tau dtdt'\delta\dot{\sigma}_i(t)\delta\dot{\sigma}_j(t')
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x^R(t),\sigma_0)\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}(x^R(t'),\sigma_0)
e^{-(1-\lambda_2){\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma_0]-\lambda_2\mathcal{F}[{\bf x};\sigma_0]}
\bigg\rangle_{\tt SS}.\end{aligned}$$ If we finally take $\lambda_2=1/2$, we obtain a symmetric relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FDT10}
\fl\bigg\langle\sum_{ij}\int_0^\tau dtdt'\delta\dot{\sigma}_i(t)\delta\dot{\sigma}_j(t')
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}(x(t'),\sigma_0)
e^{-(1/2)({\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma_0]+\mathcal{F}[{\bf x};\sigma_0])}\bigg\rangle_{\tt SS}=\nonumber\\
\fl\bigg\langle\sum_{ij}\int_0^\tau dtdt'\delta\dot{\sigma}_i(t)\delta\dot{\sigma}_j(t')
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x^R(t),\sigma_0)\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}(x^R(t'),\sigma_0)
e^{-(1/2)({\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma_0]+\mathcal{F}[{\bf x};\sigma_0])}
\bigg\rangle_{\tt SS}.\end{aligned}$$ From the last expression, we can write $$\label{FDT11}
\bigg\langle\mathcal{C}_{ij}(\tau,0)e^{-(1/2)({\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma_0]+\mathcal{F}[{\bf x};\sigma_0])}\bigg\rangle_{\tt SS}
=\bigg\langle\mathcal{C}_{ij}(0,\tau)e^{-(1/2)({\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma_0]+\mathcal{F}[{\bf x};\sigma_0])}\bigg\rangle_{\tt SS},$$ where $$\label{FDT12}
\mathcal{C}_{ij}(t,t')=\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}
(x(t'),\sigma_0).$$ Up to now, what we have done is very general and the functional $\mathcal{F}$ can be any quantity being invariant upon time reversal. In the discussion below, we consider some physically relevant choice of this functional.
### Mapping to an effective system with equilibrium dynamics {#mappingtoeq}
Let us consider the following Langevin evolution $$\label{FDT13}
\dot{x} =-\frac{1}{\beta}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}(x;\sigma)+\xi.$$ We know that $\exp\{-\phi\}$ is a well-behaved distribution: it is continuous and with continuous derivatives at least up to second order. It is also correctly normalised. On the other hand, this function corresponds to the stationary solution of the Fokker-Planck equation associated to the process (\[FDT13\]). This is thus the steady-state of this equation which, if $\phi$ is non singular in any point of the space (excluding the infinite), is unique. Interestingly, we remark that for the dynamics (\[FDT13\]) there are no currents in the steady-state, so that detailed balance holds and the system performs equilibrium dynamics. The steady-state is the same for both the system (\[FDT13\]) and the original system under study described by the evolution equation (\[langevindynamics\]).
The effective action of any process has always a part being odd upon time reversal, which is related to entropy production, and an invariant part, which is related to the activity, which for Langevin dynamics in a potential $\mathcal{V}$ and with additive white noise, reads $$\label{FDT14}
R_{\mathcal{V}}(\tau)=\int_0^\tau dt\bigg[\frac{\beta}{4}\bigg(\frac{\partial\mathcal{V}}{\partial x}\bigg)^2-
\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2\mathcal{V}}{\partial x^2}\bigg].$$ The quantity $\exp\big(-\beta dt\frac{dR}{dt}\big)$, is proportional to the probability that the system has stayed in its configuration between $t$ and $t+dt$ [@Orland]; in other words, $\beta|\frac{dR}{dt}|$ is the rate at which the system escapes its configuration, and is related to the activity (or “traffic”) [@Lecomte; @Lefevere; @Wynants; @PitardEPL].
Let us investigate how far is our original system from the “equilibrium” system (\[FDT13\]). For that we are going to introduce the distance between them in the usual way: $$\label{FDT15}
\Xi[{\bf x};\sigma]=\ln\big(\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma]/\mathcal{P}_\phi[{\bf x};\sigma]\big)=
\frac{1}{2}\bigg({\mathcal S}_{{\text{a}}}[{\bf x};\sigma]+ 2\big(R_\phi[{\bf x};\sigma]-R_U[{\bf x};\sigma]\big)\bigg).$$ such that $\langle \Xi[{\bf x};\sigma] \rangle \ge 0$ is the Kullback-Leibler distance between $\mathcal{P}[{\bf x};\sigma]$ and $\mathcal{P}_\phi[{\bf x};\sigma]$. This quantity satisfies the corresponding IFT: $$\label{FDT16}
\langle e^{-\Xi[{\bf x};\sigma]}\rangle=\langle1\rangle_\phi=1.$$ Considering then the $s$-ensemble built using the quantity $\Xi$, we constrain our system to trajectories compatible with the dynamics (\[FDT13\]). In particular, averages over the steady-state of the original system lacking of detailed balance, are directly mapped to an equilibrium steady-state, with zero currents. Defining this average as $$\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle^s= \frac{\big\langle\mathcal{O}[{\bf x};\sigma]e^{-s\Xi[{\bf x};\sigma]}\big\rangle}
{\big\langle e^{-s\Xi[{\bf x};\sigma]}\big\rangle},$$ we see that averages in the steady-state with $s=1$ are mapped to averages in equilibrium, $\langle\ldots\rangle_{\tt ss}^{s=1}\equiv\langle\ldots\rangle_{\tt eq}$. If we take in equation (\[FDT11\]), $\mathcal{F}=2(R_\phi-R_U)$, this weighted correlation function acquires an interesting physical meaning. In order to clarify it a little bit, let us consider the generalised FDT given by (\[FDT1\]) in the case where the underlying dynamics is given by (\[FDT13\]). In order to avoid confusions, let us clarify the notation even if it will be the same already used. For averages under the original dynamics with varying protocol $\sigma$, we use the symbol $\langle\ldots\rangle$ whereas for averages under the original dynamics with constant $\sigma=\sigma_0$, we use the notation $\langle\ldots\rangle_{\tt ss}$. On the other hand, for averages under the dynamics given by equation (\[FDT13\]) with varying $\sigma$ we use $\langle\ldots\rangle_\phi$ whereas for averages under this dynamics for constant $\sigma=\sigma_0$, we use $\langle\ldots\rangle_{\tt eq}$. We will have $$\label{FDT17}
\bigg\langle\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)\bigg\rangle_\phi=\sum_j
\int_0^t \chi_{ij}^{\tt eq}(t-t')\delta\sigma_j(t')dt',$$ where $$\label{FDT18}
\chi_{ij}^{\tt eq}(t-t')=\frac{d}{dt}C_{ij}^{\tt eq}(t-t')=\frac{d}{dt}\bigg\langle\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}(x(t'),\sigma_0)\bigg\rangle_{\tt eq}.$$ To the same order in $\delta\sigma$, this implies $$\label{FDT19}
\bigg\langle\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)e^{-\Xi_0(t)}\bigg\rangle=\sum_j
\int_0^t \chi_{ij}^{W}(t-t')\delta\sigma_j(t')dt',$$ where $$\label{FDT20}
\chi_{ij}^{W}(t-t')=\frac{d}{dt}C_{ij}^{W}(t-t')=\frac{d}{dt}\bigg\langle\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_i}(x(t),\sigma_0)
\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}(x(t'),\sigma_0)e^{-\Xi_0(t)}\bigg\rangle_{\tt ss},$$ and $\Xi_0(t)=\Xi[\mathbf{x};\sigma_0]$. Let us now introduce the notations $a_i(t)=\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}(x(t),\sigma_0)$ and $b_i(t)=\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\sigma_j}(x(t),\sigma_0)e^{-\Xi_0(t)}$. Then, one can rewrite the two previous equations as $$\label{FDT21}
\langle b_i(t)\rangle=\sum_j
\int_0^t \chi_{ij}^{ba}(t-t')\delta\sigma_j(t')dt',$$ with $$\label{FDT22}
\chi_{ij}^{ba}(t-t')=\frac{d}{dt}C_{ij}^{ba}(t-t')=\frac{d}{dt}\langle b_i(t)a_j(t')\rangle_{\tt ss}.$$ Then, equation (\[FDT11\]) corresponds to the symmetry upon indices interchange: $$\label{FDT23}
C_{ij}^{ba}(t-t')=C_{ji}^{ba}(t-t').$$
Conclusion {#sec:concl}
==========
We have reviewed, for continuum and discrete systems following a Markovian dynamics, how symmetries of the dynamical entropy translate into detailed or integrated fluctuation theorems, in terms of the symmetries under particular transformations of joint probability distributions.
From a conceptual point of view, the FTs given in (\[jointprobs\]) provide a convenient perspective to understand the interplay between different contributions to the total entropy production. The first of these equalities shows an explicit relation between the entropy production fluctuations associated to the system and its environment, valid at finite time and without quasi-static assumption. It allows one to study the correlations between the two sources of entropy production. The second relation unifies the three detailed FTs derived in [@EspositoPRL]. The relevance of this expression is twofold. First, it implies the previously known FTs, and secondly, it gives a relation between the fluctuations of these two different entropy productions without relying on the dual dynamics (which is useful from an experimental point of view since one does not need to run a second system with the dual dynamics). In practice, to compute the contributions to the total entropy production, one needs to measure the ratios between transition rates, the PDF of the system at initial and final times, and the PDF in the steady-state — which is achievable (see [@ExperimentsRatios] where ratios between transitions rates have been measured). In the case of continuous Langevin equations, only the PDFs have to be measured. In any case, (\[jointprobs\]) is thus of experimental use.
It is known that fluctuation theorems provide a non-equilibrium way to measure physically relevant properties of single molecules (such as conformational free energy differences, see [@ritort] for a review). We have proposed two other outcomes: a way to estimate experimental errors due to fluctuations in measurement apparatus and a modified non-equilibrium fluctuation-dissipation relation (FDR)(see also [@Parrondo; @Maes; @LacosteEPL; @Lacoste]).
In the first case, we have studied the experimental measurements of, for example, the Hatano-Sasa functional. We have demonstrated that the joint PDF of the experimentally measured values and the error of each measurement satisfies a FT, which allow to extract precise information about the influence of error sources on the results. In particular we have obtained an exact expression for the “violation factor” of the Hatano-Sasa IFT in the simple case considered in the experiment of Trepagnier *et al* [@Trepagnier]. It is worth noting that our results are compatible with the experimental measurements. We have explicitly obtained that for protocols with higher dissipation the experimental results are farther from the expected ones than those of protocols with lower dissipation. This fact is observed in the broadening of errors bars as dissipation increases. Using the same ideas, one can study some other family of interesting systems: those with feedback, where the external protocol imposed to the system depends on the outcome of some measurement which can be carried out with some error.
In the second case, we have obtained new symmetries for correlation functions linked to modified FDRs. Those symmetries are based on the use of weighted averages which introduce some bias in the system such that, controlling this weight, one forces the system to prefer some trajectories in the phase space. We have indeed shown that, for a particular form of this weight, the dynamics of the system is exactly mapped to the dynamics of some equivalent equilibrium system, giving a physical meaning to these symmetries. Although the result looks artificial, it can be reformulated in terms of generalised forces and currents, giving the possibility to recover Onsager reciprocity in the linear regime in the vicinity of a NESS [@us1].
Last, let us note that joint PDFs-FTs can be relevant in other contexts. Consider for example a set of strongly connected systems which do not satisfy a FT for any of the entropic contributions of its constituents. In this case, the most precise information one can obtain involves contributions from all the subsystems. This can be seen in classical systems but also in quantum situations. For example, some recent modified FTs have been obtained for counting-statistics of electron transport in quantum dots, coupled to quantum point contacts which play the role of measurements apparatus continuously monitoring the system (see for example [@QD] for recent developments and a discussion on the effects of the back action of the environment on the system). An extension of our procedure to quantum systems may also give some general framework to tackle such problems [^2].
This work was supported by CNEA, CONICET (PIP11220090100051), ANPCYT (PICT2007886), V.L. was supported in part by the Swiss NSF under MaNEP and Division II and thanks CNEA for hospitality. ABK acknowledges Universidad de Barcelona, Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spain) and Generalitat de Catalunya for partial support through I3 program.
Symmetries of operators {#app:symm_operators}
=======================
In this appendix we show that the FTs are equivalent for continuous-time Markov processes to symmetries of the modified operator of evolution, in the spirit of Lebowitz and Spohn [@Lebowitz].
Operator approach
-----------------
We take the notation of part \[ssec:markov\]. Let’s denote $P({\mathcal C},\hat h,t)$ the probability of being in configuration ${\mathcal C}$ at time $t$, having observed a value $\hat h$ of the reduced Hatano-Sasa functional , and having started from configuration ${\mathcal C}_0$. The equation of evolution writes $$\label{eqn:cont_time_Markov_eq_hath}
\partial_t P({\mathcal C},\hat h,t) =
\sum_{{\mathcal C}'}\Big[ W({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C},\sigma)P\big({\mathcal C}',\hat h+\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma)-\phi({\mathcal C}',\sigma),t\big)
- W({\mathcal C}\to{\mathcal C}',\sigma)P({\mathcal C},\hat h,t) \Big]$$ The Laplace transform $
\hat P({\mathcal C},\lambda ,t) = \int d\hat h\: e^{-\lambda \hat h}P({\mathcal C},\hat h,t)
$ obeys $$\label{eqn:eq_evol_hatP_hs}
\partial_t \hat P({\mathcal C},\lambda ,t) =
\sum_{{\mathcal C}'}\Big[ e^{-\lambda [\phi({\mathcal C}',\sigma)-\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma)]}
W({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C},\sigma)\hat P\big({\mathcal C}',\lambda ,t\big)
- W({\mathcal C}\to{\mathcal C}',\sigma)\hat P({\mathcal C},\lambda ,t) \Big]$$ or, vectorially $\partial_t|\hat P(\lambda ,t)\rangle = {\mathbb W}_\lambda |\hat P(\lambda ,t)\rangle $ with a time-dependent operator ${\mathbb W}_\lambda $ of elements $$\left({\mathbb W}_\lambda \right)_{{\mathcal C},{\mathcal C}'} =
e^{-\lambda [\phi({\mathcal C}',\sigma)-\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma)]}
W({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C},\sigma) -
\delta_{{\mathcal C},{\mathcal C}'}r({\mathcal C},\sigma)$$ where $r({\mathcal C},\sigma)$ is the escape rate from configuration ${\mathcal C}$, defined as: $$r({\mathcal C},\sigma)\equiv \sum_{{\mathcal C}'} W({\mathcal C}\to{\mathcal C}',\sigma)$$ Our quantity of interest, $\langle e^{-\lambda \mathcal Y}\rangle\equiv e^{\mu(\lambda ,\tau;\sigma)}$ writes $$\begin{aligned}
\langle e^{-\lambda \mathcal Y }\rangle
&= \sum_{{\mathcal C}_0} P_{{\text{st}}}({\mathcal C}_0;\sigma_0)
\int d\hat h\sum_{{\mathcal C}} P({\mathcal C},\hat h,\tau) e^{-\lambda \hat h}
e^{-\lambda [\phi({\mathcal C}_0,\sigma_0)-\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma_\tau)]}
\\
&= \sum_{{\mathcal C},{\mathcal C}_0}e^{-\lambda \phi({\mathcal C},\sigma_\tau)} \hat P({\mathcal C},\lambda ,\tau) e^{-(1-\lambda )\phi({\mathcal C}_0,\sigma_0)}
\\
&= \big \langle e^{-\lambda \phi({\mathcal C},\sigma_\tau)}
\big |
\mathcal T e^{\int_0^\tau {\mathbb W}_\lambda }
\big|
e^{-(1-\lambda )\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma_0)} \big\rangle
\label{eq:ldf-Texp}\end{aligned}$$ where generically $|f({\mathcal C})\rangle$ denotes the vector of components $f({\mathcal C})$. The time-ordered exponential $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal T \exp \left( \int_0^t \mathbb W_\lambda \right)
&= \sum_{n\geq 0} \int_0^t dt_n \int_0^{t_n} dt_{n-1} \ldots
\int_0^{t_2} dt_1 \: \mathbb W_\lambda (t_n) \ldots \mathbb W_\lambda (t_1)
\label{eq:Texp_def}\end{aligned}$$ solves $ \partial_t |{\psi(t)}\rangle = \mathbb W_\lambda (t) |{\psi(t)}\rangle$ as easily checked.
A primer: the case $\lambda =1$ (original Hatano-Sasa equality)
---------------------------------------------------------------
From one has $ \langle e^{- \mathcal Y }\rangle =
\big \langle e^{-\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma_\tau)}
\big |
\mathcal T e^{\int_0^\tau {\mathbb W}_{\lambda =1}}
\big|
1 \big\rangle
$ but $$\Big({\mathbb W}_{\lambda =1} |1\rangle\Big)_{\mathcal C}= \sum_{{\mathcal C}'}\Big({\mathbb W}_{\lambda =1} \Big)_{{\mathcal C}{\mathcal C}'}
= \sum_{{\mathcal C}'} \Big[e^{-[\phi({\mathcal C}',\sigma)-\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma)]}
W({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C},\sigma) -
\delta_{{\mathcal C},{\mathcal C}'}r({\mathcal C},\sigma)\Big]=0$$ since by definition of steady-state $$\sum_{{\mathcal C}'} \Big[e^{-\phi({\mathcal C}',\sigma)}
W({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C},\sigma) -
\delta_{{\mathcal C},{\mathcal C}'}r({\mathcal C},\sigma)e^{-\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma)}\Big]
=0$$ which means that $\langle e^{- \mathcal Y }\rangle=1$ as expected. Note that the derivation we have presented makes no use of time-discretization or chain rules compared to [@Hatano-Sasa].
Symmetry for the Hatano-Sasa large deviation function
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting from one has (denoting $A^T$ the matrix transpose of $A$) $$\begin{aligned}
\langle e^{- \lambda \mathcal Y }\rangle & =
\big \langle e^{-(1-\lambda )\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma_0)}
\big | \big(
\mathcal T e^{\int_0^\tau {\mathbb W}_\lambda } \big)^T
\big|
e^{-\lambda \phi({\mathcal C},\sigma_\tau)} \big\rangle
\label{eq:transposedscalarproduct}\end{aligned}$$ One checks *e.g.* from that the transpose of the time-ordered exponential writes $$\big( \mathcal T e^{\int_0^\tau {\mathbb W}_\lambda } \big)^T
= \mathcal T e^{\int_0^\tau ({\mathbb W}^{\text{R}}_\lambda )^T}
\label{eq:transposeTexp}$$ where ${\mathbb W}^{\text{R}}_\lambda $ is the operator of evolution with the time-reversed protocol $\sigma^{\text{R}}(t)\equiv \sigma(\tau-t)$. Besides, $$\begin{aligned}
\big(({\mathbb W}^{\text{R}}_\lambda )^T\big)_{{\mathcal C}{\mathcal C}'}
&=
\big({\mathbb W}^{\text{R}}_\lambda \big)_{{\mathcal C}'{\mathcal C}}
\\
&=
e^{-\lambda [\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma^{\text{R}})-\phi({\mathcal C}',\sigma^{\text{R}})]}
W({\mathcal C}\to{\mathcal C}',\sigma^{\text{R}}) -
\delta_{{\mathcal C},{\mathcal C}'}r({\mathcal C},\sigma)
\\
&=
e^{-(1-\lambda )[\phi({\mathcal C}',\sigma^{\text{R}})-\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma^{\text{R}})]}
W^\dag({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C},\sigma^{\text{R}}) -
\delta_{{\mathcal C},{\mathcal C}'}r^\dag({\mathcal C},\sigma)
\\
\intertext{which shows that}
({\mathbb W}^{\text{R}}_\lambda )^T & = ({\mathbb W}^{\text{R}}_{1-\lambda })^\dag\end{aligned}$$ Using now and , one arrives at $$\begin{aligned}
\langle e^{- \lambda \mathcal Y }\rangle & =
\big \langle e^{-(1-\lambda )\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma^{\text{R}}_\tau)}
\big |
\mathcal T e^{\int_0^\tau ({\mathbb W}^{\text{R}}_{1-\lambda })^\dag}
\big|
e^{-\lambda \phi({\mathcal C},\sigma^{\text{R}}_0)} \big\rangle \end{aligned}$$ Since the dynamics of rates $W$ and $W^\dag$ have the same steady state and hence the same $\phi$, we read comparing with that the large deviation function (ldf) at $s
$ for the protocol $\sigma$ is the same as the ldf at $1-\lambda $ for the time-reversed protocol $\sigma^{\text{R}}$ and the dual dynamics: $$\mu(\lambda ,\tau;\sigma) = \mu^\dag(1-\lambda ,\tau;\sigma^{\text{R}})
\label{eq:sym_HatanoSasa_mu_dual}$$
Connection with Lebowitz-Spohn-like current
-------------------------------------------
In [@Lebowitz] Lebowitz and Spohn introduced a history-dependent observable $Q$ obeying a Gallavotti-Cohen-like symmetry for Markov process with *time-independent* jump rates. We may generalise their approach by defining, for a given history and a fixed time-dependent protocol $\sigma$ $$Q_\tau =
\sum_{k=1}^K \log\frac{W({\mathcal C}_{k-1}\to{\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_k})}{W^\dag({\mathcal C}_{k-1}\to{\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_k})}
= -\hat h_\tau +
\sum_{k=1}^K \log\frac{W({\mathcal C}_{k-1}\to{\mathcal C}_k,\sigma_{t_k})}{W({\mathcal C}_{k}\to{\mathcal C}_{k-1},\sigma_{t_k})}$$ where $\hat h_\tau$ is the reduced Hatano-Sasa defined in . Note that when the protocol is time-independent, the contribution $\hat h_\tau$ to $Q$ merely sums up to $\phi({\mathcal C}_K)-\phi({\mathcal C}_0)$, and one recovers the Lebowitz-Spohn definition of $Q$. Moreover, detailed balance is equivalent to having $Q_\tau=0$ for all histories. One studies here the symmetries of $\langle e^{-\lambda \mathcal Y -\kappa Q_\tau}\rangle$.
In the same way as above, one may introduce the probability $P({\mathcal C},\hat h,Q,t)$ of being in configuration ${\mathcal C}$ at time $t$, having observed a value $\hat h$ of the reduced Hatano-Sasa functional and a value $Q$ of the Lebowitz-Spohn one — having started from configuration ${\mathcal C}_0$. Following the same steps, one checks that the Laplace transform $$\label{eqn:def_hatP_hs_QLS}
\hat P({\mathcal C},\lambda ,\kappa,t) = \int d\hat h dQ\: e^{-\lambda \hat h-\kappa Q}P({\mathcal C},\hat h,Q,t)$$ evolves according to $\partial_t|\hat P(\lambda ,\kappa,t)\rangle = {\mathbb W}_{\lambda ,\kappa} |\hat P(\lambda ,\kappa,t)\rangle $ with a time-dependent operator ${\mathbb W}_{\lambda ,\kappa}$ of elements $$\left({\mathbb W}_{\lambda ,\kappa}\right)_{{\mathcal C},{\mathcal C}'} =
e^{-(\lambda -\kappa)[\phi({\mathcal C}',\sigma)-\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma)]}
W({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C},\sigma)^{1-\kappa} W({\mathcal C}'\to{\mathcal C},\sigma)^\kappa -
\delta_{{\mathcal C},{\mathcal C}'}r({\mathcal C},\sigma)$$ One checks that upon transposition the operator possesses the following symmetry: $$({\mathbb W}_{\lambda ,\kappa})^T = {\mathbb W}_{1-\lambda ,1-\kappa}$$ Using now that as in our quantity of interest $\langle e^{-\lambda \mathcal Y -\kappa Q_\tau}\rangle$ writes $$\begin{aligned}
\langle e^{-\lambda \mathcal Y -\kappa Q_\tau}\rangle
&= \sum_{{\mathcal C}_0} P_{{\text{st}}}({\mathcal C}_0;\sigma_0)
\int d\hat h dQ \sum_{{\mathcal C}} P({\mathcal C},\hat h,Q,\tau) e^{-\lambda \hat h-\kappa Q}
e^{-\lambda [\phi({\mathcal C}_0,\sigma_0)-\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma_\tau)]}
\\
&= \big \langle e^{-\lambda \phi({\mathcal C},\sigma_\tau)}
\big |
\mathcal T e^{\int_0^\tau {\mathbb W}_{\lambda ,\kappa}}
\big|
e^{-(1-\lambda )\phi({\mathcal C},\sigma_0)} \big\rangle
\label{eq:ldf-Texp_withQLS}\end{aligned}$$ and using , one obtains that the large deviation function $\mu(\lambda ,\kappa,t)$ defined as $
\mu(\lambda ,\kappa,\tau;\sigma)=\log \langle e^{-\lambda \mathcal Y -\kappa Q_\tau}\rangle
$ possesses the symmetry (at all times) $$\mu(\lambda ,\kappa,\tau;\sigma)
=
\mu(1-\lambda ,1-\kappa,\tau;\sigma^{\text{R}})
\label{eq:sym_HatanoSasa_Q_nodual}$$
Note first that no reference is made here to the dual dynamics. This also writes $$\langle e^{-\lambda \mathcal Y -\kappa Q_\tau}\rangle = \langle e^{-(1-\lambda ) \mathcal Y - (1-\kappa) Q_\tau}\rangle_{\sigma^{\text{R}}}$$ Moreover, focusing on the case $\kappa=0$ one sees that $$\langle e^{-\lambda \mathcal Y }\rangle = \langle e^{-(1-\lambda ) \mathcal Y - Q}\rangle_{\sigma^{\text{R}}}$$ which the equivalent of the equality $$S_\lambda [{\bf x}^{\text{R}};\sigma]= S_{1-\lambda }[{\bf x};\sigma^{\text{R}}]+\beta Q_{{\text{hk}}}[{\bf x};\sigma^{\text{R}}]$$ valid for systems with Langevin dynamics. In the same way, for $\lambda =1$ one sees that $$\langle e^{- Q}\rangle= 1$$ This shows that $Q$ plays for Markov chains the same role as $\beta
Q_{{\text{hk}}}$ for systems with Langevin dynamics.
[100]{}
Bustamante C, Liphardt J and Ritort F, [*The nonequilibrium thermodynamics of small systems*]{}, [2005 Physics Today **58** 43](http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2012462).
Ritort F, *Nonequilibrium fluctuations in small systems: From physics to biology*, [2008 Advances in Chemical Physics **137** 31](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470238080.ch2).
Evans D J, Cohen E G D and Morriss G P, *Probability of second law violations in shearing steady states*, [1993 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} 2401](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.2401).
Gallavotti G and Cohen E G D, *Dynamical ensembles in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics*, [1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{} 2694](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2694).
Kurchan J, *Fluctuation theorem for stochastic dynamics*, [1998 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **31** 3719](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/31/16/003).
Lebowitz J L and Spohn H, *A Gallavotti-Cohen type symmetry in the large deviation functional for stochastic dynamics*, [1999 J. Stat. Phys. [**95**]{} 333](http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004589714161).
Jarzynski C, *Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differences*, [1997 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{} 2690](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2690); Jarzynski C, *Equilibrium free-energy differences from nonequilibrium measurements: A master-equation approach*, [1997 Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{} 5018](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.56.5018).
Crooks G E, *Nonequilibrium measurements of free energy differences for microscopically reversible Markovian systems*, [ 1998 J. Stat. Phys. [**90**]{} 1481](http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1023208217925); Crooks G E, *Path-ensemble averages in systems driven far from equilibrium*, [2000 Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{} 2361](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.61.2361).
Hatano T and Sasa S-i, *Steady-State Thermodynamics of Langevin Systems*, [2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} 3463](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3463).
Speck T and Seifert U, *Integral fluctuation theorem for the housekeeping heat*, [2005 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**38**]{} 581](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/38/34/L03).
Seifert U, *Entropy Production along a Stochastic Trajectory and an Integral Fluctuation Theorem*, [2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{} 040602](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.040602).
Horowitz J M and Vaikuntanathan S, *Nonequilibrium detailed fluctuation theorem for repeated discrete feedback*, [2010 Phys. Rev. E **82** 061120](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.82.061120); Horowitz J M and Parrondo J M R, *Thermodynamic reversibility in feedback processes*, [2011 Europhys. Lett. **95** 10005](http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/95/10005).
Sagawa T and Ueda M, *Generalized Jarzynski Equality under Nonequilibrium Feedback Control*, [2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{} 090602](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.090602).
Abreu D, Seifert U, *Extracting work from a single heat bath through feedback*, [2011 Europhys. Lett. **94** 10001](http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/94/10001).
Kurchan J, *Non-equilibrium work relations*, [2007 J. Stat. Mech. P07005](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2007/07/P07005).
Harris R J and Schütz G M, *Fluctuation theorems for stochastic dynamics*, [2007 J. Stat. Mech. P07020](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2007/07/P07020).
Zamponi F, Bonetto F, Cugliandolo LF and Kurchan J, *A fluctuation theorem for non-equilibrium relaxational systems driven by external forces*, [2005 J. Stat. Mech. P09013](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2005/09/P09013).
Aron C, Biroli G and Cugliandolo LF, *Symmetries of generating functionals of Langevin processes with colored multiplicative noise*, [2010 J. Stat. Mech. P11018](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2010/11/P11018).
Esposito M and Van den Broeck C, *Three Detailed Fluctuation Theorems*, [2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. **104** 090601](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.090601).
V. Y Chernyak, M. Chertkov and C. Jarzynski, *Path-integral analysis of fluctuation theorems for general Langevin processes*, [2006 J. Stat. Mech. P08001](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2006/08/P08001).
Esposito M and Van den Broeck C, *Three Faces of the Second Law: I. Master Equation Formulation*, [2010 Phys. Rev. E **82** 011143](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.82.011143).
Esposito M and Van den Broeck C, *The Three Faces of the Second Law: II. Fokker-Planck Formulation*, [2010 Phys. Rev. E **82** 011144](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.82.011144).
Oono Y and Paniconi M, *Steady State Thermodynamics*, [1998 Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**130**]{} 29 (1998)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1143/PTPS.130.29 ).
Hurtado P I, Perez-Espigares C, del Pozo J J and Garrido P L, *Symmetries in fluctuations far from equilibrium*, [2011 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**108**]{} 7704](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1013209108 ).
García-García R, Domínguez D, Lecomte V and Kolton A B, *Unifying approach for fluctuation theorems from joint probability distributions*, [2010 Phys. Rev. E **82** 030104(R)](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.82.030104).
Seifert U, *Stochastic thermodynamics: principles and perspectives*, [2008 European Journ. Phys. B **64** 423](http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjb/e2008-00001-9).
Gomez-Marin A, Parrondo J M R and Van den Broeck C, *The “footprints" of irreversibility*, [2008 Europhys. Lett. **82** 50002](http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/82/50002).
.
Andrieux D and Gaspard P, *Fluctuation theorem for currents and Schnakenberg network theory* [2007 J. Stat. Phys. **127** 107](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10955-006-9233-5)
Lau A W C and Lubensky T C, *State-dependent diffusion: Thermodynamic consistency and its path integral formulation*, [2007 Phys. Rev. E **76** 011123](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.76.011123).
Trepagnier E H, Jarzynski C, Ritort F, Crooks G E, Bustamante C J and Liphardt J, *Experimental test of Hatano and Sasa’s nonequilibrium steady-state equality*, [2004 PNAS **101** 15038](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0406405101).
Richardson J, *Noise in driven systems*, [1955 IRE Trans. Inform. Theory **1** 62](http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1955.1055119).
Agarwal GS, *Fluctuation-dissipation theorems for systems in non-thermal equilibrium and applications*, [1972 Z. Physik **252** 25](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01391621).
Risken H, *The Fokker-Planck Equation*, chapter 7, [1984 (Springer, Berlin, New York)](http://www.springer.com/physics/complexity/book/978-3-540-61530-9).
Falcioni M, Isola S, Vulpiani A, *Correlation functions and relaxation properties in chaotic dynamics and statistical mechanics*, [1990 Phys. Lett. A **144** 341](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(90)90137-D).
Prost J, Joanny J-F and Parrondo J M R, *Generalized Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem for Steady-State Systems*, [2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{} 090601](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.090601).
Baiesi M, Maes C and Wynants B. *Fluctuations and response of nonequilibrium states*, [2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. **103** 010602](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.010602).
Verley G, Mallick K, Lacoste D, *Modified fluctuation-dissipation theorem for non-equilibrium steady states and applications to molecular motors*, [2011 Europhys. Letters **93** 10002](http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/93/10002).
Verley G, Chétrite R, Lacoste D, *Modified fluctuation-dissipation theorem near non-equilibrium states and applications to the Glauber-Ising chain*, [`arXiv:1108.1135`](http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1108.1135).
Marini Bettolo Marconi U, Puglisi A, Rondoni L and Vulpiani A, *Fluctuation-dissipation: Response theory in statistical physics*, [2008 Phys. Rep. **461** 111](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2008.02.002).
Lecomte V, Appert-Rolland C, van Wijland F, *Thermodynamic Formalism for Systems with Markov Dynamics*, [2007 J. Stat. Phys. **127** 51](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10955-006-9254-0).
Garrahan J P, Jack R L, Lecomte V, Pitard E, van Duijvendijk K and van Wijland F, *Dynamic first-order phase transition in kinetically constrained models of glasses*, [2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. **98** 195702](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.195702).
Garrahan J P,Jack R L, Lecomte V, E. Pitard, van Duijvendijk K and van Wijland F, *First-order dynamical phase transition in models of glasses: an approach based on ensembles of histories*, [2009 J. Phys. A **42** 075007](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/42/7/075007).
Turci F and Pitard E, *Large deviations and heterogeneities in a driven kinetically constrained model*, [2011 Europhys. Letters **94** 10003](http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/94/10003).
Gorissen M and Vanderzande C, *Finite size scaling of current fluctuations in the totally asymmetric exclusion process*, [2011 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. **44** 115005](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/11/115005).
Bodineau T and Derrida B, *Cumulants and large deviations of the current through non-equilibrium steady states*, [ 2007 Comptes Rendus Physique **8** 540](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2007.04.014).
Nemoto T, Sasa S-i, *Thermodynamic formula for the cumulant generating function of time-averaged current*, [`arXiv:1109.0797`](http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.0797).
Giardinà C, Kurchan J and Peliti L, *Direct evaluation of large-deviation functions*, [2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. **96** 120603](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.120603).
Lecomte V and Tailleur J, *A numerical approach to large deviations in continuous time*, [2007 J. Stat. Mech. P03004](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2007/03/P03004).
Giardinà C, Kurchan J, Lecomte V and Tailleur J, *Simulating Rare Events in Dynamical Processes*, accepted for publication in J. Stat. Phys (2011), [`doi:10.1007/s10955-011-0350-4`](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10955-011-0350-4) and [`arXiv:1106.4929`](http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4929).
Autieri E, Faccioli P, Sega M, Pederiva F and Orland H, *Dominant reaction pathways in high dimensional systems* [2009 J. Chem. Phys. **130** 064106](http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3074271).
Bodineau T, Lefevere R, *Large deviations of lattice Hamiltonian dynamics coupled to stochastic thermostats*, [2008 J. Stat. Phys. **133** 1](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10955-008-9601-4).
Maes C, Netočnký K, Wynants B, *On and beyond entropy production; the case of Markov jump processes*, [2008 Markov Processes and Related Fields **14** 445](http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4327).
Pitard E, Lecomte V, van Wijland F, *Dynamic transition in an atomic glass former: a molecular dynamics evidence*, [2011 Europhys. Lett. **96** 56002](http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/96/56002).
van Zon R et al, *Power and Heat Fluctuation Theorems for Electric Circuits*, [2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. **92** 130601](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.130601); Schuler S et al, *Experimental Test of the Fluctuation Theorem for a Driven Two-Level System with Time-Dependent Rates*, [ 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. **94** 180602](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.180602); Tietz C et al, *Measurement of Stochastic Entropy Production*, [2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. **97** 050602](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.050602); Andrieux D et al, *Entropy Production and Time Asymmetry in Nonequilibrium Fluctuations*, [2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. **98** 150601](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.150601); Liphardt J et al, *Equilibrium Information from Nonequilibrium Measurements in an Experimental Test of Jarzynski’s Equality*, [2002 Science **296** 1832](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1071152 ); Collin D et al, *Verification of the Crooks fluctuation theorem and recovery of RNA folding free energies*, [2005 Nature **437** 231](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04061).
García-García R (unpublished).
Golubev D S, Utsumi Y, Marthaler M and Schön M, *Fluctuation theorem for a double quantum dot coupled to a point-contact electrometer*, [2011 Phys. Rev. B **84** 075323](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.075323); Cuetara G B, Esposito M and Gaspard P, *Fluctuation theorems for capacitively coupled electronic currents*, [2011 Phys. Rev. B **84** 165114](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.165114).
Puglisi A and Villamaina D, *Irreversible effects of memory*, [2009 Europhys. Lett. **88** 30004](http://dx.doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/88/30004).
[^1]: Corresponding author
[^2]: For systems where coherence is not important, described by an effective Pauli master equation, the mapping to classical systems is straightforward. Otherwise, we speculate that a Schwinger-Keldysh approach is relevant.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We compute exactly the semi-classical radiation spectrum for a class of non-asymptotically flat charged dilaton black holes, the so-called linear dilaton black holes. In the high frequency regime, the temperature for these black holes generically agrees with the surface gravity result. In the special case where the black hole is massless, we show that, although the surface gravity remains finite, there is no radiation, in agreement with the fact that massless objects cannot radiate.'
author:
- |
G. Clément$^{a}$[^1], J.C. Fabris$^{b}$[^2] and G.T. Marques$^{a,b}$[^3]\
\
[$^a$Laboratoire de Physique Théorique LAPTH (CNRS),]{}\
[B.P.110, F-74941 Annecy-le-Vieux cedex, France]{}\
[$^{b}$ Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo,]{}\
[Vitória, 29060-900, Espírito Santo, Brazil]{}
date: 'April 3, 2007'
title: |
LAPTH-1178/07
Hawking radiation of linear dilaton black holes
---
Quantum field theory in curved spacetime predicts new phenomena such as particle emission by a black hole [@birrell]. This is due to the fact that the vacuum for a quantum field near the horizon is different from the observer’s vacuum at spatial infinity. A distant observer thus receives from a black hole a steady flux of particles exhibiting, in the high frequency regime, a black body spectrum with a temperature proportional to the surface gravity [@haw]. Although Hawking’s original derivation of this black hole evaporation dealt with realistic collapsing black holes, Unruh [@unruh1] showed that the same results are obtained when the collapse is replaced by appropriate boundary conditions on the horizon of an eternal black hole. In the semi-classical approximation, the black hole radiation spectrum may be evaluated by computing the Bogoliubov coefficients relating the two vacua. An equivalent procedure is to compute the reflection and absorption coefficients of a wave by the black hole. Usually, the wave equation cannot be solved exactly, and one must resort to match solutions in an overlap region between the near-horizon and asymptotic regions [@page; @unruh2]. In the special case of the (2+1)-dimensional BTZ black hole [@BTZ], an exact solution of the wave equation is available, which allows for an exact computation of the radiation spectrum, leading to the Hawking temperature [@GL; @NSS; @BSS].
In this Letter, we discuss another case of black holes also allowing for an exact semi-classical computation of their radiation spectrum, that of linear dilaton black hole solutions to Einstein-Maxwell dilaton (EMD) theory in four dimensions. Linear dilaton black holes are a special case of the more general class of non-asymptotically flat black hole solutions to EMD [@CHM; @newdil2], which we first briefly present. We discuss the evaporation of these non-asymptotically flat black holes and show that they either collapse to a naked singularity in a finite time, or evaporate in an infinite time. We then specialize to linear dilaton black holes, and outline the analytical computation of their radiation spectrum. For massive black holes, this computation leads, in the high frequency regime, to the same temperature which is obtained from the surface gravity. However in the case of massless extreme black holes, we find that, although the surface gravity remains finite, there is no radiation, in agreement with the fact that a massless object cannot radiate.
EMD is defined by the following action $$\label{lagran}
S = \frac{1}{16\pi}\int dx^4\sqrt{-g}\biggr[R -
2\partial_\mu\phi\partial^\mu\phi -
e^{-2\alpha\phi}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\biggl] \quad ,$$ where $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the electromagnetic field, and $\phi$ is the dilatonic field, with coupling constant $\alpha$. This theory admits static spherically symmetric solutions representing black holes. Among these black hole solutions there are asymptotically flat ones [@GM; @GHS] as well as non-asymptotically flat configurations [@CHM; @newdil2]. In the present work, we are interested in the non-asymptotically flat black hole solutions ds\^2 &=& dt\^2 - {dr\^2 + r(r - b)d\^2},\
F & = & drdt, e\^[2]{} = \^[2]{}()\^[1-]{}. with $$\gamma = \frac{1 - \alpha^2}{1 + \alpha^2}\,.$$ The constants $b$ and $r_0$ are related to the mass and to the electric charge of the black hole through M = (1 - )b/4, Q = .
The solutions (\[nbhm\]),(\[nbhe\]) interpolate between the Schwarzschild solution for $\gamma = -1$ ($\alpha^2 \to \infty$) and the Bertotti-Robinson solution for $\gamma = +1$ ($\alpha^2 = 0$). For $b > 0$ the horizon at $r = b$ hides the singularity at $r = 0$, while in the extreme black hole case $b = 0$ the horizon coincides with the singularity. This is a curious case, with vanishing mass but a finite electric charge. For $-1< \gamma < 0$ ($\alpha^2 > 1$) the central singularity is timelike and clearly naked [@newdil2]. On the other hand, for $0 \le \gamma < 1$ ($0 < \alpha^2 \le 1$), the central singularity is null and marginally trapped [@hayward], so that signals coming from the centre never reach external observers. Thus in this case, extreme black holes can be still considered as black holes indeed.
The statistical Hawking temperature of the black holes (\[nbhm\]), computed as usual by dividing the surface gravity by $2\pi$ is given by $$\lb{th}
T_H = \frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{b^\gamma}{r_0^{1+\gamma}} \,.$$ It is finite for all $\gamma$ if $b \neq 0$. For $b = 0$ and $-1 <
\gamma < 0$ (naked singularity). the temperature is infinite, while for $b = 0$ and $0 < \gamma < 1$ (extreme black hole), the temperature vanishes.
The case $b = \gamma = 0$ is intriguing. Although this an extreme black hole, the situation is different from that of asymptotically flat extreme black holes. The near-horizon Euclidean extreme Reissner-Nordström geometry is cylindrical, rather than conical, so that its statistical temperature is arbitrary, contrary to the zero value derived from surface gravity [@HHR]. In the present case the two-dimensional Euclidean continuation of the metric (\[nbhm\]) with $\gamma=0$ clearly has a conical singularity at $r=b$ for all values of $b$, including $b=0$, leading for this particular extreme black hole to the finite temperature $T_H = 1/4\pi r_0$, in agreement with the value (\[th\]). However this result is questionable. A black hole with pointlike horizon and zero mass clearly cannot radiate, so one should rather expect its temperature to be zero. We will return to this question presently.
As black holes (\[nbhm\]) radiate, they loose mass according to Stefan’s law = -A\_hT\_H\^4, where $\sigma$ is Stefan’s constant, and $A_h=4\pi r_0^{1+\gamma}b^{1-\gamma}$ is the horizon area. Assuming that only electrically neutral quanta are radiated, (\[stef\]) implies that the horizon area decreases according to = -r\_0\^[-3(1+)]{}b\^[1+3]{}, which is solved by b(t) &=& r\_0( )\^[-1/3]{}(0),\
b(t) &=& r\_0(- ) (= 0), where $c= 3\sigma/16\pi^3$, and $t_0$ is an integration constant. The outcome depends on the sign of $\gamma$. For $\gamma<0$, the Hawking temperature increases with decreasing mass and the black hole collapses to a naked singularity (or evaporates away altogether in the Schwarzschild case $\gamma = -1$) in a finite time according to $b \sim
(t_0-t)^{1/3|\gamma|}$. On the other hand, for $\gamma \ge 0$, the Hawking temperature decreases (or is constant for $\gamma=0$) with decreasing mass, and the black hole evaporates in an infinite time, reaching the extreme black hole state $b=0$ only asymptotically.
We now proceed to a more precise evaluation of the temperature of non-asymptotically flat black holes from the study of wave scattering in these spacetimes. The wave equation $$\label{kg} \nabla^2\phi = 0$$ does not generically allow for an exact solution in the spacetimes (\[nbhm\]). However, it can be solved analytically [@newdil1] in the case of linear dilaton black holes with $\gamma=0$ and $b\neq0$, with the metric ds\^2 = dt\^2 - {dr\^2 + r(r - b)d\^2},
Considering the harmonic eigenmodes (x) = (r,t)Y\_[lm]{}(,), (r,t) = R(r)\^[-it]{}, we obtain the following radial equation: $$\label{kgrad}
\partial_r\bigg(r(r - b)\partial_rR\bigg) +
\biggr(\bar\omega^2\frac{r}{r-b} - l(l + 1)\bigg)R = 0$$ ($\bar\omega^2 \equiv \omega^2 r_0^2$). Putting $$y = \frac{b-r}{b}\,, \quad R = y^{i\bar\omega}f\,,$$ reduces (\[kgrad\]) to the equation $$\lb{hyp1}
y(1-y)\partial^2_y f + \bigg(1+2i\bar\omega-2(1+i\bar\omega)y\bigg)
\partial_y f + \bigg(\bar\omega^2 - i\bar\omega - \bar\lambda^2
- 1/4\bigg)f = 0 \,,$$ with $$\bar\lambda^2 = \bar\omega^2 - (l + 1/2)^2 \,.$$ This is a hypergeometric equation y(1-y)\^2\_y f + (c-(a+b+1)y)\_y f -abf = 0, with a = 12 + i(|+|), b = 12 + i(|-|), c = 1 + 2i|. It follows that the general solution of equation (\[kgrad\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
&R& = C_1\bigg(\frac{r-b}{b}\bigg)^{i\bar\omega} F\bigg(\frac12 +
i(\bar\omega+\bar\lambda), \frac12 + i(\bar\omega-\bar\lambda),1+2i\bar\omega;
\frac{b-r}{b}\bigg) \nonumber\\
&+& C_2\bigg(\frac{r-b}{b}\bigg)^{-i\bar\omega} F\bigg(\frac12 -
i(\bar\omega+\bar\lambda), \frac12 - i(\bar\omega-\bar\lambda),1-2i\bar\omega;
\frac{b-r}{b}\bigg) \,.\end{aligned}$$ Putting b = \^[x/r\_0]{},the partial wave near the horizon ($x \to - \infty$) is thus C\_1 \^[i(x-t)]{} + C\_2 \^[-i(x+t)]{}.
To obtain the behavior of the partial wave near spatial infinity, we must expand the solutions of (\[hyp1\]) in hypergeometric functions of argument $1/y$. The relevant transformation is F(a,b,c;y) &=& (-y)\^[-a]{} F(a,a+1-c,a+1-b;1/y)\
&+& (-y)\^[-b]{} F(b,b+1-c,b+1-a;1/y). This leads to the asymptotic behavior (b)\^[-1/2]{}(B\_1 \^[i(x- t)]{} + B\_2 \^[-i(x + t)]{}) ($\lambda = \bar\lambda/r_0$), where the amplitudes of the asymptotic outgoing and ingoing waves $B_1$ and $B_2$ are related to the amplitudes of the near-horizon outgoing and ingoing waves $C_1$ and $C_2$ by B\_1 &=& (2i|),\
B\_2 &=& (-2i|).
Hawking radiation can be considered as the inverse process of scattering by the black hole, with the asymptotic boundary condition $B_1 = 0$ (the outgoing mode is absent). The coefficient for reflection by the black hole is then given by R = \_[B\_1=0]{} = = . The resulting radiation spectrum is N = = (\^[/T\_H]{}-1)\^[-1]{}. For high frequencies, $\bar\lambda \simeq \bar\omega = \omega/r_0$, and we recover from (\[refl\]) the Hawking temperature as computed from the surface gravity, T\_H = 1[4r\_0]{}.
The above computation fails in the linear dilaton vacuum case $b=0$. The question of assigning a temperature to such massless black holes might be evacuated by arguing that they cannot be formed, either through central collapse of matter, or (as we have seen above) through evaporation of massive black holes. Nevertheless, as a matter of principle one should consider the possibility of primordial massless black holes. From the general temperature law (\[th\]) these should have a finite temperature. On the other hand, being massless they cannot radiate energy away, so their temperature should vanish.
The question can be settled by solving the massless Klein-Gordon equation in the metric (\[nbhm0\]) with $b=0$, $$\label{cm}
ds^2 = \frac{r}{r_0}dt^2 - \frac{r_0}{r}dr^2 - r_0rd\Omega^2 \,.$$ This metric can be rewritten as $$ds^2 = \Sigma^2\bigg[d\tau^2 - dx^2 - d\Omega^2\bigg] \,,$$ with x = (r/r\_0), = t/r\_0, = r\_0\^[x/2]{}, showing that the linear dilaton vacuum metric is conformal to the product $M_2 \times S_2$ of a two-dimensional Minkowski spacetime with the two-sphere. Performing also the redefinition $$\phi = \Sigma^{-1}\psi \,,$$ the Klein-Gordon equation (\[kg\]) is reduced to \^2= \^[-3]{}= 0, where $\nabla_{\Omega}^2$ is the Laplacian operator on the two-sphere.
For a given spherical harmonic with orbital quantum number $l$, the reduced Klein-Gordon equation is thus \_2\^2\_l + (l+1/2)\^2\_l = 0, with $\nabla_2^2$ the Dalembertian operator on $M_2$. Also, for a given spherical harmonic the four-dimensional Klein-Gordon norm reduces to the $M_2$ norm: \^2 = 1[2i]{}d\^3xg\^[0]{}\^[\*]{}= dx\_l\^[\*]{}\_l. Thus, the problem of wave propagation in the linear dilaton vacuum reduces to the propagation of eigenmodes of a free Klein-Gordon field in two dimensions, with effective mass $\mu = l+1/2$. Clearly there is no reflection, so that the linear dilaton vacuum does not radiate and hence its Hawking temperature vanishes, contrary to the naive surface gravity value (\[th\]). A similar reasoning holds in 2+1 dimensions for the BTZ vacuum [@BTZ] ($M=L=0$), which is conformal to $M_2
\times S_1$.
We have shown that a complete analytical computation of the radiation spectrum is possible for linear dilaton black hole solutions of EMD. For massive black holes, this leads in the high frequency regime to a Planckian distribution with a temperature independent of the black hole mass, in accordance with the surface gravity value. On the other hand, we find that extreme, massless black holes do not radiate, thereby solving the paradox presented by apparently hot (if the surface gravity temperature is taken seriously) yet massless black holes.
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} J.C.F. thanks the LAPTH for the warm hospitality during the elaboration of this work. He also thanks CNPq (Brazil) for partial support. J.C.F. and G.T.M. thank the French-Brazilian scientific cooperation CAPES/COFECUB for partial financial support.
[20]{}
N.D. Birrell and P.C.W. Davies, [**Quantum fields in curved space**]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982).
S.W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. [**43**]{} (1975) 199.
W.G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D[**14**]{} (1976) 870.
D. Page, Phys. Rev. D[**13**]{} (1976) 198.
W.G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D[**14**]{} (1976) 3251.
M. Bañados, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{} (1992) 1849.
K. Ghoroku and A.L. Larsen, Phys. Lett. B[**328**]{} (1994) 28.
M. Natsuume, N. Sakai and M. Sato, Mod. Phys. Lett. A[**11**]{} (1996) 1467.
D. Birmingham, I. Sachs and S. Sen, Phys. Lett. B[**413**]{} (1997) 281.
K.C.K. Chan, J.H. Horne and R.B. Mann, Nucl. Phys. B[**447**]{} (1995) 441.
G. Clément and C. Leygnac, Phys. Rev. D[**70**]{} (2004) 084018.
G.W. Gibbons and K. Maeda, Nucl. Phys. B[**298**]{} (1988) 741.
D. Garfinkle, G.T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D[**43**]{} (1991) 3140.
S.A. Hayward, Class. Quantum Grav. [**17**]{} (2000) 4021.
S.W. Hawking, G.T. Horowitz and S.F. Ross, Phys. Rev. D[**51**]{} (1995) 4302.
G. Clément, D. Gal’tsov and C. Leygnac, Phys. Rev. D[**67**]{} (2003) 024012.
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: e-mail:[email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
harvmac epsf
Shigenori Seki[^1][[email protected]; The author will change the affiliation to Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Kobe University, Kobe 657-8501, Japan on July 2002.]{}
.3in
[**abstract**]{}
We consider the Penrose limit of the solution of D5-brane given in the Anti-de Sitter space and analyse the shape of the D5-brane in the pp-wave background. We find that the D5-brane leads to the branes and the throats connecting the branes. The branes spread on ${\bf R}^4$ with periodic values of the light-cone time $x^+$ and the throats lie along $x^+$. We also give some comments on holography.
In the last several years, a lot of works have been done on the AdS/CFT correspondence , by which supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories are associated with string theories in Anti-de Sitter spaces. When there are $N$ coincident D3-branes, we obtain an Anti-de Sitter space $AdS_5$ at the near-horizon limit.
Recently the string theory on a pp-wave background has been studied. The pp-wave background is known as one of maximally supersymmetric geometries. The Type IIB string theory on this background can be exactly solved by the Green-Schwarz formalism in light-cone gauge . On the other hand, it has been pointed out that any space-time has a plane wave as a limit . This limit is called the Penrose limit. Taking the Penrose limit for $AdS_5 \times S^5$, we obtain the pp-wave geometry. It has been found that the spectra of the string theory on the pp-wave background correspond to the operators of ${\cal N} = 4$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory . A lot of related works have been done on orbifolds , D-branes , holography and so on .
In the AdS/CFT correspondence the baryon vertex in the world-volume theory on the $N$ coincident D3-branes is constructed by the D5-brane wrapped on $S^5$ . The D5-brane surrounds the D3-branes and $N$ open strings connect these D-branes. This configuration is analysed in terms of the Born-Infeld action of D5-brane . The solution of the D5-brane has a spike sticking out toward the D3-branes and the tension of spike is equal to that of $N$ fundamental open strings. The direction of the spike can be identified with the holographic direction. On the other hand, the holography in the pp-wave background has been studied in , but it has not been clear yet. Though the dual gauge theory of the string theory in pp-wave background has been found, we do not know where the dual theory lives, in other words, we do not have D-brane configurations as in the AdS/CFT correspondence. In this paper we consider the Penrose limit of the solution of D5-brane given in the Anti-de Sitter space by the use of reasonable coordinate systems. We then analyse the shape of the D5-brane in the pp-wave background.
In Section 2 we introduce two types of coordinates of $AdS_5 \times S^5$ and confirm that the metrics written by such coordinates lead to the pp-wave metrics by the Penrose limit. In Section 3 the solution of D5-brane in $AdS_5 \times S^5$ is reviewed. We then calculate the Penrose limit of the solution and study the location of the D5-brane in the pp-wave background. We find the branes connected by throats with each other. Section 4 is devoted to conclusions and some comments on the holography.
The metric with $N$ coincident D3-branes has been known and it becomes $AdS_5 \times S^5$ at the near-horizon limit. In the AdS/CFT correspondence we have often used the metric, $$\eqalignno{
ds^2 &= \left({u \over R}\right)^2 \left(-dt^2 + \sum_{i=1}^3dx_i^2\right) +
\left({R \over u}\right)^2 du^2 + R^2d\Omega_5^2, &\metads\cr
&R^4=4\pi g_s N l_s^4 , &\rdef
}$$ for $AdS_5 \times S^5$. $g_s$ is a string coupling and $l_s$ is a string length. But for the convenience of later analyses we rescale the coordinates and describe the metric as In this coordinate system it is easy to find the descriptions of D-branes but it is hard to consider the Penrose limit. In order to make ready for taking the limit, we change the coordinates as $$\eqalignno{
t &= {\cosh \rho \sin \tau \over \cosh \rho \cos \tau - n_4 \sinh \rho},&\cort\cr
x_i &= {n_i \sinh \rho \over \cosh \rho \cos \tau - n_4 \sinh \rho},
\quad (i = 1, 2, 3) &\corx\cr
l &= \cosh \rho \cos \tau - n_4 \sinh \rho, &\corl\cr
&n_1^2 + n_2^2 + n_3^2 + n_4^2 = 1.
}$$ Substituting , and into , we obtain the metric Now let us consider the Penrose limit. We reparametrize the coordinates as and take $R \to \infty$. The metric then becomes $(r, \Omega_3)$ and $(y, {\tilde \Omega}_3)$ describe ${\bf R}^4 \times {\bf R}^4$. One of the two ${\bf R}^4$’s comes from $AdS_5$ and the other comes from $S^5$, but we can not distinguish between them at the Penrose limit. The radial coordinate of $AdS_5$, which is associated with the holographic direction in the AdS/CFT correspondence, leads to $r$. But $r$ and $y$ play same roles in the Penrose limit . So it is difficult to find the holographic direction in the limit. We will give some comments on this problem in the final section.
On the other hand, the metric can be identified with the pp-wave metric which includes Ramond-Ramond flux, $$F_{+1234} = F_{+5678}=1,$$ where the suffices 1234 and 5678 denote the first and the second ${\bf R}^4$ respectively.
Firstly we consider the D5-brane in $AdS_5 \times S^5$. In order to find a baryon vertex , we set the D5-brane to wrap $S^5$. The action of D5-brane is represented by Born-Infeld action and Chern-Simons action. The static solution of the action has been shown in . Let $(\xi_\alpha)$ be coordinates on the world-volume of D5-brane. The action of D5-brane is described as $$\eqalignno{
S &= S_{BI} + S_{CS} , &\dvact\cr
&S_{BI} = T_5\int d\xi^6 \sqrt{-\det (g + {\cal F})}, &\biact\cr
&S_{CS} = -T_5 \int A \wedge C^{(5)}, &\csact
}$$ where $T_5$ is the tension of D5-brane. $g$ is an induced metric, that is, $g^{\alpha\beta} = G^{ij}{\partial X_i \over \partial \xi_\alpha}
{\partial X_j \over \partial \xi_\beta}$, where $G^{ij}$ is a space-time metric. ${\cal F} (= \partial_\alpha A_\beta - \partial_\beta A_\alpha)$ is a gauge field strength on the D5-brane and $C^{(5)}$ is a five-form RR field strength. We suppose that the D5-brane is embedded in $(t, \theta, \Omega_4)$ directions of the metric . We also set only $l$ and the gauge field $A_t$ to depend on $\theta$ . $l$ is one of the coordinates denoting the location of D5-brane. The action is written down as $$S = T_5 V_4 \int dt d\theta R^4 \sin^4\theta \left[-\sqrt{R^4(l^2 +
l'^2)- (\partial_\theta A_t)^2} + 4A_t \right] ,$$ where $V_4$ is the volume of unit four-sphere and $'$ denotes the derivative by $\theta$. By the Legendre transformation and partial integral of the above action, we obtain the energy of D5-brane , $$\eqalignno{
E &= T_5 V_4 \int d\theta R^6\sqrt{l^2 + l'^2}\sqrt{f(\theta)^2 + \sin^8\theta}, &\dvene\cr
&f(\theta) \equiv \left[{3 \over 2}(\nu\pi - \theta) + {3 \over 2}
\sin\theta \cos\theta + \sin^3\theta \cos\theta\right] , &\dth
}$$ where $\nu$ is an integral constant and satisfies $0 \leq \nu \leq 1$. From $\dvene$, we obtain the equation of motion for $l$, On the other hand, the BPS condition of the D5-brane has been discovered by and is denoted by Note that is independent of $R$ because $f(\theta)$ does not include $R$. We can confirm that the solutions of the BPS condition satisfy the equation of motion . Since is a first order differential equation, it is, in other words, the first integral of . Though seems to be too difficult to be solved, has been solved and the solution is where $c$ is any constant. We should note that and have scale invariance for $l$, so we can introduce any scale parameter $c$.
Now let us consider the Penrose limits of the coordinates $l,t,x_i$ in and make it clear the correspondences between the coordinates in and in . Substituting into , and , we obtain $$\eqalign{
t &= {\cosh {r \over R} \sin \left(x^+ + {x^- \over R^2}\right) \over
\cosh {r \over R} \cos \left(x^+ + {x^- \over R^2}\right) - n_4 \sinh
{r \over R}} , \cr
x_i &= {n_i \sinh {r \over R} \over \cosh {r \over R} \cos \left(x^+ +
{x^- \over R^2}\right) - n_4 \sinh {r \over R}} , \cr
l &= \cosh {r \over R} \cos \left(x^+ + {x^- \over R^2}\right) - n_4 \sinh {r \over R} .
}$$ We can then calculate the limit $R \to \infty$ as $$\eqalignno{
t &\to \tan x^+ , &\ppt\cr
x_i &\to 0, &\ppx\cr
l &\to \cos x^+. &\ppl
}$$ In $AdS_5 \times S^5$ the D3-branes, on which the dual gauge theory exists, spread on the $(t, x_i)$ directions. implies that the space directions of the D3-branes shrink to zero size, while from we can read that the time direction of the D3-brane is included in the light-cone time $x^+$. So the location of D3-brane in the pp-wave background is not clear.
We consider the Penrose limit of the right hand side of . Substituting $\theta={y \over R}$ into , we obtain When we take the limit $R \to \infty$, the two cases which are $\nu = 0$ and $\nu \neq 0$ give us different results. Firstly we suppose that $\nu$ is equal to zero. If $c$ is independent of $R$, the right hand side of then converges on $$c\left({2 \over 3\pi}\right)^{1 \over 3}.$$ We set that $c$ has a scale of $R^m$. If $m$ is negative, goes to zero for that limit, while, if $m$ is positive, then diverges. Note that the limit of should take a value from $-1$ to $1$ on account of . So the solutions of D5-brane with the scale $R^m$ $(m>0)$ are not visible in the pp-wave background. For $m = 0$, that is, $c$ is independent of $R$, we should take $|c| \leq \left({3\pi \over 2}\right)^{1 \over 3}$. As a result the solutions of D5-brane in $x^+$-$y$ plane are $$x^+ = \pm {\rm constant} + 2k \pi,\quad k \in {\bf Z}.$$
Next we suppose that $\nu \neq 0$. converges on a non-trivial function by $R \to \infty$ only if $c ={a \over R}$, where $a$ is a constant independent of $R$. We then obtain Note that if $c$ has the scale of $R^m$ with $m < -1$, $l(y)$ shrinks to zero, and that if $m > -1$, $l(y)$ goes away to infinity. Let us analyse the case $c = {a \over R}$ in detail. From and , the solution of D5-brane at the Penrose limit is described as is still naive. Since $y$ is a radial direction, $y$ should be positive. This condition can be satisfied by changing the sign of $a$. Finally we obtain We should remember that $\nu$ is the integral constant satisfying $0 \leq \nu \leq 1$. Since $y |\cos x^+| = |a|\left(\nu \over 1 - \nu\right)^{1 \over 3}$ from , at the limit $\nu \to 0$ we obtain $y = 0$ or $\cos x^+ = 0$. These solutions can be rewritten by $$y = 0, \quad x^+ = {\pi \over 2} + k \pi \quad (k \in {\bf Z}).$$ On the other hand, let us take the limit $\nu \to 1$. From the equation ${1 \over y |\cos x^+|}
= {1 \over a}\left(1 - \nu \over \nu\right)^{1 \over 3}$, we obtain $y = \infty$ because $-1 \leq \cos x^+ \leq 1$. The shape of the D5-brane is represented in . When $\nu$ goes to zero, the D5-brane approaches the axes in (a). The solution of D5-brane has periodicity for $x^+$ with period $\pi$. From (b) we can see that the D5-brane has throats at $y=0$. When $\nu$ goes to zero, the throats are sharpened. Since the D5-brane was wrapped on the three-sphere ${\tilde \Omega}_3$ in $AdS_5 \times S^5$, it is also wrapped on the three-sphere ${\tilde \Omega}_3$ in the pp-wave background. So at $x^+ = {\pi \over 2} + k \pi$ $(k \in {\bf Z})$ we obtain the branes spreading on ${\bf R}^4$ whose metric is given by $dy^2 + y^2 d{\tilde \Omega}_3^2$ in . In the branes lying on ${\bf R}^4$’s at $x^+ = \pm {\pi \over 2}$ are depicted. The throat connects these two branes.
In the Anti-de Sitter space $\psi$ is periodic with period $2\pi$. Since $x^+$ is denoted by ${\tau + \psi \over 2}$, $x^+$ has $\pi$ periodicity. That is the reason why we have found that the D-branes appear at the periodic values of $x^+$ with period $\pi$ in the pp-wave background.
We have introduced mainly two types of the metrics for $AdS_5 \times S^5$. One is , by which we can easily analyse the AdS/CFT correspondence. The solution of D5-brane in $AdS_5 \times S^5$ has been known . The other is , which is convenient for us to consider the Penrose limit. But in this metric it is difficult to find the solution of D5-brane. We have shown the relations between the two metrics and obtained the pp-wave metric from the Penrose limit of . Using this limit, we have analysed branes in the pp-wave background. In $AdS_5 \times S^5$ the D5-brane has a spike sticking out along the radial direction of $AdS_5$, while in the pp-wave metric we have found throats around $y=0$ and they lie along the light-cone time direction $x^+$. At $x^+ = {\pi \over 2} + k \pi$ $(k \in {\bf Z})$ the brane spreads on the $y$ direction and also wraps $S^3$ whose metric is $y^2d{\tilde \Omega}_3^2$ in . So we can say that the brane lies on ${\bf R}^4$. This ${\bf R}^4$ is derived from a part of $S^5$ in $AdS_5 \times S^5$. In the pp-wave metric there is the other ${\bf R}^4$ coming from a part of $AdS_5$. Since there is no difference between these two ${\bf R}^4$’s, we would be able to find the brane wrapped on the latter ${\bf R}^4$.
In the Penrose limit we have obtained the solution of D5-brane with $\pi$ periodicity for $x^+$ direction. It is better that the light-cone time $x^+$ is defined without a periodicity. In order to find non-periodic solutions of the branes, we should adopt other choice of coordinate transformations .
Though some proposals on the holography in the pp-wave background have been done, we have not clearly known where the holographic direction exists yet. In it is shown that the spikes sticking out from D-branes can be identified with open strings. Let us remember . The D5-brane in the Anti-de Sitter space leads to the branes wrapping ${\bf R}^4$’s with the fixed values of $x^+$ and the throats connecting the branes. The throats are sharpened as $\nu$ goes to zero. We can regard the throats as open strings and they are ending on the D3-branes lying on ${\bf R}^4$. So we may be able to suggest that the holographic direction is $x^+$, which is transverse to the D3-branes. But the correspondences between the gauge theory and the string theory in the pp-wave background may be essentially different from the AdS/CFT correspondence. In order to make clear the holography in the pp-wave background, we need to consider the Born-Infeld action directly in the pp-wave metric and to find the solutions of D-branes.
[**Acknowledgement**]{}
I am grateful to K. Sugiyama for useful discussions.
[^1]: $^\dagger$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we study various dissipative mechanics associated with the Boussinesq systems which model two-dimensional small amplitude long wavelength water waves. We will show that the decay rate for the damped one-directional model equations, such as the KdV and BBM equations, holds for some of the damped Boussinesq systems which model two-directional waves.'
author:
- 'M. Chen$^{1}$ and O. Goubet$^{2}$'
title: 'Long-Time Asymptotic Behavior of Dissipative Boussinesq System'
---
introduction
============
Considered here are waves on the surface of an inviscid fluid in a flat channel. When one is interested in the propagation of one-directional irrotational small amplitude long waves, it is classical to model the waves by the well-known KdV (Korteweg-de Vries) equation (see [@Whitham74]) $$\label{kdv}
u_t+u_x+u_{xxx}+uu_x=0,$$ or its regularized version, the so-called regularized long wave equation or BBM (Benjamin-Bona-Mahony) equation, $$\label{bbm}
u_t+u_x-u_{txx}+uu_x=0.$$ When one is dealing with two-directional waves, and the effects of wave interactions and/or wave reflections are not excluded from the study, a restricted four-parameter family of systems (see [@BCS02]), $$\label{abcd}
\begin{split}
&\eta_t+u_x+(u\eta)_x+au_{xxx}-b\eta_{xxt}=0, \\
&u_t+\eta_x+uu_x+c\eta_{xxx}-du_{xxt}=0,
\end{split}$$ may be used. The dimensionless variables $\eta(x,t)$, $u(x,t)$, $x$, and $t$ are scaled by the length scale $h_0$ and time scale $(h_0/g)^{{1 \over 2}}$ where $h_0$ denotes the still water depth and $g$ denotes the acceleration of gravity. The variable $\eta(x,t)$ is the non-dimensional deviation of the water surface from its undisturbed position and $u(x,t)$ is the non-dimensional horizontal velocity at a height above the bottom of the channel corresponding to $\theta h_0$ with $0 \leq \theta \leq 1$. The constants $a, b, c, d$ are called dispersive constants which satisfy the physical relevant constraints $$(C0) \qquad a+b+c+d=\frac13 \quad \text{and} \quad c+d=\frac12 (1-\theta^2) \geq 0.$$
This class of systems contains some of the well-known systems, such as the classical Boussinesq system $
(a=b=c=0,\ d=1/3)
$ (see for example [@Boussinesq1871a; @Peregrine72; @TenWu94; @Amick84; @Schonbek81]) and the Bona-Smith system $(a=0,\ b=d>0,\ c<0)$ [@BonSmi76]. It is shown in [@BCS04] that a physically relevant system in [(\[abcd\])]{} is linearly well posed in certain natural Sobolev spaces if the constants $a, b, c, d$ satisfy $$(C1)\qquad b\geq 0,\ d\geq 0,\ a\leq 0,\ c\leq 0,$$ or $$(C2)\qquad b\geq 0,\ d\geq 0,\ a=c>0.$$ It is also shown in [@BonChe98; @BPS81] that above systems have the capacity of capture the main characteristics of the flow in an idea fluid. But when the damping effect is comparable with the effects of nonlinearity and/or dispersion, as occurs in the real laboratory-scale experiments and in the fields (see [@BPS81; @MahPri80; @MeiLiu73; @Miles67]), it should be considered in order for the model and its numerical results to correspond in detail with the experiments. The full system would be the Navier-Stokes equations with a free boundary, which is very difficult to handle both theoretically and numerically (cf. [@TPL90; @BHL96]). Therefore, it is useful to construct simpler model systems which are capable of capturing the main properties of water waves under various special circumstances.
For example, many researchers have studied the dissipative one-way propagation model equations, such as the dissipative KdV and dissipative regularized long-wave equations and their generalizations. As a model to our study, we recall the results from [@ABS89] for the dissipative BBM equation, $$\begin{split}
u_t-u_{xxt}-\nu u_{xx}+uu_x=0, \\
u(x,0)=u_0(x)
\end{split}\label{1.2}$$ where $\nu$ is a positive constant.
\[1\] Assume $u_0$ is in $L^1({\mathbb R})\cap L^2({\mathbb R})$, then there exists a constant $C$ such that $$\|u(t)\|_{L^2}\leq C (1+t)^{-1/4}. \label{1.3}$$
Here $L^1({\mathbb R})$ and $L^2({\mathbb R})$ are the classical Banach spaces. A similar result holds for the corresponding dissipative KdV equation. See also [@BPS81], [@Karch00] and the references therein.
In this article, we aim to analyze the effect of dissipation on systems [(\[abcd\])]{} and study the decay rates of solutions $(\eta,u)$ toward zero. We will restrict our study to the cases where constants $a, b, c, d$ satisfy (C0)-(C1) or (C0)-(C2). The goal of this research is to find the appropriate dissipative term (or terms) which will provide the right amount of energy dissipation for all wave numbers while keeping the mass conserved.
In this article, two kinds of dissipations will be considered:
[*Complete dissipation*]{}: replacing the $\begin{pmatrix} 0\\ 0\end{pmatrix}$ in the right-hand side of [(\[abcd\])]{} by the vector $\begin{pmatrix} \eta_{xx}\\
u_{xx}\end{pmatrix}$, and
[*Partial dissipation*]{}: replace the $\begin{pmatrix} 0\\
0\end{pmatrix}$ in the right-hand side of [(\[abcd\])]{} by the vector $\begin{pmatrix}
0\\ u_{xx}\end{pmatrix}$.
We shall first study the decay rates of solutions to the linearized systems supplemented with either complete or partial dissipations. These equations read $$\begin{split}
&\eta_t+u_x+au_{xxx}-b\eta_{xxt}=\nu\eta_{xx},\\
&u_t+\eta_x+c\eta_{xxx}-du_{xxt}=u_{xx}, \end{split}\label{1.6}$$ with $\nu=0$ or $\nu=1$. Systems which satisfy the [*dichotomy*]{} property in the Fourier space:
- decay as $t^{-1/4}$ for low frequencies (small $\xi$);
- decay as $\exp(-\beta t)$ or $\exp(-\beta \xi^2 t)$ for high frequencies (large $\xi$);
will be identified and studied. It is shown in Section \[sec3\] that the dichotomy property will lead to the decay rate $t^{-\frac14}$ for $\|(\eta,u)\|_{L^2\times H^h}$ ($h$ will be specified later).
For later use, we shall emphasize (and it is easy to check) that the dichotomy property holds true for two fundamentally different equations: the linearized BBM-Burgers equation $u_t-u_{xxt}+u_x-u_{xx}=0$ and the linearized KdV-Burgers equation $u_t+u_{xxx}+u_x-u_{xx}=0$. If the high frequency part of the solution to a system is damped as exp$(-\beta
t)$, we say that the system belongs to the BBM-Burgers class since solutions to linearized BBM-Burgers equation feature this property. If the high frequency part of the solution is damped as exp$(-\beta \xi^2t)$, which is the case for linearized KdV-Burgers equation, then we say that the system belongs to the KdV-Burgers class. The low frequency parts of the solutions to the linearized BBM-Burgers and KdV-Burgers equations behave in a similar fashion.
The main result in Section \[sec3\] is to classify the linearized systems according to this property and to prove that for systems which satisfy the dichotomy property, a decay rate comparing to [(\[1.3\])]{} is valid. We shall also present some systems where the decay rates can be arbitrarily small, behaving as the solution of $$u_t-u_{xxt}+u=0, \quad u(x,0)=u_0(x),$$ where by Fourier transform, $${\widehat}u(t, \xi)=e^{-\frac{t}{1+\xi^2}} {\widehat}u_0(\xi),$$ and therefore $\| u(.,t) \|_{L^2}$ could decay arbitrarily slow.
In Section \[sec4\], we extend the linear theory to nonlinear systems and show that the decay rate as [(\[1.3\])]{} is valid for weakly dispersive systems, i.e. systems with $b>0$ and $d>0$, and for some systems in the KdV-Burgers class with total dissipation, which include the KdV-KdV system ($a=c=\frac16, b=d=0$), with small initial data. In Section \[sec5\], the decay rate with respect to $L^\infty$-norm is presented and in Section \[sec6\], spectral method is used on several systems to demonstrate that the rates obtained in Section \[sec4\] and Section \[sec5\] are sharp and the constants involved in the bounds are reasonably sized.
It is worth to note that there are other methods, such as the energy methods (like the so-called Schonbek’s splitting method applied to the classical Boussinesq system [@RSW99] in large dimensions), can be used in proving decay rate for solutions of these systems. This line of study will be carried elsewhere. We believe that those methods will be helpful especially in the cases when $b=d$ so some Hamiltonian is conserved (see [@BCS04]).
On the other hand, to remove the smallness assumption on the initial data, the authors in [@ABS89] used a kind of Cole–Hopf transformation (that is valid for Burgers equation) and were able to control the extra-terms. We do not know if this [*tour de force*]{} (feat of skill) is possible for the systems in [(\[abcd\])]{} with dissipation.
We complete this introduction by introducing some notations. Throughout the paper, the standard notation on Sobolev spaces will be used. The $L^p({\mathbb R})$ norm will be denoted as $\|\cdot \|_{L^p}$ for $1 \leq p \leq
\infty$ and the $H^s$ norm will be denoted as $\|\cdot \|_{H^s}$. When several variables are involved, we may also set $L^p_x$ for $L^p({\mathbb R})$ to specify that we compute the norm with respect to the $x$-variable. The product space $X \times X$ will be abbreviated by $X$ and a function ${{\bf f}}=(f_1, f_2)$ in $X$ carries the norm $$\| {{\bf f}}\|_{X}=\left(\| f_1 \|_X^2+\| f_2 \|_X^2\right)^{{{1 \over 2}}}.$$ The Euclidean norm of a vector is denoted by $|\cdot|$. We will use $C$ and $\beta$ as generic positive constants whose values may change with each appearance. Fourier transform of a function $f$ is denoted by either ${\widehat}f$ or $\mathcal {F}(f)$.
Notations and Preparations {#sec2}
==========================
Some notations
---------------
Consider $\nu\in\{0,1\}$. As stated before, we plan to first estimate the decay rates of solutions to the linear systems $$\begin{split}
&\eta_t+u_x+au_{xxx}-b\eta_{xxt}=\nu\eta_{xx},\\
&u_t+\eta_x+c\eta_{xxx}-du_{xxt}=u_{xx},
\end{split}
\label{2.1}$$ when $t$ goes to $+\infty$.
Following [@BCS04], we introduce the Fourier multipliers $$\omega_1={1-a\xi^2\over 1+b\xi^2}\quad \text{ and
}\quad \omega_2={1-c\xi^2\over 1+d\xi^2}.$$ Since $a, b, c, d$ satisfy (C1) or (C2), $\omega_1\omega_2$ is nonnegative and we denote $${\widehat}H=\left({\omega_1\over \omega_2}\right)^{1/2}\text{ and }
\quad \sigma=(\omega_1 \omega_2)^{1/2},$$ with the conventional notation ${0\over 0}=1$. We also denote
$$\alpha={\xi^2\over 1+b\xi^2} \quad \text{and} \quad \varepsilon=\ds{\xi^2\over 1+d\xi^2}.$$
When a system satisfying (C2) assumption is the subject of the study, $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ do change signs, but $\omega_1 \omega_2 \geq 0$.
Consider a nonnegative function $\xi \to \hat \kappa(\xi)$. The [*order*]{} of ${\widehat}\kappa$ (when it exists) is defined as the number $m$ such that $${\widehat}\kappa(\xi)\sim C|\xi|^m$$ when $|\xi|\to +\infty$. The (pseudo–differential) operator $\kappa$ with order $m$ is defined by setting $$\kappa u=v\quad \text{ iff } \quad {\widehat}\kappa{\widehat}u={\widehat}v.$$ Therefore $\kappa$ maps $L^2_x$ into $H_x^{-\text{order}(\kappa)}$ (or $H^n_x$ into $H_x^{n-\text{order}(\kappa)}$).
Since [(\[2.1\])]{} is a linear system, it is convenient to use the Fourier transform. Let $({\widehat}\eta,{\widehat}u)$ denote the Fourier transform of $(\eta, u)$ and set ${{{\widehat}Y}}= ({\widehat}\eta,{\widehat}w)$ with ${\widehat}w={\widehat}H{\widehat}u$, then [(\[2.1\])]{} reads $${{{\widehat}Y}}_t+A{{{\widehat}Y}}=0,\label{2.2}$$ where $$A(\xi)=\begin{pmatrix} \nu \alpha&i\,{\rm sgn}(\omega_1)\xi\sigma\\
i\,{\rm sgn}(\omega_2)\xi\sigma&\varepsilon\end{pmatrix}$$ is the [*symbol*]{} of the linear (unbounded) operator in [(\[2.1\])]{}. Since we are dealing with a system, $A(\xi)$ is a matrix.
By multiplying ${{{\widehat}Y}}^*$ on [(\[2.2\])]{} and taking the real part, $$\begin{split}
& {1\over 2} {d\over dt}\int (|{\widehat}\eta(t,\xi)|^2+|{\widehat}w(t,\xi)|^2)d\xi\\
&+\nu\int\alpha(\xi)|{\widehat}\eta(t,\xi)|^2 d\xi
+\int\varepsilon(\xi)|{\widehat}w(t,\xi)|^2d\xi=0.
\end{split}
\label{2.3}$$ Since $\alpha(\xi)$ and ${\varepsilon}(\xi)$ are positive, $$E(t):=\int_{{\mathbb R}} |{{{\widehat}Y}}(t,\xi)|^2 d\xi\label{2.4}$$ decays towards $0$ as $t \rightarrow \infty$, where $|{{{\widehat}Y}}|=(|{\widehat}\eta|^2+|{\widehat}w|^2)^{1/2}$ is the Euclidean norm on $\Bbb C^2$.
Linear algebra
--------------
We recall some facts from linear algebra and then apply them to the dissipative systems [(\[2.1\])]{}.
Let $M$ be a $2 \times 2$ matrix in the complex space, the norm of $M$ is defined by $$\|M\|=\sup_{Y\in\Bbb C^2\backslash\{0\}}\ {|M Y|\over |Y| }.$$
\[l2.3\] Let $\rho{(M)}$ denote the spectral radius of a matrix $M$ and ${\rm tr}(M)$ denote the trace of $M$, then $$\|M\|=\rho{(M^* M)^{1/2}}\leq {\rm tr}{(M^* M)}^{1/2}.$$
We are now going to bound $E(t)$ (see [(\[2.2\])]{} and [(\[2.4\])]{}) by using the pointwise estimate $$|{{{\widehat}Y}}(t,\xi)|\leq \|e^{-t A}\| \ |{{{\widehat}Y}}_0(\xi)|.\label{2.5}$$
Noticing that the matrix $A$ can be written as $A=D+U$, where $D=\begin{pmatrix} \nu
\alpha&0\\ 0&\varepsilon\end{pmatrix}$ represents the dissipation terms and $U=\begin{pmatrix} 0&i{\rm sgn}(\omega_1)\xi\sigma\\
i{\rm sgn}(\omega_2)\xi\sigma&0\end{pmatrix}$ is skew-symmetric. When $D$ and $U$ commute, the behavior of $\| e^{-tA}\|$ with respect to $\xi$ is characterized by the behaviors of ${\varepsilon}$ and $\alpha$ via $$\| e^{-tA} \| \leq e^{-t \min \{ \nu\alpha(\xi), {{\varepsilon}}(\xi) \}}.
\label{rough2}$$ But when $D$ and $U$ do not commute, more accurate estimate than [(\[rough2\])]{} can be obtained by studying $e^{-tA}$ in detail.
We now recall the following lemma (Theorem 9.28 from [@Finkbeiner66]).
\[lem2.4\] There exists a unitary matrix $Q$ (i.e. $QQ^*=Q^*Q=I$) such that $$A=Q^*\begin{pmatrix} \lambda_1&z\\ 0&\lambda_2\end{pmatrix} Q,$$ where $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are the eigenvalues of $A$, ordered by ${\text{Re}}(\lambda_1)\leq {\text{Re}}(\lambda_2)$.
As a consequence, one can prove (which is given at the end of this subsection)
\[lem2.5\] There exists $C>0$ such that $$\|\exp(-tA)\|\leq C\left(1+|z|\min \left(t, \frac{1}{|\lambda_2-\lambda_1|}\right)\right)\exp(-t{\text{Re}}(\lambda_1)).\label{2.10}$$
It is easy to see that $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ are the roots of the characteristic equation $$\lambda^2-{\rm tr}(A) \lambda+\det(A)=0\label{2.7b}$$ where $${\rm tr}(A)=\lambda_1+\lambda_2=\nu \alpha +{\varepsilon}\geq 0 \label{trA}$$ and $$\det(A)=\lambda_1\lambda_2=\nu \alpha {\varepsilon}+\xi^2 \sigma^2 \geq 0. \label{detA}$$
We now estimate $\|\exp(-tA)\|$ by separating the cases $\Delta\leq 0$ and $\Delta > 0$ where $\Delta$ is the determinant of [(\[2.7b\])]{}, namely $$\Delta={\rm tr}(A)^2-4\det(A)=(\varepsilon-\nu\alpha)^2-4\xi^2\sigma^2.\label{2.7}$$
\[lem2.6\] For any $t>0$ and for any $\xi \in {\mathbb R}$,
[$\bullet$]{} when $\Delta\leq 0$ (perturbation range), $$\|\exp (-tA)\|\leq C(1+{\rm tr}(A)t)\exp\left(-{{\rm tr}(A)\over 2}\ t\right)\leq C
\exp\left(-{{\rm tr}(A)\over 4}\ t\right) ;\label{2.15}$$
[$\bullet$]{} when $\Delta > 0$ (non-perturbation range), $$\|\exp (-tA)\|\leq C\left(1+2|\xi| \sigma\min\left(t,
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta}}\right)\right)\exp(-t \lambda_1),\label{2.16}$$ where $\lambda_1$ satisfies $${\det(A)\over {\rm tr}(A)}\leq\lambda_1\leq\min\left({\rm tr}(A),
{2\det(A)\over {\rm tr}(A)}\right).\label{2.17}$$
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}It is worth to note from Lemma \[lem2.4\] that $${\rm tr}(A^* A)=|\lambda_1|^2 + |\lambda_2|^2 + |z|^2
=\nu^2\alpha^2+\varepsilon^2+2\xi^2\sigma^2. \label{2.6}$$
[*When $\Delta\leq 0$ (perturbation range):*]{} matrix $A$ has two conjugate complex eigenvalues $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ with $$|\lambda_1|=|\lambda_2|, \quad {\text{Re}}(\lambda_1)={\text{Re}}(\lambda_2)=\frac{{\rm tr}(A)}2, \quad |\lambda_1|^2=|\lambda_2|^2=\det(A).$$ Using [(\[2.6\])]{} and then [(\[detA\])]{}-[(\[trA\])]{} leads to $$\begin{split}
|z|^2&=\nu^2\alpha^2+{\varepsilon}^2+2 \xi^2 \sigma^2 -2 |\lambda_1|^2\\
&=
\nu^2\alpha^2+{\varepsilon}^2+2 \xi^2 \sigma^2 -2\det(A)=(\nu\alpha-\varepsilon)^2 \leq {\rm tr}(A)^2.
\end{split}
\label{2.8}$$ Hence [(\[2.15\])]{} follows from Lemma \[lem2.5\].
[*When $\Delta > 0$ (non-perturbation range)*]{}: ${\rm tr}(A) \geq 0$ and $\det(A) \geq 0$ imply that the matrix $A$ features two real eigenvalues $0\leq\lambda_1 < \lambda_2$. Then [(\[2.6\])]{} leads to $$|z|^2=\nu^2\alpha^2+{\varepsilon}^2+2 \xi^2 \sigma^2-{\rm tr}(A)^2+2\det(A)=
4\xi^2\sigma^2\label{2.9}$$ and [(\[2.16\])]{} is proved by using Lemma \[lem2.5\]. Since $\lambda_2\leq {\rm tr}(A)\leq 2\lambda_2$, one sees immediately that $${\det(A)\over {\rm tr}(A)}\leq\lambda_1=\frac{\det(A)}{\lambda_2}\leq
{2\det(A)\over {\rm tr}(A)}$$ and [(\[2.17\])]{} follows. [[$\square$]{}]{}
It is noted that when $\Delta\leq 0$, the dissipation can be considered as a perturbation term with respect to the skew symmetric operator. More precisely, the decay is the same as pretending $U$ and $D$ commute, up to a linear correction.
When $\Delta > 0$, this is no longer valid. In the first case, matrix $A$ has conjugate complex eigenvalues. In the latter case, $A$ has real positive eigenvalues and the smallest one monitors the decay estimate. $\Delta=0$ is the bifurcation point.
For the sake of completeness, we now give the proof of Lemma \[lem2.5\].
[**Proof of Lemma \[lem2.5\].**]{} Straightforward computations lead to $$e^{-tA}= Q^*\begin{pmatrix} e^{-t\lambda_1}&z
{e^{-t\lambda_1}-e^{-t\lambda_2}\over \lambda_1-\lambda_2}\\ 0&
e^{-t\lambda_2}\end{pmatrix}Q,
\label{2.11}$$ where $${e^{-t\lambda_1}-e^{-t\lambda_2}\over \lambda_1-\lambda_2}=
-te^{-t\lambda_2}, \quad \text{if} \quad \lambda_1 =\lambda_2.$$ Lemma \[l2.3\] then yields $$\begin{split}
\|e^{-tA}\|^2 &\leq{\rm tr}(e^{-tA^*}e^{-tA})\\
&=e^{-2t Re(\lambda_1)}+e^{-2t Re(\lambda_2)}+|z|^2
\bigg|{e^{-t\lambda_1}-e^{-t\lambda_2}\over \lambda_1-\lambda_2}\bigg|^2.
\end{split}
\label{2.12}$$ Therefore, if $|\lambda_1-\lambda_2|>0$ $$\|e^{-tA}\|^2 \leq (2+\frac{|z|^2}{|\lambda_1-\lambda_2|^2})e^{-2t
Re(\lambda_1)}$$ which proves part of the lemma.
Now, for $|\lambda_1-\lambda_2|\geq\Lambda$, where $\Lambda>0$ will be chosen later, $${ |e^{-t\lambda_1}-e^{-t\lambda_2}| \over |\lambda_1-\lambda_2|}
\leq {2\over\Lambda} e^{-t Re(\lambda_1)};\label{useful}$$ and for $|\lambda_1-\lambda_2|\leq\Lambda$, using $|e^\zeta-1|\leq |\zeta|\exp(|\zeta|)$ for any complex number $\zeta$, $$\begin{split}
|e^{-t\lambda_1}-e^{-t\lambda_2}|&=e^{-t {\text{Re}}(\lambda_1)}
|e^{-t(\lambda_2-\lambda_1)}-1|\\
&\leq e^{-t{\text{Re}}(\lambda_1)} t |\lambda_2-\lambda_1| e^{t\Lambda}.
\end{split}
\label{2.14}$$ Therefore, choosing $\Lambda=\ds{1\over t}$ in [(\[useful\])]{} and [(\[2.14\])]{}, $${ |e^{-t\lambda_1}-e^{-t\lambda_2}| \over |\lambda_1-\lambda_2|}
\leq Ct e^{-t Re(\lambda_1)}.$$ Substituting above into [(\[2.12\])]{} completes the proof. [[$\square$]{}]{}
Decay rate of linear systems {#sec3}
============================
In subsections \[sec3.1\], \[sec3.2\] and \[sec3.3\], low-frequency ($|\xi|$ close to $0$), high-frequency (large $|\xi|$) and middle range frequency analysis for the linear systems are performed respectively. We will identify systems for which there exist positive constants $\beta$ and $\delta_m$ such that for any $t>0$ and $$\begin{split}
\bullet & \text{ for } |\xi|\leq\delta_m,\ \|\exp(-tA)\|\leq C
\exp(-\beta t\xi^2), \\
\bullet & \text{ for }|\xi|>\delta_m,\ \|\exp(-tA)\|\leq
C\exp(-\beta t).
\end{split}\label{dichotomy}$$ Here $\|\exp(-tA)\|$ is the norm of the linear operator $\exp(-tA(\xi)) $ acting on $\mathbb{C}^2$. The generic constants $C$ and $\beta$ are independent of $t$ and $\xi$. If $\delta_m=+\infty$ is feasible in [(\[dichotomy\])]{}, the system is in the [*KdV–Burgers class*]{}. Otherwise the system is in the [*BBM–Burgers class*]{}. A summary of decay rates for the linear systems is given in subsection \[sec3.4\].
It is worth to note that [(\[dichotomy\])]{} is sufficient but not necessary for proving the desired decay rate. An example is given in Section \[sec3.3\] where [(\[dichotomy\])]{} is not valid but the linear system has the desired decay rate.
Low frequency analysis {#sec3.1}
-----------------------
We now prove that for $|\xi|\to 0$, all systems are equivalent. This is to say
\[pro3.1\] There exists positive constants $\delta_m, \beta$ and $C$ depending on the data $a,b,c,d$ and $\nu$, such that for $|\xi|\leq\delta_m$ and for any $t>0$, $$\|\exp(-tA)\|\leq C\exp(-\beta\xi^2 t ).\label{2.18}$$ Consequently, for any initial data $Y_0$ with $\text{supp}({\widehat}Y_0)\subset [-\delta_m,\delta_m]$, $$E(t)\leq C\ t^{-1/2} \|Y_0\|^2_{L^1_x}.
\label{2.19}$$
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}By referring to the definitions of $\Delta$, $\alpha$ and ${\varepsilon}$, one sees that as $|\xi| \rightarrow 0$, $$\Delta\sim-4\xi^2 \quad \text{and} \quad {\rm tr}(A)=\nu\alpha+\varepsilon\sim (\nu+1)\xi^2.$$ Therefore, there exists $\delta_m > 0$ such that for $\xi$ in $[-\delta_m,\delta_m]$, $\Delta \leq 0$ and $${{1 \over 2}}\leq \frac{{\rm tr}(A)}{(\nu+1)\xi^2} \leq 2.$$ [(\[2.18\])]{} then follows promptly from [(\[2.15\])]{}.
Now, for any initial data $Y_0$ with $\text{supp}({\widehat}Y_0)\subset [-\delta_m,\delta_m]$, $$\begin{split}
E(t)&=\int_{|\xi|\leq\delta_m } |{\widehat}Y (t,\xi)|^2d\xi
\leq C\int \exp(-2\beta t\xi^2)d\xi
(\sup_\xi(|{\widehat}{Y_0}(\xi)|^2))\\
&\leq C t^{-1/2}\| Y_0\|^2_{L_x^1},
\end{split}$$ by using the change of variable $\tau=\sqrt{2 \beta t} \xi$. [[$\square$]{}]{}
High frequency analysis {#sec3.2}
------------------------
The complete dissipation and the partial dissipation cases have to be studied separately. In the latter case, we will give one example where the decay rate can be arbitrarily small.
Introducing the number $$\{r\}=\begin{cases} 1, & \quad \text{if } r\not= 0, \\
0, &\quad \text{if } r=0, \end{cases}$$ for $r \in {\mathbb R}$. Then $\text{order}(\sigma)=\{a\}+\{c\}-\{b\}-\{d\}$ and $\text{order}({\varepsilon})=2-2\{d\}$.
### The complete dissipation case ($\nu=1$).
It is observed in the following that order$(\sigma)$ dictates if the system is in the KdV-Burgers class or in the BBM-Burgers class.
Assume $\nu=1$. For any $\delta>0$, there exists $\beta >0$, such that if $\text{supp}({\widehat}Y_0)\subset {\mathbb R}\backslash
[-\delta,\delta]$, $$E(t)\leq \exp(-2\beta t) \|Y_0\|^2_{L^2_x},\label{2.22}$$ for any $t>0$. In addition,
- if ${\text{order}}(\sigma)\leq 0$, the system is in the [*BBM–Burgers class*]{}. Namely, there exist positive constants $\delta_M, \beta$ and $C$, such that for $|\xi| > \delta_M$ and $t>0$, $$\| \exp(-tA)\| \leq C e^{-\beta t};$$
- if ${\text{order}}(\sigma)\geq 1$, the system is in the [*KdV–Burgers class*]{}. Namely, there exist positive constants $\delta_M, \beta$ and $C$, such that for $|\xi| > \delta_M$ and $t>0$, $$\| \exp(-tA) \|\leq C e^{-\beta \xi^2 t}.$$
\[pro1\]
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}>From [(\[2.3\])]{}, one finds that for $\xi$ almost everywhere, $${1\over 2} {d\over dt} |{\widehat}Y(t,\xi)|^2+\alpha(\xi) |{\widehat}\eta(t,\xi)|^2
+\varepsilon(\xi) |{\widehat}w(t,\xi)|^2=0.
\label{2.21}$$ This gives directly, by setting $\beta= \min \{ \alpha(\delta),
{\varepsilon}(\delta)\}$ which is positive, that [(\[2.22\])]{} is valid. Furthermore, $\|\exp(-tA)\| \leq C e^{-\beta t}$ for $|\xi| > \delta$. To figure out if the system is in the BBM-Burgers or in the KdV-Burgers class, we separate the cases as follows.
- Assume first ${\text{order}}(\sigma)\geq 1$. Then either $d=0$ or $b=0$. Without loss of generality, let us assume $d=0$.
- [If $\Delta= (\alpha-{\varepsilon})^2-4\xi^2\sigma^2 >0$ for $|\xi|$ large enough,]{} then ${\text{order}}(\sigma)=1$. In that case, there exist $\beta >0$ and $\delta_M >0$ $$\lambda_1\geq \frac{\det(A)}{{\rm tr}(A)}=
\frac{\alpha+\sigma^2}{\frac {\alpha} {\xi^2} +1}\geq 2\beta \xi^2$$ for $|\xi| > \delta_M$. By using [(\[2.16\])]{} $$\|\exp(-tA)\| \leq C (1+t\xi^2) e^{-2\beta t\xi^2}\leq C
e^{-{\beta} t\xi^2}$$ for $|\xi| > \delta_M$ and the system is in the KdV-Burgers class.
- [If $\Delta\leq 0$ for $|\xi|$ large enough,]{} then there exists $\delta_M >0$ such that for $|\xi| > \delta_M$, ${{1 \over 2}}\xi^2\leq {\rm tr}(A) \leq 2\xi^2$, and [(\[2.15\])]{} implies that the system is in the KdV-Burgers class.
- Assume now that ${\text{order}}(\sigma)\leq 0$.
- [If $b\neq 0$ and $d\neq 0$ (weakly dispersive systems)]{} then for $|\xi|$ large enough, $ {\rm Re}(\lambda_1)\leq {\rm tr}(A) \sim
\frac{1}{b}+\frac{1}{d}$ as $|\xi| \rightarrow \infty$. This shows that a damping like $e^{-\beta t\xi^2}$ is unlikely for high frequencies. Therefore the weakly dispersive systems are in the BBM-Burgers class.
- [if ($b\neq 0$ and $d=0$) or ($b=0$ and $d\neq 0$)]{}. Without loss of generality, let us consider the case $b\neq 0$ and $d=0$. Since $\Delta\sim \xi^4$ as $|\xi| \to \infty$, we have $$\lambda_1\leq \frac{2\det(A)}{{\rm tr}(A)}=\frac {2(\alpha+\sigma^2)}{\frac {\alpha} {\xi^2} +1}
\sim C=O(1)$$ as $|\xi| \to \infty$. This shows that a damping like $e^{-\beta t\xi^2}$ is again unlikely for high frequencies. Therefore the system is in the BBM-Burgers class.
[[$\square$]{}]{}
### The partial dissipation case ($\nu=0$).
We first note that when a system satisfies (C2) hypothesis, $\sigma=0$ and therefore $\lambda_1=0$ at $\xi=a^{-{{1 \over 2}}}$. But one can always chose ${\delta_M}$ large enough so for $|\xi| > {\delta_M}$, $\sigma$ is positive, bounded from below and away from zero. Therefore the point where $\sigma$ vanishes will be considered in the next subsection. We now prove that in the partial dissipation case, the decay rate is related to ${\text{order}}(\sigma)$ and the strength of the dissipation which is characterized by ${\text{order}}({\varepsilon})$.
With $\nu=0$,
- if order$(\sigma)\geq 2-\frac{1}{2}$order$({\varepsilon})$, then the system is in the KdV-Burgers class;
- if $|$order$(\sigma)|<
2-\frac{1}{2}$order$({\varepsilon})$, then the system is in the BBM-Burgers class. In above two cases, when ${\widehat}Y_0$ is supported in $\Bbb R\backslash [-{\delta_M},{\delta_M}]$, then for any $t>0$, $$E(t)\leq C\exp(-2\beta t)\|Y_0\|^2_{L^2_x}; \label{2.23}$$
- if order$(\sigma)\leq -2+\frac{1}{2}$order$({\varepsilon})$, arbitrarily slow decay can occur. \[pro2\]
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}To begin, one observes that $\Delta={\varepsilon}^2-4\xi^2\sigma^2$. When $\Delta >0$, $\lambda_1$ satisfies $$\label{directestimate}
2\lambda_1=\varepsilon \left(1-\left(1-
{4\xi^2\sigma^2\over\varepsilon^2}\right)^{1/2}\right)$$ which is a direct consequence of [(\[2.7b\])]{}.
- [*When order$({\varepsilon})$=0, i.e $d\neq 0$ (and ${\text{order}}(\sigma)\leq 1$):*]{}
- if ${\text{order}}(\sigma)\geq -1$, and if $\Delta=\varepsilon^2-4\xi^2\sigma^2>0$ for $|\xi|$ large enough, which is possible only for ${\text{order}}(\sigma)=-1$, we have $$\lambda_1\geq \frac{\det(A)}{{\rm tr}(A)}\geq C\xi^2\sigma^2=O(1)$$ as $|\xi| \to \infty$. Then by [(\[2.16\])]{} we have $$\|e^{-tA}\|\leq C(1+t|\xi|\sigma)e^{-t\lambda_1}\leq Ce^{-\beta t}$$ for $|\xi|$ large enough and the system is in the BBM-Burgers class. On the other hand, if $\Delta\leq 0$ for high frequencies, since ${\rm tr}(A)\sim
\frac{1}{d}$ as $|\xi| \rightarrow \infty$, then [(\[2.15\])]{} implies that the system is in the BBM-Burgers class;
- if ${\text{order}}(\sigma)=-2$, $\Delta \sim
\frac{1}{d^2} >0$ as $|\xi| \rightarrow \infty$ and by [(\[directestimate\])]{}, $\lambda_1\sim
C|\xi|^{-2}$, therefore arbitrarily slow decay could occur. An example of such case will be given below.
- [*When ${\text{order}}({\varepsilon})=2$ i.e $d=0$ (and ${\text{order}}(\sigma)\geq
-1$):*]{} $\Delta=\xi^2(\xi^2-4\sigma^2)$ has a limit $\Delta_0$ in $[-\infty, +\infty]$ when $|\xi|$ approaches $+\infty$.
- If $\Delta_0$ is in $(-\infty, 0]$, then since ${\rm tr}(A)=\xi^2$, [(\[2.15\])]{} implies that the system is in the KdV-Burgers class. This occurs when ${\text{order}}(\sigma)=2$ and may occur when ${\text{order}}(\sigma)=1$.
- If $\Delta_0$ is in $(0, +\infty]$, then since $$\frac{2\det(A)}{{\rm tr}(A)}\geq \lambda_1 \geq
\frac{\det(A)}{{\rm tr}(A)} =\sigma^2,$$ [(\[2.16\])]{} implies for any $\xi$ $$\label{3.15}
\|\exp (-tA)\|\leq C\left(1+|\xi| \sigma\min\left(t,
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Delta}}\right)\right)\exp(-t \sigma^2).$$
- If ${\text{order}}(\sigma)=1$, then [(\[3.15\])]{} implies the system is in the KdV-Burgers class.
- If ${\text{order}}(\sigma)=0$, $\frac{|\xi\sigma|}{\sqrt{\Delta}}=0(1)$ as $|\xi| \rightarrow \infty$, the system is in the BBM-Burgers class. And similarly,
- if ${\text{order}}(\sigma)=-1$, any arbitrarily slow decay could occur.
[[$\square$]{}]{}
[**Example of slow decay:**]{} Consider the linearized BBM-BBM system with partial dissipation, $$\begin{split}
& \eta_t+u_x-b \eta_{xxt}=0,\\
& u_t+\eta_x-d u_{xxt}=u_{xx},
\end{split}
\label{2.25}$$ which has ${\text{order}}({\varepsilon})=0$ and ${\text{order}}(\sigma)=-2$. Since as $|\xi|\to+\infty$, $$\begin{split}
\Delta& \sim{1\over d}>0, \quad
|z|=\ds{2|\xi|\sigma\sim{2\over\sqrt{bd}}\ {1\over |\xi|}},\\
2\lambda_1&={\rm tr}(A)\left(1-\left(1-{4\det(A)\over ({\rm tr}(A))^2}\right)^{1/2}\right)
\sim\ 2\ {\det(A)\over {\rm tr}(A)}\sim {2\over d\xi^2}.
\end{split}$$ Therefore $$\ds \|e^{-tA}\|\leq C\exp \left(-{\beta t\over\xi^2}\right) \label{2.26}$$ which shows that any arbitrary slow decay could occur.
Middle range frequency analysis {#sec3.3}
-------------------------------
We first note from Lemma \[lem2.6\] that to get the optimal decay estimate for the cases where $\det(A)$ (and therefore $\lambda_1$) has a zero for $|\xi|>0$, these cases need to be discussed separately. Therefore, we have the following two propositions.
\[pro3.2\] Assume that $\nu=1$, or that $\nu=0$ and the dispersive coefficients $a, b, c, d$ satisfy (C1). Then for any $\delta_m$ and $\delta_M$, $0<\delta_m \leq \delta_M$, there exists $\beta>0$ such that for $|\xi| \in [\delta_m,\delta_M]$ and for any $t>0$, $$\|\exp (-t A)\| \leq C \exp (-\beta t). \label{middle}$$ Moreover for any ${\widehat}{Y_0}$ with support included in $[\delta_m,\delta_M]\cup [-\delta_M,-\delta_m]$, $$E(t)\leq C \exp (-2\beta
t)||Y_0||^2_{L_x^2}.$$
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}Since ${\rm tr}{(A)}$ and $\det(A)$ cannot vanish for $|\xi|
\in [\delta_m,\delta_M]$ under the assumptions, [(\[middle\])]{} is the direct consequence of [(\[2.15\])]{} and [(\[2.16\])]{}. In addition $$E(t)\leq \sup_\xi ||e^{-tA}||^2 \, ||{\widehat}{Y_0}||^2_{L^2_\xi}\leq C
\exp (-2\beta t) ||Y_0||^2_{L_x^2},$$ which completes the proof of the proposition. [[$\square$]{}]{}
\[regledetrois\] By noticing that [(\[middle\])]{} can be replaced by $$\|\exp (-t A)\| \leq C \exp (-\beta^* t\xi^2). \label{middleb}$$ with $\beta^*=\beta/\delta_M^2$, the middle range frequency analysis and the high frequency analysis can be combined to simplify certain calculations for these systems regardless if they are in BBM-Burgers class or KdV-Burgers class.
\[pro3.6\] Assume that $\nu=0$ and the dispersive coefficients satisfy (C2). Then for any $0<\delta_m<\delta_M$ with $r=a^{-{{1 \over 2}}} \in [\delta_m, \delta_M]$, there exists $\beta>0$ and $C>0$ such that for any $|\xi| \in
[\delta_m,\delta_M]$ and for any $t>0$, $$\label{badcase}
\|\exp (-t A)\| \leq C {\rm exp}\{-\beta t(|\xi|-r)^2) \}.$$ Moreover for any ${\widehat}{Y_0}$ with support included in $[\delta_m,\delta_M]\cup [-\delta_M,-\delta_m]$ and for any $t >0$, $$E(t)\leq Ct^{-1/2}||Y_0||^2_{L_x^1} .$$
Proposition \[pro3.6\] shows that even when the dichotomy is not valid, the energy could decay as O$(t^{-1/4})$ when $t$ goes to $+\infty$.
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}Since $\det (A)$ vanishes at $r=(\sqrt{a})^{-1}$ and, when $|\xi| \to r$, $\Delta\sim \frac{a}{a+d}>0$, $\lambda_1\sim \beta {\rm
det}(A)\sim \beta \sigma^2 \sim \beta (|\xi|-r)^2$. Therefore, from [(\[2.16\])]{}, $$\|\exp (-t A)\| \leq C (1+ \min(t,1)\sigma) {\rm
exp}(-\beta \sigma^2t) \label{3.7b}$$ as $|\xi|$ in the neighborhood of $r$. Using the fact that for $t>0$, $\min(t,1)\leq \sqrt{t}$, so there exists $C>0$ such that $$\|\exp (-t A)\| \leq C(1+\sqrt{t}\sigma){\rm exp}(-\beta \sigma^2t)\leq C{\rm
exp}(-\frac\beta{2} \sigma^2t),$$ we obtain the estimate [(\[badcase\])]{} for $|\xi|$ close to $r$. For other $|\xi|$ in $[\delta_m, \delta_M]$, the same argument in the proof of Proposition \[pro3.2\] and Remark \[regledetrois\] applies. For the decay rate of $E(t)$, same argument as in the proof of Propositions \[pro3.1\] can be used. In fact, $|\xi|-r$ plays the same role as $|\xi|$ in that case. [[$\square$]{}]{}
Decay for linear systems {#sec3.4}
------------------------
Since linear system [(\[1.6\])]{} defines a semi-group $e^{-tA}$ for $t\geq 0$, that is contracting on $L^2\times L^2$ in the variable $(\eta, w)$, the initial value problem is therefore well-posed and the $L^2$ norm decays.
Combining the low, middle and high frequency analysis, the decay rate for the linear system [(\[1.6\])]{} can be stated as
\[thm3.8\] For systems [(\[1.6\])]{} with the dispersive constants $a,b,c,d$ satisfy the constraints (C0)-(C1) or (C0)-(C2), assuming either $\{\nu=1\}$ or, $\{\nu=0$ and ${\text{order}}(\sigma)>-2+\frac{1}{2}{\text{order}}(\varepsilon)\}$, then for any $(\eta_0, Hu_0)=(\eta_0, w_0) \in (L^1({\mathbb R}) \cap L^2({\mathbb R}))^2$ where ${\widehat}H {\widehat}u_0= (\frac
{(1-a\xi^2)(1+d\xi^2)}{(1-c\xi^2)(1+b\xi^2)})^{{1 \over 2}}{\widehat}u_0$, there exists a constant $C$, such that for any $t>0$ $$\|(\eta, Hu)\|_{L_x^2}=\|(\eta,
w)\|_{L_x^2} \leq C t^{-1/4}.$$
This is equivalent to say , with respect to physical variables $(\eta, u)$, that for any $(\eta_0, u_0) \in (L_x^2\cap L^1_x) \times (H_x^h \cap
W_x^{h,1})$, $$\|(\eta, u)\|_{L_x^2 \times H_x^h} \leq C t^{-1/4}$$ for any $t>0$, where $h={\text{order}}({\widehat}{H})=\{a\}+\{d\}-\{c\}-\{b\}$.
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}Combining the low, middle and high frequency analysis, we have $$E(t)=E_{low }(t)+E_{middle}(t)+E_{high}(t)
\leq C(\eta_0, u_0)(t^{-{{1 \over 2}}}+ e^{-2\beta t})$$ for $t>0$ where $C(\eta_0, u_0)$ is a function of the dispersive coefficients and the norms of $\eta_0$ and $u_0$. [[$\square$]{}]{}
We complete this section by the following
For any dissipation, the classical Boussinesq system, the Bona–Smith system, the coupled KdV–BBM ($b=c=0$) system, the BBM–KdV systems ($a=d=0$) and the weakly dispersive systems ($b>0$ and $d>0$) with $a<0$ or $c<0$ belong to the [*BBM–Burgers class*]{}.
With complete dissipation, the KdV–KdV system ($b=d=0$, $a=c>0$) belongs to the [*KdV–Burgers class*]{}; the weakly dispersive systems ($b>0$ and $d>0$) belong to the [*BBM–Burgers class*]{}.
When the consideration is restricted to the linear systems, a result similar to Theorem \[thm3.8\] (substituting $\alpha$ for ${\varepsilon}$ in the statement) holds when one replaces $(\nu \eta_{xx},u_{xx})$ by $(\eta_{xx},\nu u_{xx})$ in the right-hand side of [(\[2.1\])]{} since $\eta$ and $u$ play the same role.
Nonlinear Theory {#sec4}
================
For convenience, we will only consider in this section (i) the complete dissipation and (ii) the partial dissipation with $a, b,
c, d$ satisfy the (C1) assumption. The partial dissipation with $a,b,c,d$ satisfy (C2) will be considered elsewhere.
A general result
-----------------
Consider an evolution equation that reads $$v_t+Lv+\partial_x(F(v))=0, \quad v(t=0)=v_0\label{3.1}$$ where $L$ is a linear unbounded operator with symbol $A$ and $F$ is a nonlinear quadratic operator.
Assuming that $L$ generates a semi–group $S(t)$ on $L^2_x$ that satisfies the [*dichotomy assumption*]{} (\[dichotomy\]), namely there exist $\beta>0$ and $\delta>0$ ($\delta$ can be $+\infty$) such that for any $t>0$ and $$\begin{split}
\bullet & \text{ for } |\xi|\leq\delta,\ \|S(t)\|\leq C
\exp(-\beta t\xi^2),\\
\bullet & \text{ for }|\xi|>\delta,\ \|S(t)\|\leq C \exp(-\beta
t).
\end{split}\label{dich2}$$ In addition, $$\sup_{t\geq 0}(t^{1/4}\|S(t) v_0\|_{L^2_x})\leq C_1 \|v_0\|_{L_x^1\cap L_x^2}=\overline
C.\label{3.15b}$$ Assuming also the nonlinear term $F(v)$ satisfies $$\sup_{|\xi|\leq\delta} |{\widehat}F|+\left(\int_{|\xi|\geq\delta} |\xi|^2
|{\widehat}F|^2 d\xi\right)^{1/2}
\leq C\|v\|^2_{L^2_x}
\label{3.4}$$ for any $t>0$, where ${\widehat}F= \mathcal{F}(F(v))$.
Let us recall that a mild solution to [(\[3.1\])]{} is a solution to the integral equation $$v(t)=S(t)v_0-\int_0^t S(t-s)\partial_x F(v(s))ds.\label{3.7}$$ Under the above assumptions, we may construct a solution to [(\[3.7\])]{} by performing a fixed point argument (see [@CH98], [@Karch99], [@BCS04], [@CazWei00]) on the space $$E=\left\{ u: \ \sup_{t>0} \{t^{1/4}\|u(t)\|_{L^²_x} \}
< \infty\right\},$$ which is a Banach space of functions that are continuous in time with value in $L^2$ that are $O(t^{-1/4})$ when $t$ goes to $+ \infty$. If $\overline C$ is small enough, a fixed point argument to the Duhamel’s form of the equation in the ball in $E$ centered at origin would provide the solution.
\[thm4.1\] For system [(\[3.1\])]{} with assumptions [(\[dich2\])]{}-[(\[3.15b\])]{}-[(\[3.4\])]{}, there exists a numerical constant $ C$ such that for any [*mild solution*]{} to [(\[3.1\])]{} starting from $v_0$ with $$\|v_0\|_{L_x^1\cap L^2_x}\leq C,\label{3.5}$$ then $$\|v(t)\|_{L^2_x} \leq O(t^{-1/4}) \quad \text{as} \quad t \rightarrow \infty.\label{3.6}$$
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}To begin, we first control the low frequency part of the nonlinear term. Let $$\begin{split}
{\widehat}N&:={\mathcal F}\left(\int_0^t S(t-s)\partial_x F(v(s))ds\right)\\
&=i\int_0^t e^{-(t-s)A}\xi{\widehat}F(v(s))ds.\label{3.8}
\end{split}$$ Using the first inequality in [(\[dich2\])]{} in combination with [(\[3.4\])]{}, one obtains $$\begin{split}
& \left(\int_{|\xi|\leq\delta} |{\widehat}N|^2 d\xi\right)^{1/2}\leq
C \int_0^t\left[\int_{|\xi|\leq\delta}\|e^{-(t-s)A}\|^2\xi^2|{\widehat}F|^2
d\xi\right]^{1/2}ds\\
& \hskip .5cm \leq C\int_0^t\left[\int_{{\mathbb R}} \xi^2
e^{-2\beta(t-s)\xi^2}d\xi\right]^{1/2}
\left(\sup_{|\xi|\leq\delta}|{\widehat}F|\right) ds\\
& \hskip .5cm \leq C\int_0^t {\|v(s)\|^2_{L^2_x}\over (t-s)^{3/4} }\ ds.
\end{split}
\label{3.9}$$ We now control the high frequency part of the nonlinear term, using the second inequality in [(\[dich2\])]{} in combination with [(\[3.4\])]{} $$\begin{split}
\left( \int_{|\xi|\geq\delta} |{\widehat}N|^2 d\xi\right)^{1/2}&\leq
C\int_0^t
e^{-\beta(t-s)}\left( \int_{|\xi|>\delta}\xi^2 |{\widehat}F|^2 d\xi\right)^{1/2} ds\\
&\leq C\int_0^t e^{-\beta(t-s)} \|v(s)\|^2_{L^2_x} ds.
\end{split}
\label{3.10}$$ Introducing the norm $$M(t)=\sup_{s\in [0,t] } (s^{1/4} \|v(s)\|_{L^2_x}), \label{3.11}$$ and if $v$ solves [(\[3.7\])]{}, then due to [(\[3.9\])]{}–[(\[3.10\])]{}, $$\begin{split}
& t^{1/4} \|v(t)\|_{L^2_x}\leq t^{1/4} \|S(t) v_0\|_{L^2_x}+t^{1/4} \| \hat N(t) \|_{L_{\xi}^2}\\
&\leq t^{1/4} \|S(t) v_0\|_{L^2_x}
+ CM(t)^2\int_0^t\left[{t^{1/4}\over s^{1/2}(t-s)^{3/4}}+{t^{1/4}\over
s^{1/2} }
\exp (-\beta(t-s))\right] ds.
\end{split}
\label{3.12}$$ By applying the change of variable $s=\tau t$ in the integration, one finds $$\begin{split}
&\int_0^t\left[{t^{1/4}\over s^{1/2}(t-s)^{3/4}}+{t^{1/4}\over
s^{1/2} }
\exp (-\beta(t-s))\right] ds
\\
\leq & C+ \int_0^1 \frac{t^{3/4}}{\tau^{{1 \over 2}}} \exp(-\beta
t(1-\tau)) d\tau \leq C.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, using the property [(\[3.15b\])]{}, the positive, nondecreasing function $M(t)$ satisfies $M(0)=0$ and for any $t\geq 0$, $$C_0 M(t)^2-M(t)+\overline C\geq 0, \label{3.16}$$ where $C_0$ is a positive constant. Choosing $\overline C$ such that $C_0 x^2-x+\overline C= 0$ has two real roots $0<r_1<r_2$, namely choosing $\overline C < \frac 1{4C_0}$, then [(\[3.16\])]{} holds only if $M(t)$ is trapped in the interval $[0,r_1]$. Therefore when $$\|v_0\|_{L_x^1\cap L_x^2} \leq \frac {\overline C}{C_1} < \frac 1{4C_0C_1}$$ $M(t)$ is bounded and [(\[3.6\])]{} is valid. [[$\square$]{}]{}
Applications to weakly dispersive systems with complete dissipation or partial dissipation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since $b>0$ and $d>0$, ${\text{order}}(\sigma) \leq 0$ and the corresponding linearized system is in the BBM-Burgers class. From Proposition \[pro1\] and Proposition \[pro2\], this corresponds to consider [*complete dissipation*]{}, or [*partial dissipation*]{} together with ${\text{order}}(\sigma)\geq -1$.
\[thm4.2\] Consider a weakly dispersive two–way wave model $(b>0 \text{ and } d>0)$ with either the complete dissipation or the partial dissipation together with $a<0$ or $c<0$. Then, for small initial data,
- if $H$ is of order 0, $$\|\eta(t)\|^2_{L^2_x}+\|u(t)\|^2_{L^2_x} \leq O(t^{-1/2});\label{3.26}$$
- if $H$ is of order 1, $$\|\eta(t)\|^2_{L^2_x}+\|u(t)\|^2_{H^1_x} \leq O(t^{-1/2});\label{3.27}$$
- if $H$ is of order $-1$, $$\|\eta(t)\|^2_{H^1_x}+\|u(t)\|^2_{L^2_x} \leq O(t^{-1/2});\label{3.28}$$
as $t \to \infty$.
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}Note that the theorem is proved after [(\[3.4\])]{} is validated and we will do that by discussing the cases according to the order of $H$.
- If $H$ is of order 0 or 1. Introducing the change of variable $$v=\mathcal{F}^{-1}({\widehat}\eta, {\widehat}H{\widehat}u)= \mathcal{F}^{-1}({\widehat}\eta, {\widehat}w),\label{3.17}$$ the full nonlinear system $$\begin{split}
& \eta_t+u_x+au_{xxx}-b\eta_{xxt}+(\eta u)_x=\nu\eta_{xx},\\
&u_t+\eta_x+c\eta_{xxx}-du_{xxt}+uu_x=u_{xx},
\end{split}
\label{3.18}$$ transforms to $$v_t+Lv=-\partial_x F(v),$$ where $L$ has symbol $A=\begin{pmatrix} \nu\alpha&i{\rm sgn}(\omega_1)\xi\sigma\\
i{\rm sgn}(\omega_2)\xi\sigma&\varepsilon\end{pmatrix}$ and $F$ reads $$F(v)=\begin{pmatrix} (1-b\partial^2_x)^{-1}\eta H^{-1}w\\
\frac{1}{2}H(1-d\partial^2_x)^{-1}(H^{-1}w)^2\end{pmatrix}.\label{3.19}$$ To check [(\[3.4\])]{}, it is natural to separate the estimate into two parts.
- [*Low frequency ($|\xi| \leq \delta$) estimate*]{}: Since $H^{-1}$, which has order $0$ or $-1$, is bounded on $L^2_x$, straightforward computations lead to $$\begin{split}
\|{\widehat}{\eta H^{-1}
w}\|_{L^\infty_\xi}&+\|{\widehat}{(H^{-1}w)^2}\|_{L^\infty_\xi}
\leq C(\|\eta\|^2_{L^2_x}+\|H^{-1}w\|^2_{L^2_x})\\
&\leq C(\|\eta\|^2_{L^2_x}+\|w\|^2_{L^2_x}). \label{3.20}
\end{split}$$ Because $(1-b\partial_x^2)^{-1}$ and $H(1-d\partial_x^2)^{-1}$ are bounded operators, $$\sup_{|\xi|\leq\delta}|{\widehat}F| \leq C \|v\|^2_{L_x^2}.$$
- [*High frequency ($|\xi| > \delta$) estimate*]{}: Since $\partial_x(1-b\partial^2_x)^{-1}$ is a smoothing operator (it is of order $-1$) and $H^{-1}$ is a bounded operator on $L^2_x$, $$\begin{split}
& \|\partial_x (1-b\partial^2_x)^{-1}(\eta H^{-1}w)\|_{L^2_x} \leq
C\|\eta H^{-1}w\|_{H^{-1}_x} \\
& \hskip .5cm \leq C\|\eta\|_{L^2_x} \|H^{-1}w\|_{L^2_x}
\leq C(\|\eta\|^2_{L^2_x}+\|w\|^2_{L^2_x}),
\end{split}$$ where Lemma 2.2(ii) in [@BCS04], $$\| fg \|_{H^{-1}} \leq C \|f\|_{L^2} \|g\|_{L^2}$$ is used. Now, consider the term $\partial_x(H(1-d\partial^2_x)^{-1})((H^{-1}w)^2)$ in $F$. If $H$ is of order $0$, it can be bounded in the same way. If $H$ is of order $1$, then $$\begin{split}
& \|\partial_x H(1-d\partial_x^2)^{-1} (H^{-1}w)^2\|_{L^2_x} \leq
C\|(H^{-1}w)^2\|_{L^2_x} \\
& \hskip .5cm \leq C\|H^{-1}w\|^2_{H^1_x}\leq C\|w\|^2_{L^2_x},\label{3.22}
\end{split}$$ where Lemma 2.2(iv) in [@BCS04] $$\| fg \|_{L^{0}} \leq C \|f\|_{H^1} \|g\|_{H^1}$$ is used.
Combining the lower frequency and higher frequency analysis, one sees [(\[3.4\])]{} is valid and Theorem \[thm4.1\] yields the desired result.
- If $H$ is of order $-1$, introducing the change of variable $$v=\mathcal{F}^{-1}((H^{-1}{\widehat}\eta,{\widehat}u)).\label{3.23}$$ and setting ${\widehat}\tau=H^{-1}{\widehat}\eta$, the full nonlinear system [(\[3.18\])]{} reads $$v_t+Lv=-\partial_x F(v)\label{3.24}$$ where $L$ has symbol $A=\begin{pmatrix} \nu\alpha&i{\rm sgn}(\omega_1)\xi\sigma\\
i{\rm sgn}(\omega_2)\xi\sigma&\varepsilon\end{pmatrix}$ and $$F(v)=\begin{pmatrix} H^{-1}(1-b\partial^2 x)^{-1}(uH\tau)\\
\frac{1}{2}(1-d\partial^2_x)^{-1}(u^2)\end{pmatrix}.\label{3.25}$$ The proof is then very similar to the previous case and therefore omitted.
[[$\square$]{}]{}
For the following two special cases, we have
- solutions to Bona–Smith system ($a=0, b>0, c<0$ and $d>0$) with complete or partial dissipation satisfy [(\[3.28\])]{};
- solutions to BBM–BBM system with complete dissipation ($a=c=0, \nu=1)$ satisfy [(\[3.26\])]{}.
Application to KdV-Burgers systems with complete dissipation.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Using Proposition \[pro1\], this implies that order$(\sigma) \geq 1$, and then that $b=0$ and/or $d=0$.
First case: Consider the case where $b=d=0$. The analysis in [@BCS04] implies that $a=c=1/6$, so the system satisfies (C2) assumptions. Since the dichotomy assumption [(\[dich2\])]{} was proved in Section \[sec3\] and the linearized system is in the [*KdV-Burgers class*]{}, Theorem \[thm4.1\] applies when [(\[3.4\])]{} with $\delta=+\infty$ is verified.
Let us observe that $H=1$ and that the full nonlinear system reads $$v_t+Lv=-\partial_x F(v)\label{3.29}$$ where $v=(\eta,u)$, $L$ has symbol $A=\begin{pmatrix} \xi^2&i{\rm sgn}(\omega_1)\xi\sigma\\
i{\rm sgn}(\omega_2)\xi\sigma&\xi^2\end{pmatrix}$ and $$F(v)=\begin{pmatrix}\eta u\\ {u^2\over
2}\end{pmatrix}.\label{3.30}$$ Since $$\|F(v)\|_{L^1_x}\leq C(\|\eta\|^2_{L^2_x}+\|u\|^2_{L^2_x}), \label{3.31}$$ [(\[3.4\])]{} with $\delta=\infty$ is a direct consequence.
Second case: Consider the case where $b>0$ and $d=0$. Due to (C0), $c \geq 0$. Since ${\text{order}}(\sigma) \geq 1$, the system must have $a=c>0$. Therefore order$(H)=-1$. Introducing the change of variable [(\[3.23\])]{} the system reads as [(\[3.29\])]{} with the following nonlinearity
$$F(v)=\begin{pmatrix} H^{-1}(1-b\partial^2 x)^{-1}(uH\tau)\\
\frac{u^2}{2}\end{pmatrix}.\label{new2}$$
[(\[3.4\])]{} with $\delta=\infty$ is valid and the proof is straightforward and then omitted.
Third case: Consider the case where $b=0$ and $d>0$. Since order$(\sigma)=1$, then $a$ and $c$ can not vanish and order$(H)=1$. In this case, with the change of variable [(\[3.17\])]{}, the system reads as [(\[3.29\])]{} with $F$ being
$$F(v)=\begin{pmatrix} \eta H^{-1}w\\
\frac{1}{2}H(1-d\partial^2_x)^{-1}(H^{-1}w)^2\end{pmatrix}.\label{new3}$$
[(\[3.4\])]{} with $\delta=\infty$ is again valid and the proof is straightforward and then omitted.
Therefore we can state
\[thm4.4\] Consider a KdV-Burgers system with complete dissipation. Then for small initial data,
- if $H$ is of order 0, $$\|\eta(t)\|^2_{L^2_x}+\|u(t)\|^2_{L^2_x} \leq O(t^{-1/2});\label{new4}$$
- if $H$ is of order 1, $$\|\eta(t)\|^2_{L^2_x}+\|u(t)\|^2_{H^1_x} \leq O(t^{-1/2});\label{new5}$$
- if $H$ is of order $-1$, $$\|\eta(t)\|^2_{H^1_x}+\|u(t)\|^2_{L^2_x} \leq O(t^{-1/2});\label{new6}$$
as $t \to \infty$.
This is not surprising for KdV-KdV system ($b=d=0$) since if we introduce the new variables $\eta=w^1+w^2$ and $u=w^1-w^2$, then [(\[3.18\])]{} reads as a system of two linear KdV–Burgers systems (weakly) coupled through nonlinear terms. See Section 2.3 in [@BCS04].
Other cases
-----------
In some other cases, the method presented here does not work straightforwardly. As pointed out in the Introduction, other methods exist which might enable the analysis to go further. These methods could also be helpful to extend our local results to global ones.
The $L^\infty_x$–decay rate {#sec5}
===========================
First, we observe that for the cases of weakly dispersive wave equations and KdV-KdV system, the nonlinear terms satisfy $$\sup_{|\xi|\leq\delta} |\xi{\widehat}F|+\left(\int_{|\xi|>\delta}|\xi|^4 |{\widehat}F|^2 d\xi\right)^{1/2}
\leq C\|v\|_{L^2_x}\|v_x\|_{L^2_x}. \label{3.33}$$
We now estimate the decay rate of $\partial_x v(t)$ in $L^2_x$ when $v$ solves [(\[3.7\])]{}. To begin, we differentiate [(\[3.7\])]{} with respect to $x$ and treat the nonlinear term of the resulting equation with a procedure similar to the one in the proof of Theorem \[thm4.1\], but using [(\[3.33\])]{} instead of [(\[3.4\])]{}.
We first note that for low frequencies, $$\left(\int_{|\xi|\leq\delta} \xi^2 |{\widehat}N|^2 d\xi\right)^{1/2}
\leq C\int_0^t {\|v(s)\|_{L^2_x}\|v_x(s)\|_{L^2_x}\over
(t-s)^{3/4} } ds \label{3.34}$$ and for high frequencies $$\left(\int_{|\xi|\geq\delta}\xi^2 |{\widehat}N|^2
d\xi\right)^{1/2}\leq C\int_0^t e^{-\beta(t-s)}\|v\|_{L^2_x}
\|v_x\|_{L^2_x} ds.\label{3.35}$$
We now consider the linear part. For $v_0$ in $H^1(\Bbb R)\cap L^2(\Bbb R)$, the linear term can be estimated by splitting the region of integration into low frequencies and high frequencies. Using [(\[dich2\])]{}, we have $$\begin{split}
\|\partial_x S(t)v_0\|^2_{L^2_x} &\leq C\bigg[\left(\int\xi^2
e^{-\beta \xi^2 t}d\xi\right)
\|v_0\|^2_{L^2_x}
+e^{-2\beta t}
\|\partial_x v_0\|^2_{L^2_x}\bigg]\\
&\leq {C\over t^{3/2}} \|v_0\|^2_{L^2}+Ce^{-2\beta
t}\|v_0\|^2_{H^1}.
\end{split}
\label{3.36}$$ Therefore, the linear part behaves like $O(t^{-3/4})$ as $t\to \infty$. Since $\| v\|_{L^2}$ is $O(t^{-1/4})$ as $t \to \infty$, we have $$\begin{split}
\|\partial_x v(t)\|_{L^2_x}&\leq C(v_0) t^{-3/4}
+C\sup_{s\in[0,t]} \left(s^{1/4}\|v(s)\|_{L^2}\right) \\
&\times \int_0^t {\|v_x(s)\|_{L^2_x}\over (t-s)^{3/4}}\ {1\over
s^{1/4}}+{e^{-\beta(t-s)}\over s^{1/4}}
\|v_x(s)\|_{L^2_x}ds.
\end{split}
\label{3.37}$$ Simple calculations show $$\int_0^t \ {ds\over s^{1/4}(t-s)^{3/4}} +\int_0^t
{e^{-\beta(t-s)}\over s^{1/4}}\ ds\leq C.\label{3.38}$$ Therefore $$\begin{split}
\|\partial_x v(t)\|_{L^2_x}&\leq C(v_0) t^{-3/4}
+C\sup_{s \in [0,t]}\|\partial_x v(s)\|_{L^2_x}
\sup_{s \in [0,t]} (s^{1/4}\|v(s)\|_{L^2}) \\
&\leq C(v_0) t^{-3/4}+C_2 M(t)\sup_{s \in [0,t]}\|\partial_x v(s)\|_{L^2_x} .
\end{split}
\label{3.39}$$ Since $M(t)$, that is defined in [(\[3.11\])]{}, is bounded by the first root $r_1$ of $$C_0 x^2-x+\overline C=0,$$ and $
r_1 \sim \overline C$ as $\overline C \to 0$ (since ${1\over C_0}(1-(1-4 C_0\overline C)^{1/2})\sim 2\overline C$ as $ \overline C \to 0$). Therefore, when $\overline C$ small enough, $M(t) \leq 2 \overline C$. Hence by choosing $\overline C$ such that $$2C_2\overline{C}\leq {1\over 2},\label{3.40}$$ [(\[3.39\])]{} leads to $$\|\partial_x v(t)\|_{L^2_x}\leq 2 C(v_0) t^{-3/4}\label{3.41}$$ and we obtain the following theorem.
\[thm5.1\] For system [(\[3.1\])]{} with assumptions [(\[dich2\])]{}-[(\[3.15b\])]{}-[(\[3.4\])]{}, assume $v_0$ is in $H^1(\Bbb R)\cap L^1(\Bbb R)$ and $\|v_0\|_{L^1\cap L^2}$ is small enough. Then $$\|v\|_{L^\infty_x}\leq O(t^{-1/2})\label{3.42}$$ as $t \to \infty$.
[[**Proof.**]{} ]{}Using [(\[3.41\])]{} and [(\[3.6\])]{} together with $$\|v\|_{L^\infty_x}\leq\|v\|^{1/2}_{L^2_x} \|\partial_x v\|_{L^2_x}^{1/2}\label{3.43}$$ yields the desired result. [[$\square$]{}]{}
Numerical Result {#sec6}
================
Numerical simulations are performed on several systems and results on BBM-BBM and Bona-Smith systems with complete or partial dissipations are reported here. The results show not only that the theoretical results on the decay rates are sharp, but also the constants involved are reasonably sized.
In these numerical computations, the initial data are taken to be $$\begin{split}
\eta_0&=sech^2(\frac{\sqrt{2}}2(x-x_0)), \\
u_0&=\eta_0-\eta_0^2/4,
\end{split}$$ where $x_0$ is in the spatial domain $[0, L]$, where $L$ is taken to be large enough so the solution near the boundary is smaller than the machine roundoff error during the whole computation. The spectral method is used on the spatial domain $[0,L]$ and the leap-frog algorithm is used on the time advancing. The decay rate $r$ and the constant $C$ in $$\| v\| \sim C t^{-r}, \text{ as } t \rightarrow \infty$$ is calculated by first computing $$r(t_n):=-\frac{\log \frac{\| v \| (t_n)}{\| v\|(t_{n-1})}}{\log \frac{t_n}{t_{n-1}}}.$$ The computation is stopped when $r(t_n)$ is approaching to a constant and the value $r$ is obtained by averaging the last 5 data. The constant $C$ is then computed by averaging the last five $\|v\| (t_n) t_n^r$.
In the computations reported below, $L=320$, $dx=0.1$ and $dt=0.05$, where $dx$ and $dt$ are the meshsize in space and time respectively.
.2cm [**BBM-BBM system ($a=c=0, b=d=1/6$) with complete dissipation.**]{} It is shown in Theorem \[thm4.2\] and \[thm5.1\] that for [*small data*]{}, $$\| v\|_{L^2} \leq C_1 t^{-1/4} \quad \text{and} \quad \| v\|_{L^\infty} \leq C_2
t^{-1/2}.$$ The numerical computation is performed for time interval $[0, 50]$, and the result shows $$\| v\|_{L^2} \sim 1.4232 t^{-0.2470} \quad \text{and} \quad
\| v\|_{L^\infty} \sim 1.4989
t^{-0.4963}.$$ Therefore, it is clear that the theoretical result is sharp and the constants involved are not large. Moreover, it seems that the small data requirement might be removed if, for example, other methods were employed.
.2cm [**Bona-Smith system ($a=0, b=-c=d=1/3$) with complete and partial dissipation.**]{} This case is again covered by Theorem \[thm4.2\] and \[thm5.1\]. By direct computation, we obtain for complete dissipation, $$\| v\|_{L^2} \sim 1.4015 t^{-0.2477}, \quad \| v\|_{L^\infty} \sim 1.4466
t^{-0.4998},$$ and for partial dissipation $$\| v\|_{L^2} \sim 0.6676 t^{-0.2519}, \quad \| v\|_{L^\infty} \sim 0.6595
t^{-0.5105}.$$
.2cm
Acknowledgment
Part of this work was performed when the second author was enjoying the hospitality of the mathematics department in Purdue University.
[10]{}
, [*Regularity and uniqueness of solutions to the [Boussinesq]{} system of equations*]{}, J. Diff. Eq., 54 (1984), pp. 231–247.
, [*Decay of solutions of some nonlinear wave equations*]{}, J. Differential Equations, 81 (1989), pp. 1–49.
, [*Convergence of boundary integral methods for water waves*]{}, SIAM J. Numer. Anal, 33 (1996), pp. 1797–1843.
, [*A [Boussinesq]{} system for two-way propagation of nonlinear dispersive waves*]{}, Physica D, 116 (1998), pp. 191–224.
, [*Boussinesq equations and other systems for small-amplitude long waves in nonlinear dispersive media [I]{}: Derivation and the linear theory*]{}, J. Nonlinear Sci., 12 (2002), pp. 283–318.
height 2pt depth -1.6pt width 23pt, [*Boussinesq equations and other systems for small-amplitude long waves in nonlinear dispersive media [II]{}: Nonlinear theory*]{}, Nonlinearity, 17 (2004), pp. 925 – 952.
, [*An evaluation of a model equation for water waves*]{}, Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. London, Ser. A, 302 (1981), pp. 457–510.
, [*A model for the two-way propagation of water waves in a channel*]{}, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 79 (1976), pp. 167–182.
, [*Théorie de l’intumescence liquide appelée onde solitaire ou de translation se propageant dans un canal rectangulaire*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 72 (1871), pp. 755–759.
, [*An introduction to semilinear evolution equations*]{}, vol. 13 of Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications, The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 1998. Translated from the 1990 French original by Yvan Martel and revised by the authors.
, [*Scattering theory and self-similar solutions for the nonlinear [Schrdinger]{} equation*]{}, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 31 (2000), pp. 625–650.
, [*The damping of surface gravity waves in a bounded liquid*]{}, J. Fluid Mech., 59 (1973), pp. 239–256.
, [*Introduction to matrices and linear transformations*]{}, Second edition, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, Calif., 1966.
, [*Large-time behaviour of solutions to non-linear wave equations: higher-order asymptotics*]{}, Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 22 (1999), pp. 1671–1697.
, [*Long-time asymptotics of solutions to some nonlinear wave equations*]{}, in Evolution equations: existence, regularity and singularities (Warsaw, 1998), vol. 52 of Banach Center Publ., Polish Acad. Sci., Warsaw, 2000, pp. 133–146.
, [*Wave reflexion from beaches*]{}, J. Fluid Mech., 101 (1980), pp. 809–832.
, [*Surface-wave damping in a closed basin*]{}, Proc. Royal Soc. London A, 297 (1967), pp. 459–475.
, [*Equations for water waves and the approximation behind them*]{}, in Waves on beaches and resulting sediment transport; proceedings of an advanced seminar conducted by the Mathematics Research Center, Univ. Wisconsin, Academic Press: New York, 1972, pp. 95–121.
, [*Asymptotic decay for a generalized boussinesq system*]{}, J. Dynam. Differential Equations, 11 (1999), pp. 595–623.
, [*Existence of solutions for the [Boussinesq]{} system of equations*]{}, J. Diff. Eq., 42 (1981), pp. 325–352.
, [*Viscous effects on propagation and reflection of solitary waves in shallow channels*]{}, J. Comput. Phys., 88 (1990), pp. 86–113.
, [*A bidirectional long-wave model*]{}, Methods Appl. Anal., 1 (1994), pp. 108–117.
, [*Linear and nonlinear waves*]{}, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1999. Reprint of the 1974 original, A Wiley-Interscience Publication.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
This paper is devoted to the existence and Lipschitz continuity of global conservative weak solutions in time for the modified two-component Camassa-Holm system on the real line. We obtain the global weak solutions via a coordinate transformation into the Lagrangian coordinates. The key ingredients in our analysis are the energy density given by the positive Radon measure and the proposed new distance functions as well.\
[**2010 Mathematics Subject Classification**]{}: 35G55, 35B35, 35Q53\
**Keywords**: Modified two-component Camassa-Holm system, Lipschitz metric, global conservative weak solution.
author:
- |
Chunxia $\mbox{Guan}^{1}$ [^1], Kai $\mbox{Yan}^{2}$ [^2] and Xuemei $\mbox{Wei}^{1}$ [^3]\
$^1\mbox{Department}$ of Mathematics, Guangdong University of Technology,\
Guangzhou 510520, China\
$^2 \mbox{School}$ of Mathematics and Statistics,\
Huazhong University of Science and Technology,\
Wuhan 430074, China
title: 'Lipschitz metric for the modified two-component Camassa-Holm system'
---
Introduction
============
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
In this paper, we consider the Cauchy problem for the following modified two-component Camassa-Holm system (M2CH): $$\label{1-M2CH-original}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
m_{t}+um_{x}+2mu_x =-\rho\bar{\rho}_{x} ,&t > 0,\,x\in \mathbb{R},\\
\rho_{t}+(\rho u)_x=0, &t > 0,\,x\in \mathbb{R},
\end{array}\right.$$ where $m=u-u_{xx}$ and $\rho=(1-\partial^2_{x})(\bar{\rho}-\bar{\rho}_0)$. System (\[1-M2CH-original\]) is written in terms of velocity $u$ and locally averaged density $\bar{\rho}$ (or depth, in the shallow-water interpretation) and $\bar{\rho}_0$ is taken to be constant. As geodesic motion on the semidirect product Lie group with respect to a certain metric, the system (\[1-M2CH-original\]) was firstly proposed in [@Holm] and proved that it allows singular solutions in both variables $m$ and $\rho$, not just the fluid momentum.
For $\rho\equiv 0$, system (\[1-M2CH-original\]) becomes the celebrated Camassa-Holm equation (CH): $$\begin{aligned}
m_t+ u m_x+ 2 u_x m=0,\,\ \,\ m=u-u_{xx},\end{aligned}$$ which models the unidirectional propagation of shallow water waves over a flat bottom [@C-H]. CH is also a model for the propagation of axially symmetric waves in hyper-elastic rods [@Dai]. It has a bi-Hamiltonian structure and is completely integrable [@C-H]. Its solitary waves are peaked solitons (peakons) [@C-H-H; @Con-E], and they are orbitally stable [@C-S; @C-S1]. It is noted that the peakons replicate a feature that is characteristic for the waves of great height – waves of the largest amplitude that are exact traveling wave solutions of the governing equations for irrotational water waves, cf. [@Cinvent; @C-Eann]. The Cauchy problem and initial boundary value problem for CH have been studied extensively [@B-C1; @B-C2; @C-Ep; @C-Ec; @E-Y1]. It has been shown that this equation is locally well-posed [@C-Ep; @C-Ec]. Moreover, it has both global strong solutions [@Cf; @C-Ep; @C-Ec] and blow-up solutions within finite time [@Cf; @C-Ep; @C-E; @C-Ec]. It is worthy to point out the advantage of CH in comparison with the KdV equation lies in the fact that CH has peakons and models wave breaking [@C-H-H; @C-E] (namely, the wave remains bounded while its slope becomes unbounded in finite time [@Wh]). Moreover, it possess global weak solutions, see the discussions in [@B-C1; @B-C2; @G-H-Rdcds; @H-R1; @X-Z].
The Cauchy problem and initial boundary value problem for system (\[1-M2CH-original\]) have been investigated in many works, cf. [@Guan1; @Guan2; @guan-yin2; @tan-yin1; @Yan1; @Yan3; @Yan2]. However, in the present paper, we reformulate the considered system to a semilinear system of ODEs by means of a transformation between Eulerian and Lagrangian coordinates, which is distinct from those in [@Guan2; @guan-yin2; @tan-yin1]. As a result, the global existence of conservative weak solution to the system on the real line is constructed. Moreover, it is noted to point out that we introduce some new distances to derive the Lipschitz continuity for the obtained weak solution, which, on the other hand, implies the uniqueness of the weak solution in some sense.
Now, let us provide the framework in which we shall reformulate system (\[1-M2CH-original\]). Set $\gamma=\bar{\rho}-\bar{\rho}_0$. By using the identity $(1-\partial^{2}_{x})^{-1}f = p\ast f $ with the Green function $p(x)\triangleq\frac{1}{2}e^{-|x|} (x\in \mathbb{R})$, one can rewrite the Cauchy problem for system (\[1-M2CH-original\]) as follows: $$\label{1-M2CH}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
u_{t}+uu_{x}=-\partial_x(1-\partial_{x}^{2})^{-1}(u^2+\frac{1}{2}u_x^2+\frac{1}{2}{\gamma}^2-\frac{1}{2}{\gamma_x}^2),
&t> 0,\,x\in \mathbb{R},\\
\gamma_{t}+u\gamma_{x}=-(1-\partial_{x}^{2})^{-1}((u_x\gamma_x)_x+u_x\gamma),
&t> 0,\,x\in \mathbb{R},\\
u(0,x) = u_{0}(x),&x\in \mathbb{R},\\
\gamma(0,x)=\gamma_{0}(x),\ &x\in \mathbb{R}.
\end{array}\right.$$
The rest of our paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we prove the global existence and Lipschitz continuity of the solutions to system (\[1-M2CH\]) in Lagrangian coordinates. In Section 3, we state the stability of the obtained solutions under a new distance in the setting of Lagrangian coordinates. In Section 4, the existence of global weak solutions to the system (\[1-M2CH\]) is proved. In Section 5, we show the Lipschitz continuity of the weak solution, which implies the uniqueness of the solution with some certain form.
**Notations.** In the whole paper, we denote by $\ast$ the spatial convolution. Given a Banach space $Z$, we denote its norm by $\| \cdot\|_{Z}$. Since all spaces of functions are over $\mathbb{R}$, for simplicity, we drop $\mathbb{R}$ in our notations of function spaces if there is no ambiguity.
Global and Lipschitz continuous solutions in Lagrangian coordinates
====================================================================
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
In this section, we discuss the global existence and Lipschitz continuity of the solutions to system (\[1-M2CH\]) in Lagrangian coordinates. For this, let us first introduce the spaces $V$ and $V_1$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
V \triangleq \{f\in C_{b}(\mathbb R)= C(\mathbb R)\cap L^\infty(\mathbb R) \big| f_\xi\in L^2(\mathbb R) \}\end{aligned}$$ equipped with the norm $\|f\|_V=\|f\|_{L^\infty}+\|f_\xi\|_{L^2}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
V_1 \triangleq \{g\big| g-Id\in V\}.\end{aligned}$$
Then the characteristics $y : \mathbb{R}\rightarrow V_1, t\mapsto y(t,\cdot)$ is the solution to $$\label{2-characteristicsODE}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
y_t(t,\xi)=u(t,y(t,\xi)),\\
y(t,\xi)|_{t=0}=y(0,\xi),
\end{array}\right.$$ where $u$ is the first component of the solutions to system (\[1-M2CH\]).
Set $$\begin{aligned}
P_1&=p\ast(u^2+\frac{1}{2}u_x^2+\frac{1}{2}{\gamma}^2-\frac{1}{2}{\gamma_x}^2),\\
P_2&=p\ast(u_x\gamma_x),\\
P_3&=p\ast(u_x\gamma).\end{aligned}$$ For convenience, denote $$\label{2-rewritten-xi}
U(t,\xi)=u(t,y(t,\xi)), \ \ \Gamma(t,\xi)=\gamma(t,y(t,\xi)),\ \ R(t,\xi)=\gamma_x(t,y(t,\xi)),$$ $$P_i(t,\xi)=P_i(t,y(t,\xi)), \ \ Q_i(t,\xi)=P_{i,x}(t,y(t,\xi)),\quad i=1,2,3,$$ and define the Lagrangian energy cumulative distribution as $$\label{2-Lagrangian-energy}
H(t,\xi)\triangleq\int_{-\infty}^{y(t,\xi)}(u^2+u_x^2+\gamma^2+\gamma_{x}^2)(t,x)dx.$$ Then we can perform the change of variables to write the convolution as an integral with respect to the new variable $\eta$. After a straight calculation, one deduces $$\begin{aligned}
P_1(t,\xi)&=\frac{1}{4}\int_\mathbb R e^{-|y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta)|}(U^2y_\xi-2R^2y_\xi+H_\xi)d\eta,\\
P_2(t,\xi)&=\frac{1}{2}\int_\mathbb R e^{-|y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta)|}(RU_\xi)d\eta ,\nonumber\\
P_3(t,\xi)&=\frac{1}{2}\int_\mathbb R e^{-|y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta)|}(\Gamma U_\xi)d\eta,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
Q_1(t,\xi)&=-\frac{1}{4}\int_\mathbb R sgn((y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta)) e^{-|y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta)|}(U^2y_\xi-2R^2y_\xi+H_\xi)d\eta,\\
Q_2(t,\xi)&=-\frac{1}{2}\int_\mathbb R sgn((y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta)) e^{-|y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta)|}(RU_\xi)d\eta ,\nonumber\\
Q_3(t,\xi)&=-\frac{1}{2}\int_\mathbb R sgn((y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta))e^{-|y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta)|}(\Gamma U_\xi)d\eta.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Observe that $y$ is an increasing function for any fixed $t$, which will be shown later. Then $P_i$ and $Q_i$ have the following equivalent forms: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-P-equivalent-forms}
P_1(t,\xi)&=\frac{1}{4}\int_\mathbb R e^{-sgn(\xi-\eta)(y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta))}(U^2y_\xi-2R^2y_\xi+H_\xi)d\eta,\\
P_2(t,\xi)&=\frac{1}{2}\int_\mathbb R e^{-sgn(\xi-\eta)(y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta))}(RU_\xi)d\eta ,\nonumber\\
P_3(t,\xi)&=\frac{1}{2}\int_\mathbb R e^{-sgn(\xi-\eta)(y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta))}(\Gamma U_\xi)d\eta,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-Q-equivalent-forms}
Q_1(t,\xi)&=-\frac{1}{4}\int_\mathbb R sgn(\xi-\eta) e^{-sgn(\xi-\eta)(y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta))}(U^2y_\xi-2R^2y_\xi+H_\xi)d\eta,\\
Q_2(t,\xi)&=-\frac{1}{2}\int_\mathbb R sgn(\xi-\eta) e^{-sgn(\xi-\eta)(y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta))}(RU_\xi)d\eta ,\nonumber\\
Q_3(t,\xi)&=-\frac{1}{2}\int_\mathbb R sgn(\xi-\eta)e^{-sgn(\xi-\eta)(y(t,\xi)-y(t,\eta))}(\Gamma U_\xi)d\eta.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Besides, we can check that the following equalities hold: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-PQ-equalities}
P_{1,\xi}=Q_1y_\xi,\ \ \ \ &Q_{1,\xi}=-\frac{1}{2}(U^2y_\xi-2R^2y_\xi+H_\xi)+P_1y_\xi,\\
P_{2,\xi}=Q_2y_\xi,\ \ \ \ &Q_{2,\xi}=-RU_\xi+P_2y_\xi ,\nonumber\\
P_{3,\xi}=Q_3y_\xi,\ \ \ \ &Q_{3,\xi}=-\Gamma U_\xi+P_3y_\xi.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Next, we introduce another new variable $\zeta(t,\xi)=y(t,\xi)-\xi$, then a new system based on system (\[1-M2CH\]) is derived as follows: $$\label{2-new-system}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\zeta_{t}=U,\\
U_t=-Q_1,\\
\Gamma_t=-Q_2-P_3,\\
R_t =-P_2-Q_3,\\
H_t=U^3-2P_1U-2P_2\Gamma-2Q_3\Gamma.
\end{array}\right.$$ Define $$E \triangleq V\times H^{1}\times H^{1}\times(L^\infty\cap L^2)\times V$$ with the norm $\|X\|_E=\|\zeta\|_V+\|U\|_{H^1}+\|\Gamma\|_{H^1}+\|R\|_{L^\infty}+\|R\|_{L^2}+\|H\|_V.$ Then we have the following Lipschitz estimates for $P_i$ and $Q_i$ $(i=1,2,3)$.
For any $X=(\zeta,U,\Gamma,R,H)\in E$, define the maps $F_i(X)=P_i$ and $G_i(X)=Q_i (i=1,2,3)$, where $P_i$ and $Q_i$ are given by (\[2-P-equivalent-forms\]) and (\[2-Q-equivalent-forms\]) with $y=\zeta+Id$, respectively. Then $F_i$ and $G_i$ are $B$-Lipschitz from $E$ to $H^1$, namely, they are Lipschitz continuous from the bounded sets in $E$ to $H^1$. More precisely, let $B_M$ be the closed ball with radius $M$ in $E$. Then for any $X, \tilde{X}\in E$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-Lipschitz-estimates-F}
\|F_i(X)-F_i(\tilde{X})\|_{H^1}\leq C_M\|X-\tilde{X}\|_E\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|G_i(X)-G_i(\tilde{X})\|_{H^1}\leq C_M\|X-\tilde{X}\|_E,\end{aligned}$$ where $i=1,2,3$ and the positive constant $C_M$ depends only on $M$.
We here only prove the estimate for $F_1$, the others can be handled in a similar way. Indeed, from (\[2-P-equivalent-forms\]), we rewrite $F_1$ as $$\begin{aligned}
F_1(X)(\xi)=&\frac{e^{-\zeta(\xi)}}{4}\int_\mathbb R\chi\{\eta<\xi\}e^{-|\xi-\eta|}e^{\zeta(\eta)}[(U^2-2R^2)(1+\zeta_\xi)+H_\xi](\eta)d\eta\\
&+\frac{e^{\zeta(\xi)}}{4}\int_\mathbb R\chi\{\eta>\xi\}e^{-|\xi-\eta|}e^{-\zeta(\eta)}[(U^2-2R^2)(1+\zeta_\xi)+H_\xi](\eta)d\eta\\
\triangleq &I_1+I_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_A$ is the indicator function of some set $A$.
Let $h(\xi)=\chi_{\{\xi>0\}}(\xi)e^{-\xi}$ and define the map $P:v\mapsto h\ast v.$ Thanks to Lemma 2.1 in [@H-R1], the map $P$ is continuous from $L^2$ into $H^1.$ If we denote $$R(X)\triangleq e^\zeta((U^2-2R^2)(1+\zeta_\xi)+H_\xi),$$ then $I_1=\frac{e^{-\zeta(\xi)}}{4}P\circ R(X)(\xi).$
Now we check that $R$ is $B$-Lipschitz from $E$ to $L^2.$ Indeed, for any $X, \tilde{X}\in B_M$, by using $|e^x-e^y|\leq e^{max\{|x|,|y|\}}|x-y|$ and $\|f\|_{L^\infty}\leq\|f\|_{H^1}$, one infers $$\begin{aligned}
&\|R(X)-R(\tilde{X})\|_{L^2}\\
=&\|e^\zeta [(U^2-2R^2)(1+\zeta_\xi)+H_\xi]-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}[(\tilde{U}^2-2\tilde{R}^2)(1+\tilde{\zeta}_\xi)+\tilde{H}_\xi]\|_{L^2}\\
\leq&\|e^\zeta U^2-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\tilde{U}^2\|_{L^2}+2\|e^\zeta R^2-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\tilde{R}^2\|_{L^2}+\|e^\zeta U^2\zeta_\xi-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\tilde{U}^2\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}\\
&+2\|e^\zeta R^2\zeta_\xi-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\tilde{R}^2\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}+\|e^\zeta H_\xi-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\tilde{H}_\xi\|_{L^2}\\
\leq&\|e^\zeta U^2-e^{\zeta}\tilde{U}^2\|_{L^2}+\|e^{\zeta}\tilde{U}^2-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\tilde{U}^2\|_{L^2}+2\|e^\zeta R^2-e^{\zeta}\tilde{R}^2\|_{L^2 }\\
&+2\|e^{\zeta}\tilde{R}^2-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\tilde{R}^2\|_{L^2}+\|e^\zeta U^2\zeta_\xi-e^{\zeta}U^2\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}
+\|e^{\zeta}U^2\tilde{\zeta}_\xi-e^{\zeta}\tilde{U}^2\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}\\
&+\|e^{\zeta}\tilde{U}^2\tilde{\zeta}_\xi-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\tilde{U}^2\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}
+2\|e^\zeta R^2\zeta_\xi-e^{\zeta}R^2\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}
+2\|e^{\zeta}R^2\tilde{\zeta}_\xi-e^{\zeta}\tilde{R}^2\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}\\
&+2\|e^{\zeta}\tilde{R}^2\tilde{\zeta}_\xi-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\tilde{R}^2\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}
+\|e^{\zeta}H_\xi-e^\zeta\tilde{H}_\xi\|_{L^2}+\|e^\zeta\tilde{H}_\xi-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\tilde{H}_\xi\|_{L^2}\\
\leq&\|e^\zeta\|_{L^\infty}\|U+\tilde{U}\|_{L^\infty}\|U-\tilde{U}\|_{L^2}+\|e^\zeta-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\|_{L^\infty}\|\tilde{U}\|_{L^\infty}\|\tilde{U}\|_{L^2}\\
&+2\|e^\zeta\|_{L^\infty}\|R+\tilde{R}\|_{L^\infty}\|R-\tilde{R}\|_{L^2}+2\|e^\zeta-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\|_{L^\infty}\|\tilde{R}\|_{L^\infty}\|\tilde{R}\|_{L^2}\\
&+\|e^\zeta\|_{L^\infty}\|U\|^2_{L^\infty}\|\zeta_\xi-\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}
+\|e^\zeta\|_{L^\infty}\|\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}\|U+\tilde{U}\|_{L^\infty}\|U-\tilde{U}\|_{L^2}\\
&+\|e^\zeta-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\|_{L^\infty}\|\tilde{U}\|^2_{L^\infty}\|\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}
+2\|e^\zeta\|_{L^\infty}\|R\|^2_{L^\infty}\|\zeta_\xi-\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}\\
&+2\|e^\zeta\|_{L^\infty}\|\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}\|R+\tilde{R}\|_{L^\infty}\|R-\tilde{R}\|_{L^2}
+2\|e^\zeta-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\|_{L^\infty}\|\tilde{R}\|^2_{L^\infty}\|\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}\\
&+\|e^\zeta\|_{L^\infty}\|H_\xi-\tilde{H}_\xi\|_{L^2}+\|e^\zeta-e^{\tilde{\zeta}}\|_{L^\infty}\|\tilde{H}_\xi\|_{L^2}\\
\leq&2Me^M\|U-\tilde{U}\|_{L^2}+M^2e^M\|\zeta-\tilde{\zeta}\|_{L^\infty}+4Me^M\|R-\tilde{R}\|_{L^2}\\
&+2M^2e^M\|\zeta-\tilde{\zeta}\|_{L^\infty}+M^2e^M\|\zeta_\xi-\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}+2M^2e^M\|U-\tilde{U}\|_{L^2}\\
&+M^3e^M\|\zeta-\tilde{\zeta}\|_{L^\infty}+2M^2e^M\|\zeta_\xi-\tilde{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}+4M^2e^M\|R-\tilde{R}\|_{L^2}\\
&+2M^3e^M\|\zeta-\tilde{\zeta}\|_{L^\infty}+e^M\|H_\xi-\tilde{H}_\xi\|_{L^2}+Me^M\|\zeta-\tilde{\zeta}\|_{L^\infty}\\
\leq&C(M)\|X-\tilde{X}\|_E,\end{aligned}$$ where $C(M)=(1+7M+12M^2+3M^3)e^M.$
For any bounded set $B$ in $E$, there is an $M>0$ such that $B\subset B_M$. Thus, $R$ is $B$-Lipschitz from $E$ into $L^2$. Note that $P$ is a continuous linear operator from $L^2$ to $H^1$. Then $I_1=P\circ P$ is $B$-Lipschitz from $E$ to $H^1.$ Similarly, so is $I_2$. Hence, $F_1$ is a Lipschitz map from $E$ to $H^1$ and satisfies (\[2-Lipschitz-estimates-F\]). Therefore, we have proven the lemma.
For any initial data $\bar{X}\in E$, there exists a time $T=T(\|\bar{X}\|_E)>0$ such that the system (\[2-new-system\]) admits a unique solution in $C^1([0,T],E)$.
Define the map $F: E\rightarrow E$ by $$F(X)=(U,-Q_1,-Q_2-P_3,-P_2-Q_3,U^3-2P_1U-2P_2\Gamma-2Q_3\Gamma).$$ Then Lemma 2.1 and the standard ODE theory on Banach spaces yield the desired result.
Now, we turn our attention to the global existence of the solutions to system (\[2-new-system\]). Here we are interested in a special class of initial data which belong to $E_0 \triangleq (W^{1,\infty}\times W^{1,\infty}\times W^{1,\infty}\times L^\infty\times W^{1,\infty})\cap E$.
For any $X_0\in E_0$, thanks to Lemma 2.2, the system (\[2-new-system\]) has a unique short time solution $X\in C([0,T],E)$. Let $U,\Gamma, P_i,Q_i\in C([0,T],H^1)$ and $R\in C([0,T],L^\infty \cap L^2)$. For any fixed $\xi\in\mathbb R$, we can solve the following system $$\label{2-new-system-2}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\alpha_t=\beta,\\
\beta_t=\frac{1}{2}(U^2-2R^2-2p_1)(1+\alpha)+\frac{1}{2}\delta,\\
\kappa_t =-(P_2+Q_3)(1+\alpha)+R\beta,\\
\delta_t=(3U^2-2P_1+2\Gamma^2)\beta-(2UQ_1+2Q_2\Gamma+2P_3\Gamma)(1+\alpha)-(2P_2+2Q_3)\kappa, \end{array}\right.$$ by substituting $\zeta_\xi,U_\xi,\Gamma_\xi$ and $H_\xi$ in system (\[2-new-system\]) by $\alpha,\beta,\kappa$ and $\delta$, respectively.
Similar to the proof of Lemma 3.4 in [@tan-yin1], one can readily get the following result.
Let $X\in C([0,T],E)$ be the solution to system (\[2-new-system\]) with the initial data $\bar{X}\in E_0$. Then $(\alpha,\beta,\kappa,\delta)$ solves system (\[2-new-system-2\]) for any fixed $\xi.$ Moreover, for all $t\in[0,T]$ and almost every $\xi\in\mathbb R$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-equality-two-systems}
(\alpha(t,\xi),\beta(t,\xi),\kappa(t,\xi),\delta(t,\xi))=(\zeta_\xi(t,\xi),U_\xi(t,\xi),\Gamma_\xi(t,\xi),H_\xi(t,\xi)).\end{aligned}$$
The set $\mathbb G$ is composed of all $(\zeta, U, \Gamma, R, H)\in E$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
&(\zeta, U,\Gamma, H)\in( W^{1,\infty})^4, \label{2-condition-1} \\
&y_\xi\geq0, \ \ H_\xi\geq0, \ y_\xi+H_\xi>0, \ \textrm{a.e.\ on} \ \mathbb{R}, \,\ \textrm{and} \
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow -\infty}H(\xi)=0, \label{2-condition-2}\\
&Ry_\xi=\Gamma_\xi,\ \textrm{a.e.\ on} \ \mathbb{R}, \label{2-condition-3}\\
&y_\xi H_\xi=y^2_\xi (U^2+\Gamma^2+R^2)+U^2_\xi, \ \textrm{a.e.\ on} \ \mathbb{R}, \,\
\textrm{where}\,\ y(\xi)=\zeta(\xi)+\xi. \label{2-condition-4}\end{aligned}$$
According to Lemma 2.3, one can prove the following useful lemma.
The set $\mathbb G$ is preserved by system (\[2-new-system\]). That is, if the initial data $X_0\in\mathbb G$, then the corresponding solution $X(t,\cdot)$ to system (\[2-new-system\]) also belongs to $\mathbb G$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Furthermore, $y_\xi(t,\xi)>0$ holds true for almost every $(t,\xi)\in[0,T]\times \mathbb{R}$.
By Lemma 2.3, (\[2-condition-1\]) holds for all $t\in[0,T]$. Next, for any fixed $\xi$ which satisfies $|X(\xi)|\leq\|X\|_{L^\infty}$, by system (\[2-new-system\]), we have $(Ry_\xi)_t=\Gamma_{\xi t}$. This leads to (\[2-condition-3\]), provided that $R(0)y_\xi(0)=\Gamma_\xi(0)$.
From the system (\[2-new-system-2\]) and (\[2-equality-two-systems\]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
(y_\xi H_\xi)_t
&=&y_{\xi t}H_\xi+H_{\xi t}y_\xi\\
&=&U_\xi H_\xi+y_\xi((3U^2-2P_1+2\Gamma^2)U_\xi
-(2UQ_1+2Q_2\Gamma+2P_3\Gamma)y_\xi\\
&&-(2P_2+2Q_3)\Gamma_\xi),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&(y^2_\xi (U^2+\Gamma^2+R^2)+U^2_\xi)_t\\
=&2(UU_t+\Gamma\Gamma_t+RR_t)y_{\xi}^2+2(U^2+\Gamma^2+R^2)y_\xi y_{\xi t}+2U_\xi U_{\xi t}\\
=&-2UQ_1y_\xi^2+2U^2y_\xi U_\xi-2\Gamma(Q_2+P_3)y_\xi^2+2\Gamma^2y_\xi U_\xi-2R(P_2+Q_3)y^2_\xi\\
&+2R^2y_\xi U_\xi+2\{\frac{1}{2}(U^2y_\xi-2R^2y_\xi+H_\xi)-P_1y_\xi\}U_\xi\\
=&U_\xi H_\xi+3U^2U_\xi y_\xi-2P_1y_\xi U_\xi+2\Gamma^2y_\xi U_\xi-2UQ_1y_\xi^2-2\Gamma Q_2y_\xi^2\\
&-2\Gamma P_3y_\xi^2-2(P_2+Q_3)Ry_\xi^2,\end{aligned}$$ which together with (\[2-condition-3\]) implies (\[2-condition-4\]).
Finally, we prove (\[2-condition-2\]). For this, define $$t^*\triangleq \sup\{t\in[0,T] \big| y_\xi(t')\geq0 \,\ \textrm{for\ all}\,\ t'\in[0,t]\}.$$ We claim that $t^*=T$. Suppose not, i.e. $t^*<T$. Since $y_\xi(t)$ is continuous with respect to $t$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-lemma4-1}
y_\xi(t^*)=0,\end{aligned}$$ which along with (\[2-condition-4\]) gives $U_\xi(t^*)=0$. Thanks to system (\[2-new-system-2\]) again, one deduces $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-lemma4-2}
y_{\xi t}(t^*)=U_\xi(t^*)=0.\end{aligned}$$ By system (\[2-new-system\]), together with (\[2-lemma4-1\]) and (\[2-lemma4-2\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-lemma4-3}
y_{\xi tt}(t^*)=U_{\xi t}(t^*)=\frac{1}{2}H_\xi(t^*).\end{aligned}$$ Now, we can show $H_\xi(t^*)>0$. As a matter of fact, if $H_\xi(t^*)=0,$ then (\[2-condition-3\]) and (\[2-condition-4\]) ensure $$y_\xi(t^*)=U_\xi(t^*)=\Gamma_\xi(t^*)=H_\xi(t^*)=0,$$ which is a contradiction to the uniqueness of the solution to system (\[2-new-system-2\]). If $H_\xi(t^*)<0,$ then according to (\[2-lemma4-3\]), $y_{\xi tt}<0$. So, $y_\xi(t^*)$ is the strict maximum of $y_\xi$, which also contradicts the definition of $t^*.$ Hence, $H_\xi(t^*)>0$. Then $y_\xi(t^*)$ is the minimum of $y_\xi$. Thus, from the definition of $t^*$ again, we have $t^*=T.$ This is a contradiction to the assumption $t^*<T$. Therefore, $y_\xi(t)\geq 0$ holds for all $t\in[0,T]$.
Furthermore, we have $y_\xi(t)> 0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Indeed, if there is some $t'\in [0,t]$ such that $y_\xi(t')=0$, then $H_\xi(t')<0$ as above arguments. So, $y_\xi(t')=0$ is the strict minimum of $y_\xi$, which contradicts the fact $y_\xi(t)\geq 0$ for all $t\in[0,T]$. Note that (\[2-condition-4\]) implies $H_\xi(t)\geq 0$ whenever $y_\xi(t)>0$. Thus, $y_\xi(t)+H_\xi(t)>0$ for $t\in [0,T].$ Therefore, we complete the proof of the lemma.
With Lemmas 2.2-2.4 in hand, we conclude this section with the following main theorem.
For any initial data $X_0=(\zeta_0, U_0, \Gamma_0, R_0,H_0)\in\mathbb G$, the system (\[2-new-system\]) has a unique global solution $X(t)=(\zeta(t), U(t), \Gamma(t), R(t),H(t))\in\mathbb G$ for all $t>0$, and $X(t)\in C^1(\mathbb R_+;E)$. Moreover, define the mapping $S_t: \mathbb G\times\mathbb R_+\rightarrow\mathbb G$ as $S_t(X)=X(t).$ Then the mapping $S_t$ is a continuous semigroup. Furthermore, let $M,\,T>0$ and set $$B_M \triangleq \{X=(\zeta, U,\Gamma, R,H)\in\mathbb G \big| X\in E, \|X\|_E\leq M\}.$$ Then there exists a $C=C(M,T)>0$ such that $$\label{2-thm-estimate}
\|S_t(X_\alpha)-S_t(X_\beta)\|_E\leq C \|X_\alpha-X_\beta\|_E,$$ for any $X_\alpha, X_\beta\in B_M$.
By Lemmas 2.3-2.4 and a contraction argument, we obtain a short time solution $X(t)\in\mathbb G$ to system (\[2-new-system\]) with initial data $X_0\in\mathbb G$. In addition, the solution has a finite maximal existence time $T$ if and only if $$\lim_{t\rightarrow T}\|X(t)\|_E=\infty.$$
For any $T_1<T$ and $t\in [0,T_1]$, in view of Lemma 2.4 and (\[2-condition-2\]), $H(t,\xi)$ is an increasing function with respect to $\xi$. Hence, the limits $H(t,\pm\infty)\triangleq \lim\limits_{\xi\rightarrow\pm\infty} H(t,\xi)$ exist. Note that $U(t,\cdot),\, \Gamma(t,\cdot)\in H^1$. Then we have $$\label{2-thm-limit}
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow\pm\infty}U(t,\xi)=\lim_{\xi\rightarrow\pm\infty}\Gamma(t,\xi)=0.$$ So, the last equation in system (\[2-new-system\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-thm-H}
H(t,\xi)=H_0(\xi)+\int_0^t(U^3-2P_1U-2P_2\Gamma-2Q_3\Gamma)(s,\xi)ds.\end{aligned}$$ Since Lemma 2.1 implies that $U,\Gamma,P_1,P_2$ and $Q_3$ are bounded in $L^\infty([0,T]\times\mathbb R)$, it follows from (\[2-thm-limit\]), (\[2-thm-H\]) and the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem that $H(t,\pm\infty)=H_0(\pm\infty)$ holds for all $t\in[0,T_1].$ Observe that both $H(t,\xi)$ and $H_0(\xi)$ are increasing with respect to $\xi$. Thus, $\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\|H(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty}$ can be bounded by $\|H_0\|_{L^\infty}$.
On the other hand, by using Lemma 2.4 and (\[2-condition-4\]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
U^2(t,\xi)=&2\int_{-\infty}^\xi U(t,\eta)U_\xi(\eta)d\eta\\
=&\nonumber2\int_{\eta\leq\xi|y_\xi(\eta)>0}U(t,\eta)U_\xi(\eta)d\eta\\
\leq&\nonumber2\int_{\eta\leq\xi|y_\xi(\eta)>0}|U(t,\eta)U_\xi(\eta)|d\eta\\
\leq&\nonumber\int_{\eta\leq\xi|y_\xi(\eta)>0}\left(U^2(t,\eta)y_\xi(t,\eta)+\frac{U_\xi^2(t,\eta)}{y_\xi(t,\eta)}\right)d\eta\\
\leq&\nonumber\int_{\eta\leq\xi|y_\xi(\eta)>0}H_\xi(\eta)d\eta\\
\leq& H(t,\xi),\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\|U(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty}$ can be bounded by $\sqrt{\|H_0\|_{L^\infty}}$.\
Thanks to Lemma 2.4 and (\[2-condition-4\]) again, we have $$\begin{aligned}
U^2y_\xi+\Gamma^2y_\xi+R^2y_\xi+\frac{U^2_\xi}{y_\xi}=H_\xi.\end{aligned}$$ By recalling (\[2-P-equivalent-forms\]) and (\[2-Q-equivalent-forms\]), one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\|P_1(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty}\leq\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\int_\mathbb R H_\xi(t,\eta)d\eta\leq\|H_0\|_{L^\infty},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\|Q_1(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty}\leq\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\int_\mathbb R H_\xi(t,\eta)d\eta\leq\|H_0\|_{L^\infty}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $|RU_\xi|\leq\frac{1}{2}(R^2y_\xi+\frac{U^2_\xi}{y_\xi})\leq\frac{1}{2} H_\xi$ and $|\Gamma U_\xi|\leq\frac{1}{2}(\Gamma^2y_\xi+\frac{U^2_\xi}{y_\xi})\leq\frac{1}{2} H_\xi$. We deduce $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\|P_2(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty}\leq\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\int_\mathbb R H_\xi(t,\eta)d\eta\leq\|H_0\|_{L^\infty},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\|Q_2(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty}\leq\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\int_\mathbb R H_\xi(t,\eta)d\eta\leq\|H_0\|_{L^\infty},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\|P_3(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty}\leq\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\int_\mathbb R H_\xi(t,\eta)d\eta\leq\|H_0\|_{L^\infty},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\|Q_3(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty}\leq\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\int_\mathbb R H_\xi(t,\eta)d\eta\leq\|H_0\|_{L^\infty}.\end{aligned}$$ From system (\[2-new-system\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\|\zeta(t)\|_{L^\infty}\leq\|\zeta_0\|_{L^\infty}+\int_0^t\|U(s)\|_{L^\infty}ds
\leq\|\zeta_0\|_{L^\infty}+T\sqrt{\|H_0\|_{L^\infty}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\|\Gamma(t)\|_{L^\infty}\leq\|\Gamma_0\|_{L^\infty}+\int_0^t\|(Q_2+P_3)(s)\|_{L^\infty}ds
\leq\|\Gamma_0\|_{L^\infty}+2T\|H_0\|_{L^\infty},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\|R(t)\|_{L^\infty}\leq\|R_0\|_{L^\infty}+\int_0^t\|(P_2+Q_3)(s)\|_{L^\infty}ds
\leq\|R_0\|_{L^\infty}+2T\|H_0\|_{L^\infty}.\end{aligned}$$
Denote $$\begin{aligned}
C_1
&\triangleq&\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\{\|\zeta(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty}+\|U(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty}
+\|\Gamma(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty}+\|R(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty}\\
&&+\sum\limits_{i=1}^3(\|P_i(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty}+\|Q_i(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty})\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $C_1$ is finite and depends only on $T$ and the initial data. Similar to the proof of Lemma 2.1, for $i=1,2,3$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-thm-estimate-PQ}
&\|P_i(t\cdot)\|_{L^2},\|Q_i(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2}\\
\leq &C(\|U\|_{L^2}+\|\Gamma\|_{L^2}+\|R\|_{L^2}+\|\zeta_\xi\|_{L^2}+\|U_\xi\|_{L^2}+\|H_\xi\|_{L^2}),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is also finite and depends only on $C_1$. Then from the system (\[2-new-system\]) and (\[2-thm-estimate-PQ\]), one gets $$\begin{aligned}
&\|R(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2}\\
\leq &\|R(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2}+C\int_0^t(\|U\|_{L^2}+\|\Gamma\|_{L^2}+\|R\|_{L^2}
+\|\zeta_\xi\|_{L^2}+\|U_\xi\|_{L^2}+\|H_\xi\|_{L^2})(s)ds,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which together with Lemma 2.3 and system (\[2-new-system-2\]) lead to $$\begin{aligned}
Z(t)\leq Z(0)+C\int_0^tZ(\tau)d\tau,\end{aligned}$$ where $Z(t)\triangleq \|\zeta_\xi\|_{L^2}+\|U_\xi\|_{L^2}+\|\Gamma_\xi\|_{L^2}+\|H_\xi\|_{L^2}+\|R\|_{L^2}$ and the positive constant $C$ depends only on $C_1$.
Taking advantage of the Gronwall inequality, one deduces that $\sup_{t\in[0,T)}\|X(t)\|_E$ is finite. Then the standard ODE theory implies that $S_t$ is a continuous semigroup. And thus, we have obtained the global existence of the solutions.
In order to prove the theorem, it suffices to show (\[2-thm-estimate\]). Indeed, for any $X_\alpha, X_\beta\in B_M,$ we see $X_\alpha- X_\beta,\, S_t(X_\alpha)-S_t(X_\beta)\in E$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|S_t(X)\|_E\leq C(T,\|X\|_E),\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ with any $T>0$.
By the second equation in system (\[2-new-system\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
U_\alpha(t,\xi)-U_\beta(t,\xi)=U_\alpha(\xi)-U_\beta(\xi)+\int_0^t(Q_\alpha-Q_\beta)(s,\xi)ds,\end{aligned}$$ which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\|U_\alpha(t,\cdot)-U_\beta(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2}
\leq\|U_\alpha-U_\beta\|_{L^2}+\int_0^t\|Q_\alpha(s)-Q_\beta(s)\|_{L^2}ds,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|(U_\alpha(t,\cdot)-U_\beta(t,\cdot))_\xi\|_{L^2}
\leq\|(U_\alpha-U_\beta)_\xi\|_{L^2}+\int_0^t\|(Q_\alpha(s)-Q_\beta(s))_\xi\|_{L^2}ds.\end{aligned}$$ Then the above two inequalities and Lemma 2.1 imply $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-thm-U-H1}
\|U_\alpha(t,\cdot)-U_\beta(t,\cdot)\|_{H^1}
\leq\|U_\alpha-U_\beta\|_{H^1}+C\int_0^t\|X_\alpha(s)-X_\beta(s)\|_{E}ds,\end{aligned}$$ where $C=C(T,M)>0$.\
Likewise, from the equations $(\ref{2-new-system})_3$ and $(\ref{2-new-system})_4$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-thm-Gamma-H1}
\|\Gamma_\alpha(t,\cdot)-\Gamma_\beta(t,\cdot)\|_{H^1}
\leq\|\Gamma_\alpha-\Gamma_\beta\|_{H^1}+C\int_0^t\|X_\alpha(s)-X_\beta(s)\|_{E}ds,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-thm-R-L-L2}
\|R_\alpha(t,\cdot)-R_\beta(t,\cdot)\|_{L^\infty \cap L^2}
\leq \|R_\alpha-R_\beta\|_{L^\infty\cap L^2}+C\int_0^t\|X_\alpha(s)-X_\beta(s)\|_{E}d s.\end{aligned}$$ By virtue of $(\ref{2-new-system})_1$, $(\ref{2-new-system})_3$ and (\[2-thm-U-H1\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2-thm-zta-V}
\|\zeta_\alpha(t,\cdot)-\zeta_\beta(t,\cdot)\|_{V}
\leq \|\zeta_\alpha-\zeta_\beta\|_{V}+C\int_0^t\|X_\alpha(s)-X_\beta(s)\|_{E}d s.\end{aligned}$$ From the last equation in system (\[2-new-system\]), we infer $$\begin{aligned}
H_\alpha(t,\xi)-H_\beta(t,\xi)
&=& H_\alpha(\xi)-H_\beta(\xi)+\int_0^t((U^3-2P_1U-2P_2\Gamma-2Q_3\Gamma)_\alpha\\
&&-(U^3-2P_1U-2P_2\Gamma-2Q_3\Gamma)_\beta)(s,\xi)d s,\end{aligned}$$ which together with (\[2-thm-U-H1\])-(\[2-thm-zta-V\]) and Lemma 2.1 yield $$\begin{aligned}
\|H_\alpha(t,\cdot)-H_\beta(t,\cdot)\|_{V}
\leq \|H_\alpha-H_\beta\|_{V}+C_M\int_0^t\|X_\alpha(s)-X_\beta(s)\|_E d s.\end{aligned}$$
Hence, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|X_\alpha(t,\cdot)-X_\beta(t,\cdot)\|_{E}
\leq\|X_\alpha-X_\beta\|_{E}+ C_M\int_0^t\|X_\alpha(s)-X_\beta(s)\|_{E}ds,\end{aligned}$$ where $C=C(M,T)>0$. Making use of the Gronwall inequality again, one reaches (\[2-thm-estimate\]). Therefore, we complete the proof of the theorem.
Stability of the solutions under a new distance
===============================================
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
In this section, we investigate the stability of the weak solutions to system (\[1-M2CH\]) under a new distance. To this end, let us first denote by G the subgroup of the group of homeomorphisms from $\mathbb R$ to $\mathbb R$ as follows: $$G \triangleq \{f \big| f-Id\in W^{1,\infty}, f^{-1}-Id\in W^{1,\infty}, f_\xi-1\in L^2\}.$$ For any $\alpha>0,$ we introduce the subsets $G_\alpha$ of $G$ by $$G_\alpha \triangleq \{f\in G \big| \|f-Id\|_{W^{1,\infty}}+\|f^{-1}-Id\|_{W^{1,\infty}}\leq\alpha\}.$$
[@H-R1] If $f\in G_\alpha,$ then $\frac{1}{1+\alpha}\leq f_\xi\leq 1+\alpha$ almost everywhere. Conversely, if f is absolutely continuous, $f-Id\in L^\infty$ and there exists some $c\geq1$ such that $\frac{1}{c}\leq f_\xi\leq c$ almost everywhere, then $f\in G_\alpha$ for some $\alpha$ depending only on $c$ and $\|f-Id\|_{L^\infty}.$
Set $$\mathbb F\triangleq \{X=(\zeta,U,\Gamma,R,H)\in\mathbb G \big| \zeta+Id+H\in G\}$$ and $$\mathbb F_\alpha\triangleq \{X=(\zeta,U,\Gamma,R,H)\in\mathbb G \big| \zeta+Id+H\in G_\alpha\}.$$ Then we have the following lemma.
Let the map $\Phi: G\times\mathbb F\rightarrow\mathbb F,
(f,(\zeta,U,\Gamma,R,H))\mapsto (\bar{\zeta},\bar{U},\bar{\Gamma},\bar{R},\bar{H})$ be defined by $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\bar{\zeta}=\zeta\circ f+f-Id,\\
\bar{U}=U\circ f,\\
\bar{\Gamma}=\Gamma\circ f,\\
\bar{R}=R\circ f,\\
\bar{H}=H\circ f.
\end{array}\right.$$ Then the map $\Phi$ defines a group action of G on $\mathbb F$.
For any $f\in G$ and $X\in\mathbb F$, from the facts $(\zeta,U,\Gamma,H)\in (W^{1,\infty})^4$ and $f-Id\in W^{1,\infty}$, we see $(\bar{\zeta},\bar{U},\bar{\Gamma},\bar{H})\in (W^{1,\infty})^4.$ According to the rule of chain, one gets for almost everywhere $\xi\in \mathbb R$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-lemma2-identities}
\bar{y}_\xi=y_\xi\circ ff_\xi,\ \ \bar{U}_\xi=U_\xi\circ ff_\xi,\ \ \bar{\Gamma}_\xi=\Gamma_\xi\circ ff_\xi,\ \ \bar{H}_\xi=H_\xi\circ ff_\xi.\end{aligned}$$ Note that for any $f\in G$, there exists some large enough $\alpha>0$, such that $f\in G_\alpha$. By Lemma 3.1, there exists some $c>0$ such that $\frac{1}{c}\leq f_\xi\leq c.$ Denote $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-lemma2-denote}
\bar{X}\triangleq (\bar{\zeta},\bar{U},\bar{\Gamma},\bar{R},\bar{H})=(\zeta,U,\Gamma,R,H)\bullet f \triangleq X \bullet f.\end{aligned}$$ By applying (\[3-lemma2-identities\]), one can easily check that $\bar{X}$ satisfies (\[2-condition-2\])-(\[2-condition-4\]).
Now, we claim that $\bar{X}\in E.$ Indeed, by recalling $R\in L^\infty\cap L^2$ and $\frac{1}{c}\leq f_\xi\leq c,$ one obtains $\bar{R}\in L^\infty.$ Then by the change of variables, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\bar{R}\|^2_{L^2}
=\int_\mathbb R(R\circ f)^2(\xi)d\xi
=\int_\mathbb RR^2(x)f_\xi^{-1}(x)dx
\leq c\|R\|^2_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$ So, $\bar{R}\in L^\infty\cap L^2.$ Similarly, by $U, \zeta_\xi\in L^2$, we get $\bar{U}, \bar{\zeta}_\xi\circ f \in L^2$. Moreover, $$\|\bar{\zeta}_\xi\|_{L^2}=\|\zeta_\xi\circ ff_\xi+f_\xi-1\|_{L^2}\leq c\|\bar{\zeta}_\xi\circ f\|_{L^2}+\|f_\xi-1\|_{L^2}<+\infty,$$ which along with the fact $\zeta\in W^{1,\infty}$ ensures $\zeta\in V.$ Likewise, $H\in V.$ Hence, $\bar{X}\in E.$ And thus, $\bar{X}\in \mathbb G.$
Next, notice that both $y+H$ and $f$ belong to the group $G$. Then, $\bar{\zeta}+Id+\bar{H}=(y+H)\circ f\in G$. So, $\bar{X}\in\mathbb F.$
On the other hand, in view of the definition of $\Phi$ and (\[3-lemma2-denote\]), we infer that $$\begin{aligned}
&&X\bullet f_1\bullet f_2\\
&=&(\zeta\circ f_1+f_1-Id,U\circ f_1,\Gamma\circ f_1,R\circ f_1,H\circ f_1)\bullet f_2\\
&=&((\zeta\circ f_1+f_1-Id)\circ f_2+f_2-Id,U\circ f_1\circ f_2,\Gamma\circ f_1\circ f_2,
R\circ f_1\circ f_2,H\circ f_1\circ f_2)\\
&=&(\zeta\circ(f_1\circ f_2)+f_1\circ f_2-Id,U\circ(f_1\circ f_2),\Gamma\circ(f_1\circ f_2),
R\circ(f_1\circ f_2),H\circ(f_1\circ f_2))\\
&=&X\bullet(f_1\circ f_2),\end{aligned}$$ for any $X\in\mathbb F$ and $f_1,f_2\in G$. Thus, the map $\Phi$ defines a group action of G on $\mathbb F$. Therefore, we have proven the lemma.
By Lemma 3.2, we can consider the quotient space $\mathbb F/G$ of $\mathbb F$ with respect to the group action, whose elements consist of $[X]$ defined by $$[X]=\{X'\in\mathbb F \big| X' \sim X\},$$ where $X' \sim X$ means that there exists $f\in G$ such that $X'=X\bullet f.$ Moreover, for any $X\in\mathbb F,$ if we set $\Pi(X)\triangleq X\bullet(\zeta+Id+H)^{-1}=X\bullet(y+H)^{-1}$, then the mapping $\Pi$ is a projection, i.e. $\Pi\circ\Pi=\Pi$. Hence, for any $X\in\mathbb F$ and $f\in G$, we have $T(X\bullet f)=T(X)$. It follows that the mapping $[X]\rightarrow\Pi(X)$ is a bijection from the quotient space $\mathbb F/G$ to $\mathbb F_0.$
Next, we turn to a property of the mapping $S_t$ in Theorem 2.1.
The mapping $S_t$ is equi-variant. That is, for any $X\in\mathbb F$ and $f\in G,$ we have $$S_t(X\bullet f)=S_t(X)\bullet f,$$ where $\bullet$ is defined in (\[3-lemma2-denote\]).
For any $X_0=(\zeta_0,U_0,\Gamma_0,R_0,H_0)\in\mathbb F$ and $f\in G,$ we denote $\bar{X}_0=(\bar{\zeta}_0,\bar{U}_0,\bar{\Gamma}_0,\bar{R}_0,\bar{H}_0)=X_0\bullet f$, $X(t)=S_t(X_0)$ and $\bar{X}(t)=S_t(\bar{X}_0)$, respectively.
Now, we prove that $X(t)\bullet f$ satisfies (2.11) with the initial data $\bar{X}_0$. For this, denote $$\hat{X}(t)=(\hat{\zeta}(t),\hat{U}(t),\hat{\Gamma}(t),\hat{R}(t),\hat{H}(t))=X(t)\bullet f.$$ Since $X(t)$ is the solution to system (\[2-new-system\]), it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\zeta}(t)_t=(\zeta(t)\circ f+f-Id)_t=\zeta_t\circ f=U(t)\circ f=\hat{U}(t),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{U}(t)_t
&=&(U(t)\circ f)_t\\
&=& U_t(t)\circ f\\
&=& -G_1(X)\circ f\\
&=&\frac{1}{4}\int_\mathbb R sgn(f(\xi)-\eta)\exp\left(-|y(f(\xi))-y(\eta)|\right)[U^2y_\xi-2R^2y_\xi+H_\xi](\eta)d\eta,\end{aligned}$$ where $G_1$ is defined in Lemma 2.1. Thanks to $\hat{y}(t)=y(t)\circ f$ and $\hat{H}(t)=H(t)\circ f,$ together with the chain rule, we get $$\hat{y}_\xi(t,\xi)=y_\xi(f(\xi))f_\xi(\xi)\quad \textrm{and}\quad \hat{H}_\xi(t,\xi)=H_\xi(f(\xi))f_\xi(\xi).$$ Applying the change of variables, and noting that $f$ is increasing, one infers $$\begin{aligned}
&\hat{U}_t(t)\\
=&\frac{1}{4}\int_\mathbb R sgn(f(\xi)-f(\eta))
\exp\left(-|y(f(\xi))-y(f(\eta))|\right)[U^2y_\xi-2R^2y_\xi+H_\xi](f(\eta))f_\xi(\eta)d\eta\nonumber\\
=&\frac{1}{4}\int_\mathbb R sgn(\xi-\eta)
\exp\left(-|\hat{y}(\xi)-\hat{y}(\eta)|\right)[\hat{U}^2\hat{y}_\xi-2\hat{R}^2\hat{y}_\xi+\hat{H}_\xi](\eta)d\eta\nonumber\\
=&-G_1(\hat X).\end{aligned}$$ Since the other terms in system (\[2-new-system\]) can be treated in a similar way, it follows that $\hat{X}(t)$ is a solution to system (\[2-new-system\]) with the initial $\hat{X}(0)=\bar{X}_0$. Then Theorem 2.1 ensures $$S_t(X_0)\bullet f=X(t)\bullet f=\hat{X}(t)=\bar{X}(t)=S_t(\bar{X}_0)=S_t(X_0\bullet f),$$ which completes the proof of the lemma.
By Lemma 3.3 and Remark 3.1, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi\circ S_t\circ\Pi=\Pi\circ S_t.\end{aligned}$$ If we define the semigroup $\bar{S}_t$ on $\mathbb F_0$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-remark-2}
\bar{S}_t=\Pi\circ S_t,\end{aligned}$$ Then by Theorem 2.1, $S_t$ is a continuous semigroup. So is $\bar{S}_t$.
To obtain the Lipschitz continuity of the solutions to system (\[2-new-system\]), we need to introduce the distances on $\mathbb F$ and $\mathbb F_0,$ respectively. Precisely, for any $X_\alpha, X_\beta\in\mathbb F$, we define $$\label{3-distance-J}
J(X_\alpha,X_\beta)\triangleq \inf_{f,g\in G}\|X_\alpha\bullet f-X_\beta\|_E+\|X_\alpha-X_\beta\bullet g\|_E.$$ While for any $X_\alpha,X_\beta\in\mathbb F_0$, we set $$\label{3-distance-d}
d(X_\alpha,X_\beta)\triangleq \inf\sum^{n=N}_{n=1}J(X_{n-1},X_n),$$ where the infimum is taken over all finite sequences $\{X_n\}_{n=0}^N\subset\mathbb F_0$ satisfying $X_0=X_\alpha$ and $X_N=X_\beta.$
Similar to the arguments in [@G-H-Rdcds], we can readily get the following result.
\(i) For $X_\alpha,X_\beta\in\mathbb F$ and $f\in G_k,$ $$\|X_\alpha\bullet f-X_\beta\bullet f\|_E\leq C\|X_\alpha-X_\beta\|_E
\ \ \textrm{and} \ \
J(X_\alpha\bullet f,X_\beta)\leq CJ(X_\alpha,X_\beta),$$ where $C=C(k)>0$.
\(ii) For any $X_\alpha,X_\beta\in\mathbb F_0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\|X_\alpha-X_\beta\|_{L^\infty}\leq d(X_\alpha,X_\beta)\leq2\|X_\alpha-X_\beta\|_E.\end{aligned}$$
For any $M>0,$ set $$\mathbb F^M \triangleq \{X=(\zeta,U,\Gamma,R,H)\in\mathbb F \big| \|H\|_{L^\infty}\leq M\}$$ and $$\mathbb F_0^M \triangleq \mathbb F_0\cap\mathbb F^M.$$
$\mathbb F_0^M$ and $\mathbb F_0\cap B_M$ are equivalent in the sense that $$\mathbb F_0\cap B_M\subset\mathbb F_0^M\subset\mathbb F_0\cap B_{M'},$$ where $B_M \triangleq \{X\in E|\|X\|_E\leq M\}$, and $M'$ depends only on $M$.
Let us define a distance on $\mathbb F_0^M$ as follows: $$\label{3-distance-dM}
d^M(X_\alpha,X_\beta)\triangleq \inf\sum^{n=N}_{n=1}J(X_{n-1},X_n),$$ where the infimum is taken over all finite sequences $\{X_n\}_{n=0}^N\subset\mathbb F_0^M$ satisfying $X_0=X_\alpha$ and $X_N=X_\beta.$
Now, we are in a position to state our main theorem in this section.
Given $T>0$ and $M>0,$ there exists a $C=C(T,M)>0$ such that for any $X_\alpha,X_\beta\in\mathbb F_0^M$ and $t\in[0,T]$, $$\begin{aligned}
d^M(\bar{S}_t(X_\alpha),\bar{S}_t(X_\beta))\leq C d^M(X_\alpha,X_\beta),\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{S}_t$ is defined by (\[3-remark-2\]).
By the definitions of $d^M$ and $J$, for arbitrary $\epsilon\in(0,1)$, there exist sequences $\{X_n\}_{n=0}^N\subset\mathbb F_0, \{\tilde{f}_n\}_{n=1}^{N},\{f_n\}_{n=0}^{N-1}\subset G$ with $X_0=X_\alpha, X_N=X_\beta$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3-thm-1}
\sum_{n=1}^N(\|X_{n-1}\bullet f_{n-1}-X_n\|_E+\|X_{n-1}-X_n\bullet\tilde{f}_n\|_E)\leq d^M(X_\alpha,X_\beta)+\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Denote $$X_n^t=S_t(X_n),\,\ g_n^t=\zeta_n^t+Id+H_n^t, \,\ \bar{X}_n^t=\bar{S}_tX_n=\Pi(X_n^t)=X_n^t\bullet(g_n^t)^{-1}.$$ According to Lemma 3.3 and the similar arguments of Lemma 2.5 in [@G-H-Rdcds], for $k,T>0$ and $X\in\mathbb F_k$, there exists a $k'$ depending only on $k,T$ and $\|X\|_E$, such that $S_t(X)\in\mathbb F_{k'}$. Then $g_n^t\in G_k$ for some $k=k(M,T).$ Thanks to $X_n\in\mathbb F^M$, we get $\bar{X}_n^t\in\mathbb F_0^M.$\
For $f_{n-1}^t=g_{n-1}^t\bullet f_{n-1}\bullet(g_n^t)^{-1},$ by using Lemma 3.4, one deduces that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\bar{X}_{n-1}^t\bullet f_{n-1}^t-\bar{X}_n^t\|_E&=\|X_{n-1}^t\bullet(g_{n-1}^t)^{-1}\bullet f_{n-1}^t-X_n^t\bullet(g_n^t)^{-1}\|_E\\
&\leq C \|X_{n-1}^t\bullet(g_{n-1}^t)^{-1}\bullet f_{n-1}^t\bullet(g_n^t)-X_n^t\|_E\\
&=C\|X_{n-1}^t\bullet f_{n-1}-X_n^t\|_E\\
&=C\|S_t(X_{n-1}\bullet f_{n-1})-S_t(X_n)\|_E.\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, by Remark 3.3, there is some $M'>0$ such that $\|X\|_E\leq M'$ for any $X\in\mathbb F_0^M.$ Then (\[3-thm-1\]) and the triangle inequality imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\|X_{n-1}\bullet f_{n-1}\|_E&\leq\|X_{n-1}\bullet f_{n-1}-X_n\|_E+\|X_n\|_E\\
&\leq d^M(X_\alpha,X_\beta)+\epsilon+M'\\
&\leq2\|X_\alpha-X_\beta\|_E+\epsilon+M'\\
&\leq5M'+1,\end{aligned}$$ which along with Theorem 2.1 yields $$\|\bar{X}_{n-1}^t\bullet f_{n-1}^t-\bar{X}_n^t\|_E\leq C\|X_{n-1}t\bullet f_{n-1}-X_n\|_E,$$ where $C=C(T,M)>0$.
Likewise, for $\tilde{f}_n^t=g_n^t\bullet\tilde{f}_n\bullet(g_{n-1}^t)^{-1}$, there holds $$\|\bar{X}_{n-1}^t-\bar{X}_n^t\bullet\tilde{f}_n^t\|_E\leq C_M\|X_{n-1}t-X_n\bullet \tilde{f}_{n}\|_E.$$ Thus, by using (\[3-distance-dM\]) and (\[3-thm-1\]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
&d^M(\bar{S}_t(X_\alpha),\bar{S}_t(X_\beta))\\
\leq&\sum_{n=1}^N(\|\bar{X}_{n-1}^t\bullet f_{n-1}^t-\bar{X}_n^t\|_E+\|\bar{X}_{n-1}^t-\bar{X}_n^t\bullet\tilde{f}_n^t\|_E)\\
\leq& C\sum_{n=1}^N(\|X_{n-1}t\bullet f_{n-1}-X_n\|_E+\|X_{n-1}t-X_n\bullet \tilde{f}_{n}\|_E)\\
\leq& C(d^M(X_\alpha,X_\beta)+\epsilon),\end{aligned}$$ which leads to the desired result.
Global weak solutions to the system (\[1-M2CH\])
================================================
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
In this section, we shall show that the original system (\[1-M2CH\]) has global weak solutions as the initial data $(u_0,\gamma_0)\in H^1\times (H^1\cap W^{1,\infty})$. To achieve this, we first introduce some definitions as follows.
Given initial data $z_{0}=(u_{0}, \gamma_{0})\in H^1\times(H^{1}\cap W^{1,\infty}).$ If $z(t,x)=(u(t,x),\gamma(t,x))\in L^{\infty}((0,\infty); H^{1}\times H^{1})$ satisfies system (\[1-M2CH\]) and $z(t,\cdot)\rightarrow z_0$ as $t\rightarrow 0^+$ in the sense of distribution, then $z=(u,\gamma)$ is called a global weak solution to system (\[1-M2CH\]). Moreover, if $$h(t)\triangleq \int_\mathbb R (u^2+u_x^2+\gamma^2+\gamma_x^2)(t,x)dx=h(0)$$ holds for almost all $t>0,$ then $z$ is called a global conservative weak solution.
The set $\mathbb D$ consists of all $(u,\gamma,\mu)$ such that\
(i) $(u,\gamma)\in H^1\times(H^1\cap W^{1,\infty}),$\
(ii) $\mu$ is a positive Radon measure whose absolutely continuous part $\mu_{ac}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4-def-2}
\mu_{ac}=u^2+u_x^2+\gamma^2+\gamma_x^2.\end{aligned}$$
[@H-R1] For any $(u,\gamma,\mu)\in\mathbb D,$ define the map $L: \mathbb D\rightarrow \mathbb F_0, (u,\gamma,\mu)\mapsto X\triangleq(\zeta,U,\Gamma,R,H)$ by $$\label{4-def-3}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\zeta(\xi)=y(\xi)-\xi=\sup\{y \big| \mu(-\infty,y)+y<\xi\}-\xi,\\
U(\xi)=u\circ y(\xi),\\
\Gamma(\xi)=\gamma\circ y(\xi),\\
R(\xi) =\gamma_x\circ y(\xi),\\
H(\xi)=-\zeta(\xi).
\end{array}\right.$$
As a result, for any initial data $(u_0,\gamma_0,\mu_0)\in\mathbb D,$ we can construct a solution to system (\[2-new-system\]) in $\mathbb F$ with initial data $X_0=L(u_0,\gamma_0,\mu_0)\in\mathbb F_0.$ Thus, the global weak solutions to system (\[2-new-system\]) yields a global conservative weak solution to system (\[1-M2CH\]) in the original variables, which is the goal of this section.
[@H-R1] The mapping $W: \mathbb F_0 \rightarrow \mathbb D, X\triangleq(\zeta,U,\Gamma,R,H)\mapsto (u,\gamma,\mu)$ is defined by $$u(x)=U(\xi),\ \gamma(x)=\Gamma(\xi)$$ for any $\xi$, such that $x=y(\xi)$ and $$\mu(B)=\int_{\{x\in y^{-1}(B)\}} H_\xi(x)dx$$ for any Borel set $B$.
\(i) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4-Id}
L\circ W=Id_{\mathbb F_0}\ \ \ \ \textrm{and}\ \ \ W\circ L=Id_{\mathbb D}.\end{aligned}$$ (ii) The distance $J$ in (\[3-distance-J\]) can be viewed as a map from $\mathbb F/G$ to $\mathbb D$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4-W-identity}
W(X_1)=W(X),\ \forall\, X_1\in[X].\end{aligned}$$
Set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4-Tt}
T_t\triangleq W\circ \bar{S}_t \circ L: \mathbb D \rightarrow \mathbb D,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{S}_t$ is defined in (\[3-lemma2-denote\]). Then we can prove our main theorem in this section.
Given any initial data $(u_0,\gamma_0,\mu_0)\in\mathbb D$, denote $(u,\gamma,\mu)\triangleq T_t(u_0,\gamma_0,\mu_0)$. Then $z=(u,\gamma)$ is a global conservative weak solution to system (\[1-M2CH\]).
Since Lemma 3.3, it follows from (\[4-W-identity\]) that $T_t=W\circ S_t\circ L$. Let $$X(t)=(\zeta(t),U(t),\Gamma(t),R(t),H(t))=S_t(L(X_0)).$$ Then $X(t)$ is the solution to system (\[2-new-system\]) with initial data $L(X_0).$ So, for any smooth function $\phi$ with the compact support in $\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&-\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}u(t,x)\phi_t(t,x)dxdt\\
=&-\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}u(t,y(t,\xi))\phi_t(t,y(t,\xi))y_\xi(t,\xi)d\xi dt\\
=&-\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}U(t,\xi)[(\phi(t,y(t,\xi)))_t-\phi_x(t,y(t,\xi))y_t(t,\xi)]y_\xi(t,\xi)d\xi dt\\
=&-\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}(U(t,\xi)(\phi(t,y(t,\xi)))_ty_\xi(t,\xi)-U^2(t,\xi)\phi_x(t,y(t,\xi))y_\xi(t,\xi))d\xi dt\\
=&\int_{\mathbb R}U(0,\xi)\phi(0,y(0,\xi))y_\xi(0,\xi)d\xi+\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}(U(t,\xi)y_\xi(t,\xi))_t\phi(t,y(t,\xi))d\xi dt\\
&+\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}U^2(t,\xi)(\phi(t,y(t,\xi))_\xi d\xi dt\\
=&\int_{\mathbb R}U(0,\xi)\phi(0,y(0,\xi))y_\xi(0,\xi)d\xi\\&+\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}(U_t(t,\xi)y_\xi(t,\xi)+U(t,\xi)y_{t\xi}(t,\xi))\phi(t,y(t,\xi))d\xi dt\\&-2\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}U(t,\xi)U_\xi(t,\xi)\phi(t,y(t,\xi)d\xi dt\\
=&\int_{\mathbb R}U(0,\xi)\phi(0,y(0,\xi))y_\xi(0,\xi)d\xi\\&+\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}(U_t(t,\xi)y_\xi(t,\xi)+U(t,\xi)U_\xi(t,\xi))\phi(t,y(t,\xi))d\xi dt\\&-2\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}U(t,\xi)U_\xi(t,\xi)\phi(t,y(t,\xi)d\xi dt\\
=&\int_{\mathbb R}U(0,\xi)\phi(0,y(0,\xi))y_\xi(0,\xi)d\xi\\
&-\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}(Q_1(t,\xi)y_\xi(t,\xi)+U(t,\xi)U_\xi(t,\xi))\phi(t,y(t,\xi))d\xi dt,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&-\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}(\frac{1}{2}u^2(t,x)+P_1(t,x))\phi_x(t,x)dxdt\\
=&\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}(u(t,y(t,\xi))u_x(y,y(t,\xi))+P_{1,x}(t,y(t,\xi))\phi(t,y(t,\xi))y_\xi(t,\xi)d\xi dt\\
=&\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}(U(t,\xi)U_\xi(t,\xi)+P_{1,\xi}(t,\xi))\phi(t,y(t,\xi))d\xi dt\\
=&\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}(U(t,\xi)U_\xi(t,\xi)+Q_1(t,\xi)y_\xi(t,\xi))\phi(t,y(t,\xi))d\xi dt.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4-thm-1}
&\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}(-u(t,x)\phi_t(t,x)-(\frac{1}{2}u^2(t,x)+P_1(t,x))\phi_x(t,x))dxdt\\
=&\int_{\mathbb R}U(0,\xi)\phi(0,y(0,\xi))y_\xi(0,\xi)d\xi\nonumber\\
=&\int_\mathbb Ru_0(x)\phi(0,x)dx.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Next, we show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4-thm-2}
P_1(t,x)-P_{1,xx}(t,x)=u^2+\frac{1}{2}u_x^2+\frac{1}{2}\gamma^2-\frac{1}{2}\gamma_x^2\end{aligned}$$ holds in the sense of distribution. Indeed, by using (\[2-equality-two-systems\]), (\[2-condition-3\]) and Lemma 2.4, one infers that $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}P_{1,x}(t,x))\phi_x(t,x)dxdt\\
\nonumber=&\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}P_{1,x}(t,y(t,\xi))\phi_x(t,y(t,\xi))y_\xi(t,\xi)d\xi dt\\
\nonumber=&\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}P_{1,\xi}(t,\xi)\phi_x(t,y(t,\xi))d\xi dt\\
\nonumber=&\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}Q_1(t,\xi)y_\xi(t,\xi)\phi_x(t,y(t,\xi))d\xi dt\\
\nonumber =&\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}Q_1(t,\xi)\phi_\xi(t,y(t,\xi))d\xi dt\\
\nonumber=&-\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}Q_{1,\xi}(t,\xi)\phi(t,y(t,\xi))d\xi dt\\
\nonumber=&\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}[\frac{1}{2}U^2y_\xi-R^2y_\xi-P_1(t,\xi)y_\xi+\frac{1}{2}H_\xi]\phi(t,y(t,\xi))d\xi dt\\
\nonumber=&\int_{\{(t,\xi)\in\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R|y_\xi>0\}}\left((u^2+\frac{1}{2}u_x^2+\frac{1}{2}\gamma^2-\frac{1}{2}\gamma_x^2)\circ y(t,\xi)y_\xi(t,\xi)-P_1y_\xi\right)\phi(t,y(t,\xi))d\xi dt\\
\nonumber=&\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}\left((u^2+\frac{1}{2}u_x^2+\frac{1}{2}\gamma^2-\frac{1}{2}\gamma_x^2)\circ y(t,\xi)-P_1(t,\xi)\right)\phi(t,y(t,\xi))y_\xi d\xi dt\\
\nonumber=&\int_{\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R}((u^2+\frac{1}{2}u_x^2+\frac{1}{2}\gamma^2-\frac{1}{2}\gamma_x^2)-P_1(t,x))\phi(t,x)dxdt,\end{aligned}$$ which implies that (\[4-thm-2\]) holds in the sense of distributions. From (\[4-thm-1\]) and (\[4-thm-2\]), one can easily check that $(u,\gamma)$ satisfies system (\[1-M2CH\]) in the sense of distribution on $\mathbb R_+\times\mathbb R.$
On the one hand, by Definition 4.4 and Theorem 2.1, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4-thm-3}
\mu(t)(\mathbb R)=\int_\mathbb RH_\xi(\xi)d\xi=H(t,+\infty)=H(0,+\infty).\end{aligned}$$ Note that Lemma 2.4 implies that there exists $K\subset\mathbb R_+$ with $meas(K^c)=0,$ such that $y_\xi(t,\xi)>0$ for any $t\in K$ and almost every $\xi\in\mathbb R.$ Given $t\in K$ and any Borel set $B,$ thanks to (\[2-condition-3\]) again, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(t)(B)=&\int_{y^{-1}(B)}H_\xi d\xi\\
=&\int_{y^{-1}(B)}(U^2+\Gamma^2+R^2+\frac{U_\xi^2}{y_\xi})y_\xi d\xi\\
=&\int_B(u^2+u_x^2+\gamma^2+\gamma_x^2)(t,x)dx,\end{aligned}$$ which along with (\[4-thm-3\]) yields that $$h(t)=\int_\mathbb R(u^2+u_x^2+\gamma^2+\gamma_x^2)(t,x)dx=h(0)$$ holds for almost all $t\in\mathbb R_+.$ Therefore, we have completed the proof of the theorem.
Lipschitz continuity of the weak solution
=========================================
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
In this section, we consider the Lipschitz continuity and uniqueness of the weak solution. To this end, let us first define the metric $d_\mathbb D:\mathbb D\times\mathbb D\rightarrow\mathbb R_+$ by $$\begin{aligned}
d_\mathbb D((u_1,\gamma_1,\mu_1),(u_2,\gamma_2,\mu_2))=d(L(u_1,\gamma_1,\mu_1),L(u_2,\gamma_2,\mu_2)),\end{aligned}$$ where $d$ and $L$ are defined in (\[3-distance-d\]) and Definition 4.3, respectively.
Moreover, another metric $d_{\mathbb D^M}:\mathbb D^M\times\mathbb D^M\rightarrow\mathbb R_+$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{5-def-2}
d_{\mathbb D^M}((u_1,\gamma_1,\mu_1),(u_2,\gamma_2,\mu_2))=d_M(L(u_1,\gamma_1,\mu_1),L(u_2,\gamma_2,\mu_2)),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb D^{M}=\{(u,\gamma,\mu)\in\mathbb D\mid\mu(\mathbb R)\leq M\}$ for some $M>0,$ and the metric $d_M$ is defined in (\[3-distance-dM\]). Note that if $(u,\rho,\mu)\in\mathbb D^M$, then $L(u,\rho,\mu)\in\mathbb F_0^M.$ Thus the metric in (\[5-def-2\]) is well defined.
The main result of this section is stated as follows:
The semigroup $(T_t,d_\mathbb D)$ is a continuous semigroup on $\mathbb D$ and satisfies the following Lipschitz continuity: for any $M,\, T>0$, there exists some $C=C(M,T)>0$ such that for any $(u_1,\gamma_1,\mu_1),(u_2,\gamma_2,\mu_2)\in\mathbb D^M$ and $t\in[0,T]$, $$d_{\mathbb D^M}(T_t(u_1,\gamma_1,\mu_1),T_t(u_2,\gamma_2,\mu_2))
\leq C d_{\mathbb D^M}((u_1,\gamma_1,\mu_1),(u_2,\gamma_2,\mu_2)).$$
We first prove that $T_t$ is a semigroup. Indeed, since $\bar{S}_t$ is a mapping from $\mathbb F_0$ to $\mathbb F_0$, it follows from (\[4-Id\]) that $$T_t\circ T_{t'}=W\circ\bar{S}_tL\circ W\circ\bar{S}_{t'}\circ L=W\circ\bar{S}_t\circ\bar{S}_{t'}\circ L=W\circ\bar{S}_{t+t'}\circ L=T_{t+t'}.$$ On the other hand, thanks to Theorem 3.1 and (\[4-Id\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&d_{\mathbb D^M}(T_t(u_1,\gamma_1,\mu_1),T_t(u_2,\gamma_2,\mu_2))\\
=&d^M(L(T_t(u_1,\gamma_1,\mu_1)),L(T_t(u_2,\gamma_2,\mu_2)))\\
=&d^M(\bar{S}_t\circ L(u_1,\gamma_1,\mu_1),\bar{S}_t\circ L(u_2,\gamma_2,\mu_2))\\
\leq& C d^M((L(u_1,\gamma_1,\mu_1)),(L(u_2,\gamma_2,\mu_2)))\\
=&C d_{\mathbb D^M}((u_1,\gamma_1,\mu_1),(u_2,\gamma_2,\mu_2)),\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof of the theorem.
Similar to the arguments in [@H-R1], we can readily prove the following lemma.
Let $(u,\gamma)$ be the weak solution to system (\[1-M2CH\]). Then the mapping $$(u,\gamma)\mapsto (u,\gamma,(u^2+u_x^2+\gamma^2+\gamma^2_x)dx)$$ is continuous from $H^1\times H^1$ into $\mathbb D.$
By applying Lemma 5.1 and Theorem 5.1, one can immediately get the following uniqueness result.
For any initial data $z_0=(u_0,\gamma_0)\in H^1\times (H^1\cap W^{1,\infty}),$ the system (\[1-M2CH\]) has a unique global conservative weak solution $z=(u,\gamma)\in H^1\times H^1$ with the following form $$(u,\gamma,(u^2+u_x^2+\rho^2)dx)=T_t(z_0),$$ where the mapping $T_t$ is defined by (\[4-Tt\]).
**Acknowledgments** The authors thank the referees for their valuable comments and suggestions. Guan was partially supported by NSFY (No.11201494). Yan was partially supported by NNSFC (No.11501226). Wei was partially supported by CNNSF (No.11101095) and the High-Level Talents Project of Guangdong Province (No.2014011).
[99]{}
Bressan, A. and Constantin, A., Global conservative solutions of the Camassa-Holm equation, [*Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.*]{}, [**183**]{} (2007), 215–239.
Bressan, A. and Constantin, A., Global dissipative solutions of the Camassa-Holm equation, [*Anal. Appl. (Singap.)*]{}, [**5**]{} (2007), 1–27.
Camassa, R. and Holm, D., An integrable shallow water equation with peaked solitons, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.,*]{} [**71**]{} (1993), 1661–1664.
Camassa, R., Holm, D. and Hyman, J., A new integrable shallow water equation, [*Adv. Appl. Mech.,*]{} [**31**]{} (1994), 1–33.
Constantin, A., Global existence of solutions and breaking waves for a shallow water equation: a geometric approach, [*Ann. Inst. Four. (Grenoble),*]{} [**50**]{} (2000), 321–362.
Constantin, A., The trajectories of particles in Stokes waves, [*Invent. Math.,*]{} [**166**]{} (2006), 523–535.
Constantin, A. and Escher, J., Global existence and blow-up for a shallow water equation, [*Annali Sc. Norm. Sup. Pisa.,*]{} [**26**]{} (1998), 303–328.
Constantin, A. and Escher, J., Wave breaking for nonlinear nonlocal shallow water equations, [*Acta Math.,*]{} [**181**]{} (1998), 229–243.
Constantin, A. and Escher, J., Well-posedness, global existence, and blowup phenomena for a periodic quasi-linear hyperbolic equation, [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.,*]{} [**51**]{} (1998), 475–504.
Constantin, A. and Escher, J., Particles trajectories in solitary water waves, [*Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.,*]{} [**44**]{} (2007), 423–431.
Constantin, A. and Escher, J., Analyticity of periodic traveling free surface water waves with vorticity, [*Ann. of Math. (2),*]{} [**173**]{} (2011), 559–568.
Constantin, A. and Strauss, W. A., Stability of peakons, [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.,*]{} [**53**]{} (2000), 603–610.
Constantin, A. and Strauss, W. A., Stability of the Camassa-Holm solitons, [*J. Nonlinear Sci.,*]{} [**12**]{} (2002), 415–422.
Dai, H. H., Model equations for nonlinear dispersive waves in a compressible Mooney-Rivlin rod, [*Acta Mech.*]{} [**127**]{} (1998), 193–207.
Escher, J. and Yin, Z., Initial boundary value problems for nonlinear dispersive wave equations, [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{}, [**256**]{} (2009), 479–508.
Grunert, K., Holden H. and Raynaud X. , Lipschitz metric for the Camassa-Holm equation on the line, [*Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst.*]{}, [**33**]{} (2013), 2809–2827.
Guan, C., Karlsen, K.H. and Yin, Z., Well-posedness and blow-up phenomena for a modified two-component Camassa-Holm equation, [*Contemp. Math.*]{}, [**526**]{} (2010), 199–220.
Guan, C. and Yin, Z., Global weak solutions for a modified two-component Camassa-Holm equation, [*Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (C) Non Linear Analysis*]{}, [**28**]{} (2011), 623–641.
Guan, C. and Yin, Z., On the global weak solutions for a modified two-component Camassa-Holm equation, [*Mach. Nachr.* ]{}, [**13**]{} (2013), 1287–1304.
Holden, H. and Raynaud, X., Global conservative solutions of the Camassa-Holm equation - A Lagrangian point of view, [*Comm. Partial Differential Equations*]{}, [**32**]{} (2007), 1511-1549.
Holm, D. D., Naraigh, L. and Tronci, C., Singular solution of a modified two-component Camassa-Holm equation, [*Phys. Rev. E(3)*]{}, [**79**]{} (2009), 1-13.
Tan, W. and Yin, Z., Global conservative solutions of a modified two-component Camassa-Holm system, [*J. Differential Equations*]{}, [**251**]{} (2011), 3558–3582.
Whitham, G. B., Linear and Nonlinear Waves, [*J. Wiley & Sons, New York,*]{} 1980.
Xin, Z. and Zhang, P., On the weak solutions to a shallow water equation, [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.,*]{} [**53**]{} (2000), 1411–1433.
Yan, K. and Yin, Z., Analytic solutions of the Cauchy problem for two-component shallow water systems, [*Math. Z.,*]{} [**269**]{} (2011), 1113–1127.
Yan, K. and Yin, Z., Initial boundary value problems for the two-component shallow water systems, [*Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana,*]{} [**29**]{} (2013), 911–938.
Yan, K. and Yin, Z., Well-posedness for a modified two-component Camassa-Holm system in critical spaces, [*Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst.,*]{} [**33**]{} (2013), 1699–1712.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected], corresponding author
[^3]: E-mail: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
date: |
Uddipan Banik, Dipanjan Dey, Kaushik Bhattacharya,\
Tapobrata Sarkar [^1] 0.4cm [*Department of Physics,\
Indian Institute of Technology,\
Kanpur 208016,\
India*]{}
title: 'Self-gravitating fluid systems and galactic dark matter'
---
Introduction and motivation
===========================
Understanding the nature of galactic dark matter has been at the focus of research over the last several decades, and possibly pose one of the biggest challenges for the future. Several empirical proposals have been put forward regarding its properties, largely based on experimental data on galactic rotation curves, gravitational lensing, etc. which have been tested with varying degrees of success. In this context, it is natural to ask if Einstein’s General theory of Relativity (GR) [@Weinberg], [@Wald] should play a role in such an understanding, and over the years a substantial amount of literature has been devoted to the study of possible relativistic effects of dark matter.
If GR studies of galactic dark matter are to be taken seriously, then one should be able to obtain possible dark matter candidate (non-vacuum) space-times via a gravitational collapse process. The question then is, what should be the nature of the metric of such space-times. In the GR literature, this has been addressed previously, see e.g [@Roberts]. A popular method in the GR literature is to assume a flat rotation curve, and derive the metric by setting the circular velocity (obtained via GR) to be a constant (see also [@Sayan]). As we will mention in sequel, the inherent problem in defining a circular velocity in GR is that it is observer dependent, and in principle one has to think of a series of stationary Lorentzian observers at the location of the celestial objects.
In [@BST1],[@BST2], (see also [@BST3]) we had taken a slightly different approach to the problem. Using the empirical fact that (at least away from the galactic centre) celestial bodies often follow circular trajectories, we had proposed that galactic space-times should have the property that these support closed stable trajectories at all radial distances. This was indeed a phenomenological model. Such space-times are however known in the literature, and were discovered by Perlick [@Perlick], who called them Bertrand space-times (BSTs), as these are analogues of space-time that satisfy Bertrand’s famous theorem of classical mechanics. Using a phenomenological definition of the circular velocity in lines with [@Roberts], we were able to show that such models gave excellent fits to experimental data on galactic rotation curves for low surface brightness galaxies, and gravitational lensing. In addition, in an appropriate non-relativistic limit, it was shown that the energy density of BSTs match with the Navarro-Frenk-White [@NFW] or the Hernquist [@Hernquist] density profiles that are popular in the dark matter literature.
A salient feature of BSTs is that they have a central singularity that is naked, i.e not covered by an event horizon. In this context, we recall that in the absence of a concrete proof of the cosmic censorship conjecture, such a singularity cannot be a-priori ruled out. It is also possible that the nature of such singularities might be modified due to possible quantum effects close to the centre. We also recall that both the NFW and the Hernquist profiles (for that matter most known profiles of galactic dark matter halos) have singular behaviour near the centre, which is avoided by a cut-off introduced by hand.
The purpose of the present work is to build on our previous work of [@BST1],[@BST2], [@BST3]. In particular, we address the following issues that we believe are of significant interest in the study of galactic dark matter halos :
- What are possible space-times that are formed out of gravitational collapse with a central naked singularity, that supports stable circular orbits at all radii. In particular, these space-times should have pressure anisotropy, and to relate to realistic galactic systems, we demand that these should be matched to an external Schwarzschild solution.
- For such (non-vacuum) space-times, what is the nature (i.e equations of state) of the anisotropic fluid(s) that source them.
- What are the Newtonian (i.e non-relativistic) limits of such fluids.
- Can such Newtonian limits be compared with purely Newtonian fluids that satisfy Navier-Stokes, Poisson and continuity equations.
Let us motivate these issues. As mentioned, at least away from the galactic centre, celestial objects move in roughly circular trajectories. It is therefore a reasonable assumption that space-times seeded by galactic dark matter should support stable circular orbits at all radii. Whether these are closed or not under perturbation is a more involved question to answer, and has been addressed in [@Perlick]. As we will see later, our analysis uncovers a class of possible space-times, out of which BSTs are a special case. In a GR setup, one would expect that such space-times should be the end stage of a gravitational collapse process. Once such space-times are identified, one would ideally like to know the nature of the fluid matter that sources them. In this context, the second point above finds significance. Finally, in order to connect to experimental data, one has to understand the Newtonian limits of such models, and also compare these with purely Newtonian fluids, which are motivations for the last two points listed above.
In the first part of this paper (section 2.1), we set up the basic framework of gravitational collapse to a naked singularity in the context of GR. This is done by generalising the recent work of [@JMN1],[@JMN2] to include anisotropy in the component fluid pressures. Section 2.2 deals with specific examples of space-times (with a central naked singularity) that admit stable circular orbits at all radii. In section 3, we model a class of these space-times by anisotropic fluids. Section 4 is devoted to the study of the non-relativistic limits of these fluid models. Finally, in section 5, we phenomenologically consider purely Newtonian two-fluid models to reconcile with the results of sections 3 and 4.
Our main findings in this paper are the following. Firstly, we find that the Joshi-Malafarina-Narayan (JMN) space-time [@JMN1] and the BST are special cases of a generic class of space-times that can be formed due to gravitational collapse, which have a conical defect, and which support stable circular orbits at all radii. Secondly, we show that both these anisotropic space-times can be solved using a two-fluid relativistic model, and for the BST, it is seen that one of the component fluids is necessarily exotic, i.e has negative pressure akin to dark energy. Thirdly, we find that this latter feature is possibly due to the nature of the fall-off of the mass density at asymptotic infinity, in a Newtonian limit. This last feature is seen to be similar to purely Newtonian composite fluids with some simple forms of the velocity of the component fluids, with a few differences.
To make contact with existing literature, we note here that over the last few decades, several models of dark matter have been proposed, an important one being the hypothesis that dark matter is a relativistic fluid with pressure, with a definite equation of state. In one of the first works in this direction, the authors of [@Sayan] considered a scenario in which galaxy halos were modelled as dark matter with anisotropic pressure and used gravitational lensing data to determine the dark matter equation of state. In [@Serra], a similar hypothesis was tested by observations from some galaxy clusters like the Coma cluster and CL0024 and the authors attempted to obtain bounds on the dark matter equation of state parameter, defined as the ratio of the sum of the pressures to the mass density. Polytropic equations of states in such situations have also been commonly studied in the literature, see e.g [@Saxton].
Throughout this paper, we work in units where we set the speed of light and the Newton’s constant to be unity. We will begin our analysis by addressing the issue of gravitational collapse in GR with anisotropy.
General Relativistic collapse with anisotropy
=============================================
Gravitational collapse of spherically symmetric, pressure-less matter (i.e dust) was studied by Oppenheimer and Snyder in the framework of general relativity in [@OS]. Ever since, the subject continued to receive a lot of attention. In [@MS], Misner and Sharp studied the problem analytically in a more general situation, with a non-vanishing pressure gradient. These equations were numerically solved by May and White [@MW]. More recently, Joshi et. al [@JMN1], [@JMN2] have approached the problem from a slightly different perspective and have shown that the end state of collapse of matter that admit pressure gradients might be black holes, or naked singularities. As mentioned, in the absence of a concrete proof of the cosmic censorship conjecture that might render such singularities as unphysical, naked singularities remain an important arena of investigation of aspects of general relativity, although there are debates in the literature about whether such singularities arise due to specific symmetries of models which might be violated in more realistic situations. It is also worth mentioning that these singularities are classical, in the sense that quantum corrections might modify their nature, although it is difficult to speculate on the exact nature of such corrections.
Anisotropic collapse to a naked singularity : basics
----------------------------------------------------
We consider naked singularities, that are spherically symmetric space times containing a central singularity which does not have an event horizon. Our purpose in this section would be to review and analyze some aspects of gravitational collapse that lead to naked singularities. In particular, we extend the analysis of [@JMN1] to include situations where the underlying fluid is [*anisotropic*]{}. This allows us to make general comments regarding the nature of the radial and tangential pressures in the same, which will be useful for us in the next section.
We will start with a spherically symmetric metric describing gravitational collapse that can be written in diagonal form as $ds^2 = -e^{2\nu}dt^2 + e^{2\lambda}dr^2 + R^2d\Omega^2$, where $\nu$, $\lambda$ and $R$ are functions of the (co-moving) radial coordinate $r$ and time $t$, with $d\Omega^2$ being the standard metric on the unit two-sphere. It is more convenient to write the metric as $$ds^2 = -e^{2\nu}dt^2+\frac{R^{\prime 2}}{G}dr^2 + R^2 d\Omega^2~,
\label{metric}$$ where $G=G(r,t)$. Einstein’s equations then implies that the energy density, radial pressure are respectively $$\rho = \frac{F^{\prime}}{R^2R^\prime}~~,~~ P_{r}= -\frac{\dot{F}}{R^{2}\dot{R}}~
\label{EE1}$$ where a dot represents a time derivative and the prime represents a derivative with respect to the radial variable $r$, and $$\begin{aligned}
F=R\left(1-G+e^{-2\nu}\dot{R}^2\right)~,
\label{EE2_f}\end{aligned}$$ which specifies the amount of matter enclosed by a shell located at $r$, and is called the Misner-Sharp mass. We will be interested in the case of asymmetric fluids, in which case the expression for the tangential pressure can be obtained from the expression for the conservation of the stress tensor. From the Einstein equations we also obtain $$\dot{G} = 2\frac{\nu^{\prime}}{R^{\prime}}\dot{R}G~.
\label{EE2}$$ We thus have a total of $7$ variables and $5$ equations, and hence have the freedom to specify any two functions.
From eq.(\[EE2\_f\]), one can define an effective potential ($V_{eff}$): $$V_{eff}= -\dot{R}^2=-e^{2 \nu(r,R)}\left(\frac{F(r,R)}{R}+G(r,R)-1\right)~,$$ so that, in order to achieve an equilibrium condition, we need $\dot{R}=0$, $\ddot{R}=0$. Note that when $\dot{R}=0, \ddot{R}>0$ we have a bouncing condition, and $\dot{R}=0, \ddot{R}<0$ describes a collapse. Let us first consider the case of collapsing dust, for which $P_{r}=P_{\theta}=P_{\phi}=0$. Then we get from eqs.(\[EE1\]), eq.(\[EE2\_f\]) and (\[EE2\]), $\dot{F}=0, \nu^{\prime}=0$, $\dot{G}=0$. So $G$ and $F$ become time-independent, i.e $R$ independent, from our previous discussion. Hence, we now have $\dot{R}^2=\left(\frac{F(r)}{R}+G(r)-1\right)$ for pressure less dust. So, for this case, after collapse starts ($\dot{R}<0$), $\dot{R}$ will always be negative as it is independent of time (since $\ddot{R} = -F(r)/(2\dot{R}^2)$). Hence for the dust like solution we always obtain a black-hole as a final state of collapsing metric.
Hence, we need presence of finite pressure in the fluid to balance the gravitational pull, and if the system can equilibriate ($\ddot{R}=0$), we will have $\dot{R}=\ddot{R}=0$, which translates to $V_{eff}=V_{eff,R}=0$. The derivative of the effective potential with respect to $R$ is given by $$V_{eff,R}=-2\nu_{,R}e^{2\nu}\left(\frac{F}{R}+G-1\right)+e^{2\nu}\left(\frac{F}{R^2}-\frac{F_{,R}}{R}-G_{,R}\right)\,.
\label{equil}$$ Here $X_{,R}$ specifies a derivative of the quantity $X(r,R)$ with respect to the variable $R$. We will focus on the case where equilibrium is achieved in infinite time, i.e $$\begin{aligned}
&~& R(r,t)\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow\infty}R_{e}(r),~ F(r,R)\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow\infty}F_{e}(r)\equiv F(r,R_{e}(r))\nonumber\\
&~& \nu(r,R)\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow\infty}\nu_{e}(r)\equiv \nu(r,R_{e}(r)),~G(r,R)\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow\infty}G_{e}(r)\equiv G(r,R_{e}(r))\end{aligned}$$ At equilibrium as $V_{eff}(r,R_{e})=0$ and $V_{eff,R}(r,R_{e})=0$ we get , $$G_{e}(r)=1-\frac{F_{e}}{R_{e}},~(G_{,R})_{e}=\frac{F_{e}}{R_{e}^2}-\frac{(F_{,R})_{e}}{R_{e}}$$ To simplify the notation, let us denote $R_{e}(r)=q$, so $F_{e}(r)=F(q), \nu_{e}(r)=\phi(q), G_{e}(r)=1-\frac{F}{q}$ in equilibrium.
From the second of eq.(\[EE1\]), we can write $P_{r}$ as (remembering that ${\dot F}=F_{,R}{\dot R}$ and using eq.(\[equil\])) $$P_{r}=\frac{2\phi_{,q}}{\rho}G(q)-\frac{F(q)}{q^{3}}=\frac{2\phi_{,q}}{q}\left(1-\frac{F(q)}{q}\right)-\frac{F(q)}{q^{3}}~.
\label{pr}$$ In the above equation $\phi_{,q}$ represents a derivative of $\phi$ with respect to $q$. For anisotropic fluids, the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation can be written as [@Bowers] : $$P_{r,q}=-(\rho+P_{r})\phi_{,q}+\frac{2}{q}(P_{\theta}-P_{r})~,
\label{tov}$$ hence eqs.(\[pr\]) and (\[tov\]) can be used to compute $P_{\theta}$.
It can then be verified easily that the collapsing metric of eq.(\[metric\]) will tend to the following after a long time ($d\Omega^2 =
q^2(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta d\phi^2)$): $$ds^2 = -e^{2\phi(q)}dt^2+\frac{dq^2}{G(q)}+q^2d\Omega^2~,
\label{finalmetric}$$ where it has to be remembered that $q\leq q_{b}\equiv R_{e}(r_{b})$, with $r_{b}$ being the matching radius with an external Schwarzschild metric. The radial and tangential pressures obtained from eq.(\[finalmetric\]) can be shown to match with the ones obtained via the collapse scenario, via equations (\[pr\]) and (\[tov\]).
In order to obtain physically sensible space times, we will now need to match the metric of eq.(\[finalmetric\]) with an external Schwarzschild solution. During collapse, before the fluid equilibrates itself, if the matching radius($r_{b}$) becomes lesser than Schwarzschild radius($r_{s}$) then the final result will be a black-hole. When $r_{b}$ is always greater than $r_{s}$ after a long time, then the system tends to equilibrate itself without black hole formation. This is the case we will be interested in here. At the end of the collapse process, there can be a singularity at the centre, which is essentially a very high energy density region. Whether it is naked or covered by event horizon depends on whether $r_{b}$ is greater or lesser than $r_{s}$ respectively. Clearly, to match the metric of eq.(\[finalmetric\]) to a Schwarzschild solution (of mass $M$), we require $$1-\frac{2M}{q_{b}}=G(q_{b})=1-\frac{F(q_{b})}{q_{b}}~.$$ Having elucidated the basic setup of gravitational collapse to a naked singularity, we will now require to specify the forms of $F(q)$ and $\phi(q)$ for concrete examples of such spacetimes. This is what we will study in the next subsection.
Anisotropic collapse to naked singularities : examples
------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we will study examples of a class of spacetimes that have naked singularities at the centre, and can arise out of a collapse process described in subsection (2.1). In order to connect to possible galactic spacetimes, we make some simplifying assumptions.
We will focus on the case $\frac{F(q)}{q}={\rm constant}\equiv(1-\beta^2)$ for $q\leq q_{b}$. These are space-times with a conical defect and constitute the simplest model for the end stage of gravitational collapse. In this case, at the junction we have $F(q_{b})=2M=(1-\beta^2)q_{b}$. To maintain the signature of the Schwarzschild solution, we require $\frac{2M}{q_{b}}<1 $. Hence, we obtain $0<\beta^2<1$ with $G(q)=\beta^2$ specifying the conical defect.
In order to specify the form of the function $\phi(q)$, we will demand that each point admits a stable circular orbit. The motivation for this is that we would finally like to focus on space-times that can be bonafide candidates for galactic dark matter, and for such space-times, this assumption is reasonable. Whether these orbits are closed under small perturbations is a more complicated issue. Such space-times have been studied in the literature by Perlick [@Perlick] and are called Bertrand space-times (BSTs), since these are general relativistic generalisations of Bertrand’s theorem of classical mechanics. In [@Perlick], it was shown that a static, spherically symmetric space-time is a BST if there exists a circular trajectory through each point, and if an initial condition that is sufficiently close to the circular orbit gives a periodic orbit. We will mainly focus on the first condition, i.e demand that there exist stable circular trajectories at each point in our space-time.
The two conditions above, along with the weak energy condition and the fact that our solution will be matched to an external Schwarzschild one will be used to put some constraints on the form of $\phi(q)$, as we now show.
Without loss of generality, we choose to work on the equatorial plane ($\theta = \pi/2$), then for a metric with a general form $ds^2 = g_{tt}(q)dt^2 + g_{qq}(q)dr^2 + q^2d\Omega^2$, it can be shown that the timelike equatorial geodesics satisfy $${\dot q}^2 + V(q) = 0,~~~V(q) = \frac{1}{g_{qq}(q)}\left[\frac{E^2}{g_{tt}(q)} + \frac{L^2}{q^2} + 1\right],
\label{genmotion}$$ where $E$ and $L$ are the conserved energy and angular momentum respectively, per unit mass, that arise due to the fact that $\partial_t$ and $\partial_{\phi}$ are Killing vectors, so that $E=g_{tt}{\dot t}$ and $L=g_{\phi\phi}{\dot \phi}$ are conserved quantities. For circular trajectories that are stable, we should impose $V(q) = V'(q) = 0$. These equations can then be used to determine $E$ and $L$, which can be used to verify the positivity of $V''(q)$, needed for stability of the circular orbit. From the discussion of the previous section, it should be clear that this is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the space-time to be a BST. Specialising to the case where $g_{tt} = -e^{2\phi(q)}$, $g_{qq} = 1/\beta^2$, we find that the conserved energy and angular momentum for circular orbits can be determined as $$E^2 = \frac{e^{2\phi(q)}}{1-q\phi'(q)}~~,~~L^2 = \frac{q^3 \phi'(q)}{1-q\phi'(q)}$$ Positivity of these quantities demand that $$0<q\phi'(q)<1
\label{encon}$$ for all values of $q$, which is the same result derived in [@Perlick] in a slightly different way. Further, in order to satisfy $V''(q) >0 $, we require at all points, $$\frac{2 \beta ^2 \left(-r \phi ''(q)+2 r \phi '(q)^2-3 \phi '(q)\right)}{q \left(q \phi '(q)-1\right)} > 0$$ As mentioned earlier, this has to be complemented by the validity of the weak energy conditions, and the fact that our solution should be matched to an external Schwarzschild spacetime. This latter fact means that the radial pressure should be zero for some real value of the radial coordinate.
Simultaneous analysis of the conditions mentioned above with a general form for $\phi(q)$ is rather cumbersome and not particularly illuminating. To glean meaningful insight, we will consider some simple logarithmic forms of $\phi(q)$. We first consider $e^{2\phi (q)}=\frac{1}{Aq^m+Bq^n}$. Here, we assume that $A$ and $B$ are non-negative constants since this function should be positive for all values of $q$. At the boundary ($q=q_b$), where the metric is matched to a Schwarzschild space-time, we have $e^{2\phi(q_{b})}=\frac{1}{Aq_{b}^m+Bq_{b}^n}=\beta^2$. We can calculate the $P_{r}$ in this case, and it turns out to be $$P_{r}=-\frac{1}{q^2}\left[\frac{A\lbrace(m-1)\beta^2+1\rbrace q^{m-1}+B\lbrace(n-1)\beta^2+1\rbrace q^{n-1}}{Aq^{m-1}+Bq^{n-1}}\right]~.
\label{genpr}$$ If $P_{r}=0$ always, then eq.(\[genpr\]) is seen to reduce to $m=n=\left(1-\frac{1}{\beta^2}\right)=\frac{\beta^2-1}{\beta^2}$. The constant $A$ can then be evaluated from the matching condition at the boundary, and finally the space-time metric can be written as : $$ds^2=-\beta^2\left(\frac{q}{q_{b}}\right)^{\frac{1-\beta^2}{\beta^2}}dt^2+\frac{dq^2}{\beta^2}+q^2d\Omega^2~,
\label{jmnst}$$ which is the JMN space-time [@JMN1], that has a naked singularity at the center and the radial pressure is zero. Note that $\rho \sim 1/q^2$ and diverges at the origin.
In this case, the weak energy conditions are always satisfied, and since the radial pressure is zero, the space time can be matched with an external Schwarzschild solution for all values of the radial coordinate. However, we note that the condition for existence of stable circular orbits at all points given in eq.(\[encon\]) translates (with $0<\beta<1$) into $\beta > 1/\sqrt{3}$, which is a stronger constraint than $\beta > 1/\sqrt{5}$ derived in [@JMN1].
Alternatively, let us take $m=0$ and $n= -1$ then the space-time metric is $$ds^2=-\frac{1}{A+\frac{B}{q}} dt^2+\frac{dq^2}{\beta^2}+q^2d\Omega^2~,$$ This is an example of a Bertrand spacetime studied by Perlick in [@Perlick] and as mentioned before, one can show that here the circular orbits are closed under small perturbations. In [@BST1], [@BST2], it has been shown that BSTs, thought of as galacic metrics give rise to excellent fits to data on galactic rotation curves for low surface brightness galaxies. For this spacetime, we get the radial pressure as $$P_{q}=\frac{\beta^2(2B+Aq)-(Aq+B)}{q^2(Aq+B)}~.$$ The above space-time can be written as: $$ds^2=-\frac{2\beta^2}{1+\frac{q_{b}}{q}}dt^2+\frac{dq^2}{\beta^2}+q^2d\Omega^2~,
\label{BST}$$ where the space-time has been matched with Schwarzschild space-time at $q=q_{b}$. For the metric defined by eq.(\[BST\]), $\rho \sim 1/q^2$ and this is again indicative of a naked singularity at the center.
In this case, we find that the weak energy condition is always satisfied, and so is the condition for the existence of stable circular orbits at all points. However, the condition that the radial pressure is zero at a finite positive value of the radial coordinate shows that $\beta > 1/\sqrt{2}$.
It should be noted that although both the metrics of eq.(\[jmnst\]) and eq.(\[BST\]) have closed circular orbits at all points, only that of eq.(\[BST\]) falls under the category of BSTs, i.e the circular orbits are [*closed*]{} under small perturbations. This can be checked by comparison with the generic BST metrics derived in [@Perlick].[^2] Importantly, our analysis shows that it is possible to obtain space times, where closed, stable orbits can exist at all values of the radial coordinates, via a collapse process. This is the main result of this subsection.
We should also point out that apart from the cases considered here, there are several other possible metrics that satisfy the criteria specified above. In particular, we could have various forms of $e^{2\phi(q)}$ of eq.(\[finalmetric\]) other than the ones considered here. In particular, one could also have general forms such as $e^{2\phi(q)} = \sum_i A_i q^{p_i}$ of $1/ \sum_i A_i q^{p_i}$ where $A_i$ are arbitrary coefficients. Considering equation (\[encon\]) in the large and small $q$ limits, it can be checked that one should have $|p_i| \leq 2$. Here, we have simply discussed the simplest possibilities, and the physical relevance or motivation for more general solutions are not clear to us, and will not be discussed further.
As mentioned in the introduction, our purpose now would be to understand the nature of fluids that source the space-times discussed in this subsection. This is the analysis that we currently undertake.
Relativistic two-component fluid models for naked singularities
===============================================================
In the discussion of the previous subsection, we have considered collapse scenarios that incorporate anisotropy, i.e the radial and tangential pressures are unequal. If we think of the possible nature of fluids that source such space times, these will thus be anisotropic. Importantly, as we have extensively mentioned, our aim is to model galactic dark matter arising out of a collapse process. Hence the analysis below pertains to two-fluid models of anisotropic galactic dark matter.
In general relativity, one can model an anisotropic fluid, for which the principle pressure components are not identical, as a composition of two perfect fluids. The formalism for this analysis has been developed in [@Letelier], [@Bayin] and we will closely follow the notations used in these works. To match with standard notation, we will also call the radial coordinate as $r$ (which is the same as $q$ in the previous subsection).
For a generic space-time with metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$, the total energy-momentum tensor of the two non-interacting perfect fluids can be written as $$T_{\mu\nu}=(\rho_1+P_1)u_{\mu}u_{\nu}+g_{\mu\nu}P_1+(\rho_2+P_2)v_{\mu}v_{\nu}+
g_{\mu\nu}P_2$$ where $u_{\mu},v_{\mu}$ are the 4-velocities of the two component fluids such that $u_{\mu}u^{\mu}=v_{\mu}v^{\mu}=-1$. Here, $\rho_1,P_1$ and $\rho_2,P_2$ are their densities and pressures of the two fluids, respectively.
Now, after a linear transformation in the 4-velocity space, it can be shown that the energy-momentum tensor can be can be expressed as [@Letelier] $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\mu \nu} = (\rho + p_\perp)w_\mu w_\nu + p_\perp g_{\mu \nu} +
(p_r - p_\perp) y_\mu y_\nu\,,
\label{2frmt1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$w^\mu w_\mu =-1\,,\,\,\,y^\mu y_\mu=1\,,\,\,\,w^\mu y_\mu =0\,,$$ where $w_\mu$ is the 4-velocity of the effective two-fluid system and $y_\mu$ denotes a spacelike vector along the anisotropy direction. The energy density $\rho$ and pressure $p$ appearing in eq.(\[2frmt1\]) can be shown to be given, in terms of $\rho_1,P_1$ and $\rho_2,P_2$ as [@Letelier],[@Bayin] $$\begin{aligned}
\rho &=& -\frac12(\rho_1 - P_1 + \rho_2 - P_2) + \frac12 \left[
(P_1 + \rho_1 + P_2 + \rho_2)^2\right.\nonumber\\
&+&\left. 4(P_1 + \rho_1)(P_2 + \rho_2)
\left\{(u_\mu v^\mu)^2 -1\right\}\right]^{1/2}\,,
\label{rhot}\\
P_r &=&\frac12(\rho_1 - P_1 + \rho_2 - P_2) + \frac12 \left[
(P_1 + \rho_1 - P_2 - \rho_2)^2\right.\nonumber\\
&+&\left. 4(u_\mu v^\mu)^2(P_1 + \rho_1)(P_2 + \rho_2)\right]^{1/2}\,,
\label{prt}\\
p_\perp &=& P_1 + P_2\,.
\label{pperpt}\end{aligned}$$ Now we require to make a specific choice of coordinates, and for spherically symmetric anisotropic fluids, we choose $$\begin{aligned}
y^0=y^2=y^3=0;~~~~~w^1=w^2=w^3=0\end{aligned}$$ such that $y^1y_1= 1$ and $w^0w_0=-1$. Then one can write the energy momentum tensor of eq.(\[2frmt1\]) as $$T^0_0 = -\rho,~~~T^1_1 = p_r,~~~T^2_2 = T^3_3 = p_{\perp}$$ One can then use the Einstein’s equation, and denoting the Einstein tensor by $G_{\nu}^{\mu}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
-G_0^0 = \rho,~~~ G_1^1 = p_r, ~~~ G_2^2 = p_1 + p_2
\label{main2fluid}\end{aligned}$$ where $G_0^0$, $G_1^1$ and $G_2^2$ can be obtained from the metric of eq.(\[finalmetric\]), respectively, and $\rho$, $p_r$ and $p_{\perp}$ are given by eqs.(\[rhot\]), (\[prt\]) and (\[pperpt\]) respectively. Denoting $u_\mu v^\mu =
K$, it is then seen that we have three equations for five unknowns, i.e $$\rho_1(r)\,,\,\rho_2(r)\,,\,P_1(r)\,,\,P_2(r)\,,\,K(r)$$ defining the two-fluid system These will yield a solution if we fix barotropic equations of state for the component fluids, and we assume $$\begin{aligned}
P_1 = K_1 \rho_1\,,\,\,\,\,\,P_2=K_2 \rho_2
\label{eos2}\end{aligned}$$ where $K_1$ and $K_2$ are real constants. Here, we will restrict the values of the constants to be $$\begin{aligned}
-1 < K_1\,,\,K_2 < 1
\label{gamval}\end{aligned}$$ This can be interpreted as a restriction on the nature of the component fluids. The lower limit of the $K$’s specify that we are neglecting phantom fields from the matter part and the upper limit indicates that the equations of state does not become too steep.
Now we can use eq.(\[eos2\]) and eqs.(\[rhot\]) - (\[pperpt\]), and after some algebra, we get the following expressions (these can be easily checked by explicit substitution from eq.(\[main2fluid\]), and eqs.(\[rhot\]) - (\[pperpt\])). $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_1(r) &=& \frac{K_2\left(G_2^2 - G_1^1 - G_0^0\right)-G_2^2}
{(K_2 - K_1)}\,,
\label{r1f}\\
\rho_2(r) &=& \frac{K_1(G_0^0+G_1^1-G_2^2) + G_2^2}{
(K_2 -K_1)}\,,
\label{r2f}\\
u_{\mu}v^{\mu} \equiv K &=&
-\left[\frac{\left[G_1^1 + (\rho_1 - K_2\rho_2)\right]
\left[G_1^1 + (\rho_2 - K_1\rho_1)\right]}
{ \rho_1 \rho_2 (1+K_1)(1+K_2)}\right]^{1/2}
\label{umuvmu}\end{aligned}$$ The negative sign in the last equation is due to the fact that $u$ and $v$ are time-like vectors.
We now apply this formalism to the JMN space-time of eq.(\[jmnst\]). In that case, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_1 &=& \frac{\left(\beta ^2-1\right) \left(\beta ^2 \left(3
K_2+1\right)+K_2-1\right)}{4 \beta ^2 \left(K_1-K_2\right) r^2} \nonumber\\
\rho_2 &=& -\frac{\left(\beta ^2-1\right) \left(\beta ^2 \left(3
K_1+1\right)+K_1-1\right)}{4 \beta ^2 \left(K_1-K_2\right) r^2}
\label{K1K2JMN}\end{aligned}$$ The expression for $K$ is somewhat lengthy and we omit it here. From eq.(\[K1K2JMN\]), it can be seen that only in the limit $\beta \to 1$, positivity of the energy densities require that $K_1$ and $K_2$ be of opposite signs, i.e $K_1K_2 <0$ (negativity of $K$ also yields the same result in this limit). However, this limit is problematic, as from eq.(\[jmnst\]) it can be seen that the space-time then reduces to flat space, with all the component of the energy-momentum tensor vanishing, i.e no fluid description is possible. This limit therefore has to be ruled out. Since no such statement can be made for other values of $\beta$ (remembering that $\beta > 1/\sqrt{3}$, following our discussion in the previous subsection), we can conclude that for JMN space-times, $K_1$ and $K_2$ can be of same (or opposite) signs.
Next, let us consider the metric of eq.(\[BST\]). This case has been studied in [@BST1] and we will be brief here. We simply record the expression for the ratio of the energy density of the component fluids, given by[^3] $$\frac{\rho_1}{\rho_2} = \frac{\beta ^2 \left(K_2 \left(8 r^2+22 r+11\right)-2 r+1\right)-8 K_2
(r+1)^2}{8 K_1 (r+1)^2-\beta ^2 \left(K_1 \left(8 r^2+22 r+11\right)-2
r+1\right)}$$ For large $r$, it is seen that $\rho_1/\rho_2 \to -K_2/K_1$ and we see that the condition of positivity of the energy densities necessarily require $K_1K_2 < 0$ here, irrespective of the value of $\beta$.
Non-relativistic limit of relativistic two-component fluids
===========================================================
We will now set up an analysis of the non-relativistic limit of the two-component dark matter fluids discussed in the previous subsection. In order to do this, we will need an expression for the non-relativistic limit of the density profiles for the metrics discussed above. This can be done if we compute the circular velocity arising out of these metrics and then interpret them as arising out of a mass distribution in the Newtonian limit. In GR, this circular velocity is a frame dependent quantity, and can be defined only in a locally flat (tetrad) basis. In such a basis, one has to project the four momentum of the particle onto the tetrad frame time axis, and then equate this to the Lorentzian expression for the energy [@Hartle]. This will necessitate that the locally flat observer is at the same radial distance as the body undergoing geodesic motion. Such a definition has been used in the GR literature, but it is difficult to reconcile this with results from galactic rotation curves, which are usually obtained as a function of a radial distance, since from the GR point of view this would require a series of Lorentzian observers at different radii.
On the other hand, in [@BST1], we had proposed a purely phenomenological definition of the circular velocity that can be computed via GR as $$v_{circ} = r\frac{d\phi}{dt} \equiv r\frac{L}{E}\frac{g_{tt}}{g_{\phi\phi}}
\label{vcirc}$$ with the second identity following from the definition of $E$ and $L$ given earlier (see discussion following eq.(\[genmotion\])). This definition of the circular velocity was used in [@Roberts]. In [@BST1], this definition of $v_{circ}$ was shown to match well with experimental data for various low surface brightness galaxies. With the (phenomenological) definition of the circular velocity in eq.(\[vcirc\]), we can compute the Newtonian mass density as $$\rho_N(r) \sim \frac{1}{r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left(v_{circ}^2 r\right)$$ where we have ignored factors of $\pi$ on the right hand side, and the subscript $N$ refers to the Newtonian limit being considered here.
Let us first consider the JMN space-time given in eq.(\[jmnst\]). In this case, a simple computation yields $$v_{circ}^{JMN} = \sqrt{\frac{1-\beta^2}{2}}r^{\frac{1-\beta^2}{2\beta^2}} \implies \rho_N^{JMN} \sim \frac{1}{r^{\left(3-\frac{1}{\beta^2}\right)}}
\label{JMNden}$$ On the other hand, let us consider the BST metric of eq.(\[BST\]). In this case, we find that $$v_{circ}^{BST} = \frac{\beta\sqrt{r}}{1+r} \implies \rho_N^{BST} \sim \frac{\beta^2}{r\left(1+r\right)^3}
\label{BSTden}$$
From eq.(\[JMNden\]), we see that the falloff of the Newtonian mass density is $\sim r^{-n}$, with $n < 2$ (since $0<\beta<1$). On the other hand, for BSTs, the large distance falloff is $\sim r^{-4}$. Recalling our analysis of the equations of state for relativistic two-component fluids of the last subsection, this is [*indicative*]{} of the fact that when the falloff of the mass density is with a (negative) power that is less than $2$, the two component fluids can have barotropic equations of state ($P_1 = \rho_1 K_1, P_2 = \rho_2 K_2$) where $K_1$ and $K_2$ can be of the same (or opposite) signs. Although we have only analysed an $\sim r^{-4}$ fall-off of the mass density, it naively seems that the previous statement is no longer true when the falloff is with a (negative) power greater than $2$ where we necessarily have $K_1K_2<0$. The case $n = 2$ (i.e $\beta \to 1$ in eq.(\[JMNden\])) is problematic, as this necessitates that the circular velocity is zero, as are all component of the energy momentum tensor (recall the discussion towards the end of the last subsection).
Here, we have taken the non-relativistic limit of a GR result. In the next section, we complement this by analysing a purely Newtonian two-component fluid and compare it with this analysis.
Newtonian two-component fluids
==============================
In this section, we consider a purely Newtonian two-fluid model of galactic dark matter, of two different fluids in equilibrium, interacting only via Newtonian gravity and differing in their equations of state. The motivation for this analysis comes from the fact that in the last section, we considered the non relativistic limit of the two-fluid models that describe the space-times of eqs.(\[jmnst\]) and (\[BST\]), and saw that there were some non-trivial constraints on the equation of state parameters. Here, we will analyse if such constraints appear in the purely Newtonian case, and this should complement the results of the previous section.
We should point out the important assumptions that we make in this section.
- The fluids are assumed to be in steady state, i.e their properties are independent of time.
- We treat the fluids phenomenologically, i.e we [*assign*]{} simple velocities to the component fluids and analyse the possible constraints on the resulting equation of state (we momentarily elaborate on this).
- We will ignore the effects of energy dissipation in our analysis, i.e effects of viscosity etc. are assumed to be small.
- A spherically symmetric situation has been assumed, i.e all the variables that enter our computations are functions of only the radial coordinate.
- Thermal equilibrium of baryonic matter with the fluids that we have dealt with here are not considered.
Of course, each of these assumptions can be questioned on grounds of physicality in dealing with realistic systems, but we will proceed with the understanding that these simplify the analysis while allowing an analytical handle on the physics of the system. Indeed, it will be interesting to relax one or more of these assumptions, in which case a more sophisticated numerical analysis than the ones performed in this paper needs to be invoked.
As mentioned, our analysis here will be entirely phenomenological : instead of a first principles computation of the fluid properties with appropriate boundary conditions, we will here assign different velocities to the two fluids, and then try to understand the possible constraints on the equations of state that might arise. As we show below, this will enable us to retain an analytic handle on the models, while allowing a comparison with the relativistic analysis of the previous section. We do not claim any generality of these results beyond the simple situations considered here.
The two fluids that we consider are self-gravitating, and also mutually interacting via gravity, although they independently conserve momenta by following two independent Navier-Stokes equations. The system of equations governing two independent fluids in their gravitational fields are given by two continuity equations, a set of six Navier-Stokes equations, the Poisson equation for gravity and two independent equations of state which we choose to be polytropic (in particular barotropic, to compare with the results of the previous section).
The continuity equations for the two fluids become $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial \rho_{i}}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot (\rho_{i}{\bf v}_{i})=0\,,
\label{conte}\end{aligned}$$ where $i=1,2$ denote the two component fluids.[^4] The Navier-Stokes equations now become $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial {\bf v}_{i}}{\partial t} + ({\bf v}_{i}\cdot \nabla){\bf v}_{i}
= -\frac{\nabla P_{i}}{\rho_{i}} + \nu_{i}\nabla^2 {\bf v}_{i} - \nabla \Phi
\label{ns1}\end{aligned}$$ Since we assume the two fluids to be in steady state, the time derivatives in eqs.(\[conte\]) and (\[ns1\]) are taken to be zero. Also, we assume that dissipation effects are negligible, i.e $\nu_i = 0$ ($i=1,2$) in eq.(\[ns1\]). The Poisson equation for gravity may be written as $$\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left(r^2\frac{d\Phi}{dr}\right)=4\pi G \rho~,~~\rho=\rho_1 + \rho_2\,.
\label{2pe}
$$ Here we assume the two fluid species to follow two independent polytropic equations of state $$\begin{aligned}
P_1= K_1\rho_1^{\alpha_1}~,~~P_2= K_2\rho_2^{\alpha_2}\,
\label{2poly}\end{aligned}$$ In the non-relativistic case the net pressure of the two fluids is simply $$\begin{aligned}
P=P_1+P_2\,
\label{npress}\end{aligned}$$ To connect to the results of the previous section, we will henceforth set $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=1$, i.e assume barotropic equations of state for the component fluids. Then, one can use the second of eq.(\[2pe\]), along with eqs.(\[2poly\]) and (\[npress\]) to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_1=\frac{P-K_2 \rho}{K_1 - K_2}\,,\,\,\,\,
\rho_2=\frac{P-K_1 \rho}{K_2 - K_1}\,\,\,\,\,
\label{rho12}\end{aligned}$$ which shows that the above set of relations can be used as constraints in such a way that $\rho_i > 0$ is always satisfied in our region of physical interest. If without loss of generality, we consider $K_1>K_2$ then it is seen from eq.(\[rho12\]) that $$K_1>\frac{P}{\rho}>K_2
\label{barocon}$$ is needed to have $\rho_1,~\rho_2 >0$. If we consider the total density of the composite fluid as [^5] $$\rho = \frac{\rho_0}{\left(\frac{r}{R_s}\right)^{\alpha}\left(1+\frac{r}{R_s}\right)^{\beta}}
\label{density}$$ then we have to check for what values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ the condition in eq.(\[barocon\]) is satisfied. It can be checked by an asymptotic analysis in both the small and the large $r$ limits, that the condition mentioned in eq.(\[rho12\]) is indeed satisfied in the case of a static fluid system having an overall density profile of the NFW ($\alpha=1$, $\beta=2$) or Hernquist ($\alpha=1$, $\beta=3$) form and with its individual components satisfying barotropic equations of state. If we introduce radial velocities to the component fluids which still follow barotropic equations of state, it can be numerically verified that the above condition necessary for well-behaved densities is still satisfied in case the total density profile is an NFW or a Hernquist profile.
Two-component static fluid
--------------------------
As mentioned in the beginning of this section, we will follow a phenomenological approach, and assign various velocity profiles to our model to see the constraints that might result. First we consider the case $v_{ir}=v_{i\phi}=v_{i\theta}=0$ ($i=1,2$) i.e the static fluid. One can derive from the Poisson and Navier-stokes equations for the composite fluid, $$\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left(r^2\frac{d\Phi}{dr}\right)=4\pi G\rho~,~\frac{dP}{dr}=-\rho\frac{d\Phi}{dr}~.
\label{nav2}$$ The Navier-Stokes equations for the component fluids boil down to $$\frac{dP_1}{dr}+\rho_1\frac{d\Phi}{dr}=0~,~~
\frac{dP_2}{dr}+\rho_2\frac{d\Phi}{dr}=0~.
\label{3nav}$$ Then from eq.(\[rho12\]), using eqs.(\[2pe\]) and (\[npress\]), we have the following differential equations in $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ : $$\frac{d\rho_1}{dr}=\frac{1}{K_2-K_1}\left(\rho\frac{d\Phi}{dr}+K_{2}\frac{d\rho}{dr}\right)~,
~~\frac{d\rho_2}{dr}=\frac{1}{K_1-K_2}\left(\rho\frac{d\Phi}{dr}+K_{1}\frac{d\rho}{dr}\right)~.
\label{drho}$$\
Assuming that the total mass density in the asymptotic (large $r$) limit falls off as a power law, we impose $$\rho\sim\frac{1}{r^n}~,~n \geq 1~,$$ then modulo some irrelevant constants, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\rho_1}{dr} = \frac{1}{K_2-K_1}\left(\frac{1}{(3-n)r^{2n-1}} - \frac{nK_2}{r^{n+1}}\right),~
\frac{d\rho_2}{dr} = \frac{1}{K_1-K_2}\left(\frac{1}{(3-n)r^{2n-1}} - \frac{nK_1}{r^{n+1}}\right)
\label{dender}\end{aligned}$$ Let us, without loss of generality, assume that $K_2 > K_1$. Then, for $n > 2,~n\neq 3$ (we will momentarily come to the $n=3$ case), we see that the second terms in the parentheses of both the equations of eq.(\[dender\]) dominate at large $r$, so that in order to have $d\rho_{1,2}/dr <0$, we must necessarily have $K_2 > 0$ and $K_1 < 0$. So the condition for positive component densities is $K_1K_2<0$, which implies that one of the component fluids has negative pressure, i.e has properties similar to dark energy. The case $n=3$ is qualitatively similar to the above analysis. Here, one only has to remember that the first terms in the parentheses of the right hand side of both the equations in eq.(\[dender\]) are replaced by a term $\sim \log(r)/r^5$ while the second term for both $\sim 1/r^4$. Hence it is the second term that again dominates the right hand side of both the equations, and we again have $K_1K_2 <0$ for physically relevant density profiles of the individual fluids.
The $n=2$ case is qualitatively different. In this case, it is seen that $$\frac{d\rho_1}{dr} = \frac{1}{K_2-K_1}\left(\frac{1-2K_2}{r^{3}}\right),~
\frac{d\rho_2}{dr} = \frac{1}{K_1-K_2}\left(\frac{1-2K_1}{r^{3}}\right)
\label{dender1}$$ It is easily seen that negativity of the right hand side of the two equations in eq.(\[dender1\]) does not necessarily imply that $K_1K_2 < 0$, i.e we can have a solution with both fluids having positive pressure. Finally, we note that the $n<2$ case is ruled out, since from eq.(\[dender\]) it is seen that in this case $d\rho_1/dr$ and $d\rho_2/dr$ can never be made simultaneously negative.
Two-component fluid with radial velocity
----------------------------------------
Now we consider the case where $v_{ir}\neq 0$ and $v_{i\phi}=v_{i\theta}=0$, where $i=1,2$ denotes the individual fluids. From the continuity equations for the two component fluids we have here $$v_{ir}=\frac{A_i}{r^2\rho_i}
\label{vir}$$ From the Poisson equation for gravity one can get the functional forms for $\Phi$ and $\frac{d\Phi}{dr}$. Now the radial Navier-Stokes equations for these two fluids boil down to $$\rho_1v_{1r}\frac{dv_{1r}}{dr}=-\frac{dP_1}{dr}-\rho_1\frac{d\Phi}{dr}~,~~
\rho_2v_{2r}\frac{dv_{2r}}{dr}=-\frac{dP_2}{dr}-\rho_2\frac{d\Phi}{dr}
\label{2nav}$$ From eqs.(\[2nav\]), (\[vir\]) and (\[2poly\]), we can get the analytical expressions, $\frac{d\rho_{1}}{dr} = \frac{{\mathcal A}_1}{{\mathcal B}_1}$, $\frac{d\rho_{2}}{dr}=\frac{{\mathcal A}_2}{{\mathcal B}_2}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal A}_1&=&\rho\frac{d\Phi}{dr}+\left(K_{2}-\frac{{A_2}^2}{r^4\rho_2^2}\right)
\frac{d\rho}{dr}-\frac{2}{r^5}\left(\frac{{A_1}^2}{\rho_1}+\frac{{A_2}^2}{\rho_2}\right)\nonumber\\
{\mathcal B}_1&=&\frac{1}{r^4}\left(\frac{{A_1}^2}{{\rho_1}^2}-\frac{{A_2}^2}{\rho_2^2}\right)+K_2-K_1 \nonumber\\
{\mathcal A}_2&=&\rho\frac{d\Phi}{dr}+\left(K_{1}-\frac{{A_1}^2}{r^4\rho_1^2}\right)
\frac{d\rho}{dr}-\frac{2}{r^5}\left(\frac{{A_2}^2}{\rho_2}+\frac{{A_1}^2}{\rho_1}\right)\nonumber\\
{\mathcal B}_2&=&\frac{1}{r^4}\left(\frac{{A_2}^2}{{\rho_2}^2}-\frac{{A_1}^2}{\rho_1^2}\right)+K_1-K_2
\label{d2rho}\end{aligned}$$ We will now analyse the possible constraints on the equation of state, from eqs.(\[d2rho\]).
First consider the case when the falloff of the densities of the component fluids are similar, i.e we have $$\rho=\frac{\rho_0}{r^n},~\rho_1=\frac{\rho_{10}}{r^n},~\rho_2=\frac{\rho_{20}}{r^n}
\label{liminf}$$ Here, using the asymptotic forms of $\rho$ and $\rho_{1,2}$ from eq.(\[liminf\]) in eqs.(\[d2rho\]), we have in the limit $r \rightarrow \infty$ by equating the coefficients of the dominant terms, $$n\rho_0\left(\frac{{A_2}^2}{{\rho_{20}}^2}-\frac{{A_1}^2}{{\rho_{10}}^2}\right)=
\frac{n{A_2}^2\rho_0}{{\rho_{20}}^2}-2\left(\frac{{A_1}^2}{\rho_{10}}+\frac{{A_2}^2}{\rho_{20}}\right)$$ Using the expression $\rho_0=\rho_{10}+\rho_{20}$, we then have the constraint $$\left(n-2\right)\left(\frac{{A_1}^2}{\rho_{10}}+\frac{{A_2}^2}{\rho_{20}}\right)=0$$ This implies that $A_1=A_2=0$ for $n \neq 2$. From eq.(\[vir\]), this will correspond to the case where both the fluids have zero velocity, i.e are static. Hence the results of the previous subsection can be applied in this case, and we would necessarily have $K_1K_2<0$, akin to that example, and from that discussion, it also follows that the case $n < 2$ is ruled out on physical grounds.
The case $n=2$ is qualitatively different. We shall not belabour the details here, but simply state the result that a careful analysis reveals that that the product $K_1K_2$ need not always be negative, unlike the case $n > 2$ (the case $n < 2$ is anyway ruled out). This is analogous to the static fluid case considered in the previous subsection.
Hence we can conclude that if the large $r$ behaviour of the densities of the two fluids is similar, then we can have non-zero radial velocities in the system only if the total density profile is that of an isothermal sphere. In that case however, we are not guaranteed to have $K_1K_2<0$. This last condition holds for all other profiles, with $n>2$, in which case we are constrained to have a static two-fluid solution, as explained, where the velocity components of both fluids vanish identically.
Finally, we have analysed the case where the asymptotic falloff of the two component fluids might be according to different power laws, i.e we assume that at large values of the radial coordinate, $\rho_1 \sim \frac{1}{r^n}$ and $\rho_2 \sim \frac{1}{r^m}$ so that assuming without loss of generality $m > n$, we have the density of the composite fluid $\rho \sim \frac{1}{r^n}$. The analysis is somewhat cumbersome and we will only state the main results here. After a detailed analysis, we find from eq.(\[d2rho\]) that consistency of the falloff behaviour of the component fluids necessarily means that the component fluid with the steeper falloff must have zero radial velocity and that for $n>2,~m>n$, we again get back the condition $K_1K_2<0$. For $n=2,m>n$, this condition need not be strictly satisfied.
Now we will compare this with the results of the Newtonian limit of the relativistic fluid considered in subsection 2.3. There, we found [*indication*]{} that if the fall-off of the mass density is $\sim r^{-n}$ with $n>2$, it necessary implies that either component of the composite fluid should have exotic behaviour, which was not the case for $n<2$. The $n=2$ case was ruled out due to the nature of the JMN space-time. In the Newtonian analysis, we find that for the simple fluid models that we have considered, if again the fall-off of the mass density is asymptotically $\sim r^{-n}$ with $n>2$, then this necessarily leads to negative pressure for one of the component fluids. The $n<2$ region could not be studied due to the limitations of our simplistic models, and the case $n=2$ showed that none of the fluids need to be exotic in this case. By comparison, a definitive conclusion regarding fluid behaviour can be reached only for the case $n>2$, in which case we may conclude that one of the fluids must have negative pressure.
Conclusions and future directions
=================================
In this paper, we first studied gravitational collapse in an anisotropic scenario. We have shown that there is a class of space-times that can arise in this case, of which the JMN and the BST are special cases. We have further showed that if the BST is thought of as a two-fluid model, then one of the fluids must have negative pressure. A similar analysis was then performed for Newtonian two component fluids, with some important simplifying assumptions.
In the relativistic setup, we saw that anisotropy dictates that we use a two-fluid model to describe the energy momentum tensor of the space-time formed after gravitational collapse. In that case, we used barotropic equations of state, $P_1 = \rho_1K_1$ and $P_2 = \rho_2K_2$ for the individual fluids and saw that for BSTs, the pressure of one of the fluids must necessarily be negative. This was not the case with the JMN space-time. To put this result in perspective, we computed the mass density in a non-relativistic limit, after obtaining an expression for the circular velocity in these space-times. The analysis was indicative of the fact that such negative pressures might arise if the falloff of the mass density is $\sim 1/r^n$ with $n > 2$. This is important, as it indicates that if we consider the space-time arising due to gravitational collapse as describing a dark matter fluid, then one of the components of the fluid might be exotic, i.e have negative pressure akin to dark energy.
To reconcile this result, we addressed some two fluid models in a purely Newtonian setup by assuming some simple velocity profiles for the component fluids. This analysis was purely phenomenological in nature, and we explored the constraints in the equations of state of the component fluids in some simple two fluid models where the component fluids were [*assumed*]{} to have given velocities. In particular, we first considered the case where both the fluids were static, and then the case when they could have a radial velocity. Our Newtonian analysis shows that in both the cases, if the fall off of the composite fluid $\sim 1/r^n$ with $n > 2$, then one of the component fluids might have negative pressure, as was the case with the non-relativistic limit of the relativistic two fluid models. A definitive conclusion could not be drawn for other values of $n$.
[|p[4.5cm]{}|p[4cm]{}|p[4.5cm]{}|]{}\
Two fluid system & Density falloffs &The condition $K_1K_2 <0$\
JMN (relativistic) & $\rho_1,\rho_2 \sim 1/r^2$ & Not always satisfied\
BST (relativistic) & $\rho_1,\rho_2 \sim 1/r^2$ &Always satisfied\
JMN (non-relativistic) & $\rho \sim 1/r^n$, $n<2$ &Not satisfied (Indicative)\
BST (non-relativistic) &$\rho \sim 1/r^4$ & Satisfied (Indicative)\
Newtonian fluid &$\rho_1,\rho_2 \sim 1/r^n$, $n>2$ &Always satisfied\
Newtonian fluid &$\rho_1,\rho_2 \sim 1/r^n$, $n=2$ & Not always satisfied\
Newtonian fluid &$\rho_1 \sim 1/r^n,~\rho_2 \sim 1/r^m$, $n>2,~m>n$ &Always satisfied\
Newtonian fluid &$\rho_1 \sim 1/r^n,~\rho_2 \sim 1/r^m$, $n=2,~m>n$ &Not always satisfied\
We summarize this discussion in table (\[table1\]), where the last column indicates whether the constraint $K_1K_2<0$ is satisfied or not. Note that the last two rows contain the results with different power law falloffs of the component fluids, that has been briefly discussed towards the end of subsection 5.2.
Admittedly, there were a number of simplifying assumptions in our Newtonian analysis and the result should not be thought of as a generic one. However, within the caveats mentioned in the paper, the results presented here seem to be indicative of some generic features of dark matter fluids, and this certainly deserves further study.
[99]{} S. Weinberg, “Gravitation And Cosmology,” John Wiley & Sons (1972). R. M. Wald, “General Relativity,” Univ. of Chicago Press, USA ( 1984). M. D. Roberts, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**36**]{} no. 11, 2423 (2004). S. Bharadwaj and S. Kar, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 023516 (2003) D. Dey, K. Bhattacharya, T. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 103505 (2013). D. Dey, K. Bhattacharya, T. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 083532 (2013). D. Dey, K. Bhattacharya and T. Sarkar, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**47**]{}, 103 (2015) V. Perlick, Class. Quantum Grav., 9 (1992) 1009. J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. [**462**]{}, 563 (1996). L. Hernquist, Astrophys. J [**356**]{}, 359 (1990). P. S. Joshi, D. Malafarina and R. Narayan, Class. Quant. Grav. [**28**]{}, 235018 (2011). P. S. Joshi, D. Malafarina and R. V. Saraykar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**21**]{}, 1250066 (2012). A. L. Serra and M. J. d. L. D. Romero, MNRAS Letters [**415**]{}, L74 (2011). C. J. Saxton, I. Ferreras, MNRAS [**405 (1)**]{}, 77 (2010) J. R. Oppenheimer and H. Snyder, Phys. Rev. [**56**]{}, 455 (1939). C. W. Misner and D. H. Sharp, Phys. Rev. [**136**]{} B571 (1964). M. M. May and R. H. White, Phys. Rev. [**141**]{} 1232 (1966). P. S. Letelier, “Anisotropic fluids with two perfect fluid components,” Phys. Rev. [**D22**]{}, 807 (1980). S. Bayin, “Anisotropic Fluids and Cosmology,” Astrophys. J [**303**]{}, 101 (1985). J. B. Hartle, “Gravity - An Introduction to Einstein’s General Relativity,” Pearson Education Inc. (2003). R. L. Bowers and E. P. T. Liang, Astrophys. J. [**188**]{}, 657 (1974). H. Zhao, MNRAS [**278**]{}, 488 (1996).
[^1]: E-mail: uddipan, deydip, kaushikb, [email protected]
[^2]: Various properties of BSTs, including aspects of galactic rotation curves and gravitational lensing phenomena have been studied in [@BST1], [@BST2], where it was shown that they can be thought of as realistic galactic models, upon comparison with existing experimental data.
[^3]: Both $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ $\sim
\frac{1}{r^2}$ for large $r$ in BSTs [@BST1].
[^4]: This will be our notation convention throughout this section and we will not mention this further.
[^5]: Since we are primarily interested in modelling galactic dark matter, the density profile of the composite fluid should be a generalised Hernquist profile [@Hernquist],[@Zhao] which justifies the form of eq.(\[density\]).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Vortices are believed to greatly help the formation of km sized planetesimals by collecting dust particles in their centers. However, vortex dynamics is commonly studied in non-self-gravitating disks. The main goal here is to examine the effects of disk self-gravity on the vortex dynamics via numerical simulations. In the self-gravitating case, when quasi-steady gravitoturbulent state is reached, vortices appear as transient structures undergoing recurring phases of formation, growth to sizes comparable to a local Jeans scale, and eventual shearing and destruction due to gravitational instability. Each phase lasts over 2-3 orbital periods. Vortices and density waves appear to be coupled implying that, in general, one should consider both vortex and density wave modes for a proper understanding of self-gravitating disk dynamics.
Our results imply that given such an irregular and rapidly changing, transient character of vortex evolution in self-gravitating disks it may be difficult for such vortices to effectively trap dust particles in their centers that is a necessary process towards planet formation.
author:
- 'G. R. Mamatsashvili'
- 'W. K. M. Rice'
title: 'Vortices in self-gravitating disks'
---
[]()
[ address=[SUPA, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, Scotland; E-mail: [email protected]]{}, altaddress=[Georgian National Astrophysical Observatory, Il. Chavchavadze State University, 2a Kazbegi Ave., Tbilisi 0160, Georgia]{}, email=[[email protected]]{},]{}
[ address=[SUPA, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, Scotland]{}, email=[[email protected]]{},]{}
introduction
============
It is well known that antcyclonic vortices can help the planet formation process by aggregating dust particles in their centers to build planetesimals [@BS95; @JAB04; @KB06]. Numerical simulations [@GL99; @UR04; @JG05] demonstrate that coherent anticyclonic vortices indeed emerge in disks and survive for hundreds of orbits. All these investigations are, however, carried out for non-self-gravitating disks. Here we investigate the effects of disk self-gravity on the vortex formation and evolution, because protoplanetary disks are in general self-gravitating and usually do not cool fast enough to get directly fragmented into giant planets. Instead, they settle into a quasi-steady gravitoturbulent state [@Boleyetal06]. Hence, there should be found some mechanism that will build planetesimals in this state. Global simulations of the dynamics of dust particles in self-gravitating gaseous disks show that large scale spiral structure in a self-regulated state does concentrate dust particles in overdense/overpressure spiral arms [@Riceetal06]. As mentioned, another possibility of dust particle concentration is their trapping by anticyclonic vortices (worked out originally for non-self-gravitating disks). So, in perspective our present study will allow us to see if the latter mechanism of planetesimal formation can also be at work in self-gravitating disks. Due to resolution constraints, it is difficult to see vortices in global disk simulations. For this purpose we work in the local shearing sheet approximation.
physical model and equations
============================
In the shearing sheet model only a local patch of a disk in the vicinity of some radius $r_0$ is considered that rotates around the central star with the angular velocity $\Omega_0\equiv
\Omega_K(r_0)$, where $\Omega_K(r)$ is the angular velocity of Keplerian (differential) rotation. Within this patch the differential rotation of a disk manifests itself as a parallel shear flow with a constant velocity shear [@GL65]. The unperturbed background surface density $\Sigma_0$ and two-dimensional pressure $P_0$ corresponding to this shear flow are assumed to be spatially constant. Coriolis force is also included to take into account the effects of rotation. As a result, in this local approximation the continuity equation and equations of motion take the form [@G01]: $$\frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot(\Sigma{\bf u})
-q\Omega_0 x \frac{\partial \Sigma}{\partial y} = 0,$$ $$\frac{\partial {\bf u}}{\partial t}+({\bf u}\cdot\nabla){\bf
u}-q\Omega_0 x \frac{\partial {\bf u}}{\partial y} =-\frac{\nabla
P}{\Sigma}-2\Omega_0{\bf \hat{z}}\times {\bf u}+q\Omega_0u_x{\bf
\hat{y}}-\nabla \psi.$$ This set of equations is supplemented by Poisson’s equation for a razor-thin disk $$\Delta \psi=4\pi G (\Sigma-\Sigma_0)\delta(z).$$ Here ${\bf u}(u_x, u_y), P, \Sigma$ and $\psi$ are, respectively, the perturbed velocity relative to the background parallel shear flow ${\bf u_0}(0, -q\Omega_0 x)$, the two-dimensional pressure, the surface density and the gravitational potential of the gas sheet. $x$ and $y$ are, respectively, the radial and azimuthal coordinates. ${\bf \hat{y}}$ and ${\bf \hat{z}}$ are the unit vectors in the azimuthal and vertical directions, respectively. Since (1-2) are written for perturbed velocities, only the gravitational potential due to the perturbed surface density $\Sigma-\Sigma_0$ is used. The shear parameter $q=1.5$ for the Keplerian rotation considered here.
The equation of state is $$P=(\gamma-1)U,$$ where $U$ and $\gamma$ are the two-dimensional internal energy and adiabatic index, respectively. We will adopt $\gamma=2$. The sound speed is $c_s^2=\gamma P/\Sigma=\gamma(\gamma-1)U/\Sigma$.
The central quantity of this study is the vertical component of potential vorticity referred to as PV below: $$I\equiv\frac{{\bf \hat{z}}\cdot \nabla\times {\bf
u}+(2-q)\Omega}{\Sigma}=\frac{1}{\Sigma}\left(\frac{\partial
u_y}{\partial x}- \frac{\partial u_x}{\partial y}+(2-q)\Omega
\right).$$ The PV will play an important role in the subsequent analysis, as it generally characterizes the formation of coherent structures (vortices) in a disk flow [@JG05].
The evolution of the internal energy density is governed by the equation $$\frac{\partial U}{\partial t}+ \nabla\cdot(U{\bf u})-q\Omega_0 x
\frac{\partial U}{\partial y} = -P\nabla\cdot{\bf
u}-\frac{U}{\tau_{c}},$$ where the last term on the rhs takes account of cooling of the disk. The cooling time $\tau_{c}$ is assumed to be constant, $\tau_c=20\Omega^{-1}$, so that the disk does not fragment and enters a saturated gravitoturbulent state. *In the present study we concentrate on examining the peculiarities of potential vorticity evolution in such a gravitoturbulent state*.
We introduce the nondimensional variables: $t\rightarrow \Omega_0 t,
(x,y)\rightarrow (x\Omega_0/c_{s0}, y\Omega_0/c_{s0}), \Sigma
\rightarrow \Sigma/\Sigma_0, P\rightarrow P/c_{s0}^2\Sigma_0,
U\rightarrow U/c_{s0}^2\Sigma_0, I\rightarrow I\Sigma_0/\Omega_0$. These nondimensional variables are used throughout what follows. The Toomre’s parameter is $Q=c_s\Omega_0/\pi G\Sigma$. We start with $Q=Q_0=c_{s0}\Omega_0/\pi G\Sigma_0=1.5$.
Our computational domain in the $(x,y)$ plane is a square $-L/2\leq
x,y \leq L/2$, divided into $N\times N$ grid cells. We take $L=20$ and $N=1024$. In order to study the evolution of the system we numerically integrate (1-4) within this domain.
{height="0.27\textheight"} {height="0.27\textheight"}
Nonlinear evolution
===================
Initial conditions consist of random $u_x$ and $u_y$ perturbations superimposed on the mean Keplerian shear flow. Surface density and internal energy are not perturbed initially. Fig. 1 shows these initial conditions in terms of PV. The velocity perturbations are measured by $\sigma = \langle {\bf u}^2(x,y)\rangle^{1/2}$, where the angle brackets mean ensemble averaging. In our calculations $\sigma=0.6$ at $t=0$. We start with Kolmogorov power spectrum $\langle |u(k)|^2\rangle\sim k^{-8/3}$, where $k$ is the wavenumber. These random velocity perturbations are meant to mimic an initial turbulent state in a disk resulting from the collapse of a molecular cloud core.
In the presence of both Keplerian shear and self-gravity, the main mechanism responsible for the growth of initial velocity perturbations is swing amplification instead of pure Jeans instability [@G01; @KO01; @MC07]. During swing amplification velocity perturbations induce strong surface density perturbations in the form of trailing shocks with superimposed density structures. After about 4-5 orbital periods balance is reached between shock and compressional heating and cooling. As a result, the disk settles down to a quasi-steady gravitoturbulent state. The snapshot (at $t=33$) of the system evolution in this state is shown in fig.1. $Q$ fluctuates around $2.4$, but the $Q(x,y)$ map is very inhomogeneous and contains values as small as $0.6$ associated with some negative PV regions (see below). The positive (cyclonic) PV regions remain sheared into strips showing no signs of vortex formation during the entire course of evolution. Only negative (anticyclonic) PV regions are able to survive in shear flows and wrap up into more or less vortex-like structures. The overall picture of the PV evolution is still irregular and chaotic in the quasi-steady phase (fig. 1). So, we use the term ’vortex’ in a broader sense meaning negative PV regions in general even if they do not have well-defined vortical shape. Some of the vortices by this time are not adjusted yet, i.e., they produce underdense regions corresponding to the centers of vortices surrounded by higher density regions related to density waves/shocks generated during the adjustment process. At the same time, we also see in this figure vortices that have already undergone adjustment phase, have grown to sizes comparable to the local Jeans scale, and correspond to stronger overdense regions. At the location of these overdense regions, $Q$ reaches small values (0.6-0.7) implying that they are gravitationally unstable and are in the process of being sheared and destroyed. (Vortex growth in size is, in general, a consequence of inverse energy cascade in 2D turbulence). During this process the temperature/internal energy rises, the corresponding region becomes stable and the vortex formation process described above starts again.
In conclusion, in self-gravitating disks the evolution of vortices has irregular and transient character in contrast to that in non-self-gravitating disks. Vortices form, undergo adjustment phase and finally appear as overdense regions in the surface density field, which afterwards become gravitationally unstable and are destroyed shortly. After that the whole process recurs.
G.R.M. would like to acknowledge the financial support from the Scottish Universities Physics Alliance (SUPA). The numerical code used here was kindly provided by C. Gammie.
[14]{}
P. Barge, and J. Sommeria, *A&A*, **295**L, 1 (1995). A. Johansen, A. Andersen, and A. Brandenburg, *A&A*, **417**, 361 (2004). H. Klahr, and P. Bodenheimer, *ApJ*, **639**, 432 (2006). P. Godon, and M. Livio, *ApJ*, **523**, 350 (1999). O. Umurhan, and O. Regev, *A&A*, **427**, 855 (2004). B. Johnson, and C. Gammie, *ApJ*, **635**, 149 (2005). A. Boley, A. Mejia, R. Durisen, K. Cai, M. Pickett and P. D’Alessio, *ApJ*, **651**, 517 (2006). W. K. M. Rice, G. Lodato, J. Pringle, P. Armitage, and I. Bonnell, *MNRAS*, **372**L, 9 (2006). P. Goldreich, and D. Lynden-Bell, *MNRAS*, **130**, 125 (1965). C. Gammie, *ApJ*, **553**, 174 (2001). W.-T. Kim, and E. Ostriker, *ApJ*, **559**, 70 (2001). G. R. Mamatsashvili, and G. D. Chagelishvili, *MNRAS*, **381**, 809 (2007).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[**On Hurwitz stable polynomials with integer\
coefficients**]{}
> [^1] [^2]
Introduction {#S1}
============
A polynomial $p(z)=p_N z^N + \cdots + p_0$ with real coefficients is called Schur stable if all its zeros are in the open unit disk and is said to be Hurwitz stable if its zeros are all located in the left open half plane. Such polynomials appear as the result of Wiener-Hopf and spectral factorizations. To test numerical algorithms for these factorizations, it is desirable to have some supply of Schur and Hurwitz stable polynomials. For example, one starts with a Hurwitz stable polynomial $p(z)$, forms the product $f(z)=p(-z)p(z)$, applies the algorithm to get a factorization $f(z)\approx q(-z)q(z)$, and finally one measures the error $q(z)-p(z)$.
It is easy to produce nice Schur stable polynomials of arbitrary degree. For instance, Bini, Fiorentino, Gemignani, and Meini [@BiniEff] introduced the beautiful polynomials $$p(z)=1+z+\cdots+z^{N-1}+2z^N.$$ To reveal that $p(z)$ is Schur stable, we show that the reverse polynomial $$z^N p(1/z)=2+z+ \cdots + z^N$$ has no zeros in the open unit disk. And indeed, for $z \neq 1$ we have $$2+z+ \cdots + z^N=1+\frac{1-z^{N+1}}{1-z}=\frac{2-z-z^N}{1-z},$$ and this cannot be zero for $|z|<1$ because then $|z+z^N| < 2$. In fact, the zeros of $p(z)$ cluster extremely close to the unit circle as $N$ increases. In addition, the coefficients of $p(z)$ are all small. (Note that the constant term $p_0$ of a monic Schur stable polynomial $p(z)=z^N+\cdots +p_0$ is always of modulus less than $1$.) For these two reasons, these polynomials are excellent test polynomials for factorization algorithms.
Finding nice Hurwitz stable polynomials is a much harder task. The Wilkinson polynomials $p(z)=(z+1)(z+2) \cdots (z+N)$ have astronomically large coefficients and are therefore not feasible. Well, one could take $p(z)=(z+1)^N$, but already for $N=20$ the largest coefficient is $\tbinom{20}{10}=184756$. The choice $p(z)=(z+\mu)^N$ with $0 < \mu < 1$ is also critical, since then the constant term $p_0=\mu^N$ may become the machine zero. Thus, I pose the following as a test: [*find a Hurwitz stable polynomial of degree 20 with positive integer coefficients such that the largest coefficient is about a hundred times better than 184756, that is, such that it does not exceed 2000*]{}.
Möbius transformation {#S2}
=====================
A point $z$ lies in the left open half-plane if and only if its distance to $-1$ is smaller than that to $1$, that is, if and only if $|1-z|/|1+z| >1$. Consequently, if $u(z)$ has degree $N$ and all zeros of $u(z)$ are of modulus greater than $1$, then $(1+z)^N u\left(\frac{1-z}{1+z}\right)$ is a Hurwitz stable polynomial of degree $N$.
Let $u(z)=2+z+ \cdots+ z^N$ be the reverse of the polynomial we encountered in the introduction. Then, for $z \neq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\ell_N(z) & := & (1+z)^N u\left(\frac{1-z}{1+z}\right)=\frac{2(1+z)^{N+1}-(1-z)(1+z)^N-(1-z)^{N+1}}{2z}
\nonumber\\
& = & \frac{(1+z)^{N+1}-(1-z)^{N+1}}{2z}+(1+z)^N. \label{2.1}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\ell_N(z)$ is a Hurwitz stable polynomial of degree $N$. In what follows we frequently represent polynomials by their coefficient vectors as in Matlab, that is, we write the polynomial $p_N z^N + \cdots +p_0$ as \[$p_N$ ... $p_0$\]. For even $N$, the coefficients of the polynomials (\[2.1\]) are all even, and hence we divide them by $2$. The first polynomials are $${\tt [1 \; 3]}, \quad
{\tt [1 \; 1 \; 2]}, \quad
{\tt[1 \; 7 \; 3 \; 5]}, \quad
{\tt [1 \; 2 \; 8 \; 2 \; 3]}, \quad
{\tt [1\; 3\; 18\; 10\; 25\; 3\; 4]},$$ and for the degrees $10, 16, 20$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
N=10: & & {\tt [1\; 5\; 50\; 60\;270\;126\;336\; 60\;105\; 5\; 6]},\\
N=16: & & {\tt [1\; 8 \; 128 \; 280\; 2100\; 2184\; 10192 \; 5720 \; 18590 \; 5720 \; 13728\; 2184 \; 4004},\\
& & {\tt \; 280 \; 400\; 8\; 9]}\\
N=20: & & {\tt [1\; 10\;200\;570\; 5415\; 7752\; 46512\; 38760\;164730\; 83980}\\
& & {\tt \; 268736\; 83980\;209950\; 38760\; 77520\; 7752\; 12597\; 570\; 760\; 10 \; 11]}.\end{aligned}$$ Figure 1 shows the zeros of $\ell_{20}(z)$.
\[Mob\]
![Zeros of polynomial (\[2.1\]) for $N=20$.](zerosp20again.eps){width="12cm"}
The inequality of Beauzamy {#S3}
==========================
The following is a slight improvement of an inequality which, for $v=1$, is stated (without proof) and attributed to Beauzamy in [@Trev].
\[Theo 3.1\] Let $p_N(z)=p_N z^N+\cdots+p_0$ be a Hurwitz stable polynomial of even degree with $p_N \ge 1$ and $p_0 \ge 1$. Then for every real number $v \ge 1$, $$p_N(v)\ge (v^2+1)^{N/2}.$$
[*Proof.*]{} Suppose $p_N(z)$ has exactly $n$ real zeros and exactly $m$ pairs of genuinely complex conjugate zeros, multiplicities taken into account. Then $N=n+2m$ and we may write $$p_N(z)=p_N\prod_{j=1}^n(z+\mu_j)\prod_{j=1}^m (z^2+2 x_j z+ |w_j|^2) \label{3.1}$$ with $\mu_1, \ldots, \mu_n >0$ and with $w_j=-x_j+{{\rm i}}y_j$, $x_j >0$ ($j=1, \ldots, m$). The constant term of (\[3.1\]) is $p_0=p_N\mu_1 \cdots \mu_n |w_1|^2 \cdots |w_m|^2$. Clearly, all coefficients of (\[3.1\]) are positive. We have $$\begin{aligned}
p_N(v) & = & p_N\prod_{j=1}^n(v+\mu_j)\prod_{j=1}^m (v^2+2 x_j v+ |w_j|^2)\\
& \ge & \frac{p_N}{v^n}\prod_{j=1}^n(v^2+\mu_j v)\prod_{j=1}^m (v^2+ |w_j|^2).\end{aligned}$$ Put ${\varphi}_1=\mu_1 v, \ldots, {\varphi}_n=\mu_n v, {\varphi}_{n+1}=|w_1|^2, \ldots, {\varphi}_{n+m}=|w_m|^2$ and let $M=n+m$. Then $$p_N(v) \ge \frac{p_N}{v^n}\prod_{j=1}^M(v^2+{\varphi}_j), \quad \prod_{j=1}^M {\varphi}_j =\frac{v^n}{p_N} p_0.$$ It follows that $$p_N(v) \ge\frac{p_N}{v^n} \Big((v^2)^M+(v^2)^{M-1}s_1+(v^2)^{M-2}s_2+\cdots+(v^2)^{M-M}s_M\Big),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& & s_1 = {\varphi}_1+{\varphi}_2 + \cdots + {\varphi}_M,\\
& & s_2 = {\varphi}_1{\varphi}_2 + {\varphi}_1 {\varphi}_3 + \cdots + {\varphi}_{M-1}{\varphi}_M,\\
& & \ldots, \\
& & s_M = {\varphi}_1 {\varphi}_2 \ldots {\varphi}_M\end{aligned}$$ are the symmetric functions of ${\varphi}_1, \ldots, {\varphi}_M$. The sum $s_k$ ($1 \le k \le M-1$) contains $\tbinom{M}{k}$ terms and each ${\varphi}_j$ occurs exactly $\tbinom{M-1}{k-1}$ times in $s_k$. The inequality between the arithmetic and geometric means therefore gives $$\begin{aligned}
s_k & \ge & \binom{M}{k} \left({\varphi}_1^{M-1 \choose k-1} {\varphi}_2^{M-1 \choose k-1}
\cdots {\varphi}_M^{M-1 \choose k-1}\right)^{1\big/{M \choose k}}\\
& = & \binom{M}{k}({\varphi}_1{\varphi}_2 \ldots {\varphi}_M)^{k/M}=\binom{M}{k}s_M^{k/M}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, using the binomial theorem and taking into account that $p_N \ge 1$, $p_0 \ge 1$, $v \ge 1$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
p_N(v) & \ge & \frac{p_N}{v^n} \sum_{k=0}^M \binom{M}{k}(v^2)^{M-k}s_M^{k/M}=\frac{p_N}{v^n}\left(v^2+s_M^{1/M}\right)^M\\
& = & \frac{p_N}{v^n}\left(v^2+\left(\frac{v^n p_0}{p_N}\right)^{1/M}\right)^M=\frac{1}{v^n}\left(p_N^{1/M}v^2+v^{n/M}p_0^{1/M}\right)^M\\
& \ge & \frac{1}{v^n}\left(v^2+v^{n/M}\right)^M \ge \frac{1}{v^n}(v^2+1)^M=\left(\frac{v^2+1}{v^2}\right)^{n/2}(v^2+1)^{n/2+m}\\
& \ge & (v^2+1)^{n/2+m} = (v^2+1)^{N/2}. \quad \square\end{aligned}$$
\[Cor 3.2\] Let $p_N(z)=p_N z^N+\cdots+p_0$ be a Hurwitz stable polynomial of even degree with $p_N \ge 1$ and $p_0 \ge 1$. Then the sum of the coefficients is greater than or equal to $2^{N/2}$ and at least one of the coefficients is greater than or equal to $2^{N/2}/(N+1)$.
[*Proof.*]{} The sum of the coefficients is $p_N(1)$, and this is at least $2^{N/2}$ by Theorem \[Theo 3.1\] with $v=1$. The polynomial has $N+1$ coefficients, and denoting the maximum of the coefficients by $p_{\max}$, we have $p_N(1)\le (N+1)p_{\max}$, which implies the asserted estimate $p_{\max} \ge 2^{N/2}/(N+1)$. $\;\:\square$
The previous corollary provides us with a very crude lower bound for the largest coefficient. I conjecture that the $N+1$ can be replaced by its square root, possibly with a multiplicative constant. However, this is not the point for our purpose.
\[Exa 3.3\]
Suppose $p_{50}(z)=p_{50}z^{50}+\cdots+p_0$ is a Hurwitz stable polynomial of degree $50$. Since a polynomial $p_N(z)$ of degree $N$ is Hurwitz stable if and only if so is the reverse polynomial $z^N p(1/z)$ (a property which is not shared by Schur stability), we may without loss of generality assume that $p_{50} \le p_0$. Then we may write $$p_{50}(z)=p_{50}\left(z^{50}+\frac{p_{49}}{p_{50}}z^{49}+ \cdots+\frac{p_{0}}{p_{50}}\right)$$ and apply Corollary \[Cor 3.2\] to the polynomial in parentheses. We have $2^{25}=33554432$. Consequently, if $p_{\max}$ is the largest coefficient, then $p_{\max}/p_{50} \ge 2^{25}/51>650000$. If the coefficients are required to be integers, this means that $p_{\max}> 650000$.
The first even $N$ for which $2^{N/2}/(N+1) > 10000$ is $N=38$. Thus, a Hurwitz stable polynomial of even degree with positive integer coefficients not exceeding $10000$ must have a degree of at most $36$. $\;\:\square$
\[Exa 3.4\]
Let $p_{2}(z)=z^2+2 x z+ 1$. Take $x=0.1$ and consider the polynomial $p_{20}(z):=p_{2}(z)^{10}=(z^2+2 x z+1)^{10}$. The sum of the coefficients of $p_{20}(z)$ is about $2656$, which is comparable to $2^{N/2}=2^{10}=1024$.
The polynomial $q_{20}(z)$ resulting from $p_{20}(z)$ by taking only the first $4$ digits of the coefficients after the comma is $$\begin{aligned}
& & {\tt [1.0000\;\;2.0000\;\; 11.8000\;\; 18.9600\;\; 59.7360\;\; 78.8006 \;\; 172.4294 \;\; 188.5647}\\
& & {\tt \; 315.8939 \;\; 286.4110 \;\; 384.8009 \;\; 286.4110 \;\; 315.8939 \;\; 188.5647 \;\; 172.4294}\\
& & {\tt \; 78.8006\;\; 59.7360 \;\; 18.9600\;\; 11.8000\;\; 2.0000\;\; 1.0000]}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $q_{20}(z)$ has moderately sized coefficients which, in contrast to those of $p_{20}(z)$, are precisely given within the machine precision. Figure 2 shows the zeros of $p_{20}(z)$ and $q_{20}(z)$ as they are given by Matlab. Thus, the polynomial $q_{20}(z)$ has six zeros in the right half-plane and is therefore not Hurwitz stable! $\;\: \square$
\[Rund\]
![Zeros of $p_{20}(z)$ (blue) and of $q_{20}(z)$ (red) from Example \[Exa 3.4\] obtained by Matlab.](zerosg0_20.eps){width="12cm" height="12cm"}
Integer coefficients {#S4}
====================
We consider Hurwitz stable polynomials $p(z)$ whose coefficients are positive integers. The degree is denoted by $N$, the maximal coefficient by $p_{\max}$, the sum of the coefficients by ${\sigma}$, and the maximum of the real parts of the roots ($=$ spectral abscissa) by ${\alpha}$. For each degree $N$, there are two kinds of optimal polynomials: the polynomials with minimal largest coefficient and the polynomials with minimal sum ${\sigma}$ of the coefficients. We call these polynomials $c$-optimal and ${\sigma}$-optimal. Small degrees $N$ are easy, because all possible cases can be checked by Matlab.
$\boldsymbol{ N = 1.}$ The polynomial $a_{1}(z)=z+1={\tt [1 \;1]}$ is the best in all respects.
$\boldsymbol{ N = 2.}$ Here the polynomial $a_{2}(z)=z^2+z+1={\tt [1 \; 1 \; 1]}$ is optimal on all accounts. Its spectral abscissa is $-1/2$.
$\boldsymbol{ N = 3.}$ The five $c$-optimal polynomials are $$\begin{aligned}
& & b_{3}(z)={\tt [1 \; 1\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.2151, \quad {\sigma}= 5,\\
& & c_{3}(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 1\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.1226, \quad {\sigma}= 5,\\
& & d_{3}(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.5000, \quad {\sigma}= 6,\\
& & e_{3}(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 2\; 2]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.2282, \quad {\sigma}= 7,\\
& & f_{3}(z)={\tt [2\; 2\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.1761, \quad {\sigma}= 7,\end{aligned}$$ and the first two of them are the ${\sigma}$-optimal polynomials.
$\boldsymbol{ N = 4.}$ The list of the nine $c$-optimal polynomials is $$\begin{aligned}
& & a_4(z)={\tt [1\; 1\; 3\; 1\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.1484, \quad {\sigma}= 7 ,\\
& & c_4(z)={\tt [1\; 1\; 3\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.1049, \quad {\sigma}= 8 ,\\
& & d_4(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 3\; 1\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0433, \quad {\sigma}= 8,\\
& & e_4(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 3\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.5000, \quad {\sigma}= 9,\\
& & f_4(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 3\; 3\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.2151, \quad {\sigma}= 10,\\
& & g_4(z)={\tt [1\; 3\; 3\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.1226, \quad {\sigma}= 10 ,\\
& & h_4(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 3\; 3\; 2]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0433, \quad {\sigma}= 11 ,\\
& & i_4(z)={\tt [1\; 3\; 3\; 3\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.1910, \quad {\sigma}= 11,\\
& & j_4(z)={\tt [2\; 3\; 3\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0287, \quad {\sigma}= 11 .\end{aligned}$$ The only ${\sigma}$-optimal polynomial is $a_4(z)$.
$\boldsymbol{ N = 5.}$ The nine $c$-optimal polynomials are $$\begin{aligned}
& & b_5(z)={\tt [1 \; 1\; 4\; 3\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0835, \quad {\sigma}= 12,\\
& & c_5(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 3\; 4\; 1\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0320, \quad {\sigma}= 12,\\
& & d_5(z)={\tt [1\; 1\; 4\; 3\; 3\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0582, \quad {\sigma}= 13,\\
& & e_5(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 3\; 4\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0354, \quad {\sigma}= 13,\\
& & f_5(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 4\; 3\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0204, \quad {\sigma}= 13,\\
& & g_5(z)={\tt [1\; 3\; 3\; 4\; 1\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0203, \quad {\sigma}= 13,\\
& & h_5(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 4\; 4\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.1484, \quad {\sigma}= 14,\\
& & i_5(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 4\; 4\; 3\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.2151, \quad {\sigma}= 15,\\
& & j_5(z)={\tt [1\; 3\; 4\; 4\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.1226, \quad {\sigma}= 15,\end{aligned}$$ and the ${\sigma}$-optimal polynomials are $b_5(z)$ and $c_5(z)$. Of course, it might be that there exist ${\sigma}$-optimal polynomials with $p_{\max} \ge 5$ and ${\sigma}\le 11$. However, the coefficients of such polynomials are either a permutation of $6,1,1,1,1,1$ or a permutation of $5, 2, 1,1,1,1$, and none of these $36$ polynomials is Hurwitz stable.
$\boldsymbol{ N = 6.}$ We have the five $c$-optimal polynomials $$\begin{aligned}
& & b_6(z)={\tt [1\; 1\; 5\; 3\; 5\; 1\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0485, \quad {\sigma}= 17,\\
& & c_6(z)={\tt [1\; 1\; 5\; 4\; 5\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0393, \quad {\sigma}= 19 ,\\
& & d_6(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 4\; 5\; 4\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0399, \quad {\sigma}= 19,\\
& & e_6(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 5\; 4\; 5\; 1\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0108, \quad {\sigma}= 19 ,\\
& & f_6(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 5\; 5\; 5\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.1484, \quad {\sigma}= 21 ,\end{aligned}$$ and the first of them is the only ${\sigma}$-optimal polynomial.
$\boldsymbol{ N = 7.}$ Beginning with this degree things become challenging. Inspection of the $7^8=5764801$ polynomials with $p_{\max} \le 7$ shows that exactly two of them are Hurwitz stable, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
& & b_7(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 5\; 7\; 7\; 6\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0175, \quad {\sigma}= 31,\\
& & c_7(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 6\; 7\; 7\; 5\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0077, \quad {\sigma}= 31 .\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, these are the $c$-optimal polynomials of degree $7$. Note that each of the two polynomials is the reverse of the other one. These two polynomials are not ${\sigma}$-optimal, because, for example, we also have the polynomials $$\begin{aligned}
& & d_7(z)={\tt [1 \; 2 \; 5 \; 8 \; 5 \; 6 \; 1 \; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}=-0.0131, \quad {\sigma}=29,\\
& & e_7(z)={\tt [1 \; 3 \; 4 \; 9\; 4 \; 6 \; 1 \; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}=-0.0526, \quad {\sigma}=29.\end{aligned}$$ I have not examined whether the last two polynomials are ${\sigma}$-optimal.
[**Multiplication and doubling.**]{} One way of getting Hurwitz stable polynomial of higher degrees is to multiply Hurwitz stable polynomials of lower degrees. Another way is as follows. Since $z$ is in the open left half-plane if and only if so is $z+1/z$, it follows that $q_N(z)$ is Hurwitz stable of degree $N$ if and only if $p_{2N}(z)=z^Nq_N(z+1/z)$ is a Hurwitz stable polynomial of degree $2N$. We refer to the passage from $q_N(z)$ to $p_{2N}(z)=z^Nq_N(z+1/z)$ as doubling. The sum of the coefficients of a product is equal to the product of the sums of the coefficients, and if $p_{2N}(z)$ results from $q_N(z)$ by doubling, then the sum of the coefficients of $p_{2N}(z)$ is $p_{2N}(1)=q_N(2)$.
$\boldsymbol{ N = 8.}$ Multiplying $a_{4}(z)$ by itself we obtain $$b_8(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 7\; 8\; 13\; 8\; 7\; 2\; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}=-0.1484, \quad {\sigma}=7\cdot 7=49.$$ However, such products are usually far away from the optimal polynomials. Doubling of $a_4(z)$ gives $$a_8(z)={\tt [1 \; 1 \; 7 \; 4 \; 13 \; 4 \; 7 \; 1 \; 1]}, \quad {\alpha}=-0.0518, \quad {\sigma}= 39.$$ I don’t know whether $a_8(z)$ is ${\sigma}$-optimal. It is surely not $c$-optimal, because the polynomials $$\begin{aligned}
& & c_8(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 6\; 9\; 11\; 10\; 7\; 2\; 1]},\quad {\alpha}= -0.0171,\quad {\sigma}=49,\\
& & d_8(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 6\; 9\; 11\; 11\; 7\; 3\; 1]},\quad {\alpha}= -0.0075, \quad {\sigma}= 51,\\
& & e_8(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 7\; 11\; 11\; 11\; 6\; 3\; 1]},\quad {\alpha}= -0.0135, \quad {\sigma}=53\end{aligned}$$ are Hurwitz stable. Note that the reverses of these polynomials are Hurwitz stable, too. Clearly, these six polynomials are closer to the $c$-optimal polynomials.
$\boldsymbol{ 10 \le N \le 18.}$ Doubling of $c_5(z)$, $d_6(z)$, $d_7(z)$, $c_8(z)$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
& & N=10, \quad b_{10}(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 8\; 12\; 20\; 21\; 20\; 12\; 8\; 2\; 1] }, \quad {\alpha}= -0.0117, \quad {\sigma}= 107 ,\\
& & N=12, \quad b_{12}(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 10\; 15\; 35\; 37\; 53\; 37\; 35\; 15\; 10\; 2\; 1] },\\
& & \qquad \qquad \quad {\alpha}= -0.0134 , \quad {\sigma}= 253 ,\\
& & N=14, \quad b_{14}(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 12\; 20\; 51\; 68\;101\;101\;101\; 68\; 51\; 20\; 12\; 2\; 1] },\\
& & \qquad \qquad \quad {\alpha}= -0.0050, \quad {\sigma}= 611 ,\\
& & N=16, \quad b_{16}(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 14\; 23\; 75\; 97\;197\;192\;271\;192\;197\; 97\; 75\; 23\; 14\; 2\; 1] },\\
& & \qquad \qquad \quad {\alpha}= -0.0042, \quad {\sigma}= 1473 ,\end{aligned}$$ and for $N=18$, I found $$b_{18}(z)={\tt [1\; 2\; 16\; 27\; 98\;139\;303\;353\;523\;479\;523\;353\;303\;139\; 98\; 27\; 16\; 2\; 1] }$$ with ${\alpha}= -0.0046$ and ${\sigma}= 3403$.
$\boldsymbol{ N = 20.}$ We arrive at the test posed in the introduction. Multiplication of $b_{10}(z)$ by itself gives $${\tt [1\; 4\; 20\; 56\; 152\; 314\; 588\; 920\; 1288\; 1548\; 1667\; 1548\; 1288
\; 920\; 588\; 314\; 152\; 56\; 20\; 4\; 1]}$$ with ${\alpha}= -0.0117$ and ${\sigma}=11449$. Multiplying other combinations yields similar results, the best being $a_{2}(z)\cdot b_{18}(z)$, which is $${\tt [1\; 3\; 19\; 45\; 141\; 264\; 540\; 795\; 1179\; 1355\; 1525\; 1355\; 1179
\; 795\; 540\; 264\; 141\; 45\; 19\; 3\; 1]}$$ with ${\alpha}=-0.0046$ and ${\sigma}=10209$. Thus, eventually we easily passed the test and constructed a polynomial with $p_{\max} = 1525$. However, notice that the success resulted from knowing the very good polynomials $b_{10}(z)$ and $b_{18}(z)$. In fact we can do it even better. Doubling $b_5(z)={\tt [1 \; 1 \; 4 \; 3 \; 2 \; 1]}$ we get $$c_{10}(z)={\tt [1 \; 1 \; 9 \; 7 \; 24 \; 13 \; 24 \; 7 \; 9 \; 1 \; 1]}, \quad {\sigma}=97,$$ and doubling this again, we arrive at $${\tt [1 \; 1 \; 19 \; 16 \; 141 \; 98 \; 540 \; 303 \; 1179 \; 523 \; 1525 \; 523 \; 1179 \;
303 \; 540 \; 98 \; 141 \; 16 \; 19 \; 1 \; 1]},\label{c20}$$ with ${\alpha}=-0.0067$ and ${\sigma}=7167$, which has the smallest ${\sigma}$ we have found. This polynomial will be denoted by $c_{20}(z)$. Moreover, doubling of $b_{10}(z)$ yields the polynomial $${\tt [1\; 2 \;18\; 30\; 129\;177\;484\; 537\;1046\;920\;1349\;920\;1046\;537\;484\;177\; 129\; 30\; 18\;2 \;1]}$$ with $p_{\max}=1349$, ${\alpha}=-0.0038$, ${\sigma}=8037$. We henceforth denote this polynomial by $b_{20}(z)$. I have not found a Hurwitz stable polynomial of degree $20$ whose largest coefficient is smaller than $1349$. Figures 3 and 4 show the zeros of $b_{18}(z)$ and $b_{20}(z)$.
\[Mult\]
{width="12cm"}
\[Rec\]
{width="12cm"}
[**Powers of $\boldsymbol{2}$.**]{} Repeated doubling of $a_1(z)={\tt [1\; 1]}$ yields the polynomials $$\begin{aligned}
& & a_{2}(z)={\tt [1 \; 1 \; 1]}, \quad {\sigma}=3,\\
& & a_4(z)={\tt [1\; 1\; 3\; 1\; 1]}, \quad {\sigma}= 7,\\
& & a_8(z)={\tt [1 \; 1 \; 7 \; 4 \; 13 \; 4 \; 7 \; 1 \; 1]}, \quad {\sigma}= 39,\\
& & a_{16}(z)=[1\;1\;15\;11\;83\;45\;220\;88\;303\;88\;220\;45\;83\;11\; 15\;1\;1], \quad {\sigma}=1231,\end{aligned}$$ and finally $$\begin{aligned}
& & a_{32}(z)={\tt [1 \; 1 \; 31 \; 26 \; 413 \; 293 \; 3141 \; 1896 \; 15261 \; 7866 \; 50187 \; 22122 \; 115410 \; 43488}\\
& & \qquad \qquad \;{\tt 189036 \; 60753 \; 222621 \;
60753 \; 189036 \; 43488 \; 115410 \; 22122 \; 50187 \; 7866}\\
& & \qquad \qquad \; 1{\tt 5261 \; 1896 \; 3141 \; 293 \; 413 \; 26 \; 31 \; 1 \; 1]}, \quad {\sigma}=1242471.\end{aligned}$$ The sum of the coefficients of $a_{64}(z)$ equals $a_{32}(2) \approx 1.2791\cdot 10^{12}$. When comparing $a_{16}(z)$ and $b_{16}(z)$, we see that $a_{16}(z)$ has the smaller ${\sigma}$ and that $b_{16}(z)$ has the smaller $p_{\max}$.
Higher degrees {#S5}
==============
Let $N$ be even. From Theorem \[Theo 3.1\] we infer that if $p_N(z)=p_Nz^N+\cdots+p_0$ is Hurwitz stable with $p_N \ge 1$ and $p_0 \ge 1$, then the sum of the coefficients always satisfies $p_N(1) \ge 2^{N/2}$. The polynomials $p_N(z)=(z^2+2xz+1)^{N/2}$ with sufficiently small $x >0$ show that Theorem \[Theo 3.1\] is sharp. In particular, given any ${\varepsilon}>0$, there is such a polynomial for which $p_N(1)< (2+{\varepsilon})^{N/2}$. But what happens if the coefficients are required to be integers?
Let $p_{\max}(N)$ denote the minimum of the largest coefficients and let ${\sigma}(N)$ be the minimum of the sum of the coefficients of the Hurwitz stable polynomials of degree $N$ with positive integer coefficients. Equivalently, $p_{\max}(N)$ is the largest coefficient of the $c$-optimal polynomials and ${\sigma}(N)$ is the sum of the coefficients of the ${\sigma}$-optimal polynomials. From the previous section we know the following.
$$\begin{array}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
N & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 10 & 20 & 32\\
\hline
p_{\max}(N) & 1 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 7 & 11 & \le 21 & \le 1349 & \le 222621\\
\hline
{\sigma}(N) & 2 & 3 & 5 & 7 & 12 & 17 & \le 29 & \le 39 & \le 97 & \le 7167 & \le 1242471\\
\hline
\end{array}$$
\[Theo Fek\] The limits of ${\sigma}(N)^{1/N}$ and $p_{\max}(N)^{1/N}$ exist and we have $$\lim_{N\to {\infty}}{\sigma}(N)^{1/N}=\inf_{N \ge 1}{\sigma}(N)^{1/N}=\lim_{N\to {\infty}}p_{\max}(N)^{1/N}
=\inf_{N \ge 1}p_{\max}(N)^{1/N}=:{\beta}.$$
[*Proof.*]{} Since the product of Hurwitz stable polynomials is again Hurwitz stable, it follows that $${\sigma}(N+M) \le {\sigma}(N){\sigma}(M).$$ Fekete’s subadditive lemma, for which see [@Fek] or [@Law p. 16], therefore implies that the limit of ${\sigma}(N)^{1/N}$ exists and coincides with the infimum of ${\sigma}(N)^{1/N}$ for $N \ge 1$. For every polynomial $p_N(z)$ of degree $N$ with positive coefficients, the inequalities $$\frac{{\sigma}}{N+1} \le p_{\max} \le {\sigma}$$ hold, where ${\sigma}$ is the sum and $p_{\max}$ is the maximum of the coefficients. If $p_N(z)$ is ${\sigma}$-optimal, then ${\sigma}={\sigma}(N)$ and hence $$p_{\max}(N) \le p_{\max} \le {\sigma}={\sigma}(N).$$ In case $p_N(z)$ is $c$-optimal, we have $p_{\max}=p_{\max}(N)$ and consequently, $$\frac{{\sigma}(N)}{N+1} \le \frac{{\sigma}}{N+1} \le p_{\max}=p_{\max}(N).$$ Thus, ${\sigma}(N)/(N+1) \le p_{\max}(N) \le {\sigma}(N)$, which shows that the limit and the infimum of $p_{\max}(N)^{1/N}$ coincide with the limit and the infimum of ${\sigma}(N)^{1/N}$: $\;\:\square$
Theorem \[Theo 3.1\] with $v=1$ shows that ${\beta}\ge \sqrt{2}=1.4142\ldots$.
\[Prop Wu\] Let $p_k(z)$ be any Hurwitz stable polynomial with positive integer coefficients. If $N$ is divisible by $k$, then ${\sigma}(N) \le (\sqrt[k]{p_k(1)}\,)^N$.
[*Proof.*]{} Let $N=nk$ and consider $p_N(z)=p_k(z)^n$. Then $${\sigma}(N) \le p_N(1) = p_k(1)^n = (p_k(1)^{1/k})^N. \quad \square$$
The best results from Proposition \[Prop Wu\] are delivered by taking ${\sigma}$-optimal polynomials, in which case $p_k(1)={\sigma}(k)$. Here are the numbers.
$$\begin{array}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
k & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 10 & 20 & 32\\
\hline
{\sigma}(k) \le & 2 & 3 & 5 & 7 & 12 & 17 & 29 & 39 & 97 & 7167 & 1242471\\
\hline
& & & & & & & & & & & \\[-2.4ex]
\sqrt[k]{{\sigma}(k)}\le & 2 & 1.74 & 1.72 & 1.63 & 1.65 & 1.61 & 1.62 & 1.59 & 1.59 & 1.56 & 1.56\\
\hline
\end{array}$$
Since $\sqrt[20]{7167}=1.5587\ldots $ and $\sqrt[32]{1242471}=1.5504 \ldots$, we arrive at the following.
\[Cor be1\] We have $$1.4142\ldots = \sqrt{2} \le {\beta}\le \sqrt[32]{1242471}=1.5504\ldots.$$
\[Theo 5.1\] If $N$ is divisible by $20$ or $32$, then $1.41^N < {\sigma}(N) < 1.56^N$.
[*Proof.*]{} We know from Theorem \[Theo 3.1\] that ${\sigma}(N) \ge 2^{N/2}=(2^{1/2})^N > 1.41^N$, and Proposition \[Prop Wu\] implies that ${\sigma}(N) \le (\sqrt[20]{7167}\,)^N < 1.56^N$ if $N$ is divisible by $20$ and that ${\sigma}(N) \le (\sqrt[32]{1242471}\,)^N < 1.56^N$ if $N$ is divisible by $32$. $\;\:\square$
In what follows we need the sequence $v_0,v_1, v_2, \ldots$ given by $v_0=1$ and $v_{n+1}=v_n+1/v_n$. The first terms are $$v_0=1, \quad v_1=2, \quad v_2= \frac{5}{2}=2.5, \quad v_3= \frac{29}{10}=2.9, \quad
v_4= \frac{941}{290}=3.2448\ldots .$$
\[Lem vn\] We have $\sqrt{n+1} < v_n < 2\sqrt{n}$ for $n \ge 2$ and $$v_n=\sqrt{2n}\left(1+O\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)\right).$$
[*Proof.*]{} We prove the inequalities $\sqrt{n+1} < v_n \le 2\sqrt{n}$ by induction on $n$. They are obviously true for $n=2$. So suppose they hold for $n$. We then have $$v_{n+1}=v_n+\frac{1}{v_n} \le 2\sqrt{n}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+1}} < 2\sqrt{n+1}$$ because $$2\sqrt{n+1}-2\sqrt{n}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{n+1}+\sqrt{n}} > \frac{2}{\sqrt{n+1}+\sqrt{n+1}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n+1}}.$$ In the same vein, $$v_{n+1}=v_n+\frac{1}{v_n} > \sqrt{n+1}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{n}} > \sqrt{n+2}$$ since $$\sqrt{n+2}-\sqrt{n+1} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n+2}+\sqrt{n+1}}< \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}+\sqrt{n}}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{n}}.$$ This completes the proof of the inequalities. To prove the asymptotics, note first that the numbers $v_n$ satisfy $v_n^2=v_{n-1}^2+1/v_{n-1}^2+2$. Consequently, $$v_n^2 > v_{n-1}^2+2 > v_{n-2}^2 +2\cdot 2 > \ldots > v_0^2 +n\cdot 2 =2n+1,$$ which implies that $v_n > \sqrt{2n}$. On the other hand, $$v_n^2=v_{n-1}^2+\frac{1}{v_{n-1}^2}+2= v_{n-2}^2+\frac{1}{v_{n-2}^2}+\frac{1}{v_{n-1}^2}+2\cdot 2$$ and so on, which eventually gives $$v_n^2=v_1^2+\frac{1}{v_1^2}+ \cdots+\frac{1}{v_{n-1}^2}+(n-1)\cdot 2.$$ As $v_k > \sqrt{2k}$, we conclude that $$\frac{v_n^2}{2n}< \frac{1}{2n}\left(4+\frac{1}{2\cdot 1}+\cdots+\frac{1}{2(n-1)}\right)+\frac{n-1}{2n}\cdot 2
=1+O\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)$$ and hence $$v_n\le\sqrt{2n}\left(1+O\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)\right).$$ This estimate in conjunction with the inequality $v_n > \sqrt{2n}$ proves the lemma. $\:\;\square$
We define $${\gamma}_k=\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\frac{\log v_j}{2^{j+1}}, \quad {\gamma}=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{\log v_j}{2^{j+1}}=0.4329\ldots.$$ The first values are $$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
k & {{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}_k} & {\gamma}_k\\
\hline
1 & 1 & 0 \\
2 & \sqrt[4]{2}=1.1892\ldots & 0.1733\ldots\\
3 & \sqrt[8]{10}=1.3335\ldots & 0.2878\ldots \\
4 & \sqrt[16]{290}=1.4252\ldots & 0.3544 \ldots\\
\hline
\end{array}$$
Throughout what follows, if $N=2^n$ is a power of $2$, we denote by $a_N(z)$ the polynomials obtained from $a_1(z)=z+1$ by $n$ doublings. The first of these polynomials are listed at the end of Section \[S4\].
\[Lem aN1\] Let $N=2^n$. Then $$a_N(1)=(v_n+1) {{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}_n N} < (2\sqrt{n}+1){{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}N}$$ with ${{\rm e}}^{\gamma}= 1.5417\ldots$ and $$a_N(1)=\left((2n)^{1/4}+(2n)^{-1/4}\right){{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}N}\left(1+O\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)\right).$$
[*Proof.*]{} We have $$a_N(1) = v_0^{N/2}a_{n/2}(v_1)=v_0^{N/2}v_1^{N/4}a_{N/4}(v_2)
= \ldots = v_0^{N/2}v_1^{N/4} \cdots v_{n-1} a_1(v_n),$$ and since $$\log( v_0^{N/2}v_1^{N/4} \cdots v_{n-1}) = 2^n\left(\frac{\log v_0}{2}+\frac{\log v_1}{2^2}+ \cdots + \frac{\log v_{n-1}}{2^n}\right)
=N{\gamma}_n,$$ we get $a_N(1)=(v_n+1){{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}_n N}$. The upper bound $(2\sqrt{n}+1){{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}N}$ follows from Lemma \[Lem vn\]. To prove the asymptotics, we write $$\log a_N(1)=\log(v_n+1)+2^n{\gamma}_n=\log(v_n+1)+2^n{\gamma}-r_n, \quad r_n=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{\log v_{n+j}}{2^{j+1}}.$$ By Lemma \[Lem vn\], $$r_n=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{\log 2}{2^{j+2}}+\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{\log (n+j)}{2^{j+2}}
+O\left(\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{\log (n+j)}{2^{j+1}(n+j)}\right).\label{6.1}$$ The first sum in (\[6.1\]) is $(1/4)\log 2$. Using that $\log(1+x)<x$ for $x >0$, the second sum can be estimated as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{\log (n+j)}{2^{j+2}} & = & \sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{\log n+\log(1+j/n)}{2^{j+2}}\\
& = & \frac{1}{4}\log n+O\left(\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\frac{j}{2^{j+2}n}\right)=
\frac{1}{4}\log n+O\left(\frac{1}{n}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying the $j$th term in the third sum by $n/\log n$, it becomes $$\frac{\log(n+j)}{\log n} \frac{n}{n+j} \frac{1}{2^{j+1}}
=\frac{\log n+\log(1+j/n)}{\log n} \frac{n}{n+j} \frac{1}{2^{j+1}}
< \left(1+\frac{j}{n \log n}\right)\frac{1}{2^{j+1}},$$ and as this is smaller than $(1+j)/2^{j+1}$, we arrive at the conclusion that the third term in (\[6.1\]) is $O((\log n)/n)$. Putting things together we obtain $$a_N(1)=(v_n+1){{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}N}{{\rm e}}^{-(1/4)\log n}{{\rm e}}^{-(1/4)\log 2}\left(1+O\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)\right).$$ From Lemma \[Lem vn\] we infer that $$v_n+1=\sqrt{2n}\left(1+O\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)\right)+1
=(\sqrt{2n}+1)\left(1+O\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)\right).$$ What finally results is $$a_N(1)=\frac{\sqrt{2n}+1}{(2n)^{1/4}}{{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}N}\left(1+O\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)\right),$$ which is equivalent to the assertion. $\;\:\square$
Here is a slight improvement of Corollary \[Cor be1\].
\[Cor be2\] We have $$1.4142\ldots = \sqrt{2} \le {\beta}\le {{\rm e}}^{\gamma}=1.5417\ldots.$$
[*Proof.*]{} Let ${\varepsilon}>0$ be arbitrarily given. Choose $K=2^k$ so that $(2\sqrt{k}+1)^{1/K} < 1+{\varepsilon}$. Lemma \[Lem aN1\] then gives $a_K(1)^{1/K} < (1+{\varepsilon}){{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}}$. If $N$ is divisible by $2^k$, Proposition \[Prop Wu\] implies that ${\sigma}(N)^{1/N} \le a_K(1)^{1/K}< (1+{\varepsilon}){{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}}$, whence ${\beta}\le (1+{\varepsilon}){{\rm e}}^{\gamma}$. As ${\varepsilon}>0$ was arbitrary, we conclude that ${\beta}\le {{\rm e}}^{\gamma}$. $\;\:\square$
A polynomial $p_N(z)=p_Nz^N+\cdots+p_0$ of even degree $N$ is called symmetric if $p_j=p_{N-j}$ for all $j$. In that case there is a unique polynomial $p_{N/2}(z)$ of degree $N/2$ such that $p_N(z)=z^{N/2} p_{N/2}(z+1/z)$. The polynomial $p_{N/2}(z)$ is Hurwitz stable if and only if so is $p_N(z)$, and $p_{N/2}(z)$ has integer coefficients if and only if $p_N(z)$ has integer coefficients. If $N/2$ is also even and $p_{N/2}(z)$ is symmetric, we call $p_N(z)$ a $2$-fold symmetric polynomial. We then have $p_{N/2}(z)=z^{N/4}p_{N/4}(z)$. If $N/4$ is even and $p_{N/4}(z)$ is symmetric, then $p_N(z)$ is said to be $3$-fold symmetric and so on. In other words, a polynomial is $k$-fold symmetric if and only if it results after $k$ doubling procedures from another polynomial. Symmetry is $1$-fold symmetry in this context.
We denote by ${\sigma}_k(N)$ the minimum of the sum of the coefficients among all Hurwitz stable $k$-fold symmetric polynomials of degree $N$ with positive integer coefficients. Clearly, ${\sigma}(N) \le {\sigma}_1(N) \le {\sigma}_2(N) \le \ldots$.
\[Theo kfold\] Let $N$ be divisible by $2^k$. Then $${\sigma}(N) \le {\sigma}_k(N) \le (v_k+1)^{N/2^k}{{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}_k N}$$ and $${{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}_k N} \le \Big((v_k^2+1)^{1/2^{k+1}}\Big)^N {{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}_k N}\le {\sigma}_k(N).$$
[*Proof.*]{} Let $N=2^km$. The polynomial $p_N(z)=a_{2^k}(z)^m$ is $k$-fold symmetric and hence ${\sigma}_k(N) \le p_N(1)$. From Lemma \[Lem aN1\] we therefore obtain that $$\frac{\log {\sigma}_k(N)}{N} \le \frac{m \log a_{2^k}(1)}{N}
=\frac{m \log (v_k+1)+m\cdot 2^k {\gamma}_k}{N}=\frac{\log(v_k+1)}{2^{k}}+{\gamma}_k,$$ which proves the upper estimate for ${\sigma}_k(N)$. To get the lower estimate, let $p_N(z)$ be an arbitrary $k$-fold symmetric Hurwitz stable polynomial of degree $N$ with positive integer coefficients. We then have $$p_N(1) = p_{N/2}(v_1) = v_1^{N/4}p_{N/4}(v_2)=v_1^{N/4}v_2^{N/8} p_{N/8}(v_3)$$ and so on, terminating with $$\log p_N(1)=\frac{N}{4}\log v_1+\frac{N}{8}\log v_2 + \cdots + \frac{N}{2^k}\log v_k+
\log p_{N/2^k}(v_k),$$ which is the same as $\log p_N(1)= N {\gamma}_k + \log p_{N/2^k}(v_k)$. From Theorem \[Theo 3.1\] we now deduce that $$\log p_N(1)\ge N {\gamma}_k +\frac{N}{2^{k+1}}\log(v_k^2+1) \ge N{\gamma}_k.$$ Taking the exponential we arrive at the asserted lower estimates. $\;\:\square$
For $k=1,2,3$ the bounds provided by Theorem \[Theo kfold\] read as follows.
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
k & \Big((v_k^2+1)^{1/2^{k+1}}\Big) {{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}_k} \le {\sigma}_k(N)^{1/N} \le (v_k+1)^{1/2^k}{{\rm e}}^{{\gamma}_k}\\
\hline
& \\[-2ex]
1 & 1.4953\ldots = \sqrt[4]{5} \le {\sigma}_k(N)^{1/N} \le \sqrt{3}=1.7320\ldots\\[1ex]
2 & 1.5233\ldots = \sqrt[8]{29} \le {\sigma}_k(N)^{1/N} \le \sqrt[4]{7}= 1.6265\ldots\\[1ex]
3 & 1.5340\ldots =\sqrt[16]{941} \le {\sigma}_k(N)^{1/N} \le \sqrt[8]{39}=1.5808\ldots\\
\hline
\end{array}$$
Clearly, the $k$-fold sigmas ${\sigma}_k(N)$ also satisfy the inequality ${\sigma}_k(N+M) \le {\sigma}_k(N){\sigma}_k(M)$, and hence, by the argument of the proof of Theorem \[Theo Fek\], the limits ${\beta}_k$ of ${\sigma}_k(N)^{1/N}$ exist as well.
\[Corbeta\] We have $$\begin{aligned}
& & 1.41 < 1.4142\ldots =\sqrt{2} \le {\beta}\le {{\rm e}}^{\gamma}=1.5417\ldots < 1.55,\\
& & 1.49 < 1.4953\ldots =\sqrt[4]{5} \le {\beta}_1 \le {{\rm e}}^{\gamma}=1.5417\ldots < 1.55,\\
& & 1.52 < 1.5233\ldots =\sqrt[8]{29} \le {\beta}_2 \le {{\rm e}}^{\gamma}=1.5417\ldots < 1.55,\\
& & 1.53 < 1.5340\ldots = \sqrt[16]{941} \le {\beta}_3 \le {{\rm e}}^{\gamma}=1.5417\ldots < 1.55.\end{aligned}$$
[*Proof.*]{} The only thing we need to prove is the upper bound for ${\sigma}_k(N)$. So fix $k$ and take $N=2^{k+\ell}$ with $\ell=0,1,2, \ldots$. Then ${\sigma}_k(N) \le a_{2^{k+\ell}}(1)$, and Lemma \[Lem aN1\] tells us that, given any ${\varepsilon}>0$, $$\frac{\log {\sigma}_k(N)}{N}\le \frac{\log(2\sqrt{k+\ell}+1)}{2^{k+\ell}}+{\gamma}< {\varepsilon}+{\gamma}$$ whenever $\ell$ is large enough. This shows that the limit of ${\sigma}_k(N)^{1/N}$ does not exceed $e^{\gamma}$, as desired. $\;\:\square$
\[Theo 5.2\] If $N$ is divisible by $20$, then $$\frac{1.41^N}{N} < p_{\max}(N) < 1.56^N\left(\frac{0.68}{\sqrt{N}}+0.97^N\right).$$
[*Proof.*]{} To show the lower bound, let $p_N(z)$ be $c$-optimal. Then the sum of the coefficients of $p_N(z)$ is at most $N p_{\max}$, and since this sum is greater than $1.41^N$ by Theorem \[Theo 5.1\], we conclude that $p_{\max} > 1.41^N/N$.
The upper bound will follow once we have shown that the largest coefficient of the polynomial $c_{20 k}(z):=c_{20}(z)^k$ is smaller than this bound, where $k=N/20$ and $c_{20}(z)$ is the polynomial (\[c20\]). The polynomial $c_{20}(z)$ is symmetric and hence $$c_{20}(z)=z^{10}\left(c_{10}+c_9(z+z^{-1})+ \cdots + c_0(z^{10}+z^{-10})\right).$$ Thus, $$c_{20 k}(z)=z^{10 k}\left(c_0(k)+c_1(k)(z+z^{-1})+ \cdots + c_{10 k}(k)(z^{10 k}+z^{-10 k})\right),$$ and the numbers $c_j(k)$ are the coefficients of $c_{20k}(z)$. For real $x$, we define $$f(x)=c_{10}+c_9(\\e^{{{\rm i}}x}+{{\rm e}}^{-{{\rm i}}x})+ \cdots + c_0 ({{\rm e}}^{ 10 {{\rm i}}x}+{{\rm e}}^{-10 {{\rm i}}x}).$$ Then $c_j(k)$ is just the $j$th Fourier coefficient of $f(x)^k$, that is, $$c_j(k)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi f(x)^k {{\rm e}}^{-\\i j x}dx.$$ It follows that $$c_j(k)=|c_j(k)| \le \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi |f(x)|^k dx.$$ (Actually $f(x)>0$ for all $x$, but we don’t need this.) We have $f(0)=7167=:{\sigma}$ and the function $$\frac{f(x)}{{\sigma}}=\frac{c_{10}}{{\sigma}}+\frac{2 c_9}{{\sigma}} \cos (x) + \cdots + \frac{2 c_0}{{\sigma}} \cos (10 x)$$ satisfies $0<f(x)/{\sigma}\le {{\rm e}}^{-3.5 x^2}$ for $|x| <1$ and $|f(x)/{\sigma}| < 1/2$ for $1 \le |x| <\pi$. Figure 5 shows the graphs of $f(x)/{\sigma}$ and ${{\rm e}}^{-3.5 x^2}$.
\[Glock\]
{width="12cm"}
Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
& & \frac{1}{2\pi {\sigma}^k}\int_{-\pi}^\pi f(x)^k dx < \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{|x|<1}{{\rm e}}^{-3.5 x^2} dx+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{1< |x| <\pi} 0.5^k dx\\
& & < \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-{\infty}}^{\infty}{{\rm e}}^{-3.5 x^2} dx+ 0.5^k
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{14 \pi k}}+0.2^k.\end{aligned}$$ In summary we have $$p_{\max}(N) \le {\sigma}^k\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{14 \pi k}}+0.2^k\right).$$ Inserting $k=N/20$ and ${\sigma}=7167$ and taking into account that $7167^{1/20}< 1.56$ and $0.5^{1/20}<0.97$, we arrive at the asserted upper bound. $\;\:\square$
\[Rem c20\] [It is easy to find the asymptotics of the largest coefficient of the polynomials used in the preceding proof.]{}
Let $c_{20}(z)$ be the polynomial (\[c20\]) and put $${\sigma}=c_{20}(1)=7167, \quad \tau=\frac{26313}{7167}=3.6714 \ldots.$$ Then the maximum of the coefficients of $c_{20}(z)^k$ is $$\frac{{\sigma}^k}{\sqrt{4\pi\tau k}}\,(1+o(1)).$$
Indeed, we observed that the maximum in question is $$\frac{{\sigma}^k}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi \left(\frac{f(x)}{{\sigma}}\right)^k dx=\frac{{\sigma}^k}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi {{\rm e}}^{k g(x)} dx$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{f(x)}{{\sigma}} & = & \frac{c_{10}}{{\sigma}}+\frac{2 c_9}{{\sigma}} \cos (x) + \cdots + \frac{2 c_0}{{\sigma}} \cos (10 x)\\
& = & 1-\frac{1}{{\sigma}}(c_9+2^2 c_8+3^2 c_7 + \cdots + 10^2 c_0) x^2 +O(x^4) =1 - \tau x^2 +O(x^4).\end{aligned}$$ and $g(x):=\log (f(x)/{\sigma})= -\tau x^2+O(x^4)$. The function $g(x)$ is twice differentiable and attains it maximum on $[-\pi,\pi]$ only at $x=0$. A well known theorem by Laplace therefore implies that $$\frac{{\sigma}^k}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi {{\rm e}}^{k g(x)} dx = \frac{{{\rm e}}^{k g(0)}{\sigma}^k}{\sqrt{2\pi k |g''(0)|}} \,(1+o(1))
= \frac{{\sigma}^k}{\sqrt{2\pi k \cdot 2\tau}} \,(1+o(1)).$$
Writing $k=N/20$ we get for the maximal coefficient of $c_N(z)=c_{20}(z)^k$ the asymptotics $$(\sqrt[20]{7167})^N \,\sqrt{\frac{5}{\pi \tau N}}\,(1+o(1))\approx 1.5587 ^N\,\frac{0.6584}{\sqrt{N}}\,(1+o(1)),$$ which is in accordance with Theorem \[Theo 5.2\]. The number $3.5$ we used in the proof of Theorem \[Theo 5.2\] comes from the estimate $3.5 < \tau= 3.6714 \ldots$. $\;\:\square$
[99]{}
D. A. Bini, G. Fiorentino, L. Gemignani, and B. Meini, [*Effective fast algorithms for polynomial spectral factorization*]{}. Numer. Algorithms 34 (2003), 217–227.
M. Fekete, [*Über die Verteilung der Wurzeln bei gewissen algebraischen Gleichungen mit ganzzahligen Koeffizienten*]{}. Math. Zeitschrift 17 (1923), 228–249.
G. F. Lawler and L. N. Coyle, [*Lectures on Contemporary Probability*]{}. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1999.
I. Schur, [*Über die Verteilung der Wurzeln bei gewissen algebraischen Gleichungen mit ganzzahligen Koeffizienten*]{}. Math. Zeitschrift 1 (1918), 377–402.
V. Trevisan, [*Recognition of Hurwitz polynomials*]{}. SIGSAM Bull. 24 (1990), 26–32.
Albrecht Böttcher
Fakultät für Mathematik
TU Chemnitz
09107 Chemnitz
Germany
[^1]: MSC 2010: Primary 12D10; Secondary 12D05, 26C10, 47A68, 93B25
[^2]: Keywords: Hurwitz polynomial, integer coefficients, Fekete’s subadditive lemma
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the joint distribution of the solutions to the equation $gh=x$ in $G(\F_p)$ as $p\to\infty$, for any fixed $x\in G(\Z)$, where $G=\GL_n$, $\SL_n$, $\Sp_{2n}$ or $\SO_{n}^\pm$. In the special linear case, this answers in particular a question raised by S. Hu and Y. Li, and improves their error terms. Similar results are derived in certain subgroups, and when the entries of $g,h$ lie in fixed intervals. The latter shows for example the existence of $g\in\GL_n(\F_p)$ such that $g,g^{-1}$ have all entries in $[0, c_np^{1-1/(2n^2+2)+\varepsilon}]$ for some absolute constant $c_n>0$. The key for these results is to use Deligne’s extension of the Weil conjectures on a sheaf on $G$, along with the stratification theorem of Fouvry, Katz and Laumon, instead of reducing to bounds on classical Kloosterman sums.'
address: 'Centre de Recherches Mathématiques, Université de Montréal, Canada'
author:
- 'Corentin Perret-Gentil'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
date: 'June 2018. Revised October 2018.'
title: Joint distribution of inverses in matrix groups over finite fields
---
Introduction
============
The cases of $(\Z/n)^\times$ and $\GL_n(\F_p)$
----------------------------------------------
Following several similar results for the group $(\Z/n)^\times$ (see [@Shpar12] for a survey), S. Hu and Y. Li [@HuLi13] have shown that for the matrix group $G=\GL_n(\F_p)$ and any $x\in G$, the solutions to the equation $$gh=x \hspace{0.5cm} (g,h\in G)$$ are uniformly distributed in $[0,1]^{n^2}\times[0,1]^{n^2}$ as $p\to\infty$, with respect to the embedding $$\begin{aligned}
&&\eta: M_n(\F_p)\to [0,1]^{n^2}\label{eq:eta}\\
&&g=(g_{i,j})_{i,j}\mapsto \left(\{g_{i,j}/p\}\right)_{i,j},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\{\cdot\}$ denotes the fractional part. In particular, the entries of a nonsingular matrix and its inverse are jointly uniformly distributed. More precisely, they obtain a bound for the discrepancy.
Their main tools are bounds for matrix analogues of Kloosterman sums obtained in [@FHLOS10] by reducing to classical Kloosterman sums.
Special linear groups {#subsec:SL}
---------------------
At the end of their paper, Hu and Li note that this does *not* hold for $G=\SL_2(\F_p)$, but conjecture that there should be joint uniform distribution whenever $n\ge 3$. We positively answer this by showing:
\[thm:unifdisppGLSL\] Let $G$ be $$\label{eq:GLSL}
\GL_n \ (n\ge 1) \text{ or }\SL_n \ (n\ge 3),
$$ and let $x\in G(\Z)$. As $p\to\infty$, the elements $$A_x(g)=\left(g,g^{-1}x\right)\in M_n(\F_p)\times M_n(\F_p) \hspace{0.5cm} (g\in G(\F_p))$$ are uniformly distributed in $\Omega=[0,1]^{n^2}\times[0,1]^{n^2}$ with respect to the embedding . More precisely, for every product of intervals $R$ in $\Omega$, $$\frac{|\{g\in G(\F_p) : \eta(A_x(g))\in R\}|}{|G(\F_p)|}={\operatorname{meas}}(R)+
\begin{cases}
O_n \left(\frac{(\log{p})^{n^2+1}}{\sqrt{p}}\right) &: G=\GL_n\\
O_n \left(\frac{(\log{p})^{n^2+2}}{\sqrt{p}}\right) &: G=\SL_n
\end{cases}$$ as $p\to\infty$. This also holds with $R\subset \Omega$ an arbitrary convex set if the errors are replaced by they $1/(2n^2)$th powers.
This improves the error terms of [@HuLi13], which are for example $p^{-1/(2(2n^2+1))}$ when $G=\GL_n$. The bulk of the improvement comes from bounding nontrivially the $1/r(\bs h)$ factors that appear in the Erdős–Turán–Koksma, as suggested by an anonymous referee.
We recall that for two complex-valued functions $f,g$, we write $f=O_n(g)$ or $f\ll_n g$ if there exists a constant $C_n>0$, depending only on the variable $n$, such that $|f|\le C_n g$.
### Generalization to certain subgroups
The following variant shows that equidistribution of $A_x(g)$ still holds in certain subgroups of $\GL_n$.
\[thm:GLdet\] Let us consider the setting of Theorem \[thm:unifdisppGLSL\] for $G=\GL_n$. For $f\in \F_p[G]^\times$ a nonvanishing nonconstant function and $U\le\F_p^\times$ a subgroup, let $$H=f^{-1}(U)=\{g\in G(\F_p) : f(g)\in U\}.$$ For every product of intervals $R\subset\Omega$, we have $$\frac{|\{g\in H : \eta(A_x(g))\in R\}|}{|H|}={\operatorname{meas}}(R)+O_{n,\deg(f)} \left(\frac{\sqrt{p}}{|U|}\left(\log \frac{|U|}{\sqrt{p}}\right)^{n^2+1}\right)$$ as $p\to\infty$. The set $R$ can be replaced by an arbitrary convex set if the error term is replaced by its $1/(2n^2)$th power.
One may take $H=\{g\in \GL_n(\F_p) : \det(g)\in \F_p^{\times r}\}$ with $r=o(\sqrt{p})$, where $\F_p^{\times r}$ denotes the set of $r$-powers in $\F_p^\times$.
\[ref:nonvanishingf\]
1. It is a theorem of Rosenlicht (see e.g. [@Brou83]) that if $G$ is a connected affine algebraic group, then $f/f(1)\in\overline\F_p[G]^\times$ must be a one-dimensional character (i.e. a character of the abelianization); in particular, the set $H$ in Theorem \[thm:GLdet\] is a *normal subgroup*.
2. In particular, we cannot get a nontrivial version of Theorem \[thm:GLdet\] for $\SL_n(\F_p)$: since the latter is perfect for $p>3$, $f$ must be constant. The classification of maximal subgroups of $\SL_n(\F_p)$ [@Asch84] also shows that the restriction on the index is too stringent.
3. Using the same techniques, it should be possible to obtain Theorem \[thm:GLdet\] also when $H\le \GL_n(\F_p)$ is any normal subgroup of index $<\sqrt{p}$. However, this requires additional technicalities that we do not wish to pursue here (see Remark \[rem:FKchi\] for further comments).
Other classical groups
----------------------
### Symplectic groups
On the other hand, it is clear that Theorem \[thm:unifdisppGLSL\] does *not* hold for $G=\Sp_n$ ($n\ge 2$ even). Indeed, if $$g=
\left(\begin{matrix}
g_1&g_2\\
g_3&g_4
\end{matrix}\right)\in\Sp_{2n}(\F_p),\text{ then }g^{-1}=
\left(\begin{matrix}
g_4^t&-g_2^t\\
-g_3^t&g_1^t
\end{matrix}\right)$$ (with respect to the standard symplectic form, where $g_i\in M_{2n}(\F_p)$). Hence, the obstruction for $\SL_2$ can be viewed as coming from the fact that $\SL_2(\F_p)=\Sp_2(\F_p)$.
### Special orthogonal groups
Let $\Phi\in\GL_n(\F_p)$ be in one of the two equivalence classes of nonsingular symmetric bilinear forms on $\F_p^n$. Since $g^{-1}=\Phi g^t\Phi^{-1}$ for $g\in\GO(\Phi)$, Theorem \[thm:unifdisppGLSL\] does not hold either in this case. Actually, when $n=2$, the elements of the special orthogonal group corresponding to the form $\diag(\alpha,1)$ ($\alpha\in\F_p^\times$) are themselves not uniformly distributed in $[0,1]^4$ with respect to the embedding , since they are of the form $\left(
\begin{smallmatrix}
a&-\alpha c\\c&a
\end{smallmatrix}
\right)$.
Distribution of elements
------------------------
Nonetheless, the elements themselves are still uniformly distributed in all cases except $\SO_2^\pm$, as in [@HuLi13 Theorems 1.5–1.6] for $\GL_n$ and $\SL_n$.
\[thm:distrElements\] For $n\ge 2$, let $G$ be[^1] $$\GL_n, \hspace{0.5cm} \SL_n,\hspace{0.5cm}\Sp_{n}\ (n\text{ even}),\hspace{0.2cm}\text{ or}\hspace{0.5cm}\SO_{n,I_n} \ (n\ge 3).$$ As $p\to\infty$, the elements $g\in G(\F_p)$ are uniformly distributed in $\Omega=[0,1]^{n^2}$ with respect to the embedding . More precisely, for every product of intervals $R$ in $\Omega$, $$\frac{|\{g\in G(\F_p) : \eta(g)\in R\}|}{|G(\F_p)|}={\operatorname{meas}}(R)+ O_n \left( \frac{(\log{p})^{n^2-\dim G+1}}{\sqrt{p}}\right)$$ as $p\to\infty$. This also holds with $R\subset \Omega$ an arbitrary convex set if error term is replaced by its $1/(2n^2)$th power.
Note that the exponent of the logarithms in the error term is $2$, $3$, $(n^2+1)/2$ if $G=\GL_n$, $\SL_n$ or $\Sp_n$ respectively. Theorem \[thm:distrElements\] improves the errors terms:
- in [@HuLi13], handling $\GL_n$ and $\SL_n$ using [@HuLi12], which are $p^{-n/(n^2+1)}$.
- in Theorem \[thm:unifdisppGLSL\] for the joint distribution.
In the same vein as Theorem \[thm:GLdet\], we get the following generalization:
\[thm:distrElementsf\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:distrElements\], let $H$ be as in Theorem \[thm:GLdet\]. Then, for any product of intervals $R\subset\Omega$, $$\frac{|\{g\in H : \eta(g)\in R\}|}{|H|}={\operatorname{meas}}(R)+ O_{n,\deg(f)} \left(\frac{\sqrt{p}}{|U|}\left(\log \frac{|U|}{\sqrt{p}}\right)^{n^2-\dim G+1}\right).$$
Distribution with entries in intervals
--------------------------------------
A related question in $G=(\Z/n)^\times$ is the distribution of the solutions to $gh=x$, for some fixed $x\in G$, when $1\le g,h\le p-1$ lie in fixed intervals. It is a conjecture (see [@Shpar12 Section 3.1]) that for any $\varepsilon>0$ and $p$ large enough, there exist integers $g,h$ such that $gh=1\pmod{p}$ with $|g|,|h|\le p^{1/2+\varepsilon}$. The best current result seems to be $|g|,|h|\ll p^{3/4}$, due to Garaev (note the absence of a logarithmic factor).\
In matrix groups, we can similarly fix the entries of the matrices in intervals, yielding the following:
\[thm:intervals\] Let $G$ be as in Theorem \[thm:unifdisppGLSL\]. For $p$ a prime, let $E,F\subset [0,p-1]^{n^2}$ be products of intervals. Then, for any $x\in G(\F_p)$, viewing $M_n(\F_p)$ embedded in $[0,p-1]^{n^2}$, the density $$\label{eq:densityIntervals}
\frac{|\{g\in G(\F_p): g\in E\text{ and }g^{-1}x\in F\}|}{|G(\F_p)|}$$ is given by $$\frac{{\operatorname{meas}}(E\times F)}{p^{2n^2}} + O_n \left(\frac{(\log{p})^{2n^2}}{p^{\dim G/2}}\left(1+\left(\frac{\sum_{1\le k,l\le n}{\operatorname{meas}}(E_{kl})}{\sqrt{p}}\right)^{\dim G-1}\right)\right),$$ if $E=\prod_{1\le k,l\le n}E_{kl}$.
\[cor:intervals\] Let $G$ be as in Theorem \[thm:unifdisppGLSL\] and let $p$ be a prime. For any $\varepsilon>0$ and $x\in G(\F_p)$, there exist $g,h\in G(\F_p)$ such that $gh=x$ and whose entries, seen in $[0,p-1]$, are all $$\ll_{n,\varepsilon}
\begin{cases}
p^{1-\frac{1}{2(n^2+1)}+\varepsilon}&:G=\GL_n\\
p^{1-\frac{1}{2(n^2+2)}+\varepsilon}&:G=\SL_n.
\end{cases}$$
We also refer the reader to [@AhmSpar07] for related questions concerning matrices, and to [@Fouv00], [@FK01 Corollary 1.5] for general results on points on varieties in hypercubes.
Higher-dimensional variant
--------------------------
Using the same techniques, we can get an analogue of Theorem \[thm:unifdisppGLSL\] for the uniform distribution of solutions to $$g_1\dots g_r=x \hspace{0.5cm} (g_i\in G(\F_p))$$ for any $r\ge 2$ and $x$ fixed:
\[thm:unifdisppGLSLr\] Let $G$ and $x$ be as in Theorem \[thm:unifdisppGLSL\], and let $r\ge 2$ be an integer. As $p\to\infty$, the elements $$A_x(\bs g)=\left(g_1,\dots,g_{r-1},(g_1\dots g_{r-1})^{-1}x\right)\in M_n(\F_p)^r \hspace{0.5cm} (\bs g\in G(\F_p)^{r-1})$$ are uniformly distributed in $\Omega=[0,1]^{rn^2}$ with respect to the embedding . More precisely, for every product of intervals $R$ in $\Omega$, $$\frac{|\{\bs g\in G(\F_p)^{r-1} : \eta(A_x(\bs g))\in R\}|}{|G(\F_p)|^{r-1}}=
{\operatorname{meas}}(R)+
\begin{cases}
O_{n,r} \left(\frac{(\log{p})^{n^2+1}}{\sqrt{p}}\right)&:G=\GL_n\\
O_{n,r} \left(\frac{(\log{p})^{n^2+2}}{\sqrt{p}}\right)&:G=\SL_n
\end{cases}$$ as $p\to\infty$. This also holds with $R\subset \Omega$ an arbitrary convex set if the error is replaced by its $1/(2n^2)$th power.
For the sake of clarity, we focus on proving the two-dimensional versions, and indicate the changes necessary for Theorem \[thm:unifdisppGLSLr\] at the end.
The author thanks Lucile Devin, his colleagues in Montréal, and two anonymous referees for useful feedback on this work, as well as Yan Li for suggesting a modification of the proof of Proposition \[prop:constantGLSL\] that makes it shorter and able to handle characteristic $2$.
Tools
=====
Equidistribution and discrepancy
--------------------------------
For the following results, we refer the reader to [@DT97 Chapter 1]. Throughout, we let $\Omega=[0,1]^k$ for some integer $k\ge 1$.
\[def:discrep\] The discrepancy of a sequence $(\bs x_n)_{n\ge 1}$ in $\Omega$ is $$\begin{aligned}
D_N(\bs x_n)&=&\sup_{I\subset\Omega} \left|\frac{|\{n\le N : \bs x_n\in I\}|}{N}-{\operatorname{meas}}(I)\right|,
\end{aligned}$$ where $I$ runs over all products of intervals in $\Omega$.
\[prop:discrepancy\] A sequence $(\bs x_n)_{n\ge 1}$ in $\Omega$ is uniformly distributed if and only if $D_N(\bs x_n)=o(1)$, and we have the Erdős–Turán–Koksma inequality: for any integer $T\ge 1$ $$D_N(\bs x_n)\le \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^k \left(\frac{2}{T+1}+\sum_{\substack{\bs h\in\Z^k\\0<||\bs h||_\infty\le T}}\frac{1}{r(\bs h)}\left|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n\le N}e(\bs h\cdot \bs x_n)\right|\right),$$ where $r(\bs h)=\prod_{i=1}^k\max(1,|h_i|)$, $e(z)=\exp(2\pi iz)$.
See [@DT97 Theorem 1.6, Theorem 1.21] respectively.
\[rem:isotropic\] If the sets $I$ in Definition \[def:discrep\] are replaced by arbitrary convex subsets, this yields the isotropic discrepancy $J_N(\bs x_n)$, which satisfies $J_N(\bs x_n)\ll_k D_N(\bs x_n)^{1/k}$ (see [@DT97 Theorem 1.12]).
By Weyl’s criterion, $(\bs x_n)_{n\ge 1}$ is equidistributed in $\Omega$ if and only if $$\sum_{n\le N} e(\bs h\cdot \bs x_n)=o(N)$$ for every nonzero $\bs h\in\Z^k$, so the Erdős–Turán–Koksma inequality quantifies the equidistribution from the rate of decay of these exponential sums.
Exponential sums on matrix groups
---------------------------------
The bounds of [@FHLOS10] used in [@HuLi13] proceed by reducing to classical Kloosterman sums on $\F_p$, through averaging and interchanging summations. Instead, we use Deligne’s extension of his proof of the Weil conjectures [@Del2] to work directly with the sums over the matrix groups. This allows a precise control of when the sums exhibit cancellation.
\[prop:expSumG\] Let $G$ be as in Theorem \[thm:distrElements\], let $f\in\F_p(G)$ be a rational function on $G$, let $\psi: \F_p\to\C^\times$ be a nontrivial character, let $\chi:\F_p^\times\to\C^\times$ be a multiplicative character, and let $f_1\in\F_p[G]^\times$ be a nonvanishing nonconstant function. Then $$\label{eq:expSumG}
\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)|}\sum_{\substack{g\in G(\F_p)\\ f(g)\neq\infty}} \psi(f(g))\chi(f_1(g))=\delta + O\left(p^{-1/2}\right)$$ with $\delta=1$ if $f$ is constant on $G(\overline\F_p)$ and $\chi$ is trivial, $\delta=0$ otherwise. The implied constant depends only on $n$, $\deg(f)$ and $\deg(f_1)$.
Let $\ell\neq p$ be an auxiliary prime. Following [@DelEC Exposé 6], let $\Lc_0:=f^*\Lc_{\psi}=\Lc_{\psi(f)}$ (resp. $\Lc_1:=f_1^*\Lc_\chi=\Lc_{\chi(f_1)}$) be the restriction to $G$ of the Artin–Schreier (resp. Kummer) sheaf on $\A^{n^2}_{\F_p}$ corresponding to $\psi\circ f$ (resp. $\chi\circ f_1$), and let $\Lc=\Lc_0\otimes\Lc_1$ be the middle tensor product. These can be seen as representations $$\rho_0, \ \rho_1, \ \rho=\rho_0\otimes\rho_1: \Gal(\F_p(G)^\sep/\F_p(G))\to\overline\Q_\ell^\times,$$ such that at every point $g\in G(\F_p)\subset \F_p^{n^2}$ with $f_1(g)\neq 0$, there is a Frobenius element $\Frob_g$ with $$\iota\rho_0(\Frob_g)=\psi(f(g)), \ \iota\rho_1(\Frob_g)=\chi(f_1(g)), \ \iota\rho(\Frob_g)=\psi(f(g))\chi(f_1(g))$$ for an embedding $\iota:\overline\Q_\ell\to\C$. Hence, the left-hand side of is $$\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)|}\sum_{\substack {g\in G(\F_p) \\ f(g)\neq 0}} \iota\rho(\Frob_g).$$
By the Grothendieck–Lefschetz trace formula [@DelEC Exposé 6, (1.1.1)], this is $$\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)|}\sum_{i=0}^{2\dim G}(-1)^i\iota\tr(\Frob_p \mid H^{i}_c(U\times\overline{\F}_p, \Lc)),$$ for $U$ the open in $\A^{n^2}_{\F_p}$ where $\Lc_0$ is lisse.
By Deligne’s extension of the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields [@Del2 Théorème 2] (see also [@DelEC Théorème 1.17]), the eigenvalues of the Frobenius acting on $H^{i}_c(U\times\overline{\F}_p, \Lc)$ are $p$-Weil numbers of weight at most $i$, and by the coinvariant formula, $\tr(\Frob \mid H^{2\dim G}_c(U\times\overline{\F}_p, \Lc))=\delta p^{\dim G}$ with $\delta=0$ unless $\Lc$ is geometrically trivial, in which case $\delta=1$. Thus, the left-hand side of $$\begin{aligned}
\delta + O \left(p^{-1/2}\sum_{i=0}^{2\dim G-1}\dim H^i_c(U\times\overline{\F}_p,\Lc)\right).
\end{aligned}$$ By [@KatzBetti01 Theorem 12], the sum of Betti numbers in the error term is bounded by a quantity depending only on $n$, $\deg(f)$ and $\deg(f_1)$.
Finally, since $\Lc_1$ is tame everywhere and $\Lc_0$ is not unless it is geometrically trivial, we have $\delta=0$ if and only if both $\Lc_0$ and $\Lc_1$ are geometrically trivial, i.e. $f$ constant and $\chi$ trivial.
### Improved error terms via stratification
The anonymous referee of Hu and Li’s paper indicated (see [@HuLi13 Section 4]) that the stratification results of Laumon, Katz and Fouvry may be employed to answer the conjecture for $\SL_n$ ($n\ge 3$; see Section \[subsec:SL\]). This is not necessary to obtain uniform distribution (Proposition \[prop:expSumG\] suffices), but we can indeed use the powerful results of Fouvry–Katz [@FK01] to improve the error terms.
We consider the inner product on $M_n(\F_p)$ given by $$g_1\cdot g_2:=\tr(g_1^tg_2)=\sum_{1\le i,j\le n}(g_1)_{i,j}(g_2)_{i,j} \hspace{0.5cm} (g_1,g_2\in M_n(\F_p)).$$
The following provides a better bound on average over shifts. We will see in Section \[sec:proofs\] that these kinds of sums precisely arise when bounding discrepancies of the sequences we consider.
\[prop:stratification\] Under the hypotheses and notations of Proposition \[prop:expSumG\], for every integer $2\le T<p$, if $\delta=0$, then $$\sum_{\substack{h\in M_n(\Z)\\||h||_\infty\le T}}\frac{1}{r(h)}\left|\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)|}\sum_{g\in G(\F_p)} \psi(f(g)+h\cdot g)\chi(f_1(g))\right|\ll \frac{(\log{T})^{n^2-\dim G+1}}{p^{1/2}},$$ where the implied constant depends only on $n$, $\deg(f)$ and $\deg(f_1)$.
By [@FK01 Theorem 1.1], there exist closed subschemes $X_j\subset\A^{n^2}_\Z$ ($1\le j\le n^2$) of relative dimension $\le n^2-j$, such that $$X_{n^2}\subset X_{n^2-1}\subset\dots\subset X_1\subset X_0:=\A^{n^2}_\Z$$ and $$\label{eq:FK}
\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)|}\sum_{g\in G(\F_p)} \psi(f(g)+h\cdot g)\chi(f_1(g))\ll_n \frac{p^{\frac{j-1}{2}}}{|G(\F_p)|^{1/2}}$$ if $h\in M_n(\F_p)\backslash X_j(\F_p)$, identifying $M_n(\F_p)$ with $\F_p^{n^2}$.
If $\delta=0$, we get by Proposition \[prop:expSumG\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:FK2}
&&\sum_{\substack{h\in\ M_n(\Z)\\||h||_\infty\le T}}\frac{1}{r(h)}\left|\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)|}\sum_{g\in G(\F_p)} \psi(f(g)+h\cdot g)\chi(f_1(g))\right|\\
&\ll&\sum_{j=0}^{d-1}\frac{p^{\frac{j}{2}}}{|G(\F_p)|^{1/2}}\sum_{\substack{h\in M_n(\Z)\\||h||_\infty\le T}} \frac{\delta_{h\in X_j(\F_p)\backslash X_{j+1}(\F_p)}}{r(h)}+ \frac{1}{p^{1/2}}\sum_{\substack{h\in M_n(\Z)\\||h||_\infty\le T}} \frac{\delta_{h\in X_d(\F_p)}}{r(h)},\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $d=\dim G$. By induction as in [@FK01 Lemma 9.5] and [@KMS18 Lemma 2.3], we get that $$\sum_{\substack{h\in M_n(\Z)\\ ||h||_\infty\le T}}\frac{\delta_{h \, (\text{mod }p)\in X_j(\F_p)}}{r(h)}\ll (\log{T})^{\dim X_j}.$$ Therefore, is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll&\sum_{j=0}^{d-1}\frac{p^{\frac{j}{2}}}{|G(\F_p)|^{1/2}}(\log{T})^{n^2-j}+ \frac{1}{p^{1/2}}(\log{T})^{n^2-d}\\
&=&(\log{T})^{n^2}\left(\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)|^{1/2}}\sum_{j=0}^{d-1}\left(\frac{\sqrt{p}}{\log{T}}\right)^{j}+ \frac{1}{p^{1/2}(\log{T})^d}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ The implied constants depend only on $n$, $\deg(f)$ and $\deg(f_1)$. If $T\le\sqrt{p}$, this gives the bound in the statement.
\[rem:FKchi\] To handle normal subgroups $H\le G(\F_p)$ as suggested in Remark \[ref:nonvanishingf\], we would need to replace $\chi\circ f_1$ by a character $\chi$ of $G(\F_p)$ (or of $G(\F_p)/H$). To do so, one would consider the Lang torsor $\Lc_1$ corresponding to $\chi$ as in [@DelEC 1.22-25]. Since all centralizers in $\GL_n$ are connected, ibidem shows that the trace function associated to $\Lc_1$ yields the character $\chi$. One could then proceed as in the proofs of [@FK01 Corollary 3.2, Theorem 1.1].
Under the non-vanishing of an “$A$-number”, [@FK01 Theorem 1.2] shows that the exponent in can be improved to $\max(0,j/2-1)$, giving a nontrivial bound whenever $j<d+2$. This would be nontrivial for all $j$ with $G=\SL_n$ as well. However, we cannot use [@FK01 Theorem 8.1] to show the non-vanishing, since $|G(\F_p)|\equiv 0\pmod{p}$ (see [@Wil09 Chapter 3]).
Proofs of Theorems \[thm:unifdisppGLSL\], \[thm:GLdet\], \[thm:distrElements\] and \[thm:distrElementsf\] {#sec:proofs}
=========================================================================================================
Setup of the exponential sums
-----------------------------
To obtain the theorems from Proposition \[prop:discrepancy\], we need to bound sums of the form $$\label{eq:sums}
\frac{1}{|H|}\sum_{g\in H}\psi\left(h_1\cdot g+h_2 \cdot (g^{-1}x)\right)$$ for $H\normal G(\F_p)$, $x\in G(\F_p)$ and $h_1,h_2\in M_n(\F_p)$, where $\psi(x)=e(x/p)$. Note that in Theorems \[thm:unifdisppGLSL\] and \[thm:distrElements\], we simply have $H=G(\F_p)$.
By the orthogonality relations, can be written as
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)/H|}\sum_{\chi\in\widehat{G(\F_p)/H}} \overline\chi(g)\left(\frac{1}{|H|}\sum_{g\in G(\F_p)} \psi\left(h_1\cdot g+h_2 \cdot f(g)\right) \chi(g)\right)\nonumber\\
&\ll&\sum_{\chi\in\widehat{G(\F_p)/H}}\left|\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)|}\sum_{g\in G(\F_p)} \psi\left(h_1\cdot g+h_2 \cdot f(g)\right) \chi(g)\right|\label{eq:sums2},\end{aligned}$$
with $f(g)=g^{-1}x$.
Under the assumptions of the theorems, $G(\F_p)/H$ is either trivial or isomorphic to a quotient $\F_p^\times/U$ for a subgroup $U\le\F_p^\times$ (since $H=\ker(G\xrightarrow{f_1}\F_p^\times\to\F_p^\times/U)$), setting $U=\F_p^\times$ if $H=G(\F_p)$. Hence, is $$\label{eq:sums3}
\sum_{\substack{\chi\in\widehat{\F_p^\times}\\\chi\mid_U=1}}\left|\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)|}\sum_{g\in G(\F_p)} \psi\left(h_1\cdot g+h_2 \cdot f(g)\right) \chi(f_1(g))\right|.$$
By Proposition \[prop:expSumG\], the inner sum is small whenever the rational function on $G$ appearing in $\psi$ is nonconstant. We determine when this is the case in the next section.
Constant functions on $G$
-------------------------
### The case of $\GL_n$ ($n\ge 2$) and $\SL_n$ ($n\ge 3$)
\[prop:constantGLSL\] Let $G$ be as in , let $x\in G(\F_p)$, and let $h_1,h_2\in M_n(\F_p)$. We assume that $p\ge 3$ if $n=2$. If $$\big(g\in G(\F_p)\big)\mapsto h_1\cdot g+h_2 \cdot (g^{-1}x)$$ is constant, then $h_1=h_2=0$.
Since $h_2\cdot (g^{-1}x)=(h_2x^t)\cdot g^{-1}$, it suffices to prove the result when $x=1$.\
With the identity matrix and the elementary matrices $g=I+e_{i,j}\in\SL_n(\F_p)$ for $1\le i, j\le n$ distinct, we get that $(h_1)_{i,j}=(h_2)_{i,j}$.\
When $G=\GL_2$ and $p\neq 2$, the matrices $g=\left(
\begin{smallmatrix}
\lambda&0\\0&1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right)\in\GL_2(\F_p)$ with $\lambda\in\F_p^\times$ show that $$(\lambda\in\F_p^\times)\mapsto \lambda (h_1)_{1,1}+\lambda^{-1}(h_2)_{1,1},$$ is constant, so that $(h_1)_{1,1}=(h_2)_{1,1}=0$ and the diagonals of $h_1$ and $h_2$ are zero by symmetry. Similarly, the matrices $g=\lambda\left(
\begin{smallmatrix}
0&1\\\pm 1&0
\end{smallmatrix}
\right)$ with $\lambda\in\F_p^\times$ show that $(h_1)_{1,2}=\mp (h_1)_{2,1}$ and $(h_2)_{1,2}=\pm (h_2)_{2,1}$, whence $h_1=h_2=0$. Thus, we may now suppose that $n\ge 3$.\
For $1\le i,j,k\le n$ distinct, the matrix $g=I-e_{i,j}-e_{j,k}\in\SL_n(\F_p)$, with inverse $g^{-1}=I+e_{i,j}+e_{j,k}+e_{i,k}$, gives $$\tr(h_1+h_2)=h_1\cdot g+h_2\cdot g^{-1}=\tr(h_1+h_2)+(h_2)_{i,k},$$ so that $(h_2)_{i,k}=0$ and $h_2$ is diagonal. By symmetry, the same holds for $h_1$.
Using the matrices $$g=\left(
\begin{matrix}
&&&&(-1)^{n+1}\\
1&&&&\lambda\\
&1&&&0\\
&&\ddots&&\vdots\\
&&&1&0
\end{matrix}
\right), \ g^{-1}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
(-1)^n\lambda&1&&&\\
0&&1&&\\
\vdots&&&\ddots&\\
0&&&&1\\
(-1)^{n+1}&&&&\\
\end{matrix}
\right)$$ in $\SL_n(\F_p)$, we get that $(\lambda\in\F_p)\mapsto (-1)^n\lambda(h_2)_{1,1}$ is constant, so that $(h_2)_{1,1}=0$. By symmetry, $(h_1)_{1,1}=0$ as well.
Finally, if $x\in\GL_n(\F_p)$, we note that $$h_1\cdot(x^{-1}gx)+h_2\cdot(x^{-1}g^{-1}x)=(x^{-t}h_1x^t)\cdot g+(x^{-t}h_2x^t)\cdot g^{-1},$$ which shows that we may permute the diagonal elements of $h_1$ and $h_2$. By the previous steps, $h_1=h_2=0$.
By the affine linear sieve of Bourgain, Gamburd and Sarnak [@BGS10] and the work of Salehi-Golsefidy–Varjú and others, this implies the following: Let $n\ge 3$, $S$ be a finite symmetric generating set for $\SL_n(\Z)$ and $(\gamma_N)_{N\ge 0}$ be a random walk on the Cayley graph of $\SL_n(\Z)$ with respect to $S$, starting at $1$, i.e. $$\gamma_{N+1}=\xi_{N+1}\gamma_N\text{ for }N\ge 0,\text{ with }\xi_{N+1}\text{ uniform in }S.$$ Then, for any $h_1,h_2\in M_{n}(\Z)$ that are not both zero, there exists $M\ge 1$ such that $$P \Big(h_1\cdot \gamma_N+h_2\cdot \gamma_N^{-1}\text{ has }\le M\text{ prime factors}\Big)\asymp 1/N$$ as $N\to+\infty$.
### Symplectic groups
Let $n\ge 2$, $G=\Sp_{2n}$, $x\in G(\F_p)$, and $h_1,h_2\in M_{2n}(\F_p)$. Then $$\big(g\in G(\F_p)\big)\mapsto h_1\cdot g+h_2 \cdot g^{-1}x$$ is constant if and only if $$\label{eq:SpConstant}
h_1=\left(
\begin{matrix}
h_{11}&h_{12}\\
h_{13}&h_{14}
\end{matrix}
\right), \ h_2=\left(
\begin{matrix}
-h_{14}^t&h_{12}^t\\
h_{13}^t&-h_{11}^t
\end{matrix}
\right)x^{-t},$$ where $h_{1i}\in M_{n}(\F_p)$ $(1\le i\le 4)$.
Again, it suffices to consider the case $x=1$. With respect to the standard form, $$g=\left(
\begin{matrix}
A&0\\0&A^{-t}
\end{matrix}
\right), \ \left(
\begin{matrix}
0&A\\-A^t&0
\end{matrix}
\right)\in\Sp_{2n}(\F_p)$$ for any $A\in\GL_n(\F_p)$. The result then follows from applying Proposition \[prop:constantGLSL\].
### Special orthogonal groups
For $n\ge 3$, let $G=\SO_{n, I_n}$. Then, for $p\ge 3$ and $h\in M_{n}(\F_p)$, $$\big(g\in G(\F_p)\big)\mapsto h\cdot g$$ is constant if and only if $h=0$.
Any permutation matrix $g_\sigma\in\SL_n(\F_p)$ with $\sigma\in A_n$ belongs to[^2] $G(\F_p)$. If $\sigma=(i\,j\,k)\in A_n$ is a cycle of length $3$, the matrices $g_{\sigma}(I-2e_j-2e_k)$ and $g_\sigma$ show that $h$ is diagonal. For $1\le i,j\le n$ distinct, the matrices $I-2e_i-2e_j$ show that the diagonal of $h$ is zero.
Proof of Theorems \[thm:unifdisppGLSL\] and \[thm:GLdet\]
---------------------------------------------------------
By Proposition \[prop:discrepancy\], for any integer $T\ge 1$, the discrepancy $D_N(A_x(g))$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll&\sum_{\substack{\bs h\in M_n(\Z)^2\\0<||h||_\infty\le T}}\frac{1}{r(\bs h)}\left|\frac{1}{|H|}\sum_{g\in H}\psi\left(h_1\cdot g+h_2\cdot f(g)\right)\right|+\frac{1}{T}.\end{aligned}$$ By , the first summand is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\ll (\log{T})^{n^2}\max_{\substack{h_2\in M_n(\Z)\\||h_2||_\infty\le T}}\sum_{\substack{h_1\in M_n(\Z)\\||(h_1,h_2)||_\infty\le T\\ (h_1,h_2)\neq 0}}\frac{1}{r(h_1)}\\
&&\hspace{3cm}\sum_{\substack{\chi\in\widehat{\F_p^\times}\\\chi|_U=1}}\left|\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)|}\sum_{g\in G(\F_p)} \psi\left(h_1\cdot g+h_2 \cdot f(g)\right) \chi(f_1(g))\right|.\end{aligned}$$ By Proposition \[prop:stratification\] and Proposition \[prop:constantGLSL\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
D_N(A_x(g))&\ll&\frac{1}{T}+\frac{|G(\F_p)|}{|H|}\frac{(\log{T})^{2n^2-\dim G+1}}{\sqrt{p}}\\
&\ll&\frac{|G(\F_p)/H|}{\sqrt{p}}\log\left(\frac{\sqrt{p}}{|G(\F_p)/H|}\right)^{2n^2-\dim G+1},\end{aligned}$$ taking $T=\floor{\sqrt{p}/|G(\F_p)/H|}$.
The last statements in Theorems \[thm:unifdisppGLSL\] and \[thm:GLdet\] follow from Remark \[rem:isotropic\].
Using Proposition \[prop:expSumG\] only instead of Proposition \[prop:stratification\] would have given an exponent of the logarithm equal to $2n^2$.
Proof of Theorems \[thm:distrElements\] and \[thm:distrElementsf\]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, by Propositions \[prop:discrepancy\], \[prop:stratification\] and , for $1\le T\le\sqrt{p}$, the discrepancy is $$\begin{aligned}
D_N(\eta(g))&\ll&\frac{1}{T}+\sum_{\substack{h\in\Z^{n^2}\\0<||h||_\infty\le T}} \frac{1}{r(h)}\left|\sum_{g\in H}\frac{1}{|H|}\psi(h\cdot g)\right|\\
&\ll&\frac{1}{T}+\sum_{\chi\in\widehat{G(\F_p)/H}}\sum_{\substack{h\in M_n(\Z)\\0<||h||_\infty\le T}}\frac{1}{r(h)}\left|\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)|}\sum_{g\in G(\F_p)} \psi\left(h\cdot g\right) \chi(g)\right|\\
&\ll&\frac{1}{T}+\frac{|G(\F_p)|}{|H|}\frac{(\log{T})^{n^2-\dim G+1}}{p^{1/2}}\\
&\ll&\frac{|G(\F_p)/H|}{\sqrt{p}}\log\left(\frac{\sqrt{p}}{|G(\F_p)/H|}\right)^{n^2-\dim G+1}.\end{aligned}$$
As above, using Proposition \[prop:expSumG\] instead of Proposition \[prop:stratification\] would have given an exponent of the logarithm equal to $n^2$. Note that these exponents in the case of $\GL_n$ or $\SL_n$ do not depend on $n$.
Higher-dimensional variant
--------------------------
To obtain Theorem \[thm:unifdisppGLSLr\], we need to control sums of the form $$\label{eq:sumr}
\sum_{\bs g\in G^{r-1}(\F_p)}\psi \left(\sum_{i=1}^{r-1}h_i\cdot g_i+h_{r}(g_1\dots g_{r-1})^{-1}x\right)$$ for $\bs h=(h_1,\dots,h_r)\in M_n(\F_p)^{r}$. To do so, it suffices to replace $G$ by $G^{r-1}$ and $M_n(\F_p)^2$ by $M_n(\F_p)^{r}$ in the arguments above. In the first bound, there is no dependency with $r$ in the exponent since we average over all but one $h_i$, and we can use Proposition \[prop:stratification\]. From Proposition \[prop:constantGLSL\], we see that the rational function in is constant if and only if $\bs h=0$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:intervals\] and Corollary \[cor:intervals\]
==================================================================
Proof of Theorem \[thm:intervals\]
----------------------------------
By orthogonality, we can write the density as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)|}\sum_{g\in G(\F_p)} \sum_{\substack{e\in E_p\\f\in F_p}} \frac{1}{p^{2n^2}}\sum_{u,v\in M_n(\F_p)}\psi \left(u\cdot (g-e)+v\cdot(g^{-1}x-f)\right)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{p^{2n^2}}\sum_{u,v\in M_n(\F_p)}\sum_{e\in E_p}\overline\psi(u\cdot e)\sum_{f\in F_p}\overline\psi(v\cdot f)S(u,v)\label{eq:densityError}\\
&=&\frac{|E_p||F_p|}{p^{2n^2}}+ O \left(\frac{1}{p^{2n^2}}\sum_{\substack{u,v\in M_n(\F_p)\\(u,v)\neq 0}}\left|\sum_{e\in E_p}\overline\psi(u\cdot e)\right|\left|\sum_{f\in F_p}\overline\psi(v\cdot f)\right||S(u,v)|\right),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $E_p=E\pmod{p}$, $F_p=F\pmod{p}\subset\F_p$ and $$S(u,v)=\frac{1}{|G(\F_p)|}\sum_{g\in G(\F_p)}\psi \left(u\cdot g+v\cdot(g^{-1}x)\right).$$
Since $E=\prod_{1\le k,l\le n}E_{kl}$ is a product of intervals, Weyl’s bound gives $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{e\in E_p}\overline\psi(u\cdot e)&=&\prod_{1\le k,l\le n}\sum_{e_{kl}\in E_{kl}}\overline\psi(u_{kl} e_{kl})\\
&\ll&\prod_{1\le k,l\le n}\min\left(|E_{kl}|,||u_{kl}/p||^{-1}\right),\end{aligned}$$ and similarly for $F$, with $||\cdot||$ denoting the distance to the nearest integer and $|E_{kl}|:={\operatorname{meas}}(E_{kl})$. Hence, the error term in is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll&\frac{1}{p^{n^2}}\sum_{v\in M_n(\F_p)}\prod_{1\le k,l\le n}\min\left(|F_{kl}|,||v_{kl}/p||^{-1}\right)\\
&&\times\frac{1}{p^{n^2}}\sum_{\substack{u\in M_n(\F_p)\\(u,v)\neq 0}}|S(u,v)|\prod_{1\le k,l\le n}\min\left(|E_{kl}|,||u_{kl}/p||^{-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ To bound the sum over $u$, we proceed as in Proposition \[prop:stratification\], using [@FK01]. With $d=\dim G$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{1}{p^{n^2}}\sum_{\substack{u\in M_n(\F_p)\\(u,v)\neq 0}}|S(u,v)|\prod_{1\le k,l\le n}\min\left(|E_{kl}|,||u_{kl}/p||^{-1}\right)\label{eq:sumu}\\
&\ll&\left(\frac{1}{p^{d/2}}\sum_{j=0}^{d-1} p^{j/2}+\sum_{j=d}^{n^2} p^{-1/2} \right)\frac{1}{p^{n^2}}\sum_{u\in X_j(\F_p)}\prod_{1\le k,l\le n}\min\left(|E_{kl}|,||u_{kl}/p||^{-1}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By [@FK01 Lemma 9.5] (or [@Fouv00 (2.6)]), if $X\subset \A^{n^2}$ has dimension $\le n^2-j$, $$\label{eq:FK95}
\sum_{u\in X(\F_p)}\prod_{1\le k,l\le n}\min\left(|E_{kl}|,||u_{kl}/p||^{-1}\right)\ll (p\log{p})^{n^2-j}M_E^{j},$$ where $M_E=\max_{k,l}|E_{kl}|$. Proceeding by induction as in op. cit., we get the more precise bound $$\label{eq:FK952}
\sum_{u\in X(\F_p)}\prod_{1\le k,l\le n}\min\left(|E_{kl}|,||u_{kl}/p||^{-1}\right)\ll (p\log{p})^{n^2-j} e_{j}(|E_{kl}|)$$ when the $|E_{kl}|$ may not be all equal, where $e_{j}$ is the $j$th elementary symmetric polynomial in $n^2$ variables.
Thus, is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll&\left(\frac{1}{p^{d/2}}\sum_{j=0}^{d-1} p^{j/2}+\sum_{j=d}^{n^2} p^{-1/2} \right) (\log{p})^{n^2}e_j(|E_{kl}|) p^{-j}\\
&\ll&(\log{p})^{n^2}\left(\frac{1}{p^{d/2}}\sum_{j=0}^{d-1} e_j\left(\frac{|E_{kl}|}{\sqrt{p}}\right) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}\sum_{j=d}^{n^2} e_j\left(\frac{|E_{kl}|}{p}\right) \right)\\
&\ll&(\log{p})^{n^2}\left(\frac{1}{p^{d/2}}\sum_{j=0}^{d-1} e_j\left(\frac{|E_{kl}|}{\sqrt{p}}\right) +\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}e_d\left(\frac{|E_{kl}|}{p}\right) \right).\end{aligned}$$
By Maclaurin’s inequality [@Stee04 (12.3)], letting $L_E=e_1(|E_{kl}|)$, this is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll&(\log{p})^{n^2}\left(\frac{1}{p^{d/2}}\sum_{j=0}^{d-1} \left(L_E/\sqrt{p}\right)^{j}+\frac{(L_E/p)^d}{\sqrt{p}} \right)\\
&\ll&(\log{p})^{n^2}\left(\frac{1}{p^{d/2}}\max \left(1, \left(L_E/\sqrt{p}\right)^{d-1}\right)+\frac{(L_E/p)^d}{\sqrt{p}} \right)\\
&\ll&\frac{(\log{p})^{n^2}}{p^{d/2}}\max \left(1, \left(L_E/\sqrt{p}\right)^{d-1}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Using again, we find that the total error in is $$\begin{aligned}
&\ll&\frac{(\log{p})^{2n^2}}{p^{d/2}}\max \left(1, \left(L_E/\sqrt{p}\right)^{d-1}\right)
$$
### Proof of Corollary \[cor:intervals\]
Finally, if $E$ and $F$ are the products of intervals of the same integral length $x$, then the density is $$\left(\frac{x}{p}\right)^{2n^2}+ O_n \left(\frac{(\log{p})^{2n^2}}{p^{d/2}}\max \left(1, \left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{p}}\right)^{d-1}\right)\right).$$ The main term dominates if and only if $$x\gg_{n,\varepsilon} p^{1-\frac{1}{2(2n^2-\dim G+1)}+\varepsilon}$$ for any $\varepsilon>0$, which yields the corollary.
[^1]: In what follows, we let $\SO_{n, I_n}$ be the special orthogonal group corresponding to the form given by the identity matrix $I_n$: in other words, $\SO_{n,I_n}(\F_p)$ is the special orthogonal group with square determinant, i.e. $\SO_{n}(\F_p)$ if $n$ is odd, and if $n$ is even, $\SO_{n}^\pm(\F_p)$ if $p\equiv\pm 1\pmod{4}$ respectively.
[^2]: If $G$ corresponded instead to the form $\diag(\alpha,1,\dots,1)$, $\alpha\neq 1$, this would be true only for the permutations fixing $1$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: |
Dept. of Mathematics\
University of Oregon\
Eugene, OR 97401
author:
- Jonathan Brundan and Jonathan Kujawa
title: A new proof of the Mullineux conjecture
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $S_n$ be the symmetric group on $n$ letters, $k$ be a field of characteristic $p$ and $D^\lambda$ be the irreducible $kS_n$-module corresponding to a $p$-regular partition $\lambda$ of $n$, as in [@J2]. By tensoring $D^\lambda$ with the $1$-dimensional sign representation we obtain another irreducible $kS_n$-module. If $p = 0$, $D^{\lambda} \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}\cong D^{\lambda'}$, where $\lambda'$ is the conjugate of the partition $\lambda$, and if $p = 2$, we obviously have that $D^{\lambda} \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}\cong D^{\lambda}$. In all other cases, it is surprisingly difficult to describe the partition labeling the irreducible module $D^{\lambda} \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}$ combinatorially. In 1979, Mullineux [@M1] gave an algorithmic construction of a bijection ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}$ on $p$-regular partitions, and conjectured that $D^{\lambda} \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}\cong D^{{\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda)}$.
Mullineux’s conjecture was finally proved in 1996. The key breakthrough leading to the proof was made in [@K2], when Kleshchev discovered an alternative algorithm, quite different in nature to Mullineux’s, and proved that it computes the label of $D^{\lambda} \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}$. Then Ford and Kleshchev [@FK1] proved combinatorially that Kleshchev’s algorithm was equivalent to Mullineux’s, hence proving the Mullineux conjecture. Since then, different and easier approaches to the combinatorial part of the proof, i.e. that Kleshchev’s algorithm equals Mullineux’s algorithm, have been found by Bessenrodt and Olsson [@BO2] and by Xu [@Xu2]. Also Lascoux, Leclerc and Thibon [@LLT] have used Ariki’s theorem [@A] to give a different proof of the results of [@K2].
The purpose of the present article is to explain a completely different proof of the Mullineux conjecture. In [@Xu1], Xu discovered yet another algorithm, and gave a short combinatorial argument to show that it was equivalent to Mullineux’s original algorithm. We will show directly from representation theory that Xu’s algorithm computes the label of $D^{\lambda} \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}$. In this way, we obtain a relatively direct proof of the Mullineux conjecture that bypasses Kleshchev’s algorithm altogether.
The idea behind our approach is a simple one. There is a superalgebra analogue of Schur-Weyl duality relating representations of $S_n$ to representations of the supergroup $GL(n|n)$. Moreover, there is an involution on representations of $GL(n|n)$ induced by twisting with its natural outer automorphism, which corresponds under Schur-Weyl duality to tensoring with the sign representation. Ideas of Serganova [@sergthesis] give an easy-to-prove algorithm for computing this involution, hence by Schur-Weyl duality we obtain an algorithm for computing $D^{\lambda} \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}$. Actually, we obtain a whole family of algorithms, one of which turns out to be the same as Xu’s algorithm.
The remainder of the article is arranged as follows. In $\S$\[S:basics\], we review some generalities concerning the supergroup $G = GL(m|n)$. In $\S$\[S:algebraofdistributions\], we introduce the superalgebra ${\operatorname{Dist}(G)}$ of distributions on $G$ and explain how integrable representations of ${\operatorname{Dist}(G)}$ can be lifted to $G$ itself. Serganova’s algorithm is derived in $\S$\[S:serg\] using some highest weight theory. In $\S$\[S:schuralgebra\], we review some known results about polynomial representations and Schur-Weyl duality, allowing us to descend to the symmetric group. Finally in $\S$\[S:Mullineux\] we put it all together with some combinatorics to obtain the proof of the Mullineux conjecture. At the end of $\S$\[S:Mullineux\], we also solve a related question concerning the classification of the irreducible polynomial representations of $GL(m|n)$ in positive characteristic, extending work of Donkin [@D1]. The answer is a natural generalization of the “hook theorem” of Berele and Regev [@BR1] and Sergeev [@S2] in characteristic $0$.
[**Ackowledgements.**]{} The idea that $GL(n|n)$ could be used to prove the Mullineux conjecture was inspired by a paper of A. Regev [@R1]. We are especially grateful to V. Serganova for explaining the material in $\S$\[S:serg\] to us during a visit to the University of Oregon. We would also like to thank A. Kleshchev for pointing out the reference [@BOX].
The supergroup $GL(m|n)$ {#S:basics}
========================
Throughout, let $k$ be a field of characteristic $p \neq 2$. All objects (superalgebras, supergroups, …) will be defined over $k$. A *commutative superalgebra* is a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-graded associative algebra $A = A_{{\bar 0}} \oplus A_{{\bar 1}}$ with $ab=(-1)^{\bar a \bar b}ba$ for all homogeneous $a, b \in A$, where $\bar x \in \mathbb{Z}_2$ denotes the parity of a homogeneous vector $x$ in a vector superspace. For an account of the basic language of superalgebras and supergroups adopted here, we refer the reader to [@B1; @BK1], see also [@J1], [@K], [@Leites ch.I] and [@Man ch.3, $\S\S$1–2, ch.4, $\S$1].
The supergroup $G = GL(m|n)$ is the functor from the category of commutative superalgebras to the category of groups defined on a commutative superalgebra $A$ by letting $G(A)$ be the group of all invertible $(m+n) \times (m+n)$ matrices of the form $$\label{E:matrix}g=\left(
\begin{array}{l|l}
W&X\\\hline
Y&Z
\end{array}
\right)$$ where $W$ is an $m \times m$ matrix with entries in $A_{{\bar 0}}$, $X$ is an $m\times n$ matrix with entries in $A_{{\bar 1}}$, $Y$ is an $n\times m$ with entries in $A_{{\bar 1}}$, and $Z$ is an $n \times n$ matrix with entries in $A_{\overline{0}}$. If $f: A \to B$ is a superalgebra homomorphism, then $G(f):G(A) \to G(B)$ is the group homomorphism defined by applying $f$ to the matrix entries.
Let $Mat$ be the affine superscheme with $Mat(A)$ consisting of [all]{} (not necessarily invertible) $(m+n)\times(m+n)$ matrices of the above form. For $1 \leq i,j \leq m+n$, let $T_{i,j}$ be the function mapping a matrix to its $ij$-entry. Then, the coordinate ring $k[Mat]$ is the free commutative superalgebra on the generators $\{T_{i,j}\:|\:1 \leq i, j \leq m+n\}$. Writing $\bar i = {\bar 0}$ for $i = 1,\dots,m$ and $\bar i = {\bar 1}$ for $i = m+1,\dots,m+n$, the parity of the generator $T_{i,j}$ is $\bar i + \bar j$. By [@Leites I.7.2], a matrix $g \in Mat(A)$ of the form (\[E:matrix\]) is invertible if and only if $\det W \det Z \in A^\times$. Hence, $G$ is the principal open subset of $Mat$ defined by the function $\det:g \mapsto \det W \det Z$. In particular, the coordinate ring $k[G]$ is the localization of $k[Mat]$ at $\det$.
Just like for group schemes [@J1 I.2.3], the coordinate ring $k[G]$ has the naturally induced structure of a Hopf superalgebra. Explicitly, the comultiplication and counit of $k[G]$ are the unique superalgebra maps satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hstruct}
\Delta(T_{i,j}) &= \sum_{h =1}^{m+n} T_{i,h} \otimes T_{h,j},\phantom{(-1)^{(\bar i + \bar h)(\bar h + \bar j)}} \\
\varepsilon(T_{i,j})&=\delta_{i,j}\label{hhstruct}\end{aligned}$$ for all $1 \leq i,j \leq m+n$. The subalgebra $k[Mat]$ of $k[G]$ is a subbialgebra but not a Hopf subalgebra, as it is not invariant under the antipode.
It is sometimes convenient to work with an alternative set of generators for the coordinate ring $k[G]$: define $$\label{altt}
\tilde T_{i, j} = (-1)^{\bar i (\bar i + \bar j)} T_{i,j}.$$ In terms of these new generators, (\[hstruct\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hstruct2}
\Delta(\tilde T_{i,j}) &= \sum_{h =1}^{m+n}(-1)^{(\bar i + \bar h)(\bar h + \bar j)} \tilde T_{i,h} \otimes \tilde T_{h,j}.\end{aligned}$$
A representation of $G$ means a natural transformation $\rho:G \rightarrow GL(M)$ for some vector superspace $M$, where $GL(M)$ is the supergroup with $GL(M)(A)$ being equal to the group of all even automorphisms of the $A$-supermodule $M \otimes A$, for each commutative superalgebra $A$. Equivalently, as with group schemes [@J1 I.2.8], $M$ is a right $k[G]$-comodule, i.e. there is an even structure map $\eta: M \to M \otimes k[G]$ satisfying the usual comodule axioms. We will usually refer to such an $M$ as a [*$G$-supermodule*]{}. For example, we have the *natural representation* $V,$ the $m|n$-dimensional vector superspace with canonical basis $v_1,\dots,v_m,v_{m+1},\dots,v_{m+n}$ where $\bar v_i = \bar i$. Identify elements of $V \otimes A$ with column vectors via $$\sum_{i = 1}^{m+n} v_{i}\otimes a_{i} \longleftrightarrow
\left(\begin{matrix} a_{1} \\
\vdots \\
a_{m+n}
\end{matrix} \right).$$ Then, the $G(A)$-action on $V \otimes A$ is the usual one by left multiplication. The induced comodule structure map $\eta:V \to V \otimes k[G]$ is given explicitly by $$\label{vstruct}
\eta(v_{j}) = \sum_{i =1}^{m+n}v_{i} \otimes T_{i,j}
=
\sum_{i=1}^{m+n} (-1)^{\bar i (\bar i + \bar j)}
v_i \otimes \tilde T_{i,j}.$$
The underlying purely even group $G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}$ of $G$ is by definition the functor from superalgebras to groups with $G_{{\operatorname{ev}}}(A) := G(A_{{\bar 0}})$. Thus, $G_{{\operatorname{ev}}}(A)$ consists of all invertible matrices of the form (\[E:matrix\]) with $X=Y=0$, so $G_{{\operatorname{ev}}}\cong GL(m) \times GL(n)$. Let $T$ be the usual maximal torus of $G_{{\operatorname{ev}}}$ consisting of diagonal matrices. The character group $X(T) = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}(T, \mathbb{G}_m)$ is the free abelian group on generators $\varepsilon_1,\dots,\varepsilon_m,\varepsilon_{m+1},\dots,\varepsilon_{m+n}$, where $\varepsilon_i$ picks out the $i$th diagonal entry of a diagonal matrix. Put a symmetric bilinear form on $X(T)$ by declaring that $$\label{bf}
(\varepsilon_i, \varepsilon_j)
= (-1)^{\bar i} \delta_{i,j}.$$ Let $W \cong S_m \times S_n$ be the Weyl group of $G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}$ with respect to $T$, identified with the subgroup of $G_{{\operatorname{ev}}}$ consisting of all permutation matrices.
A *full flag* $F = (F_1\subset \dots \subset F_{m+n})$ in the vector superspace $V$ means a chain of subsuperspaces of $V$ with each $F_{i}$ having dimension $i$ as a vector space. If $(u_{1}, u_2, \dotsc , u_{m+n})$ is an ordered homogeneous basis for $V$, we write $F(u_{1},u_2,\dotsc ,u_{m+n})$ for the full flag with $F_i = \langle u_1,\dots,u_i \rangle$. By definition, a [*Borel subgroup*]{} $B$ of $G$ is the stabilizer of a full flag $F$ in $V$, i.e. $B(A)$ is the stabilizer in $G(A)$ of the canonical image of $F$ in $V \otimes A$ for each commutative superalgebra $A$. Since $GL(m)$ (resp. $GL(n)$) acts transitively on the bases of $V_{{\bar 0}}$ (resp. $V_{{\bar 1}}$), it is easy to see two full flags $F$ and $F'$ in $V$ are conjugate under $G$ if and only if the superdimension of $F_i$ equals the superdimension of $F_i'$ for each $i = 1,\dots,m+n$. Consequently there are $\binom{m+n}{n}$ different conjugacy classes of Borel subgroups.
View the Weyl group $W$ of $G$ as the parabolic subgroup $S_m \times S_n$ of the symmetric group $S_{m+n}$ in the obvious way. Let $D_{m,n}$ be the set of all minimal length $S_m \times S_n \backslash S_{m+n}$-coset representatives, i.e. $$D_{m,n} = \{w \in S_{m+n}\:|\:w^{-1} 1 < \dots < w^{-1} m,
w^{-1}(m+1) < \dots < w^{-1}(m+n)\}.$$ For $w \in S_{m+n}$, let $B_w$ be the stabilizer of the full flag $F(v_{w 1}, v_{w 2}, \dots, v_{w (m+n)})$. Then, the Borel subgroups $\{B_w\:|\:w \in D_{m,n}\}$ give a set of representatives for the conjugacy classes of Borel subgroup in $G$ (cf. [@Kacnote Proposition 1.2(a)]). We point out that for $w \in D_{m,n}$, the underlying even subgroup of $B_w$ is always the usual upper triangular Borel subgroup $B_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}$ of $G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}$.
The root system of $G$ is the set $\Phi = \{\varepsilon_i - \varepsilon_j\:|\:1 \leq i,j \leq m+n, i\neq j\}$. There are even and odd roots, the parity of the root $\varepsilon_i - \varepsilon_j$ being $\bar i + \bar j$. Choosing $w \in S_{m+n}$ fixes a choice $B_w$ of Borel subgroup of $G$ containing $T$, hence a set $$\label{proots}
\Phi_w^+ = \{ \varepsilon_{w i} - \varepsilon_{w j}\:|\:1 \leq i < j \leq m+n\}$$ of positive roots. The corresponding dominance ordering on $\Phi$ is denoted $\leq_w$, defined by $\lambda \leq_w \mu$ if $\mu - \lambda \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0} \Phi_w^+$.
For examples, first take $w =1$. Then, $B_1 = \operatorname{stab}_G F(v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{m+n})$ is the Borel subgroup with $B_1(A)$ consisting of all upper triangular invertible matrices of the form (\[E:matrix\]). This is the [*standard choice*]{} of Borel subgroup, giving rise to the standard choice of positive roots $\Phi_1^+$ and the standard dominance ordering $\leq_1$ on $X(T)$. Instead, let $w_0$ be the longest element of $S_m \times S_n$ and $w_1$ be the longest element of $D_{m,n}$, so that $w_0 w_1$ is the longest element of the symmetric group $S_{m+n}$. Then, $B_{w_1} = \operatorname{stab}_G F(v_{m+1}, \dots, v_{m+n}, v_1, \dots, v_m)$ is the Borel with $B_{w_1}(A)$ consisting of all invertible matrices of the form (\[E:matrix\]) with $X=0$ and $W, Z$ upper triangular. Finally, $B_{w_0 w_1} = w_0 {B_{w_1}}
w_0^{-1}$ is the Borel subgroup of all lower triangular matrices.
The superalgebra of distributions {#S:algebraofdistributions}
=================================
We next recall the definition of the superalgebra of distributions ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ of $G$, following [@B1 $\S$4]. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}$ be the kernel of the counit $\varepsilon:k[G] \rightarrow k$, a superideal of $k[G]$. For $r \geq 0$, let $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{Dist}_{r}(G)}&=\{x \in k[G]^{*}\:|\: x({\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}^{r+1})=0 \} \cong (k[G]/{\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}^{r+1})^{*},\\
{\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}&=\bigcup_{r \geq 0} {\operatorname{Dist}_{r}(G)}.\end{aligned}$$ There is a multiplication on $k[G]^{*}$ dual to the comultiplication on $k[G]$, defined by $(x y)(f) = (x \bar\otimes y) (\Delta(f))$ for $x, y \in k[G]^{*}$ and $f \in k[G]$. Note here (and later on) we are implicitly using the superalgebra rule of signs: $(x \bar \otimes y)(f \otimes g) =
(-1)^{\bar y \bar f} x(f) y(g)$. One can check that ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ is a subsuperalgebra of $k[G]^{*}$ using the fact that for $f \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}$, $$\label{E:lieeq}
\Delta(f) \in 1 \otimes f + f \otimes 1 + {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}\otimes {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}},$$ or, more generally, $$\label{E:filteredeq}
\Delta(f_{1} \dotsb f_{r}) \in \prod_{i=1}^{r}(1 \otimes f_{i} + f_{i} \otimes 1) + \sum_{j=1}^{r} {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}^{j}\otimes {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}^{r+1-j}$$ for all $f_{1},\dotsc ,f_{r} \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}$. In fact, since ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}^{r+1} \subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}^{r}$, we have ${\operatorname{Dist}_{r}(G)} \subseteq {\operatorname{Dist}_{r+1}(G)}$ and (\[E:filteredeq\]) shows that ${\operatorname{Dist}_{r}(G)} {\operatorname{Dist}_{s}(G)}
\subseteq {\operatorname{Dist}_{r+s}(G)}$, i.e. ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ is a filtered superalgebra. By (\[E:filteredeq\]) again, the subspace $$T_{1}(G) = \{x \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{1}(G)}\:|\: x(1)=0 \} \cong ({\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}/ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}^{2})^{*}$$ is closed under the superbracket $[x,y] := xy - (-1)^{\bar x \bar y} yx$, giving $T_1(G)$ the structure of Lie superalgebra, denoted ${\operatorname{Lie}(G)}$. Finally, given a $G$-supermodule $M$ with structure map $\eta:M \rightarrow M \otimes k[G]$, we can view $M$ as a ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule by $x.m = (1 \bar\otimes x) (\eta(m))$. In particular, this makes $M$ into a ${\operatorname{Lie}(G)}$-supermodule.
To describe ${\operatorname{Lie}(G)}$ explicitly in our case, recall the alternative generators $\tilde T_{i,j}$ of $k[G]$ from (\[altt\]). The superideal ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}$ is generated by $\{\tilde T_{i,j} - \delta_{i,j}\:|\:1 \leq i,j \leq m+n\}.$ So ${\operatorname{Lie}(G)}$ has a unique basis $\{e_{i,j}\:|\:1 \leq i,j \leq m+n\}$ such that $e_{i,j}(\tilde T_{h,l}) = \delta_{i,h} \delta_{j,l}$. The parity of $e_{i,j}$ is $\bar i + \bar j$, while (\[hstruct\]) implies that the multiplication satisfies $$\label{meq}
[e_{i,j}, e_{h,l}] = \delta_{j,h} e_{i,l} - (-1)^{(\bar i + \bar j)(\bar h+\bar l)} \delta_{i,l} e_{h,j}.$$ Thus ${\operatorname{Lie}(G)}$ is identified with the Lie superalgebra $\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)$ over $k$, see [@K], so that $e_{i,j}$ corresponds to the $ij$-matrix unit. By (\[vstruct\]), the induced action of ${\operatorname{Lie}(G)}$ on the natural representation $V$ of $G$ is given by $e_{i,j} v_h = \delta_{j,h} v_i$, i.e. $V$ is identified with the natural representation of $\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)$.
To describe ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ explicitly, first note that over $\mathbb{C}$, ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ is simply the universal enveloping superalgebra of ${\operatorname{Lie}(G)}$. To construct ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ in general, let ${U}_{\mathbb{C}}$ be the universal enveloping superalgebra of the Lie superalgebra ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)}}$ over $\mathbb{C}$. By the PBW theorem for Lie superalgebras (see [@K]), ${U}_{\mathbb{C}}$ has basis consisting of all monomials $$\prod_{\substack{1 \leq i,j \leq m+n\\\bar i + \bar j = {\bar 0}}}
e_{i,j}^{a_{i,j}}\prod_{\substack{1 \leq i,j \leq m+n\\\bar i+ \bar j={\bar 1}}}
e_{i,j}^{d_{i,j}}$$ where $a_{i,j} \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$, $d_{i,j} \in \{0,1 \}$, and the product is taken in any fixed order. We shall write $h_{i} =e_{i,i}$ for short.
Define the *Kostant $\mathbb{Z}$-form* ${U}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ to be the $\mathbb{Z}$-subalgebra of ${U}_{\mathbb{C}}$ generated by elements $e_{i,j}\:(1 \leq i,j \leq m+n, \bar i + \bar j = {\bar 1})$, $e_{i,j}^{(r)}\:
(1 \leq i \neq j \leq m+n, \bar i + \bar j = {\bar 0}, r \geq 1)$ and $ \binom{h_i}{r}\:(1 \leq i \leq m+n, r \geq 1)$. Here, $e_{i,j}^{(r)} := e_{i,j}^r / (r!)$ and $\binom{h_{i}}{r} := {h_{i}(h_{i}-1) \dotsb (h_{i}-r+1)}/{(r!)}$. Following the proof of [@S1 Th.2], one verifies the following:
\[stbas\] The superalgebra ${U}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-free $\mathbb{Z}$-module with basis being given by the set of all monomials of the form $$\prod_{\substack{ 1 \leq i,j \leq m+n \\
\bar{i}+\bar{j} = {\bar 0}}} e_{i,j}^{(a_{i,j})}
\prod_{1 \leq i \leq m+n} \binom{h_{i}}{r_{i}}
\prod_{\substack{1 \leq i, j \leq m+n \\
\bar{i}+\bar{j} = {\bar 1}}} e_{i,j}^{d_{i,j}}$$ for all $a_{i,j}, r_{i} \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ and $d_{i,j}
\in \{0,1 \}$, where the product is taken in any fixed order.
The enveloping superalgebra ${U}_{\mathbb{C}}$ is a Hopf superalgebra in a canonical way, hence ${U}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a Hopf superalgebra over $\mathbb{Z}$. Finally, set ${U}_k = k \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} {U}_{\mathbb{Z}},$ naturally a Hopf superalgebra over $k$. We will abuse notation by using the same symbols $e_{i,j}^{(r)}, \binom{h_i}{r}$ etc... for the canonical images of these elements of ${U}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ in ${U}_k$. Now the basic fact is the following:
\[T:Distiso\] ${U}_{k}$ and ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ are isomorphic as Hopf superalgebras.
In the case when $k = \mathbb{C}$, the isomorphism $i:{U}_{\mathbb{C}} \rightarrow {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ is induced by the Lie superalgebra isomorphism mapping the matrix unit $e_{i,j} \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)}}$ to the element with the same name in ${\operatorname{Lie}(G)}$. For arbitrary $k$, the isomorphism $i:{U}_k \rightarrow {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ is obtained by reducing this one modulo $p$.
In view of the theorem, we will henceforth *identify* ${U}_{k}$ with ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$. It is also easy to describe the superalgebras of distributions of our various natural subgroups of $G$ as subalgebras of ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$. For example, ${\operatorname{Dist}(T)}$ is the subalgebra generated by all $ \binom{h_i}{r}\:(1 \leq i \leq m+n, r \geq 1)$, ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}})}$ is the subalgebra generated by ${\operatorname{Dist}(T)}$ and all $e_{i,j}^{(r)}\:
(1 \leq i < j \leq m+n, \bar i + \bar j = {\bar 0}, r \geq 1)$, and for $w \in D_{m,n}$, ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_w)}$ is the subalgebra generated by ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}})}$ and all $e_{i, j} \:(1 \leq i, j \leq m+n, \bar i + \bar j = 1,
w^{-1} i < w^{-1} j).$
For $\lambda=\sum_{i=1}^{m+n} \lambda_{i}\varepsilon_{i} \in X(T)$ and a ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule $M$, define the [*$\lambda$-weight space of $M$*]{} to be $$\label{wtsp}
M_{\lambda}=\left\{m \in M\:\bigg|\:
\binom{h_{i}}{r}m=\binom{\lambda_{i}}{r}m \mbox{ for all } i =1,\dots,m+n,
r \geq 1 \right\}.$$ We call a ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule $M$ [*integrable*]{} if it is locally finite over ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ and satisfies $M = \sum_{\lambda \in X(T)} M_{\lambda}$. If $M$ is a $G$-supermodule viewed as a ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule in the natural way, then $M$ is integrable. The goal in the remainder of the section is to prove conversely that any integrable ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule can be lifted in a unique way to $G$.
Let ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^\diamond$ denote the *restricted dual* of ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$, namely, the set of all $f \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^{*}$ such that $f(I) = 0$ for some two-sided superideal $I \subset {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ (depending on $f$) with ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)} /I$ being a finite dimensional integrable ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule. If $M$ is an integrable ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule with homogenous basis $\{m_{i} \}_{i\in I}$, its *coefficent space* $cf(M)$ is the subspace of ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^{*}$ spanned by the *coefficient functions* $f_{i,j}$ defined by $$\label{cfd}
um_{j} =
(-1)^{\bar u \bar m_j} \sum_{i \in I} f_{i,j}(u) m_i$$ for all homogeneous $u \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$. Note that this definition is independent of the choice of homogenous basis. As in the purely even case [@Donk (3.1a)], we have the following lemma:
\[L:restricteddual\] $f \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^{*}$ belongs to ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^{\diamond}$ if and only if $f \in cf(M)$ for some integrable ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule $M$.
If $M$ and $N$ are integrable ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodules, then $M \otimes N$ is also an integrable supermodule and $cf(M \otimes N) = cf(M)cf(N)$. Consequently, Lemma \[L:restricteddual\] implies ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^{\diamond}$ is a subsuperalgebra of ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^{*}$. Indeed, ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^{\diamond}$ has a natural Hopf superalgebra structure dual to that on ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$, cf. the argument after [@B1 Lemma 5.2].
\[it\] The map $\iota:k[G] \rightarrow {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^\diamond$ defined by $\iota(f)(u)=(-1)^{\bar{f}\bar{u}}u(f)$ for all homogeneous $f \in k[G]$ and $u \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ is an isomorphism of Hopf superalgebras.
Note $\iota$ is automatically a Hopf superalgebra homomorphism, since the Hopf superalgebra structure on ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ is dual to that on $k[G]$ and the Hopf superalgebra structure on ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^\diamond$ is dual to that on ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$. Furthermore if $\iota({f})=0$ then $u(f)=0$ for all $u \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{r}(G)}$, so $f \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}^{r+1}$. Since $r$ was arbitrary we deduce $f \in \bigcap_{r \geq 0} {\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}_{1}}}^{r+1}$, hence $f = 0$. This shows that $\iota$ is injective. It remains to prove that $\iota$ is surjective.
Fix an order for the products in the monomials in the PBW basis for ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ from Lemma \[stbas\] so that all monomials are of the form $mu$ where $m$ is a monomial in the $e_{i,j}$ with $\bar{i} +\bar{j}=1$ and $u \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}$. Let $\Gamma = \{(i,j): 1 \leq i,j \leq m+n, \bar{i}+\bar{j}=\bar{1} \}$. For each $I \subseteq \Gamma$, let $m_{I}$ denote the PBW monomial given by taking the product of the $e_{i,j}$’s for $(i,j) \in I$ in the fixed order. By Lemma \[stbas\] we have the vector space decomposition $${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}= \bigoplus_{I \subseteq \Gamma} m_{I}{\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}.$$ For $I \subseteq \Gamma$, let $\eta_{I} \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^{*}$ be the linear functional given by $\eta_{I}(m_{I})=1$ and $\eta_{I}(m)=0$ for any other ordered PBW monomial different from $m_{I}$.
[**Claim 1.**]{} [*For any $I \subseteq \Gamma$, we have that $\eta_{I} \in \iota(k[G])
\subseteq {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^\diamond$.*]{}
To prove this, let $N=m^{2}+n^{2}$. Let $M$ denote $\bigwedge^{N}(V \otimes V^{*})$ viewed as a ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule in the natural way. Since $M$ is in fact a $G$-supermodule, we have that $cf(M) \subseteq \iota(k[G])$. Therefore to prove Claim 1, it suffices to show that $\eta_{I} \in cf(M)$ for any $I \subseteq \Gamma$. Let $f_1,\dots,f_{m+n}$ be the basis for $V^*$ dual to the basis $v_1,\dots,v_{m+n}$ of $V$. Let $z_{i,j} = v_{i} \otimes f_{j} \in V \otimes V^{*}$. Fix a total order on the set $\{1,\dots,m+n\}\times\{1,\dots,m+n\}$ and in this order let $\Sigma$ be the set of all weakly increasing sequences $S=((i_{1},j_{1}) \leq \dotsb \leq (i_{N},j_{N}))$ of length $N$ such that $(i_{k},j_{k}) < (i_{k+1},j_{k+1})$ whenever $\bar{i}_k+\bar{j}_k={\bar 0}$. For $S \in \Sigma$, let $z_{S} =
z_{i_{1},j_{1}} \wedge \dotsb \wedge z_{i_{N},j_{N}}$, so that $\{z_{S}\}_{S \in \Sigma}$ is a basis for $M$. In particular, let $z=z_{S}$ for the sequence $S$ containing all $(i,j)$ with $\bar{i}+\bar{j}={\bar 0}$. Then $z$ spans $\bigwedge^{N}((V \otimes V^{*})_{\bar{0}})=\bigwedge^{N}
(V_{\bar{0}} \otimes V^{*}_{\bar{0}} \oplus V_{\bar{1}} \otimes V^{*}_{\bar{1}})$, which is a 1-dimensional trivial ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}$-submodule of $M$.
Observe now that $\{m_{I}z\}_{I \subseteq \Gamma}$ is a linearly independent set of homogeneous vectors, because they are related to the basis elements $\{z_{S}\}_{S \in \Sigma}$ in a unitriangular way. Extend this set to a homogeneous basis $\mathscr{B}$ of $M$. For $I \subseteq \Gamma$ and $u \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ define $g_{I}(u)$ to be the $m_{I}z$ coefficent of $uz$ when expressed in the basis $\mathscr{B}$. Then $g_{I}(m_{J})=\delta_{I,J}$ for all $I, J \subseteq \Gamma$. Furthermore, since $z$ spans a trivial ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}$-module, $uz=0$ for all monomials in our ordered PBW basis for ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ not of the form $m_{J}$, i.e. $g_{I}(u)=0$ for all such monomials. Therefore $\eta_{I}=g_{I} \in cf(M)$, proving the claim.
[**Claim 2.**]{} [*For any $I \subseteq \Gamma$ and $f \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}^\diamond$, we have that $(\eta_I f)(m_I u) = f(u)$ and $(\eta_I f)(m_J u) = 0$ for all $u \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}$ and $J \nsupseteq I$.* ]{}
Indeed, by the definition of multiplication in ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^{\diamond}$, we have $(\eta_{I}f)(m_{J}u)=(\eta_{I} \bar{\otimes} f)
(\delta(m_{J}u))$, where $\delta$ is the comultiplication on ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$. Recalling that $\delta(e_{i,j}) = e_{i,j} \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes e_{i,j}$, we see that, when expressed in the ordered PBW basis of ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)} \otimes {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$, the $(m_{I} \otimes -)$-component of $\delta(m_{J}u)$ is equal to $m_{I}\otimes u$ if $J=I$ and $0$ if $J \nsupseteq I$. This implies the claim.
[**Claim 3.**]{} [*For any $f \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^\diamond$ and $I \subseteq \Gamma$, there is a function $f_I \in \iota(k[G])$ such that $f_I = f$ on $m_I {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}$ and $f_I = 0$ on $\bigoplus_{J \not\supseteq I} m_J {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}$.* ]{}
To prove this, we need to appeal to the analogous theorem for the underlying even group $G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}$. Just as for ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$ we can define integrable ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}})}$-supermodules, coefficent space, the restricted dual ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}^\diamond$, etc... By the purely even theory, the natural map $\iota_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}:
k[G_{ev}] \rightarrow {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}^\diamond$ (the analogue of the map $\iota:k[G] \rightarrow {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^\diamond$ being considered here) is an isomorphism, see e.g. [@Donk (3.1c)] for the proof. An integrable ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule is integrable over ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}$ too, so restriction gives us a Hopf superalgebra homomorphism $\vartheta: {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^{\diamond} \to {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}^{\diamond}$ such that $\vartheta \circ \iota = \iota_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}} \circ \varphi$, where $\varphi:k[G] \twoheadrightarrow k[G_{{\operatorname{ev}}}]$ is the canonical map induced by the inclusion of $G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}$ into $G$.
Now take $f \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^\diamond$ and write $\delta(f) = \sum_{j} f_{j}\otimes g_{j}$. By the previous paragraph, we can find even elements $h_j \in \iota(k[G])$ such that $\vartheta(g_{j}) = \vartheta(h_{j})$ for each $j$. For $I \subseteq \Gamma$, let $f_{I}=\sum_{j} f_{j}(m_{I})\eta_{I}h_{j}$, an element of $\iota(k[G])$ by Claim 1. By Claim 2, we have $f_{I}=f$ on $m_{I}{\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}$ and $f_{I}=0$ on $\sum_{J \nsupseteq I} m_{J}{\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}$, as required to prove the claim.
Now we can complete the proof. Fix $f \in {\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}^{\diamond}$. For $i=0,1, \dotsc , 2mn$ define $f^{(i)}$ recursively by $$\begin{aligned}
f^{(0)}=f-f_{\varnothing} & & f^{(i)}=f^{(i-1)}-\sum_{I \subseteq \Gamma, |I|=i} (f^{(i-1)})_{I},\end{aligned}$$ invoking Claim 3. An easy induction on $i$ using Claim 3 shows that $f^{(i)}=0$ on $\bigoplus_{J \subseteq \Gamma, |J| \leq i} m_{J}{\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G_{{\operatorname{ev}}})}$. In particular, $f^{(2mn)}=0$ on ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$. This implies the surjectivity of $\iota$, since $f$ is obtained from $f^{(2mn)}$ by adding elements of $\iota(k[G])$.
\[C:vermaconjecture\] The category of $G$-supermodules is isomorphic to the category of integrable ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodules.
Say $M$ is an integrable ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule with homogenous basis $\{m_{i}\}_{i \in I}$. Let $f_{i,j}$ be the corresponding coefficent functions defined according to (\[cfd\]). By Theorem \[it\], there are unique $g_{i,j} \in k[G]$ such that $\iota(g_{i,j}) = f_{i,j}$. Define a structure map $\eta: M \to M \otimes k[G]$ making $M$ into a $G$-supermodule by $$\eta(m_j) = \sum_{i \in I} m_{i} \otimes g_{i,j}.$$ Conversely, as discussed at the beginning of the section, any $G$-supermodule can be viewed as an integrable ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule in a natural way. One can verify that these two constructions give mutually inverse functors between the two categories.
In view of the corollary, we will not distinguish between $G$-supermodules and integrable ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodules in the rest of the article.
Highest weight theory {#S:serg}
=====================
Now we describe the classification of the irreducible representations of $G$ by their highest weights. It seems to be more convenient to work first in the category $\mathscr O$ of all ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodules $M$ that are locally finite over ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}})}$ and satisfy $M = \bigoplus_{\lambda \in X(T)} M_\lambda$. Fix a choice of $w \in D_{m,n}$, hence a Borel subgroup $B_w$ and dominance ordering $\leq_w$ on $X(T)$. By Lemma \[stbas\], ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_w)}$ is a free right ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}})}$-module of finite rank. So the condition that $M$ is locally finite over ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}})}$ in the definition of category $\mathscr O$ is equivalent to $M$ being locally finite over ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_w)}$. For $\lambda \in X(T)$, we have the [*Verma module*]{} $$M_w(\lambda) := {\operatorname{Dist}(G)} \otimes_{{\operatorname{Dist}(B_w)}} k_\lambda,$$ where $k_\lambda$ denotes $k$ viewed as a ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_w)}$-supermodule of weight $\lambda$. We say that a vector $v$ in a ${\operatorname{Dist}(G)}$-supermodule $M$ is a [*$w$-primitive vector of weight $\lambda$*]{} if ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_w)} v \cong k_\lambda$ as a ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_w)}$-supermodule. Familiar arguments exactly as for semisimple Lie algebras over $\mathbb C$ show:
\[hw\] Let $w \in D_{m,n}$ and $\lambda \in X(T)$.
- The $\lambda$-weight space of $M_w(\lambda)$ is $1$-dimensional, and all other weights of $M_w(\lambda)$ are $<_w \lambda$.
- Any non-zero quotient of $M_w(\lambda)$ is generated by a $w$-primitive vector of weight $\lambda$, unique up to scalars.
- Any ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule generated by a $w$-primitive vector of weight $\lambda$ is isomorphic to a quotient of $M_w(\lambda)$.
- $M_w(\lambda)$ has a unique irreducible quotient $L_w(\lambda)$, and the $\{L_w(\lambda)\}_{\lambda \in X(T)}$ give a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducibles in $\mathscr O$.
In this way, we get a parametrization of the irreducible objects in $\mathscr O$ by their highest weights with respect to the ordering $\leq_w$. Of course, the parametrization depends on the initial choice of $w \in D_{m,n}$. To translate between labelings arising from different choices $w, w' \in D_{m,n}$, it suffices to consider the situation that $w, w'$ are adjacent with respect to the usual Bruhat ordering on $D_{m,n}$. In that case the following theorem of Serganova [@sergthesis], see also [@PSI Lemma 0.3], does the job. For the statement, recall the definition of the form $(.,.)$ on $X(T)$ from (\[bf\]).
\[st\] Let $\lambda \in X(T)$. Suppose that $w, w' \in D_{m,n}$ are adjacent in the Bruhat ordering, so $\Phi_{w'}^+ = \Phi_w^+ - \{\alpha\} \cup \{-\alpha\}$ for some odd root $\alpha = \varepsilon_i - \varepsilon_j \in \Phi$. Then, $$L_w(\lambda) \cong
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
L_{w'}(\lambda)&
\hbox{if $(\lambda,\alpha) \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$,}\\
L_{w'}(\lambda - \alpha)&\hbox{if $(\lambda, \alpha) \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$.}
\end{array}
\right.$$
Let $v$ be a $w$-primitive vector in $L_w(\lambda)$ of weight $\lambda$, cf. Lemma \[hw\]. We claim first that $e_{r,s} e_{j,i} v = 0$ for all $1 \leq r,s \leq m+n$ with $\varepsilon_r - \varepsilon_s \in \Phi_w^+ \cap \Phi_{w'}^+$. We know that $e_{r,s} v = 0$ as $v$ is $w$-primitive. So we are done immediately if $[e_{r,s},e_{j,i}] = 0$. In view of (\[meq\]), this just leaves the possibilities $s = j$ or $r = i$. Suppose first that $s = j$. Noting that $w' = (i\:\:j) w$, the assumption that $\varepsilon_r - \varepsilon_j \in \Phi_{w'}^+$ implies by (\[proots\]) that $\varepsilon_r - \varepsilon_i \in \Phi_{w}^+$, hence $e_{r,i} v = 0$. Therefore $e_{r,j} e_{j,i} v = e_{r,i} v = 0$. The remaining case when $r = i$ is similar.
Now suppose that $e_{j,i} v \neq 0$. Since $e_{j,i}^2 = 0$, we get from the previous paragraph that $e_{j,i} v$ is $w'$-primitive of weight $\lambda - \alpha$. Hence, $L_w(\lambda) \cong L_{w'}(\lambda - \alpha)$. On the other hand, if $e_{j,i} v = 0$, then $v$ itself is already $w'$-primitive of weight $\lambda$ so $L_w(\lambda) \cong L_{w'}(\lambda)$. Thus, to complete the proof of the lemma, it suffices to show that $e_{j,i} v \neq 0$ if and only if $(\lambda, \alpha) \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$. But $e_{j,i} v \neq 0$ if and only if there is some element $x\in{\operatorname{Dist}(B_w)}$ such that $x e_{j,i} v$ is a non-zero multiple of $v$. In view of the first paragraph, the only $x$ that needs to be considered is $e_{i,j}$. Finally, $e_{i,j} e_{j,i} v = (\lambda,\alpha) v$.
Recall that $w_1$ denotes the longest element of $D_{m,n}$. For $\lambda \in X(T)$, define $\widetilde{\lambda} \in X(T)$ from the isomorphism $$\label{Tdef}
L_1(\lambda) \cong L_{w_1}(\widetilde{\lambda}).$$ Lemma \[st\] implies the following algorithm for computing $\widetilde{\lambda}$:
\[salg\] Pick an ordering $\beta_1, \dots, \beta_{mn}$ of the roots $\{\varepsilon_i - \varepsilon_j\:|\:
1 \leq i \leq m, m+1 \leq j \leq m+n\}$ such that $\beta_i \leq_1 \beta_j$ implies $i \leq j$. Set $\lambda^{(0)} = \lambda$, and inductively define $$\lambda^{(i)} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\lambda^{(i-1)}&\hbox{if $(\lambda^{(i-1)}, \beta_{i}) \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$,}\\
\lambda^{(i-1)} - \beta_i&\hbox{if $(\lambda^{(i-1)}, \beta_{i})
\not\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$,}\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ for $i = 1,\dots,mn$. Then, $\widetilde{\lambda} = \lambda^{(mn)}$.
We refer to the algorithm for $\widetilde{\lambda}$ given by the theorem as [*Serganova’s algorithm*]{}. For an example, suppose $m = n = 2, p = 3$ and $\lambda =
\varepsilon_1 + \varepsilon_2 + 2\varepsilon_3$. Taking $\beta_1=
\varepsilon_2 - \varepsilon_3,
\beta_2=
\varepsilon_2 - \varepsilon_4,
\beta_3=
\varepsilon_1 - \varepsilon_3,\beta_4 =
\varepsilon_1 - \varepsilon_4$, we get successively $\lambda^{(1)} = \varepsilon_1 + \varepsilon_2 + 2 \varepsilon_3,
\lambda^{(2)} = \varepsilon_1 + 2\varepsilon_3 + \varepsilon_4,
\lambda^{(3)} = \varepsilon_1 + 2\varepsilon_3 + \varepsilon_4,
\lambda^{(4)} = 2\varepsilon_3 + 2\varepsilon_4$. Hence, $\widetilde \lambda = 2 \varepsilon_3 + 2 \varepsilon_4$.
Now we pass from $\mathscr O$ to the finite dimensional irreducible representations of $G$. We will work now just with the standard choice of Borel subgroup $B_1$ and the corresponding standard dominance ordering $\leq_1$ on $X(T)$. Let $$X^+(T) = \{\lambda = \sum_{i=1}^{m+n} \lambda_i \varepsilon_i \in X(T)\:|\:
\lambda_1 \geq \dots \geq \lambda_m, \lambda_{m+1} \geq \dots \geq \lambda_{m+n}\}$$ denote the set of all [*dominant integral weights*]{}. The proof of the first part of the following lemma goes back to Kac [@Kacnote], while the second part is due to Serganova.
\[fdclass\] Given any $\lambda \in X(T)$, $L_1(\lambda)$ is finite dimensional if and only if $\lambda \in X^+(T)$. Moreover, for $\lambda \in X^+(T)$, the $\leq_1$-lowest weight of $L_1(\lambda)$ is $w_0 \widetilde \lambda$.
Suppose first that $L_1(\lambda)$ is finite dimensional for $\lambda \in X(T)$. Then, it contains a ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}})}$-primitive vector of weight $\lambda$, hence by the purely even theory we must have that $\lambda \in X^+(T)$. Conversely, suppose that $\lambda \in X^+(T)$. Then, there is a finite dimensional irreducible ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}})}$-supermodule $L_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}(\lambda)$ of highest weight $\lambda$. Let $P$ be the closed subgroup of $G$ with $P(A)$ consisting of all invertible matrices of the form (\[E:matrix\]) with $Y = 0$. We can view $L_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}(\lambda)$ as a ${\operatorname{Dist}(P)}$-supermodule so that all $e_{i,j}$ for $1 \leq i \leq m, m+1 \leq j \leq m+n$ act as zero. Consider the induced supermodule $${\operatorname{Dist}(G)} \otimes_{{\operatorname{Dist}(P)}} L_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}(\lambda).$$ It is a finite dimensional module generated by a $1$-primitive vector of weight $\lambda$. Hence, $M_1(\lambda)$ has a finite dimensional quotient. This shows that $L_1(\lambda)$ is finite dimensional. Finally, by (\[Tdef\]), $L_1(\lambda) \cong L_{w_1}(\widetilde \lambda)$. Hence, all its weights are $\leq_{w_1} \widetilde \lambda$. Since $L_1(\lambda)$ is finite dimensional, the Weyl group $W$ acts by permuting weights. Hence we can act with $w_0$ to get that all its weights are $\geq_1 w_0 \widetilde \lambda$.
Lemmas \[hw\] and \[fdclass\] show that $\{L_1(\lambda)\}_{\lambda \in X^+(T)}$ is a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible integrable ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodules. In view of Corollary \[C:vermaconjecture\], we can lift the ${\operatorname{Dist}_{}(G)}$-supermodule $L_1(\lambda)$ for $\lambda \in X^+(T)$ uniquely to $G$. We will denote the resulting irreducible $G$-supermodule simply by $L(\lambda)$ from now on. To summarize, using the second part of Lemma \[fdclass\] for the statement about $L(\lambda)^*$, we have shown:
\[hwt\] The supermodules $\{L(\lambda)\}_{\lambda \in X^+(T)}$ form a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible $G$-supermodules. Moreover, for $\lambda \in X^+(T)$, $L(\lambda)^* \cong L(-w_0 \widetilde \lambda)$.
\[rks\](i) The second part of Theorem \[hwt\] implies that the restriction of the map $\sim$ from Theorem \[salg\] gives a bijection $\sim:X^+(T) \rightarrow X^+(T)$.
\(ii) A weight $\lambda = \sum_{i=1}^{m+n} \lambda_i \varepsilon_i
\in X^+(T)$ is called [*restricted*]{} if either $p = 0$ or $p > 0$ and $\lambda_i - \lambda_{i+1} < p$ for each $i = 1,\dots,m-1,m+1,\dots,m+n-1$. Assuming now that $p > 0$, let $X^+(T)_{\operatorname{res}}$ denote the set of all restricted $\lambda \in X^+(T)$. Let ${F}:G \rightarrow G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}$ be the Frobenius morphism defined on $g \in G(A)$ by raising all the matrix entries of $g$ to the power $p$, for each commutative superalgebra $A$. Let $G_1 = \ker {F}$ be the Frobenius kernel. By a similar argument to [@Borel 6.4], the restriction of $L(\lambda)$ to $G_1$ remains irreducible for all $\lambda \in X^+(T)_{\operatorname{res}}$, see [@thesis].
\(iii) Again for $p > 0$, there is an analogue for $G$ of the Steinberg tensor product theorem. Given (ii), the proof is essentially the same as in [@B1 $\S$9], see [@thesis] for the details. To state the result, let $L_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}(\lambda)$ denote the irreducible $G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}$-supermodule of highest weight $\lambda \in X^+(T)$ as in the proof of Lemma \[fdclass\]. Inflating through the Frobenius morphism ${F}:G \rightarrow G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}$, we obtain an irreducible $G$-supermodule ${F}^* L_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}(\lambda)\cong
L(p \lambda)$. In general, for $\lambda \in X^+(T)$, we can write $\lambda = \mu + p \nu$ where $\mu \in X^+(T)_{\operatorname{res}}$ and $\nu \in X^+(T)$. Steinberg’s tensor product theorem shows that $$L(\lambda) \cong L(\mu) \otimes {F}^* L_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}(\nu).$$
\(iv) Note for any $\lambda \in X^+(T)$, ${F}^* L_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}(\lambda)$ is trivial over $G_1$. So (ii), (iii) show in particular that $L(\lambda)$ is irreducible over $G_1$ if and only if $\lambda \in X^+(T)_{\operatorname{res}}$. Given this, the second part of Theorem \[hwt\] implies that the set $X^+(T)_{\operatorname{res}}$ is stable under the map $\sim$. Finally, take $\lambda = \mu + p \nu$ where $\mu \in X^+(T)_{\operatorname{res}}$ and $\nu \in X^+(T)$, as in (iii). Then, $$\begin{aligned}
L(-w_0 \widetilde{\lambda}) &\cong
L(\lambda)^* \cong L(\mu)^* \otimes {F}^* (L_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}(\nu)^*)\\
&\cong L(-w_0 \widetilde{\mu}) \otimes {F}^* L_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}(-w_0 \nu)
\cong L(-w_0(\widetilde \mu + p\nu)).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\widetilde \lambda = \widetilde{\mu} + p\nu$. This reduces the problem of computing $\widetilde \lambda$ to the special case that $\lambda$ is restricted.
Polynomial representations {#S:schuralgebra}
==========================
In this section, we discuss polynomial representations of $G$ in the spirit of Green’s monograph [@G1]. Let $A(m|n)$ denote the subbialgebra $k[Mat]$ of $k[G]$, so $A(m|n)$ is the free commutative superalgebra on the generators $\{\tilde T_{i,j}\}_{1\leq i,j \leq m+n}$ from (\[altt\]). Obviously, $A(m|n)$ is $\mathbb Z$-graded by degree, $$\label{ad}
A(m|n) = \bigoplus_{d \geq 0} A(m|n,d).$$ The subspace $A(m|n,d)$ is a finite dimensional subcoalgebra of $A(m|n)$. A representation $M$ of $G$ is called a *polynomial representation* (resp. a [*polynomial representation of degree $d$*]{}) if the comodule structure map $\eta:M \rightarrow M \otimes k[G]$ has image contained in $M \otimes A(m|n)$ (resp. in $M \otimes A(m|n,d)$). For example, the $d$th tensor power $V^{\otimes d}$ of the natural representation of $G$ is polynomial of degree $d$. In general, a $G$-supermodule $M$ is polynomial of degree $d$ if it is isomorphic to a direct sum of subquotients of $V^{\otimes d}$.
By [@BK1 Lemma 5.1], the decomposition (\[ad\]) induces a decomposition of any polynomial representation into a direct sum of homogeneous polynomial representations. Moreover, the category of polynomial representations of degree $d$ is isomorphic to the category of supermodules over the [*Schur superalgebra*]{} $$\label{sdef}
S(m|n,d) := A(m|n,d)^*,$$ where the superalgebra structure on $S(m|n,d)$ is the one dual to the coalgebra structure on $A(m|n,d)$. Thus, the polynomial representation theory of $G$ reduces to studying representations of the finite dimensional superalgebras $S(m|n,d)$ for all $d \geq 0$. The latter has been investigated recently over a field of positive characteristic by Donkin [@D1], see also [@Muir].
Let $I(m|n, d)$ denote the set of all functions from $\{1,\dots,d\}$ to $\{1,\dots,m+n\}$. We usually view ${{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}\in I(m|n,d)$ as a $d$-tuple $(i_1,\dots,i_d)$ with entries in $\{1,\dots,m+n\}$. In order to write down the various signs that will arise, introduce the notation $\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} = (\bar i_1, \dots,\bar i_d) \in \mathbb Z_2^d$, for any ${{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}\in I(m|n,d)$. For tuples $\epsilon = (\epsilon_1,\dots,\epsilon_d),
\delta = (\delta_1,\dots,\delta_d) \in \mathbb Z_2^d$ and $w \in S_d$, let $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(\epsilon, \delta) &= \prod_{1 \leq s < t \leq d}
(-1)^{\delta_s \epsilon_t},\\
\gamma(\epsilon, w) &= \prod_{\substack{1 \leq s < t \leq d \\ w^{-1} s > w^{-1} t}} (-1)^{\epsilon_s \epsilon_t}.\end{aligned}$$
The symmetric group $S_d$ acts on the right on $I(m|n,d)$ by composition of functions, i.e. $(i_1,\dots,i_d) \cdot w
= (i_{w1}, \dots, i_{wd})$. We will write $({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}) \sim ({{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}})$ if $({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}})$ and $({{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}})$ lie in the same orbit for the associated diagonal action of $S_d$ on $I(m|n,d) \times I(m|n,d)$. We say that a double index $({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}) \in I(m|n,d) \times I(m|n,d)$ is [*strict*]{} if $(\bar{i_r} + \bar{j_r})(\bar{i_s}+\bar{j_s}) = {\bar 0}$ whenever $(i_r,j_r) = (i_s,j_s)$ for $1 \leq r < s \leq d$. Let $I^2(m|n,d)$ denote the set of all strict double indexes. Note $({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}})$ is strict if and only if the element $$\tilde T_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}} := \tilde T_{i_1,j_1} \cdots \tilde T_{i_d,j_d} \in A(m|n,d)$$ is non-zero. Moreover, if $\Omega(m|n,d)$ is a fixed set of orbit representatives for the action of $S_d$ on $I^2(m|n,d)$, then the elements $\{\tilde T_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}\}_{({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}) \in \Omega(m|n,d)}$ give a basis for $A(m|n,d)$. Given $({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}), ({{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}) \in I^2(m|n,d)$ with $({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}) \sim ({{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}})$, we define a sign $\sigma({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}};{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}})$ by $$\sigma({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}};{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}) = \gamma(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} + \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}, w)$$ if $w$ is any element of $S_d$ with $({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}) \cdot w = ({{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}})$. Note $\tilde T_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}} = \sigma({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}};{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}) \tilde T_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}$.
For $({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}) \in I^2(m|n,d)$, let $\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}} \in S(m|n,d)$ be the unique element satisfying $$\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}(\tilde T_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}) =
\alpha(\epsilon_{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}+ \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}, \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} + \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}),\qquad
\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}} (\tilde T_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}}) = 0
\hbox{ for all $({{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}) \not\sim ({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}})$}.$$ The elements $\{\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}\}_{({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}) \in \Omega(m|n,d)}$ give a basis for $S(m|n,d)$. Given ${{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}\in I(m|n,d)$, let $v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} = v_{i_1} \otimes\dots\otimes v_{i_d} \in V^{\otimes d},$ giving us a basis $\{v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}}\}_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}\in I(m|n,d)}$ for the tensor space $V^{\otimes d}$. Since $V^{\otimes d}$ is a polynomial representation of degree $d$, there is a naturally induced representation $$\rho_d:S(m|n,d) \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\operatorname{End}}}_k(V^{\otimes d}).$$ Also let $e_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}} = e_{i_1,j_1} \otimes \dots \otimes e_{i_d,j_d}
\in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{End}}}_k(V)^{\otimes d} \cong {\ensuremath{\operatorname{End}}}_k(V^{\otimes d})$, so $e_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}} v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}} = \delta_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}}
\alpha(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} + \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}, \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}})
v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}}$ for ${{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}\in I(m|n,d)$.
\[prodform\] The representation $\rho_d:S(m|n,d) \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\operatorname{End}}}_k(V^{\otimes d})$ is faithful and satisfies $$\rho_d(\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}) = \sum_{({{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}) \sim ({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}})}
\sigma({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}};{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}) e_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}}$$ for each $({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}) \in I^2(m|n,d)$. Moreover, for $({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}), ({{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}) \in I^2(m|n,d)$, $${\xi}_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}, {{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}
{\xi}_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}, {{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}} = \sum_{({{\text{\boldmath{$s$}}}}, {{\text{\boldmath{$t$}}}}) \in \Omega(m|n, d)} a_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}, {{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}, {{\text{\boldmath{$s$}}}}, {{\text{\boldmath{$t$}}}}} {\xi}_{{{\text{\boldmath{$s$}}}}, {{\text{\boldmath{$t$}}}}}$$ where $a_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}, {{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}, {{\text{\boldmath{$s$}}}}, {{\text{\boldmath{$t$}}}}} = \sum
\sigma({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}};{{\text{\boldmath{$s$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$h$}}}})\sigma({{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}};{{\text{\boldmath{$h$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$t$}}}})
\alpha(\epsilon_{{\text{\boldmath{$h$}}}}+ \epsilon_{{\text{\boldmath{$t$}}}}, \epsilon_{{\text{\boldmath{$s$}}}}+ \epsilon_{{\text{\boldmath{$h$}}}})$, summing over all ${{\text{\boldmath{$h$}}}}\in I(m|n,d)$ with $({{\text{\boldmath{$s$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$h$}}}}) \sim ({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}), ({{\text{\boldmath{$h$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$t$}}}}) \sim ({{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}})$.
We first observe that the structure map $\eta:V^{\otimes d} \rightarrow V^{\otimes d} \otimes A(m|n,d)$ satisfies $$\eta(v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}) = \sum_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}\in I(m|n,d)}
(-1)^{\bar{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}(\bar{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}+ \bar{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}})}
\alpha(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} + \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}, \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}})
v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} \otimes \tilde T_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}},$$ where $\bar{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}= \bar i_1+\dots+\bar i_d, \bar{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}=
\bar j_1+\dots + \bar j_d$. Using this we calculate from the definition of the action: $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}} v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}} &=
(1 \bar\otimes \xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}) \sum_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}\in I(m|n,d)}\!\!\!
(-1)^{\bar{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}(\bar{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}+ \bar{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}})}
\alpha(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}} + \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}}, \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}})
v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}} \otimes \tilde T_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}}\\
&=
\!\!\!\sum_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}\in I(m|n,d)}\!\!\!
\alpha(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}} + \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}}, \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}})
\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}(\tilde T_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}})
v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}} \\
&= \!\!\!\sum_{({{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}) \sim ({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}})}\!\!\!
\sigma({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}};{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}})
\alpha(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}}+\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}}, \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}})
v_{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}.\end{aligned}$$ This prove the formula for $\rho_d(\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}})$. Hence, $\rho_d$ is injective since the elements $\{\rho_d(\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}})\}_{({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}) \in \Omega(m|n,d)}$ are clearly linearly independent. Finally, to derive the product rule, note that $e_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}} e_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}}
= \delta_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}} \alpha(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}}+\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}},
\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}}} + \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}}) e_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}}$. Using this it is easy to compute the product $\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}} \xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}}$ working in the representation $\rho_d$.
We next define a right action of the symmetric group $S_d$ on $V^{\otimes d}$ by letting $$\label{nra}
v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} (j\:\:j+1)
=
(-1)^{\bar{i}_{j}\bar{i}_{j+1}}
v_{i_{1}}\otimes \dotsb \otimes v_{i_{j+1}} \otimes v_{i_{j}} \otimes \dotsb \otimes v_{i_{d}}$$ for each ${{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}= (i_1,\dots,i_d) \in I(m|n,d)$ and each $1 \leq j < d$. For arbitrary $w \in S_d$, we have that $$\label{geq}
v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} w = \gamma(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}}, w) v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}\cdot w}.$$ Note the right action of $S_d$ is by even $G$-supermodule automorphisms, so it automatically commutes with the left action of $S(m|n,d)$ on $V^{\otimes d}$. The following theorem is well-known, see for example [@BR1; @S2].
$\rho_d:S(m|n,d) {\rightarrow} {\ensuremath{\operatorname{End}}}_{kS_d} (V^{\otimes d})$ is an isomorphism.
We have already shown in Lemma \[prodform\] that $\rho_d$ is injective and that it maps $S(m|n,d)$ into ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{End}}}_{kS_d}(V^{\otimes d})$. For surjectivity, take an arbitrary $\theta:V^{\otimes d} \rightarrow V^{\otimes d}$ commuting with the right action of $S_d$. Write $$\theta = \sum_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}\in I(m|n,d)} a_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}} e_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}$$ for some coefficients $a_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}$. Since $\theta$ commutes with each $w \in S_d$, we have that $(\theta v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}) w = \theta(v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}} w)$. A computation using (\[geq\]) gives that $$\gamma(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}, w)
\alpha(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}\cdot w} + \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}\cdot w},
\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}\cdot w})
a_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}\cdot w, {{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}\cdot w}
=
\alpha(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} + \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}, \epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}})
\gamma(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}}, w)
a_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}$$ for each ${{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}$. Simplifying this using the definitions of $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ then gives that $$a_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}\cdot w, {{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}\cdot w} = a_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}, {{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}
\gamma(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} +
\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}, w)$$ Now note that if $({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}})$ is not strict, we can choose a transposition $w \in S_d$ so that ${{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}\cdot w = {{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}, {{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}\cdot w = {{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}$ and $\gamma(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} +
\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}, w) = -1$. Hence, $a_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}} = 0$ in that case. Otherwise, if $({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}})$ is strict and $({{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}) \sim ({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}})$, we have shown that $a_{{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}} = \sigma({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}};{{\text{\boldmath{$k$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$l$}}}}) a_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}$. It follows easily that $\theta$ is a linear combination of the elements $\rho_d(\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}})$ computed in Lemma \[prodform\]. Hence, $\rho_d$ is onto.
We call a weight $\lambda = \sum_{i=1}^{m+n} \lambda_i \varepsilon_i
\in X(T)$ a [*polynomial weight*]{} if $\lambda_i \geq 0$ for all $i$. Let $\Lambda(m|n,d)$ denote the set of all such polynomial weights satisfying in addition $\lambda_1+\dots+\lambda_{m+n} = d$. Note this is exactly the set of weights arising in the $G$-supermodule $V^{\otimes d}$. For ${{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}\in I(m|n,d)$, let ${\operatorname{wt}}({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}) \in \Lambda(m|n,d)$ denote the weight of the vector $v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}}$, so ${\operatorname{wt}}({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}) = \sum_{i=1}^{m+n} \lambda_i \varepsilon_i$ where there are $\lambda_1$ $1$’s, $\lambda_2$ $2$’s, …appearing in the tuple $(i_1,\dots,i_d)$. Conversely, given $\lambda \in \Lambda(m|n,d)$, let ${{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}_\lambda$ denote the tuple $(1,\dots,1,2,\dots,2,\dots)
\in I(m|n,d)$ with $\lambda_i$ $i$’s for each $i$. Let $$\label{wtidem}
\xi_{\lambda}= \xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}_\lambda, {{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}_\lambda} \in S(m|n,d).$$ We note that if $M$ is a polynomial representation of $G$ of degree $d$ then, by the argument in [@G1 3.2], the subspace $\xi_\lambda M$ is exactly the $\lambda$-weight space $M_\lambda$ of $M$ as defined in (\[wtsp\]). An elementary calculation using the product rule from Lemma \[prodform\] shows:
\[L:weightidempotents\] For $({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}) \in I^{2}(m|n,d)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_{\lambda}\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}
&=
\begin{cases} \xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}} & \mbox{if } {\operatorname{wt}}({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}})=\lambda, \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise, }
\end{cases} &
\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}\xi_{\lambda} &=
\begin{cases} \xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}} & \mbox{if }
{\operatorname{wt}}({{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}})=\lambda, \\
0 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $\{\xi_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda \in \Lambda(m|n,d)}$ is a set of mutally orthogonal even idempotents whose sum is the identity in $S(m|n,d)$.
Now we turn to the problem of classifying the irreducible polynomial representations of $G$, or equivalently, the irreducible $S(m|n,d)$-supermodules for all $d \geq 0$. Suppose for some $\lambda \in X^+(T)$ that the irreducible $G$-supermodule $L(\lambda)$ is a polynomial representation of degree $d$. Since [*all*]{} its weights are polynomial weights, $\lambda$ must belong to the set $$\Lambda^+(m|n,d) :=
\{\lambda \in \Lambda(m|n,d) \:|\:\lambda_1 \geq \dots \geq \lambda_m, \lambda_{m+1}\geq \dots \geq \lambda_{m+n}\}$$ of dominant polynomial weights of degree $d$. However, $$\Lambda^{++}(m|n,d) := \{\lambda \in \Lambda^+(m|n,d)\:|\:L(\lambda)
\hbox{ is a polynomial representation}\}$$ will in general be a proper subset of $\Lambda^+(m|n,d)$, unlike the purely even case. The following lemma is an immediate consequence of Theorem \[hwt\] and the general remarks made at the beginning of the section.
\[ic\] The supermodules $\{L(\lambda)\}_{\lambda \in \Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)}$ form a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible $S(m|n,d)$-supermodules.
Of course the main problem now is to describe the set $\Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$ combinatorially! Over fields of characteristic $0$, the answer is well-known, see [@BR1] or [@S2]. In positive characteristic, Donkin has given a combinatorial description of $\Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$ under the assumption that $d \leq m$, see [@D1 2.3(4)]. We give here an alternative proof of Donkin’s result, and describe $\Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$ in general in Theorem \[last\] in the next section.
\[dt\] Assume $d \leq m$. Then, $$\Lambda^{++}(m|n,d) = \{\lambda \in \Lambda^+(m|n,d)
\:|\:\lambda_{m+1} \equiv \dots \equiv \lambda_{m+n}
\equiv 0 \!\!\!\pmod{p}\}.$$
We first recall the argument of Donkin from [@D1 2.3(4)] to show that all $\lambda \in \Lambda^+(m|n,d)$ with $\lambda_{m+1} \equiv \dots \equiv \lambda_{m+n} \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$ belong to $\Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$, i.e. that $L(\lambda)$ is a polynomial representation for all such $\lambda$. Let $\omega_i = \varepsilon_1+\dots+\varepsilon_i$. For any $r_1,\dots,r_m \geq 0$, the polynomial representation $$V^{\otimes r_1}
\otimes
\left({\bigwedge}^2 V\right)^{\otimes r_2}
\otimes\dots\otimes
\left({\bigwedge}^m V\right)^{\otimes r_m}$$ has unique highest weight $r_1 \omega_1 + \dots + r_m \omega_m$. Hence $L(r_1 \omega_1 + \dots + r_m \omega_m)$ is a composition factor of a polynomial representation, so polynomial. Now given an arbitrary $\lambda \in \Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$ with $\lambda_{m+1} \equiv \dots \equiv \lambda_{m+n} \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$, we can write $\lambda = \mu + p \nu$ where $\mu \in X^+(T)_{\operatorname{res}}$ is a restricted polynomial weight in the sense of Remark \[rks\](ii) satisfying $\mu_{m+1} = \dots = \mu_{m+n} = 0$, and $\nu \in X^+(T)$ is an arbitrary polynomial weight. Then, the $G$-supermodule $$L(\mu) \otimes {F}^* L_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}(\nu)$$ has unique highest weight $\lambda$ so contains $L(\lambda)$ as a composition factor (actually it equals $L(\lambda)$ by Remark \[rks\](iii), though we do not need this stronger result). Since $\mu$ can be expressed in the form $r_1 \omega_1 + \dots + r_m \omega_m$ for $r_i \geq 0$, $L(\mu)$ is polynomial and $L_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}(\nu)$, hence ${F}^* L_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}(\nu)$, is polynomial by the classical theory. So $L(\lambda)$ is a polynomial representation, and $\lambda \in \Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$.
Conversely, suppose that $\lambda \in \Lambda^+(m|n,d)$ has $\lambda_{m+i} \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$ for some $1 \leq i \leq n$. Pick the minimal such $i$, and observe by the assumption $d \leq m$ that $\lambda_m = 0$. Let $w \in D_{m,n}$ be the permutation $(m\:\:m+1\:\:\dots\:\:m+i)$, so $$\Phi_w^+ = \Phi_1^+ - \{\varepsilon_m - \varepsilon_{m+1},\dots,
\varepsilon_m - \varepsilon_{m+i}\}
\cup
\{\varepsilon_{m+1} - \varepsilon_{m},\dots,
\varepsilon_{m+i} - \varepsilon_{m}\}.$$ Applying Lemma \[st\] using the sequence $\varepsilon_m - \varepsilon_{m+1},
\dots, \varepsilon_m - \varepsilon_{m+i}$ of roots, we see that $L(\lambda) \cong L_w(\lambda -
\varepsilon_m + \varepsilon_{m+i})$. Thus, $\lambda - \varepsilon_m + \varepsilon_{m+i}$ is a weight of $L(\lambda)$. Since this is not a polynomial weight, $L(\lambda)$ cannot be a polynomial representation, i.e. $\lambda \notin \Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$.
We now explain how to descend from the Schur superalgebra $S(m|n,d)$ to the symmetric group $S_d$, assuming still that $d \leq m$. We need the following basic fact about functors defined by idempotents, cf. [@G1 6.2] or [@BK1 Corollary 2.13]. Recall that if $\xi \in S(m|n,d)$ is an even idempotent and $M$ is an $S(m|n,d)$-supermodule, we can view $\xi M$ naturally as a supermodule over the subalgebra $\xi S(m|n,d) \xi$ of $S(m|n,d)$.
\[il\] Let $\xi \in S(m|n,d)$ be an even idempotent. For $\lambda \in \Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$, $\xi L(\lambda)$ is either zero or it is an irreducible $\xi S(m|n,d) \xi$-supermodule. Moreover, the non-zero $\xi L(\lambda)$’s give a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible $\xi S(m|n,d) \xi$-supermodules.
One checks the following lemma using the product rule from Lemma \[prodform\].
\[littlecheck\] Assume $d \leq m$ and let $\omega = \sum_{i=1}^d \varepsilon_i
\in \Lambda(m|n,d)$. Then, for any ${{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}\in I(m|n,d)$ and any $x \in S_d$, $
\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}_\omega} \xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}_\omega \cdot x, {{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}_\omega}
=
\gamma(\epsilon_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}}, x) \xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}\cdot x, {{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}_\omega}.
$
Continue with $d\leq m$ and $\omega$ as in Lemma \[littlecheck\]. By Lemma \[L:weightidempotents\], the subalgebra $\xi_\omega S(m|n,d) \xi_\omega$ of $S(m|n,d)$ has basis $\{\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}_\omega \cdot x, {{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}_\omega}\}_{x \in S_d}$. Lemma \[littlecheck\] implies that the map $$\label{e2}
kS_d \rightarrow \xi_\omega S(m|n,d) \xi_\omega,
\qquad
x \mapsto \xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}_\omega \cdot x, {{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}_\omega}$$ is a superalgebra isomorphism. >From now on, we will [*identify*]{} $k S_d$ with the subalgebra $\xi_\omega S(m|n,d) \xi_\omega$ of $S(m|n,d)$ in this way. Then, we can define the [*Schur functor*]{} $$\label{sf}
f_\omega: S(m|n,d)\hbox{-mod}
\rightarrow kS_d\hbox{-mod}.$$ On an $S(m|n,d)$-supermodule $M$, $f_\omega M$ is the $\omega$-weight space $\xi_{\omega} M$ of $M$ viewed as a $kS_d$-supermodule via the identification (\[e2\]). On a morphism, the functor $f_\omega$ is defined by restriction.
\[morerks\](i) Recalling the definition of the action of $S_d$ on $V^{\otimes d}$ from (\[geq\]), Lemma \[littlecheck\] also shows that the map $V^{\otimes d} \rightarrow S(m|n,d)\xi_{\omega}, \:
v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} \mapsto \xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}_{\omega}}
$is an isomorphism of $S(m|n,d), kS_d$-bimodules.
\(ii) An immediate consequence of (i) is that the Schur functor $f_\omega$ can be defined alternatively by $f_\omega M = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}_G(V^{\otimes d}, M)$ for a polynomial $G$-supermodule $M$ of degree $d$, where the $S_d$ action on $f_\omega M$ is induced by the natural right action of $S_d$ on $V^{\otimes d}$ from (\[nra\]).
\(iii) Another well-known consequence of (i) is the [*double centralizer property*]{}: for $d \leq m$, $\operatorname{End}_{S(m|n,d)} (V^{\otimes d}) = k S_d$. Indeed, by (i) and properties of idempotents, $$\operatorname{End}_{S(m|n,d)} (V^{\otimes d})
\cong
\operatorname{End}_{S(m|n,d)} (S(m|n,d) \xi_{\omega})
\cong \xi_\omega S(m|n,d) \xi_\omega \cong k S_d.$$ One can extend this result to the case $d \leq m+n$ by similar arguments.
Recall now that a [*partition of $d$*]{} is a sequence $\lambda = (\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \dots)$ of non-negative integers satisfying $|\lambda| := \lambda_1+\lambda_2+ \dots = d$. We usually identify $\lambda$ with its [*Young diagram*]{} $$\lambda = \{(i,j) \in \mathbb Z_{> 0} \times \mathbb Z_{> 0}\:|\:j \leq \lambda_i\}$$ and refer to $(i,j) \in \lambda$ as the [*node*]{} in the $i$th row and $j$th column. We say that a partition $\lambda =
(\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \dots)$ is [*restricted*]{} if either $p = 0$ or $p > 0$ and $\lambda_i - \lambda_{i+1} < p$ for all $i = 1,2,\dots$ (cf. Remark \[rks\](ii)). Let $\mathscr P(d)$ denote the set of all partitions of $d$, and $\mathscr{RP}(d) \subseteq \mathscr{P}(d)$ denote the set of all [restricted partitions of $d$]{}.
Assuming still that $d \leq m$, we define an embedding $$\label{x}
x:\mathscr{RP}(d) \hookrightarrow \Lambda^{+}(m|n,d),
\qquad
\lambda \mapsto \sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_i \varepsilon_i.$$ By Theorem \[dt\], we actually have that $x(\lambda) \in \Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$ for $\lambda \in \mathscr{RP}(d)$. So it makes sense to define $$\label{ddef}
D_\lambda = f_\omega L(x(\lambda)).$$ The following theorem shows in particular that the $D_\lambda$’s are non-zero $kS_d$-modules.
\[parm\] Assume $d \leq m$. For $\lambda \in \Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$, $f_\omega L(\lambda) \neq 0$ if and only if $\lambda = x(\mu)$ for some $\mu \in \mathscr{RP}(d)$. Hence, the $kS_d$-modules $\{D_\lambda\}_{\lambda \in \mathscr{RP}(d)}$ form a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible $kS_d$-modules.
Take $\lambda \in \Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$. By Theorem \[dt\], if $\lambda \notin x(\mathscr{RP}(d))$, we can decompose $\lambda = \mu + p \nu$ for polynomial weights $\mu,\nu \in X^+(T)$ with $\mu$ restricted in the sense of Remark \[rks\](ii) and with $\nu \neq 0$. But then $L(\mu) \otimes {F}^* L(\nu)$ has unique highest weight $\lambda$, so has $L(\lambda)$ as a composition factor (actually it equals $L(\lambda)$ by Remark \[rks\](iii)). Since the $\omega$-weight space of $L(\mu) \otimes {F}^* L(\nu)$ is zero, this shows that $f_\omega L(\lambda) = 0$. Finally, by Lemma \[il\], the non-zero $f_\omega L(\lambda)$ with $\lambda \in \Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$ must give a complete set of pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible $kS_d$-modules. It is well-known that the number of isomorphism classes of the latter is $|\mathscr{RP}(d)|$, hence we must have that $f_\omega L(\lambda) \neq 0$ for all $\lambda \in x(\mathscr{RP}(d))$. This completes the proof.
\[lrk\]The $p$-regular partitions from the introduction are the conjugates of the restricted partitions. However, we will work from now on with the parametrization of the irreducible $kS_d$-modules by restricted partitions according to Theorem \[parm\], though this is not the usual convention made in the literature. The relationship between our labeling and the standard labeling of James [@J1] is given by $$\label{labrel}
D_\lambda \cong D^{\lambda'} \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}.$$ One can see this as follows. Embedding $\Lambda(m,d) := \Lambda(m|0,d)$ into $\Lambda(m|n,d)$ as the set of all weights with $\lambda_{m+1}=\dots=\lambda_{m+n} = 0$, let $\xi = \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda(m,d)} \xi_\lambda.$ Then, $\xi S(m|n,d) \xi$ can be identified with the classical Schur superalgebra $S(m,d) := S(m|0,d)$ of [@G1], see the proof of Theorem \[last\] below for a similar construction. Moreover, given $\lambda \in \Lambda^+(m,d) := \Lambda^+(m|0,d)$, $\xi L(\lambda)$ is the irreducible $S(m,d)$-module with highest weight $\lambda$. Notice that for $\omega$ as in Lemma \[littlecheck\], $\xi_{\omega} \xi = \xi_\omega$. Hence, our Schur functor $f_\omega$ from representations of $S(m|n,d)$ to representations of $kS_d$ factors through the Schur functor in [@G1 6.4] from representations of $S(m,d)$ to representations of $kS_d$. So [@G1 6.4] implies that $D_\lambda =
L(x(\lambda)) \cong
D^{\lambda'} \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}$ for each $\lambda \in \mathscr{RP}(d)$.
The Mullineux conjecture {#S:Mullineux}
========================
Let $\lambda \in \mathscr{P}(d)$ be a partition of $d$. The [*rim*]{} of $\lambda$ is defined to be the set of all nodes $(i,j)\in\lambda$ such that $(i+1,j+1)\not\in\lambda$. The [*$p$-rim*]{} is a certain subset of the rim, defined as the union of the [*$p$-segments*]{}. The first $p$-segment is simply the first $p$ nodes of the rim, reading along the rim from left to right. The next $p$-segment is then obtained by reading off the next $p$ nodes of the rim, but starting from the column immediately to the [*right*]{} of the rightmost node of the first $p$-segment. The remaining $p$-segments are obtained by repeating this process. Of course, all but the last $p$-segment contain exactly $p$ nodes, while the last may contain less. For example, let $\lambda=(5,4,3^2,1^2),\ p=5$. The nodes of the $p$-rim (which consists of two $p$-segments) are colored in black in the following picture. $$\setlength{\unitlength}{0.007500in}\begin{picture}(108,124)(139,514)
\multiput(143,618)(20,0){3}{\circle{5}}
\multiput(143,598)(20,0){3}{\circle{5}}
\multiput(143,578)(20,0){3}{\circle{5}}
\multiput(203,618)(20,0){2}{\circle*{6}}
\multiput(203,598)(20,0){1}{\circle*{6}}
\multiput(143,558)(20,0){3}{\circle*{6}}
\multiput(143,538)(20,0){1}{\circle*{6}}
\multiput(143,518)(20,0){1}{\circle*{6}}
\end{picture}$$ Let $a(\lambda)$ denote the number of nodes in the $p$-rim of $\lambda$.
We now define [*Mullineux conjugation*]{} $${\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}:\mathscr{RP}(d) \rightarrow \mathscr{RP}(d),$$ which is actually the transpose of the original definition from [@M1] since we are working with restricted rather than regular partitions. Given $\lambda \in \mathscr{RP}(d)$, set $\lambda^{(1)}=\lambda$, and define $\lambda^{(i)}$ to be $\lambda^{(i-1)} - \{\text{the $p$-rim of $\lambda^{(i-1)}$}\}$. Let $m$ be the largest number such that $\lambda^{(m)}\neq 0$. The [*Mullineux symbol*]{} of $\lambda$ is defined to be the array $$G(\lambda) =
\left(
\begin{matrix}
a_1 & a_2 & \dots & a_m \\
r_1 & r_2 & \dots & r_m
\end{matrix}
\right)$$ where $a_i = a(\lambda^{(i)})$ is the number of the nodes in the $p$-rim of $\lambda^{(i)}$ and $r_i = \lambda^{(i)}_1$ is the first part of $\lambda^{(i)}$. The partition $\lambda$ can be uniquely reconstructed from its Mullineux symbol, see [@M1]. Now, ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda)$ is defined to be the unique restricted partition with $$G({\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda)) =
\left(
\begin{matrix}
a_1 & a_2 & \dots & a_m \\
s_1 & s_2 & \dots & s_m
\end{matrix}
\right)$$ where $$\label{pp}
s_i=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
a_i-r_i&\hbox{if $a_i \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$,}\\
a_i+1-r_i&\hbox{if $a_i \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$.}
\end{array}\right.$$ Note in particular that the first part of ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda)$ equals $s_1$.
As explained in the introduction, we will be concerned here with an equivalent formulation of the Mullineux algorithm discovered by Xu [@Xu1]. For $\lambda \in \mathscr{P}(d)$, let ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}(\lambda)$ be the partition obtained from $\lambda$ by deleting every node in the $p$-rim that is at the rightmost end of a row of $\lambda$ but that is not the $p$th node of a $p$-segment. Let $j(\lambda) = |\lambda| - |{\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}(\lambda)|$ be the total number of nodes deleted. For example, with $\lambda = (5,4,3^2,1^2), p = 5$ as above, ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}(\lambda)$ is obtained by deleting the double-circled nodes: $$\setlength{\unitlength}{0.007500in}\begin{picture}(108,124)(139,514)
\multiput(143,618)(20,0){3}{\circle{5}}
\multiput(143,598)(20,0){3}{\circle{5}}
\multiput(143,578)(20,0){3}{\circle{5}}
\multiput(203,618)(20,0){2}{\circle*{6}}
\multiput(203,598)(20,0){1}{\circle*{6}}
\multiput(143,558)(20,0){3}{\circle*{6}}
\multiput(143,538)(20,0){1}{\circle*{6}}
\multiput(143,518)(20,0){1}{\circle*{6}}
\multiput(143,518)(20,0){1}{\circle{10}}
\multiput(203,598)(20,0){1}{\circle{10}}
\multiput(223,618)(20,0){1}{\circle{10}}
\multiput(143,538)(20,0){1}{\circle{10}}
\end{picture}$$ Hence $j(\lambda) = 4$. Note the definitions of the maps ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}$ and $j$ make sense for arbitrary partitions, though to prove the Mullineux conjecture we only need to apply them to restricted partitions. In general, one has that ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}(\mu+p\nu) = {\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}(\mu)+p\nu$ and $j(\mu+p\nu)= j(\mu)$.
Recalling that $a(\lambda)$ is the number of nodes in the $p$-rim of $\lambda$, we note for arbitrary $\lambda \in \mathscr{P}(d)$ that $$\label{sd}
j(\lambda) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
a(\lambda)-\lambda_1&\hbox{if $a(\lambda) \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$,}\\
a(\lambda)+1-\lambda_1&\hbox{if $a(\lambda) \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$.}\\
\end{array}\right.$$ Comparing with (\[pp\]), this shows that for restricted $\lambda$, $j(\lambda)$ is the first part of the partition ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda)$. More generally, it is proved in [@BOX Proposition 3.4] that for restricted $\lambda$, ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}({\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}(\lambda)) = {\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}({\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda))$, where ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}$ denotes first row removal. Using this fundamental fact, the following theorem of Xu [@Xu1] follows easily:
\[xua\] For $\lambda \in \mathscr{RP}(d)$, ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda)$ is the partition $\mu$ with $\mu_i = j({\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}^{i-1}(\lambda))$.
We will refer to the algorithm for computing ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda)$ given by Theorem \[xua\] as Xu’s algorithm. For an example, take $\lambda = (5,4, 3^2, 1^2), p = 5$ as above. Then ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}(\lambda) = (4,3^3),
{\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}^2(\lambda) = (3^2, 2^2),
{\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}^3(\lambda) = (3^2,1^2), {\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}^4(\lambda) = (3^2),
{\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}^5(\lambda) = (2^2), {\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}^6(\lambda) = (1^2), {\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}^7(\lambda) = 0$. Hence, ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda) = (4,3,2^5)$.
We next explain the relationship between Xu’s algorithm and Serganova’s algorithm from Theorem \[salg\]. The main step is to prove the following alternative description of the map ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}$.
\[jj\] Suppose that $\lambda \in \mathscr{P}(d)$ with $\lambda_{m+1} = 0$. Define $x_1,x_2,\dots \in \{0,1\}$ by $x_{m+1} = x_{m+2} = \dots = 0$ and $$x_i = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 &\hbox{if $\lambda_i + x_{i+1} + x_{i+2} + \dots \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$,}\\
0 &\hbox{if $\lambda_i + x_{i+1} + x_{i+2} + \dots \equiv 0 \pmod{p}$,}
\end{array}\right.$$ for $i=m,m-1,\dots,1$. Then, ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}(\lambda)$ is the partition $\mu$ with $\mu_i = \lambda_i - x_i$.
Proceed by induction on $m$, the case $m = 0$ being vacuous. For the induction step, take $\lambda \in \mathscr{RP}(d)$ with $\lambda_{m+1} = 0$. Define $x_1,x_2,\dots$ and $\mu$ according to the statement of the lemma. By the induction hypothesis, we get that ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}({\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\lambda)) = {\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\mu)$, which shows in particular that $j({\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\lambda)) = |{\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\lambda)| - |{\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\mu)| =
x_2 + x_3 + \dots$. To complete the proof, it remains to show that the first part of ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}(\lambda)$ is equal to $\lambda_1 - x_1$, or equivalently, $j(\lambda) = x_1 + x_2 + x_3 + \dots$.
If $a({\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\lambda))
\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$, then all the $p$-segments in the $p$-rim of ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\lambda)$ have $p$ nodes in them. Hence, the node $(1, \lambda_2)$ does not belong to the $p$-rim of $\lambda$. Using (\[sd\]) for the second equality, we therefore get that $$a(\lambda) =
\lambda_1 - \lambda_2 +
a({\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\lambda))
=
\lambda_1 + j({\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\lambda)).$$ Otherwise, if $a({\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\lambda)) \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$, then the last $p$-segment of ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\lambda)$ has less than $p$ nodes in it. This implies that the node $(1, \lambda_2)$ must belong to the $p$-rim of $\lambda$, so $$a(\lambda) = \lambda_1 - \lambda_2 + 1 + a({\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\lambda))
=
\lambda_1 + j({\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\lambda)).$$ Thus in either case, we have shown that $$a(\lambda) = \lambda_1 + j ({\ensuremath{\mathtt{R}}}(\lambda)) =
\lambda_1 + x_2 + x_3 + \dots.$$ If this is zero mod $p$, then $x_1 = 0$ and $j(\lambda) = a(\lambda) - \lambda_1$ by (\[sd\]). If it is non-zero mod $p$, then $x_1 = 1$ and $j(\lambda) = a(\lambda) + 1 - \lambda_1$. Either way, $j(\lambda) = x_1 + x_2 + \dots$ as required.
Assume now that $m,n \geq d$. Recall the definition of the embedding $x:\mathscr{RP}(d) \hookrightarrow \Lambda^+(m|n,d)$ from (\[x\]). Instead, define $$\label{y}
y:\mathscr{RP}(d) \hookrightarrow \Lambda^+(m|n,d),
\qquad
\lambda \mapsto \sum_{i=1}^{n} \lambda_i \varepsilon_{m+i}.$$ Let $\sim:X^+(T) \rightarrow X^+(T)$ be the bijection defined combinatorially according to Theorem \[salg\]. Then:
\[cpart\] For $m,n \geq d$ and $\lambda \in \mathscr{RP}(d)$, $\widetilde{x(\lambda)} = y({\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda))$.
Compute $\widetilde{x(\lambda)}$ using Theorem \[salg\] and the ordering $$\varepsilon_m - \varepsilon_{m+1}, \dots, \varepsilon_1 - \varepsilon_{m+1};
\varepsilon_m - \varepsilon_{m+2}, \dots, \varepsilon_1 - \varepsilon_{m+2};
\dots;
\varepsilon_m - \varepsilon_{m+n}, \dots, \varepsilon_1 - \varepsilon_{m+n}.$$ After the first $m$ steps of the process, $x(\lambda)$ has been replaced by $x(\lambda) - \sum_{i=1}^m x_i \varepsilon_i
+ j(\lambda) \varepsilon_{m+1}$, where $x_1,\dots,x_m$ are defined as in Lemma \[jj\]. Lemma \[jj\] shows this is exactly the weight $x({\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}(\lambda)) + j(\lambda) \varepsilon_{m+1}.$ Repeating the argument for the next $m$ steps of Serganova’s algorithm, we see similarly that $x({\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}(\lambda)) + j(\lambda) \varepsilon_{m+1}$ gets replaced by the weight $x({\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}({\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}(\lambda))) + j(\lambda) \varepsilon_{m+1} + j
({\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}(\lambda)) \varepsilon_{m+2}$. Continuing in this way and using Xu’s Theorem \[xua\], we get after the $nm$th step of Serganova’s algorithm that $\widetilde{x(\lambda)} = y({\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda))$.
At last we are ready to prove the Mullineux conjecture, see also (\[labrel\]).
For $\lambda \in \mathscr{RP}(d)$, $D_\lambda \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}\cong D_{{\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda)}$.
Take $m = n \geq d$. Let $\sigma:G \rightarrow G$ be the supergroup automorphism defined for a commutative superalgebra $A$ and a matrix $g \in G(A)$ of the form (\[E:matrix\]) by $$\left(
\begin{array}{l|l}
W&X\\\hline
Y&Z
\end{array}
\right) \mapsto
\left(\begin{array}{l|l}
Z&Y\\\hline
X&W
\end{array}
\right).$$ Given any $G$-supermodule $M$, we let $\sigma^* M$ denote the $G$-supermodule equal to $M$ as a vector superspace, but with new action defined by $g \cdot m = \sigma(g) m$ for all $g \in G(A), m \in M \otimes A$ and all commutative superalgebras $A$. In particular, $\sigma^*(V^{\otimes d})$ denotes the tensor space $V^{\otimes d}$ with the action of $G$ twisted by $\sigma$ and with the original $S_d$-action from (\[nra\]). We also write $V^{\otimes d} \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}$ for the $G$-supermodule $V^{\otimes d}$ but with the action of $S_d$ twisted by tensoring with ${\operatorname{sgn}}$.
Let $\sigma:\{1,\dots,2n\} \rightarrow \{1,\dots,2n\}$ be the map $i \mapsto i+n$ if $i \leq n$, $i \mapsto i - n$ if $i \geq n+1$. Extend $\sigma$ to a map $\sigma:I(n|n,d) \rightarrow I(n|n,d)$ mapping ${{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}= (i_1,\dots,i_d)$ to $\sigma({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}) =
(\sigma(i_1), \dots, \sigma(i_d))$. Define a map $\sigma:V \rightarrow \sigma^* V, v_i \mapsto v_{\sigma(i)}$. Obviously, this is an odd isomorphism of $G$-supermodules. Hence, the map $$\sigma^{\otimes d}:V^{\otimes d} \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}\rightarrow \sigma^* (V^{\otimes d}),\quad
v_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}} \otimes 1 \mapsto
(-1)^{(d-1) \bar i_1 + (d-2) \bar i_2 +
\dots + \bar i_{d-1}}
v_{\sigma({{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}})}$$ is an isomorphism of $G$-supermodules. Using this formula, it is easy to check that the map $\sigma^{\otimes d}$ commutes with the action of a simple transposition $(j\:\:j+1) \in S_d$. Hence, $\sigma^{\otimes d}$ is an isomorphism of $G, S_d$-bimodules. It follows immediately that for any $G$-supermodule $M$, there is a natural isomorphism $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}_G(V^{\otimes d}, \sigma^* M) =
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}_G(\sigma^*(V^{\otimes d}), M)
\cong
{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}_G(V^{\otimes d} \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}, M)$$ of $kS_d$-modules. Hence, recalling Remark \[morerks\](ii), we have a natural isomorphism $$\label{mainpoint}
(f_\omega M) \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}\cong
f_{\omega} (\sigma^* M)$$ of $kS_d$-modules for any $S(n|n,d)$-supermodule $M$.
We now apply (\[mainpoint\]) to $M = L(x(\lambda))$. By (\[Tdef\]) and Lemma \[cpart\], $$L(x(\lambda)) \cong L_{w_1}(\widetilde{x(\lambda)})
\cong L_{w_1}(y({\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda))).$$ The automorphism $\sigma$ of $G$ swaps the Borel subgroups $B_1$ and $B_{w_1}$ and interchanges the two diagonal blocks in the torus $T$. Hence, $$\sigma^* L_{w_1}(y({\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda))) \cong L(x({\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda))).$$ So by (\[ddef\]) and (\[mainpoint\]), we get $$D_\lambda \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}=
(f_\omega L(x(\lambda))) \otimes {\operatorname{sgn}}\cong
f_\omega (\sigma^* L(x(\lambda)))
\cong f_\omega L(x({\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda))) = D_{{\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\lambda)}.$$ This completes the proof.
We conclude the article by completing the combinatorial description of the set $\Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$ that parametrizes the irreducible polynomial representations of $G$ of degree $d$ in Lemma \[ic\]. For $\lambda
\in \Lambda^+(m|n,d)$, we will use the notation $t(\lambda)$ for the partition $(\lambda_{m+1}, \lambda_{m+2}, \dots, \lambda_{m+n})$, i.e. the “tail” of $\lambda$. Also recall the definition of $j$ from (\[sd\]).
\[last\] For arbitrary $m,n,d$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda^{++}(m|n,d) &= \{\lambda \in \Lambda^+(m|n,d)\:|\:
j(t(\lambda)) \leq \lambda_m\}.\end{aligned}$$
Pick $M \geq m, N \geq n$ such that $M \geq d$ and $N = M-m$. Throughout the proof, we will identify $GL(m|n)$ with the closed subgroup of $GL(M|N)$ consisting (for each commutative superalgebra $A$) of all invertible matrices of the form $$\left(
\begin{array}{ll|ll}
W&0&X&0\\
0&I_{M-m}&0&0\\
\hline
Y&0&Z&0\\
0&0&0&I_{N-n}
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $W, X, Y, Z$ are as in (\[E:matrix\]). Embed $\Lambda(m|n,d)$ (resp. $\Lambda^+(m|n,d)$) into $\Lambda(M|N,d)$ (resp. $\Lambda^+(M|N,d)$) as the set of all $\lambda$ with $\lambda_{m+1} = \dots = \lambda_M
= \lambda_{M+n+1} = \dots = \lambda_{M+N} = 0$, and embed $I(m|n,d)$ into $I(M|N,d)$ as the set of all $d$-tuples ${{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}}$ with entries belonging to the set $\{1,\dots,m, M+1,\dots,M+n\}$. Let $$\xi = \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda(m|n,d)}
\xi_\lambda \in S(M|N,d).$$ The embedding $GL(m|n) \hookrightarrow GL(M|N)$ induces an isomorphism between the Schur superalgebra $S(m|n,d)$ and the subalgebra $\xi S(M|N,d) \xi$ of $S(M|N,d)$. The element $\xi_{{{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}}$ of $S(m|n,d)$ for ${{\text{\boldmath{$i$}}}},{{\text{\boldmath{$j$}}}}\in I(m|n,d)$ corresponds to the element of $\xi S(M|N,d)\xi$ with the same name. We will denote the irreducible $S(M|N,d)$-supermodule of highest weight $\lambda \in \Lambda^{++}(M|N,d)$ by $L(\lambda)$, and the irreducible $S(m|n,d)$-supermodule of highest weight $\lambda \in \Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)$ by $L'(\lambda)$.
Let $w \in D_{M,N}$ be the permutation $$w=\left(
\begin{matrix} m+1 & m+2 &\dots& M \\
M+1 & M+2 & \dots& M+N
\end{matrix} \right)$$ This defines a Borel subgroup $B_w$ of $G = GL(M|N)$, a set $\Phi_w^+$ of positive roots and a dominance ordering $\leq_w$ on $X(T)$. Explicitly, for a commutative superalgebra $A$, $B_w(A)$ consists of all matrices in $G(A)$ of the form $$\left(
\begin{array}{ll|l}
P&X&Y\\
0&Q&0\\
\hline
0&Z&R
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $P$ is an upper triangular $m \times m$ matrix, $Q, R$ are upper triangular $N \times N$ matrices, and $X, Y, Z$ are arbitrary. Like in (\[Tdef\]), define a bijection $r:X(T) \rightarrow X(T)$ by the rule $$L_1(\lambda) \cong L_w(r(\lambda)).$$ The key observation is that if $\lambda$ is a weight $\notin \Lambda(m|n,d)$, then every $\mu \leq_w \lambda$ is also $\notin \Lambda(m|n,d)$. Hence, since the idempotent $\xi$ is just projection onto the weight spaces belonging to $\Lambda(m|n,d)$, we see that for $\lambda \in \Lambda^{++}(M|N,d)$, $\xi L(\lambda) \cong \xi L_w(r(\lambda))$ is non-zero if and only if $r(\lambda) \in \Lambda^+(m|n,d)$. Moreover, in that case, $r(\lambda)$ is the highest weight of $\xi L(\lambda)$ with respect to the standard dominance ordering on $\Lambda(m|n,d)$. Viewing $\xi L(\lambda)$ as an $S(m|n,d)$-supermodule via the identification $S(m|n,d) = \xi S(M|N,d) \xi$, we have shown: $$\xi L(\lambda) \cong \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
L'(r(\lambda))&\hbox{if $r(\lambda) \in \Lambda^+(m|n,d)$,}\\
0&\hbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}\right.$$ Invoking Lemma \[il\], this means that $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda^{++}(m|n,d)
&=
r(\Lambda^{++}(M|N,d))
\cap \Lambda^+(m|n,d)\\
&= \{\lambda \in \Lambda^+(m|n,d)\:|\:
r^{-1}(\lambda) \in \Lambda^{++}(M|N,d)\}.\end{aligned}$$
Now we compute $r^{-1}(\lambda)$ for $\lambda \in \Lambda^{+}(m|n,d)
\subseteq \Lambda^+(M|N,d)$. Let $t(\lambda)$ denote the partition $(\lambda_{M+1}, \lambda_{M+2},\dots,
\lambda_{M+N})$, i.e. the tail of $\lambda$ as in the statement of the theorem. Write $t(\lambda) = \mu + p \nu$ for partitions $\mu,\nu$ with $\mu$ restricted, so $$\lambda =
\sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_i \varepsilon_i
+ \sum_{i=1}^N \mu_i \varepsilon_{M+i}
+ p \sum_{i=1}^N \nu_i \varepsilon_{M+i}.$$ Applying Lemma \[st\] repeatedly to the root sequence $$\begin{gathered}
\varepsilon_{M+N} - \varepsilon_{m+1},
\dots,
\varepsilon_{M+1} - \varepsilon_{m+1};
\varepsilon_{M+N} - \varepsilon_{m+2},
\dots,
\varepsilon_{M+1} - \varepsilon_{m+2};
\dots;\\
\varepsilon_{M+N} - \varepsilon_{M},
\dots,
\varepsilon_{M+1} - \varepsilon_{M}.\end{gathered}$$ and arguing as in the proof of Lemma \[cpart\], one gets that $$r^{-1}(\lambda) =
\sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_i \varepsilon_i
+ \sum_{i=1}^N j({\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}^{i-1}(\mu)) \varepsilon_{m+i}
+ p \sum_{i=1}^N \nu_i \varepsilon_{M+i}.$$ Note the number $j({\ensuremath{\mathtt{J}}}^{i-1}(\mu))$ appearing here is simply the $i$th part of ${\ensuremath{\mathtt{M}}}(\mu)$ according to Theorem \[xua\]. Finally, using Theorem \[dt\] for the explicit description of $\Lambda^{++}(M|N,d)$, we deduce that $r^{-1}(\lambda)$ belongs to $\Lambda^{++}(M|N,d)$ if and only if $j(\mu) \leq \lambda_m$. Since $j(\mu) = j(\mu + p \nu) = j(t(\lambda))$, this completes the proof.
Steinberg’s Tensor Product Theorem {#S:Steinbergstensorproducttheorem}
==================================
For this section, take $p > 2$ throughout. We prove the analogue of Steinberg’s tensor product theorem for $G$ by adapting the arguments used in [@BK1] to the present situation.
For $r \geq 1$, we define the *Frobenious morphism* $F^{r}:G \to {G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$ by having $F^{r}:G(A) \to {G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}(A)$ raise each matrix entry to the $p^{r}$-th power for any superalgebra $A$. Note that for $a \in A_{{\ensuremath{\overline{1}}}}$, $a^{p^{r}}=0$ so the morphism makes sense. Let $G_{r}$ denote the kernel of $F^{r}$, the *$r^{th}$ Frobenious kernel*, a normal subgroup of $G$. Similarly, let ${\ensuremath{G_{\text{ev},r}}}$ denote the kernel of $F^{r}|_{{G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}}$, $B_{r}$ denote the kernel of $F_{r}|_{B}$, etc.
\[L:frobeniousquotient\] $F^{r}:G \to {G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$ is a quotient of $G$ by $G_{r}$ in the category of superschemes. That is, for any morphism $f: G \to S$ which is constant on $G_{r}$-cosets there is a unique morphism $\tilde{f}: {G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}\to S$ such that $f= \tilde{f} \circ F^{r}$.
Let $\pi: G \to {G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$ be the superscheme morphism defined by projection. That is, if $g$ is as in Equation (\[E:matrix\]), then $\pi$ acts as the identity on the entries of $X$ and $Z$, and sends the entries of $W$ and $Y$ to zero. Let $f: G \to S$ be a morphism of superschemes. Then for any element $g \in G(A)$ written as in Equation (\[E:matrix\]) we have $$\left(\begin{matrix} I & YZ^{-1} \\ WX^{-1} & I\end{matrix} \right)^{-1}
\left(\begin{matrix} X & Y \\ W & Z \end{matrix} \right) = \left(\begin{matrix} X & 0 \\ 0 & Z \end{matrix} \right).$$ That is, $hg=\pi(g)$ for some $h \in G_{r}(A)$. Thus $f = f|_{{G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}} \circ \pi$. However from the purely even theory (see [@J1 I.9.5]), $F^{r}|_{{G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}}$ is a quotient of ${G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$ by ${\ensuremath{G_{\text{ev},r}}}$. Consequently, since $f|_{{G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}}$ is constant on ${\ensuremath{G_{\text{ev},r}}}$ cosets of ${G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$, there is a unique morphism $\tilde{f}:{G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}\to S$ such that $f|_{{G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}}= \tilde{f} \circ F^{r}|_{{G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}}$. Therefore $f= f|_{{G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}} \circ \pi = \tilde{f} \circ F^{r}|_{{G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}} \circ \pi = \tilde{f} \circ F^{r}$.
Observe that $k[G_{r}] \cong k[G]/I_{r}$ where $I_{r}$ is the ideal generated by $\{T_{i,j}^{p^{r}}, T_{k,k}^{p^{r}}-1: i,j, k \in I(m|n), i \neq j \}$. Consequently, a basis for $k[G_{r}]$ is given by the monomials in $T_{i,j}^{a_{i,j}}$ for $i,j \in I(m|n)$, where $a_{i,j} \in \{0, 1, \dotsc , p^{r}-1 \}$ if ${\ensuremath{\overline{i}}}+{\ensuremath{\overline{j}}}={\ensuremath{\overline{0}}}$ and $a_{i,j} \in \{0, 1 \}$ if ${\ensuremath{\overline{i}}}+{\ensuremath{\overline{j}}}={\ensuremath{\overline{1}}}$, with the product taken in any fixed order. In particular, the dimension of $k[G_{r}]$ is finite so by definition $G_{r}$ is a *finite* algebraic supergroup. Moreover the $p^{r}$-th power of any element of $\mathcal{I}={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ker} }}(\varepsilon:k[G_{r}] \to k)$ lies in $I_{r}$ so $\mathcal{I}$ is nilpotent. That is $G_{r}$ is *infinitesimal* and, consequently, ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{r})}$ can be identified with the dual of $k[G_{r}]$. It follows as in [@J1 I.8.1-6] that the category of $G_{r}$ representations is isomorphic to the category of ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{r})}$-supermodules. Also, under the identification! we can take as our basis for ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{r})} \subset {\operatorname{Dist}(G)}$ the ordered PBW monomials $$\label{E:DistGrbasis}
\prod_{\substack{i,j \in I(m|n) \\ i < j}}e_{j,i}^{(a_{j,i})} \prod_{k\in I(m|n)} \binom{h_{k}}{d_{k}} \prod_{\substack{i,j \in I(m|n) \\ i < j}}e_{i,j}^{(a_{i,j})},$$ where $a_{i,j}, d_{k} \in \{0,\dotsc ,p^{r}-1 \}$ for $i,j,k \in I(m|n)$ when ${\ensuremath{\overline{i}}}+{\ensuremath{\overline{j}}}={\ensuremath{\overline{0}}}$, and $a_{i,j}\in \{0,1 \}$ when ${\ensuremath{\overline{i}}}+{\ensuremath{\overline{j}}}={\ensuremath{\overline{1}}}$. Similarily we can describe bases for ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_{r})}$, etc. From this we observe the following lemma.
\[L:distGrbasis\] ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{r})}$ is a free right ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_{r})}$-supermodule with basis given by the ordered monomials $$\prod_{\substack{i,j \in I(m|n) \\ i < j}} e_{j,i}^{(a_{j,i})},$$ where $a_{i,j} \in \{0,\dotsc ,p^{r}-1 \}$ when ${\ensuremath{\overline{i}}}+{\ensuremath{\overline{j}}}={\ensuremath{\overline{0}}}$, and $a_{i,j}\in \{0,1 \}$ when ${\ensuremath{\overline{i}}}+{\ensuremath{\overline{j}}}={\ensuremath{\overline{1}}}$.
Having identified the representations of $G_{r}$ and $B_{r}$ with ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{r})}$-supermodules and ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_{r})}$-supermodules, respectively, we have the coinduction functor given by $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{coind}}}_{B_{r}}^{G_{r}} M = {\operatorname{Dist}(G_{r})} \otimes_{{\operatorname{Dist}(B_{r})}} M.$$ From Lemma \[L:distGrbasis\] we see this is an exact functor which is left adjoint to ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{res}}}_{B_{r}}^{G_{r}}$.
Recall from Section \[SS:borel\] that $X(T)=\bigoplus_{i \in I(m|n)}\mathbb{Z}\delta_{i}$ is the group of characters for the subgroup $T \leq G$. As in the classical case (cf. [@J1 II.3.7]), one argues the following lemma.
\[L:irrepsofT\_[r]{}\] The set $\{k_{\lambda}: \lambda \in X(T) \}$ is a complete family of irreducible $T_{r}$-supermodules. Moreover, $k_{\lambda} \cong k_{\mu}$ if and only if $\lambda-\mu \in p^{r}X(T)$.
Also as in the classical situation $\{k_{\lambda}: \lambda \in X(T) \}$ provides a complete set of irreducible $B_{r}$-supermodules via inflation. For $\lambda \in X(T)$, define $$Z_{r}(\lambda) = {\ensuremath{\operatorname{coind}}}_{B_{r}}^{G_{r}} k_{\lambda}.$$ Let $L_{r}(\lambda)$ denote the $G_{r}$ head of $Z_{r}(\lambda)$.
\[T:irrepsofGr\] $\{L_{r}(\lambda) : \lambda \in X(T) \}$ is a complete set of irreducible $G_{r}$-modules. Furthermore, $L_{r}(\lambda) \cong L_{r}(\mu)$ if and only if $\lambda - \mu \in p^{r}X(T)$.
Observe that $Z_{r}(\lambda) \cong {\operatorname{Dist}(U_{r})} \otimes k_{\lambda}$ as a $U_{r}$-module, with $U_{r}$ acting trivially on $k_{\lambda}$. Consequently we have $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}_{U_{r}}(Z_{r}(\lambda), k) \cong {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}_{U_{r}}({\operatorname{Dist}(U_{r})}, k) \otimes k_{\lambda} \cong k_{\lambda}$$ as $T_{r}$ modules. Thus $Z_{r}(\lambda)$ has an irreducible $B_{r}$ head isomorphic to $k_{\lambda}$. It follows then that $Z_{r}(\lambda)$ has an irreducible $G_{r}$ head. That is, $L_{r}(\lambda)$ is irreducible.
Now if $L$ is an irreducible $G_{r}$ module then we can choose $\lambda \in X(T)$ so that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}_{B_{r}}(k_{\lambda},L) \neq 0$. By Frobenius reciprocity $L$ is isomorphic to a quotient of $Z_{r}(\lambda)$, hence $L \cong L_{r}(\lambda)$. Finally, from the classification of the irreducible modules of $B_{r}$ we see that $L_{r}(\lambda) \cong L_{r}(\mu)$ if and only if $\lambda -\mu \in p^{r}X(T)$.
We are now able to prove the Steinberg tensor product theorem for $GL(m|n)$. Since the result is known for ${G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$, it suffices to consider the case when $r=1$.
\[L:GirrepisaG1reducible\] Let $L$ be an irrreducible $G$-supermodule. Then $L$ is completely reducible as a $G_{1}$-supermodule.
Let $L_{1}$ be an irreducible supermodule in the $G_{1}$ socle of $L$. Since $G_{1}$ is a normal subgroup of $G$ each translate, $gL_{1}$, by an element $g \in G(k)$ is an irreducible $G_{1}$-submodule of $L$. Thus $$M := \sum_{g \in G(k)} gL_{1}$$ is a completely reducible $G_{1}$-submodule of $L$. It suffices, then, to prove $M=L$. Since $L$ is irreducible, it suffices to to show $M$ is ${\operatorname{Dist}(G)}$ stable. Since $G(k)={G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}(k)$ is dense in ${G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$, $M$ is neccessarily a ${G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$ module by [@J1 I.6.16, I.2.12(5)]. That is, $M$ is ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{1})}$ and ${\operatorname{Dist}({G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}})}$ stable. However ${\operatorname{Dist}(G)}$ is generated by ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{1})}$ and ${\operatorname{Dist}({G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}})}$, so $M$ is ${\operatorname{Dist}(G)}$ stable.
Recall that the *dominant weights* are the elements of $X^{+}(T)=\{\lambda \in X(T): \lambda_{-m}\geq\dotsb \geq \lambda_{-1} \text{ and } \lambda_{1}\geq\dotsb \geq \lambda_{n} \}$. A dominant weight is *$p$-restricted* if it is dominant and $\lambda_{i}-\lambda_{i+1} < p$ for $i=-m, \dotsc , -2$ and $i=1, \dotsc , n-1$. Denote the set of restricted weights by $X^{+}_{p}(T)$.
\[L:submodsofGirreps\] Let $\lambda \in X^{+}(T)$. Then ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{1})}L(\lambda)_{\lambda}$ is a $G_{1}$-submodule of $L(\lambda)$ isomorphic to $L_{1}(\lambda)$.
As a $B$-supermodule $L(\lambda)_{\lambda} \simeq k_{\lambda}$, so they are evenly isomorphic as $B_{1}$-supermodules as well. Thus there is an even $B_{1}$-supermodule homomorphism $k_{\lambda} \to L(\lambda)$ with image $L(\lambda)_{\lambda}$. By Frobenius reciprocity we have a $G_{1}$-supermodule homomorphism $Z_{1}(\lambda) \to L(\lambda)$ with image ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{1})}L(\lambda)_{\lambda}$. By Lemma \[L:GirrepisaG1reducible\], ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{1})}L(\lambda)_{\lambda}$ is completely reducible while $Z_{1}(\lambda)$ has irreducible $G_{1}(\lambda)$-head, $L_{1}(\lambda)$. Consequently ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{1})}L(\lambda)_{\lambda}$ is an irreducible $G_{1}$-supermodule isomorphic to $L_{1}(\lambda)$.
\[L:irrepsofrestrictedreps\] For $\lambda \in X^{+}_{p}(T)$, the irreducible $G$-supermodule $L(\lambda)$ is irreducible as a $G_{1}$-supermodule and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{res}}}_{G_{1}}^{G}L(\lambda) \cong L_{1}(\lambda)$.
Let $M ={\operatorname{Dist}(G_{1})}L(\lambda)_{\lambda}$. By Lemma \[L:submodsofGirreps\] $M$ is isomorphic to $L_{1}(\lambda)$. Consequently it suffices to show $M=L(\lambda)$. We do this by showing $M$ is ${\operatorname{Dist}(G)}$ invariant - hence equal to $L$ by irreducibility. As in the proof of Lemma \[L:GirrepisaG1reducible\], since $M$ is a $G_{1}$-supermodule and ${\operatorname{Dist}(G)}$ is generated by ${\operatorname{Dist}(G_{1})}$ and ${\operatorname{Dist}({G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}})}$, it suffices to show $M$ is ${\operatorname{Dist}({G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}})}$ invariant. Since $B_{\text{ev}}$ normalizes $G_{1}$ and $L(\lambda)_{\lambda}$ is a $B_{\text{ev}}$-submodule of $L(\lambda)$, $M$ is invariant under the action of ${\operatorname{Dist}(B_{\text{ev}})}$. In particular, $M$ is the sum of its weight spaces. Therefore it suffices to prove $$\label{E:irrepsofrestrictedreps}
e_{i+1,i}^{(r)}v \in M \text{ for all } v \in M_{\mu}, \text{ where } i = -m, \dotsc , n-1, r \geq 1, \text{ and } \mu \in X(T).$$ We prove this by downward induction on $\mu$ in the dominance order.
As the base case, let $\mu = \lambda$. That is, we need to show $e_{i+1,i}^{(r)}v \in M$ for all $r \geq 1$ and $v \in L(\lambda)_{\lambda}$. If $r < p$ then $e_{i+1, i}^{(r)} \in {\operatorname{Dist}(G_{1})}$ by Equation (\[E:DistGrbasis\]) and the result is immediate. If ${\ensuremath{\overline{i}}}+{\ensuremath{\overline{i+1}}}={\ensuremath{\overline{0}}}$ and $r > \lambda_{i}-\lambda_{i+1}$, then $e_{i+1,i}^{(r)}v=0$ by $SL(2)$ theory. If ${\ensuremath{\overline{i+1}}}+{\ensuremath{\overline{i}}}=1$ and $r \geq 2$, then $e_{i+1,i}^{(r)}=0$, so $e_{i+1,i}^{(r)}v =0$. Therefore Equation (\[E:irrepsofrestrictedreps\]) holds in all cases when $\mu = \lambda$.
Now assume Equation (\[E:irrepsofrestrictedreps\]) holds for all weights greater than $\mu$ in the dominance order. Given $v \in M_{\mu}$ we can write $v=e_{s+1,s}w$ for some $w \in M_{\mu+\delta_{s}-\delta_{s+1}}$ for some $s \in I(m|n)$. Then $e_{i+1, i}^{(r)}v=e_{i+1,i}^{(r)}e_{s+1,s}w$ The result then follows by the inductive hypothesis and the commutator relations given [@S1].
Given a ${G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$-module, $M$, we view it as supermodule concentrated in degree ${\ensuremath{\overline{0}}}$. We can then inflate $M$ to a $G$-supermodule through the Frobenious morphism $F=F^{1}:G \to {G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$ which we denote by $F^{*}M$ and call the *Frobenious twist* of $M$. $F^{*}$ provides a functor from the category of ${G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$-modules to the category of $G$-supermodules. Conversely, if $N$ is a $G$-supermodule, then there is an induced ${G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$ structure on the fixed point space $N^{G_{1}}$. Namely, the representation $G \to GL(N^{G_{1}})$ is constant on $G_{1}$-cosets so factors through to give a representation ${G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}\to GL(N^{G_{1}})$ by Lemma \[L:frobeniousquotient\]. Therefore by taking $G_{1}$ fixed points we have a functor from $G$-supermodules to ${G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$-modules which is right adjoint to $F^{*}$. We are now prepared to prove the Steinberg tensor product theorem:
\[T:STPT\] For $\lambda \in X^{+}_{p}(T)$ and $\mu \in X^{+}(T)$, $$L(\lambda + p\mu) \cong L(\lambda) \otimes F^{*}L_{\text{ev}}(\mu).$$
For $\lambda \in X^{+}_{p}(T)$, $L(\lambda)$ is irreducible as a $G_{1}$-supermodule by Lemma \[L:irrepsofrestrictedreps\]. By Lemma \[L:submodsofGirreps\] and Theorem \[T:irrepsofGr\] we know $$H:={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}_{G_{1}}(L(\lambda), L(\lambda + p\mu))_{{\ensuremath{\overline{0}}}} \neq 0$$ (replacing $L(\lambda + p\mu)$ by $\Pi L(\lambda+p\mu)$, if neccessary). We view $H$ as a $G$-supermodule by conjugation: the action of $u \in {\operatorname{Dist}(G)}$ is given by $(uf)(x)=\sum_{i}u_{i}f(\sigma(v_{i})x)$ for $f \in H$ and $x \in L(\lambda)$, where $\Delta$ and $\sigma$ are the comultiplication and antipode of ${\operatorname{Dist}(G)}$, and $\Delta(u) = \sum_{i} u_{i}\otimes v_{i}$. Checking directly one can verify that the map $H \otimes L(\lambda) \to L(\lambda +p\mu)$ given by $f \otimes x \mapsto f(x)$ is an even $G$-supermodule homomorphism. Since $H$ is nonzero, the map must be nonzero hence, by the irreducibility of $L(\lambda +p\mu)$, surjective. On the other hand by the super version of Schur’s Lemma, $$\begin{aligned}
\dim_{k} H \otimes L(\lambda)&= \dim {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}_{G_{1}}(L(\lambda), L(\lambda + p\mu))_{{\ensuremath{\overline{0}}}} \otimes L(\lambda) \\
&\leq \dim L(\lambda +p\mu)/\dim L(\lambda) \cdot \dim L(\lambda) \\
&= \dim L(\lambda +p\mu),\end{aligned}$$ so our map must be an isomorphism. Finally, since the action $G_{1}$ on $H$ is trivial, we have $H \cong F^{*}M$ for some ${G_{{{\operatorname{ev}}}}}$-module $M$. Since $L(\lambda+p\mu)$ is irreducible, $M$ must be irreducible and, since $H$ has highest weight $p\mu$, $M \cong L_{\text{ev}}(\mu)$.
[30]{} S. Ariki, On the decomposition numbers of the Hecke algebra of type $G(m,1,n)$, [*J. Math. Kyoto Univ.*]{} [**36**]{} (1996), 789–808. A. Berele and A. Regev, [Hook Young diagrams with applications to combinatorics and to representations of Lie superalgebras,]{} [*Advances Math.*]{} [**64**]{} (1987), 118–175. C. Bessenrodt and J. Olsson, On residue symbols and the Mullineux conjecture, [*J. Alg. Comb.*]{} [**7**]{} (1998), 227–251. C. Bessenrodt, J. Olsson and M. Xu, [On properties of the Mullineux map with an application to Schur modules,]{} [*Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.*]{} [**126**]{} (1999), 443–459. A. Borel, Properties and linear representations of Chevalley groups, in: [*Seminar on algebraic groups and related finite groups*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 131, Springer, 1970. J. Brundan and A. Kleshchev, [Modular representations of the supergroup $Q(n)$, I,]{} to appear in [*J. Algebra*]{}. J. Brundan and A. Kleshchev, [Projective representations of symmetric groups via Sergeev duality,]{} [*Math. Z.*]{} [**239**]{} (2002), 27–68. S. Donkin, On Schur algebras and related algebras, I, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**104**]{} (1986), 310–328. S. Donkin, [Symmetric and exterior powers, linear source modules and representations of Schur superalgebras,]{} [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**83**]{} (2001), 647–680. B. Ford and A. Kleshchev, [A proof of the Mullineux conjecture,]{} [*Math Z.*]{} [**226**]{} (1997), 267–308. J. A. Green, *Polynomial representations of GL(n),* Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 830, Springer, 1980. G. D. James, *The representation theory of the symmetric groups,* Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 682, Springer, 1978 J. C. Jantzen, *Representations of algebraic groups,* Academic Press, 1987. V. Kac, [Lie superalgebras,]{} [*Advances Math.*]{} [**26**]{} (1977), 8–96. V. Kac, Representations of classical Lie superalgebras, in: Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 676, pp.597–626, Springer, 1978.
A. Kleshchev, [Branching rules for modular representations of symmetric groups III,]{} [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**54**]{} (1996), 25–38. J. Kujawa, [*The representation theory of the supergroup $GL(m|n)$*]{}, PhD thesis, University of Oregon, in preparation. A. Lascoux, B. Leclerc and J.-Y. Thibon, Hecke algebras at roots of unity and crystal bases of quantum affine algebras, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**181**]{} (1996), 205–263. D.A. Leites, Introduction to the theory of supermanifolds, [*Russian Math. Surveys*]{} [**35**]{} (1980), 1–64. Yu I. Manin, [*Gauge field theory and complex geometry*]{}, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften 289, second edition, Springer, 1997. N. Muir, [*Polynomial representations of the general linear Lie superalgebras*]{}, PhD thesis, University of London, 1991. G. Mullineux, [Bijections of $p$-regular partitions and $p$-modular irreducibles of symmetric groups,]{} [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**20**]{} (1979), 60–66. I. Penkov and V. Serganova, Representations of classical Lie superalgebras of type $I$, [*Indag. Math. (N.S.)*]{} [**3**]{} (1992), 419–466.
A. Regev, [Double centralizing theorems for the alternating groups,]{} to appear, 2002. V. Serganova, [*Automorphisms of complex simple Lie superalgebras and affine Kac-Moody algebras*]{}, PhD thesis, Leningrad State University, 1988. A. Sergeev, Tensor algebra of the identity representation as a module over the Lie superalgebras $GL(n,m)$ and $Q(n)$, [*Math. USSR Sbornik*]{} [**51**]{} (1985), 419–427. R. Steinberg, *Lectures on Chevalley groups,* Yale University, 1967. M. Xu, On Mullineux’ conjecture in the representation theory of symmetric groups, [*Comm. Algebra*]{} [**25**]{} (1997), 1797–1803. M. Xu, On $p$-series and the Mullineux conjecture, [*Comm. Algebra*]{} [**27**]{} (1999), 5255–5265.
[^1]: Research supported in part by the NSF (grant no DMS-0139019)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Generating entanglement in a distributed scenario is a fundamental task for implementing the quantum network of the future. We here report a protocol that uses only linear optics for generating GHZ states with high fidelities in a nearby node configuration. Moreover, we analytically show that the scheme is optimal for certain initial states in providing the highest success probability, and, then, the highest generation rate for sequential protocols. Finally, we give some estimates for the generation rate in a real scenario.'
author:
- Valentina Caprara Vivoli
- Jérémy Ribeiro
- Stephanie Wehner
title: High fidelity GHZ generation within nearby nodes
---
Introduction
============
Entanglement has revealed several interesting applications in quantum networks. For example, bipartite entanglement can be used for quantum cryptography tasks, i.e. quantum key distribution (QKD) [@Ekert91; @Pironio09], teleportation [@Bennett93], superdense coding [@Bennett92], and bit commitment [@Lo97; @Aharon16]. However, more and more interest has been recently put in the study of multipartite entanglement. Several uses are nowadays known, such as, for example, reducing communication complexity [@Buhrman01; @Buhrman10], and distributed quantum computation [@Cleve97; @Grover97; @Li15; @Li16]. Furthermore, there are multiple uses in quantum cryptography, namely quantum secret sharing [@Hillery99], N-partite quantum key distribution, also known as conference key agreement [@Epping16], and anonymous transfer [@Christandl05]. Multipartite entanglement could also be extremely useful for implementing quantum repeaters of second and third generation [@Muralidharan16; @Gottesman99; @Muralidharan14; @Munro12]. Finally, it has recently been pointed out that the use of multipartite entanglement could be fruitful for synchronizing several atomic clocks [@Komar14]. GHZ states [@GHZ89] are particularly suitable for all these purposes. It is, thus, an interesting question how we can best generate such state in a distributed scenario, i.e. where the qubits between which the entanglement is shared can interact only through ancillary modes. In the case of two-qubit entanglement, there is already a protocol [@Barrett05; @Lim05] (see Fig. \[BarrettKok\]), using ancillary photonic modes, that works pretty well for generating maximally entangled states in matter systems and low loss regimes. However, it is still not very clear how this scheme can be extended in the case of multipartite entanglement.
![Barrett-Kok scheme [@Barrett05; @Lim05]. Two nodes constituted by two-level systems are optically excited so that they generate matter-photon entanglement, i.e. $({\lvert 00 \rangle}+{\lvert 11 \rangle})_{A_jB_j}$. The photons are sent to a common station where a partial Bell measurement, that can distinguish only two Bell states, is performed. \[BarrettKok\]](BarrettKokFinal.pdf){width="190pt"}
In the latter case, there have been some proposals as well [@Komar16; @Nickerson14; @Bose98; @Zeilinger97; @Cuquet12]. They all consist of two steps: i. Maximally entangled states are generated between two nodes through Bell measurements, ii. local probabilistic operations inside the nodes or additional Bell measurements are realized, generating multipartite entanglement all along the network. Concerning the network structure, it can vary from long chains of nodes to closed configurations with nearby nodes. Even though the first structure allows to cover long distances, the second gives the possibility to make interact all the nodes between them through a central station. Little effort has been done so far in the study of fidelity and generation rate, and for the most without any study of the trade-off between these two quantities.
[**Remark:**]{} From now on we will loosely use the term Bell measurement to refer to the measurement performed by interference of two optical modes on a beam splitter followed by two non-photon number resolving detectors, where the detection of a photon on one detector determines the success.
Results and structure of the paper {#results-and-structure-of-the-paper .unnumbered}
----------------------------------
The goal of this work is to study optimal ways of generating N-partite GHZ states between nearby nodes with very high fidelity, with realistic settings, i.e. in the presence of noise. To do so, we focus on protocols that reduce the number of steps when decoherence is involved by avoiding the use of local operations: These protocols only use binary measurements that output a flag with values [*success*]{} or [*failure*]{}. More precisely each of the $N$ data qubits (subsystem $A$) will be entangled to an ancillary qubit (the $N$ ancillary qubits that form subsystem $B$) that is sent to a “Central Station” where a joint binary Positive-Operator Valued Measurement (POVM) will be performed on the $N$ ancillary qubits outputting either [*success*]{} or [*failure*]{} (see Fig. \[FigureProof\]). We, then, optimize over all binary POVMs (performed by the “Central Station”) and over all states formed by the data qubits and the ancillaries.
- In section \[1\], we work in a noise free model, where we first show an upper-bound on the product $F\cdot p_{\text{succ}}$ as a function of the initial state, where $F$ is the fidelity between the $N$-partite GHZ state and the final state conditioned on [*success*]{}, and $p_{\text{succ}}$ is the success probability.\
We then explicitly show that there exists a binary POVM that saturates the upper-bound for $F \cdot p_{\text{succ}}$.\
Finally we search for initial states that allow to get a fidelity $F=1$ between the final output state and the GHZ state.\
We conclude that there exists a measurement (determined by the projector onto the $N$-GHZ state) that allows for creation of an $N$-partite GHZ state with an optimal success probability of $2^{-N}$.
- In section \[Sec:Implementation\], we show how to implement the above mentioned optimal POVM with only linear optics and non-photon resolving detectors (see Fig. \[OpticalSys\]). It turns out that to perform this measurement we only need measurements between each two consecutive nodes. It means that a “Central Station” is not needed. This allows for more flexibility in the implementation of the measurement, which can be used to reduce losses and other sources of noise. This implementation is inspired by an old work [@Zukowski95] in all photonic systems, and we show that it is a natural extension of the scheme proposed in [@Barrett05; @Lim05].
- Finally in section \[Sec:Perf\], we give some results in a scenario that could be reasonable in the near future. We focus on the entanglement generation rate, comparing it for different numbers of nodes and inter-node distance.
Nodes-Center Scenario\[1\]
==========================
In this section we firstly show that there is an upper-bound for the product of the fidelity ($F$) between the GHZ state and the final state, and the success probability ($p_{\text{succ}}$) of the POVM, depending on the initial state. Secondly, we derive the map that allows to reach the upperbound and show that only for $p_{\text{succ}}=2^{-N}$ it is possible to saturate the upperbound and get $F=1$. In order to do so, let’s consider the scenario represented in Fig. \[FigureProof\].
![Nodes-Center scenario. The entire system is composed by two subsystems A (pink shell) and B (yellow shell). Each subsystem is composed by N qubits. The qubits between A and B are entangled in pairs, i.e. there are N entangled pairs $(\sqrt{1-\epsilon}{\lvert 00 \rangle}+\sqrt{\epsilon}{\lvert 11 \rangle}) _{A_j
B_j}$. The N qubits of subsystem B are analyzed together through a POVM in a central station. \[FigureProof\]](OptProofFinal.pdf){width="250pt"}
The total system is composed by two subsystems A and B, each one composed by N qubits. We take the initial state to be $${\lvert \Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle}_{AB}=\bigotimes^N_{j=1}(\sqrt{1-\epsilon}{\lvert 00 \rangle}+\sqrt{\epsilon}{\lvert 11 \rangle}) _{A_j
B_j},$$ where $A_j$ ($B_j$) are qubits, and $0\le \epsilon\le 1$. We assume that in the central station it is possible to perform an arbitrary POVM.
Optimal $F\cdot p_{\text{succ}}$
--------------------------------
Our goal, here, is to derive an upper-bound for $F\cdot
p_{\text{succ}}=\operatorname{Tr}(({\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}_A\otimes\Pi_B^{\text{succ}})\cdot{\lvert \Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle}{\langle \Psi_{\text{in}} \rvert}_{AB})$, when optimizing our POVM elements $\Pi_B^{\text{succ}}$ on $B$ indicating successful generation. Let’s consider the following series of inequalities, $$\begin{split}\label{eqF'}
F\cdot p_{\text{succ}}&\le F\cdot p_{\text{succ}}+F_{\text{fail}}\cdot
p_{\text{fail}}=\\
&=\operatorname{Tr}({\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}_A\otimes\Pi^{\text{succ}}_B\cdot{\lvert \Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle}{\langle \Psi_{\text{in}} \rvert}_{AB})\\
&+\operatorname{Tr}({\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}_A\otimes (\mathbb{1}-\Pi^{\text{succ}})_B\cdot{\lvert \Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle}{\langle \Psi_{\text{in}} \rvert}_{AB})\\
&=F\left(\operatorname{Tr}_B({\lvert \Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle}{\langle \Psi_{\text{in}} \rvert}_{AB}),{\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}_A\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{2}\left((1-\epsilon)^N+\epsilon^N\right).
\end{split}$$ Here, $p_{\text{fail}}$ is the probability that the measurement does not succeed, and $F_{\text{fail}}$ is the overlap between the GHZ state and the state that would result from the fail outcome. $F\left(\operatorname{Tr}_B({\lvert \Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle}{\langle \Psi_{\text{in}} \rvert}_{AB}),{\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}_A\right)=F(\Psi_{\text{in}}^A;\text{GHZ})$ is the fidelity between the initial state in A and the GHZ state. The previous upperbound can be interpreted saying that the maximal amount of entanglement that can be extracted from subsystem A does not depend on subsystem B. In the case when several success events are considered, the proof follows the same procedure for upperbounding the sum $\sum_i F^i\cdot p^i_{\text{succ}}$. One finds a sum of terms of the same form of the one of the fourth line of Eq. , where instead of the GHZ state there are several different GHZ-like states.
Optimal map $\Pi_B^{\text{succ, opt}}$
--------------------------------------
For $\epsilon$ very small, the bound in Eq. is close to $\frac{1}{2}$. We now ask
1. whether this upper-bound is attainable, and
2. what is the maximal fidelity in this case.
In order to answer to these questions, it is necessary to find the POVM that allows us to reach $F(\Psi_{\text{in}}^A;\text{GHZ})$. Suppose that the bound is attainable by $F^{\text{opt}}\cdot p_{\text{succ}}^{\text{opt}}$ and we look for the element $\Pi_B^{\text{succ, opt}}$ of a POVM s.t. $$p_{\text{succ}}^{\text{opt}}=\operatorname{Tr}_B\left(\Pi_B^{\text{succ, opt}}\cdot\left[(1-\epsilon){\lvert 0 \rangle}{\langle 0 \rvert}+\epsilon{\lvert 1 \rangle}{\langle 1 \rvert}\right]_B^{\otimes N}\right)$$ is minimal and, hence, $F^{\text{opt}}$ is maximal. $\Pi_B^{\text{succ, opt}}$ can be written as a $2^N\times 2^N$ square matrix of elements $e_{lm}$. One has, then, $$p_{\text{succ}}^{\text{opt}}=e_{11}(1-\epsilon)^N+e_{2^N 2^N}\epsilon^N,\label{P}$$ and $$\begin{split}\label{FP}
F^{\text{opt}}\cdot
p_{\text{succ}}^{\text{opt}}=\frac{1}{2}&\bigg[e_{11}(1-\epsilon)^N+e_{2^N
2^N}\epsilon^N\\
&+(e_{12^N}+e_{2^N 1})\sqrt{\epsilon(1-\epsilon)}^N\bigg]\\
=&\frac{1}{2}\left[p_{\text{succ}}^{\text{opt}}+(e_{12^N}+e_{2^N 1})\sqrt{\epsilon(1-\epsilon)}^N\right].
\end{split}$$ The minimization of $p_{\text{succ}}^{\text{opt}}$ is subjected to 5 conditions. The first condition derives from the bound , i.e.
1. $$\begin{aligned}
F^{\text{opt}}\cdot p_{\text{succ}}^{\text{opt}}&\\
=&\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{Tr}_B\bigg(\Pi_B^{\text{succ, opt}}\left(\sqrt{1-\epsilon}^N{\lvert 0 \rangle}^{\otimes
N}+\sqrt{\epsilon}^N{\lvert 1 \rangle}^{\otimes N}\right)\\
&\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \left(\sqrt{1-\epsilon}^N{\langle 0 \rvert}^{\otimes
N}+\sqrt{\epsilon}^N{\langle 1 \rvert}^{\otimes N}\right)_B \bigg)\\
=&\frac{1}{2}\left((1-\epsilon)^N+\epsilon^N\right) .\end{aligned}$$
From the fact that $\Pi_B^{\text{succ, opt}}$ is an element of a POVM, we can derive the condition $0\le\Pi_B^{\text{succ, opt}}\le \mathbb{1}$. This leads us to the following four necessary conditions:
- $0\le e_{11}\le 1$,
- $0\le e_{2^N 2^N}\le 1$,
- $e_{1 2^N}=e^*_{2^N 1}$,
- $e_{1 2^N}e_{2^N 1}\le \text{min}(e_{11}e_{2^N 2^N},(1-e_{11})(1-e_{2^N 2^N}))$.
All the elements $e_{lm}$ with $l,m \not=1,2^N$ do not influence the values of Eq. and . Hence, they can just be ignored. In order to keep Eq. constant to the optimal value while we minimize $p_{\text{succ}}^{\text{opt}}$, $e_{1 2^N}$ and $e_{2^N 1}$ must be real and, thus, equal (see conditions 4. and 5.). Hence, $$F^{\text{opt}}\cdot p_{\text{succ}}^{\text{opt}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[p_{\text{succ}}^{\text{opt}}+2e_{12^N}\sqrt{\epsilon(1-\epsilon)}^N\right].\label{FP2}$$ From condition 5., $e^2_{1 2^N}$ is maximal when it reaches the maximum of $\text{min}(e_{11}e_{2^N 2^N},(1-e_{11})(1-e_{2^N
2^N}))$, that is when $e_{11}e_{2^N 2^N}=(1-e_{11})(1-e_{2^N 2^N})$. From this, it follows that $e_{11}+e_{2^N 2^N}=1$ and $e_{1
2^N}=\sqrt{e_{11}e_{2^N 2^N}}$. Putting Eq. equal to $\frac{1}{2}\left[(1-\epsilon)^N+\epsilon^N\right]$, one gets the final form of $\Pi_B^{\text{succ,
opt}}$, i.e. $$\Pi_B^{\text{succ, opt}}=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\frac{(1-\epsilon)^N}{(1-\epsilon)^N+\epsilon^N}&0&\cdots&0&\frac{\sqrt{\epsilon (1-\epsilon)}^N}{(1-\epsilon)^N+\epsilon^N}\\
0&&&&0\\
\vdots&&{\makebox(0,0){\text{\huge0}}}&&\vdots\\
0&&&&0\\
\frac{\sqrt{\epsilon (1-\epsilon)}^N}{(1-\epsilon)^N+\epsilon^N}&0&\cdots&0&\frac{\epsilon^N}{(1-\epsilon)^N+\epsilon^N}
\end{array}
\right).$$ For this POVM the probability of success is $$p_{\text{succ}}^{\text{opt}}=\frac{(1-\epsilon)^{2N}+\epsilon^{2N}}{(1-\epsilon)^N+\epsilon^N},\label{peps}$$ and the fidelity is $$F^{\text{opt}}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\left[(1-\epsilon)^N+\epsilon^N\right]^2}{(1-\epsilon)^{2N}+\epsilon^{2N}}.\label{Feps}$$ Note that $\Pi_B^{\text{succ}}=\mathbb{1}$ always retrieves the bound of Eq. , with $p_{\text{succ}}=1$ and $F=\frac{1}{2}\left[(1-\epsilon)^N+\epsilon^N\right]$. Thus, the POVM $\Pi_B^{\text{succ}}=w \Pi_B^{\text{succ, opt}}+(1-w)\mathbb{1}$, i.e. an interpolation between the optimal measurement and the identity, spans the threshold for all values of F and $p_{\text{succ}}$ that optimize $F\cdot p_{\text{succ}}$.
![Optimal success probability. The optimal success probability $p_{\text{succ}}^{\text{opt}}$ is plotted as a function of $\epsilon$ in the $[0,0.5]$ range for $N=3,4,$ and $5$ (full, dashed, and dotdashed curves, respectively). The function assumes values from 1 to $\frac{1}{2^N}$. The function goes from $1$ when no operation is performed over system B, to $\frac{1}{2^N}$, when a perfect GHZ projector is performed.\[PEps\]](PEps.pdf){width="250pt"}
![Optimal fidelity. The optimal fidelity $F^{\text{opt}}$ is plotted as a function of $\epsilon$ for $N=3,4,$ and 5 (full, dashed, and dotdashed curves, respectively). Since the function is symmetrical respect to $\epsilon=0.5$, the plot is represented only in the $[0,0.5]$ range. The function goes from $0.5$, when no entanglement is generated, to 1, when the final state is the maximal entangled ${\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}$.\[FidEps\]](FidEps.pdf){width="250pt"}
Eq. is the optimal success probability as a function of $\epsilon$ and N when the bound of Eq. is attained and F is maximal. Let’s analyze the two Eqs. and . The two functions are plotted as a function of $\epsilon$ for 3,4, and 5 nodes in Fig. \[PEps\] and \[FidEps\], respectively. Concerning the fidelity, it reaches the value 1 only for $\epsilon=\frac{1}{2}$, i.e. for an initial maximally entangled state. For other values of $\epsilon$, $F^{\text{opt}}$ is always smaller than 1. The maximal success probability is obtained for $\epsilon=0$. However, in this last case, the final state is ${\lvert 0 \rangle}{\langle 0 \rvert}_A^{\otimes N}$ and $F=\frac{1}{2}$, that is clearly an uninteresting case since we are interested to high fidelity GHZ generation. We can, then, conclude that the optimal case is $\epsilon=\frac{1}{2}$. $\Pi_B^{\text{succ, opt}}$ reduces to a ${\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}$ projector.
Optical GHZ projector {#Sec:Implementation}
=====================
In this section we present a possible way of implementing a ${\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}$ projector. The envisioned setup is represented in Fig.\[OpticalSys\]a)-b). Subsystem A is the actual quantum network, composed by N nodes. Each node is constituted by a quantum system with two long-lived spin states [@Bernier13; @Gao15; @Hucul15; @Delteil16], here called ${\lvert 0 \rangle}$ and ${\lvert 1 \rangle}$, that can be independently excited through optical pulses. As a consequence, each node is able to generate a maximally entangled spin-photon pair, i.e. $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({\lvert 0
0 \rangle}+{\lvert 1 1 \rangle})_{A_jB_j}$, where ${\lvert 0 \rangle}_{B_j}$ (${\lvert 1 \rangle}_{B_j}$) is a photon in the 0 (1) mode. The nodes interact between each other through the photonic 0-1 modes regrouped in subsystem B. The degree of freedom of modes in subsystem B depends on the nature of the nodes. For example, for NV centers [@Bernier13; @Gao15], and trapped ions [@Hucul15], the photonic qubits can be encoded in time-bin, and polarization, respectively.
![Optical realization of a GHZ projector. a) Entire setup. Subsystem A (pink shell) is composed by N spin qubits on the external circle. The spin qubits are excited so that they generate the state ${\lvert \Phi^+ \rangle}_{AB}$ between them and N photonic qubits, composing subsystem B (yellow shell). Each photonic qubit is converted in an optical-path qubit through an optical switch and sent to the central station (green circle) where the projector is applied. b) Central station. Two optical-path modes coming from two neighbouring matter qubits impinge on the same beam splitter. A Bell measurement is performed on the modes $C$s and $D$s coming out from each beam splitter.\[OpticalSys\]](OpticalSysFinal.pdf){width="190pt"}
The $j$th 0 and 1 modes are converted into two different spatial modes $B_{j,0}$ and $B_{j,1}$, respectively. This can be done through an optical switch [@Lee10]. both directed to the central station (Fig. \[OpticalSys\]b)) where Bell measurements between modes $B_{j,0}$ and $B_{j+1,1}$ are performed. In order to close the series of Bell measurements, a Bell measurement is performed between modes $B_{1,1}$ and $B_{N,0}$.
Proof\[SubsectionProof\]
------------------------
In this subsection, we prove that, depending on which set of detectors click, the setup in Fig. \[OpticalSys\] allows to generate two GHZ-like states on subsystem A. Moreover, we derive the success probability as a function of the losses and we show that in the ideal case, each one of the final states has a probability of success $2^{-N}$, equivalent to the one one would get for a GHZ projector. We split the proof into three steps. In step 1, we focus on one successful combination of clicks among the $2^N$ successful combinations. We prove that the event corresponding to this particular combination of clicks happens with probability $P_{\text{succ}}=\frac{2}{2^{2N}}\eta^N$, where $\eta$ is the total probability that a photon does not get lost in the transmission and detected by a detector, and that a GHZ-like state is, thus, produced in A. In step 2, we show that all the other successful detector combinations projects system A into a GHZ-like state with the same probability $P_{\text{succ}}$. In step 3, we show that the set of GHZ-like states that are generated is composed by only two states that differ by a relative phase. We calculate the total success probability for each GHZ-like state and show that it is equal to $P^{\text{Tot}}_{\text{succ}}=\left(\frac{\eta}{2}\right)^N$. For no losses, $2^{-N}$ is the success probability that a GHZ projector ${\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}_B$ would project system A into a ${\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}_A$ state.\
The total state ${\lvert \Phi^+ \rangle}_{AB}$ generated between subsystems A and B can be written in terms of creation operators as $${\lvert \Phi^+ \rangle}_{AB}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}^N}\Pi_{j=1}^{N}\left(a^{\dagger}_{j,0}b^{\dagger}_{j,0}+a^{\dagger}_{j,1}b^{\dagger}_{j,1}\right){\lvert \mathbf{0} \rangle},$$ where ${\lvert \mathbf{0} \rangle}$ is the vacuum, $a^{\dagger}_{j,k}$ is the creation operator of the ${\lvert k \rangle}_{A_j}$ state on the jth spin qubit, and $b^{\dagger}_{j,k}$ is the jth creation operator of the photonic mode ${\lvert k \rangle}_{B_j}$. Each photonic mode $B_{j,k}$ is converted into a sum of modes $C_m$ and $D_m$ when it impinges a beam splitter. The equations that transform the operators $b^{\dagger}_{j,k}$s are $b_{j,0}^{\dagger}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(i
c_j^{\dagger}+d_j^{\dagger}\right)$ and $b_{j,1}^{\dagger}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
c_{j-1}^{\dagger}+id_{j-1}^{\dagger}\right)$.
Hence, the state becomes ${\lvert \Psi \rangle}_{ACD}$, i.e. $$\begin{split}
{\lvert \Psi \rangle}_{ACD}=\frac{1}{2^N}\Pi_{j=1}^{N}&\bigg(a^{\dagger}_{j,0}\left(i
c_{j}^{\dagger}+d_{j}^{\dagger}\right)\\
&+a^{\dagger}_{j,1}\left(c_{j-1}^{\dagger}+i d_{j-1}^{\dagger}\right)\bigg) {\lvert \mathbf{0} \rangle}.\\
\label{Psi1}
\end{split}$$
**Step 1**. Let’s first focus on one single successful combination of detections, that is when we get a detection on all detectors on modes $C$s and none on modes $D$s. The total detectors operator, composed by the no-click (click) operator $D^D_{\text{nc}}$ ($D^C_{\text{c}}$) on modes $D$s ($C$s), is $D^D_{\text{nc}}D^C_{\text{c}}=\Pi_{j=1}^N(1-\eta)^{d_j^{\dagger}d_j}\left[\mathbb{1}-(1-\eta)^{c_j^{\dagger}c_j}\right]$ [@Caprara15]. Let’s analyze this operator in more details. Let’s consider first the click operator on a single mode $C_j$, $D_c^{C_j}=\mathbb{1}-(1-\eta)^{c_j^{\dagger}c_j}=\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty}\left[1-(1-\eta)^n\right]{\lvert n \rangle}{\langle n \rvert}_{C_j}$, where ${\lvert n \rangle}_{C_j}$ is a Fock state of n photons. The effect of the operator $c_j^{\dagger}$ applied $l$ times on the right side of $D_c^{C_j}$ is $$D_c^{C_j}c_j^{\dagger l}=\sum_{n=l}^{+\infty}\left[1-(1-\eta)^n\right]\sqrt{\frac{n!}{(n-l)!}}{\lvert n \rangle}{\langle n-l \rvert}.$$ Note that in the previous equation if $l=0$ there is no term in the sum with ${\langle 0 \rvert}_{C_j}$. The previous remark implies that, in order to have a detection in mode $C_j$, there must be at least a $c_j^{\dagger}$ in the detected state, i.e. there must be at least one photon in mode $C_j$. Let’s consider, now, the operator $D_{\text{nc}}^{D_j}=(1-\eta)^{d_j^{\dagger}d_j}=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}(1-\eta)^n{\lvert n \rangle}{\langle n \rvert}_{D_j}$. In this case, if there are no losses, the application of several $d_j^{\dagger}$ gives a success only with no photon on mode $D_j$, i.e. there are no $d_j^{\dagger}$ in the detected state. If losses occur, then there is a non null probability of not having any detection in mode $D_j$, and, as a consequence, a successful Bell measurement. Let’s come back to the protocol. The N modes generate a photon each. We need N detections, each one in one of the N $C$ modes. This implies two things. Firstly, the only states that have successful outcomes do not have photons in any mode $D$, i.e. they do not have anyone of the operators $d_j^{\dagger}$s. Secondly, in each mode $C$ there is only one photon, i.e. in the final state each $c^{\dagger}_j$ appears only once. We can, now, continue the calculations. We have $$\begin{split}
&\operatorname{Tr}_{CD}\left({\lvert \Psi \rangle}{\langle \Psi \rvert}_{ACD}D^D_{\text{nc}}D^C_{\text{c}}\right)=\\
\frac{1}{2^{2N}}\operatorname{Tr}_C\bigg[&\Pi_{j=1}^N\left(\mathbb{1}-(1-\eta)^{c_j^{\dagger}c_j}\right)\\
&\Pi_{j=1}^N(i a_{j,0}^{\dagger}c_j^{\dagger}+a_{j,1}^{\dagger}c_{j-1}^{\dagger})
{\lvert \mathbf{0} \rangle}\\
&{\langle \mathbf{0} \rvert}\Pi_{j=1}^N(-i
a_{j,0}c_j+a_{j,1}c_{j-1}) \bigg]=\\
\left(\frac{\eta}{2^2}\right)^N&\left(\Pi_{j=1}^Ni a^{\dagger}_{j,0}+\Pi_{j=1}^Na_{j,1}^{\dagger}\right) {\lvert \mathbf{0} \rangle}\\
&{\langle \mathbf{0} \rvert}\left(\Pi_{j=1}^N(-i)
a_{j,0}+\Pi_{j=1}^Na_{j,1}\right)=\\
\left(\frac{\eta}{2^2}\right)^N&\left(i^N{\lvert 0 \rangle}^N+{\lvert 1 \rangle}^N\right)\left((-i)^N{\langle 0 \rvert}^{\otimes
N}+{\langle 1 \rvert}^{\otimes N}\right)_A=\\
2\left(\frac{\eta}{2^2}\right)^N&{\lvert \text{GHZ-like} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ-like} \rvert}_A.
\end{split}$$ The prefactor in front of ${\lvert \text{GHZ-like} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ-like} \rvert}_A$ in the last passage is the success probability of the set of Bell measurements $P_{\text{succ}}=\eta^N2^{1-2N}$. Hence, the final state is $${\lvert \text{GHZ-like} \rangle}_A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(i^N{\lvert 0 \rangle}^{\otimes N}+{\lvert 1 \rangle}^{\otimes N}\right)_A,$$ that is a GHZ state except for a phase factor that can be easily corrected.
**Step 2**. There are other $2^N-1$ detector configurations that result in a success of the set of Bell measurements.\
If we choose other click-no click configurations, we have to invert the creation and annihilation operators for all modes where the success Bell measurement combination has been changed, i.e. $d_m^{(\dagger)}\leftrightarrow c_m^{(\dagger)}$. It follows that the final states ${\lvert \Psi_{\text{final}} \rangle}_A$ are of the same form, i.e. $${\lvert \Psi_{\text{final}} \rangle}_A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(i^k{\lvert 0 \rangle}^{\otimes N}+i^l{\lvert 1 \rangle}^{\otimes N}\right)_A,$$ but the relative phase between ${\lvert 0 \rangle}^{\otimes N}$ and ${\lvert 1 \rangle}^{\otimes N}$ can change and depends on the specific combination.
**Step 3**. Let’s focus, now, on the calculation of the relative phase depending on the detector configuration. Each $c^{\dagger}_m$ gives an i phase term to ${\lvert 0 \rangle}^{\otimes N}$, while each $d^{\dagger}_m$ gives an i phase term to ${\lvert 1 \rangle}^{\otimes N}$. Therefore, the states generated by the measurement are of the form $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[i^{N-m} {\lvert 0 \rangle}^{\otimes N}+i^m{\lvert 1 \rangle}^{\otimes N}\right],\label{Psi3}$$ with $m\in [0,N-1]$. The set of states given by Eq. is composed by only two states, up to global phases, i.e.
$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[i^{N} {\lvert 0 \rangle}^{\otimes N}+{\lvert 1 \rangle}^{\otimes N}\right]$,and $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[i^{N} {\lvert 0 \rangle}^{\otimes N}-{\lvert 1 \rangle}^{\otimes N}\right]$.
Each state recurs the same number of times. Therefore, we have only two final states, each one arising from $2^{N-1}$ configurations each. Per each final GHZ-like state the total probability is, then $$P^{\text{Tot}}_{\text{succ}}=2^{1-2N}\cdot 2^{N-1}\eta^N=2^{-N}\eta^N,\label{Ptot}$$ that is the maximal probability of success that we can achieve. The envisioned protocol generates, thus, two GHZ-like states, each one with a $P^{\text{Tot}}_{\text{succ}}$ that in the ideal case is $2^{-N}$. This probability corresponds to the success probability for a GHZ projector.\
With this the proof is complete. As a last remark, since depending on which detectors click there are two different GHZ-like states, one can gain an extra factor 2 in the total success probability for some applications.
Performance {#Sec:Perf}
===========
In this section, we give some estimates of the performance of our protocol.
![Bell measurement synchronization. a) Three nodes protocol. In the figure it is represented the scheme in the case of three nodes as an example of an odd number of nodes. For an odd number of nodes it is necessary to perform three rounds for generating all the spin-photon pairs, early, late, and ’asynchronous’. b) Temporal scheme. In the picture it is represented the time line for an odd number of nodes. Three rounds are necessary for generating all the spin-photon pairs. Afterwards, the photons have to travel half d to reach the measurement station. Finally, the nodes have to wait till when the communication of the Bell measurement outcome comes back.\[OddNumber\]](OddNumber.pdf){width="250pt"}
Since NV centers are promising candidates for quantum information tasks [@Hensen15], we consider values [@Dam17] of the involved quantities suitable for this system. Let us remind you that for NV centers the photonic qubits can be encoded in time-bin. The quantity that can be compared between different protocols is the entanglement generation rate. The expression of the generation rate $r_{\text{GHZ}}$ for GHZ states is $$r_{\text{GHZ}}=\frac{P^{\text{Tot}}_{\text{succ}}}{t^{\text{Tot}}},$$ where $P^{\text{Tot}}_{\text{succ}}$ is given by Eq. , and $t^{\text{Tot}}$ is the total time for each protocol trial. Hence, two factors influence the generation rate, namely the overall transmission $\eta$ (see Eq. ) and the time necessary to perform each task involved in the protocol. Let’s focus on deriving $t^{\text{Tot}}$. It is given by the sum of three quantities, i.e. the time necessary to generate all the spin-photon pairs, the one necessary for the photons to travel half the distance between two nodes, and the one necessary for communicating to each node the outcome of the measurements.\
For the sake of simplicity, for odd nodes the generated qubit pairs are $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({\lvert 0e \rangle}+{\lvert 1l \rangle})_{AB}$, while for even nodes the generated qubit pairs are $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({\lvert 0l \rangle}+{\lvert 1e \rangle})_{AB}$, where ${\lvert e \rangle}_B$ (${\lvert l \rangle}_B$) is an early (late) photon. The expression for the photon-spin generation time has a different expression depending whether the number of nodes is odd or even. Indeed, in the case of an even number, each early (late) mode is coupled with another early (late) mode. On the contrary, in the case of an odd number of nodes, in order to close the circle (see Fig. \[OpticalSys\]), there will be one branch, an “asynchronous” branch, where an early mode would be coupled with a late mode (see Fig. \[OddNumber\]). This means that in the case of an even number it is sufficient to consider only two rounds (early and late mode) of photon generation per trial, while in the odd case we consider a third round for the ’asynchronous branch’.
![GHZ generation rate $r_{\text{GHZ}}$. In the figure the generation rate for different values of $N$ (2,3,4, and 5) is plotted as a function of the distance $d$. The values of the experimental parameters are $L_0=20$ km, $\eta_{BS}=10^{-0.03}$ [@Thorlabs], $\eta_D=0.86$ [@Zadeh18], $p_{\text{fc}}=0.3$, $p_{\text{out}}=0.3$, and $c=0.2\cdot 10^6$km/s. The total time $t^{\text{Tot}}$ for each attempt is given by Eq. -.\[PlotRate\]](PlotRate.pdf){width="250pt"}
![Fast-use GHZ rate $r_{\text{GHZ}}$. In the figure the fast-use GHZ rate for different values of $N$ (2,3,4, and 5) is plotted as a function of the distance $d$. The values of the experimental parameters are $L_0=20$ km, $\eta_{BS}=10^{-0.03}$ [@Thorlabs], $\eta_D=0.86$ [@Zadeh18], $p_{\text{fc}}=0.3$, $p_{\text{out}}=0.3$, and $c=0.2\cdot 10^6$km/s. The total time $t^{\text{Tot}}$ is given only by the spin-photon pair preparation time.\[PlotUseRate\]](PlotUseRate.pdf){width="250pt"}
Let’s define the time necessary to generate one photon-spin pair as $t_{PS}$. For the sake of simplicity, we consider that the distance $d$ between two neighbouring nodes is fixed. Given the speed of light in an optical fibre $c$, the total generation time for an even number of nodes is, then $$t^{\text{Tot}}_{\text{even}}=2 t_{PS}+\frac{d}{2 c}+\frac{d}{2 c},\label{Ttote}$$ while for an odd number is $$t^{\text{Tot}}_{\text{odd}}=3 t_{PS}+\frac{d}{2 c}+\frac{d}{2 c}.\label{Ttoto}$$ Note that there is a factor 2, given by the fact that the photons have to travel only half the distance between the nodes in order to reach the Bell measurement station. Note also that the second $\frac{d}{2c}$ factor is due to the classical communication that has to be transmitted from the measurement stations to the nodes. Note also that there are some applications for which it is not necessary to wait for the measurement and the arrival of the communication of the outcome. In these cases the measurements on the nodes can be realized straight away after that the photonic qubits have been sent to the Bell measurement stations and the results kept (discarded) after the communication of the success (failure) of the set of Bell measurements. As a consequence, the total time $t^{\text{Tot}}$ can be written for this case as just the spin-photon pairs preparation time. We call this rate the fast-use GHZ rate. Concerning the overall transmission $\eta$, it is given by the formula [@Dam17] $$\eta=\eta_{BS}\eta_D p_{\text{fc}}p_{\text{out}}10^{-\frac{\alpha d}{L_0}},$$ where $L_0$ is the attenuation length of the fibres, $\alpha=0.2
\text{dB}/\text{km}$, $p_{\text{fc}}$ is the frequency conversion efficiency, $p_{\text{out}}$ is the NV outcoupling efficiency, and $\eta_{BS}$ $\eta_D$ are the beam splitter and detector efficiency. In Figs. \[PlotRate\] and \[PlotUseRate\], there are the results for the rate as a function of the distance between two nodes for $N=2,3,4$ and $5$. In Fig. \[PlotRate\] there are the plots for the case $t^{\text{Tot}}$ is given by Eq. -, while in Fig. \[PlotUseRate\] the plots are made for $t^{\text{Tot}}$ only equal to the spin-photon preparation time. As one might expect from Eq. , the curves decrease of one term $\frac{\eta}{2}$ per each added node. However, while in Fig. \[PlotRate\] the curves are proportional to $d^{-1}10^{-\frac{\alpha N d}{L_0}}$, in Fig. \[PlotUseRate\] they are proportional only to the exponential term $10^{-\frac{\alpha N
d}{L_0}}$. This results in an improvement of two orders of magnitude more in the second case for $d=100$ km.
Conclusion
==========
The protocol that we have presented here is an adaptation for matter systems and an arbitrary number of nodes of a protocol [@Zukowski95] meant for fully optical systems and only three parties. We consider the protocol interesting for several reasons. Firstly, it is a natural extension for N nodes of the well known Barrett-Kok scheme [@Barrett05; @Lim05] and so it is particularly suited for achieving high fidelities. Secondly, we have proven that in the ideal case, i.e. in the case of no loss, the success probability is optimal. This is, indeed, quite surprising since the scheme is based only on linear optics. Nonetheless, there are some aspects that deserve some attention. Indeed, in a real scenario all the causes of loss and noise have to be taken into account. Unfortunately, optimizing a scheme in a real scenario, where such kind of processes are involved, is a challenging task. However, it seems to us that the required resources and causes of decoherence and depolarization in our case are minimal. Thus, the protocol is likely optimal also when losses and noise occur. Our scheme presents two intrinsic drawbacks, in that, it can only be implemented between nearby nodes and the performance showed in the previous section is quite low. It is, then, of interest to evaluate other protocols, that combine distillation procedures with Bell measurements. In this case the parameter of reference would be the generation rate and not anymore the success probability. However, all these protocols would intrinsically be affected by decoherence that would inevitably lower the fidelity. They are not, then, competitive in the high fidelity regime that we have explored in this article. It is still interesting to investigate if there exists procedures both for nearby and distant nodes that allow to appealing trade-offs between generation rate and final fidelity.
Supplemental Material:Numerical Optimization\[3\]
=================================================
In the main text, we have analitically optimized $F\cdot
p_{\text{succ}}$ and showed how to experimentally retrieve this value.\
In this supplemental material, we explain how to perform numerical optimizations over POVMs in order to optimize $F\cdot p_{\text{succ}}$ for arbitrary input states. One can retrieve the previous expressions for $F\cdot
p_{\text{succ}}$ and $p_{\text{succ}}$ in terms of a map $\Lambda$ acting on system B. The expression for $F\cdot
p_{\text{succ}}$ becomes $$\begin{split}
F\cdot p_{\text{succ}}=\operatorname{Tr}(({\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}_A\otimes\left({\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}\cdot
\Lambda\right)_B)&\\
\cdot{\lvert \Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle}{\langle \Psi_{\text{in}} \rvert}_{AB})&,
\end{split}$$ where we have substituted $\Pi^{\text{succ}}_B=\left({\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}\cdot
\Lambda\right)_B$, $\Lambda_B$ being an arbitrary map. In a similar way the success probability $p_{\text{succ}}$ takes the following form $$p_{\text{succ}}=\operatorname{Tr}\left[\left( \mathbb{1}_A\otimes
({\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}\cdot \Lambda)_B\right)\cdot{\lvert \Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle}{\langle \Psi_{\text{in}} \rvert}_{AB}\right].$$ Our goal is to find the optimal $\Lambda_B$, subject to a fixed $p_{\text{succ}}$, such that the product $F\cdot p_{\text{succ}}$ is maximal.
Choi-Jamiolkowski Isomorphism
-----------------------------
One can realize the previous optimization using the Choi-Jamiolkowski isomorphism. Let’s assume to have two systems $S$ and $S'$ of the same dimension $|S|$. Given the positive map $\Lambda_{S'}$, acting on $S'$, the Choi’s theorem states that the matrix $$\tau_{\text{SS'}}=\mathbb{1}_S\otimes \Lambda_{S'}({\lvert \Phi^+ \rangle}_{SS'}),$$ where ${\lvert \Phi^+ \rangle}_{SS'}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|S|}}\sum_{m=1}^{|S|}{\lvert mm \rangle}_{ss'}$ is a maximally entangled state between systems S and $S'$, has the properties
1. $\tau_{SS'}\ge 0$,
2. $\operatorname{Tr}(\tau_{SS'})=1$, and
3. $\tau_S=\operatorname{Tr}_{S'}(\tau_{SS'})=\frac{\mathbb{1}_S}{|S|}$.
Given the above-listed first two properties, $\tau_{SS'}$ is a density matrix and it is called Jamiolkowski state.\
Initial Maximally Entangled State
---------------------------------
In the case of an initial maximally entangled state, for example ${\lvert \Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle}_{AB}={\lvert \Phi^+ \rangle}_{AB}=\bigotimes_{j=1}^N\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({\lvert 00 \rangle}+{\lvert 11 \rangle})_{A_j
B_j}$, the map $\mathbb{1}_A\otimes\Lambda_{B}$ applied to ${\lvert \Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle}_{AB} $ is a Jamiolkowski state, i.e. $\mathbb{1}_A\otimes\Lambda_B({\lvert \Phi^+ \rangle}_{AB})=\tau_{AB}$ is a state. The quantities $F\cdot p_{\text{succ}}$ and $p_{\text{succ}}$ can be rewritten in terms of the Jamiolkowski state, i.e. $$F\cdot p_{\text{succ}}=\operatorname{Tr}\left[ \left({\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}_A\otimes
{\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}_B\right)\cdot\tau_{AB}\right],$$ and $$p_{\text{succ}}=\operatorname{Tr}\left[ \left(\mathbb{1}_A\otimes
{\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}_B\right)\cdot\tau_{AB}\right].$$ Hence, the optimization becomes: The first three conditions are equivalent to the ones of subsection A., while the last is necessary for deriving $F\cdot p_{\text{succ}}$ as a function of $p_{\text{succ}}$.
{width="250pt"}
Initial Non-Maximally Entangled State
-------------------------------------
Consider now the case when the initial state is non-maximally entangled, for example ${\lvert \Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle}_{AB}=\bigotimes_{j=1}^N(\sqrt{1-\epsilon}{\lvert 00 \rangle}+\sqrt{\epsilon}{\lvert 11 \rangle})_{A_j
B_j}$. Let’s put system $S$ ($S'$) equal to the initial (final) system AB. One can apply the Choi-Jamiolkowski isomorphism to $F\cdot
p_{\text{succ}}$ and $p_{\text{succ}}$. Indeed, we have $$\begin{split}
F\cdot
p_{\text{succ}}=2^{2N}\operatorname{Tr}&\bigg[{\lvert \Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle}{\langle \Psi_{\text{in}} \rvert}_{AB}^{\text{in}}\otimes \big({\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}_A\\
&\otimes
{\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}_B \big)^{\text{fin}}\cdot\tilde{\tau}_{AB}\bigg],
\end{split}$$ and
{width="250pt"}
$$p_{\text{succ}}=2^{2N}\operatorname{Tr}[ {\lvert \Psi_{\text{in}} \rangle}{\langle \Psi_{\text{in}} \rvert}^{\text{in}}_{AB}\otimes \left( \mathbb{1}_A\otimes
{\lvert \text{GHZ} \rangle}{\langle \text{GHZ} \rvert}_B\right)^{\text{fin}} \tilde{\tau}_{AB}],$$
where $\tilde{\tau}_{AB}=\mathbb{1}^{\text{in}}_{AB}\otimes
\tau^{\text{fin}}_{AB}$. Here, $2^{2N}$ is the dimension of one of the two subsystems initial and final. Hence, we want to perform the following optimization:\
The above explained optimization has been performed for three nodes, providing results in perfect agreement with the analytical upperbounds derived in the main text.
[000]{}
A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 661 (1991)
S. Pironio, A. Acín, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, and V. Scarani, New Journal of Physics [**11**]{}, (2009)
C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, W.K. Wooters, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**70**]{}, 1895 (1993)
C.H. Bennett, S.J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2881 (1992)
H.K. Lo, H.F. Chau, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**78**]{}, 3414 (1997)
N. Aharon, S. Massar, S. Pironio, and J. Silman, New Journal of Physics [**18**]{} (2016)
H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, W.V. Dam, SIAM J.Comput. [**30**]{} 1829-1841 (2001);
H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, S. Massar, and R. de Wolf Rev. Mod. Phys. [**82**]{}, 665 (2010)
R. Cleve, and H. Buhrman, Phys. Rev. A [**56**]{}, 1201 (1997);
L.K. Grover, arXiv:quant-ph/9704012 (1997);
Y. Li, P.C. Humphreys, G. J. Mendoza, S. C. Benjamin , Phys. Rev. X [**5**]{}, 041007 (2015);
Y Li, SC Benjamin, Phys. Rev. A [**94**]{}, 042303 (2016);
M. Hillery, Vladimír Bužek, and André Berthiaume, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 1829 (1999);
Michael Epping, arXiv:1612.05585 (2016)
M. Christandl, S. Wehner, ASIACRYPT 2005, 217-235 (2005)
S. Muralidharan, L. Li, J. Kim,N. Lütkenhaus, M.D. Lukin, L. Jiang, Scientific Reports [**6**]{}, 20463 (2016)
D. Gottesman, I.L. Chuang, Nature [**402**]{} 390 (1999)
S. Muralidharan, J. Kim, N. Lutkenhaus, M.D. Lukin, L. Jiang, Phys, Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 250501 (2014)
W.J. Munro, A.M. Stephens, S.J. Devitt, K.A. Harrison, K. Nemoto, Nature Photonics [**6**]{}, 777-781 (2012)
P. Kómár, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye and M. D. Lukin, Nature Physics [**10**]{}, 582–587 (2014)
D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, in Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1989);
S. D. Barrett, P. Kok, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 060310 (2005)
Y. L. Lim, A. Beige, and L. C. Kwek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 030505 (2005)
P. Kómár,, T. Topcu, E. M. Kessler, A. Derevianko, V. Vuletic, J. Ye, and M. Lukin,Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 060506 (2016)
N. H. Nickerson, J. F. Fitzsimons, S. C. Benjamin, Phys. Rev. X [**4**]{}, 041041 (2014)
S. Bose, V. Vedral, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 822 (1998)
A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, H. Weinfurter, and M. Żukowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 3031 (1997)
Marti Cuquet, John Calsamiglia, Phys. Rev. A [**86**]{}, 042304 (2012)
M. Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, and H. Weinfurter, Fundamental problems in quantum theory, vol. 755 Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences p.91 (1995)
H. Bernien, B. Hensen, W. Pfaff, G. Koolstra, M. S.Blok, L. Robledo, T. H. Taminiau, M. Markham, D. J.Twitchen, L. Childress, and R. Hanson, Nature [**497**]{}, 86 (2013)
W. B. Gao, A. Imamoglu, H. Bernien, and R. Hanson, Nature Photonics [**9**]{}, 363 (2015).
D. Hucul, I. Inlek, G. Vittorini, C. Crocker, S. Debnath, S. Clark, and C. Monroe, Nature Physics [**11**]{}, 37 (2015).
A. Delteil, Z. Sun, W. B. Gao, E. Togan, and S. Faelt, Nature Physics [**12**]{}, 218 (2016)
J. Y. Lee, L. Yin, G. P. Agrawal, and P. M. Fauchet, Opt. Express [**18**]{}, 11, 11514-11523 (2010)
V. Caprara Vivoli, P. Sekatski, J.-D. Bancal, C. C. W. Lim, B. G. Christensen, A. Martin, R. T. Thew, H. Zbinden, N. Gisin, and N. Sangouard Phys. Rev. A [**91**]{}, 012107 (2015)
B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dréau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abellán, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, Nature [ **526**]{}, 682–686 (2015)
S. B. van Dam, P. C. Humphreys, F. Rozpędek, S. Wehner, R. Hanson, [**arXiv:1702.04885**]{} (2017)
50:50 1064 nm 2x2 Polarization-Maintaining Fiber Optic Couplers / Taps, Thorlabs
I.E. Zadeh, J. W. N. Los, R. B. M. Gourgues, G. Bulgarini, S. M. Dobrovolskiy, V. Zwiller, and S. N. Dorenbos, arxiv, 1801.06574 (2018)
E. Knill, R. Laflamme, G. J. Milburn, Nature [**409**]{}, 46-52 (2001)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Jun Li[^1]\
Department of Mathematics\
Stanford University\
Stanford, CA 94305\
and\
Gang Tian[^2]\
Department of Mathematics\
Massachusetts Institute of Technology\
Cambridge, MA 02139
title: 'Comparison of the algebraic and the symplectic Gromov-Witten invariants'
---
Introduction
============
As Witten suggested in \[W1\], \[W2\], the GW-invariants for a symplectic manifold $X$ are multi-linear maps $$\gamma_{A,g,n}^X: H\sta(X;\QQ)^{\times n}\times H\sta(\mgnb;\QQ)
\lra \QQ,
\lab{eq:0.1}$$ where $A\in H_2(X,\ZZ)$ is any homology class, $n$, $g$ are two non-negative integers, and $\mgnb$ is the Deligne-Mumford compactification of $\mgn$, the space of smooth $n$-pointed genus $g$ curves. The basic idea of defining these invariants is to enumerate holomorphic maps from Riemann surfaces to the manifolds. To illustrate this, we let $X$ be a smooth projective manifold and form the moduli space $\mgna$ of all holomorphic maps $f\mh\Sigma\to X$ from smooth $n$-pointed Riemann surfaces $(\Sigma;x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ to $X$ such that $f\lsta([\Sigma])=A$. $\mgna$ is a quasi-projective scheme and its expected dimension can be calculated using the Riemann-Roch theorem. We will further elaborate the notion of expected dimension later, and for the moment we will denote it by $r\lexp$. Note that it depends implicitly on the choice of $X$, $A$, $g$ and $n$. When $r\lexp=0$, then $\mgna$ is expected to be discrete. If $\mgna$ is discrete, then the degree of $\mgna$, considered as a $0$-cycle, is a GW-invariant of $X$. We remark that we have and will ignore the issue of non-trivial automorphism groups of maps in $\mgna$ in the introduction. When $r\lexp>0$, then $\mgna$ is expected to have pure dimension $r\lexp$. If it does, then we pick $n$ subvarieties of $X$, say $V_1,\ldots,V_n$, so that their total codimension is $r\lexp$. We then form a subscheme of $\mgna$ consisting of maps $f$ so that $f(x_i)\in V_i$. This subscheme is expected to be discrete. It it does, then its degree is the GW-invariant of $X$. Put them together, we can define the GW-invariants $\gamma_{A,g,n}^X$ of $X$. This is similar to construction of the Donaldson polynomial invariants for 4-manifolds.
Here are the two big [*ifs*]{} in carry out this program are
[**Question I**]{}: Whether the moduli scheme $\mgna$ has pure dimension $r\lexp$.
[**Question II**]{}: Whether the subschemes of $\mgna$ that satisfy certain incidence relations have the expected dimensions.
Similar to Donaldson polynomial invariants, the affirmative answer to the above two questions are in general not guaranteed. One approach to overcome this difficulty, beginning with Donaldson’s invariants of 4-manifolds, is to “deform” the moduli problems and hope that the answers to the “deformed” moduli problems are affirmative. In the case of GW-invariants, one can deform the complex structure of the smooth variety $X$ to not necessary integrable almost complex structure $J$ and study the same moduli problem by replacing holomorphic maps with pseudo-holomorphic maps. This was investigated by Gromov in \[Gr\], Ruan \[Ru\], in which he constructed certain GW-invariants of rational type for semi-positive symplectic manifolds. The first mathematical theory of GW-invariants came from the work of Ruan and the second author, in which they found that the right set up of GW-invariants for semi-positive manifolds can be provided by using the moduli of maps satisfying non-homogeneous Cauchy-Riemann equations. In this set up, they constructed the GW-invariants of all semi-positive symplectic manifolds and proved fundemantal properties of these invariants. All Fano-manifolds and Calabi-Yau manifolds are special examples of semi-positive symplectic manifolds. Also any symplectic manifold of complex dimension less than $4$ is semi-positive.
Attempts to push this to cover general symplectic manifolds so far have failed. New approaches are needed in order to get a hold on the GW-invariants of general varieties (or symplectic manifolds). The first step is to convert the problem of counting mappings, which essentially is homology in nature, into the frame work of cohomology theory of the moduli problem. More precisely, we first compactify the moduli space $\mgna$ to, say, $\mgnab$. We require that the obvious evaluation map $$e: \mgna\lra X^n$$ that sends $(f;\Sigma;x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ to $(f(x_1),\ldots,f(x_n))$ extends to $$\bar e: \mgnab\lra X^n.$$ We further require that if $\mgna$ has pure dimension $r\lexp$, then $\mgnab$ supports a fundamental class $$[\mgnab]\in
H_{2r\lexp}(\mgnab;\QQ).$$ Then the GW-invariants of $X$ are multi-linear maps $$\gamma^X_{A,g,n}: H\sta(X)^{\times n}\times H\sta(\mgnb)\lra \QQ
\lab{eq:0.4}$$ that send $(\alpha,\beta)$ to $$\gamma^X_{A,g,n}(\alpha,\beta)=\int_{[\mgnab]}{\bar e}\sta(\alpha)
\cup\pi\sta(\beta).$$ where $\pi\mh\mgnab\to\mgnb$ is the forgetful map. Note that in such cases the GW-invariants are defined without reference to the answer to [*question II*]{}.
Even when the answer to [*question I*]{} is negative, we can still define the GW-invariants if a virtual moduli cycle $$[\mgnab]\vir\in H_{2r\lexp}(\mgnab;\QQ)$$ can be found that function as the fundamental cycle $[\mgnab]$ should the dimension of $\mgna$ is $r\lexp$. In this case, we simply define $\gamma^X_{A,g,n}$ as before with $[\mgnab]$ replaced by $[\mgnab]\vir$.
The standard compactification of $\mgna$ is the moduli space of stable morphisms from $n$-pointed genus $g$ curves, possibly nodal, to $X$ of the prescribed fundamental class. This was first studied for pseudo-holomorphic maps by T. Parker and J. Wolfson [@PW] and in algebraic geometry by Kontsevich [@Ko]. Because points of the compactification $\mgnab$ are maps $f$ whose domains have $n$-marked points $x_1,\ldots,x_n$, the evaluation map $e$ extends canonically to $\bar
e$ that sends such map $f$ to $(f(x_1),\ldots,f(x_n))$.
The virtual moduli cycles $[\mgnab]\vir$ for projective variety $X$ were first constructed by the authors. Their idea is to construct a virtual normal cone embedded in a vector bundle based on the obstruction theory of stable morphisms [@LT1]. An alternative construction of such cones was achieved by Behrend and Fantechi [@BF; @Be]. For general symplectic manifolds, such virtual moduli cycles were constructed by the authors, and independently, by Fukaya and Ono [@FO; @LT2]. Shortly after them, B. Siebert \[Si\] and later, Y. Ruan \[Ru2\] gave different constructions of such virtual moduli cycles. Both Siebert and Ruan’s approach needs to construct global, finite-dimensional resolutions of so called cokernel bundles (cf. [@Si] and [@Ru2], Appendix).
However, one question remains to be investigated. Namely, if $X$ is a smooth projective variety then on one hand we have the algebraically constructed GW-invariants, and on the other hand, by viewing $X$ as a symplectic manifold using the Kähler form on $X$, we have the GW-invariants constructed using analytic method. These two approaches are drastically different. One may expect, although far from clear, that for smooth projective varieties the algebraic GW-invariants and their symplectic counterparts are identical.
The main goal of this paper is to prove what was expected is indeed true.
Let $X$ be any smooth projective variety with a Kähler form $\omega$. Then the algebraically constructed GW-invariants of $X$ coincide with the analytically constructed GW-invariants of the symplectic manifold $(X^{{\rm top}},\omega)$.
This result was first announced in \[LT2\]. Its proof was outlined in \[LT3\]. During the preparation of the paper, we learned from B. Siebert that he was able to prove a similar result.
We now outline the proof of our Comparison Theorem. We begin with a few words on the algebraic construction of the virtual moduli cycle. Let $w\in\mgnab$ be any point associated to the stable morphism $f\mh \Sigma\to X$. It follows from the deformation theory of stable morphisms that there is a complex $\cC_w$, canonical up to quasi-isomorphisms, such that its first cohomology $\cH^1(\cC_w)$ is the space of the first order deformations of the map $w$, and its second cohomology $\cH^2(\cC_w)$ is the obstruction space to deformations of the map $w$. Let $\varphi_w$ be a Kuranishi map of the obstruction theory of $w$. Note that $\varphi_w$ is the germ of a holomorphic map from a neighborhood of the origin $o\in\CC^{m_1}$ to $\CC^{m_2}$, where $m_i=\dim\cH^i(\cC_w)$. Let $\hat o$ be the formal completion of $\CC^{m_1}$ along $o$ and let $\hat w$ be the subscheme of $\hat o$ defined by the vanishing of $\varphi_w$. Note that $\hat w$ is isomorphic to the formal completion of $\mgnab$ along $w$ (Here as before we will ignore the issue of non-trivial automorphism groups of maps in $\mgnab$). This says that “near” $w$, the scheme $\mgnab$ is a “subset” of $\CC^{m_1}$ defined by the vanishing of $m_2$-equations. Henceforth, it these equations are in general position, them $\dim\hat w=m_1-m_2$, which is the expected dimension $r\lexp$ we mentioned before. The case where $\mgnab$ has dimension bigger than $r\lexp$ is exactly when the vanishing locus of these $m_2$- equations in $\varphi_w$ do not meet properly near $o$. Following the excess intersection theory of Fulton and MacPherson [@Fu], the “correct” cycle should come from first constructing the normal cone $C_{\hat w/\hat o}$ to $\hat w$ in $\hat o$, which is canonically a subcone of $\hat w\times \CC^{m_2}$, and then intersect the cone with the zero section of $\hat w\times\CC^{m_2}\to\hat w$. The next step is to patch these cones together to form a global cone over $\mgna$. The main difficulty in doing so comes from the fact that the dimensions $\cH^2(\cC_w)$ can and do vary as $w$ vary, only $\dim\cH^1(\cC_w)-\dim\cH^2(\cC_w)$ is a topological number. This makes the cones $C_{\hat w/\hat o}$ to sit inside bundles of varying ranks. To overcome this difficulty, the authors came with the idea of finding a global $\QQ$-vector bundle $E_2$ over $\mgnab$ and a subcone $N$ of $E_2$ such that near fibers over $w$, the cone $N$ is a fattening of the cone $C_{\hat w/\hat o}$ (See section 3 or [@LT1] for more details). In the end, we let $j$ be the zero section of $E_2$ and let $j\sta$ be the Gysin map $$A\lsta E_2\lra A\lsta\mgnab,$$ where $A\lsta$ denote the Chow-cohomology group (see [@Fu]). Then the algebraic virtual moduli cycle is $$[\mgnab]\vir=j\sta([N])\in A_{r\lexp}\mgnab.$$
Now let us recall briefly the analytic construction of GW-invariants of symplectic manifolds. Let $(X,\omega)$ be any smooth symplectic manifold with $J$ a tamed almost complex structure. For $A$, $g$ and $n$ as before, we can form the moduli space of $J$-holomorphic maps $f\mh \Sigma\to X$ where $\Sigma$ are $n$-pointed smooth Riemann surfaces such that $f\lsta([\Sigma])=A$. We denote this space by $\mgna\uj$. It is a finite dimensional topological space. As before, we compactify it to include all $J$-holomorphic maps whose domains are possibly with nodal singularities. We denote the compactified space by $\mgnab\uj$. To proceed, we will embed $\mgnab\uj$ inside an ambient space $\bB$ and realize it as the vanishing locus of a section of a “vector bundle”. Without being precise, the space $\bB$ is the space of all [*smooth*]{} maps $f
\in\bB$ from possibly nodal $n$-pointed Riemann surfaces to $X$, the fiber of the bundle over $f$ are all $(0,1)$-forms over domain$(f)$ with values in $f\sta T_X$ and the section is the one that sends $f$ to $\dbar f$. We denote this bundle by $\bE$ and the section by $\Phi$. Clearly, $\Phi\upmo(0)$ is homeomorphic to $\mgnab\uj$. Defining the GW-invariants of $(X,\omega)$ is essentially about constructing the Euler class of $[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$. This does not make much sense since $\bB$ is an infinite dimensional topological space. Although at each $w\in\Phi\upmo(0)$ the formal differential $d\Phi(w)\mh T_w\bB\to\bE_w$ is Fredholm, which has real index $2r\lexp$, the conventional perturbation scheme does not apply directly since near maps in $\bB$ whose domains are singular the space $\bB$ is not smooth and $\bE$ does not admit local trivializations. To overcome this difficulty, the authors introduced the notion of weakly $\QQ$-Fredholm bundles, and showed in [@LT2] that $[\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE]$ is a weakly $\QQ$-Fredholm bundle and that any weakly $\QQ$-Fredholm bundle admits an Euler class. Let $$e[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]\in H_{2r\lexp}(\bB;\QQ)$$ be the the Euler class of $[\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE]$. Since the evaluation map of $\mgna\uj$ extends to an evaluation map ${\mathbf e}\mh\bB\to X^n$, the Euler class, which will also be referred to as the symplectic virtual cycle of $\mgnab\uj$, defines a multi-linear map $\gamma_{A,g,n}^{X,J}$ as in . We will review the notion of weakly smooth Fredholm bundles in section 2. Here to say the least, $[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$ is weakly Fredholm means that near each point of $\Phi\upmo(0)$ we can find a finite rank subbundle $V$ of $\bE$ such that $W=\Phi\upmo(V)$ is a smooth finite dimensional manifold, $V|_W$ is a smooth vector bundle and the lift $\phi\mh W\to V|_W$ of $\Phi$ is smooth. (Note that the rank of $V$ may vary but $\dim_{\RR}W-\operatorname{rank}_{\RR} V=2r\lexp$). For such finite models $[\phi\mh W\to V|_W]$, which are called weakly smooth approximations, we can perturb $\phi$ slightly to obtain $\phi\pri$ so that $\phi^{\prime-1}(0)$ are smooth manifolds in $W$. To construct the Euler class, we first cover a neighborhood of $\Phi\upmo(0)$ in $\bB$ by finitely many such approximations that satisfy certain compatibility condition. We then perturb each section in the approximation and obtain a collection of locally closed $\QQ$-submanifolds of $\bB$ of dimension $2r\lexp$. By imposing certain compatibility condition on the perturbations, this collection of $\QQ$-submanfolds patch together to form a $2r\lexp$-dimensional cycle in $\bB$, which represents a homology class in $H_{2r\lexp}(\bB;\QQ)$. This is the Euler class of $[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$.
Now we assume that $X$ is a smooth projective variety and $\omega$ is a Kähler form of $X$. Let $J$ be the complex structure of $X$. Then $\mgnab$ is homeomorphic to $\mgnab\uj$. Hence the two GW-invariants $\gamma_{A,g,n}^X$ and $\gamma_{A,g,n}^{X,J}$ are identical if the homology classes $[\mgnab]\vir$ and $e[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$ will be identical. Here we view $[\mgnab]\vir$ as a class in $H\lsta(\bB;\QQ)$ using $$\mgnab\sim_{{\rm homeo}}\mgnab\uj\sub\bB.$$ To illustrate why these two classes are equal, let us first look at the following simple model. Let $Z$ be a compact smooth variety and let $E$ be a holomorphic vector bundle over $Z$ with a holomorphic section $s$. There are two ways to construct the Euler classes of $E$. One is to perturb $s$ to a smooth section $r$ so that the graph of $r$ is transversal to the zero section of $E$, and then define the Euler class of $E$ to be the homology class in $H\lsta(Z;\QQ)$ of $r\upmo(0)$. This is the topological construction of the Euler class of $E$. The algebraic construction is as follows. Let $t$ be a large scalar and let $\Gamma_{ts}$ be the graph of $ts$ in the total space of $E$. Since $s$ is an algebraic section, it follows that the limit $$\Gamma_{\infty s} =\lim_{t\to\infty}\Gamma_{ts}$$ is a complex dimension $\dim Z$ cycle supported on union of subvarieties of $E$. We then let $r$ be a smooth section of $E$ in general position and let $\Gamma_{\infty s}\cap
\Gamma_r$ be their intersection. Its image in $Z$ defines a homology class, which is the image of the Gysin map $j\sta([C])$, where $j$ is the zero section of $E$. The reason that $$e(E)=[r\upmo(0)]=j\sta([\Gamma_{\infty s}])\in H\lsta(Z;\QQ)$$ is that if we choose $r$ to be in general position, then $$[r\upmo(0)]=[\Gamma_r\cap\Gamma_0]=[\Gamma_r\cap\Gamma_s],$$ and the family $\{\Gamma_{ts}\cap\Gamma_r\}_{t\in[1,\infty]}$ forms a homotopy of the cycles $\Gamma_s\cap\Gamma_r$ and $\Gamma_{\infty s}\cap \Gamma_r$. One important remark is that the cone $\Gamma_{\infty s}$ is contained in $E|_{s\upmo(0)}$ and the intersection of $\Gamma_{\infty s}$ and $\Gamma_r$ in $E$ is the same as their intersection in $E|_{s\upmo(0)}$.
Back to our construction of GW-invariants, the analytic construction of GW-invariants, which was based on perturbations of sections in the finite models (weakly smooth approximations) $[\phi\mh W\to V|_W]$, is clearly a generalization of the topological construction of the Euler classes of vector bundles. As to the algebraic construction of GW-invariants, it is based on a cone in a $\QQ$-vector bundle over $\mgnab$. Comparing to the algebraic construction of the Euler class of $E\to Z$, what is missing is the section $s$ and that the cone is the limit of the graphs of the dilations of $s$. Following [@LT1], the cone $\Gamma_{\infty s}$ only relies on the restriction of $s$ to an “infinitesimal” neighborhood of $s\upmo(0)$ in $Z$, and can also be reconstructed using the Kuranishi maps of the obstruction theory to deformations of points in $s\upmo(0)$ induced by the defining equation $s=0$. Along this line, to each finite model $[\phi\mh W\to V|_W]$ we can form a cone $\Gamma_{\infty \phi}=\lim
\Gamma_{t\phi}$ in $V|_{\phi\upmo(0)}$. Hence to show that the two virtual moduli cycles coincide, it suffices to establish a relation, similar to quasi-isomorphism of complexes, between the cone $N$ constructed based the obstruction theory of $\mgnab$ and the collection $\{\Gamma_{\infty\phi}\}$. In the end, this is reduced to showing that the obstruction theory to deformations of maps in $\mgnab$ is identical to the obstruction theory to deformations of elements in $\phi\upmo(0)$ induced by the defining equation $\phi$. This identification of two obstruction theories follows from the canonical isomorphism of the Cěch cohomology and the Dolbeault cohomology of vector bundles.
The layout of the paper is as follows. In section two, we will recall the analytic construction of the GW-invariants of symplectic manifolds. We will construct the Euler class of $[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$ in details using the weakly smooth approximations constructed in [@LT2]. In section three, we will construct a collection of holomorphic weakly smooth approximations for projective manifolds. The proof of the Comparisom Theorem will occupy the last section of this paper.
Symplectic construction of GW invariants
========================================
The goal of this section is to review the symplectic construction of the GW-invariants of algebraic varieties. We will emphasize on those parts that are relevant to our proof of the Comparison Theorem.
In this section,we will work mainly with real manifolds and will use the standard notation in real differential geometry.
We begin with the symplectic construction of GW-invariants. Let $X$ be a smooth complex projective variety, and let $A\in H_2(X,\ZZ)$ and let $g,\, n\in\ZZ$ be fixed once and for all. We recall the notion of stable $C^l$-maps [@LT2 Definition 2.1].
An $n$-pointed stable map is a collection $(f;\Sigma;x_1\ldots,x_n)$ satisfying the following property: First, $(\Sigma;x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ is an $n$-pointed connected prestable complex curve with normal crossing singularity; Secondly, $f\mh\Sigma\to X$ is continuous, and the composite $f\circ\pi$ is smooth, where $\pi\mh\tilde\Sigma\to\Sigma$ is the normalization of $\Sigma$; And thirdly, if we let $S\sub\Sigma$ be the union of singular locus of $\Sigma$ with its marked points, then any rational component $R\sub\tilde{\Sigma}$ satisfying $(f\circ \pi)\lsta([R])=0\in H_2(X,\ZZ)$ must contains at least three points in $\pi\upmo(S)$.
For convenience, we will abbreviate $(f;\Sigma;x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ to $(f;\Sigma;\{x_i\})$. Later, we will use $\cC$ to denote an arbitrary stable map and use $f_{\cC}$ and $\Sigma_{\cC}$ to denote its corresponding mapping and domain. Two stable maps $(f;\Sigma;\{x_i\})$ and $(f\pri;\Sigma\pri;\{x\pri_i\})$ are said to be equivalent if there is an isomorphism $\rho\mh\Sigma\to\Sigma\pri$ such that $f\pri\circ\rho=f$ and $x_i\pri=\rho(x_i)$. When $(f;\Sigma;\{x_i\})\equiv(f\pri;\Sigma\pri;\{x\pri_i\})$, such a $\rho$ is called an automorphism of $(f;\Sigma;\{x_i\})$.
We let $\bB$ be the space of equivalence classes $[\cC]$ of $C^l$-stable maps $\cC$ such that the arithmetic genus of $\Sigma_{\cC}$ is $g$ and $f_{\cC\ast}([\Sigma])=A\in H_2(X;\ZZ)$. Note that $\bB$ was denoted by $\bar{\cF}^l_A(X,g,n)$ in [@LT2]. Over $\bB$ there is a generalized bundle $\bE$ defined as follows. Let $\cC$ be any stable map and let $\tilde f_{\cC}\mh\tilde \Sigma_{\cC}\to X$ be the composite of $f_{\cC}$ with $\pi\mh\tilde\Sigma_{\cC}\to\Sigma_{\cC}$. We define $\lamzo_{\cC}$ to be the space of all $C^{l-1}$-smooth sections of $(0,1)$-forms of $\tilde\Sigma$ with values in ${\tilde f}\sta TX$. Assume $\cC$ and $\cC\pri$ are two equivalent stable maps with $\rho\mh\Sigma_{\cC}
\to\Sigma_{\cC\pri}$ the associated isomorphism, then there is a canonical isomorphism $\lamzo_{\cC\pri}\cong\lamzo_{\cC}$. We let $\lamzo_{[\cC]}$ be $\lamzo_{\cC}/\operatorname{Aut}(\cC)$. Then the union $$\bE=\bigcup_{[\cC]\in\bB} \lamzo_{[\cC]}$$ is a fibration over $\bB$ whose fibers are finite quotients of infinite dimensional linear spaces. There is a natural section $$\Phi: \bB\lra\bE$$ defined as follows. For any stable map $\cC$, we define $\Phi(\cC)$ to be the image of $\dbar f_{[\cC]}\in\lamzo_{\cC}$ in $\lamzo_{[\cC]}$. Obviously, for $\cC\sim\cC\pri$ we have $\Phi(\cC)=\Phi(\cC\pri)$. Thus $\Phi$ descends to a map $\bB\to\bE$, which we still denote by $\Phi$.
>From now on, we will denote by $\mgna$ the moduli scheme of stable moprhisms $f\mh C\to X$ with $n$-marked points such that $C$ is (possibly with nodal singularities) has arithmetic genus $g$ with $f\lsta([C])=A$.
The vanishing locus of $\Phi$ is canonically homeomorphic to the underlying topological space of $\mgna$.
A stable $C^l$-stable map ${\cC}$ in $\bB$ belongs to the vanishing locus of $\Phi$ if and only if $f_{\cC}$ is holomorphic. Since $\Sigma_{\cC}$ is compact, $\cC$ is the underlying analytic map of a stable morphism. Hence there is a canonical map $\Phi\upmo(0)\to \mgna\top$, which is one-to-one and onto. This proves the lemma.
To discuss the smoothness of $\Phi$, we need the local uniformizing charts of $\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE$ near $\Phi\upmo(0)$. Let $w\in\bB$ be any point represented by the stable map $(f_0;\Sigma_0;\{x_i\})$ with automorphism group $G_{w}$. We pick integers $r_1, r_2>0$ and smooth ample divisors $H_1,\ldots,H_{r_2}$ with $[H_i]\cdot[A]=r_1$ such that all $f_0\upmo(H_i)$ are contained in the smooth locus of $\Sigma_0$ and that for any $x\in f_0\upmo(H_i)$ we have $$\operatorname{Im}(df_0(x))+T_{f(x)}H_i= T_{f(x)}X.
\lab{eq:1.1}$$ Now let $U\sub \bB$ be a sufficiently small neighborhood of $w\in\bB$ and let $\tilu$ be the collection of all $(\cC; z_{n+1},\ldots,z_{n+r_1r_2})$ such that $\cC\in U$ and the $z_i$’s is a collection of smooth points of $\Sigma_{\cC}$ such that for each $1\leq j\leq r_2$ the subcollection $(z_{n+(j-1)r_1+1},\ldots,z_{n+jr_1})$ contains distinct points and is exactly $f_{\cC}\upmo(H_j)$. Note that we do not require $(z_{n+1},\ldots,z_{n+r_1r_2})$ to be distinct. [^3] Let $\pitilu\mh\tilu\to U$ be the projection that sends $(\cC;z_{n+1},\ldots,z_{n+r_1r_2})$ to $\cC$. Clearly, $G_w$ acts on $\pi_U\upmo(w)$ canonically by permuting their $(n+r_1r_2)$-marked points. Namely, for any $\sigma\in G_w$ and $\cC\in\pi_U\upmo(w)$ with marked points $z_1,\ldots,z_{n+r_1r_2}$, $\sigma(\cC)$ is the same map with the marked points $\sigma(z_1),\ldots,\sigma(z_{n+r_1r_2})$. In particular, we can view $G_w$ as a subgroup of the permutation group $S_{n+r_1r_2}$. Hence $G_w$ acts on $\tilde U$ by permuting the marked points of $\cC\in\tilde U$ according to the inclusion $G_w\sub S_{n+r_1r_2}$. Note that if $H_i$’s are in general position then elements in $\tilu$ has no automorphisms and have distinct marked points. Let $G\ltilu=G_w$. Since fibers of $\pi_U$ are invariant under $G\ltilu$, $\pi_U$ induces a map $\tilu/G\ltilu\to U$, which is obviously a covering [^4] if $U$ is sufficiently small. Further, if we let $$\bE\ltilu=\bigcup_{\cC\in\tilu} \lamzo_{\cC}$$ and let $\Phi\ltilu\mh\tilu\to\bE\ltilu$ be the section that sends $\cC$ to $\dbar f_{\cC}$, then $\Phi\ltilu$ is $G\ltilu$-equivariant and $\Phi|_U\mh U\to \bE|_U$ is the descent of $\Phi\ltilu/G\ltilu\mh\tilu/G\ltilu\to\bE\ltilu/G\ltilu$. Note that fibers of $\bE\ltilu$ over $\tilu$ are linear spaces. Following the convention, we will call $\Lambda=(\tilu,\etilu,\phitilu,\gtilu)$ a uniformizing chart of $(\bB,\bE,\Phi)$ over $U$. Let $V\sub U$ be an open subset and let $\tilde V=\pi_U\upmo(V)$, let $G\ltilv=G\ltilu$, let $\bE\ltilv=\bE\ltilu|_{\ltilv}$ and let $\Phi\ltilv=\Phi\ltilu|\ltilv$. We will call $\Lambda\pri=(\tilde V,\bE\ltilv,\Phi\ltilv, G\ltilv)$ a uniformizing chart of $(\bB,\bE,\Phi)$ that is the [*restriction*]{} of the original chart to $V$, and denoted by $\Lambda|_V$. We can also construct uniformizing charts by pull back. Let $G\ltilv$ be a finite group acting effectively on a topological space $\tilde V$, let $G\ltilv\to G\ltilu$ be a homomorphism and $\varphi\mh \tilde V\to\tilde U$ be a $G\ltilv$-equivariant map so that $\tilde V/G\ltilv\to \tilde U/G\ltilu$ is a local covering map. Then we set $\bE\ltilv=\varphi\sta\bE\ltilu$ and $\Phi\ltilv=\varphi\sta\Phi\ltilu$. The data $\Lambda\pri=(\tilde V,\bE\ltilv,\Phi\ltilv, G\ltilv)$ is also a uniformizing chart. We will call $\Lambda\pri$ the [*pull back*]{} of $\Lambda$, and denoted by $\varphi\sta\Lambda$. In the following, we will denote the collection of all uniformizing charts of $(\bB,\bE,\Phi)$ by $\C$.
The collection $\C$ has the following compatibility property. Let $$\Lambda_i=(\tilu_i,\bE_{\tilu_i},\Phi_{\tilu_i}, G_{\tilu_i}),$$ where $i=1,\ldots,k$, be a collection of uniformizing charts in $\C$ over $U_i\sub\bB$ respectively. Let $p\in\cap_{i=1}^k U_i$ be any point. Then there is a uniformizing chart $\Lambda=(\tilv,\bE_{\tilv},\Phi_{\tilv},G_{\tilv})$ over $V\sub\cap^k U_i$ with $p\in V$ such that there are homomorphisms $G_{\tilv}\to G_{\tilu_i}$ and equivariant local covering maps $\varphi_i\mh\tilv\to\pi_{U_i}\upmo(V)
\sub\tilu_i$ compatible with $\tilv\to V$ and $\pi_{U_i}\upmo(V)\to V\sub U_i$, such that $\varphi_i\sta(\bE_{\tilu_i},\Phi_{\tilu_i})
\cong (\bE_{\tilv},\Phi_{\tilv})$. In this case, we say $\Lambda$ is [*finer than*]{} $\Lambda_i|_{V}$.
The main difficulty in constructing the GW invariants in this setting is that the smoothness of $(\tilu,\etilu,\phitilu)$ is unclear when $U$ contains maps whose domains are singular. To overcome this difficulty, the authors introduced the notion of generalized Fredholm bundles in [@LT2]. The main result of [@LT2] is the following theorems, which enable them to construct the GW invariants for all symplectic manifolds.
The data $[\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE]$ is a generalized oriented Fredholm V-bundle of relative index $2r\lexp$, where $r\lexp=
c_1(X)\cdot A+n+(n-3)(1-g)$ is half of the virtual (real) dimension of $\Phi\upmo(0)$.
For any generalized oriented Fredholm V-bundle $[ \Phi\mh \bB\to\bE]$ of relative index $r$, we can assign to it an Euler class $e([\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE])$ in $H_r(\bB;\QQ)$ that satisfies all the expected properties of the Euler classes.
As explained in the introduction, the pairing of the Euler class of $[\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE]$ with the tautological topological class will give rise to the symplectic version of the GW invariants of $X$. Further, the Comparison Theorem we set out to prove amounts to compare this Euler class with the image of the virtual moduli cycle $[\mgna]\vir$ in $H_r(\bB;\QQ)$ via the inclusion $\mgna\top\sub\bB$. In the remainder part of this section, we will list all properties of $ [\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE] $ that are relevant to the construction of its Euler class. This list is essentially equivalent to saying that $ [\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE] $ is a generalized oriented Fredholm V-bundle. After that, we will construct the Euler class of $ [\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE] $ in details.
We begin with the notion of weakly smooth structure. A local smooth approximation of $[\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE]$ over $U\sub \bB$ is a pair $(\Lambda,V)$, where $\Lambda=(\tilu,\etilu,\phitilu,G\ltilu)$ is a uniformizing chart over $U$ and $V$ is a finite equi-rank $G\ltilu$-vector bundle over $\tilu$ that is a $\gtilu$-equivariant subbundle of $\etilu$ such that $R_V\eqdef \phitilu\upmo(V)\sub\tilu$ is an equi-dimensional smooth manifold, $V|_{R_V}$ is a smooth vector bundle and the lifting $\phi_V\mh R_V\to V|\lrv$ of $\phitilu|\lrv$ is a smooth section. An orientation of $(\Lambda,V)$ is a $G_{\tilv}$-invariant orientation of the real line bundle $\wedge\top(TR_V)\otimes\wedge\top
(V|_{R_V})\upmo$ over $R_V$. We call $\operatorname{rank}V-\dim R_V$ the index of $(\Lambda,V)$ (We remind that all ranks and dimensions in this section are over reals). Now assume that $(\Lambda\pri,V\pri)$ is another weakly smooth structure of identical index over $W\sub\bB$. We say that $(\Lambda\pri,V\pri)$ is finer than $(\Lambda,V)$ if the following holds. First, the restriction $\Lambda\pri|_{W\cap U}$ is finer than $\Lambda|_{W\cap U}$; Secondly, if we let $\varphi\mh
\pi_W\upmo(W\cap U)\to\pi_U\upmo(W\cap U)$ be the covering map then $\varphi\sta V\sub \varphi\sta\etilu\equiv
\bE\ltilw|_{\pi_W\upmo(W\cap U)}$ is a subbundle of $V\pri|_{\pi_W\upmo(W\cap U)}$; Thirdly, for any $w\in\tilw$ the homomorphism $
T_wR_{V\pri}\to \bl V\pri/\varphi\sta V\br |_w$ induced by $d\phi_{V\pri}(w)\mh T_wR_V\to V\pri|_w$ is surjective, and the map $\phi_{V\pri}\upmo(\varphi\sta V)\to R_V$ induced by $\varphi$ is a local diffeomorphism between smooth manifolds. Note that the last condition implies that if we identify $T_{\varphi(w)}R_V$ with $T_w\phi_{V\pri}\upmo(\varphi\sta V)
\sub T_w R_{V\pri}$, then the induced homomorphism $$\lab{eq:1.2}
T_wR_{V\pri}
/T_{\varphi(w)}R_V\lra \bl V\pri/\varphi\sta V)|_w$$ is an isomorphism. In case both $(\Lambda,V)$ and $(\Lambda\pri,V\pri)$ are oriented, then we require that the orientation of $(\Lambda,V)$ coincides with that of $(\Lambda\pri,V\pri)$ based on the isomorphism $$\lab{eq:1.3}
\wedge\top(T_w R_{V\pri})\otimes\wedge\top(V\pri|_w)\upmo\cong
\wedge\top(T_{\varphi(w)}R_V)\otimes\wedge\top(V|_{\varphi(w)})\upmo$$ induced by .
Now let $\A=\{(\Lambda_i,V_i)\}_{i\in\cK}$ be a collection of oriented smooth approximations of $(\bB,\bE,\Phi)$. In the following, we will denote by $U_i$ the open subsets of $\bB$ such that $\wedge_i$ is a smooth chart over $U_i$. We say $\A$ covers $\phi\upmo(0)$ if $\phi\upmo(0)$ is contained in the union of the images of $U_i$ in $\bB$.
An index $r$ oriented weakly smooth structure of $(\bB,\bE,\Phi)$ is a collection $\A=\{(\Lambda_i,V_i)\}_{i\in\cK}$ of index $r$ oriented smooth approximations such that $\A$ covers $\Phi\upmo(0)$ and that for any $(\Lambda_i,V_i)$ and $(\Lambda_j,V_j)$ in $\A$ with $p\in U_i\cap U_j$, there is a $(\Lambda_k,V_k)\in\A$ such that $p\in U_k$ and $(\Lambda_k,V_k)$ is finer than $(\Lambda_i,V_i)$ and $(\Lambda_j,V_j)$.
Let $\A\pri$ be another index $r$ oriented weakly smooth structure of $(\bB,\bE,\Phi)$. We say $\A\pri$ is finer than $\A$ if for any $(\Lambda,V)\in\A$ over $U\sub\bB$ and $p\in U\cap\Phi\upmo(0)$, there is a $(\Lambda\pri,V\pri)\in\A\pri$ over $U\pri$ such that $p\in U\pri$ and $(\Lambda\pri,V\pri)$ is finer than $(\Lambda,V)$. We say that two weakly smooth structures $\A_1$ and $\A_2$ are equivalent if there is a third weakly smooth structure that is finer than both $\A_1$ and $\A_2$.
The tuple $(\bB,\bE,\Phi)$ constructed at the beginning of this section admits a canonical oriented weakly smooth structure of index $2r\lexp$.
We remark that the construction of such a weakly smooth structure is the core of the analytic part of \[LT2\].
In the following, we will use the weakly smooth structure of $[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$ to construct its Euler class. The idea of the construction is as follows. Given a local smooth approximation $(\Lambda,V)$ over $U\sub\bB$, we obtain a smooth manifold $R_V$, a vector bundle $V|\lrv$ and a smooth section $\phi_V\mh R_V\to V|\lrv$. Following the topological construction of the Euler classes, we shall perturb $\phi_V$ to a new section $\tilde\phi_V\mh R_V\to V|\lrv$ so that $\tilde\phi_V$ is transversal to the zero section of $V|\lrv$. Here by a section transversal to the zero section, we mean that the graph of this section is transversal to the zero section in the total space of the vector bundle. Hence the Euler class will be the cycle represented by ${\tilde\phi_V}\upmo(0)$ near $U$. Since the weakly smooth structure of $\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE$ is given by a collection of compatible by not necessary matching local smooth approximations, we need to work out this perturbation scheme with special care so that $\{\tilde\phi_V\upmo(0)\}$ patch together to form a well-defined cycle.
Let $\A=\{(\Lambda\lalp,V\lalp)\}_{\alpha\in\cK}$ be the weakly smooth structure provided by Proposition \[1.6\]. For convenience, for any $\alpha\in\cK$ we will denote the corresponding uniformizing chart $\Lambda\lalp$ by $(\tilu\lalp,\etil\lalp,\Phitil\lalp,G\lalp)$ and will denote its descent by $(U\lalp,E\lalp,\Phi\lalp)$. Accordingly, we will denote the projection $\pi_{U\lalp}\mh\util\lalp\to U\lalp$ by $\pi\lalp$, denote ${\tilde\Phi\lalp}\upmo(V\lalp)$ by $R\lalp$, denote $V\lalp|_{R\lalp}$ by $W\lalp$ and denote the lifting of $\tilde\Phi\lalp|_{R\lalp}
\mh R\lalp\to\tile\lalp|_{R\lalp}$ by $\phi\lalp\mh R\lalp\to W\lalp$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that for any approximation $(\Lambda\lalp,V\lalp)\in\A$ over $U\lalp$ and any $U\pri\sub U\lalp$, the restriction $(\Lambda\lalp,V\lalp)|_{U\pri}$ is also a member in $\A$. In the following, we call $S\sub R\lalp$ [*symmetric*]{} if $S=\pi\lalp\upmo(\pi\lalp(S))$.
Next, we pick a covering data for $\Phi\upmo(0)\sub\bB$ provided by the following covering lemma.
There is a finite collection $\cL\sub\cK$ and a total ordering of $\cL$ of which the following holds. the set $\Phi\upmo(0)$ is contained in the union of $\{R\lalp\}_{\alpha\in\cL}$ and for any $\alpha$ and $\beta\in\cL$ such that $\alpha<\beta$ then approximation $(\Lambda\lbe,V\lbe)$ is finer than the approximation $(\Lambda\lalp,V\lalp)$.
The lemma is part of Proposition 2.2 in [@LT2]. It is proved there by using the stratified structures of $(\bB,\bE,\Phi)$. Here we will give a direct proof of this by using the definition of smooth approximations, when $\Phi\upmo(0)$ is triangulable, which is true when $X$ is projective. Let $k$ be the real dimension of $\Phi\upmo(0)$. To prove the lemma, we will show that there are $k+1$ subsets $\cL_k,\ldots,\cL_0\sub\cK$ and that for each $\alpha\in\cup_{i=0}^k\cL_i$ there is an open symmetric subset $U\lalp\pri\subb U\lalp$ such that $R\lalp\pri=R\lalp\cap\pi\lalp\upmo(U\lalp\pri)\subb R\lalp$ of which the following holds: first, for each $i\leq k$ the set $Z_i=\Phi\upmo(0)-\cup_{j\geq i}\cup_{\alpha\in\cL_j} U\lalp\pri$ is a triangulable space whose dimension is at most $i-1$, and secondly, for any pair of distinct $(\alpha,\beta)\in\cL_i\times\cL_j$ with $i\leq j$, the restriction $(\Lambda\lalp,V\lalp)|_{U\lalp\pri\cap U\lbe\pri}$ is finer than $(\Lambda\lbe,V\lbe)|_{U\lalp\pri\cap U\lbe\pri}$. We will construct $\cL_i$ inductively, starting from $\cL_k$. We first pick a finite $\cL_k\sub\cK$ so that $\cup_{\alpha\in\cL_k} U\lalp
\supset \Phi\upmo(0)$. This is possible since $\Phi\upmo(0)$ is compact. Since it is also triangulable, we can find a symmetric $U\lalp\pri\sub U\lalp$ for each $\alpha\in\cL_k$ so that $\{U\pri\lalp\}_{\alpha\in\cL_k}$ is disjoint, $R\lalp\pri\subb R\lalp$ and $Z_k$ is trangulable with dimension at most $k-1$. Now we assume that we have found $\cL_k,\ldots,\cL_i$ as desired. Then for each $x\in Z_i$ we can find a neighborhood $O$ of $x\in\bB$ such that for any $\alpha\in\cup_{j\geq i}\cL_j$ either $x\in U\lalp$ or $O\cap U\lalp\pri=\emptyset$. Let $\cI_x$ be those $\alpha$ in $\cup_{j\geq i}\cL\lalp$ such that $x\in U\lalp$. Then by the property of $\A$ there is a $\beta\in\cK$ so that $(\Lambda\lbe,V\lbe)$ is finer than $(\Lambda\lalp,V\lalp)|_{U\lalp\pri}$ for all $\alpha\in\cI_x$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $U\lbe\sub O$. Then $(\Lambda\lbe,V\lbe)$ is finer than $(\Lambda\lalp,V\lalp)$ for all $\alpha\in\cup_{j\geq i}\cL_j$. Since $Z_i$ is compact, we can cover it by finitely many such $(\Lambda\lbe,V\lbe)$’s, say indexed by $\cL_{i-1}\sub\cK$. On the other hand, since $Z_i$ is triangulable with dimension at most $i-1$, we can find symmetric $U\lalp\pri\sub U\lalp$ for each $\alpha\in\cL_{i-1}$ so that $R\pri\lalp\subb R\lalp$ for $\alpha\in\cL_{i-1}$ and $Z_i-\cup_{\alpha\in\cL_{i-1}} U\lalp\pri$ is trianglable with dimension at most $i-2$. This way, we can find the set $\cL_k,\ldots,
\cL_0$ as desired. In the end, we simply put $\cL=\cup_{i=0}^k\cL_i$. We give it a total ordering so that whenever $\alpha\in\cL_i$, $i\geq j$ and $\beta\in\cL_j$ then $\alpha\leq\beta$. This proves the Lemma.
We now fix such a collection $\cL$ once and for all. Since $\cL$ is totally ordered, in the following we will replace the index by integers that range from 1 to $\#(\cL)$ and use $k$ to denote an arbitrary member of $\cL$. We first build the comparison data into the collection $\{R_k\}_{k\in\cL}$ and $\{W_k\}_{k\in\cL}$. To distinguish the projection $\pi_k\mh\util_k\to U_k$ from the composite $\util_k\to U_k\to\bB$, we will denote the later by $\iota_k$. For any pair $k\geq l$, we set $R\lkl=\iota_k\upmo(\iota_l(R_l))$. Then there is a canonical map and a canonical vector bundle inclusion $$\lab{eq:1.4}
f\ulk\mh R\lkl\to R_l
\and
(f\ulk)\sta(W_l)\mapright{\sub} W_k|_{R\lkl},$$ that is part of the data making $(\Lambda_k,V_k)$ finer than $(\Lambda_l,V_l)$. Note that $R_{k,l}\sub R_k$ is a locally closed submanifold, $f^l_k(R\lkl)$ is open in $R_l$ and $f\ulk\mh R\lkl\to f\ulk(R\lkl)$ is a covering map. Because of the compatibility condition, for any $k>l>m$ if $R\lkl\cap R_{k,m}\ne\emptyset$ then $f\ulk(R\lkl\cap R_{k,m})\sub R_{l,m}$ and $$f^m_l\circ f^l_k=f^m_k:
R\lkl\cap R_{k,m}\lra R_m.
\lab{eq:1.5}$$ Further, restricting to $R_{k,l}\cap R_{k,m}$, the pull backs $$\lab{eq:1.6}
(f_k^m)\sta(W_m)|_{R_{k,l}\cap R_{k,m}}
=(f\ulk)\sta(f^m_l)\sta(W_m)|_{R_{k,l}\cap R_{k,m}}
\sub W_k|_{R_{k,l}\cap R_{k,m}}.$$ In the following, we will use $\R$ to denote the collection of data $\{(R\lkl,f\ulk)\}$ and use $\W$ to denote the data $\{(W_k,(f\ulk)\sta)\}$. We will call the pair $(\R,\W)$ a good atlas of the weakly smooth structure $\A$ of $[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$. For technical reason, later we need to shrink each $R_k$ slightly. More precisely, let $\{ S_k\}_{k\in\cL}$ be a collection of symmetric open subsets $S_k\subb R_k$ such that $\{ S_k\}$ still covers $\Phi\upmo(0)$. We then let $S\lkl=(f^l_k)\upmo(S_l)\cap
S_k$, let $W_k\pri=W_k|_{S_k}$ and let $g^l_k$ and $(g^l_k)\sta$ be the restriction to $S\lkl$ of $f^l_k$ and $(f^l_k)\sta$ respectively. Then $(\fS,\W\pri)$, where $\fS=\{(S\lkl,g^l_k)\}$ and $\W\pri=
\{(W_k\pri,(g^l_k)\sta)\}$, is also a good atlas of $[\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE]$. We call it a precompact sub-atlas of $(\R,\W)$, and denote it in short by $\fS\subb\R$.
To describe the collection $\{\phi_k\}$, we need to introduce the notion of regular extension. Let $M$ be a manifold and $M_0\sub M$ be a locally closed submanifold. Let $V\to M$ be a smooth vector bundle and $V_0\to M_0$ a subbundle of $V|_{M_0}$. We assume that both $(M,V)$ and $(M_0,V_0)$ are oriented. We say that a section $h\mh M\to V$ is a smooth extension of $h_0\mh M_0\to V_0$ if both $h_0$ and $h$ are smooth and if the induced section $M_0\mapto{h_0} V_0\to V|_{M_0}$ is identical to the restriction $h|_{X_0}\mh X_0\to V_0$. We say $h$ is a regular extension of $h_0$ if in addition to $h$ being a smooth extension of $h_0$ we have that for any $x\in X_0$ the homomorphism $$dh(x): T_xM/T_xM_0\lra (V/V_0)|_x
\lab{eq:1.7}$$ is an isomorphism and the orientation of $(M,V)$ and $(M_0,V_0)$ are compatible over $M_0$ based on the isomorphism .
A collection $\{h_k\}_{k\in\cL}$ is called a smooth section of $\W$ if $h_k$ is a smooth section of $W_k$ for each $k\in\cL$ and $h_k$ is a smooth extension of $h_l$ for any pair $k\geq l$ in $\cL$. If in addition that $h_k$ is a regular extension of $h_l$ for all $k\geq l$, then we call $\{h_k\}$ a regular section of $\W$.
In the following, we will use $\h\mh\R\to\W$ to denote a smooth section with $\h$ understood to be $\{h_k\}_{k\in\cL}$. We set $\h\upmo(0)$ to be the collection $\{h_k\upmo(0)\}$ and set $\iota(\h\upmo(0))$ to be the union of $\iota_k(h_k\upmo(0))$ in $\bB$. We say $\h\upmo(0)$ is proper if $\iota(\h\upmo(0))$ is compact. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $\dim R_k>0$ for all $k\in\cL$. We say that $\h$ is transversal to the zero section $\mathbf 0\mh \R\to\W$ if $\h$ is a regular section and if for any $k\in\cL$ the graph $\Gamma_{h_k}$ of $h_k$ is transversal to the 0 section of $W_k$ in the total space of $W_k$.
Let the notation be as before. Then $\h\upmo(0)$ is proper if and only if there is a symmetric open subsets $R_k\pri\subb R_k$ for each $k\in\cL$ such that $\cup_{k\in\cL}\iota_k(h_k\upmo(0))\sub
\cup_{k\in\cL}\iota_k(R\pri_k)$ and such that for each $k\in\cL$, $$\lab{eq:1.8}
h_k\upmo(0)\cap (R_k- R_k\pri)
\sub\bl\bigcup_{l<k}(f\ulk)\upmo(R_l\pri)\br
\cup\bl \bigcup_{l>k}f\ulk(R\lkl\pri)\br.$$
We first assume that $Z=\cup_{k\in\cL} \iota_k(h_k\upmo(0))$ is compact. Then since $\{R_k\}_{k\in\cL}$ covers $Z$ and since $\dim R_k>0$, for each $k\in\cL$ we can find symmetric $R_k\pri\subb R_k$ so that $\{R_k\pri\}_{k\in\cL}$ still covers $Z$. Obviously, this implies . Conversely, if we have found $R_k\pri\sub R_k$ as stated in the lemma, then $\{\clo(\iota_k(R_k\pri))\cap Z\}$ will cover $Z$, where $\clo(A)$ is the closure of $A$. Since $\clo(\iota_k(R_k\pri))$ are compact and since $Z\cap \clo(\iota_k(R_k\pri))$ is closed in $\clo(\iota_k(R_k\pri))$, $Z$ is compact as well. This proves the lemma.
Let $\bphi\mh \R\to\W$ be the collection $\{\phi_k\}$ induced by $\{\tilde\Phi_k\}_{k\in\cL}$. Then $\bphi$ is a regular section with proper vanishing locus.
This is equivalent to the fact that $[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$ is a weakly Fredholm V-bundle, which was introduced and proved in [@LT2].
Now let $\h\mh\R\to\W$ be a regular section such that $\h$ is transversal to the zero section and $\h\upmo(0)$ is proper. We claim that the data $\{h_k\upmo(0)\}$ descends to an oriented current in $\bB$ with rational coefficients supported on a stratified set whose boundary is empty. In particular, it defines a singular homology class in $H\lsta(\bB,\QQ)$.
Recall that for each $k\in\cL$ the associated group $G_k$ acts on $R_k$ such that $R_k/G_k$ is a covering of $\iota_k(R_k)$. We let $m_k$ be the product of the order of $G_k$ with the number of the sheets of the covering $R_k/G_k\to\iota_k(R_k)$. Note that then the covering $R\lkl\to f\ulk(R\lkl)$ is an $m_k/m_l$-fold covering. Because $h_k$ is a regular extension of $(f\ulk)\sta(h_l)$, $(f\ulk)\sta(h_l)\upmo(0)$ is an open submanifold of $h_k\upmo(0)$ with identical orientations. Hence $\iota_k(h\upmo_k(0))$ and $\iota_l(h_l\upmo(0))$ patch together to form a stratified subset, and consequently the collection $\{\iota_k(h_k\upmo(0))\}_{k\in\cL}$ patch together to form a stratified subset, say $Z$, in $\bB$. Now we assign multiplicities to open strata of $Z$. Let $O_k=\iota_k(h_k\upmo(0))$. Since $O_k\sub Z$ is an open subset, we can assign multiplicities to $O_k$ so that as oriented current $[O_k]=\iota\lsta(\frac{1}{m_k}[
h_k\upmo(0)])$, where $[h_k\upmo(0)]$ is the current of the oriented manifold $h_k\upmo(0)$ with multiplicity one. Here the orientation of $h_k\upmo(0)$ is the one induced by the orientation of $(R_k,W_k)$. Using the fact that $R\lkl\to f\ulk(R\lkl)$ is a covering with $m_k/m_l$ sheets, the assignments of the multiplicities of $O_k$ and $O_l$ over $\iota_k(R_k)\cap\iota_l(R_l)$ coincide. Therefore $Z$ is an oriented stratified set of pure dimension with rational multiplicities. We let $[Z]$ be the corresponding current. It remains to check that $\partial[Z]=0$ as current. Clearly, $\partial[Z\cap O_k]\sub\clo(O_k)-O_k$. Since $\{O_k\cap Z\}$ is an open covering of $Z$, $\partial[Z]=0$ if $Z$ is compact. But this is what we have assumed in the first place. Later, we will denote the so constructed cycle by $$[\h\upmo(0)]\in H\lsta(\bB,\QQ).$$
In the remainder of this section, we will perturb the section $\bphi\mh\R\to\W$ to a new section so that it is transversal to the zero section and so that its vanishing locus is compact. The current defined by the vanishing locus of the perturbed section will define the Euler class of $[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$.
We begin with a collection $\cS=\{S_l\}_{l\in\cL}$ of symmetric open $S_k\subb R_k$ such that $\{\iota_l(S_l)\}$ cover $\iota(\bphi\upmo(0))$. For technical reason, we assume that for each $k\in\cL$ the boundary $\partial S_k$, which is defined to be $\clo(S_k)-S_k$ in $R_k$, is a smooth manifold of dimension $\dim S_k-1$. By slightly altering $S_k$ if necessarily, we can and do assume that $\partial S_k$ is transversal to $R\lkl$ along $\partial
S_k\cap (f\ulk)\upmo(\clo(S_l))$ for all $l<k$. (We will call such $\cS$ satisfying the transversality condition on its boundary.) Following the convention, we set $S\lkl=(f\ulk)\upmo(S_l)\cap S_k$. We now construct a collection of (closed) tubular neighborhoods of $S\lkl$ in $R_k$. We fix the index $k$ and consider the closed submanifold (with boundary) $\Sigma_l:=\clo(S\lkl)\sub R_k$. Because of the transversality condition on $\partial S_l$ and on $\partial S_k$, we can find a $D^h$-bundle $p_l\mh T_l\to \Sigma_l$, where $D^h$ is the closed unit ball in $\RR^h$ and $h=\dim R_k-\dim R\lkl$, and a smooth embedding $\eta_l\mh T_l\to R_k$ of which the following two conditions holds. First, the restriction of $\eta_l$ to the zero section $\Sigma_l\sub T_l$ is the original embedding $\Sigma_l\sub R_k$, and secondly $$\lab{eq:1.9}
\eta_l(p_l\upmo(\Sigma_l\cap \partial S_k ))\sub \partial S_k
\and
\eta_l(p_l\upmo(S_{k,l} ))\sub S_k.$$ For any $0<\eps<1$, we let $T_l\ueps\sub T_l$ be the closed $\eps$-ball subbundle of $T_l$. By abuse of notation, in the following we will not distinguish $T\ueps_l$ from its image $\eta_l(T_l\ueps)$ in $R_k$. We will call $T\ueps_l$ the $\eps$-tubular neighborhood of $\Sigma_l$ in $R_k$. One property we will use later is that if $R\lkl\cap R_{k,l\pri}\ne\emptyset$ for $l\pri<l<k$, then $R_{k,l}\cap R_{k,l\pri}$ is an open subset of $R_{k,l\pri}$, and hence for $0<\eps\ll 1$ we have $\Sigma_{l\pri}\cap T\ueps_l\sub \Sigma_{l\pri}\cap \Sigma_l$.
Now consider $\Sigma_l\sub R_k$. Since $T_l$ is a disk bundle over $\Sigma_l$, it follows that we can extend the subbundle $(f^l_k)\sta(W_l)|_{\Sigma_l}\sub W_k|_{\Sigma_l}$ to a smooth subbundle of $W_k|_{T_l}$, denoted by $F_l\sub W_k|_{T_l}$. We then fix an isomorphism and the inclusion $$p_l\sta\bl (f_k^l)\sta(W_l)|_{\Sigma_l}\br
\cong F_l.
\lab{eq:1.10}$$ In this way, we can extend any section $\zeta$ of $(f_k^l)\sta(W_l)|_{\Sigma_l}$ to a section of $W_k|_{T_l}$ as follows. We first let $\zeta\pri\mh T_l\to F_l$ be the obvious extension using the isomorphism . We then let $\zeta\lex\mh T_l\to W_k|_{T_l}$ be the induced section using the inclusion $F_l\sub W_k|_{T_l}$. We will call $\zeta\lex$ the standard extension of $\zeta$ to $T_l$. We fix a Riemannian metric on $R_k$ and a metric on $W_k$. For any section $\zeta$ as before, we say $\zeta$ is sufficiently small if its $C^2$-norm is sufficiently small. We now state a simple but important observation.
Let the notation be as before. Then there is an $\eps>0$ such that for any section $g\mh T_l\to F_l\sub W_k|_{T_l}$ such that $\parallel\! g\!\parallel_{C^2}<\eps$, the section $h_k|_{T_l}+g$ is non-zero over $T\ueps_l-\Sigma_l$.
This follows immediately from the fact that $\Sigma_l$ is compact and that for any $x\in R_{k,l}$ the differential $$dh_k: T_xR_k/T_x R_{k,l}\lra \bl W_k / (f^l_k)\sta(W_l)\br|_x$$ is an isomorphism.
We now state and prove the main proposition of this section.
Let $\h\mh \R\to\W$ be a regular section with $\h\upmo(0)$ proper, let $\R\pri\subb\R$ be a good sub-atlas and let $\h\pri$ be the the restriction of $\h$ to $\R\pri$. We assume that the vanishing locus of $\h\pri$ is still proper. Then there is a smooth family of regular sections $\g(t)\mh \R\pri\to\W\pri$, where $\W\pri$ be the restriction of $\W$ to $\R\pri$, parameterized by $t\in [0,1]$ such that $$\bigcup_{t\in[0,1]}\iota\bl\g(t)\upmo(0)\br\times\{t\}
\sub \bB\times [0,1]
\lab{eq:1.11}$$ is compact, that $\g(0)=\h\pri$ and that $\g(1)$ is transversal to the zero section of $\W\pri$.
We will construct the perturbation over $R_1\pri$ and then successively extends it to the remainder of $\{R\pri_k\}$. We first fix a collection of symmetric open subsets $\{S_k\}_{k\in\cL}$ such that $R_k\pri\subb S_k\subb R_k$ and that $S_k$ satisfies the transversality condition on its boundary. Let $k$ be any positive integer no bigger than $\#(\cL)+1$. The induction hypothesis $\cH_k$ states that for each integer $l<k$ we have constructed a symmetric open $S_l\pri$ satisfying $R_l\pri\subb S_l\pri\subb S_l$ and a smooth family of small enough sections $e_l(t)\mh R_l\to W_l$ such that $e_l(0)\equiv0$ of which the following holds. First, let $\bh_l(t)=h_l+e_l(t)$, then for any $l<m<k$ the section $\bh_{m}(t)|_{S_m\pri}$ is a regular extension of $(f^l_{m})\sta(\bh_l(t))|_{S_{m,l}\pri}$; Secondly, for any $l<k$, the section $\bh_l(1)$ is transversal to the zero section of $W_l$ over $S_l\pri$, and finally, for any $l<k$ and $t\in[0,1]$, $$\bh_l(t)\upmo(0)\cap\bl S_l\pri-R_l\pri\br\sub
\bl\bigcup_{i\leq l}(f_l^i)\upmo(R_i\pri)\br\bigcup
\bl\bigcup_{m\geq l}f_m^l(R_{m,l}\pri)\br.
\lab{eq:1.12}$$
Clearly, the condition $\cH_1$ is automatically satisfied. Now assume that we have found $\{ S_l\pri\}_{l<k}$ and $\{e_l\}_{l<k}$ required by the condition $\cH_k$. We will demonstrate how to find $e_k$ and a new sequence of open subsets $\{S_l\pri\}_{l\leq k}$ so that the condition $\cH_{k+1}$ will hold for $\{e_l\}_{l\leq k}$ and $\{ S\pri_l\}_{l\leq k}$.
We continue to use the notation developed earlier. In particular, we let $\Sigma_l$ be the closure of $S_{k,l}$, let $T_l$ be the (closed) tubular neighborhood of $\Sigma_l\sub R_k$ with the projection $p_l\mh T_l\to \Sigma_l$ and let $F_l$ be the subbundle of $W_k|_{T_l}$ with the isomorphism . Let $\zeta_l(t)$ be the standard extension of $(f_k^l)\sta(e_l(t))|_{\Sigma_l}$ to $T_l$. Note that $h_k|_{T_l}+\zeta_l(t)$ is a regular extension of $(f_k^l)\sta(\bh_l(t))|_{\Sigma_l}$. Because $\{\bh_l\}_{l<k}$ satisfies condition $\cH_k$, for $l<m<k$ and $x\in \Sigma_l\cap
\Sigma_{m}$ we have $(f_k^l)\sta(\bh_l(t))(x)=(f^{m}_k)\sta(\bh_{m}(t))(x)$. Now let $$A_l=p_l\upmo \bl(f_k^l)\upmo(S\pri_l)\br-
\bigcup_{l<m<k} p_{m}\upmo\bl(f_k^{m})\upmo(\clo(R\pri_{m}))\br$$ and let $$B_l=\clo (R_{k,l}\pri)-
\bigcup_{k>m>l}(f_k^{m})\upmo(S_{m}\pri).$$ Note that $\{A_l\}_{l<k}$ covers $\operatorname{Int}\bl\cup_{l<k}
T_l\br$, that $B_l\subb A_l$ and that $\{B_l\}_{l<k}$ is a collection of compact subsets of $R_k$. Now let $\eps>0$ be sufficiently small. We choose a collection of non-negative smooth functions $\{\rho_l\}_{l<k}$ that obeys the requirement that $\operatorname{Supp}(\rho_l)\subb\operatorname{Int}(A_l
\cap T_l\ueps)$, that $\rho_l\equiv1$ in a neighborhood of $B_l$ and that $\sum_{l<k}\rho_l\equiv1$ in a neighborhood of $\cup_{l<k}\clo(R_{k,l}\pri)$. This is possible because the last set is compact and is contained in $\operatorname{Int}(
\cup_{l<k}A_l)$. We set $$\zeta(t)=\sum_{l<k}\rho_l\cdot \zeta_l(t).$$ Now we check that for each $l<k$ the section $h_k+\zeta(t)$ is a regular extension of $(f_k^l)\sta(\bh_l(t))$ in a neighborhood of $\clo(R_{k,l}\pri)$. Let $x$ be any point in $\clo(R_{k,l}\pri)$. We first consider the case where $x$ is contained in $B_{m}$ for some $m\geq l$. Let $y=f_k^{m}(x)$. Note that $y\in S_{m}\pri$. Then restricting to a sufficiently small neighborhood of $x$ the section $h_k+\zeta(t)$ is equal to $h_k+\zeta_{m}(t)$. Since $h_k+\zeta(t)$ is a regular extension of $(f_k^{m})\sta(\bh_{m}(t))$ near $x$ and since $\bh_{m}(t)$ is a regular extension of $(f^l_{m})\sta
(\bh_l(t))$ in a neighborhood of $y\in S_{m}\pri$, $h_k+\zeta(t)$ is a regular extension of $(f^l_k)\sta(\bh_l(t))$ near $x$. We next consider the case where $x$ is not contained in any of the $B_{m}$’s. Let $\Lambda$ be the set of all $m>l$ such that $x\in (f_k^{m})\upmo(S_{m}\pri)$. Then for any $m<k$ that is not in $\Lambda$, $\rho_{m}\equiv 0$ in a neighborhood of $x$. Here we have used the fact that $\Sigma_m\cap T_l\ueps\sub\Sigma_m\cap\Sigma_l$ for $0<\eps\ll 1$. On the other hand, by induction hypothesis for each $m\in\Lambda$ the section $h_k+\zeta_{m}(t)$ is a regular extension of $(f_k^l)\sta(\bh_l(t))$ near $x$. Therefore since $\sum_{m\in\Lambda}\rho_{m}\equiv1$ near $x$, in a small neighborhood of $x$ $$h_k+\zeta(t)=\sum_{m\in\Lambda}\rho_{m}\cdot (h_k+\zeta_{m}(t))$$ is also a regular extension of $(f_k^l)\sta(\bh_l(t))$.
Our last step is to extend $\zeta(t)$ to $R_k$. We let $e_k(t)$ be a smooth family of sufficiently small sections of $W_k$ such that $e_k(0)\equiv0$, that the restriction of $e_k(t)$ to a neighborhood of $\cup_{l<k}\clo\bl
(f_k^l)\upmo(R_l\pri)\br$ is $\zeta(t)$ and such that the section $\bh_k(1)$ is transversal to the zero section in a neighborhood of $\clo(R_k\pri)$ in $S_k$. The last condition is possible because $h_k+\zeta(1)$ is transversal to the zero section in a neighborhood of $\cup_{l<k}\clo(R_{k,l}\pri)$. Therefore, by possibly shrinking $S_l\pri$ while still keeping $R_l\pri\subb S_l\pri$ for $l<k$ if necessary, we can find an $S_k\pri\subb S_k$ satisfying $R_k\pri\subb S_k\pri$ such that the induction hypothesis $\cH_k$ holds for $\{e_l\}_{l\leq k}$ and $\{S_l\pri\}_{l\leq k}$, except possibly the third condition.
We now show that the third condition of $\cH_k$ holds as well. We only need to check the inclusion for $l=k$. First, by Lemma \[1.9\] we can find an open $S\subb S_k$ such that $R_k\pri\subb S$ and that $$\lab{eq:1.13}
\bh_k\upmo(0)\cap (\clo(S)-R\pri_k)\sub
\bl\bigcup_{i< k}(f^i_k)\upmo(R_i\pri)\br
\bigcup\bl\bigcup_{i> k}f^k_i(R_{i,k}\pri)\br.$$ Now let $$D_1=\bh_k\upmo(0)\bigcap (\clo(S)-R_k\pri)\bigcap
\bl\bigcup_{i< k}(f^i_k)\upmo(R_i\pri)\br$$ and let $$D_2=\bh_k\upmo(0)\bigcap \bl\clo(S)-R_k\pri\br\bigcap
\bl\bigcup_{i> k}f^k_i(R_{i,k} \pri)\br.$$ Since $\bh_{k}(t)$ are small perturbations of $h_k$, we can assume that $\bh_k(t)$ are chosen so that for any $t\in[0,1]$ the left hand side of is contained in the union of neighborhood $V_1$ of $D_1$ and a neighborhood $V_2$ of $D_2$. We remark that if we choose $\{e_l\}_{l\leq k}$ so that their $C^2$-norms are sufficiently small, then we can make $V_1$ and $V_2$ arbitrary small. Then by Lemma \[1.11\] the vanishing locus of $\bh_k(t)$ inside $V_1$ is contained in $\cup_{i\leq k}(f^i_k)\upmo(S_i\pri)$. On the other hand, since $\cup_{i\geq k}f_i^k(R_{i,k}\pri)$ is open, it contains $V_2$ since $D_2$ is compact and $V_2\supset D_2$ is sufficiently small. This proves the inclusion .
Therefore, by induction we have found $\{S_k\pri\}_{k\in\cL}$ and $\{e_k(t)\}_{k\in\cL}$ that satisfy the condition $\cH_k$ for $k=\#(\cL)+1$. Now let $\bg_l(t)=\bh_l(t)|_{R_l\pri}$. Then $\g(t)=\{\bg_l(t)\}_{l\in\cL}$ satisfies the condition of the proposition. Note that the left hand side of is compact because it is contained in the union of compact sets $\{\iota_k(\clo(R_k\pri))\}_{k\in\cL}$. This proves the proposition.
Let $\g(t)$ be the perturbation constructed by Proposition \[1.12\] with $\h=\bphi$. We define the Euler class of $[\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE]$ to be the homology class in $H\lsta(\bB;\QQ)$ represented by the current $[\g(1)\upmo(0)]$. In the remainder of this section, we will sketch the argument that shows that this class is independent of the choice of the chart $\R$ and the perturbation $\g$.
Let the notation be as before. Then the homology class $[\g(1)\upmo(0)]
\in H\lsta(\bB;\QQ)$ so constructed is independent of the choice of perturbations.
First, we show that if we choose two perturbations $\g_1(t)$ and $\g_2(t)$ based on identical sub-atlas $\R\pri\subb\R$ as stated in Proposition \[1.12\], then we have $[\g_1(1)\upmo(0)]
=[\g_2(1)\upmo(0)]$. To prove this, all we need is to construct a family of perturbations $\g_s(t)$, where $s\in [0,1]$, that satisfies conditions similar to that of the perturbations constructed in Proposition \[1.12\]. Since then we obtain a current $$\bigcup_{s\in [0,1]}\iota(\g_s(1)\upmo(0))\times\{s\}\sub\bB\times [0,1]$$ is a homotopy between the currents $\g_0(1)\upmo(0)_{\text{cur}}$ and $\g_1(1)\upmo(0)_{\text{cur}}$. The construction of $\g_s(t)$ is parallel to the construction of $\g(t)$ in Proposition \[1.12\] by considering the data over $\{ R_k\times [0,1]\}_{k\in\cL}$.
Next, we show that the cycle $[\g(1)\upmo(0)]$ does not depend on the choice of $\R_1\subb \R$. Let $\R_1\subb\R$ and $\R_2\subb\R$ be two good sub-atlas and let $\g_1(t)$ and $\g_2(t)$ are two perturbations subordinate to $\R_1$ and $\R_2$ respectively. Clearly, we can choose a sub-atlas $\R_0\subb\R$ such that $\R_1\sub\R_0$ and $\R_2\sub\R_0$. Let $\g_0(t)$ be a perturbation given by Proposition \[1.12\] subordinate to $\R_0$. Then $\g_0(t)$ is also subordinate to $\R_1$ and $\R_2$. Hence by the previous argument $$[\g_1(1)\upmo(0)]=[\g_0(1)\upmo(0)]=[\g_2(1)\upmo(0)].$$
It remains to show that the class $[\g(1)\upmo(0)]$ does not depend on the choice of the good atlas $\R$. For this, it suffices to show that for any two good atlas $\R$ and $\R\pri$ so that $\R$ is finer than $\R\pri$, the respective perturbations $\g(t)$ and $\g\pri(t)$ gives rise to identical homology classes $[\g(1)\upmo(0)]=[\g\pri(1)\upmo(0)]$. Let $\R=\{R_k\}_{k\in\cK}$ and $\R\pri=\{ R_k\}_{k\in\cL}$, and let $U_k\sub\bB$ (resp. $U_l\sub\bB$) be the open subsets so that $(R_k,W_k,\phi_k)$ (resp. $(R_l,W_l,\phi_l)$) are the smooth approximations of $[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$ over $U_k$ (resp. $U_l$) for $k\in\cK$ (resp. $l\in\cL$). As before, we denote $\iota_k\mh R_k\to U_k$ be the tautological map with $k\in\cK$ or $k\in\cL$. Let $U_{kl}=U_k\cap U_l$. We consider the good atlas $\R_0$ with charts $R_{kl}=\iota_k\upmo(U_{kl})$, where $(k,l)\in\cK\times\cL$, with bundles $W_{kl}=W_k|_{R_{kl}}$ and $\phi_{kl}$ the restriction of $\phi_k$, where $R_{kl}$ is considered to be an open subset of $R_k$. Using the extension technique in the proof of Proposition \[1.12\], we can construct a perturbation $\g_0(t)$ that is a regular extension of $\g\pri(1)\upmo(0)$ under the obvious $\iota_l\upmo(U_{kl})\to R_{kl}$ and $W_l|_{\iota_l\upmo(U_{kl})}
\sub W_{kl}$. Therefore, $[\g_0(1)\upmo(0)]=[\g\pri(1)\upmo(0)]$. On the other hand, since $W_{kl}=W_k|_{R_{kl}}$, $\g(t)$ induces a perturbation $\g_0\pri(t)$ subordinate to $\R_0$. Hence, $[\g_0(1)\upmo(0)]=[\g_0\pri(1)\upmo(0)]=[\g(1)\upmo(0)]$. This proves the proposition.
Analytic charts
===============
The goal of this section is to construct a collection of local smooth approximations $(\Lambda,V)$ so that the data $\phi_V\mh R_V\to V|_{R_V}$ are analytic. Namely, $R_V$ are complex manifolds, $V|_{R_V}$ are holomorphic vector bundles and $\phi_V$ are holomorphic sections. In the next section we will show that such $\phi_V$’s are Kuranishi maps, and hence the cones $\lim_{t\to\infty}\Gamma_{t\phi}$ are the virtual cones constructed in [@LT1].
We will use the standard notation in complex geometry in this section. For instance, if $M$ is a complex manifold, we will denote by $T_xM$ the complex tangent space of $M$ at $x$ unless otherwise is mentioned. We will use complex dimension throughout this section, unless otherwise is mentioned. Accordingly the complex dimension of a set is half of its real dimension. We will use the words analytic and holomorphic interchangably in this section as well.
We begin with the construction of such local smooth approximations. Let $w\in \bB$ be any point representing a holomorphic stable map $f\mh\Sigma\to X$ with $n$-marked points. We pick a uniformizing chart $\Lambda=(\tilu,\bE\ltilu,\Phi\ltilu,G\ltilu)$ of $w$ over $U\sub\bB$ such that the elements of $\tilu$ are stable maps $f_1\mh\Sigma_1\to X$ with (distinct) $(n+k)$-marked points $\{x_i\}$ so that $\{f_1(x_m)\}_{m=n+1}^{n+k}$ are the $k$-distinct points of $f_1\upmo(H)$, where $H$ is a smooth complex hypersurface of $X$ in general position of degree $k=[H]\cdot
[A]$ and $A=f_{\ast}([\Sigma])$, and that the stable maps resulting from discarding the last $k$ marked points of $f_1$ are in $U$. Here as usual we assume that $U$ is sufficiently small so that all stable maps in $U$ intersect $H$ transversally and positively. Note that the later correspondence is the projection $\pi_U\mh
\util\to U$. Let $\cY$ over $\tilde U$ be the universal (continuous) family of curves with $(n+k)$ marked sections and let $\cF\mh\cY\to X$ be the universal map.
We let $\pi\mh \tilu\to\mgnk$ be the tautological map induced by the family $\cY$ with its marked sections. Here $\mgnk$ is the moduli space of $(n+k)$-pointed stable curves of genus $g$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that no fibers of $\cY$ with the marked points have non-trivial automorphisms. It follows that $\mgnk$ is smooth near $\pi(\tilu)$. As in section 1, we view $G\ltilu$ as a subgroup of $S_{n+k}$. Then $G\ltilu$ acts on $\mgnk$ by permuting the $(n+k)$-marked points of the curves in $\mgnk$, and the map $\pi\mh\tilu\to\mgnk$ is $G\ltilu$-equivariant. Now let $O\sub\mgnk$ be a smooth $G\ltilu$-invariant open neighborhood of $\pi(\tilu)\sub\mgnk$ and let $p\mh\cX\to O$ be the universal family of stable curves over $O$ with $(n+k)$ marked sections (In this section we will work with the analytic category unless otherwise is mentioned). It follows that the $G\ltilu$-action on $O$ lifts to $\cX$ that permutes its marked sections. For convenience, we let $\cX\times_O\tilde U$ be the topological subspace of $\cX\times\tilde U$ that is the preimage of $\Gamma_{\pi}\sub O\times\tilde U$ under $\cX\times\tilde U\to O\times\tilde U$, where $\Gamma_{\pi}\sub O\times\tilde U$ is the graph of $\pi\mh\tilde U\to O$. Since no fibers of $\cY$ (with marked points) have non-trivial automorphisms, there is a canonical $G\ltilu$-equivariant isomorphism $\cY\cong \cX\times_O\tilde U$ as family of pointed curves. Let $\pi_{\cX}$ and $\pi\ltilu$ be the first and the second projection of $\cX\times_O\tilde U$.
Next, we let $(\cX_n,O_n;\Sigma,p_n,\varphi_n)$ be a semi-universal family of the $n$-pointed curve $\Sigma$. Namely, $\cX_n$ is a (holomorphic) family of pointed prestable curves over the pointed smooth complex manifold $p_n\in O_n$ whose dimension is equal to $\dim_{\CC}\operatorname{Ext}^1(\om\lsig(D),\cO\lsig)$, where $D\sub\Sigma$ is the divisor of the $n$-marked points of $\Sigma$, $\varphi_n\mh \Sigma\to\cX_n|_{p_n}$ is an isomorphism of $\Sigma$ with the fiber of $\cX_n$ over $p_n$ as $n$-pointed curve, and the Kuranishi map $T_{p_n}O_n\to \operatorname{Ext}^1(\om\lsig(D),\cO\lsig)$ of the family $\cX_n$ is an isomorphism. Note that $G\ltilu$ acts canonically on $\Sigma$. For convenience, we let $\Pi_n(\cX)$ be the family of curves over $O$ that is derived from $\cX$ by discarding its last $k$-marked sections. We now let $B=\pi_U\upmo(w)$ and fix a $G\ltilu$-equivariant isomorphism $$\coprod_{z\in B}\Pi_n(\cX)|_z\lra B\times \Sigma
\lab{eq:2.50}$$ over $B$. Let $\operatorname{Aut}_{p_n}(\cX_n)$ be the group of those biholomorphisms of $\cX_n$ that keep the fiber $\cX_n|_{p_n}$ invariant, that send fibers of $\cX_n$ to fibers of $\cX_n$ and that fix the $n$-sections of $\cX_n$. Possibly after shrinking $O_n$ if necessary, we can assume that there is a homomorphism $\rho\mh G\ltilu\to
\operatorname{Aut}_{p_n}(\cX_n)$ such that for any $\sigma\in G\ltilu$ the $\rho(\sigma)$ action on $\cX_n|_{p_n}$ is exactly the $\sigma$ action on $\Sigma$ via the isomorphism $\varphi_n$. Finally, possibly after shrinking $U$ and $O$, we can pick a $G\ltilu$-equivariant holomorphic map $\varphi\mh O\to O_n$ such that $\varphi(B)=p_n$ and that there is a $G\ltilu$-equivariant isomorphism of $n$-pointed curves $\tilde{\varphi}\mh\cX\to O\times_{O_n}\cX_n$ that extends the isomorphism . We remark that the reason for doing this is to ensure that the smooth approximation we are about to construct is $G\ltilu$-equivariant.
Next, we let $l$ be an integer to be specified later and let $U_i\sub\Sigma$, $i=1,\ldots,l$, be $l$ disjoint open disks away from the marked points and the nodal points of $\Sigma$. We assume that $\cup_{i=1}^l U_i$ is $G\ltilu$-invariant and that for any $\sigma\in G\ltilu$ whenever $\sigma(U_i)=U_i$ then $\sigma|_{U_i}={\mathbf 1}_{U_i}$. By shrinking $U$, $O$ and $O_n$ if necessary, we can find disjoint open subsets $\cU_{n,i}\sub\cX_n$ such that $\cup_{i=1}^l\cU_{n,i}$ is $G\ltilu$-invariant, that $\cup_{i=1}^l\cU_{n,i}$ is $G\ltilu$-equivariantly biholomorphic to $O\times\cup_{i=1}^l U_i$, that $\cU_{n,i}\cap\Sigma=U_i$ and that the projections $\cU_{n,i}\to O$ induced by the projection $\cX\to O$ is the first projection of $O\times U_i$ ($=\cU_{n,i}$). For convenience, for each $i$ we will fix a biholomorphism between $U_i$ and the unit disk in $\CC$, and will denote by $U_i\uhf$ the open disk in $U_i$ of radius $1/2$. We let $\cU_i$ be the disjoint open subsets of $\cY$ defined by $$\cU_i=\cU_{n,i}\times_{O_n}\tilu\sub\cX_n\times_{O_n}\tilu
\cong\cX\times_O\tilu\cong\cY.$$ We will call $U_i$ and $\cU_i$ the distinguished open subsets of $\Sigma$ and $\cY$ respectively. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $\cup_{i=1}^l\cU_i$ is disjoint from the $(n+k)$-sections of $\cY$. We also assume that there are holomorphic coordinate charts $V_i\sub X$ so that $\cF(\cU_i)\sub V_i$. We let $(w_{i,1},\ldots,w_{i,m})$, where $m=\dim
X$, be the coordinate variable of $V_i$ and let $\bv_i=\partial/\partial w_{i,1}$. For each $i$ we pick a nontrivial $(0,1)$-form $\gamma_i$ on $U_i$ with $\operatorname{Supp}(\gamma_i)\subb U_i\uhf$. We demand further that if there is a $\sigma\in G\ltilu$ so that $\sigma(U_i)=U_j$ then $V_i=V_j$ as coordinate chart and $\sigma\sta(\gamma_i)=\gamma_j$. We then let $\sigma_i$ be the $(0,1)$-form over $\cU_i$ with values in $\cF\sta(T_X)|_{\cU_i}$ that is the product of the pull back of $\gamma_i$ via $\cU_i\times_O\tilu\to U_i$ with $\cF\sta(\bv_i)|_{\cU_i}$, and let $\tilde{\sigma}_i$ be the section over $\cY$ that is the extension of ${\sigma}_i$ by zero. Obviously, $\tilde{\sigma}_i$ is a section of $\bE\ltilu$, and $(\tilde{\sigma}_1,\ldots,\tilde{\sigma}_l)$ is linearly independent fiberwise. Hence it spans a complex subbundle of $\bE\ltilu$, denoted by $V$. It follows from the construction that $V$ is $G\ltilu$-equivariant.
As in the previous section, we let $R=\Phi\ltilu\upmo(V)$, let $W=V|_R$ and let $\phi\mh R\to W$ be the lifting of $\Phi\ltilu|_R\mh R\to \bE\ltilu|R$. The main task of this section is to show that we can choose $U_i$, $\gamma_i$ and $V_i$ so that $R$ admits a canonical complex structure and that the section $\phi$ is holomorphic when $W$ is endowed with the holomorphic structure so that the basis $\tilde{\sigma}_1|_R,\ldots,\tilde{\sigma}_l|_R$ is holomorphic.
To specify our choice of $U_i$, $\gamma_i$ and $V_i$, we need first to define the Dolbeault cohomology of holomorphic vector bundles over singular curves. Let $\cE$ be a locally free sheaf of $\cO\lsig$-modules and let $E$ be the associated vector bundle, namely, $\cO\lsig(E)=\cE$. We let $\om^0_{{\rm cpt}}(E)$ be the sheaf of smooth sections of $E$ that are holomorphic in a neighborhood of $\operatorname{Sing}(\Sigma)$ and let $\om_{{\rm cpt}}^{0,1}(E)$ be the sheaf of smooth sections of $(0,1)$-forms with values in $E$ that vanish in a neighborhood of $\operatorname{Sing}(\Sigma)$. Let $$\dbar:
\Gamma(\om^0_{{\rm cpt}}(E))\lra \Gamma(
\om_{{\rm cpt}}^{0,1}(E))$$ be the complex that send $\varphi\in \om^0_{{\rm cpt}}(E))$ to $\dbar(\varphi)$. Since $\varphi$ is holomorphic near nodes of $\Sigma$, $\dbar(\varphi)$ vanishes near nodes of $\Sigma$ as well, and hence the above complex is well defined. We define the Dolbeault cohomology $H^0_{\dbar}(E)$ and $H^1_{\dbar}(E)$ to be the kernel and the cokernel of $\dbar$.
Let $H^i(\cE)$ be the Cěch cohomology of the sheaf $\cE$. Then there are canonical isomorphisms $H^0_{\dbar}(E)\cong H^0(\cE)$ and $\Psi\mh
H^{0,1}_{\dbar}(E)\cong H^1(\cE)$.
The proof is identical to the proof of the classical result that the Dolbeault cohomology is isomorphic to the Cěch cohomology for smooth complex manifolds. Obviously, $H^0_{\dbar}(E)$ is canonically isomorphic to $H^0(\cE)$. We now construct $\Psi$. We first cover $\Sigma$ by open subsets $\{W_i\}$ so that the intersection of any of its subcollection is contractible. Now let $\varphi$ be any global section in $\om^{0,1}_{{\rm cpt}}(E)$. Then over each $W_i$ we can find a smooth function $\eta_i\in\Gamma_{W_i}(\om_{{\rm cpt}}^0(E))$ such that $\dbar\eta_i=\varphi|_{W_i}$. Clearly, the class in $H^1(\cE)$ represented by the cocycle $[\eta_{ij}]$, where $\eta_{ij}=\eta_i|_{W_i\cap W_j}-
\eta_j|_{W_i\cap W_j}$, is independent of the choice of $\eta_i$, and thus defines a homomorphism $\Gamma(\om_{{\rm cpt}}^{0,1}(E))\to
H^1(\cE)$. It is routine to check that it is surjctive and its kernel is exactly $\operatorname{Im}(\overline{{\mathbf\partial}})$. Therefore, we have $H^{0,1}_{\dbar}(E)\cong H^1(\cE)$. Also, it is direct to check that this isomorphism does not depend on the choice of the covering $\{W_i\}$. This proves the lemma.
For any $z\in\util$, we denote by $\tilde{\sigma}_i(z)$ the restriction of $\tilde{\sigma}_i$ to the fiber of $\cY$ over $z$. We now choose the $l$ open disks $U_i\sub
\Sigma$, the $(0,1)$-forms $\gamma_i$ on $U_i$ and the coordinate charts $V_i\sub X$ such that for any $\tilde w\in\pi_U\upmo(w)$ the collection $\tilde{\sigma}_1(\tilde w),\ldots,
\tilde{\sigma}_l(\tilde w)$ spans $H^{0,1}_{\dbar}(f\sta T_X)$. This is certainly possible if we choose $l$ large because the locus of $U_i$ are arbitrary as long as they are away from the nodal points of $\Sigma$ and the marked points, and the charts $V_i$ can also be chosen with a lot of choice. We fix once and for all such choices of $U_i$, $V_i$ and $\gamma_i$. We then let $\cU_i\sub\cY$, $V\to\bE\ltilu$ and $R=\Phi\ltilu\upmo(V)$ be the objects constructed before according to this choice of $U_i$, $\gamma_i$ and $V_i$. Let $\cY_R\to R$ be the restriction to $R\sub\tilde U$ of the family $\cY\to\tilde U$ with the marked sections and let $F\mh \cY_R\to X$ be the associated map. We also fix a smooth function $\eta_i$ over $U_i$ so that $\dbar\eta_i=\gamma_i$. We next extend the collection $\{ U_i\}_{i=1}^l$ to an open covering $\{U_i\}_{i=1}^L$ so that the intersection of any subcollection of $\{U_i\}$ are contractible, and that for any $i\leq l$ and $j\geq l+1$ the sets $U_i\uhf$ and $U_j$ are disjoint. For convenience, we agree that $\eta_j=0$ for $j>l$
From now on, we will fix an $\tilde w\in R$ over $w$.
There is a constant $A$ such that for any Cěch 1-cocycle $[\tau_{ij}]$, where $\tau_{ij}\in\Gamma_{U_i\cap U_j}(f\sta \cT_X)$, there are constants $a_i$ and holomorphic sections $\zeta_i\in\Gamma_{U_i}(f\sta \cT_X)$ for $i=1,\ldots,L$ such that $$(\zeta_j+a_j\eta_j)|_{U_j\cap U_i}-(\zeta_i+a_i\eta_i)|_{U_j\cap U_i}
=\tau_{ji}$$ and $$\sum_{i=1}^L\bl\parallel\!\zeta_i\!\parallel_{L_2}+|a_i|\br\leq
A\bl\sum_{i,j}^L\parallel\!\tau_{ij}\!\parallel_{L_2}\br.$$
The existence of $\{a_i\}$ and $\{\zeta_i\}$ follows from the fact that the images of $\tilde\sigma_1(\tilde w),
\ldots,\tilde\sigma_l(\tilde w)$ spans $H_{\dbar}^{0,1}(f\sta T_X)$ and that $H_{\dbar}^{0,1}(f\sta T_X)$ is isomorphic to $H^1(f\sta\cT_X)$. The elliptic estimate is routine, using the harmonic theory on the normalization of $\Sigma$. We will leave the details to the readers.
We let $\Gamma(\om_{{\rm cpt}}^{0,1}(f\sta T_X))\shar$ be the quotient of $\Gamma(\om_{{\rm cpt}}^{0,1}(f\sta T_X))$ by the linear span of $\tilde{\sigma}_1(\tilde w),\ldots,\tilde{\sigma}_l(\tilde w)$. Because $\{\tilde\sigma_i(\tilde w)\}_{i=1}^L$ is invariant under the automorphism group of the stable map $f$, $\Gamma(\om_{{\rm cpt}}^{0,1}(f\sta T_X))\shar$ is independent of the choice of $\tilde w\in\pi_U\upmo(w)$. We let $${\dbar}\shar\mh \Gamma(\om_{{\rm cpt}}^0(f\sta T_X))\to
\Gamma(\om_{{\rm cpt}}^{0,1}(f\sta T_X))\shar$$ be the induced complex. We define $H^0_{\dbar}(f\sta)\shar$ and $H^{0,1}_{\dbar}(f\sta T_X)\shar$ be the kernel and the cokernel of the above complex.
Let the notation be as before. Then $H^{0,1}_{\dbar}(f\sta T_X)\shar=0$. Further, the complex dimension of $H^0_{\dbar}(f\sta T_X)\shar$ is $\deg(f\sta T_X)+m(1-g)+l$.
The vanishing of $H_{\dbar}^{0,1}(f\sta T_X)\shar$ follows from the surjectivity of ${\dbar}\shar$. The second part follows from $$\begin{array}{ll}
&\dim H^0_{\dbar}(f\sta T_X)\shar-\dim H^{0,1}_{\dbar}(f\sta
T_X)\shar\\
=&\dim H^0_{\dbar}(f\sta T_X)-\dim H^{0,1}_{\dbar}(f\sta T_X)+l
=\chi(f\sta T_X)+l
\end{array}$$ and the Riemann-Roch theorem.
Next, we will describe the tangent space of $R$ at $\tilde w$. By the smoothness result of [@LT2], we know that $R$ is a smooth manifold of (complex) dimension $r\lexp$. As before, we let $D\sub \Sigma$ be the divisor of the first $n$-marked points of $\tilde w$. Since $f$ is holomorphic, $df\dual$ is a homomorphism of sheaves $f\sta\om_X\to\om\lsig$. We let $$\ddotw=[f\sta\Omega_X
\mapto{\alpha}\om_{\Sigma}(D)]$$ be the induced complex indexed at $-1$ and $0$. We will first define the extension space $\extfc$ and then show that it is canonically isomorphic to $T_{\tilde w}R$. We begin with some more notations. Let $\cE$ be a sheaf of $\cO\lsig$-modules that is locally free away from the nodal points of $\Sigma$. Then there is a holomorphic vector bundle $E$ over $\Sigma^0$, where $\Sigma^0$ is the smooth locus of $\Sigma$, such that $\cO_{\Sigma^0}(E)
=\cE|_{\Sigma^0}$. We define $\cE\ua$ to be the sheaf so that the germs of $\cE\ua$ at nodal points $p\in\Sigma$ (resp. smooth points $p\in\Sigma^0$) are isomorphic to the germs of $\cE$ at $p$ (resp. germs of $\om_{\Sigma^0}^0(E)$ at $p$). The set $\extfc$ is the set of equivalence classes of pairs $(v_1,v_2)$ as follows. The data $v_1$ is an element in $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\om\lsig(D),\cO\lsig)$, which defines an exact sequence $$\begin{CD}
0@>>>\cO\lsig@>{\varphi_1}>>
\cB@>{\varphi_2}>>\om\lsig(D)@>>> 0,
\end{CD}
\lab{eq:2.2}$$ and equivalently a family of $n$-pointed nodal curves over $T=\operatorname{Spec}\CC[t]/(t^2)$, say $\cC_T$ with $n$-marked sections $\tilde{x}_i$ (See [@LT1 section 1]). Note that $\cB$ is locally free over $\Sigma^0$. The data $v_2$ is a homomorphism $f\sta\om_X\to \cB\ua$ such that, first of all, the diagram $$\begin{CD}
@. @. f\sta\om_X @= f\sta\om_X\\
@. @. @Vv_2VV @V{df\dual}VV\\
0 @>>> \cO\lsig\ua @>{\varphi_1}>> \cB\ua @>{\varphi_2}>>
\om\lsig(D)\ua @>>> 0
\end{CD}
\lab{eq:2.3}$$ is commutative, where the lower sequence is induced by . Secondly, since $v_2$ is holomorphic near nodes of $\Sigma$, the differential $\dbar v_2$ vanishes near nodes of $\Sigma$, and since $df\dual$ is holomorphic, $\dbar v_2$ lifts to a global section $\beta$ of $\om\lcpt^{0,1}(f\sta T_X)$. We require that there are constants $a_1,\ldots,a_l$ such that $\beta=\sum a_i\tilde\sigma_i(\tilde w)$.
The equivalence relation of such pairs are the usual equivalence relation of the diagrams . Namely, two pairs $(v_1,v_2)$ and $(v\pri_1,v_2\pri)$ with the associated data $\{\cB,\varphi_i\}$ and $\{\cB\pri,\varphi_i\pri\}$ are equivalent if there is an isomorphism $\eta\mh\cB\to\cB\pri$ so that $\eta\circ\varphi_1=\varphi_1\pri$, $\varphi_2=\varphi_2\pri\circ\eta$ and $\eta\circ v_2=v_2\pri$.
Let the notation be as before. Then $\operatorname{Ext}^1\lsig(\ddotw,\cO\lsig\ua)\shar$ is canonically a complex vector space of complex dimension $r\lexp$.
The fact that $\operatorname{Ext}^1\lsig(\ddotw,\cO\lsig\ua)\shar$ forms a complex vector space can be established using the usual technique in homological algebra. For instance, if $r\in \operatorname{Ext}^1\lsig(\ddotw,\cO\lsig\ua)\shar$ is represented by $\{\cB,\varphi_i,v_2\}$ shown in the diagram , then for any complex number $a$ the element $ar$ is represented by the same diagram with $\varphi_1$ replaced by $a\varphi_1$. We now prove that $$\dim\operatorname{Ext}^1\lsig(\ddotw,\cO\lsig\ua)\shar=r\lexp.
\lab{eq:2.4}$$ Clearly, the following familiar sequence is still exact in this case: $$\operatorname{Ext}^0(\cD^{\bullet}_f,\cO\lsig\ua)\lra \operatorname{Ext}^0(\om\lsig(D),\cO\lsig)
\lra H^0_{\dbar}(f\sta T_X)\shar\qquad\qquad\qquad$$ $$\qquad
\lra \operatorname{Ext}^1(\om\lsig(D),\cO\lsig)\lra \operatorname{Ext}^1(\om\lsig(D),\cO\lsig)\shar
\lra H^{0,1}_{\dbar}(f\sta T_X)\shar.$$ Since $f$ is stable, $\operatorname{Ext}^0(\cD^{\bullet}_f,\cO\lsig\ua)=0$. Hence follows from Corollary \[2.2\] and the Riemann-Roch theorem. This proves the lemma.
Recall that should $R$ be a scheme then the Zariski tangent space of $T_{\tilde w}R$ would be the space of morphisms $\operatorname{Spec}\CC[t]/(t^2)\to R$ that send their only closed points to $\tilde w$ modulo certain equivalence relation. In the following, we will imitate this construction and construct the space of pre-$\CC$-tangents of $R$ at $\tilde w$. We still denote by $U_1,\ldots, U_l$ the $l$-distinguished open subsets of $\Sigma$ and let $\{U_i\}_{i=1}^L$ be an extension of $\{U_i\}_{i=1}^l$ to an open covering of $\Sigma$ such that the intersection of any of its subcollection are contractible. Without loss of generality, we assume $U_j\cap U_i\uhf=\emptyset$ for $j>l$ and $i\leq l$. We also assume that there are coordinate charts $V_i$ of $X$ such that $f(U_i)\sub V_i$. By abuse of notation, we will fix the embedding $V_i\sub \CC^m$ and view any map to $ V_i$ as a map to $\CC^m$. We let $\iota_i\mh V_i\to X$ be the tautological inclusion and let $$g_{ij}\mh \iota_j\upmo(\iota_i(V_i))\to \iota_i\upmo(\iota_j(V_j))
\sub V_i\sub \CC^m$$ be the transition functions of $X$.
We define a pre-$\CC$-tangent $\xi$ of $R$ at $\tilde w$ to be a collection of data as follows: First, there is a flat analytic family of $n$-pointed pre-stable curves $C_T$ over an open neighborhood $T$ of $0\in \CC$ such that the fiber of $C_T$ over $0$, denoted by $C_0$, is isomorphic to $\Sigma$ as $n$-pointed curve; Secondly, there is an open covering $\{\tilde U_i\}_{i=1}^L$ of $C_T$ such that $\tilde U_i\cap C_0=U_i$, and that for each $i\leq l$, there is a biholomorphism $\tilde U_i\cong U_i\times T$ such that its restriction to $U_i=\tilde U_i\cap
C_0$ is compatible to the identity map of $U_i$; Thirdly, there is a collection of smooth maps $\tilde f_i\mh \tilde U_i\to V_i$ such that for $i>l$, all $\tilde f_i$ are holomorphic and that for each $i\leq l$ we have ${\dbar}_0(\tilde f_i)=0$ and $${\dbar}_i(\tilde f_i)=
\pi_T\sta\varphi_i \cdot\pi_{U_i}\sta(\gamma_i\cdot f\sta(\bv_i)),
\lab{eq:2.22}$$ where $\pi_{U_i}$ and $\pi_T$ are the first and the second projection of $U_i\times T$, $\varphi_i$ are holomorphic functions over $T$ and $\dbar_0$ (resp. $\dbar_i$) is the $\dbar$-differential with respect to the holomorphic variable of $T$ (resp. $U_i$) using $\tilde U_i\cong U_i\times T$ and the $\gamma_i$ and $\bv_i$ are the $(0,1)$-form and the vector field chosen before; Forthly, if we let $z_0$ be the holomorphic variable of $\CC\supset T$, then we require that $$\lab{eq:2.27}
\tilde f_{ji}=\tilde f_i- g_{ij}\circ \tilde f_j:
\tilde U_{ij}\lra \CC^m,$$ where $\tilde U_{ij}$ is a neighborhood of $U_i\cap U_j$ in $\tilde U_i\cap \tilde U_j$ over which $\tilde f_{ji}$ is well-defined, is divisible by $z^2_0$ (Namely, $\tilde f_{ji}$ has the form $\pi_T\sta(z^2_0)\cdot h_{ji}$ for some smooth function $h_{ji}\mh \tilde U_{ij}\to \CC^m$). Intuitively, a pre-$\CC$-tangent is a scheme analogue of a morphism $\operatorname{Spec}\CC[t]/(t^2)\to R$ should $R$ be a scheme. We denote the set of all pre-$\CC$-tangents by $T_{\tilde w}\upre R$. Note that $T_{\tilde w}\upre R$ is merely a collection of all pre-$\CC$-tangents.
We next define a canonical map $$T_{\tilde w}\upre R\lra \operatorname{Ext}^1(\ddotw,\cO\lsig)\shar.
\lab{eq:2.26}$$ Let $\xi$ be any pre-$\CC$-tangent given by the data above. By the theory of deformation of $n$-pointed curves [@LT1 section 1], the analytic family $C_T$ defines canonically an exact sequence $$0\lra\cO\lsig\lra \cB\lra \om\lsig(D)\lra 0,
\lab{eq:2.23}$$ associated to an extension class $v_1(\xi)\in\operatorname{Ext}^1(\om\lsig(D),\cO\lsig)$, where away from the nodes of $\Sigma$ and the suport of $D$ the sheaf $\cB$ is canonically isomorphic to $\om_{C_T}\otimes_{\cO_{C_T}}\cO_{C_0}$. Because $\tilde f_i\mh \tilde U_i\to V_i$ are holomorphic for $i>l$, it follows from [@LT1] that there is a canonical homomorphism of sheaves $u_i\mh f\sta\om_X|_{U_i}
\to \cB|_{U_i}$ such that $$\begin{CD}
@. @. f\sta\om_X|_{U_i} @= f\sta\om_X|_{U_i}\\
@. @. @VV{u_i}V @VV{df\dual|_{U_i}}V\\
0 @>>> \cO_{U_i}\ua @>>> \cB\ua|_{U_i} @>>> \om_{U_i}(D)\ua
@>>> 0\\
\end{CD}$$ is commutative, where the lower sequence is induced by . Indeed, at smooth point $p\in U_i$ away from the support of $D$ the dual of $u_i\otimes k(p)$ is the differential $$d\tilde f_i(p) : T_p C_T=\cB\dual\otimes k(p)\lra f\sta T_X|_p.$$ Note that by our choice of $U_i$, for $i\leq l$ the distinguished open subsets $U_i$ are disjoint from the support of the $(n+k)$-marked points of $\tilde w$. Hence $\cB\ua|_{U_i}$ are canonically isomorphic to $\om_{U_i}^0(TC_T|_{U_i})$, and the dual of $d\tilde f_i$ define canonical homomorphisms $u_i\mh
f\sta\om_X|_{U_i}\to\cB|_{U_i}$ that make the above diagrams commutative. Because of the condition , the lift of $\dbar u_i$ is a constant multiple of $\tilde\sigma_i(\tilde w)|_{U_i}$. Further, because of the condition that $\tilde f_{ji}$ is divisible by $z_0^2$, the collection $\{ u_i\}_{i=1}^L$ patch together to form a homomorphism $v_2(\xi)\mh f\sta\om_X\to\cB\ua$ that makes the diagram commutative. Hence $(v_1(\xi),v_2(\xi))$ defines an element in $\extfc$, which is defined to be the image of $\xi$.
We remark that in this construction we have only used the fact that the stable map associated to $\tilde w$ is holomorphic, that the domain $\Sigma$ of $\tilde w$ has $l$ distinguished open subsets $U_i$ with $(0,1)$-forms $\tilde\sigma_i(\tilde w)$. Because for any $z\in R$ its domain $\Sigma_z$ also has $l$ distinguished open subsets, namely $\cU_i\cap \Sigma_z\cong U_i$, and the forms $\tilde\sigma(z)$, we can define the extension group $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\dbul_z,\cO_{\Sigma_z})\shar$, the space of pre-$\CC$-tangents of $R$ at $z$ and the analogut canonical map as in if the map $f_z$ of $z$ is holomorphic.
To justify our choice of $\extfc$, we will construct, to each $v\in\extfc$, a pre-$\CC$-tanget $\xi^v\in T_{\tilde w}\upre R$ so that the image of $\xi^v$ under is $v$. Let $v=(v_1,v_2)$ be any element in $\extfc$ defined by the diagram . Let $T\sub \CC$ be a neighborhood of $0$ and let $C_T$ be an analytic family of $n$-pointed curves so that $C_0\cong \Sigma$ and the Kuranishi map $T_0\CC\to\operatorname{Ext}^1(\om\lsig(D),\cO\lsig)$ send $1$ to $v_1$. For instance, we can take $C_T$ be the pull back of $\cX_n$ via an analytic map $(T,0)\to (O_n,p_n)$. We let $\{U_i\}_{i=1}^L$ be a covering of $\Sigma$ as before and let $\{\tilde U_i\}_{i=1}^L$ be a covering of $C_T$ that are the pull back of $\cU_{n,i}$. Note that for $i\leq l$, they come with biholomorphisms $\tilde U_i\cong U_i\times T$. Let $V_i$ be open charts of $X$ as before with $f(U_i)\subb V_i$. For $i>l$, since the restriction of to $U_i$ is analytic, we can find analytic $\tilde f_i\mh \tilde U_i\to V_i$, possibly after shrinking $T$ if necessary, such that $\tilde f_i$ are related to $v_2|_{U_i}$ as to how $u_i$ are related to $v_2(\xi)|_{U_i}$ before. By analytic analogue of deformation theory (see [@LT1]) such $\tilde f_i$ do exist. For $i\leq l$, since $U_i$ are smooth and $\cB\ua|_{U_i}$ are the sheaves $\om_{U_i}^0(T\sta C_T|_{U_i})$, we simply let $\tilde f_i$ be smooth so that in addition to $\tilde
f_i$ satisfying the condition on pre-$\CC$-tangents we require that $v_2|_{U_i}$ coincide with the dual of $d\tilde f_1|_{U_i}$. Note that $(C_T,\{\tilde f_i\})$ will be a pre-$\CC$-tangent if $\tilde f_{ji}$ in is divisible by $\pi_T\sta(z_0^2)$. But this is true because for any $p\in U_i\cap U_j$, the differential $d\tilde f_i(p)$ and $d\tilde f_j(p)$ from $T_p C_T$ to $T_{f(p)}X$ are identical. We let the so constructed pre-$\CC$-tangent be $\xi^v$. Of course $\xi^v$ are not unique. It is obvious from the construction that the image of $\xi^v$ under is $v$. We remark that it follows from the construction that for any complex number $c\ne 0$ the pull back of $(C_T,\{\tilde f_i\})$ under $L_c
\mh \CC\to \CC$ defined by $L_c(z_0)=cz_0$ is a pre-$\CC$-tangent, say $\xi^{cv}$, whose image under is $cv$.
We next construct a holomorphic coordinate chart of $R$ at $\tilde w$. Let $r=\dim R$, which is $r\lexp+l=\dim\extfc$. We fix a $\CC$-isomorphism $T_0\CC^r\cong\extfc$. Composed with the canonical $$\extfc\to \operatorname{Ext}^1(\om\lsig(D),\cO\lsig),$$ we obtain $$T_0\CC^r\lra \operatorname{Ext}^1(\om\lsig(D),\cO\lsig).
\lab{eq:2.20}$$ Let $\cX_n$ over $O_n$ be the semi-universal family of the $n$-pointed curve $\Sigma$ given before. We let $S$ be a neighborhood of $0\in\CC^r$ and let $\varphi\mh S\to O_n$ be a holomorphic map with $\varphi(0)=0$ such that $$d\varphi(0): T_0S\equiv T_0\CC^r\lra T_{p_n}O_n\cong
\operatorname{Ext}^1(\om\lsig(D),\cO\lsig)$$ is the homomorphism . We let $\pi_S\mh C_S\to S$ be the family of $n$-pointed curves over $S$ that is the pull back of $\cX_n$. Note that $C_S|_0$, denoted by $C_0$, is canonically isomorphic to $\Sigma$.
We keep the open covering $\{U_i\}^L_{i=1}$ of $\Sigma$ ($\cong C_0$) chosen before. We let $\{W_i\}_{i=1}^L$ be an open covering of a neighborhood of $C_0\sub C_S$ so that $W_i\cap C_0=U_i$. For $i\leq l$, we let $W_i$ be the pull back of $\cU_{n,i}\sub \cX_n$. For $i>l$ and $U_i$ smooth, we choose $W_i$ so that there is a holomorphic map $\pi_i\mh W_i\to U_i$ so that the restriction of $\pi_i$ to $U_i$ is the identity map. For $i>l$ and $U_i$ contains a nodal point, we assume that $W_i$ is biholomorphic to the unit ball in $\CC^{r+1}$ so that $U_i\sub W_i$ is defined by $w_1w_2=0$ and $w_i=0$ for $i\geq 3$, where $(w_i)$ are the coordinate variables of $\CC^{r+1}$, and the restriction of $\pi_S$ to $W_i$ is given by $$z_1=w_1w_2, \ z_2=w_3,\ldots,z_r=w_{r+1},$$ where $(z_i)$ are the coordinate variables of $\CC^r$. The upshot of this is that if $h$ is a holomorphic function on $U_i$, then we can extend it canonically to $W_i$ as follows. In case $U_i$ is smooth, then the extension of $h$ is the composite of $W_i\to U_i$ with $h$; In case $U_i$ is singular, then $\varphi$ has a unique expression $$a+w_1h_1(w_1)+w_2h_2(w_2),$$ where $a\in\CC$ and $h_1, h_2$ are holomophic. We then let its extension be the holomorphic function on $W_i$ that has the same expression.
We fix the choice of $\{U_i\}$ and $\{W_i\}$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that there are coordinate charts $V_i\sub X$ so that $f(U_i)\subb V_i$. Of course, for $i\leq l$ the charts $V_i$ are the charts we have chosen before. Our construction of the local holomorphic chart of $R$ is parallel to the original construction of Kodaira-Spencer of semi-universal family of deformation of holomorphic structures without obstructions. To begin with, possibly after shrinking $W_i$ if necessary we can assume that the maps $f|_{U_i}\mh U_i\to V_i$ can be extended to a holomorphic $F_{0,i}\mh W_i\to V_i$ (Recall $f$ is holomorphic). We now let $\cA(W_i,V_i)$ be the space of smooth maps from $W_i$ to $\CC^m$ defined as follows. If $i>l$, then $\cA(W_i,V_i)$ consists of holomorphic maps from $W_i$ to $\CC^m$; If $i\leq l$, then using the isomorphism $W_i\cong U_i\times S$ and holomorphic coordinate $z=(z_i)$ of $S$ and holomorphic coordinate $\xi$ of $U_i$, any smooth function $\varphi\mh W_i\to \CC^m$ can be expressed in terms of its $m$ components $\varphi_j(z, \xi)$, $j=1,\ldots,m$. We define $\cA(W_i,V_i)$ to be the set of those smooth maps $\varphi\mh
W_i\to\CC^m$ so that $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\dbar_{z_k}\varphi_j=0\quad \text{for}\quad k=1,\ldots,r \and j=1,\ldots,m;\\
\dbar_{\xi}\varphi_j=0\quad \text{for}\quad j\geq 2
\and \dbar_{\xi}\varphi_1=c\sigma_i\pri\quad \text{for some}\quad
c\in\CC,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\sigma\pri_i$ is a $(0,1)$-form taking values in $\varphi\sta
\CC^n$ corresponding to the form $\sigma_i$ using the canonical embedding $V_i\sub\CC^n$. Note that $\cA(W_i,V_i)$ are $\cO_S$-modules. In particular, if we let $\cI\sub \cO_S $ be the ideal sheaf of $0\in S$, then we denote by $\cI^q \cA(W_i,V_i)$ the image of $\cI^q\otimes_{\cO_S }\cA(W_i,V_i)$ in $\cA(W_i,V_i)$.
In the following, we will construct a sequence of maps $F_{s,i}\in\cA(W_i, V_i)$ indexed by $s\geq 1$ and $1\leq i\leq L$ of which the following holds:
1\. For each $i$, $F_{s+1,i}-F_{s,i}\in \cI^{s}\cA(W_i, V_i)$;
2\. The restrictions $F_{1,i}|_{U_i}\mh U_i\to\CC^m$ factor through $V_i\sub\CC^m$ and $\iota_i\circ (F_{1,i}|_{U_i})\mh U_i\to X$ is identical to $f|_{U_i}\mh U_i\to X$;
3\. In a neighborhood $W_{ij}$ of $U_i\cap U_j$ in $W_i\cap W_j$ over which the map $$F_{s,ij}=g_{ij}\circ F_{s,j}- F_{s,i}\mh W_{ij}\to \CC^m
\lab{eq:2.21}$$ is well defined, $F_{s,ij}\in \cI^{s}\cH(W_{ij},\CC^m)$, where $\cH(W_{ij},\CC^m)$ is the $\cO_S $-module of holomorphic maps from $W_{ij}$ to $\CC^m$;
4\. For any vector $\eta\in\CC^r$, we let $L_{\eta}\mh\CC\to\CC^r$ be the unique $\CC$-linear map so that $L_{\eta}(1)=\eta$, and let $\eta\upre$ be the pre-$\CC$-tangent associated to the pull back of $(C_S,\{ F_{2,i}\})$ under $L_{\eta}$. Using the standard isomorphism $T_0 S\equiv T_0\CC^r\cong
\CC^r$, we obtain a map $$T_0S\lra \extfc$$ that send $\eta\in T_0 S$ to the image of $\eta\upre$ under . We require that this map is the isomorphism .
For $s=1$ we simply let $F_{1,i}$ be the standard extension of $f|_{U_i}\mh U_i\to V_i$ to $W_i\to \CC^m$. We now show that we can construct $\{ F_{2,i}\}$ as required. We let $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ be the first and the second projection of $\CC^r\times \Sigma$, where we view $\CC^r$ as the total space of $\extfc$. It follows from the definition of the extension group that there is a universal diagram $$\begin{CD}
@.@.\pi_2\sta f\sta\om_X @= \pi_2\sta f\sta\om_X\\
@.@. @VV{\cV_2}V @VV{\pi_2\sta(df\dual)}V \\
0 @>>> \pi_2\sta\cO\lsig\ua @>>> {\tilde\cB}\ua
@>>> \pi_2\sta\om\lsig(D)\ua @>>> 0
\end{CD}
\lab{eq:2.28}$$ such that its restriction to fibers of $\CC^r\times\Sigma$ over $\xi\in\CC^r$ are the diagrams associated to $\xi
\in\extfc$. By deformation theory of pointed curves, for any smooth point $p\in\Sigma$ the vector space $\tilde\cB\otimes k(p)$ is canonically isomorphic to the cotangent space $T_p\sta C_S$. By applying the construction of $\xi^v\in T_{\tilde w}\upre
R$ from $v\in\extfc$ to the family version, we can construct the family $\{ F_{2,i}\}$ as required. We will leave the details to the readers.
Now we show that we can successively construct $F_{s,i}$ that satisfies the four conditions above. Assume that for some $s\geq 2$ we have constructed $\{F_{s,i}\}$ that satisfies the four conditions above. Let $W_{ij}$ be the neighborhood of $U_{ij}=U_i\cap U_j\sub
W_i\cap W_j$ so that is well-defined. Then by the condition 3 above, $F_{s,ij}\in \cI^{s} \cH(W_{ij},\CC^m)$. Let $I=(i_1,\ldots,i_r)$ be any length $s$ mulptiple index, namely, $i_j\geq 0$ and $\sum i_j=s$. As usual, we will denote by $\partial^I$ the symbol $\partial^{i_1}/\partial z_1^{i_1}\cdots\partial^{i_r}/\partial
z_r^{i_r}$ and by $z^I$ the term $z_1^{i_1}\cdots z_r^{i_r}$. Then because of the condition 3 above, $\varphi_{I,ij}={\partial^I} F_{s,ij}|_{U_{ij}}$ is a holomorphic section of $f\sta T_X|_{U_{ij}}$ using the standard isomorphism $$TX|_{V_i}\cong
TV_i\cong V_i\times\CC^m,$$ and the collection $[\varphi_{I,ij}]$ defines a Cěch 1-cocycle of $f\sta\cT_X$. We let $\{\phi_{I,i}\}$, where $\phi_{I,i}=\zeta_i+a_i\eta_i$, be the collection provided by Lemma \[2.1\]. Using the standard isomorphism $TX|_{V_i}\cong V_i\times\CC^m$, we can view $\phi_{I,i}$ as a map $V_i\to \CC^m$. We let $\tilde\phi_{I,i}\mh
W_i\to\CC^m$ be the standard extension of $\phi_{I,i}$ and let $G_{I,i}=
\pi_S\sta(z^I)\tilde\phi_{I,i}$. Clearly, $\partial^I G_{I,i}=\phi_{I,i}$. Now we let $$F_{s+1,i}=F_{s,i}+\sum_{\ell(I)=s} G_{I,i}.$$ It is direct to check that the collection $\{F_{s+1,i}\}$ satisfies the condition 1-4 before. Finally, by the estimate in Lemma \[2.1\], there is a neighborhood of $U_i\sub W_i$, say $W_i^0$, such that $\lim_s F_{s,i}$ converges over $W_i^0$. Let $F_{\infty,i}$ be its limit. Because $f(U_i)\subb V_i$, there is a neighborhood $\tilde{W}_i$ of $U_i\sub W_i^0$ such that $F_{\infty,i}(\tilde{W}_i)
\sub V_i\sub\CC^m$. It follows that we can find a neighborhood $S^0\sub S$ of $0\in S$ such that $\pi_S\upmo(S^0)\sub \cup \tilde{W}_i$. Finally, because $F_{\infty,i}$ is analytic near $U_i$ for $i>l$ and is analytic in $S$ direction using $W_i\cong U_i\times S$ otherwise, the condition 3 implies that the collection $F_{\infty,i}|_{{W}_i\cap\pi_S\upmo(S^0)}$ defines a map $$F_S: \pi_S\upmo(S^0)\lra X.$$ Clearly, $F_S$ is holomorphic away from the union of $W_1,\ldots, W_l$. Further, for each $i\leq l$ if we let $\xi_i$ be a holomorphic variable of $U_i$ and let $\pi_{U_i}$ and $\pi_{S^0}$ be the first and the second projection of $W_i\cap \pi_S\upmo(S^0)\cong U_i\times S^0$, then $$\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar\xi_i} F_S|_{W_i\cap\pi_S\upmo(S^0)}d\bar\xi_i=
\pi_{S^0}\sta(\varphi_i)\pi_{U_i}\sta(\gamma_i) F_S\sta(\bv_i)|_{W_i}
\lab{eq:2.30}$$ where $\varphi_i$ is a holomorphic function over $S^0$. Finally, we let $Z$ be the subset of $$\pi_S\upmo(S^0)\times_S\cdots\times_S\pi\upmo_S(S^0)\qquad
(\text{$k$ times})$$ consisting of $(s;x_{n+1},\ldots,x_{n+k})$ such that $s\in S^0$ and that $ x_{n+1},\ldots,x_{n+k}$ are distinct points in $\pi_S\upmo(s)$ that lie in $F_s\upmo(H)$. Note that if we choose $U$ to be small enough, then $F_s\upmo(H)$ has exactly $k$ points. Let $C_Z$ be the family of $(n+k)$-pointed curves over $Z$ so that its domain is the pull back of $C_S$ via $Z\to S$, its first $n$-marked sections is the pull back of the $n$-marked sections of $C_S$ and its last $k$-sections of the fiber of $C_Z$ over $(s;x_{n+1},\ldots,
x_{n+k})$ is $x_{n+1},\ldots,x_{n+k}$. Coupled with the pull back of $F_S$, say $F_Z\mh C_Z\to X$, we obtain a family of stable (continuous) maps from $(n+k)$-pointed curves to $X$. Let $\eta\mh Z\to U$ be the tautological map.
We claim that $\eta(Z)\sub R$. Indeed, let $z\in Z$ be any point and let $C_z$ be the domain of $z$. It follows from our construction that $C_z$ has $l$ distinguished open subsets, denoted by $U_1,\ldots, U_l$, such that $f_z=F_Z|_{C_z}$ is holomorphic away from $\cup_{i=1}^l U_i$ and $\dbar f_z|_{U_i}$ is a constant multiple of $\gamma_i\cdot
f_z\sta(\bv_i)$. Hence the value of the section $\Phi_{\tilde U}\mh
\tilde U\to \bE_{\tilde U}$ at $\eta(z)$ is contained in the subspace $V|_{\eta(z)}\sub \bE_{\tilde U}|_{\eta(z)}$. This shows that $\eta(z)\in R$.
The induced map $\eta\mh Z\to R$ is a local diffeomorphism near those $z\in R$ whose associated map $f_z\mh C_z\to X$ are holomorphic.
This follows immediately from the proof of the basic Lemma in [@LT2]. We will omit the details here.
By shrinking $S^0$ if necesary, we can assume that $\eta\mh Z\to R$ is a local diffeomorphism. We can further assume that there is an open subset $Z\pri\sub Z$ containing $\tilde w$ such that $\eta\pri=\eta|_{Z\pri}\mh Z\pri\to R$ is one-to-one and the image $\eta(Z\pri)\sub R$ is invariant under $G\ltilu$. $\eta\pri\mh Z\pri\to R$ is the analytic coordinate of $\tilde w\in R$ we want. For convenience, we will view $Z\pri$ as an open subset of $R$.
Let $V\pri$ be the restriction of $W$ to $Z\pri$ endowed with the holomorphic structure so that $\tilde\sigma_1|_{Z\pri},\ldots,
\tilde\sigma_l|_{Z\pri}$ is a holomorphic frame. Then $\phi\pri
\equiv \phi_V|_{Z\pri}
\mh Z\pri\to V\pri$ is holomorphic.
This follows immediately from .
Let ${\phi\pri}\upmo(0)$ be any point and let $f_z\mh C_z\to X$ be the associated (analytic) stable map with $D_z$ the divisor of its first $n$-marked points. Then there is a caonical exact sequence of vector spaces $$\operatorname{Ext}^1(\Om_{C_z}(D_z),\cO_{C_z})\lra
H^1(f_z\sta\cT_X)\lra \operatorname{Ext}^2(\dbul_z,\cO_{C_z})\lra 0$$ induced by the short exact sequence of complexes $$0\lra [0\to\Om_{C_z}(D_z)]\lra
[f_z\sta\Om_{X}\to\Om_{C_z}(D_z)]
\lra[f_z\sta\Om_X\to 0]\lra 0.$$ Similarly, the differentil $d\phi_V(z)\mh T_z R\to W_z$ induces an exact sequence of vector spaces $$\operatorname{Ext}^1(\dbul_z,\cO_{C_z}\ua)\sha\mapright{d\phi_V(z)} W|_z
\lra \operatorname{Coker}(d\phi_V(z))\lra 0.$$ Note that there are canonical homomorphisms $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\dbul_z,\cO_{C_z}
\ua)\sha\to\operatorname{Ext}^1(\dbul_z,\cO_{C_z})$ and $W|_z\to H^{0,1}_{\dbar}(
f_z\sta T_X)\cong H^1(f_z\sta\cT_X)$.
There is a canonical isomorphism $\xi$ (as shown below) that fits into the diagram $$\begin{CD}
\operatorname{Ext}^1(\dbul_z,\cO_{C_z})\sha @>{d\phi_V(z)}>> W|_z
@>>> \operatorname{Coker}(d\phi_V(z)) @>>> 0\\
@VVV @VVV @VV{\xi}V\\
\operatorname{Ext}^1(\Om_{C_z}(D_z),\cO_{C_z}) @>>> H^1(f_z\sta\cT_X) @>>>
\operatorname{Ext}^2(\dbul_z,\cO_{C_z}) @>>> 0.
\end{CD}$$
This is obvious and will be left to the readers.
The proof of the comparison theorem
===================================
In this section, we will prove that the algebraic and the symplectic construction of GW-invariants yield identical invariants.
We will work with the category of algebraic schemes as well as the category of analytic schemes. Specifically, we will use the words schemes, morphisms and ètale neighborhoods to mean the corresponding objects in algebraic category and use the word analytic maps and open subsets to mean the corresponding objects in analytic category. As before, the words analytic and holomorphic are interchangable. Also, we will use $\cO_S$ to mean the sheaf of algebraic sections or the sheaf of analytic sections depending on whether $S$ is an algebraic scheme or an analytic scheme. We will continue to use the complex dimension through out this section.
We now clarify our usage of the notions of cycles and currents. Let $W$ be a scheme. We denote by $Z_k\ualg W$ the group of formal sums of finitely many $k$-dimensional irreducible subvarieties of $W$ with rational coefficients. We call elements of $Z_k\ualg W$ $k$-cycles of $W$. Now let $W$ be any stratified topological space with stratification $\cS$. We say that a (complex) $k$-dimensional current $C$ is stratifiable if there is a refinement of $\cS$, say $\cS\pri$, such that there are finitely many $k$-dimensional strata $S_i$ and rationals $a_i\in\QQ$ such that $C=\sum a_i[S_i]$ (All currents in this paper are oriented). Here we assume that each stratum of $\cS\pri$ was given an orientation a priori and $[S_i]$ is the oriented current defined by $S_i$. We identify two currents if they define identical measures in the sense of rectifiable currents. We denote the set of all stratifiable $k$-dimensional currents modulo the equivalence relation by $Z_k W$. Clearly, if $W$ is a scheme then any $k$-cycle has an associated current in $Z_k W$, which defines a map $Z_k\ualg W\to Z_k W$. In the following, we will not distinguish a cycle from its associated current. Hence for $C\in Z_k\ualg
W$ we will view it as an element of $Z_{k} W$. Note that if $C\in Z_k W$ has zero boundary in the sense of current and $C$ has compact support, then $C$ defines canonically an element in $H_{2k}(W,\QQ)$. Finally, if $C=\sum a_i[S_i]\in Z_k W$ and $F\sub W$ is a stratifiable subset, we say that $C$ intersects $F$ transversally if $F$ intersects each $S_i$ transversally as stratified sets (See [@GM] for topics on stratifications). In such cases, we can define the intersection current $C\cap F$ if the orientation of the intersection can be defined according to the geometry of $W$ and $F$.
We begin with a quick review of the algebraic construction of GW-invariants. Let $X$ be any smooth projective variety and let $A\in H_2(X,\ZZ)$ and $g,n\in\ZZ$ as before be fixed once and for all. We let $\mgna$ be the moduli scheme of stable morphisms defined before. $\mgna$ is projective. The GW-invariants of $X$ is defined using the virtual moduli cycle $$[\mgna]\vir\in A\lsta\mgna.$$ To review such a construction, a few words on the obstruction theory of deformations of morphisms are in order. Let $w\in\mgna$ be any point associated to the stable morphism $\cX$. Let $(B,I,\cX_{B/I})$ be any collection where $B$ is an Artin ring, $I\sub B$ is an ideal annihilated by the maximal ideal $\mm_B$ of $B$ and $\cX_{B/I}$ is a flat family of stable morphisms over $\operatorname{Spec}B/I$ whose restriction to the closed fiber of $\cX_{B/I}$ is isomorphic to $\cX$. An obstruction theory to deformation of $\cX$ consists of a $\CC$-vector space $V$, called the obstruction space, and an assignment that assigns any data $(B,I,\cX_{B/I})$ as before to an obstruction class $$\operatorname{Ob}(B,B/I,\cX_{B/I})\in I\otimes_{\CC} V$$ to extending $\cX_{B/I}$ to $\operatorname{Spec}B$. Here by an obstruction class, we mean that its vanishing is the necessary and sufficient condition for $\cX_{B/I}$ to be extendable to a family over $\operatorname{Spec}B$. We also require that such an assignment satisfies the obvious base change property (For reference on obstruction theory please consult [@Ob]). In case $\cX$ is the map $f\mh C\to X$ with $D\sub C$ the divisor of its $n$ marked points, the space of the first order deformations of $\cX$ is parameterized by $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\dbul_{\cX},\cO_C)$, where $\dbul_{\cX}=
[f\sta\om_X\to\om_C(D)]$ is the complex as before, and the standard obstruction theory to deformation of $\cX$ takes values in $\operatorname{Ext}^2(\dbul_{\cX},\cO_C)$.
An example of obstruction theories is the following. Let $R$ be the ring of formal power series in $m$ variables and let $\mm_R\sub R$ be its maximal ideal. Let $F$ be a vector space and let $f\in \mm_R\otimes_{\CC}F$. We let $(f)\sub R$ be the ideal generated by components of $f$. Then there is a standard obstruction theory to deformations of $0$ in $\operatorname{Spec}R/(f)$ taking values in $V$, where $V$ is the cokernel of $df\mh (\mm_R/\mm_R^2)\dual\to F$, defined as follows. Let $I\sub B$ be an ideal of an Artin ring as before and let $\varphi_0\mh\operatorname{Spec}B/I\to\operatorname{Spec}R/(f)$ be any morphism. To extend $\varphi_0$ to $\operatorname{Spec}B$, we first pick a homomorphism $\sigma\mh R\to B$ extending the induced $R\to B/I$, and hence a morphism $\varphi_{\text{pre}}\mh \operatorname{Spec}B \to \operatorname{Spec}R$. The image $\sigma(f)\in B\otimes F$ is in $I\otimes F$, and is the obstruction to $\varphi_{\text{pre}}$ factor through $\operatorname{Spec}R/(f)\sub\operatorname{Spec}R$. Let $\operatorname{Ob}(B,B/I,\varphi_0)$ be the image of $\sigma(f)$ in $I\otimes V$ via $F\to V$. It is direct to check that $\operatorname{Ob}(B,B/I,\varphi_0)=0$ if and only if there is an extension $\varphi\mh\operatorname{Spec}B\to\operatorname{Spec}R/(f)$ of $\varphi_0$. This assignment $$\lab{eq:3.0}
(B,B/I,\varphi_0)\mapsto \operatorname{Ob}(B,B/I,\varphi_0)\in
I\otimes V$$ is the induced obstruction theory of $\operatorname{Spec}R/(f)$.
A Kuranishi family of the standard obstruction theory of $\cX$ consists of a vector space $F$, a ring of formal power series $R$ with $\mm_R$ its maximal ideal, an $f\in\mm_R\otimes F$, a family $\cX_{R/(f)}$ of stable morphisms over $\operatorname{Spec}R/(f)$ whose closed fiber over $0\in
\operatorname{Spec}R/(f)$ is isomorphic to $\cX$ and an exact sequence $$0\lra \operatorname{Ext}^1(\dbul_{\cX},\cO_C)\mapright{\alpha} (\mm_R/\mm_R^2)\dual
\mapright{df} F\lra \operatorname{Ext}^2(\dbul_{\cX},\cO_C)
\lra 0
\lab{eq:3.1}$$ of which the following holds: First, the composite $$\operatorname{Ext}^1(\dbul_{\cX},\cO_C)\mapright{\alpha} \ker(df)\equiv T_0\operatorname{Spec}R/(f) \mapright{} \operatorname{Ext}^1(\dbul_{\cX},\cO_C),$$ where the second arrow is the Kodaira-Spencer map of the family $\cX_{R/(f)}$, is the identity homomorphism; Secondly, let $I\sub B$ and $\varphi_0\mh\operatorname{Spec}B/I\to
\operatorname{Spec}R/(f)$ be as before and let $$\operatorname{Ob}(B,B/I,\varphi_0\sta\cX_{R/(f)})\in I\otimes\operatorname{Ext}^2(\dbul_{\cX},\cO_C)$$ be the obstruction to extending $\varphi_0\sta\cX_{B/I}$ to $\operatorname{Spec}B$. Then it is identical to $\operatorname{Ob}(B,B/I,\varphi_0)$ under the isomorphism $$\operatorname{Coker}(df)\cong \operatorname{Ext}^2(\dbul_{\cX},\cO_C),$$ where $\operatorname{Ob}(B,B/I,\varphi_0)$ is the obstruction class in .
We now sketch how the virtual moduli cycle $[\mgna]\vir$ was constructed. Similar to the situation of the moduli of stable smooth maps, we need to treat $\mgna$ either as a $\QQ$-scheme or as a Deligne-Mumford stack. The key ingredient here is the notion of atlas, which is a collection of charts of $\mgna$. A chart of $\mgna$ is a tuple $(S, G, \cX_S)$, where $G$ is a finite group, $S$ is a $G$-scheme (with effective $G$-action) and $\cX_S$ is a $G$-equivariant family of stable morphisms so that the tautological morphism $\iota \mh S/G\to\mgna$ induced by the family $\cX_S$ is an étale neighborhood. For details of such an notion, please consult [@DM; @Vi; @LT1]. We now let $f\mh C\to X$ be the representative of $\cX_S$ with $D\sub C$ the divisor of the $n$-marked sections of $\cX_S$. Let $\pi\mh C\to S$ be the projection. We consider the relative extension sheaves $\ext^i_{\pi}(\dbul_{\cX_S},\cO_C)$, where $\dbul_{\cX_S}=[f\sta\om_X\to\om_{C/S}(D)]$ as before. For short, we denote the sheaves $\ext^i_{\pi}(\dbul_{\cX_S},\cO_C)$ by $\cT^i_S$. Because they vanish for $i=0$ and $i> 2$, for any $w\in S$, the Zariski-tangent space $T_wS$ is $\cT_S^1\otimes_{\cO_S}k(w)$ and the obstruction space to deformations of $w$ in $S$ is $V_w=\cT_S^2\otimes
_{\cO_S}k(w)$. Now we choose a complex of locally free sheaves of $\cO_S$-modules $\ebul=[\cE_1\to\cE_2]$ so that it fits into the exact sequence $$0\lra \cT_S^1\lra\cE_1\lra\cE_2\lra
\cT_S^2\lra 0.
\lab{eq:3.2}$$ We let $F_i(w)=\cE_i\otimes_{\cO_S}k(w)$. Then we have the exact sequence of vector spaces $$0\lra T_wS\lra F_1(w)\lra F_2(w) \lra V_w\lra 0.
\lab{3.31}$$ We let $K_w\in R(w)$ be a Kuranishi map of the obstruction theory to deformations of $w$, where $R(w)=
\varprojlim\oplus _{k=0}^N \text{Sym}^k(F_1(w)\dual)$, so that is part of the data of the Kuranishi family specified in Definition \[3.1\]. Let $(K_w)\sub R(w)$ be the ideal generated by the components of $K_w$ and let $\operatorname{Spec}R_w/(K_w)\sub\operatorname{Spec}R_w$ be the corresponding subscheme. It follows that $\operatorname{Spec}R_w/(K_w)$ is isomorphic to the formal completion of $S$ along $w$, denoted $\hat w$. We let $N_w$ be the normal cone to $\operatorname{Spec}R_w/(K_w)$ in $\operatorname{Spec}R_w$. Then $N_w$ is canonically a subcone of $F_2(w)\times\hat w$. Here, by abuse of notation we will use $F_2(w)$ to denote the total space of the vector space $F_2(w)$. Note that $N_w$ is the infinitesimal normal cone to $S$ in its obstruction theory at $w$. To obtain a global cone over $S$, we need the following existence and uniqueness theorem, which is the main result of \[LT1\].
In this paper, we will call a vector bundle $E$ the associated vector bundle of a locally free sheaf $\cE$ if $\cO(E)\cong \cE$. For notational simplicity, we will not distinguish a vector bundle from the total space (scheme) of this vector bundle.
Let $E$ be the associated vector bundle of $\cE_2$. Then there is a cone scheme $N_S\sub E$ such that for each $w\in S$ there is an isomorphism $$F_2(w)\times\hat w\cong E \times_S\hat w
\lab{eq:3.3}$$ of cones over $\hat w$ extending the canonical isomorphism $F_2(w) \cong E\times_S w$ such that under the above isomorphism $N_w$ is isomorphic to $N_S\times_S\hat w$. In particular, the cycle defined by the scheme $N_S$ is uniquely characterized by this condition.
In the previous discussion, if we replace $F_1(w)$ and $F_2(w)$ by $T_wS$ and $V_w$ respectively, we obtain a Kuranishi map and correspondingly a cone scheme in $V_w\times \hat w$, denoted by $N_w^0$.
Let the notation be as before. Then there is a vector bundle homomorphism $r\mh E\times_S\hat w\to V_w\times \hat w$ extending the canonical homomorphism $E|_w\to V_w$ induced by such that $$N_w^0\times_{V_w\times\hat w} E\times_S\hat w= N_S\times_S \hat w.$$
To construct the virtual cycle $[\mgna]\vir$, we need to find a global complex over $\mgna$ analogous to $\ebul$. For the purpose of comparing with the analytic construction of the virtual cycles, we will use atlas of analytic charts. We let $\{(R_i,W_i,\phi_i)\}_{i\in\Lambda}$ be the good atlas of the smooth approximation of $[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$ chosen in section 2. Then the collection $Z_i=\phi_i\upmo(0)$ with the tautological family of stable analytic maps (with the last $k$-marked points discarded) form an atlas of the underlying analytic scheme of $\mgna\cong\Phi\upmo(0)$. Since we are only interested in constructing and working with cone cycles in $\QQ$-bundles (known as V-bundles) over $\mgna$, there is no loss of generality that we work with $\mgna$ with the reduced scheme structure. Hence, for simplicity we will endow $Z_i=\phi_i\upmo(0)$ with the reduced analytic scheme structure. We let $\cX_i$ be the tautological family of the $n$-pointed stable analytic maps over $Z_i$ that is derived by discarding the last $k$ marked points of the restriction to $Z_i$ of the tautological family over $\tilde U_i$. We let $G_i$ be the finite group associated to the chart $(R_i,W_i,\phi_i)$, and let $\cX_i$ be represented by $f_i\mh C_i\to X$ with $D_i\sub C_i$ be the divisor of the $n$-marked sections of $C_i$ and let $\pi_i\mh C_i\to Z_i$ be the projection. In [@LT1], to each $i$, we have constructed a $G_i$-equivariant complex of locally free sheaves of $\cO_{Z_i}$-modules $\ebul_i=[\cE_{i,1}
\to\cE_{i,2}]$ such that $\ext_{\pi_i}^{\bullet}(
\dbul_{\cX_i},\cO_{C_i})$ is the sheaf cohomology of $\ebul_i$. It follows from the algebraic and the analytic constructions of charts that each $(Z_i,\cX_i)$ can be realized as an analytic open subset of an algebraic chart, say $(S, G, \cX_S)$, and the complex $\ebul_i$ is the restriction to this open subset of an algebraic complex $\ebul$, as in . Therefore we can apply Theorem \[3.15\] to obtain a unique analytic cone cycle $M_i\ualg\in Z\lsta E_i$, where $E_i$ is the associated vector bundle of $\cE_{i,2}$. Let $\iota_i\mh Z_i/G_i\to\mgna $ be the tautological map induced by the family $\cX_i$. One property that follows from the construction of the complexes $\ebul_i$ which we did not mention is that to each $i$, the cone bundle $E_i/G_i$ over $Z_i/G_i$ descends to a cone bundle over $\iota_i(Z_i/G_i)$, denoted by $\tilde E_i$, and $\{\tilde E_i\}_{i\in\Lambda}$ patch together to form a global cone bundle over $\mgna$, denoted by $\tilde E$. Further, by the uniqueness of the cone cycles $M_i\ualg\in Z\lsta E_i$ in Theorem 3.2 and 3.3, to each $i$ the cone cycle $M_i\ualg/G_i$ in $E_i
/G_i$ descends to a cone cycle $\cM_i\ualg\in Z\lsta \tilde E_i$, and $\{\cM_i\ualg\}_{i\in\Lambda}$ patch together to form a cone cycle in $Z\lsta\tilde E$, denoted by $\cM\ualg$. It follows from [@LT1] that $\tilde E$ is an algebraic cone over $\mgna$ and $\cM\ualg$ is an algebraic cone cycle in $\tilde E$. In the end, we let $\eta_E\mh \mgna\to \tilde E$ be the zero section and let $$\eta_E\sta\mh \{\text{algebraic cycles in}\ Z\lsta\tilde E\}\lra H\lsta(\mgna;\QQ)$$ be the Gysin homomorphism. Then the virtual moduli cycle is $$[\mgna]\vir=\eta_E\sta[\cM\ualg]\in A\lsta\mgna.$$
There is an analogous way to construct the $GW$-invariants of algebraic varieties using analytic method. We continue to use the notion developed in section 1. Let $(R,W,\phi)$ be a smooth approximation of $[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$ constructed in Lemma \[1.20\]. Then we can construct a cone current in the total space of $W$ as follows. Let $\Gamma_{t\phi}$ be the graph of $t\phi$ in $W$ and let $N_{0/\phi}$ be the limit current $\lim_{t\to\infty}\Gamma_{t\phi}$, when it exists. Clearly, if such a limit does exist, then it is contained in $W|_{\phi\upmo(0)}$. In general, though $\phi$ is smooth there is no guarantee that such a limit will exist. However, if the approximation is analytic, then we will show that such limit does exist as an stratifiable current. Indeed, assume $(R,W,\phi)$ is an analytic smooth approximation. Since the existence of $\lim\Gamma_{t\phi}$ is a local problem, we can assume that there is a holomorphic basis of $W$, say $e_1,\ldots,e_r$. Then $\phi$ can be expressed in terms of $r$ holomorphic functions $\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_r$. Now let $\bC$ be the complex line with complex variable $t$, let $w_i$ be the dual of $e_i$ and let $\Theta\sub W\times \bC$ be the analytic subscheme defined by the vanishing of $tw_i-\phi_i$, $i=1,\ldots,r$. We let $\Theta_0$ be the smallest closed analytic subscheme of $\Theta$ that contains $\Theta\cap (W\times\bC\sta)$, where $\bC\sta
=\bC-\{0\}$. By the Weierstrass preparation theorem, such $\Theta_0$ does exist. Then we define $N_{0/\phi}$ to be the associated cycle of the intersection of the scheme $\Theta_0$ with $W\times\{0\}$. By [@Fu], $N_{0/\phi}$ is the limit of $\Gamma_{t\phi}$. Obviously, $N_{0/\phi}$ is stratifiable. This shows that for any analytic approximation $(R,W,\phi)$ the limit $\lim\Gamma_{t\phi}$ does exist.
We now state a simple lemma which implies that if $(R\pri,W\pri,
\phi\pri)$ is a smooth approximation that is finer than the analytic approximation $(R,W,\phi)$, then $\lim\Gamma_{t\phi}$ exists as well. We begin with the following situation. Let $V$ be a smooth oriented vector bundle over a smooth oriented manifold $M$ and let $\varphi\mh M\to V$ be a smooth section. Let $V\pri\sub
V$ be a smooth submanifold such that for any $x\in\varphi\upmo(0)$ we have $\operatorname{Im}(d\varphi(x))+V\pri_x=V_x$. Then $M_0=\varphi\upmo(V\pri)$ is a smooth submanifold of $M$ near $\varphi\upmo(0)$. Let $V_0$ be the restriction of $V\pri$ to $M_0$ and let $\varphi_0\mh M_0\to V_0$ be the induced section. We next let $N\sub TM|_{\varphi\upmo(0)}$ be a subbundle complement to $TM_0|_{\varphi\upmo(0)}$ in $TM|_{\varphi\upmo(0)}$. Then the union of $d\varphi(x)(N_x)$ for all $x\in\varphi\upmo(0)$ forms a subbundle of $V|_{\varphi\upmo(0)}$. We denote this bundle by $d\varphi(N)$. Since $V|_{\varphi\upmo(0)}\equiv V_0|_{\varphi\upmo(0)}
\oplus d\varphi(N)$, there is a unique projection $P\mh V|_{\varphi\upmo(0)}\to V_0|_{\varphi\upmo(0)}$ such that whose kernel is $d\varphi(N)$ and the composite of the inclusion $V_0|_{\varphi\upmo(0)}\to V|_{\varphi\upmo(0)}$ with $P$ is the identity map.
Let the notation be as before and let $l=\dim M$ and $l_0=\dim M_0$. Then $\lim\Gamma_{t\varphi}$ exists as an $l$-dimensional current in $V|_{\varphi\upmo(0)}$ if and only if $\lim\Gamma_{t\varphi_0}$ exists as an $l_0$-dimensional oriented current in $V_0|_{\varphi\upmo(0)}$. Further, if they do exist then $$\lim\Gamma_{t\varphi}=P\sta(\lim\Gamma_{t\varphi_0}).$$ Hence $\lim\Gamma_{t\phi}$ is stratifiable if $\lim\Gamma_{
t\phi_0}$ is stratifiable.
This is obvious and will be left to the readers.
Now let $\{(R\lalp,W\lalp,\phi\lalp)\}_{\alpha\in\Xi}$ be a collection of analytic smooth approximations of $[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$ such that the images of $Z\lalp=\phi\lalp\upmo(0)$ (in $\Phi\upmo(0)$) covers $\Phi\upmo(0)$. It follows that we can choose a good atlas $\{(R_i,W_i,\phi_i)\}_{k\in\Lambda}$ constructed in Lemma \[1.20\] so that all approximations in $\Lambda$ are finer than approximations in $\Xi$. Now let $i\in\Lambda$ and let $x\in Z_i=\phi_i\upmo(0)\sub R_i$ be any point. Because charts in $\Xi$ cover $\Phi\upmo(0)$, there is an $\alpha\in\Xi$ such that the image of $R\lalp$ in $\bB$ contains the image of $x$ in $\bB$. Then because $(R_i,W_i,\phi_i)$ is finer than $(R\lalp,W\lalp,\phi\lalp)$, by definition, there is a locally closed submanifold $R_{i,\alpha}\sub R_i$, a local diffeomorphism $f_i^{\alpha}\mh
R_{i,\alpha}\to R\lalp$ and a vector bundle inclusion $(f_i^{\alpha})\sta W\lalp
\sub W_i|_{R_{i,\alpha}}$ such that $(f_i^{\alpha})\sta(\phi\lalp)=\phi_i$, as in . This is exactly the situation studied in Lemma \[3.2\]. Hence $\lim\Gamma_{t\phi_i}$ exists near fibers of $W$ over $x$. Because $\{Z\lalp\}$ covers $\Phi\upmo(0)$, $\lim\Gamma_{t\phi_i}$ exists and is a pure dimensional stratifiable current of dimension $\dim R_i$. We denote this current by $N_{0/\phi_i}$.
Now it is clear how to construct the GW-invariants of algebraic varieties using these analytically constructed cones. By the property of good coverings, for $j\leq i\in\Lambda$ the approximation $(R_i,W_i,\phi_i)$ is finer than $(R_j,W_j,\phi_j)$. We let $Z_i=\phi_i\upmo(0)$ be as before and let $Z_{i,j}=
Z_i\cap R_{i,j}\sub Z_i$, where $R_{i,j}$ is defined before . Let $\rho^j_i\mh Z_{i,j}\to Z_j$ be the restriction of $f^j_i$ to $Z_{i,j}$. Note that $Z_{i,j}$ is an open subset of $Z_i$ and $\rho^j_i\mh Z_{i,j}\to
\rho^j_i(Z_{i,j})$ is a covering. Let $F_i$ be the restriction of $W_i$ to $Z_i$ and let $p_i\mh F_i\to Z_i$ be the projection. Hence, $(\rho_i^j)\sta(F_j)$ is canonically a subvector bundle of $F_i|_{Z_{i,j}}$. By Lemma \[3.2\], $(\rho^j_i)\sta(F_j)$ intersects transversally with $N_{0/\phi_i}\cap p_i\upmo(Z_{i,j})$ and as currents, $N_{0/\phi_i}\cap (\rho_i^j)\sta(F_j)=(p_i^j)\sta(N_{0/\phi_j})$.
For convenience, in the following we will call the collection $\{F_i\}$ with transition functions $f^j_i$ a semi-$\QQ$-bundle and denote it by $\cF$, and will denote $\{ N_{0/\phi_i}\}$ by $\cN\uan$. As in section two, we call a collection $\bs=\{s_i\}_{i\in\Lambda}$ of smooth sections $s_i\mh Z_i\to F_i$ a global section of $\cF$ if for $j\leq i\in\Lambda$ the restriction $s_i|_{Z_{i,j}}
\mh Z_{i,j}\to F_i|_{Z_{i,j}}$ coincides with the pull back section $(\rho_i^j)\sta s_j\mh Z_{i,j}\to (\rho_i^j)\sta F_j$ under the canonical inclusion $(\rho_i^j)\sta F_j\sub F_i|_{Z_{i,j}}$. We say that the section $\bs$ is transversal to $\cN\uan$ if for each $i\in\Lambda$, the graph of the section $s_i$ is transversal to $N_{0/\phi_i}$ in $F_i$.
Obviously, if $\bs$ is a global section of $F$ that is transversal to $\cN\uan$, then following the argument after Lemma \[1.10\], currents $$\frac{1}{m_i}\iota\pri_{i\ast}\pi_{i\ast}(N_{0/\phi_i}\cap
\Gamma_{s_i}),\quad {i\in\Lambda},$$ where $\iota\pri_i\mh Z_i\to\bB$ is the restriction of $\iota_i\mh R_i\to\bB$ to $Z_i\sub R_i$ and $m_i$ is the number of sheets of the branched covering $\iota\pri_i\mh Z_i\to\iota_i\pri(Z_i)$, patch together to form an oriented current in $\bB$ without boundary. We denote this current by $\bs\sta(\cN\uan)$. It has pure dimension $r\lexp$ since the currents $N_{0/\phi_i}$ has dimension $\dim R_i=\operatorname{rank}F_i+r\lexp$. Hence it defines a homology class $[\bs\sta(\cN\uan)]$ in $H_{2r\lexp}(\bB;\QQ)$.
$[\bs\sta(\cN\uan)]$ is the Euler class $e[\Phi\mh \bB\to\bE]$ constructed in section one.
Recall that the class $e[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE]$ was constructed by first selecting a collection of perturbations $h_i(s)\mh R_i\to W_i$ of $\phi_i$ parameterized by $s\in [0,1]$ satisfying certain property and then form the current that is the patch together of the currents $\frac{1}{ m_i}\iota_{k\ast}(\Gamma_{h_i(1)}
\cap\Gamma_0)$, where $\Gamma_{h_i(1)}$ and $\Gamma_0$ are the graph of $h_i(1)$ and $0\mh R_i\to W_i$. Alternatively, we can perturb the $0$-section instead of $\{\phi_i\}$ to obtain the same cycle. Namely, we let $h_i\pri(s)\mh
R_i\to W_i$ be a collection of perturbations of the zero section $0\mh R_i\to W_i$, such that it satisfies the obvious compatibility and properness property similar to that of $h_i(s)$ in section two. Moreover, we require that the graph $\Gamma_{h\pri_i(1)}$ is transversal to $N_{0/\phi_i}$ and transversal to the graph $\Gamma_{t\phi_i}$ for sufficiently large $t$. Of course such perturbations do exist following the proof of Proposition \[1.12\]. Let $C_t$ be the current in $\bB$ that is the result of patching together the currents $\frac{1}{ m_i}\iota_{i\ast}p_{i\ast}(\Gamma_{h_i\pri(1)}
\cap\Gamma_{t\phi_i})$, where $p_i$ is the projection $W_i\to R_i$. Clearly, for $t\gg 0$, we have $\partial C_t=0$ and $\operatorname{Supp}(C_t)$ is compact. Hence $C_t$ defines a homology class in $H_{2r\lexp}(\bB;\QQ)$, denoted by $[C_t]$. It follows from the uniqueness argument in the end of section two that for sufficiently large $t$, the homology class $[C_t]$ in $H_{2r\lexp}(\bB;\QQ)$ is exactly the Euler class. On the other hand, we let $C_{\infty}$ be the current in $\bB$ that is the patch together of the currents $\frac{1}{ m_i}\iota_{i\ast}p_{i\ast}(\Gamma_{h_i\pri(1)}\cap N_{0/\phi_0})$. Because $N_{0/\phi_i}$ is the limit of $\Gamma_{t\phi_i}$, and because $\Gamma_{h_i\pri(1)}$ intersects transversally with $\Gamma_{t\phi_i}$ for $t\gg 0$ and with $N_{0/\phi_i}$, the union $$\bigcup_{t\in [0,\eps]} \{t\}\times C_{1/t}\sub [0,\eps]\times\bB,$$ where $1\gg\eps>0$, is a current whose boundary is $C_{1/\eps}- C_{\infty}$. This implies that $$[C_{\infty}]=[C_t]\in H_{2r\lexp}(\bB;\QQ)\qquad \text{for}\ t\gg 0.$$ Further, because the currents $N_{0/\phi_i}$ are contained in $F_i=W_i|_{Z_i}$, $p_{i\ast}(N_{0/\phi_i}\cap
\Gamma_{h_i\pri(1)})$ as current is identical to $\pi_{i\ast}(N_{0/\phi_i}\cap \Gamma_{r_i})$, where $r_i\mh
Z_i\to F_i$ is the restriction of $h_i\pri(1)$ to $Z_i$. Hence $C_{\infty}={\mathbf r}\sta(\cN\uan)$ with ${\mathbf r}=\{r_i\}$. Finally, it is direct to check that the homology classes $[\bs\sta(\cN\uan)]$ do not depend on the choices of the sections $\bs$ of $\cF=\{F_i\}$ so long as they satisfy the obvious transversality conditions. Therefore, $$[\bs\sta(\cN\uan)]=[{\mathbf r}\sta(\cN\uan)]=
[C_{1/\eps}]=e[\Phi:\bB\to\bE].$$ This proves the Proposition.
In the end, we will compare the algebraic normal cones with the analytic normal cones to demonstrate that the algebraic and analytic construction of the GW-invariants give rise to the identical invariants.
Here is our strategy. Taking the good atlas $\{(Z_i,\cX_i)\}_{i\in\Lambda}$ of $\mgna$ as before, we have two collections of semi-$\QQ$-vector bundles, namely $\cE=\{E_i\}$ and $\cF=\{F_i\}$, and two collections of cone currents $\cM\ualg=\{M_i\ualg\}$ and $\cN\uan=\{N_{0/\phi_i}\}$ such that $[\eta_E\sta(\cM\ualg)]$ and $[\eta_F\sta(\cN\uan)]$ are the algebraic and the symplectic virtual moduli cycles of $\mgna$ respectively. Here $\eta_E$ and $\eta_F$ are generic sections of $\cE$ and $\cF$ respectively. To compare these two classes, we will form a new semi-$\QQ$-vector bundle $\cV=\{V_i\}$, where $V_i=E_i\oplus F_i$, and construct a stratifiable cone current $\cP$ in $\cV$ such that the cycle $\cP$ intersect $\cE\sub\cV$ and $\cF\sub\cV$ transversally and the intersection $\cP\cap \cE$ and $\cP\cap
\cF$ are $\cM\ualg$ and $\cN\uan$ respectively. Therefore, if we let $\eta_V$ be a generic section of $\cV$, then $$[\eta_E\sta(\cM\ualg)]=[\eta\sta_V(\cP)]=[\eta\sta_F(\cN\uan)]
\in H\lsta(\mgna;\QQ).$$ This will prove the Comparison Theorem.
We now provide the details of this argument. We begin with any index $i\in\Lambda$ and an open subset $S\sub Z_i$. Let $f\mh C\to X$ be the restriction to $S$ of the tautological family $\cX_i$ of stable maps over $Z_i$, with $D\sub C$ the divisor of its $n$-marked sections and $\pi\mh C\to S$ the projection. Note that $f$ is the restriction of a family of stable morphisms over a scheme to an analytic open subset of the base scheme. Following the construction in [@LT1 section 3], after fixing a sufficiently ample line bundle over $X$, we canonically construct a locally free sheaf of $\cO_{C}$-modules $\cK$ so that $f\sta\om_X$ is canonically a quotient sheaf of $\cK$. Let $\cL$ be the kernel of $\cK\to f\sta\om_X$. Then the restriction to $S$ of the sheaf $\cE_{i,1}$ (resp. $\cE_{i,2}$) mentioned before is the the relative extension sheaf $\ext_{\pi}^1([\cK\to\om_{C/S}(D)],\cO_{C})$ (resp. $R\pi_{\ast}(\cL\dual)$). We denote them by $\cE_{S,1}$ and $\cE_{S,2}$ respectively. As usual, we let $E_{S,1}$ and $E_{S,2}$ be the associated vector bundle of $\cE_{S,1}$ and $\cE_{S,2}$ respectively. Following the notation in [@LT1], the tangent-obstruction complex $[\cT_S^1\to\cT_S^2]$ of $\cX_i|_S$ is $$\bigl[\sideset{}{^1_{\pi}}\ext([f\sta\om_X\to\om_{C/S}(D)],\cO_{C})
\mapto{\times0}
\sideset{}{^2_{\pi}}\ext([f\sta\om_X\to\om_{C/S}(D)],\cO_{C})\bigr],$$ and that there is a canonical homomorphism $\eps: \cE_{S,1}\lra \cE_{S,2}$ so that the kernel and the cokernel of $\eps$ are $\cT_S^1$ and $\cT_S^2$ respectively. The homomorphism $\eps$ is the middle arrow in the sequence .
We now assume that there is an analytic approximation $\alpha\in\Xi$ so that $(R_i,W_i,\phi_i)$ is finer than $\alpha$ and $\iota_i(S)\sub\bB$ is contained in $\iota\lalp(Z\lalp)$. Let $\rho_{\alpha}\mh Z_i\to Z\lalp$ be induced by $f_i^{\alpha}\mh R_{i,\alpha}\to R\lalp$ (see ). Let $F_{S,\alpha}$ be the vector bundle over $Z_i$ that is the pull back of $F\lalp$. Note that $F_{S,\alpha}$ is a smooth vector bundle. Let $G_{S,\alpha,2}= E_{S,2}\oplus F_{S,\alpha}$. In the following, we will construct a holomorphic vector bundle $G_{S,\alpha,1}$ and a possibly degenerate vector bundle homomorphism $\beta$ and non-degenerate vector bundle inclusions $\tau_{\alpha,j}$ as shown below so that $$\begin{CD}
E_{S,1} @>{\eps}>> E_{S,2}\\
@VV{\tau_{\alpha,1}}V @VV{\tau_{\alpha,2}}V\\
G_{S,\alpha,1} @>{\beta}>>G_{S,\alpha,2}
\end{CD}
\lab{eq:3.5}$$ is commutative. Let $w$ be any point in $S$. We denote by $C_w$ the fiber of $C$ over $w$ and let $f_w$ (resp. $\cK_w$, resp. $\cL_w$) be the restriction of the respective objects to $C_w$. As before, for any locally free sheaf of $\cO_{C_w}$-modules $\cW$ that is locally free away from the nodal points of $C_w$, we denote by $\cW\ua$ the sheaf whose stalk at nodal points $z$ of $C_w$ are $\cW_z$ and its stalks at smooth points $z$ of $C_w$ are germs of smooth sections of the associated vector bundle of $\cW$ at $z$. We let $G_{S,\alpha,1}|_w$ be the vector space of the equivalence classes of commutative diagrams $$\begin{CD}
@. @. \cK_w @>>> f_w\sta\om_X\\
@.@. @VV{h}V @VV{df_w\dual}V\\
0@>>> \cO_{C_w}\ua @>>> \cB_w\ua @>>> \om_{C_w}(D_w)\ua
@>>> 0
\end{CD}
\lab{eq:3.6}$$ such that the lower exact sequences are induced by the exact sequences of sheaves of $\cO_{C_w}$-modules $$\begin{CD}
0 @>>> \cO_{C_w} @>>> \cB_w @>>> \om_{C_w}(D_w)
@>>> 0
\end{CD}$$ and that $h$ satisfies the following two requirements. First, let $c\mh \cL_w\to \cB_w\ua$ be the composite of $\cL_w\to\cK_w$ with $h$. Since $\cL_w$ is the kernel of $\cK_w\to f_w
\sta\om_X$, $c$ automatically lifts to $h_{E}\mh \cL_w
\to \cO_{C_w}\ua$. The first requirement is that $h_{E}$ is holomorphic. Secondly, since both $\cK_w$ and $\cL_w$ are sheaves of $\cO_{C_w}$-modules and since $h$ is analytic near nodal points of $C_w$, $\dbar h$ is a $(0,1)$-form with compact support [^5] taking values in the associated vector bundle of $\cK_w\dual\otimes_{\cO
_{C_w}}\cB_w$. Because of the first requirement, it factors through a section $h_{F}$ of $\om^{0,1}\lcpt(f_w\sta T_X)$. We require that $h_{ F}$ is an element in $\rho_{\alpha}\sta W\lalp|_w$. Using Lemma \[2.1\] and Corollary \[2.2\] and the fact that $\cK\dual$ is sufficiently ample which was the precondition on our choice of $\cK$, it is direct to check that the collection $\{G_{S,\alpha,1}|_w\mid w\in S\}$ forms a smooth vector bundle, denoted $G_{S,\alpha,1}$, and the correspondence that sends to $h_{E}- h_{F}$ form a possibly degenerate vector bundle homomorphism $\beta \mh G_{S,\alpha,1}\to G_{S,\alpha,2}$.
We next define the homomorphisms $\tau_{\alpha,j}$. The homomorphism $\tau_{\alpha,2}\mh E_{S,2}\to G_{S,\alpha,2}$ is the obvious homomorphism based on the definition $G_{S,\alpha,2}=E_{S,2}\oplus F_{S,\alpha}$. For $\tau_{\alpha,1}$, we recall that for any $w\in S$ the vector space $E_{S,1}|_w$ is the set of equivalence classes of the diagrams of which the $h$ are holomorphic. Namely, $h$ are induced by homomorphisms $f_w\sta\om_X\to\cB$. Hence $E_{S,1}$ is canonically a subbundle of $G_{S,\alpha,1}$. This shows that both $\tau_{\alpha,1}$ and $\tau_{\alpha,2}$ are inclusions of vector bundles. Finally, let $\xi\in E_{S,1}|_w$ be any element associated to the diagram , then $\eps(\xi)$ is the section of $\cL_w\dual$ that is the lift of $\cL_w\to\cK_w\mapto{h}\cB_w$ to $\cL_w\to\cO_{C_w}$. It follows that the square of is commutative. We now show that $\operatorname{Coker}(\tau_{\alpha,1})=
\operatorname{Coker}(\tau_{\alpha,2})$. It suffices to show that the sequence $$\begin{CD}
0 @>>> E_{S,1}@>{\tau_{\alpha,1}}>> G_{S,\alpha,1} @>{c}>> F_{S,\alpha} @>>> 0,
\end{CD}
\lab{eq:3.9}$$ where $c$ is the composite of $\beta$ with $G_{S,\alpha,2}\to F_{S,\alpha}$, is an exact sequence. But this follows directly from the definition of $G_{S,\alpha,1}$ and Lemma \[2.1\] and Corollary \[2.2\]. This proves that $\operatorname{Coker}(\tau_{\alpha,1})=
\operatorname{Coker}(\tau_{\alpha,2})$, and consequently $$\operatorname{Coker}(\beta|_w)=\operatorname{Coker}(\eps|_w)=\cT^2_S|_w
\lab{eq:3.31}$$ for any $w\in S$.
In the following, we will construct the cone current $Q\lsa\in Z\lsta
V\lsat$. We first pick a subbundle $H\lalp\sub G\lsat$ such that $H\lalp\to G\lsat\to\operatorname{Coker}(\tau_{\alpha,1})$ is an isomorphism. We let $P\lalp\mh G_{S,\alpha,2}\to E_{S,2}$ be the projection so that $\ker(P\lalp)=\beta(H\lalp)$ and $P\lalp\circ \tau_{\alpha,2}={\mathbf
1}_{E\lst}$. We then take $Q\lsa$ to be the flat pull back current $P\lalp\sta(M_i\ualg)\in
Z\lsta G_{S,\alpha,2}$. It follows that $Q\lsa$ intersects the subbundle $E_{S,2}
\sub G_{S,\alpha,2}$ transversally and the intersection $Q\lsa\cap E_{S,2}$ is exactly $M\ualg_S=M_i\ualg|_S$. In the following, we will demonstrate that $Q\lsa$ intersects the subbundle $F_{S,\alpha}\sub G_{S,\alpha,2}$ transversally as well and that the intersection $Q\lsa\cap F\lsa$ is the current $\rho\lalp\sta (N\lalp\uan)\in Z\lsta F_{S,\alpha}$. Let $w\in S$ ($\sub Z_i$) be any point. Since $T_{w\pri}R\lalp$, where $w\pri=\rho_{\alpha}(w)$, is the vector space $\operatorname{Ext}^1(\dbul_w,\cO_{C_w}\ua)\shar$, there is a canonical injective homomorphism $\sigma_w \mh T_{w\pri}R\lalp\to G_{S,\alpha,1}|_w$ of vector spaces that send the diagram to with $\cK_w\to \cB_w\ua$ the composite of $\cK|_w\to f_w\sta\om_X$ with the $v_2$ in . It is easy to see that the collection $\{\sigma_w \}_{w\in S}$ forms a smooth non-degenerate vector bundle homomorphism $\sigma \mh \rho_{\alpha}\sta(TR\lalp)\to G_{S,\alpha,1}$. If follows from the description of $$\rho\lalp\sta(d \phi\lalp):
\rho\lalp\sta(TR\lalp)\lra F_{S,\alpha}$$ that the diagram of vector bundle homomorphisms $$\begin{CD}
G_{S,\alpha,1} @>{\beta}>> G_{S,\alpha,2}\\
@AAA @AAA\\
\rho\lalp\sta(TR\lalp)
@>{\rho\lalp\sta(d\phi\lalp)}>> F_{S,\alpha}
\end{CD}$$ is commutative, where the second vertical arrow is the obvious inclusion.
To compare $Q\lsa$ with $\rho\lalp\sta(N\lalp\uan)$, we need the following two lemmas.
Let $w\in S$ be any point and let $w\pri=\rho_{\alpha}(w)$. Let $d_2\mh G_{S,\alpha,2}|_w\to \cT_S^2|_w$ be the homomorphism induced by and let $F_{S,\alpha}|_w\to
\cT_S^2|_w$ be the canonical homomorphism given in Lemma \[2.22\]. Then the following squares are commutative: $$\begin{CD}
F_{S,\alpha}|_w @>{\sub}>> G_{S,\alpha,2}|_w @<{\tau_{\alpha,2}}<<
E\lst\\
@V{d_3}VV @V{d_2}VV @V{d_1}VV\\
\cT_S^2|_w @= \cT_S^2|_w @=\cT_S^2|_w
\end{CD}
\lab{eq:3.40}$$
For any point $w\in Z\lalp$, the germ of $\phi\lalp\mh R\lalp\to
W\lalp$ at $w$ is a Kuranishi map of the standard obstruction theory of the deformation of stable morphisms associated to the exact sequence $$0\lra \cT\lalp^1|_w\lra T_wR\lalp \lra F\lalp|_w\lra
\cT\lalp^2|_w\lra 0.$$
We first prove Lemma \[3.10\]. Since $G\lsat\equiv E\lst\oplus F\lsa$, $d_1$ and $d_3$ induces a homomorphism $G\lsat|_w\to \cT^2_S|_w$. To prove the lemma, it suffices to show that $d_2=d_1\oplus d_3$. To accomplish this, we only need to show that for any $\xi\in G_{S,\alpha,1}|_w$ with $\xi_E$ and $-\xi_F$ its two components of $\beta(\xi)$ according to the direct sum decomposition $G\lsat|_w=E_{S,2}|_w\oplus F_{S,\alpha}|_w$, then $d_1(\xi_E)=d_3(\xi_F)$.
To prove this, we first pick an $h_0\mh f_w\sta\om_X\to \cB\ua_w$ such that $$\begin{CD}
f_w\sta\om_X @= f_w\sta\om_X\\
@VV{h_0}V @VV{df_w\dual}V\\\
\cB\ua_w @>>> \om_{C_w}(D_w)\ua
\end{CD}$$ is commutative. Let $h_0\pri$ be the composite of $\cK_w\to f_w\sta\om_X$ with $h_0$. Then $h\pri-h_0$ factor through $\cO_{C_w}\ua\to\cB_w\ua$, say $\tilde h\mh \cK_w\to\cO_{C_w}\ua$. Clearly, $\tilde h$ composed with $\cL_w\to\cK_w$ is the section $\xi_E\in H^0(\cL_w\dual)$. On the other hand, the lift of $\dbar \tilde h$ to $\om^{0,1}\lcpt(f_w\sta T_X)$ is $\xi_F-(\dbar h_0)^{\text{lift}}$. By the definition of the connecting homomorphism $\delta\mh H^0(\cL_w\dual)\to
H^1(f_w\sta\om_X\dual)$, $$\delta(\xi_E)=\text{the image of}\ (\xi_F
-(\dbar h_0)^{\text{lift}})\ \text{in}\
H^{0,1}_{\dbar}(f_w\sta T_X)\cong H^1(f_w\sta\om_X\dual).$$ However, the image of $(\dbar h_0)^{\text{lift}}$ is contained in the image of the connecting homomorphism $$\operatorname{Ext}^1(\om_{C_w}(D_w),\cO_{C_w})\lra
\operatorname{Ext}^2([f_w\sta\om_X\to 0],\cO_{C_w})\equiv H^1(f_w\sta\om_X\dual).$$ Hence $d_1(\xi_E)=d_3(\xi_F)$. This proves Lemma \[3.10\].
We now prove Lemma \[3.11\]. Let $I\sub B$ be an ideal of an Artin ring annihilated by the maximal ideal $\mm_B$ and let $\varphi\mh\operatorname{Spec}B/I
\to R\lalp$ be a morphism that sends the closed point of $\operatorname{Spec}B/I$ to $w$ and such that $\varphi\sta(\phi\lalp)=0$. By the description of the tautological family $\cX\lalp$ over $R\lalp$, the pull back $\varphi\sta(\cX\lalp)$ forms an algebraic family of stable morphisms over $\operatorname{Spec}B/I$. We continue to use the open covering of the domain $\cX\lalp$ used before. Since $R\lalp$ is smooth, we can extend $\varphi$ to $\tilde\varphi\mh\operatorname{Spec}B\to R\lalp$. Let $C_B$ over $\operatorname{Spec}B$ be the domain of the pull back of the domain of $\cX\lalp$ via $\tilde\varphi$ and let $C_{B/I}$ be the domain of $C_B$ over $\operatorname{Spec}B/I$. We let $\{U_i\}$ (resp. $\{\tilde U_i\}$) be the induced open covering of $C_{B/I}$ (resp. $C_B$) and let $f_i\mh U_i\to X$ be the restriction to $U_i$ of the pull back of the stable maps in $\cX\lalp$. Because $\varphi\sta(\phi\lalp)=0$, $f_i$ are holomorphic. Hence they define a morphism $f\mh C_{B/I}\to X$. Now we describe the obstruction to extending $f$ to $\operatorname{Spec}B$. Let $C_0$ be the closed fiber of $C_B$ and let $f_0\mh C_0\to X$ be the restriction of $f$. For each $i$, we pick a holomorphic extension $\tilde f_i\mh \tilde U_i\to X$ of $f_i$. Then over $\tilde U_{ij}=\tilde U_i\cap \tilde U_j$, $\tilde f_j-\tilde f_i$ is canonically an element in $\Gamma(f_0\sta\cT_X|_{U_i\cap U_j})\otimes I$, denoted by $f_{ij}$. Further, the collection $\{f_{ij}\}$ is a cocycle and hence defines an element $[f_{ij}]\in H^1(f_0\sta\cT_X)\otimes I$. The obstruction to extending $f$ to $\operatorname{Spec}B$ is the image of $[f_{ij}]$ in $\operatorname{Ext}^2(\cD^{\bullet}_w,\cO_{C_0})\otimes I$ under the homomorphism in the statement in Lemma \[2.22\] with $z$ replaced by $w$. We denote the image by $\text{ob}\ualg$.
The obstruction to extending $\varphi$ to $\tilde\varphi\mh\operatorname{Spec}B\to
R\lalp$ so that $\tilde\varphi\sta(\phi\lalp)=0$ can be constructed as follows. Let $g_i\mh \tilde U_i\to X$ be the pull back of the maps in $\cX\lalp$. Note that $g_i$ are well defined since maps in $\cX\lalp$ depend analytically on the base manifold $R\lalp$. By the construction of $R\lalp$, for each $i>l$ the map $g_i$ is holomorphic. For $i<l$, we have canonical biholomorphism $\tilde U_i\cong \operatorname{Spec}B\times (U_i\cap C_0)$. Because $\varphi\sta(\phi\lalp)\equiv0$, if we let $\xi_i$ be a holomorphic variable of $U_i\cap C_0$, then $\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar\xi_i}g_i\cdot d\bar\xi_i$, denoted in short $\dbar g_i$, vanishes over $U_i\sub \tilde U_i$. Hence $\dbar h$ is a section of $\Gamma(\om^{0,1}\lcpt(f_0\sta T_X)|_{U_i\cap C_0})\otimes I$. Clearly they patch together to form a global section $\gamma$ of $\om\lcpt^{0,1}(f_0\sta T_X)\otimes I$. The element $\gamma$ can be also defined as follows. Let ${\tilde\varphi}\sta \mh \cO_{R\lalp}\to B$ be the induced homomorphism on rings. Then since the image of ${\tilde\varphi\lalp}\sta(\phi\lalp)\in
B\otimes_{\cO_{R\lalp}}\!\cO_{R\lalp}(W\lalp)$ in $B/I\otimes_{\cO_{R\lalp}}\!\cO_{R\lalp}(W\lalp)$ vanishes, it induces an element $\gamma\pri\in I\otimes W\lalp|_w$. By our construction of $R\lalp$ and $\phi\lalp$, $\gamma$ coincides with $\gamma\pri$ under the inclusion $W\lalp|_w\sub
\Gamma_{C_0}(\om\lcpt^{0,1}(f_0\sta T_X))$. Let $\text{ob}\uan$ be the image of $\gamma$ in the cokernel of $d\phi\lalp(w)\mh T_w R\lalp\to W\lalp|_w$. By definition, $\text{ob}\uan$ is the obstruction to extending $\varphi$ to $\tilde\varphi\mh \operatorname{Spec}B\to \{\phi\lalp=0\}$.
To finish the proof of the lemma, we need to show that $\text{ab}\ualg=\text{ob}\uan$ under the isomorphism $$\operatorname{Coker}\{d\phi\lalp(w)\}\cong \operatorname{Ext}^1(\dbul_w,\cO_{C_0})$$ given in Lemma \[2.22\]. For this, it suffices to show that the Dolbeault cohomology class of $\gamma$, denoted $[\gamma]\in H^{0,1}_{\dbar}(f_0\sta
T_X)\otimes I$, coincides with the Cěch cohomology class $[f_{ij}]\in
H^1(f\sta_0\cT_X)
\otimes I$ under the canonical isomorphism $H^{0,1}_{\dbar}(f_0\sta
T_X)\cong H^1(f\sta_0\cT_X)$. But this is obvious since $\varphi_i
=\tilde f_i-g_i$ is in $\Gamma_{U_i\cap C_0}(
\om\lcpt^0(f_0\sta T_X))\otimes I$ such that $\varphi_j-\varphi_i=f_{ij}$ and $\dbar \varphi_i=-\dbar g_i$. Hence, $[f_{ij}]=[\gamma]$ under the given isomorphism. This proves the lemma.
Now we come back to $Q\lsa\in Z\lsta G\lsat$. Let $w\in S$ be any point, let $\hat w$ be the formal completion of $S$ along $w$, let $V_w$ be the total space of $\cT^2_S|_w$ and let $N_w^0\sub V_w\times \hat w$ be the the cone in Theorem \[3.16\]. We let $M_S\ualg$, $N\lsa\uan=\rho\lalp\sta(N\uan_i)$ and $Q\lsa$ be the cone currents in $E\lst$, $F\lsa$ and $G\lsat$ respectively as before. Note that they are supported on union of closed subsets each diffeomorphic to analytic variety. By Theorem \[3.15\], we have vector bundle homomorphisms $$e_1: E\lst\times_S\hat w\lra V_w\times \hat w
\and
e_3: F\lsa\times_S\hat w\lra V_w\times \hat w$$ extending $E\lst|_w\to\cT^2_S|_w$ and $F\lsa|_w\to\cT^2_S|_w$ such that $e_1\sta(N_w^0)$ and $e_3\sta(N_w^0)$ are the restrictions of $M_S\ualg$ and $N\lst\uan$ to fibers over $\hat w$ in $S$ respectively. Let $e_2\mh G\lsat\times_S\hat w
\to V_w\times\hat w$ be induced by $P\lalp \mh G\lsat\to E\lst$ and $e_1$. Then $e_2\sta(N_w^0)$ is the restriction of $Q\lsa$ to $G\lsat\times_S\hat w$. Because the squares in are commutative, $$\begin{CD}
e_2\mh F\lsa\times_S\hat w
@>{\sub}>> G_{S,\alpha,2}\times_S\hat
w @>{e_2|_{\hat w}}>> V_w\times\hat w
\end{CD}$$ is surjective. Hence $F\lsa\times_S\hat w$ intersects $Q\lsa$ transversally along fiber over $w$. Let $e_3\pri\mh F\lsa\times_S\hat w\to V_w\times\hat w$ be induced by $F\lsa\to G\lsat$ and $e_2$, then the intersection of $Q\lsa$ with $F\lsa\times_S\hat w$ is $(e_3\pri)\sta(N_w^0)$. However, by the choice of $P\lalp$, we have $e_3\pri\equiv e_3|_w$, therefore the support of $Q\lsa\cap F\lsa|_w$ is identical to the support of $N\lsa\uan|_w$. Because $w\in S$ is arbitrary, the support of $Q\lsa\cap F\lsa$ is identical to the support of $N\lsa\uan$. Further, for the same reason, for general point $p$ in $N\lsa\uan$ the multiplicity of $N\lsa\uan$ at $p$ is identical to the multiplicity of the corresponding point in $Q\lsa\cap F\lsa$. This proves that the cycles (or currents) $Q\lsa$ intersect $F\lsa\sub G\lsat$ transversally and $Q\lsa\cap F\lsa=N\lsa\uan$. We remark that for the same reason, the current $Q\lsa$ is independent of the choice of the subbundles $H\lalp\sub
G\lsat$.
We now let $F_S=F_i|_S$ and let $G\lst=E\lst\oplus F_S$. Note that $G\lsat\sub G\lst$. Because $R_i$ is finer than $R\lalp$, $\rho\lalp\sta TR\lalp$ is a subbundle of $TR_i|_S$. Let $K\lalp\sub TR_i|_S$ be a complement of $\rho\lalp\sta TR\lalp\sub TR_i|_S$ and let $d\phi_i(K\lalp)\sub F_S$ be the image of this subbundle. Let $P_{S,\alpha}\mh F_S\to F\lsa$ be the projection so that $\ker P_{S,\alpha}=d\phi_i(K\lalp)$ and the composite of $F\lsa\sub F_S$ with $P\lsa$ is ${\mathbf 1}_{F\lsa}$. By Lemma \[3.2\], $N_i\uan|_S=P_{S,\alpha}\sta(N\lsa\uan)$. Now let $P_S$ be the projection $$P_S= P\lalp\circ ({\mathbf 1}_{E\lst}\oplus P_{S,\alpha}):
G\lst\lra G\lsat\lra E\lst$$ and let $Q_S=P_S\sta(M_i\ualg)$ be the pull back cone. Let $\tilde d_3$ be $$\begin{CD}
\tilde d_3: F_S|_w @>{P_{S,\alpha}|_w}>> F\lsa|_w @>{d_3}>> \cT_S^2|_w,
\end{CD}$$ then clearly we have a commutative diagram of vector spaces $$\begin{CD}
F_S|_w @>>> G\lst|_w @<<< E\lst|_w\\
@VV{\tilde d_3}V @VV{P_S|_w}V @VV{d_1}V\\
\cT^2_S|_w @= \cT^2_S|_w @= \cT^2_S|_w.
\end{CD}$$ Because $w$ is arbitrary, similar to the previous case, we have that $F_S$ intersects $Q_S$ transversally and $F_S\cap Q_S=N_i\uan|_S$, as stratifiable currents.
To enable us to patch $Q_S$, where $S\sub Z_i$, to form a current in $G_{i,2}=
E_{i,2}\oplus F_i$, we need to show that $Q_S$ is independent of the choice of analytic chart $\alpha$. Namely if we let $\beta\in\Xi$ be another analytic chart so that $\iota_i(S)\sub\iota_{\beta}(Z_{\beta})$, then the cone current $Q_S\pri\sub G\lst$ constructed using $F_{\beta}$, etc., is identical to $Q_S$. Again, following the same argument before, it suffices to show that the homomorphism $\tilde d_3\mh F_S|_w\to\cT^2_S|_w$ does not depend on the choice of $\alpha$. Note that $\tilde d_3$ also fits into the commutative diagram of exact sequences $$\begin{CD}
T_{\rho\lalp(w)}R\lalp @>{d\phi\lalp(\rho\lalp(w))}>> F\lalp|_{\rho\lalp(w)}
@>>> \cT\lalp^2|_{\rho\lalp(w)}@>>> 0\\
@VVV @VVV @| \\
T_w R_i @>{d\phi_i(w)}>> F_S|_w @>>> \cT_S^2|_w @>>> 0.
\end{CD}
\lab{eq:3.33}$$ Now assume $\beta\in\Xi$ as before. Without loss of generality, we can assume that near $w$, the vector subbundles $\rho\lalp\sta F\lalp$ and $\rho_{\beta}\sta F_{\beta}$ span a $2l$-dimensional subvector bundle of $F_i$. Now let $V\lalp\to \tilde U\lalp$ and $V\lbe\to\tilde U\lbe$ be the vector bundles that define $R\lalp$ and $R\lbe$ as in section 2 and let $V\lalpbe\to \tilde U_i$ be the direct sum of the pull back of $V\lalp$ and $V\lbe$ via the tautological map $\tilde U_i\to \tilde U\lalp$ and $\tilde U_i\to\tilde U\lbe$. Then near a neighborhood of $w\in\tilde U_i$, the set $\tilde\Phi\upmo(V\lalpbe)$ will form a base of a smooth approximation containing $w$. We denote $R\lalpbe=\tilde\Phi_i\upmo(V\lalpbe)$ and let $\phi\lalpbe\mh R\lalpbe\to V\lalpbe|_{R\lalpbe}$ be the lift of $\tilde\Phi_i$. Clearly, $R_i$ is still finer than $R\lalpbe$. Hence we have commutative diagrams $$\begin{CD}
T_{\rho\lalp(w)}R\lalp @>{d\phi\lalp(\rho\lalp(w))}>> V\lalp|_{w}
@>>> \cT^2\lalp|_{\rho\lalp(w)} @>>> 0\\
@VVV @VVV @|\\
T_wR\lalpbe @>{d\phi\lalpbe(w)}>> V\lalpbe|_w @>>> \cT^2_i|_{w}
@>>> 0\\
@VVV@VVV@|\\
T_w R_i @>{d\phi_i(w)}>> F_i|_w @>>> \cT^2_i|_w @>>> 0\\
\end{CD}
\lab{eq:3.34}$$ with exact rows. Note that $V\lalpbe|_w\to \cT^2_i|_w$ is equal to $$V\lalp|_{\rho\lalp(w)}\oplus V\lbe|_{\rho\lbe(w)}\lra
\Gamma(\om\lcpt^{0,1}(f_w\sta T_X))\lra H^{0,1}_{\dbar}(f_w\sta T_X)
\lra \cT^2_i|_w.$$ (Here that $V\lalpbe|_w\to \cT_i^2|_w$ is defined apriori but not $F_i|_w\to\cT^2_i|_w$ because elements of $V\lalp|_w$ and $V\lbe|_w$ are $(0,1)$-forms with compact support.) Therefore, the homomorphism $\tilde d_3$ defined earlier is independent of the choice of $\alpha$.
Now we are ready to prove the theorem. Let $i\in\Lambda$ be any approximation and let $\{S_a\}$ be an open covering of $Z_i$ so that to each $a$ there is an $\alpha_a\in\Xi$ so that $\iota_i(S_a)\sub\iota_{\alpha_a}(Z_{\alpha_a})$. We let $G_{i,2}=E_{i,2}\oplus F_i$ and let $Q_{S_a}$ be the cone in $G_{i,2}|_{S_a}$ constructed before using the analytic chart $\alpha$. We know that over $G_{i,2}|_{S_a\cap
S_b}$, the currents $Q_{S_a}$ and $Q_{S_b}$ coincide. Hence $\{Q_{S_a}\}$ patchs together to form a stratifiable current, denoted $Q_i$. Assume that $j<i\in\Lambda$ be any two indices. Let $Z_{i,j}\sub Z_i$ be the open subset $\iota_i\upmo(\iota_j(Z_j))$ and let $f^j_i\mh Z_{i,j}\to Z_j$ be the map induced by $Z_i$ being finer than $Z_j$. Then $(f_i^j)\sta(F_j)$ is canonically a subbundle of $F_i|_{Z_{i,j}}$, and $(f_i^j)\sta(E_{j,2})$ is canonically isomorphic to $E_{i,2}|_{Z_{i,j}}$. Let $(f_i^j)\sta(G_{j,2})\to
G_{i,2}|_{Z_{i,j}}$ be the induced homomorphism. It follows from the previous argument that $Q_i$ intersects $(f_i^j)\sta(G_{j,2})$ transversally and the intersection $Q_i\cap(f_i^j)\sta(G_{j,2})$ is $(f_i^j)\sta(Q_j)$. Finally, by our construction, $Q_i$ intersects transversally with $E_{i,2}$ and $F_i\sub G_{i,2}$, and $E_{i,2}\cap Q_i=M_i\ualg$ and $F_i\cap
G_i=N_i\uan$. Let $\cG$ be the semi-$\QQ$-vector bundle $\{G_{i,2}\}$, which is $\cE\oplus\cF$, and let $\cQ$ be the cone $\{Q_i\}$. It follows from the perturbation argument in section two that for generic sections $\eta_E$, $\eta_F$ and $\eta_G$ of $\cE$, $\cF$ and $\cG$ respectively, we have $$[\mgna]\vir=[\eta_E\sta\cM\ualg]=[\eta_G\sta\cQ]
=[\eta_F\sta\cN\uan]=e[\Phi\mh\bB\to\bE].$$ This proves the comparison theorem.
[L3]{}
K. Behrend, *Gromov-Witten invariants,* Inv. Math., vol. 127, 1997.
K. Behrend and B. Fantechi *Intrinsic normal cone,* Inv. Math., vol. 128, 1997.
P. Deligne and D. Mumford *The irreducibility of the space of curves of given genus* Publ. I.H.E.S., vol. 45 101-145 1969.
R. Friedman *Vector bundles* To appear.
K. Fukaya and K. Ono *Arnold conjecture and Gromov-Witten invariants,* preprint, 1996.
W. Fulton *Intersection theory,* Ergebnisse der Math. und ihrer Grenzgebiete 3. Folge Band 2, (1984).
M. Goresky and R. MacPherson *Stratified Morse Theory,* Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Springer-Verlag vol 3 Band 14, (1988).
M. Gromov, *Pseudo holomorphic curves in symplectic manifolds,* Inv. Math., vol. 82, 1985.
M. Kontsevich and Y. Manin, *Gromov-Witten classes, quantum cohomology, and enumerative geometry,* Comm. Math. Phys., vol. 164, 1994.
M. Kontsevich, *Enumeration of rational curves via torus actions,* The Moduli Space of Curves, edited by R.Dijkgraaf, C.Faber, G. van der Geer, Progress in Mathematics vol. 129, Birkhauser, 1995.
J. Li and G. Tian, *Virtual moduli cycles and Gromov-Witten invariants of algebraic varieties,* to appear in J. Amer. Math..
J. Li and G. Tian, *Virtual moduli cycles and Gromov-Witten invariants of general symplectic manifolds,* to appear in Proceeding of 1st IP conference at UC, Irvine, 1996.
J. Li and G. Tian, *Algebraic and symplectic geometry of virtual moduli cycles,* to appear in The Proc. of AMS summer school, 1995, Santa Cruz.
T. Parker and J. Wolfson, *Pseudoholomorphic maps and bubble trees,* J. Geom. Anal., vol. 3, 1993.
Y.B. Ruan and G. Tian, *A mathematical theory of quantum cohomology,* J. Diff. Geom., vol 42 no. 2, 1995.
Y.B. Ruan and G. Tian, *Higher genus symplectic invariants and sigma model coupled with gravity,* to appear in Inv. Math..
Y. Ruan, *Topological Sigma model and Donaldson type invariants in Gromov theory,* Duke J. Math., vol. 83, 1996.
Y. Ruan, *Virtual neighborhoods and pseudo-holomorphic curves,* preprint, 1996.
B. Siebert, *Gromov-Witten invariants for general symplectic manifolds,* preprint, 1996.
E. Spanier, *Algebraic Topology* Springer-Verlag, 1966.
A. Vistoli *Intersection theory on algebraic stacks and on their moduli spaces* Invent. Math. [**97**]{} (1989) 613-670.
E. Witten, *Topological sigma models,* Comm. Math. Phys., vol. 118, 1988.
E. Witten, *Two dimensional gravity and intersection theory on moduli space,* Surveys in Diff. Geom., vol. 1, 1991, 243-310.
[^1]: Supported partially by NSF grant, Sloan fellowship and Terman fellowship
[^2]: Supported partially by NSF grants
[^3]: In case $X$ is a symplectic manifold, then we should use locally closed real codimension 2 submanifold instead of $H_i$, as did in [@LT2]. Here we use this construction of uniformizing charts because it is compatible to the construction of atlas of the stack $\mgna$ in algebraic geometry.
[^4]: In this paper we call $p\mh A\to B$ a covering if $p$ is a covering projection [@Sp] and $\#(p\upmo(x))$ is independent of $x\in B$. We call $p\mh A\to B$ a local covering if $p(A)$ is open in $B$ and $p\mh A\to p(A)$ is a covering.
[^5]: By which we mean that $\dbar h$ vanishes in a neighborhood of the nodal points of $C_w$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present the first investigation of Th abundances in Solar twins and analogues to understand the possible range of this radioactive element and its effect on rocky planet interior dynamics and potential habitability. The abundances of the radioactive elements Th and U are key components of a planet’s energy budget, making up 30% to 50% of the Earth’s [@Kore08; @Alle01; @Schu80; @Lyub07; @GeoNu10; @Huan13]. Radiogenic heat drives interior mantle convection and surface plate tectonics, which sustains a deep carbon and water cycle and thereby aides in creating Earth’s habitable surface. Unlike other heat sources that are dependent on the planet’s specific formation history, the radiogenic heat budget is directly related to the mantle concentration of these nuclides. As a refractory element, the stellar abundance of Th is faithfully reflected in the terrestrial planet’s concentration. We find that log $\epsilon_{\rm Th}$ varies from 59% to 251% that of Solar, suggesting extrasolar planetary systems may possess a greater energy budget with which to support surface to interior dynamics and thus increase their likelihood to be habitable compared to our Solar System.'
author:
- 'Cayman T. Unterborn, Jennifer A. Johnson and Wendy R. Panero'
bibliography:
- 'Unterborn\_Thorium.bib'
title: 'Thorium Abundances in Solar Twins and Analogues: Implications for the Habitability of Extrasolar Planetary Systems'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The Earth is a dynamic planet, in which the “heat engine” that powers the present-day dynamics that include plate tectonics, the geodynamo in the core, and the ongoing recycling and sustentation of the Earth’s atmosphere. Due to melting during the planetary formation process, the Earth has differentiated into two main compositional parts: the metallic core and the silicate-dominated mantle and crust. The metallic core contains iron, nickel, and those siderophile elements that partition into the metallic phase. The bulk silicate earth (BSE) contains the balance of the Earth’s composition, including most of the oxide-forming elements. This includes K, Th, and U, whose radioactive isotopes account for 20.1 TW [43%, @Huan13] of the Earth’s 47 TW surface heat flow [@Davi10]. The remaining 26.9 TW are a result of the initial differentiation into mantle and core, secular cooling of the core and mantle and the crystallization of the inner core. Geodynamo models show that the heat flow at the core mantle boundary from the core has remained roughly constant at 9 TW [@Labr97]. This is $\sim$20% of the Earth’s total energy budget today and less than 10% in the Archean, including the effects of potassium.\
Within the BSE, however, K, Th, and U are not distributed homogeneously. These lithophile elements partition into the magma generated at subduction zones, building continental crust that accounts of 40% of the Earth’s surface, a direct consequence of plate tectonics. This process leads to heat production of 7.6 TW within the continental crust, which serves as an insulating layer and thickens the surface boundary layer. It is the remaining 12.9 TW of the radiogenic heat budget that drives mantle convection.\
Of the two main planetary heat sources (radiogenic and secular cooling), the power produced by radionuclides is entirely compositionally dependent with the radiogenic heat budget inherited upon formation. Secular cooling, in contrast, is determined by the specific formation and segregation history. Our goal here is to explore the degree to which the radiogenic heat budget can vary between terrestrial exoplanets, and consequences of formation history will be left to subsequent work.\
U and Th are both refractory elements with 50% condensation temperatures of 1604 and 1647 K, respectively, in protoplanetary disks of Solar composition [@Lodd03]. The measured absolute abundances of other refractory, rock-building elements in Solar twins and analogues, stars of similar metallicity, mass and surface temperature to that of the Sun, varies between stars. Furthermore, the Sun is moderately depleted in many of the highly refractory elements (T$_{\rm Cond}$ $\textgreater$ 1500 K) of Z $\textless$ 56 [@Mele09]. If these differences are due to intrinsic variations in primordial abundances in planetary systems, rather than to the process of planet formation, then this suggests that the stellar abundances of U and Th may also vary within the Galaxy. In both older metal-poor stars and younger dwarfs/subgiants, wide variation in the absolute abundance of Th has been found, including other heavy r-process elements, to track Galactic chemical evolution [@More92; @McWi95; @John01; @Hond04; @delP05a; @delP05b]. It is not currently known, however, whether these variations in Th or U are present in younger, metal-rich, planetary host stars. Any variation in these abundances will translate into similar increase or decrease in both the crust and mantle of any terrestrial planets orbiting these stars thus having implications for these heat budget of these planets and potential for dynamics.
Sample and Methods
==================
[lcccc|ccc|cccccc]{} Sun$^1$ &4.5& - & - & -& 7.47 & 0.09 &1&-&-&-&-&-\
Sun (This Study) &4.5& 5777 & 4.44 & 0.00 & 7.47 & 0.09 &1&7.58 & 7.60 & 7.55 & 7.55 & $7.57\pm0.02$\
HD98649$^2$ &2.1& 5760$\pm 25$ & 4.51$\pm0.05$ & -0.01$\pm 0.02$&7.36 & 0.31 & 1& 7.54 & 7.59 & 7.54 & 7.54 & 7.565$\pm0.03$\
HD1461$^2$&4.8 &5756$\pm 44$ & 4.37$\pm0.05$ & 0.189$\pm0.015$& 7.60$\pm0.017$ & 0.33$\pm0.05$ & 9&7.74 & 7.79 & 7.77 & 7.74 & 7.76$\pm0.02$\
HD16417$^2$ &7.0& 5812$\pm 34$ & 4.09$\pm0.05$ & 0.094$\pm0.004$&7.53$\pm0.03$ & 0.31$\pm0.05$ & 7& 7.64 & 7.67 & 7.64 & 7.64 & 7.65$\pm0.01$\
HD102117$^2$&5.6 & 5690$\pm22$ & 4.30$\pm0.04$ & 0.304$\pm0.003$&7.76$\pm0.02$ & 0.49$\pm0.04$ & 8& 7.85 & 7.91 & 7.95 & 7.90 & 7.90$\pm0.04$\
HD141937$^2$&1.3 & 5900$\pm19$ & 4.45$\pm0.04$ & 0.125$\pm0.003$&7.53$\pm0.02$ & 0.44$\pm0.02$ & 3& 7.63 & 7.68 & 7.73 & 7.68 & 7.68$\pm0.04$\
HD160691$^2$&4.6 & 5809$\pm22$ & 4.28$\pm0.04$ & 0.298$\pm0.003$&7.76$\pm0.02$ & 0.44$\pm0.09$ & 9& 7.80 & 7.85 & 7.95 & 7.85 & 7.86$\pm0.05$\
HD10700$^3$ &-& 5312$\pm137$ & 4.59$\pm0.13$ & -0.43$\pm0.15$&6.91$\pm0.05$ & -0.14$\pm0.05$ & 4& 7.37 & 7.37 & 7.22 & 7.22 & 7.30$\pm0.08$\
HD115169$^2$ &1.7& 5815$\pm22$ & 4.52$\pm0.05$ & -0.01$\pm0.02$&7.41 & 0.36 & 1& 7.59 & 7.59 & 7.54 & 7.59 & 7.57$\pm0.03$\
HD146233$^2$&3.1 & 5822$\pm9$ & 4.45$\pm0.02$ & 0.051$\pm0.002$&7.48$\pm0.01$ & 0.42$\pm0.04$ & 4& 7.45 & 7.60 & 7.60 & 7.60 & 7.56$\pm0.07$\
HD45346$^2$&3.8 &5745$\pm25$ & 4.47$\pm0.05$ & -0.01$\pm0.02$&7.46 & 0.16 & 1& 7.54 & 7.59 & 7.54 & 7.54 & 7.55$\pm0.02$\
HD59711$^2$ &2.7& 5740$\pm15$ & 4.50$\pm0.05$ & -0.092$\pm0.02$&7.35$\pm0.05$ & 0.20$\pm0.02$ & 3& 7.56 & 7.46 & 7.46 & 7.51 & 7.50$\pm0.04$\
HD71334$^2$&4.7 &5724$\pm15$ & 4.46$\pm0.03$ & -0.044$\pm0.02$&7.34$\pm0.04$ & 0.24$\pm0.03$ & 5 & 7.51 & 7.56 & 7.56 & 7.58 & 7.55$\pm0.03$\
HD78534$^2$ &4.6& 5800$\pm25$ & 4.41$\pm0.05$ & 0.07$\pm0.02$& 7.49 & 0.19 & 1& 7.57 & 7.62 & 7.62 & 7.62 & 7.61$\pm0.02$\
HD78660$^2$ &1.5& 5782$\pm29$ & 4.52$\pm0.04$ & 0.033$\pm0.02$&7.45$\pm0.01$ & 0.26$\pm0.02$ & 5 & 7.63 & 7.56 & 7.58 & 7.58 & 7.61$\pm0.03$\
\[tab:measured\]
![The spectrum of HD146233 around the Th I line at 4019.129 Å (dots). The synthetic spectra (solid lines) were computed adopting the stellar parameters listed in the text. Synthetic spectra were calculated using $\log \epsilon_{\rm Th}$ = 0.17, 0.25, 0.35 and 0.45. The best fit for this spectrum ($\log \epsilon_{\rm Th}$ = 0.35) is shown in bold. []{data-label="fig:spectra"}](synth.eps){width="9cm"}
Our sample of fourteen stars (seven with and seven without observed planets) was selected from the publicly available HARPS archive [@Mayo03]. Observations were made using the 3.2 m La Silla telescope (R = 115,000). In order to minimize systematic uncertainty from input synthetic stellar models, only known Solar twins and analogues from @Baum10 [@Mald12; @Rami09] were selected (Table \[tab:measured\]). One-dimensional, hydrostatic, plane-parallel stellar model atmospheres were obtained from the MARCS catalogue [@Gust08], with raw spectra normalized using the spectrum analysis software SPECTRE [@Fitz87] with input stellar model parameters taken from @Baum10 and @Mald12. Th abundances were measured with the line analysis software MOOG [@Snee73] using the blended Fe-Th line at 4019.053-4019.129 Å adopting the line list of @Snee96 supplemented with lines from the VALD catalogue [@VALD Table \[tab:measured\]]. We first fit the Fe line at 4019.053 Å, followed by varying Th until a best fit was found (Figure \[fig:Abund\]) as determined by a minimized $\chi ^2$ test. Our Fe abundances (Table \[tab:measured\], Figure \[fig:Abund\]) are in good agreement with previous measurements for the same Solar twins and analogues, suggesting that our measurements are accurate with respect to Fe. In order to determine if any error is introduced by uncertainties in the stellar models, each abundance was remeasured adopting values 100 K, 0.05 (cgs) and 0.05 dex above and below the published value from the literature for T$_{\rm eff}$, $log(g)$ and \[Fe/H\] respectively (Table \[tab:measured\]). These values are at or above the published errors for these measurements.\
There are several possible blends in our line list in addition to the well-separated Fe I line within this spectral region including contributions from Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Ce, Nd, and Sm (Figure \[fig:Lines\]). As noted in Section 3, this blending is of particular importance as it may account for differences between our measured Th abundances and those from earlier work on similar stars, particularly that of @delP05a. Of these elements, we find that only varying Co made any significant difference in our measured Th abundance, while changing the abundance of any these other element affecting only the fit to the Fe line or required variations well beyond the measured abundances of these elements [@delP05a] before the Th abundance was affected. Furthermore, two stars as well as the Sun overlap between our sample and that of @delP05a, with our line lists being identical. Adopting their reported Co, Fe and Th values for these stars, we are either unable to fit the measured spectra or no noticeable difference was found between their synthetic spectra and ours (Figure \[fig:Comp\]). Furthermore, @delP05a fits $\sim$ 8 Co lines for these stars, making their measured Co abundances independent of the Th value. We therefore consider any contamination to be minimal and simply adopt the scaled-solar MOOG abundances for these elements when determining Th abundance.\
Not considered by @delP05a, however, is a CH line blended at 4019.170 Å. We find that variation in the $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratio was found to have a negligible effect on the spectral model for this line, and we therefore set this ratio to the Solar value of 89.4 for all measurements [@Aspl09]. \[C/Fe\] for each star was assumed to scale from Solar with metallicity as calculated by MOOG and provided a good fit to each of the $^{12}$C lines observed. @Mele09 found that \[C/Fe\] does not scale with Solar metallicity for Solar twins and analogues, however, we find no difference in depth the $^{13}$C line when the input, MOOG C abundance is scaled by their measured variation of between 0 and 0.06 dex from Solar.\
As we discuss in Section 3, Si is the relevant rock-building element in terrestrial mantles. To measure Si abundance then, we adopt the line parameters for 4 Si lines listed in @daSi12. The values for Si abundance derived from these individual lines for our sample of 14 stars are listed in Table \[tab:measured\]. Furthermore, we find only minor variations in derived Si abundance between these individual lines for each star in our sample. Again, each abundance was remeasured using models of 100 K, 0.05 (cgs) and 0.05 dex above and below the published value from the literature for T$_{\rm eff}$, $log(g)$ and \[Fe/H\] respectively, and no noticeable difference in Si abundance was found.
Results
=======
For this sample, we find $\log \epsilon_{\rm Th}$ between -0.14$\pm0.04$ and 0.49$\pm0.05$. Our measured Solar $\log \epsilon_{\rm Th}$ of 0.09, in agreement with the accepted literature value [@Lodd03]. We find that the Sun is depleted in Th/H relative to 13 stars in our sample, with one star more depleted than the Solar abundance (Figure \[fig:Abund\]). This corresponds to a variation between 59 (+7/-7) to 251 (+24/-22)% compared to the Solar abundance. Our total measured variation is roughly the same as @delP05a, however, in general our measured Th abundances are larger. While this enrichment is unlikely caused by our not accounting for potential contamination from other elements (Figure \[fig:Comp\]), it may be due to our two datasets varying in both resolution (R = 48,000 vs. R = 115,000) and differences in continuum normalization. Our measured Solar Th and Fe abundances, however, are in agreement with the meteoritic value (Table \[tab:measured\]), with @delP05a measuring depleted Th and enriched Fe abundances relative to @Lodd03.\
Differences in stellar age within our sample are another possible source of this variation. We find, however, only minor differences in Th abundance when these differences are taken into account (Figure \[fig:Age\]). Furthermore, the half life of $^{232}$Th is 14 Ga or roughly the age of the Universe, no significant variation on account of varying ages within our sample is expected. Assuming a star’s Th abundance reflects a primordial, homogeneous abundance present at the birth of every star in our Galaxy, our measured 251% variation cannot be explained. The variation in Th abundance we observe here is likely due then to individual stars being seeded with differing amounts of r-processed material with these abundances being a lower limit on the initial variation.\
![The region between 4018.95-4019.25 Å including the dominant spectral lines within this region as taken from VALD. The Solar spectrum is included for reference.[]{data-label="fig:Lines"}](Lines.eps){width="9cm"}
![Synthetic spectra for the three stars measured both by this study and @delP05a. Solid lines represent our synthetic spectra (Table \[tab:measured\]), dashed lines are syntheses adopting their reported Fe, Co and Th abundances and dotted is our reported Fe and Th abundances but adopting their Co abundance. Squares are the corresponding spectra.[]{data-label="fig:Comp"}](Comparison.eps){width="7.5cm"}
A higher Th/H in a star’s atmosphere does not directly indicate a higher Th concentration in a terrestrial planet’s mantle. Within the Earth, the majority of Th is present in the silicate mantle [@McD03]. Si is also a refractory, lithophile element in systems of Solar and near-Solar compositions [@Lodd03]. If we adopt then stellar Si abundance as a proxy for potential terrestrial planet mantle mass, normalizing to Th/Si allows us to compare Th concentration across planets of different silicate mantle thickness. A planet forming from materials with a high Si abundance will, to first order, result in planets with a silicate mantle accounting for a greater fraction of its radius. With this normalization then, absolute Th abundance is a function of planetary mantle mass only. The ability for a planet to convect is strongly dependent on the thickness of the mantle layer. Small planets forming with high Th/Si then may be more apt to convect due to this increase in internal heat rather than transport this heat via conduction. The Earth’s BSE has an effective log(Th/Si)$\sim$-7.34 [@McD03], a 28% enrichment of Th relative to the Sun [log(Th/Si)=-7.45, @Lodd03]. This may be a consequence of small amounts of Si incorporated into the Earth’s core, constrained via joint mineralogical and seismic models to be no more than 4.5 wt% (best fit 1.9 wt%). Accounting for Si in the core, the Earth’s log(Th/Si) is greater than or equal to -7.38 (a 10% decrease). This decrease is small compared to our observed 251 (+24/-22)% variation in Th abundances and thus normalizing to Si provides us with a good proxy for planetary mantle Th concentration.\
The abundance of Si for majority of our sample falls between $\log \epsilon_{Si}$ of 7.5 and 7.9 including that of the Sun (Figure \[fig:Abund\]). Within this range, however, Th/Si varies by a factor of 2.6, suggesting that the observed variation in Th indeed correlates with an increased concentration of Th within the silicate species. We further find a positive correlation of Th with Si ($d$Th/$d$Si = 0.77). We do not observe any variation of Th/Si with T$_{\rm eff}$ and therefore do not suspect any significant selection effects in our sample. We see this enrichment relative to Solar in stars both with and without observed planets, suggesting that although the planet-hosting stars contain known gas giants, these enrichments are not indicative of the infall of refractory material back onto the parent star. The variance in our observations suggest that any terrestrial planets present in these systems may be more or less dynamic due to variations in their energy budget from radiogenic heat as compared to the Solar System.
![Same as Figure \[fig:Abund\]C with Th abundances corrected to t = 0 Ga (circles). Stars without planets are shown as open symbols, stars without as closed and the Sun as triangles. []{data-label="fig:Age"}](Age_corrected.eps){width="9cm"}
Thermal Effects of Th budget on Planetary Dynamics
--------------------------------------------------
The nucleosynthetic origins of Th and U are observationally and theoretically correlated [@Gori01; @Freb07] as well as directly measured in meteorites and crustal minerals in the Earth [@Lodd03; @Urey52; @RudG03] and both must be considered in the total heat budget of a planetary mantle. If we adopt the average measured present-day BSE value of Th/U = 4 and scale the current BSE Th abundance from geoneutrino studies of 79 ppb [@Huan13] by the maximum Th/Th$_{\rm Sun}$ in our data set, we find a planet’s energy radioactive heat budget will be on average $\sim$ 26 TW greater than the Earth over 12 Ga after planetary formation (Figure \[fig:HighH\]).
Thermal Model
-------------
We adopt a single layer parameterized convection model [@McNa00] to determine the effects on a planet’s dynamic state due to this change in a planet’s internal energy budget. This model relies on the system’s Rayleigh number as a measure of convective vigor. While a parameterized convection model is not as accurate as a full, 3D convection model, it allows us to explore the general dynamical effects of incorporating a varying proportion of heat-producing radionuclides into a planetary mantle and to guide further investigation using more exact models. There is no mechanism to induce or sustain plate tectonics without interior convection and although plate tectonic-like regimes are a more complex question of fault strength, surface gravity, and the presence of liquid water [@Vale09; @Vale07; @Crow11; @VanH11; @Tack13], the Rayleigh number provides, to first order, a measure of whether interior mantle convection, and thus the possibility of tectonics will occur in these planets and be potentially habitable.\
The Rayleigh number ($Ra$) of a system as a function of time, $t$, is: $$\label{Rayleigh}
Ra(t)=\frac{g\rho_{0}^2\alpha \Delta T(t)D^{3}C_{p}}{k\eta _{0}(T)}$$ where $g$ is the acceleration due to gravity, $\rho_{0}$ is the average density of the mantle, $\alpha$ is the thermal expansivity of the materials present, $\Delta T(t)$ is the change in temperature across the convecting layer, $D$ is the thickness of the convecting layer, $C_{p}$ is the specific heat of the system, $k$ is the thermal conductivity and $\eta_{0}$ is an average viscosity. Above the critical Rayleigh number of 10$^3$ [@Schu79; @Schu80], mantle interior heat will be more efficiently transported via convection, with conduction dominating below the critical value.\
A parameterized convection model relates the efficiency of heat extraction from the planet to the vigor of convection, which, in turn, is dependent upon the internal temperature. The temperature change in a planetary body is quantified through conservation of energy, such that: $$\label{COE}
M_mC_{p}\frac{dT}{dt} = H(t) - Q(t)$$ where $H(t)$ is the amount of heat generated within the mantle, and $Q(t)$ is the heat extracted from the outer surface and $M_m$ is the mass of the mantle. Heat extraction at the surface is limited by the thickness of the surface boundary layer, $\delta$. We adopt the relationship: $$\label{delta}
\delta = D\left(\frac{Ra_{crit}}{Ra(t)}\right)^\beta$$ where $\beta$ is a scaling factor that relates the vigor of convection to the surface heat flux, $Q(t)$. The value of $\beta$ for the Earth is a matter of debate, but is general considered to be between 0 and 0.33 and we adopt a median value of 0.2 for this model. Equation (\[delta\]) may be rewritten in terms of the surface heat flow in Watts as $Q(t)=4\pi r^2*k\Delta T/\delta$: $$\label{heat}
Q(t)=4\pi r^2\frac{k\Delta T(t)}{D}\left(\frac{Ra(t)}{Ra_{crit}}\right)^{\beta}$$ where $r$ is the radius of the planet.\
Combining equations (\[Rayleigh\] - \[heat\]) yields: $$\label{DiffEQ}
M_mC_{p}\frac{dT}{dt} = H(t)- 4\pi r^2\frac{k\Delta T(t)}{D}\left(\frac{g\rho_{0}^2\alpha \Delta T(t)D^{3}C_{p}}{k\eta _{0}(T)Ra_{crit}}\right)^\beta$$\
This captures the basic physics of the feedback loop between temperature, internal viscosity, and surface heat loss, by which the increased vigor of convection increases surface heat loss, thereby reducing internal temperatures, increasing the viscosity and thus limiting internal convection [@Chri85]. This model assumes that any heat transported to the surface is removed from the system with no insulating thermal boundary layer at the top of the convection zone (i.e. continents). While not strictly valid in the presence of an insulating atmosphere, this assumption allows us to see the first-order effects of an increase in overall thermal conductivity and viscosity profile of a planet with increased Th and U abundance. It also does not take into account any feedback from tectonic recycling of cooler surface plates into the hot mantle, and this model is therefore meant as a first order approximation of the thermal history of a planet to determine the effects of composition on bulk thermal transport.\
We adopt Earth-like values for $C_{p}$, $k$ and $\alpha$ (Table \[tab:Model\]). In the high temperature limit, $C_{p}$ is a constant, and $\alpha$ and $k$ will vary by less than an order of magnitude due to bulk mineralogical differences and temperature effects, thus expressing very little variability in equation \[DiffEQ\]. In calculating $\Delta T(t)$, we adopt $\Delta T(t) = T(t) - T_{s}$, where $T_{s}$ is the temperature at the top of the convecting layer. In our model we hold $T_{s}$, at a constant temperature of 273 K.\
The thermal evolution model is dependent upon an initial average temperature of the planet’s interior ($T_{0}$). This reflects the formation history of the planet and is primarily dependent upon two sources of heat: gravitational energy converted to heat via both planetary accretion and the segregation of a central core. Therefore we assert that varying $T_{0}$ serves as a proxy for the amount of latent primordial heat present via these history-dependent mechanisms, with high $T_{0}$ corresponding to either planets that formed quickly (and thus retained much of their accretionary heat) or segregated a large core relative to their overall volume.
![Power produced from radiogenic sources, viscosity, temperature and Rayleigh number for a 1 M$_{\oplus}$, 1 R$_{\oplus}$ planet of Earth-like composition with 198.3 (red), 79 (black) and 46.6 (blue) ppb Th up to t = 12 Ga. Models were run with an initial temperature of 1500 K (dashed) and 3500 K (solid) with $\beta$ = 0.2. The approximate critical Rayleigh number (10$^3$) is shown for reference as a dotted horizontal line.[]{data-label="fig:HighH"}](HighH.eps){width="8.5cm"}
### Mantle Heat Generation
Heat production, $H(t)$, arises from the sum of the energy produced via the radioactive decay of $^{235}$U, $^{238}$U, $^{232}$Th and $^{40}$K. We adopt Earth-like mantle heat production as our basis for scaling Th abundance with present-day values of Th/U = 4 and K/U = 10$^{4}$ and a BSE value of $^{232}$Th = 79 ppb of @Huan13 with $^{238}$U/U = 0.9928, $^{40}$K/K = 1.19\*10$^{-4}$ [@Turc80]. These values, as well as the respective ratios, are scaled back in time to determine an $H(t=0)$ of 51.6 TW consistent with the back extrapolation in time from the present value of $H(4.5 Ga)$ = 16.4 TW. While a significant fraction of Th is concentrated in Earth’s continental crust, this fractionation is a direct consequence of melting associated with plate tectonics and mantle convection modeled here. Therefore, we choose to model initially the influence of variation in this primordial Th abundance on planetary mantle dynamics rather than the more complex question of sequestering some of these radionuclides in the crust due to plate tectonics.
### Viscosity
Power-law creep is the dominant creep mechanism in Earth’s mantle, which is dependent upon the convective driving stress. For simplicity sake, we consider a diffusion creep model [e.g. @Kara93] to capture the broad temperature and material dependence on viscosity. We assume that perovskite viscosity scales relative to dry olivine diffusion creep using the equation for strain rate, $\dot{\varepsilon}=A(\sigma/\mu)(b/d)^{m}\exp[-(E^{*}+PV^{*}/RT)]$, where $\mathit{A}$ is the preexoponential factor, $\mathit{\sigma}$ is the shear stress, $\mathit{\mu}$ is the shear modulus, $\mathit{b}$ is the length of the Burgers vector, $\mathit{d}$ is the grain size, $\mathit{m}$ is the grain size exponent, $\mathit{E^{*}}$ is the activation energy, $\mathit{V^{*}}$ is the activation volume, $\mathit{R}$ is the gas constant, $\mathit{P}$ is the pressure and $\mathit{T}$ is the temperature. The effective viscosity is then: $$\label{Visc}
\eta(T) = \eta_{0}exp\left[\left(E^{*}+PV^{*}\right)/RT\right]$$ where $\eta_{0}$ is the viscosity coefficient for a fixed driving stress. Viscosity model parameters are as in Table \[tab:Model\]. All viscosity calculations were calculated at a constant pressure of 86 GPa, which roughly corresponds to the pressure at one half of the Earth mantle’s radius.
[lcc]{} r (km) & 6371 & -\
D (km) &2873&1\
g (m s$^{-2}$) & 9.81&1\
$\rho_{0}$ (kg m$^{-3}$)&4400&1\
$\rm M_m$ (kg) & 4.04$*10^{24}$&1\
$\rm C_p$ (J K$^{-1}$ kg$^{-1}$)& 1250 & 1\
$\alpha$ (K$^{-1}$)&3$*10^{-5}$&1\
k (W m$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$)&5.6&1\
A(s$^{-1}$)&2.67$*10^{17}$&scaled to diffusivities\
m&2.5&assumed same as olivine\
d (m)&0.005&equal to xenolith grains\
b (m)&6$*10^{-10}$&scaled to olivine lattice\
$\mu$(GPa)&184&2\
$\eta_{0}$ (Pa s)&3.13$*10^{9}$&calculated\
E$^{*}$ (kJ mol$^{-1}$) & 502.54&3\
V$^*$ (cc mol$^{-1}$)&2.0&4\
\[tab:Model\]
Results of Thermal Model
------------------------
Solving Equation \[DiffEQ\] using a 4th order Runge-Kutta method, we find that for planets forming with a high initial temperature (3500 K), the Rayleigh number remains above the critical value for convection regardless of Th concentration over the entire time period considered here. For planets forming with a low initial temperature (1500 K), characteristic of a slow coalescence from planetesimals, however, a factor of 2.51 increase in Th abundance reduces the time at which the planet’s Rayleigh number rises above the critical value by $\sim$3 Ga. When the Th abundance is decreased by a factor of 0.59 this crossover time increases by 7 Ga compared to an Earth-like case. These results, however, do not consider the additional potential variability due to radioactive $^{40}$K, a moderately volatile element with a 50% condensation temperature = 1006 K [@Lodd03]. While an increase in a planets $^{40}$K abundance will further increase the chances of convection in a planet, stellar abundance measurements of K will not as directly inform its contribution to the potential heat budgets and habitability of terrestrial planets as compared to the refractory elements U and Th.
Conclusion
==========
The measurements presented here are the first measurement of a planetary system’s potential energy budget and potential for planetary interior dynamics. Mantle convection, as the underlying mechanism driving plate tectonics on the Earth, recycles and regenerates crustal, oceanic and atmospheric material [@Crow11; @Kore11]. This surface-to-interior process regulates the global carbon and water cycles, which in turn, aid in creating a habitable surface [@Slee01]. We find that some stellar systems possess a greater Th abundance compared to Solar and due to the refractory nature of Th, this increase will be reflected in the mantles and crusts of any resulting terrestrial planets. Planetary systems with higher Th/Si ratios at t = 0 Ga than Solar suggest that these systems possess larger energy budgets. This supports interior dynamics, and increases the likelihood for carbon and water cycling between the surface crust and planetary interior, thus broadening the range of planets which may support habitable surfaces.This work is supported by NSF CAREER grant EAR-60023026 to WRP.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In recent years, transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) have garnered [great]{} interest as topological materials. In particular, monolayers of centrosymmetric $\beta$-phase TMDs have been identified as 2D topological insulators, and bulk crystals of noncentrosymmetric $\gamma$-phase MoTe$_2$ and WTe$_2$ have been identified as type-II Weyl semimetals. However, ARPES and STM probes of these semimetals have revealed huge, “arc-like” surface states that overwhelm, and are sometimes mistaken for, the [much smaller]{} topological surface Fermi arcs of bulk type-II Weyl points. In this work, we calculate the bulk and surface electronic structure of $\beta$-MoTe$_2$, finding that is in fact a $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$-nontrivial higher-order topological insulator (HOTI) driven by double band inversion, and that it exhibits the *same* surface features as $\gamma$-MoTe$_2$ and $\gamma$-WTe$_2$. We find that these surface states are not topologically trivial, as previously characterized [by the research that differentiated them from the Weyl Fermi arcs]{}, but rather are the characteristic split and gapped fourfold Dirac surface states of a HOTI. In $\beta$-MoTe$_2$, this indicates that it would exhibit helical pairs of hinge states if it were bulk-insulating, and in $\gamma$-MoTe$_2$ and $\gamma$-WTe$_2$, these surface states represent [vestiges of HOTI phases without inversion symmetry that are nearby in parameter space and which may be accessible by symmetry-preserving strain [or lattice distortion that annihilates the Weyl points]{}]{}. We also show that when the effects of SOC are neglected, $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ is a nodal-line semimetal with $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$-nontrivial monopole nodal lines. This finding establishes that monopole nodal lines driven by double band inversion are the weak-SOC limit of HOTIs.'
author:
- Zhijun Wang
- 'Benjamin J. Wieder'
- Jian Li
- Binghai Yan
- 'B. Andrei Bernevig'
bibliography:
- 'hoti\_mote2Arx.bib'
title: 'Higher-Order Topology, Monopole Nodal Lines, and the Origin of Large Fermi Arcs in Transition Metal Dichalcogenides XTe$_2$ (X$=$Mo,W)'
---
[^1]
[^2]
Within the past decade, the number of topological phases characterized and identified in real materials has grown immensely. Since the recognition that graphene [@GrapheneDirac; @semenoff; @meleDirac] and [HgTe gap into $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ topological insulators]{} (TI) [@KaneMeleZ2; @AndreiTI] under the introduction of spin-orbit coupling (SOC) [@CharlieTI], an intrinsic link has emerged between gapped and gapless toplogical phases. As the number of known topological semimetals has [increased [@WeylReview; @BinghaiReview; @NaDirac; @SchnyderDirac; @NagaosaDirac; @ZJDirac; @SyDiracSurface; @borisenkoDirac; @SteveDirac; @AshvinWeyl1; @soluyanov_type-ii_2015; @wang_mote2:_2016; @sun_prediction_2015; @DDP; @NewFermions; @SteveMagnet; @KramersWeyl; @RhSiArc; @CoSiArc], the]{} number of known topological (crystalline) insulators realized by gapping them with SOC, strain, and interactions has kept pace [@LiangTCI; @HsiehTCI; @SCZAxion; @Steve2D; @HourglassInsulator; @DiracInsulator; @ChenRotation]. In one particularly simple example, a topological semimetal with a ring of linearly-dispersing degeneracies, known as a “nodal-line” semimetal (NLSM), can be realized in a weak-SOC crystal with only inversion ($\mathcal{I}$) and time-reversal ($\mathcal{T}$) symmetries [@YoungkukLineNode; @XiLineNode; @SchnyderDrumhead]. These nodal lines may be created and annihilated at single, time-reversal-invariant (TRIM) points in the Brillouin zone (BZ) by the inversion of bands with opposite $\mathcal{I}$ eigenvalues [@YoungkukLineNode], such that the total number of nodal lines is given by the *same* Fu-Kane parity ($\mathcal{I}$) criterion [@FuKaneMele; @FuKaneInversion] that indicates 3D TI phases in strong-SOC crystals. This simple condition has led to the rapid identification of candidate NLSMs, including Ca$_3$P$_2$ [@LeslieLineCa], Cu$_3$(Pd,Zn)N [@YoungkukLineNode; @XiLineNode], and 3D graphene networks [@GrapheneNetworkLine], all of which exhibit characteristic nearly-flat-band “drumhead” surface states. Crucially, it has also driven the recognition that weak-SOC NLSMs gap directly into 3D TIs upon the introduction of $\mathcal{I}$-symmetric SOC [@YoungkukLineNode].
Very recently, fundamentally distinct $\mathcal{I}$- and $\mathcal{T}$-symmetric semimetals and insulators have been proposed that escape this paradigm. In Ref. , Fang *et al.* introduced a second kind of weak-SOC nodal line, which, unlike the previous example, can *only* be removed by pairwise annihilation. Though the mechanisms underpinning the protection and identification of these “monopole-charged” nodal lines (MNLs) have been explored in detail [@YoungkukMonopole; @AdrianMonopole; @SigristMonopole], MNLs have thus far only been proposed in magnonic systems [@ChenMagnon] and explicitly shown to be related to weak-SOC gapped phases [@YoungkukMonopole]. Recent works have also identified higher-order topological insulating (HOTI) [phases [@multipole; @HigherOrderTIBernevig; @HigherOrderTIChen; @WladPump; @HigherOrderTIPiet; @HigherOrderTIPiet2; @DiracInsulator; @FanHOTI; @EzawaMagneticHOTI; @ZeroBerry]]{}, protected in 3D by only $\mathcal{I}$ and $\mathcal{T}$ [symmetries [@HigherOrderTIBernevig; @HOTIBismuth; @ChenTCI; @AshvinIndicators; @AshvinTCI; @EslamInversion].]{} Second-order TIs, in particular, feature gapped 2D surfaces and gapless 1D hinges with characteristic helical pairs of [modes [@WladPump; @HigherOrderTIBernevig; @HigherOrderTIChen].]{} [These helical hinge modes may be considered the domain wall states between 2D faces with oppositely gapped fourfold Dirac fermions [@DiracInsulator]. Using the theory of elementary band representations (EBRs) [@ZakBandrep1; @ZakBandrep2; @QuantumChemistry; @Bandrep1; @Bandrep2; @Bandrep3; @JenFragile1], it can be shown that the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ Fu-Kane criterion should be promoted to a $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ index that captures both TIs and HOTIs [@HigherOrderTIBernevig; @HOTIBismuth; @ChenTCI; @AshvinIndicators; @AshvinTCI]. Most recently, using Topological Quantum Chemistry [@QuantumChemistry],]{} HOTI phases have been identified in systems with *double band inversion* (Fig. \[fig:doubleBand\]), most notably in rhombohedral bismuth crystals [@HOTIBismuth].
![When two doubly degenerate bands with positive parity eigenvalues and two doubly degenerate bands with negative parity eigenvalues are inverted at a TRIM [point [@HigherOrderTIBernevig; @HOTIBismuth], the occupied bands cannot be expressed as a linear combination of EBRs [@ZakBandrep1; @ZakBandrep2; @QuantumChemistry; @Bandrep1; @Bandrep2; @Bandrep3; @JenFragile1]]{} and the $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ topological index [@ChenTCI; @AshvinIndicators; @AshvinTCI; @EslamInversion] is changed by 2. In a $\mathcal{T}$-symmetric crystal with vanishing SOC, this process may nucleate a pair of Dirac nodal lines with nontrivial monopole charge (MNLs) [@YoungkukMonopole] [(dashed lines in left panel)]{}. On the 1D hinges of this system, the projections of the MNLs will be spanned by nearly-flat hinge states (an explicit model is provided [in SM \[sec:TBmodel\])]{}, which represent the $d-2$-dimensional generalization of drumhead surface states. These hinge bands present an example of higher-order topology in a bulk-gapless system, and are the spinless analogs of the quadrupolar hinge bands predicted in certain tetragonal Dirac semimetals [@HingeSM; @TaylorToy]. When $\mathcal{I}$-symmetric SOC is introduced, the system will necessarily gap into a HOTI if all other bands are uninverted, and the flat-band hinge states will open into helical pairs spanning the bulk and surface gaps. HOTIs driven by this “double band inversion” include bismuth [@HOTIBismuth] and $\beta$-MoTe$_{2}$ (Fig. \[fig:Fig2\](d)).[]{data-label="fig:doubleBand"}](schematic){width="0.72\linewidth"}
In this work, we identify the transition-metal dichalcogenide (TMD) [@XTe2Structures] $\beta$- (1T’-) MoTe$_2$ (space group (SG) 11 $P2_{1}/m$) as a HOTI and explicitly show that in the absence of SOC, it forms a NLSM with MNLs. This cements the suggestion that MNLs formed from double band inversion are the weak-SOC limit of HOTIs, in analogy to the earlier recognition that monopole-trivial NLSMs are the weak-SOC limit of 3D TIs. We also show that the noncentrosymmetric TMD phases $\gamma$- (Td-) XTe$_2$ (X$=$Mo,W) (SG 31 $Pmn2_{1}$), previously identified as type-II (tilted) Weyl (semi)metals [@wang_mote2:_2016; @soluyanov_type-ii_2015; @sun_prediction_2015], exhibit the same topological surface features as $\beta$-MoTe$_2$, [and thus may also realize HOTI phases [if their narrowly separated Weyl points are annihilated.]{} Namely, both $\beta$- and $\gamma$- XTe$_2$ exhibit large surface states that have [been previously identified as topologically trivial [@sun_prediction_2015; @TamaiMoTe2; @WTe2Arpes2; @WTe2Arpes3; @WTe2Arpes4; @MoTe2Arpes1; @MoTe2Arpes2; @MoTe2Arpes4; @WTe2STM; @MoTe2STM; @WTe2Arpes1; @MoTe2Arpes3] (Fig. \[fig:surf\](d)); the]{} actual topological Fermi arcs from the Weyl points are considerably shorter [@soluyanov_type-ii_2015; @sun_prediction_2015; @TamaiMoTe2; @MoTe2Arpes1; @WTe2Arpes2; @WTe2Arpes4]. In fact, we find that these large surface states are not trivial]{}, but rather are vestiges of a nearby HOTI phase.
TRIM $\Gamma$ X Y Z S T U R
----------------------------------- ---------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. of $\lambda_{\mathcal{I}}=-1$ 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
: The number of Kramers pairs with $-1$ parity eigenvalues at each of the TRIM points in $\beta$-MoTe$_2$, obtained from [first-principles (SM \[sec:DFTmethod\])]{}. The $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ index [@ChenTCI; @AshvinIndicators; @AshvinTCI; @EslamInversion], calculated by their sum modulo $4$, is $2$, indicating that $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ is a HOTI.[]{data-label="tb:z4"}
TMDs are a class of readily synthesizable [@XTe2Structures; @CarlSynthesis1; @CarlSynthesis2; @OtherSynthesis1; @OtherSynthesis2; @LeslieBobTitanic] layered materials. Originally highlighted for the semiconducting bandgap of exfoliated monolayers [@MoS2Transistor], TMDs have recently been recognized as topological materials. Specifically quasi-2D samples of $\beta$-phase TMDs have been identified as 2D TIs [@LiangTMD; @TMDTI; @WTe2TI], and 3D samples of $\gamma$-XTe$_2$ have been identified in theory [@wang_mote2:_2016; @soluyanov_type-ii_2015; @sun_prediction_2015] and experiment [@BulkMoTe2; @BulkWTe21; @BulkWTe22] as type-II Weyl [semimetals. We]{} first focus on MoTe$_2$, and then generalize our findings to the isostructural phases of WTe$_2$.
![[(a) Bulk Wilson loops calculated for $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ from first principles in the absence of [SOC (SM \[sec:DFTnested\])]{}. For all values of $k_{y}$ away from the MNLs in Fig. \[fig:Fig2\], the $z$-directed Wilson loop spectrum $W_{1}(k_{x},k_{y})$ exhibits a large Wilson gap at $\theta_{1}/2\pi \approx \pm 0.25$; representative examples are shown in (c,d) for $k_{y} = 0,\pi$, respectively. (b)]{} Calculating the determinant of the *nested* Wilson matrix $W_{2}(k_{y})$ of the Wilson bands within this gap [@multipole; @WladPump; @HigherOrderTIBernevig; @HingeSM], we [find that it is quantized at $\pm 1$ by the combined antiunitary symmetry $(\mathcal{I}\times\tilde{\mathcal{T}})^{2}=+1$ [(SM \[sec:DFTnested\])]{}, and jumps as it passes over a bulk MNL, indicating that the planes above and below the MNL]{} are topologically distinct [@multipole; @WladPump; @HigherOrderTIBernevig].[]{data-label="fig:wloop"}](fig3){width="\linewidth"}
MoTe$_2$ can occur in two distinct crystal structures at room temperature: the hexagonal $\alpha$ (2H) phase (SG 194 $P6_{3}/mmc$) and the distorted monoclinic $\beta$ phase [@XTe2Structures; @CarlSynthesis1; @CarlSynthesis2; @MoTe2STM] (Fig. \[fig:Fig2\](a)). When $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ is further cooled below 250 K, it transitions into the noncentrosymmetric $\gamma$ phase [@XTe2Structures; @PhaseTransitionNPJ; @MoTe2STM]. Using first-principles calculations detailed in [SM \[sec:DFTmethod\]]{}, we calculate the electronic structure of $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ [with and without the effects of SOC incorporated (Fig \[fig:Fig2\](d,b), respectively)]{}. The electronic structure exhibits double band inversion (Fig. \[fig:doubleBand\]) at $\Gamma$ as a consequence of the $\beta$-phase lattice distortion (Fig. \[fig:Fig2\](a)). When SOC is neglected, a time-reversed pair of topological nodal lines forms intersecting $Y\Gamma$. [These nodal lines take on an irregular, 3D shape with a significant pucker in the $k_{y}$ direction (schematically depicted in Fig. \[fig:Fig2\](c)). They represent the only crossing points between the bands at $E_{F}$ (where the direct gap is taken to lie above $N=28$ spin-degenerate pairs of bands) in Fig. \[fig:Fig2\](c), and lie between $k_{y}= \pm 0.06\ (2\pi/b)$ and $k_{y}= \pm 0.19\ (2\pi /b)$ where $b=4.369$ Å is the lattice spacing along the $\vec{a}_{2}$ monoclinic lattice vector [@Brown1966].]{} Using the methodology prescribed in Refs. , we surround each nodal line with a closed surface and calculate the Wilson loop (holonomy) matrix eigenvalues [@Fidkowski2011; @Alexandradinata14; @Cohomological] [over the lower $N$ bands]{} as a function of the azimuthal momentum $k_{\theta}$ (Fig. \[fig:Fig2\](c) [and SM \[sec:DFTmonopole\])]{}. This Wilson spectrum exhibits the characteristic winding of a MNL [@YoungkukMonopole; @AdrianMonopole; @SigristMonopole].
[We also explore the topology of the gapped regions between the MNLs by calculating the $z$-directed Wilson loop $W_{1}(k_{x},k_{y})$ (Fig. \[fig:wloop\](a)) over the lower $N$ bands in the absence of SOC. We observe that in the planes indexed by $k_{y}$ away from the MNLs, the spectrum of $W_{1}$ exhibits gaps at]{} $\theta_{1}/2\pi\approx 0.25$ (Fig. \[fig:wloop\](c,d) and [SM \[sec:DFTnested\]]{}), allowing us to calculate a nested Wilson loop matrix [$W_{2}(k_{y})$]{}, whose determinant is equivalent to $\exp({i\gamma_{2}})$ where $\gamma_{2}$ is the nested Berry phase [@multipole; @WladTheory; @WladPump; @HigherOrderTIBernevig]. [In these bulk-gapless planes, $\det(W_{2}(k_{y}))$ is quantized at $\pm 1$ (Fig. \[fig:wloop\](b)), indicating a nested Berry phase [@multipole] of $\pi$ ($0$) below (above) the MNL, such that planes in the two regions are topologically distinct. We can understand this quantization from two perspectives: the bulk and the Wilson loop. From a bulk perspective, the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(k_{x},k_{z})$ of each plane is invariant under a local spinless time-reversal symmetry [$\mathcal{I}\times\tilde{\mathcal{T}}$ that does not flip the signs of $k_{x,z}$ and squares to $+1$.]{} By the arguments in Refs. , $\mathcal{H}(k_{x},k_{z})$ therefore lies in Class AI of the Altland-Zirnbauer classification [@AZClass; @KitaevClass] with codimension $D\mod 8 = 6$, which is well described as exhibiting a $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ topology. This topology can be diagnosed by considering the Wilson-loop perspective. In [SM \[sec:DFTnested\]]{}, we show that $\bar{\mathcal{T}}$, which acts on $W_{1}(k_{x})$ as an antiunitary particle-hole symmetry $\tilde{\Xi}$ that does not flip the sign of $k_{x}$ [@Alexandradinata14; @Cohomological; @DiracInsulator], enforces $\text{det}(W_{2}(k_{y}))=\pm 1$ when it is evaluated over a $\tilde{\Xi}$-symmetric grouping of Wilson bands (Fig. \[fig:wloop\](c,d)). Crucially, following the arguments in Refs. , the $\pi$ shift in $\gamma_{2}$ between the planes above and below the MNLs indicates that they are equivalent to topologically distinct 2D magnetic atomic limits [@QuantumChemistry; @HingeSM] (or trivialized “fragile” phases [@AshvinFragile; @JenFragile1; @JenFragile2; @HingeSM; @AdrianFragile]) that differ by [the presence or absence of topological corner (hinge) modes (SM \[sec:TBmodel\]).]{} We therefore conclude that the jump in $\gamma_{2}$ as $k_{y}$-indexed planes pass through a MNL (Fig. \[fig:wloop\](b))]{} represents a new example of a topological “descent relation,” analogous to the jump in Berry phase as the line on which it is calculated passes through a Dirac point in 2D and a nodal line in 3D [@YoungkukLineNode]. [Like in a Weyl semimetal [@AG1985; @NielsenNinomiya1], the winding of the Wilson loop evaluated on a closed surface around the MNL (Fig. \[fig:Fig2\](b)) captures the difference in topology between the gapped planes above and below it [@YoungkukMonopole], which, here, is the gapless point in $W_{1}(k_{x})$ [(which is well defined when, in the vicinity of the MNLs, it is evaluated on a slightly distorted path that avoids the bulk gapless points).]{} ]{}
![[(a-c) Schematic surface state evolution of a HOTI driven by double band inversion. (a) Two bulk bands inverted at the same energy (blue dashed lines) realize a fourfold surface Dirac fermion (purple lines) [@HOTIBismuth]. (b) In the absence of multiple surface glide reflection symmetries, this fermion is unstable [@DiracInsulator], and will split into two, twofold surface fermions, which may be stabilized by either a surface mirror (topological crystalline insulator) [@TeoFuKaneTCI; @HsiehTCI] or glide symmetry (hourglass insulator) [@HourglassInsulator; @DiracInsulator]. (c) In the absence of surface reflection symmetries, these twofold cones (yellow circles in (b), dashed lines in (c)) hybridize and gap, realizing the surface of a HOTI [@HigherOrderTIBernevig].]{} (d) Spectral weight at the Fermi energy of states on the (001) surface of $\beta$-MoTe$_2$, calculated from first [principles (SM \[sec:DFTmethod\])]{}, and plotted as a function of the in-plane momenta $k_{x,y}$, and [(e)]{} along $k_{x}=0$ as a function of energy. Each of the two band inversions at the bulk $\Gamma$ point (Fig. \[fig:Fig2\](d)) nucleates a topological twofold surface [cone centered at $k_{x}=k_{y}=0$ (purple); [the cones then]{} repel each other in energy and merge with the projections of the bulk states (b,e). As schemicatically depicted in (c), the surface bands from these cones [(red arrows in (d))]{} hybridize and gap (yellow dashed lines in (e))]{} to form a narrowly avoided crossing. [In $\gamma$-XTe$_{2}$, these hybridized cones also appear as surface states [@wang_mote2:_2016; @soluyanov_type-ii_2015; @sun_prediction_2015; @WTe2Arpes1; @WTe2Arpes2; @WTe2Arpes3; @WTe2Arpes4; @MoTe2Arpes1; @MoTe2Arpes2; @MoTe2Arpes3; @MoTe2Arpes4; @WTe2STM; @MoTe2STM], but their gap is spanned by small, topological Fermi arcs from bulk type-II Weyl points.]{}[]{data-label="fig:surf"}](fig4){width="\linewidth"}
When SOC is introduced, the crystal, though remaining metallic, develops a direct gap at $E_{F}$ at all crystal momenta (Fig. \[fig:Fig2\](d). Calculating the parity eigenvalues (Table \[tb:z4\]), we find that though the Fu-Kane $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ index [@FuKaneMele; @FuKaneInversion] is trivial, [the occupied bands nevertheless cannot be expressed as a sum of EBRs, indicating an overall nontrivial topology [@QuantumChemistry]. Specifically, while every EBR in a centrosymmetric space group exhibits Kramers pairs of parity eigenvalues $n_{-}$ in multiples of $4$ [@QuantumChemistry; @Bandrep1], the double band inversion in $\beta$-MoTe$_{2}$ induces a phase for which $n_{-}\text{mod}\ 4 = 2$ (Table \[tb:z4\]). Alternatively, this defines a $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$ index [@ChenTCI; @AshvinIndicators; @AshvinTCI; @EslamInversion] which is nontrivial. From both perspectives, $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ carries the parity eigenvalues of a HOTI [@HigherOrderTIBernevig; @HOTIBismuth]. Therefore, like bismuth]{} [@BismuthLayer1; @BismuthLayer2; @HOTIBismuth], $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ is a 2D TI when viewed as a quasi-2D system [@LiangTMD; @TMDTI; @WTe2TI], but is actually a HOTI when taken to be fully 3D.
Unlike $\beta$-MoTe$_{2}$, $\beta$-WTe$_2$, while stabilizable as a monolayer [@CarlSynthesis2; @WTe2TI], is unstable as a bulk crystal [@UnstableBetaWTe2]. Nevertheless, the calculated electronic structure of artificial $\beta$-WTe$_2$ also exhibits double band inversion at the $\Gamma$ point [@UnstableBetaWTe2], indicating that it would also be a HOTI if it could be stabilized. [However, we will see shortly that remnants of this HOTI phase are still observable in [$\gamma$-WTe$_2$, as they are observable in $\beta$-MoTe$_2$]{}.]{}
In [Fig. \[fig:surf\](d,e)]{}, we plot the (001)-surface states of $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ calculated from [first-principles (SM \[sec:DFTmethod\])]{}. We observe large, arc-like surface states around the projection of the $\Gamma$ point [(red arrows in (d))]{}, as well the projections of bulk states at the $k_{y}=0$ surface TRIM points. Plotting the surface spectral weight as a function of energy along $k_{x}=0$, we observe that the surface states are in fact gapped at all surface crystal momenta. This can be understood by considering the symmetry and topology consequences of the bulk double band inversion at $\Gamma$. In the absence of SOC, per spin, each band inversion nucleates a drumhead surface state around the surface projection of the $\Gamma$ [point (SM \[sec:TBmodel\])]{}. In the absence of additional wallpaper group surface crystal symmetries, such as mirror or glide [@DiracInsulator; @WiederLayers], these drumhead states hybridize and gap. When SOC is reintroduced, the two hybridized drumhead states open into two hybridized twofold surface TI cones [(Fig. \[fig:surf\](a-c))]{}. Therefore rather than being trivial Fermi arcs, the surface states of $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ are in fact the characteristic split and gapped fourfold Dirac cone states of a HOTI [@HigherOrderTIBernevig; @HOTIBismuth; @DiracInsulator].
This observation solves a longstanding mystery in the noncentrosymmetric $\gamma$ phases of XTe$_{2}$. According to both theoretical predictions [@wang_mote2:_2016; @soluyanov_type-ii_2015; @sun_prediction_2015] and bulk experimental probes [@BulkMoTe2; @BulkWTe21; @BulkWTe22], both $\gamma$-MoTe$_2$ and $\gamma$-WTe$_2$ exhibit narrowly separated type-II Weyl points in the vicinity of doubly inverted bands. Nevertheless, as measured both directly by ARPES [@WTe2Arpes1; @WTe2Arpes2; @WTe2Arpes3; @MoTe2Arpes1; @MoTe2Arpes2] and through quasiparticle interference in STM probes [@WTe2STM; @MoTe2STM], these $\gamma$-phase TMDs [also]{} exhibit huge, arc-like surface states that largely overwhelm possible signatures of topological Weyl Fermi arcs. Previous works determined these large surface arcs to be topologically [trivial [@wang_mote2:_2016; @soluyanov_type-ii_2015; @sun_prediction_2015; @WTe2Arpes2; @WTe2Arpes3; @WTe2Arpes4; @MoTe2Arpes1; @MoTe2Arpes2; @MoTe2Arpes4; @WTe2STM; @MoTe2STM].]{} However, in light of our previous analysis of similar *nontrivial* surface states in $\beta$-MoTe$_2$, we recognize this determination to be incomplete. We can now conclude that these surface arcs in fact represent the split surface Dirac cones of a *non-inversion-symmetry-indicated* HOTI phase that is nearby in parameter space and driven by double band inversion [(Fig. \[fig:surf\])]{}. Given the small separation of the bulk Weyl points, this phase may be accessible via symmetry-preserving strain, and could be diagnosed in *ab initio* calculations by a nested Wilson loop [@WladPump; @HigherOrderTIBernevig]. [Furthermore, as the Weyl point separation in $\gamma$-XTe$_2$ is already quite sensitive to experimental conditions [@WTe2Arpes1; @MoTe2STM; @gapTrans1; @gapTrans2], existing samples may already realize this HOTI phase.]{}
In this letter, we have presented signatures of higher-order topology driven by double band inversion in both the $\mathcal{I}$-symmetric and -broken phases of MoTe$_2$ and WTe$_2$. In $\beta$-MoTe$_2$, we observe that when SOC is neglected, a pair of nodal lines with nontrivial monopole charge lies at the Fermi energy. Though the effects of SOC cannot be neglected in this material, other centrosymmetric materials with lighter atoms and double band inversion are likely to also exhibit MNLs [@YoungkukMonopole]. When the effects of SOC are taken into account, $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ develops a direct gap with the inversion eigenvalues of a HOTI. Though $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ is in fact metallic, and thus does not host the projected hinge gap required to observe its characteristic helical hinge modes [@HOTIBismuth], it is possible that a TMD with more favorable band dispersion could be engineered by intercalation or chemical substitution. Finally, we also observe that the gapless noncentrosymmetric $\gamma$ phases of MoTe$_2$ and WTe$_2$ exhibit the same large topological surface arcs as $\beta$-MoTe$_2$, resolving an outstanding puzzle in TMDs, and presenting [a new venue for the exploration of higher-order topology in inversion-broken systems.]{}
The authors thank Barry Bradlyn, Jennifer Cano, Yichen Hu, Fan Zhang, and Youngkuk Kim for helpful discussions. ZW, BJW, and BAB were supported by the Department of Energy Grant No. DE-SC0016239, the National Science Foundation EAGER Grant No. NOA-AWD1004957, Simons Investigator Grants No. ONR-N00014-14-1-0330, No. ARO MURI W911NF-12-1-0461, and No. NSF-MRSEC DMR- 1420541, the Packard Foundation, the Schmidt Fund for Innovative Research. [B.Y. is supported by a research grant from the Benoziyo Endowment Fund for the Advancement of Science.]{} During the final stages of preparing this manuscript, hinge states in $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ were also predicted in Ref. , [but the relation to MNLs and to the experimental data were not previously established.]{}
Tight-Binding Model for Flat-Band Hinge States in a Monopole Nodal-Line Semimetal {#sec:TBmodel}
=================================================================================
![(a) Primitive orthorhombic BZ [@BCTBZ]. Bulk bands for $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}(\vec{k})$ (Eq. (\[eq:simpleHam\])) with the parameters in Eq. (\[eq:uncoupledParams\]). In this limit, this eight-band model exhibits an overall $SU(2)$ spin rotation symmetry, [and bands therefore appear in spin-degenerate pairs. In the inset panel, we highlight a]{} monopole nodal line (MNL) at $E_{F}=0$ along $\Gamma Z$ [(red circles)]{} that is linked to its time-reversal partner by nodal lines encircling the $\Gamma$ [point]{} directly above and below $E_{F}$ [(blue circle) ([axes not in parenthesis in]{} Fig. \[fig:coupled\](d))]{}, as discussed in Ref. . [Using the bulk tight-binding model, we deduce that the MNLs lie in the $k_{yz}$-plane.]{} (c) The Wilson loop eigenvalues over the lower four occupied bands on a sphere surrounding this nodal line, plotted as a function of the azimuthal momentum $k_{\theta}$, exhibit helical winding. As detailed in Refs. , this confirms that this nodal line carries a nontrivial monopole charge, [and thus, is a MNL]{}. (d,e) The $(100)$ and $(010)$ surface states of this model, respectively, [calculated at E=0]{}. [In (d), we observe both drumhead states on the interior projections of the bulk MNLs (white arrows) [@YoungkukLineNode] and extraneous surface states (red arrows) that are remnants of the bulk double band inversion. Specifically, the interior states indicated by the white arrows are topologically protected [@YoungkukMonopole], whereas the line of states shown by the red arrows is topologically trivial and lies outside the projections of the MNLs. These states originate from the double band inversion shown in Fig. \[fig:DBI\]: the first band inversion created a drumhead state at the origin of the surface BZ, and the pinching process of the line node at half filling formed a second set of surface states, rather than removed the drumhead states from the first band inversion. These extraneous surface states are topologically trivial, and represent an artificial degeneracy in this limit of this model; we add the term necessary to hybridize and gap then in Fig. \[fig:coupled\].]{} (f) The bands of an $x$-directed slab of this model, plotted at $k_{y}=0$ as a function of $k_{z}$. [The extraneous surface states, in (d) are marked here with a red arrow as well.]{}[]{data-label="fig:uncoupled"}](figUncoupled){width="90.00000%"}
In this section, we construct a model of a 3D nodal-line semimetal (NLSM) [@YoungkukLineNode; @XiLineNode; @SchnyderDrumhead] that exhibits a time-reversed pair of nodal lines with nontrivial monopole charges (MNLs) [@FangWithWithout] generated by double band inversion [@YoungkukMonopole]. Using this model, we demonstrate that when
the appropriate coupling terms are added, there is a well-defined [bulk and surface gap]{} in the region between the two MNLs (Fig. \[fig:coupled\](d)). Projecting the bulk [MNLs]{} and surface [drumhead]{} states to the 1D hinges, additional 1D, flat-band-like surface states can be observed spanning [the region between the projections of the MNLs]{}. These states represent the $d-2$-dimensional generalization of drumhead surface states, and are the spinless analogs of the spinful flat-band hinge states recently proposed in tetragonal Dirac semimetals [@TaylorToy; @HingeSM]. [In this section, we show that this NLSM]{} can be gapped into either a spinless magnetic higher-order topological insulator (HOTI) (otherwise known as an “axion insulator” [@EzawaMagneticHOTI; @VDBAxion; @YoungkukMonopole]), or a spinful, time-reversal- ($\mathcal{T}$-) symmetric HOTI with helical pairs of hinge modes. All calculations for this section were performed employing the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PythTB</span> package [@PythTB].
![[Bulk bands of $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{C}(\vec{k})$ in Eq. (\[eq:coupledHam\]), plotted along $\Gamma Z$ in the vicinity of the $\Gamma$ point with the parameters in Eqs. (\[eq:uncoupledParams\]) and tuning $v_{z}$ between $0$ and $2$. Throughout this process, bands become doubly inverted, and eventually form a time-reversed pair of MNLs at half-filling (red circles at $v_{z}=2.0$), as described in Ref. ]{}.[]{data-label="fig:DBI"}](figDBI){width="\textwidth"}
To begin, we place [eight spinful]{} orbitals at the origin of a primitive orthorhombic unit cell; [these can be considered four spinless orbitals (two $s$ and two $ip$ orbitals), each with an additional (initially uncoupled) spin-$1/2$ degree of freedom. The four sets of spinful orbitals are]{} indexed by the Pauli matrices $\tau$ and $\mu$, and the spin degree of freedom is indexed by $\sigma$. We begin by constructing the Hamiltonian: $$\tilde{\mathcal{H}}(\vec{k}) = \left[m_{1} + \sum_{i=x,y,z} v_{i} \cos(k_{i})\right]\tau^{z} + m_{2}\tau^{z}\mu^{x} + m_{3}\tau^{z}\mu^{z} + u_{x}\sin(k_{x})\tau^{x} + u_{y}\sin(k_{y})\tau^{y}\mu^{y},
\label{eq:simpleHam}$$ which is invariant under inversion ($\mathcal{I}$) and [spinless time-reversal ($\tilde{\mathcal{T}}$)]{}, represented [at all of the TRIM points]{} by: $$\mathcal{I} = \tau^{z},\ \tilde{\mathcal{T}} = \tau^{z}K,
\label{eq:symmetries}$$ as well as, [at first]{}, $SU(2)$ spin symmetry. [There are also]{} other, extraneous symmetries, which we are free to break. For simplicity, we have chosen units where the lattice constants $a_{x,y,z}=1$. The [representations of the]{} symmetries in Eq. (\[eq:symmetries\]) are chosen in a basis ($s$ and $ip$ orbitals at the origin) for which the combined antiunitary symmetry $\mathcal{I}\times\tilde{\mathcal{T}}=K$
guarantees that all of the Dirac matrix coefficients of Eq. (\[eq:simpleHam\]) are real [@FangWithWithout; @YoungkukMonopole]. The form of $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}(\vec{k})$ is specifically chosen to include terms from the models in Refs. , as to guarantee that it will form a pair of MNLs after undergoing double band inversion about the $\Gamma$ point. [We track the bulk phase transitions of Eq. (\[eq:simpleHam\]) by choosing the parameters: $$m_{1}=-3,\ v_{x}=v_{y}=u_{x}=u_{y}=1,\ m_{2}=0.3,\ m_{3}=0.2.
\label{eq:uncoupledParams}$$ and tuning $v_{z}$ between [$0$ and $2$ (Fig. \[fig:DBI\])]{}. When $v_{z}\approx 0.63$, [bands begin to invert at $\Gamma$, forming a nodal line (without monopole charge) between]{} the second and third pair of spin-degenerate bands. When $v_{z}$ reaches $1$, the third pair of bands reaches the first pair of bands (and the second touches the fourth) and the nodal line at quarter-filling shown in blue in Fig. \[fig:coupled\](d) begins to form. Finally, when $v_{z}\approx 1.35$, the nodal line at half-filling begins to pinch off into a time-reversed pair of nodal lines that intersect $\Gamma Z$ (red lines in Fig. \[fig:coupled\](d)). We then finally tune $v_{z}\rightarrow 2$ to grow the two nodal lines at half-filling [(red circles in Fig. \[fig:DBI\])]{} to have clearly distinguishable interior regions.]{} Calculating the $(100)$ and $(010)$ surface Green’s function of this model at [$E_{F}=0$]{} (Fig. \[fig:uncoupled\](d,e)), we observe the presence of drumhead surface states [(white arrows)]{} on only the $x$-normal ($(100)$) surface, indicating that the bulk nodal lines [are almost entirely normal to the $k_{z}$-axis (Fig. \[fig:coupled\](d), axes not in parenthesis).]{} To calculate the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ monopole charge of each nodal line, we surround it with [an approximate sphere and calculate the Wilson loop eigenvalues over the lower four bands (including spin)]{} as a function of the azimuthal momentum, as prescribed in Refs. . [Most precisely, we approximate this sphere by calculating the Wilson loop on a series of concentric $k_{z}$-normal circles, indexed by $k_{z}$, and centered at $k_{x}=k_{y}=0$, and where the radii of the circles were tapered above and below the nodal line at half filling. The Wilson loop spectrum exhibits (Figs. \[fig:uncoupled\](c))]{} clear helical winding, confirming the nontrivial monopole charge of each nodal line
at half filling [@YoungkukMonopole; @AdrianMonopole; @SigristMonopole].
This helical winding can be understood as reconciling the topology of the [gapped planes indexed by $k_{z}$]{} above and below the MNL. As shown in Ref. , these two planes are equivalent to topologically distinct 2D insulators that can be distinguished by their (gapped) Wilson spectra. As the Wilson loop on a sphere can be deformed into the Wilson loop on the plane above the sphere minus the Wilson loop on the plane below the sphere (the prototypical explanation for the conservation of Chern number in a Weyl semimetal [@AG1985; @NielsenNinomiya1]), we recognize that the gapless Wilson spectrum on the sphere reflects the Wilson loop critical point that distinguishes the 2D insulating phases above and below the MNL [@YoungkukMonopole]. More precisely, Ref. establishes a $\mathbb{Z}_{2}\times\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ classification of the possible topologies of these two 2D planes, and the helical winding of the sphere Wilson loop indicates a change
in one of these indexes. We can understand the topology of these planes with $\mathcal{I}\times\tilde{\mathcal{T}}$ symmetry by first considering a nontrivial plane with $\mathcal{I}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{T}}$ symmetry ($k_{z}=0$), and then adiabatically breaking those symmetries while keeping their product.
 at $k_{z} = 0,\pi$, respectively. The winding of the Wilson loop at $k_{z}=0$ is not protected by spinful time-reversal symmetry, as it would be in a 2D topological insulator [@AndreiTI], but is instead protected by the combination of the bulk inversion eigenvalues [@Alexandradinata14] and the absence of additional bands in the Wilson projector. [At $k_{z}=\pi$ (b), the bulk inversion eigenvalues require that the $\theta = 0$ at $k_{y}=0,\pi$ [@Alexandradinata14]; the $x$-directed Wilson loop in this plane exhibits trivial winding, and extremely weak dispersion.]{}]{}[]{data-label="fig:planeWilson"}](figPlaneWilson){width="60.00000%"}
Using the results of Ref. , we recognize that the $k_{z}=0$ plane exhibits a gapless $x$-directed Wilson loop (Fig. \[fig:planeWilson\](a)), as all of the occupied bands have the same inversion eigenvalues at each TRIM point, and because the inversion eigenvalues at the $\Gamma$ point differ from those at the three other 2D TRIM points. [The winding of this Wilson loop may be removed by adding trivial bands with different inversion eigenvalues [@Alexandradinata14] (such as is the case in the $k_{y}=0$ plane of $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ (Fig. 3(c))); this is a hallmark of a fragile topological phase [@AshvinFragile; @JenFragile1; @JenFragile2; @HingeSM; @AdrianFragile].]{} Nevertheless, using the $k\cdot p$ theory of Eq. (\[eq:simpleHam\]), we can demonstrate that this plane is equivalent to a 2D insulator with gapped edges and spin-degenerate pairs of corner modes. Specifically, we expand Eq. (\[eq:simpleHam\]) about the $\Gamma$ point in the limit that $m_{2}=m_{3}=0$, $u_{x}=u_{y}=u$: $$\mathcal{H}_{\Gamma}(\vec{k}) = m\tau^{z} + u(\tau^{x}k_{x} + \tau^{y}\mu^{y}k_{y}),$$ where we have condensed all of the terms proportional to $\tau^{z}$ into a single mass term $m$. We then take $m$ to spatially vary such that it is negative in a circular region bound by a radius $R$ and large and positive outside of it. The bound state solutions on the exterior of this [region]{} can be obtained by forming a Jackiw-Rebbi problem [@JackiwRebbi], which we accomplish by Fourier transforming $k_{x,y}\rightarrow -i\partial_{x,y}$ and converting to polar coordinates: $$\mathcal{H}(r,\theta) = m(r)\tau^{z} - iu\Gamma^{1}(\theta)\partial_{r} - \frac{iu}{r}\Gamma^{2}(\theta)\partial_{\theta},$$ where: $$\Gamma^{1}(\theta) = \tau^{x}\cos(\theta) + \tau^{y}\mu^{y}\sin(\theta),\ \Gamma^{2}(\theta)=-\tau^{x}\sin(\theta) + \tau^{y}\mu^{y}\cos(\theta).$$ In the absence of additional terms, $\mathcal{H}(r,\theta)$ exhibits gapless, linear dispersing modes on its edges, as in this limit it is closely related to the $k\cdot p$ theory of a 2D topological insulator [@AndreiTI; @HingeSM]. [More specifically, despite having only spinless time-reversal symmetry, $\mathcal{H}(r,\theta)$ still exhibits linear dispersion with three anticommuting $4 \times 4$ Dirac matrices, like the $k\cdot p$ theory of the Bernevig-Hughes-Zhang model of a 2D TI [@AndreiTI; @HingeSM].]{} In polar coordinates, the symmetries of this system take the form: $$\tilde{\mathcal{T}} = \tau^{z},\ \mathcal{I} = \tau^{z}f_{\mathcal{I}}(\theta),$$ where $f_{\mathcal{I}}(\theta)$ enforces the mapping $\theta \rightarrow \theta + \pi$. These symmetries permit the bulk mass term: $$V_{M}(\theta) = \tau^{y}\mu^{x}\sin(\theta),$$ which anticommutes with all of the existing terms in $\mathcal{H}(r,\theta)$, and therefore is guaranteed to open bulk (and edge) gaps in all of the regions in which it is nonzero. The Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(r,\theta) + V_{M}(\theta)$ therefore exhibits two pairs of 0D, spin-degenerate bound states at $\theta = 0,\pi$ (see Ref. for a more explicit derivation of the form of these 0D states and the role of curvature in this geometry). [Other mass terms are also allowed, as are terms with higher harmonics in $\sin(\theta)$ and $\cos(\theta)$; however, in this $4\times 4$ basis, all $\mathcal{I}$-symmetric bulk mass terms that anticommute with $\tau^{z}$ will also necessarily carry a spatial distribution $\sin(n\theta +\phi)$ where $n$ is an odd integer. This indicates that the number of spin-degenerate pairs of 0D modes modulo $4$ is a general property of $\mathcal{H}(r,\theta)$, with the smallest number (and the number seen in our numerics (Fig. \[fig:coupled\](f)) being $2$.]{} We therefore conclude that the $k_{z}=0$ plane of our model is an additional example of a “fragile” topological phase [@AshvinFragile; @JenFragile1; @JenFragile2; @AdrianFragile; @HingeSM] that exhibits corner modes [@HingeSM] [on the boundary of a finite-sized region with inversion symmetry.]{}
![(a) Bulk bands for $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{C}(\vec{k})$ in Eq. (\[eq:coupledHam\]), plotted with the parameters in Eqs. (\[eq:uncoupledParams\]) and (\[eq:coupledParams\]). (b,c) $(100)$ and $(010)$ surface Green’s function at $E_{F}=0$ for the same model, respectively. [Topological]{} drumhead states appear on both surfaces [in the interior projections of the MNLs (white arrows)]{}, indicating that the MNLs have [become tilted]{} and now have nonzero projections in both the $x$ and $y$ directions. [Crucially, the extraneous]{} surface spectral weight spanning the projections of the MNLs from Fig. \[fig:uncoupled\](d) has been lifted. [(d) Specifically, we observe that both the nodal lines at half-filling (red), and the large nodal line directly below it in energy (blue) have become tilted by $\sim 45^\circ$ about the $k_{z}$-axis (axes in parenthesis are those after including Eq. (\[eq:coupledHam\])). (e)]{} The bands of an $x$-directed slab of this model, plotted at $k_{y}=0$ as a function of $k_{z}$, confirm that the [extra surface states]{} have hybridized and split. [(f)]{} The bands of a $z$-directed rod of this model (finite in the $x$ and $y$ directions). Flat-band-like 1D states can be observed spanning the hinge projections of the MNLs.[]{data-label="fig:coupled"}](figCoupled){width="90.00000%"}
![(a) Bulk and (b) hinge bands of a $z$-directed rod of $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{C}(\vec{k})$ (Eq. (\[eq:coupledHam\])) with the Kane-Mele-like SOC term $V_{HOTI}(\vec{k})$ (Eq. (\[eq:HOTI\]), plotted with the parameters in Eqs. (\[eq:uncoupledParams\]) and (\[eq:coupledParams\]) and $v_{H}=1.2$. The flat-band hinge states from Fig. \[fig:coupled\](e) have evolved into a pair of 1D helical modes, confirming that $V_{H}(\vec{k})$ induces a phase transition from a monopole NLSM to a $\mathcal{T}$-symmetric HOTI. When $V_{Axion}(\vec{k})$ (Eq. (\[eq:axion\])) is used instead of $V_{HOTI}(\vec{k}))$, the bulk bands appear similar to those in (a), but the hinge spectrum instead exhibits oppositely propagating spin-degenerate pairs of chiral modes on [opposing]{} hinges.[]{data-label="fig:HOTI"}](figHOTI){width="90.00000%"}
Moving to nearby planes indexed by $k_{z}\neq 0$, we model this process by the addition of a bulk (spinless) mass term that breaks $\mathcal{I}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{T}}$ while preserving their product. As this limit is still $SU(2)$-symmetric, when considering the system per spin, any additional term that does not close the bulk or edge gaps can only act as a chemical potential on the corner modes [@HingeSM]. When this fragile phase [no longer exhibits Wilson-loop winding due the addition of extra (trivial) bands,]{} it should exhibit a gapped Wilson spectra with the same $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$-quantized nested Berry phase as the $k_{y}=0$ plane of $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ (Fig. 3(c) and SM \[sec:DFTnested\]). Therefore, when a bulk term is added that preserves $\mathcal{I}\times\tilde{\mathcal{T}}$ while breaking the individual symmetries $\mathcal{I}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{T}}$, the nested Berry phase will *remain* quantized and the corner modes will remain present. This indicates that, as all of the $k_{z}$-indexed planes between the MNLs in our tight-binding model can be adiabatically connected to the plane at $k_{z}=0$ without closing a bulk or edge gap, they should also carry corner (hinge) modes indicated by a quantized nested Berry phase $\gamma_{2}=\pi$.
Utilizing the Wannier description of corner-mode phases developed in Ref. , this suggests that the four phases of these 2D insulating planes, indexed by $\mathbb{Z}_{2}\times\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ [@YoungkukMonopole], correspond to either *non-symmetry-indicated* obstructed atomic limits [@QuantumChemistry] or trivialized fragile topological insulators (for a large number of occupied bands) [@AshvinFragile; @JenFragile1; @JenFragile2; @AdrianFragile; @HingeSM] that differ by the number of Wannier orbitals on the four $\mathcal{I}\times\tilde{\mathcal{T}}$ centers in magnetic layer group $p\bar{1}'$ [@MagneticBook; @HingeSM].
[ examine the extraneous surface spectral weight in Fig. \[fig:uncoupled\](d) more closely by calculating]{} the bands of an $x$-directed slab of $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}(\vec{k})$ with the parameters listed in [Eq. (\[eq:uncoupledParams\]) (Fig. \[fig:uncoupled\](f)). We observe that the process of double band inversion has, in addition to nucleating the expected drumhead states in the interior projections of the MNLs (Fig. \[fig:uncoupled\](d), white arrows), left behind a trivial pair of drumhead states [@YoungkukLineNode; @XiLineNode; @SchnyderDrumhead] where the line nodes at half-filling were pinched and split (Fig. \[fig:uncoupled\](d,f), red arrows). As there]{} is no surface wallpaper group symmetry [@DiracInsulator; @WiederLayers] that protects [the overlap of these extra states]{}, we are free to add a bulk term that couples and gaps [the trivial]{} drumheads, analogous to the [coupling]{} that is naturally present in $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ (Fig. 4). We therefore introduce the bulk term: $$\tilde{V}(\vec{k}) = m_{v1}\mu^{z} + m_{v2}\mu^{x},
\label{eq:couplingMass}$$ realizing the coupled Hamiltonian: $$\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{C}(\vec{k}) = \tilde{\mathcal{H}}(\vec{k}) + \tilde{V}(\vec{k}).
\label{eq:coupledHam}$$ Choosing the parameters: $$m_{v1} = -0.4,\ m_{v2} = 0.2,
\label{eq:coupledParams}$$ in addition to those listed in Eq. (\[eq:uncoupledParams\]), we again plot the bulk bands, $(100)$-surface Green’s function, $(010)$-surface Green’s function, and the $x$-directed slab bands at $k_{y}=0$ [(Fig. \[fig:coupled\](a,b,c,e))]{}. We observe that drumhead states now appear on both the $(100)$ and $(010)$ surfaces (Fig. \[fig:coupled\](b,c), [white arrows]{}), indicating that the bulk MNLs have become [tilted (Fig. \[fig:coupled\](d))]{}, and now carry nonzero interior projections in both the $x$ and $y$ directions. Crucially, in the region between the surface projections of the bulk MNLs, the two [extraneous]{} drumhead states have [become]{} hybridized and split by the new mass terms in Eq. (\[eq:couplingMass\]).
Following the procedure employed in Ref. , we construct a $z$-directed rod of $\mathcal{H}_{C}(\vec{k})$, [*i.e.*,]{} a tight-binding model that is finite in the $x$ and $y$ directions and infinite in the $z$ direction. [To understand the bulk and surface states that project to the hinges, one can take Fig. \[fig:coupled\](b) and then project all of the surface spectral weight to the $k_{z}$ axis; the region between the two drumhead states (centered on the projection of $\Gamma$) remains free of surface (and bulk) states.]{} Plotting the hinge states of this rod (Fig. \[fig:coupled\](e)), additional, 1D flat-band-like states are visible spanning the hinge projections of the MNLs. [Specifically, at each $k_{z}$ along the rod between the projections of the MNLs, there are four additional hinge states, which appear in spin-degenerate pairs localized on opposing hinges. These hinge]{} states represent the $d-2$-dimensional generalization of the drumhead surface states of NLSMs [@YoungkukLineNode; @XiLineNode; @SchnyderDrumhead], and are the spinless analogs of the spinful hinge states recently proposed in certain, tetragonal Dirac [semimetals [@TaylorToy; @HingeSM].]{} [It is clear that the $k_{z}$-indexed planes that carry these hinge states lack the fourfold rotation and mirror symmetries of previous semimetals with quadrupole hinge states [@TaylorToy; @HingeSM].]{}
In light of the relationship between MNLs and higher-order topology explored in the main text, we recognize these hinge states as the spinless precursors to the spinful helical hinge modes of 3D HOTIs. They represent the higher-order generalization of the zigzag edge states of graphene [@GrapheneReview; @GrapheneEdge1; @GrapheneEdge2; @GrapheneEdgeMullen; @GrapheneEdgeFan] that evolve into the helical edge modes of a 2D TI [@KaneMeleZ2; @CharlieTI] under the introduction of SOC. As the MNLs are locally protected by $\mathcal{I}$, $\mathcal{T}$, and $SU(2)$ spin symmetry [@YoungkukLineNode; @FangWithWithout], we can realize a bulk-insulating phase by relaxing one of these symmetries. First, we reproduce the results of Ref. by introducing a term that breaks $\tilde{\mathcal{T}}$ symmetry while preserving $\mathcal{I}$ and $SU(2)$: $$V_{Axion}(\vec{k}) = v_{A}\sin(k_{z})\tau^{y}\mu^{z}.
\label{eq:axion}$$ We observe that $V_{Axion}(\vec{k})$ fully gaps the bulk bands, realizing an insulating phase with spin-degenerate, chiral hinge modes (the bulk and hinge bands appear qualitatively similar to those shown in Fig. (\[fig:HOTI\]), as bands of opposite chirality from [opposing]{} hinges become projected on top of each other). We recognize this phase as the magnetic HOTI that results from gapping all of the surfaces of a 3D strong TI with magnetism that is spatially distributed in an $\mathcal{I}$-odd fashion [@EzawaMagneticHOTI; @AshvinTCI]. It is therefore also equivalent to two spin-degenerate copies of a spinless axion insulator [@VDBAxion; @YoungkukMonopole].
Finally, we can also introduce a term of a similar form: $$V_{HOTI}(\vec{k}) = v_{H}\sin(k_{z})\tau^{y}\mu^{z}\sigma^{z},
\label{eq:HOTI}$$ that breaks spinless time-reversal symmetry $\tilde{\mathcal{T}}$ and $SU(2)$ symmetry while [preserving *spinful*]{} $\mathcal{T}$ symmetry, which is represented [at all TRIM points by]{}: $$\mathcal{T}=i\sigma^{y}\tilde{\mathcal{T}} = i\tau^{z}\sigma^{y}K.$$ This term gaps the bulk MNLs (Fig. \[fig:HOTI\](a)) and opens up the flat-band hinge states (Fig. \[fig:coupled\](e)) into the helical hinge modes of a HOTI. It is therefore the higher-order equivalent of the Kane-Mele SOC term that gaps graphene into a 2D TI [@KaneMeleZ2; @CharlieTI]. Thus, we have demonstrated that double band inversion in a $\mathcal{I}$- and $\mathcal{T}$-symmetric crystal with vanishing SOC can induce a pair of MNLs that can be gapped to realize a $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$-nontrivial HOTI [@AshvinIndicators; @AshvinTCI; @ChenTCI; @EslamInversion] by the introduction of $\mathcal{I}$-symmetric SOC.
First-Principles Calculations Details {#sec:DFT}
=====================================
Density Functional Theory Calculation Methods {#sec:DFTmethod}
---------------------------------------------
First-principles electronic structure calculations were performed with the projector augmented wave (PAW) method [@paw1; @paw2] as implemented in the VASP package [@vasp1; @vasp2]. We adopted the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) generalized gradient approximation (GGA) for the exchange-correlation functional [@pbe]. SOC was incorporated self-consistently. The kinetic energy cutoff of the [plane-wave basis]{} was set to 400 eV. A 6$\times$12$\times$4 k-point mesh was employed for BZ sampling. Internal atomic positions and cell parameters were obtained from experimental data [(ICSD [@ICSD] \# 14349) [@Brown1966].]{} The maximally localized Wannier functions (MLWF) were constructed [from first-principles calculations [@SMV2001] using]{} the $d$ orbitals of Mo and the $p$ orbitals of Te. The Wannier-based tight-binding Hamiltonian obtained from this construction was used to compute the surface spectrum and the nested Wilson loop [@multipole; @WladTheory; @WladPump; @HigherOrderTIBernevig] matrix $W_{2}$ [as described in [SM \[sec:DFTnested\]]{}]{}.
First-Principles Calculation of Monopole Charge {#sec:DFTmonopole}
-----------------------------------------------
When the effects of SOC are neglected, the electronic structure of $\beta$-MoTe$_2$ [exhibits]{} two nodal lines connecting the 28$^{\text{th}}$ and 29$^{\text{th}}$ spin-degenerate pair of bands, related by inversion symmetry, lying on either side of the $k_{y}=0$ plane, and intersecting $Y\Gamma$ (Fig. 2(b)). Rather than surround one of these nodal lines with a sphere as done in Refs. for tight-binding models, we surround it with a geometrically simpler closed tetragonal prism. [Defining the Wilson matrix as the product of the adjacent overlap matrices –${\left\langle u_{{\bf k}_1} | u_{{\bf k}_2} \right\rangle}$–, where ${\left|u_{{\bf k}}\right\rangle}$ is the cell-periodic part of the Bloch eigenstate]{}, we calculate the phases of the Wilson loop eigenvalues over the lower 28 spin degenerate-pairs of bands on the following paths along this prism, shown in Fig. 2(c)). We begin by calculating the loops on the bottom of the prism along the path $(x,0,x)\rightarrow(-x,0,x)\rightarrow(-x,0,-x)\rightarrow(x,0,-x)\rightarrow(x,0,x)$, taking $x$ to vary from $0$ to $0.45$ in units of the reciprocal lattice vectors. [We choose the bound $x=0.45$ such that the prism can contain as much as possible of the half BZ without touching the zone edge. We then take loops of increasing height $y$ along the sides of the prism along the path $(0.45,y,0.45)\rightarrow(-0.45,y,0.45)\rightarrow(-0.45,0,-0.45)\rightarrow(0.45,0,-0.45)\rightarrow(0.45,0,0.45)$, taking $y$ to vary from $0$ to $0.5$. We finally close the exterior of the prism by taking square loops on the top of decreasing width $2x$, where each loop is taken along the path $(x,0.5,x)\rightarrow(-x,0.5,x)\rightarrow(-x,0.5,-x)\rightarrow(x,0.5,-x)\rightarrow(x,0.5,x)$, taking $x$ to vary from $0.45$ to $0$. We plot in the inset panel of Fig. 2(b) the resulting Wilson spectrum as a function of $x$ for the bottom, then $y$ for the sides, and then finally $x$ for the top, which we condense and label as the overall “azimuthal momentum” $k_{\theta}$. The Wilson loop eigenvalues exhibit]{} the characteristic winding of a MNL [(SM \[sec:TBmodel\])]{} [@YoungkukMonopole; @AdrianMonopole; @SigristMonopole].
Calculating the Wilson Loop of the Wilson Loop and Quantization of the Nested Berry Phase {#sec:DFTnested}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, we detail the calculations performed to obtain the determinant of the nested Wilson loop matrix $W_{2}(k_{y})$ in Fig. 3. We [first, neglecting the effects of SOC, calculate]{} the $k_{z}$-directed Wilson loop matrix [$W_{1}(k_{x},k_{y})$ over the lower 28 spin-degenerate pairs of bands]{}, which can be expressed as ${\left\langle u_0 | u_N \right\rangle}{\left\langle u_{N} | u_{N-1} \right\rangle}\dots {\left\langle u_{1} | u_{0} \right\rangle}$, where N is the discretized N-th $k$ point of the [line: $(k_x,k_y,0)\rightarrow(k_x,k_y,2\pi)$]{}. Diagonalizing the resulting Wilson loop matrix, we obtain the eigenvectors ${\left|\chi_n(k_x,k_y)\right\rangle}$ and eigenvalues $\xi_n(k_x,k_y)$ as functions of $(k_x,k_y)$, where $n$ is the Wilson band index. The eigenvalues $\xi_n(k_x,k_y)$ appear in the form $e^{i\theta_n(k_x,k_y)}$.
In [Fig. 3(c,d)]{}, we show the [calculated values]{} of $\theta_n(k_x,0)$ and $\theta_n(k_x,\pi)$, respectively, which we refer to as the Wilson bands. [In all of the $k_{y}$-indexed planes away from the MNLs, the]{} Wilson bands are well separated by gaps in the Wilson spectrum at $\theta = \pm \pi/2$ [($0.25\times (2\pi))$, as expressed in the main text)]{}. The system [$H_{W_{1}}(k_x,k_{y})\equiv\sum_{|\theta_n|\langle0.5\pi}{\left|\chi_n(k_x,k_{y})\right\rangle}\theta_n(k_x,k_{y}) {\left\langle\chi_n(k_x,k_{y}\right|}$ resembles a 1D periodic Hamiltonian for fixed values of $k_y$]{}, and its eigenstates can be used to calculate a second, nested Wilson loop matrix [$W_{2}(k_{y})$]{} whose determinant is equal to $e^{i\gamma_{2}(k_{y})}$ where $\gamma_{2}(k_{y})$ is the nested Berry phase of each plane indexed by $k_{y}$ [@multipole; @WladTheory; @WladPump; @HigherOrderTIBernevig]. We compute the determinant of [$W_{2}(k_{y})$ for all values of $k_{y}$, and observe that it is quantized at $\pm 1$ for all values of $k_{y}$ away from the MNLs, and jumps as the plane on which it is calculated passes fully over a MNL (Fig. 3(b)).]{}
We note that the choice of Wilson energy interval employed for the nested Wilson loop calculations in this work is different than that used in previous works [@multipole; @WladTheory; @WladPump; @HingeSM]. In previous works, the Wilson spectrum was divided into halves between $\theta_{1}=0,\pi$ for nested Wilson loop calculations; here, we instead choose the particle-hole-symmetric interval $\theta_{1}\in [-\pi/2,\pi/2)$. However, as long as the nested Wilson loop (and Berry phase) is calculated over the same Wilson interval for two different 2D insulators (or planes of the BZ), it can be used as a tool to compare their topology [@multipole].
Furthermore, we find that when the nested Berry phase $\gamma_{2}$ is calculated over this new choice of Wilson energies, it can be quantized without relying on mirror and fourfold rotation, as was required for the quadrupole insulators in Refs. . Here, we show that, in particular, the combined antiunitary symmetry $\mathcal{I}\times\mathcal{T}$ is sufficient to quantize $\gamma_{2}$ when $W_{2}$ is calculated over a particle-hole symmetric set of Wilson bands. [The existence of this particle-hole symmetry in the Wilson spectrum was first derived in Ref. ; we reproduce its derivation here for convenience, and then use the result to demonstrate the $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ quantization of $\gamma_{2}$.]{}
To begin, we first consider a 3D orthorhombic crystal with a bulk Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(k_{x},k_{y},k_{z})$ that is invariant under $\mathcal{I}\times\mathcal{T}$. We then calculate the discretized $z$-directed Wilson loop as it is defined in Refs. : $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \mathcal{W}_{1(k_\perp,k_{z0})} \right]_{nm} & \equiv \left[ P e^{i \int_{k_{z0}}^{k_{z0}+2\pi} dk_z A_z(k_\perp,k_{z0})}\right]_{nm} \nonumber\\
&\approx \left[ P e^{i \frac{2\pi}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N A_z(k_\perp,k_{z0}+ \frac{2\pi j}{N}) }\right]_{nm} \nonumber\\
&\approx \langle u^n(k_\perp,k_{z0}+2\pi) | \left[ P \prod_{j=1}^N \mathcal{P}(k_\perp,k_{z0}+\frac{2\pi j}{N} ) \left( 1 - \frac{2\pi }{N} \partial_{k_z}|_{(k_\perp,k_{z0}+ \frac{2\pi j}{N}) }\right) \mathcal{P}(k_\perp,k_{z0}+\frac{2\pi j}{N} ) \right] |u^m(k_\perp,k_{z0})\rangle \nonumber\\
&\approx \langle u^n(k_\perp,k_{z0})|V(2\pi\hat{z}) \hat{\Pi}(k_\perp,k_{z0} ) |u^m(k_\perp,k_{z0}) \rangle,
\label{eq:wilsondisc}\end{aligned}$$
where $k_\perp \equiv (k_x,k_y)$, $\hat{P}$ is the projector onto the occupied states: $$\hat{\mathcal{P}}(\mathbf{k}) = \sum_{n=1}^{n_{\rm occ}}|u^n(\mathbf{k})\rangle \langle u^n(\mathbf{k})|,
\label{eq:defproj}$$ and where in the last line we have defined the ordered product of projectors, $$\hat{\Pi}(k_\perp,k_{z}) \equiv\hat{\mathcal{P}}(k_\perp, k_{z} + 2\pi )\hat{\mathcal{P}}(k_\perp, k_{z}+\frac{2\pi (N-1)}{N})\cdots \hat{\mathcal{P}}(k_\perp,k_z+\frac{2\pi }{N}).$$ From the analysis provided in Refs. , we recognize that the bulk symmetry $\mathcal{I}\times\mathcal{T}$ acts on $W_{1}(k_{x},k_{y})$ as an antiunitary particle-hole symmetry $\tilde{\Xi}$, but one which does not change the signs of $k_{x,y}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&H_{W_1}(k_x,k_y)\tilde{\Xi}=-\tilde{\Xi} H_{W_1}(k_x,k_y) \nonumber \\
&H_{W_1}(k_x,k_y)|u(k_x,k_y)\rangle=\epsilon(k_x,k_y)|u(k_x,k_y)\rangle \rightarrow H_{W_1}(k_x,k_y)(\tilde{\Xi} |u(k_x,k_y)\rangle)=-\epsilon(k_x,k_y)(\tilde{\Xi}|u(k_x,k_y)\rangle), \end{aligned}$$ where $H_{W_1}(k_{x},k_{y})$ is the effective “Wilson Hamiltonian” whose eigenvalues are the phases of the eigenvalues of $W_{1}(k_{x},k_{y})$, and where: $$\tilde{\Xi}(k_x,k_y)=U(k_x,k_y) K,$$ where $K$ is complex conjugation. For each of the eigenstates $|u(k_x,k_y)\rangle$ of $H_{W_1}(k_{x},k_{y})$ with eigenvalue $\epsilon(k_x,k_y)$, there is another eigenstate $\tilde{\Xi}|u(k_x,k_y)\rangle$ with eigenvalue $-\epsilon(k_x, k_y)$.
As $H_{W_{1}}(k_{x},k_{y})$ is well-defined and generically gapped in the regions for which $\mathcal{H}(k_{x},k_{y},k_{z})$ is gapped, we can calculate the $x$-directed nested Wilson matrix $W_{2}(k_{y})$ by projecting onto half of the eigenstates of $H_{W_1}(k_{x},k_{y})$ and repeating the Wilson loop calculation in Eq. (\[eq:wilsondisc\]). Here, we crucially choose a particular projector $\hat{P}_{2}$ over a particle-hole-symmetric grouping of Wilson bands such that: $$[\tilde{\Xi},\hat{P}_{2}]=0.$$ Therefore, the bulk symmetry $\mathcal{I}\times\mathcal{T}$ (and thus $\tilde{\Xi}$) provides a constraint on the nested Wilson loop matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{W}_{2(0,k_y)} &=\hat{V}(2\pi \hat{x})\hat{\Pi}(0,k_y) \nonumber\\
&=\hat{V}(2\pi \hat{x})\hat{\mathcal{P}}(2\pi,k_y) \hat{\mathcal{P}}(2\pi - \frac{2\pi}{N},k_y) \cdots \hat{\mathcal{P}}(\frac{2\pi}{N},k_y) \nonumber\\
&=\hat{V}(2\pi \hat{x}) \tilde{\Xi}(2\pi,k_y)\hat{\mathcal{P}}(2\pi,k_y) \hat{\mathcal{P}}(2\pi - \frac{2\pi}{N},k_y) \cdots \hat{\mathcal{P}}(\frac{2\pi}{N},k_y) \tilde{\Xi}^{-1}(0,k_y) \nonumber\\
&= \tilde{\Xi}(0,k_y)\hat{V}(2\pi \hat{x})\hat{\mathcal{P}}(2\pi,k_y) \hat{\mathcal{P}}(2\pi - \frac{2\pi}{N},k_y) \cdots \hat{\mathcal{P}}(\frac{2\pi}{N},k_y) \tilde{\Xi}^{-1}(0,k_y) \nonumber\\
&=\tilde{\Xi}(0,k_y) \mathcal{W}_{2(0,k_y)} \tilde{\Xi}^{-1}(0,k_y) \nonumber\\
&=U(0,k_y) \mathcal{W}^*_{2(0,k_y)} U^{-1}(0,k_y).
\label{eq:WilsonPH}\end{aligned}$$ Taking the determinant of both sides of Eq. (\[eq:WilsonPH\]): $$\text{det}(W_{2}(k_{y}))=\text{det}(W_{2}(k_{y}))^{*}=e^{i\gamma_{2}(k_{y})}=\pm 1,$$ and thus $\mathcal{I}\times\mathcal{T}$ enforces a $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ quantization of the nested Berry phase in each gapped $k_{y}$-indexed plane: $$\gamma_{2}(k_{y})=0,\pi.$$
[^1]: These authors contributed equally to this work.
[^2]: These authors contributed equally to this work.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
=1200 =10000
.6in
[**CONSEQUENCES OF PROPAGATING TORSION**]{}
.2cm
[**IN CONNECTION-DYNAMIC THEORIES OF GRAVITY**]{} [^1][This work was supported in part by NASA under Grants no. NAGW-931 and NGT-50850, by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY/92-06867, and by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under contract no. DE-FC02-94ER40818.]{}
.3in
Sean M. Carroll$^{(1)}$ and George B. Field$^{(2)}$
.3cm
*$^{(1)}$Center for Theoretical Physics, Laboratory for Nuclear Science*
*and Department of Physics*
*Massachusetts Institute of Technology*
*Cambridge, Massachusetts02139*
[*email: [email protected]*]{}
.3cm
*$^{(2)}$Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics*
*Cambridge, Massachusetts02138*
[*email: [email protected]*]{}
.3in
**Abstract**
.1in
We discuss the possibility of constraining theories of gravity in which the connection is a fundamental variable by searching for observational consequences of the torsion degrees of freedom. In a wide class of models, the only modes of the torsion tensor which interact with matter are either a massive scalar or a massive spin-1 boson. Focusing on the scalar version, we study constraints on the two-dimensional parameter space characterizing the theory. For reasonable choices of these parameters the torsion decays quickly into matter fields, and no long-range fields are generated which could be discovered by ground-based or astrophysical experiments.
CTP \# 2291 March 1994
gr-qc/9403058
.1in
[**I. Introduction**]{}
General relativity as formulated by Einstein describes the dynamics of a metric tensor field $g_{\mu\nu}$ and the response of matter to this metric. Covariant derivatives are taken with respect to the Christoffel connection on the tangent bundle. This is the unique metric-compatible and torsion-free connection, and is treated as a quantity derived from the metric. Despite the success of Einstein’s theory in passing observational tests, there are strong indications that general relativity is incomplete — the prediction of singularities, and especially the difficulty of formulating a quantum theory. It is therefore natural to explore modifications of general relativity in which these problems may be overcome. One popular modification is to make the connection itself a fundamental variable in its own right, rather than a convenient expression for a certain function of the metric.
Such “connection-dynamic” theories can take different forms. A simple approach is the first-order or Palatini formulation of conventional gravity \[1\]. The action of this theory is that of general relativity, with the connection varied independently rather than given as a function of the metric. The resulting equations of motion lead to the usual expression for the connection in terms of the metric, with extra terms depending algebraically on the matter fields. Extensions of this procedure have been adopted in attempts to construct quantum versions of general relativity, including work in (3+1) dimensions \[2\] and (2+1) dimensions \[3\]. (For reviews and other approaches see \[4\].) The additional terms contributing to the connection in these theories are characterized by the torsion tensor; since no derivatives of the torsion appear in the Ricci scalar, the Palatini formulation leads to non-propagating torsion \[5\].
Once torsion has been introduced by taking the connection to be an independent variable, the restriction to non-propagating torsion arises as much from historical accident as from first principles. Just as the Einstein-Hilbert action provides dynamics for the metric degrees of freedom, it is straightforward to consider the addition of extra terms to the action which would provide dynamics for the torsion degrees of freedom.
A comparison with conventional gauge theories serves to illustrate why we believe that a dynamical torsion tensor is a natural expectation when the connection is treated as a variable independent from the metric. In gauge theories of an internal symmetry, the connection is specified by a non-gauge-invariant vector potential with an associated gauge-covariant tensor, the curvature or field strength. In contrast, the connection $\nabla$ on spacetime is associated with two tensors, the curvature and the torsion.[^2][In general, the connection $\nabla$ on the tangent bundle is a GL(4,[** R**]{}) connection. When we restrict our attention to metric-compatible connections the group is reduced to SO(3,1).]{} We may specify the curvature and torsion of $\nabla$ in terms of their action on vector fields $X$, $Y$, and $Z$. (For additional formulae see \[5,6\].) The curvature, a $(1,3)$ tensor, is $$R(X,Y)Z\equiv\nabla_X\nabla_YZ-\nabla_Y\nabla_XZ-\nabla_{[X,Y]}Z,
\eqno(1.1)$$ while the torsion, a $(1,2)$ tensor, is $$T(X,Y)\equiv\nabla_XY-\nabla_YX-[X,Y].\eqno(1.2)$$ In these expressions we use $\nabla_X$ to denote a covariant derivative in the direction along $X$, and $[X,Y]$ for the Lie bracket.[^3][As can be seen from (1.2), in the definition of torsion (unlike that of the curvature) a single vector field such as $X$ or $Y$ serves both as a direction in spacetime along which a covariant derivative is taken and as the object being differentiated. This is clearly only possible when the vector field is a section of the tangent bundle rather than an “internal” vector bundle; thus, the existence of torsion distinguishes the connection on the tangent bundle from the connections familiar from conventional gauge theories.]{} In a basis adapted to a set of coordinates $x^\mu$, we can decompose these tensors in terms of their components; thus the covariant derivative is $$\eqalign{(\nabla_XY)^\lambda&=X^\mu\nabla_\mu Y^\lambda\cr
&=X^\mu(\partial_\mu Y^\lambda+\Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu}Y^\nu),\cr}
\eqno(1.3)$$ while the Lie bracket is $$[X,Y]^\mu\equiv X^\nu\partial_\nu Y^\mu-Y^\nu\partial_\nu X^\mu.
\eqno(1.4)$$ The curvature tensor is then $$R^\alpha{}_{\beta\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu\Gamma^\alpha_{\nu\beta}
-\partial_\nu\Gamma^\alpha_{\mu\beta}+\Gamma^\alpha_{\mu\lambda}
\Gamma^\lambda_{\nu\beta}-\Gamma^\alpha_{\nu\lambda}
\Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\beta},\eqno(1.5)$$ and the torsion tensor is $$\eqalign{T_{\rho\sigma}{}^\mu&=\Gamma^\mu_{\rho\sigma}-
\Gamma^\mu_{\sigma\rho}\cr &=2\Gamma^\mu_{[\rho\sigma]}.}
\eqno(1.6)$$ Thus, the curvature and torsion have a similar status as tensors which characterize a specified connection. Special relativity posits a spacetime connection for which both tensors vanish; the transition from special to general relativity may be thought of as allowing for the dynamics of a nonzero curvature, while constraining the torsion to vanish. From a point of view which takes the connection as an independent variable, this restriction seems somewhat arbitrary (although it is nevertheless possible, by judicious choice of Lagrangian, to make the torsion nonpropagating or even vanishing). We are therefore led to consider theories in which both the curvature and torsion are determined dynamically by the response of the metric and connection to matter fields.
The introduction of additional propagating degrees of freedom opens the possibility that such a theory could lead to observable deviations from general relativity. Experiments in the solar system and in binary pulsar 1913+16 offer strong evidence that the metric must not deviate too far from the form specified by Einstein’s equations \[7\]. The situation with respect to torsion is less clear, as the literature contains various different proposals for what the dynamics of torsion could be.
Our goal in this paper is to determine whether there are any observational consequences of propagating torsion which are relatively independent of any specific gravitational model. To that end, we discuss possible actions for torsion and its interaction with matter fields such as those in the standard model of particle physics. In these theories we construct a free Lagrangian from powers and derivatives of the torsion, and couple “minimally” to matter through the covariant derivative. We find that there is only a small range of models possible without placing arbitrary restrictions on the dynamics. In these models only a single mode interacts with matter, either a massive scalar or a massive spin-1 field, and each model is parameterized by two constants with the dimensions of mass. In this paper we concentrate on the scalar theory, which is related to several different proposals found in the literature. We discuss what regions of parameter space are excluded by laboratory and astrophysical data. A reasonable expectation, however, would be for each of the two mass parameters to be of order the Planck scale; such a choice is a safe distance away from the regions excluded by experiment. We conclude that, while there are reasons to expect that the torsion degrees of freedom exist as propagating fields, there is no reason to expect any observable signature from torsion.
[**II. Lagrangians**]{}
Since our goal is to search for potentially observable consequences of a theory of gravity with propagating torsion, and not to construct the full theory itself, we shall limit our attention to the dynamics of torsion in a background spacetime with the Minkowski metric, $g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}$. (Actions for gravity with propagating torsion, but without couplings to matter, have been studied in \[8,9\].) Furthermore, we shall not worry about the renormalizability of the torsion sector, since quantization of the full gravity theory is beyond our reach anyway. Nevertheless, we shall keep in mind known quantum effects (such as anomalies) in the matter sector. Thus, we are interested in theories defined by Lagrangians of the form $${\cal L}={\cal L}_T+{\cal L}_I+{\cal L}_M,\eqno(2.1)$$ where ${\cal L}_T$ is the part of the Lagrangian containing only torsion fields, ${\cal L}_M$ is the matter Lagrangian, and ${\cal L}_I$ defines interactions between torsion and matter.
We turn first to the construction of ${\cal L}_I$, which involves an unavoidable ambiguity. In a spacetime with a metric, we may always decompose a metric-compatible connection (which is all we shall consider) into a torsion-free Christoffel piece plus a torsion-dependent piece. In terms of components we write $$\Gamma^\alpha_{\mu\nu}=\left\{\matrix{\alpha\cr
\mu\nu\cr}\right\}+{1\over 2}\left(T_{\mu\nu}{}^\alpha
-T_\nu{}^\alpha{}_\mu
+T^\alpha{}_{\mu\nu}\right)\eqno(2.2)$$ where the Christoffel symbols $\left\{\matrix{\alpha\cr
\mu\nu\cr}\right\}$ are given by the familiar formula $$\left\{\matrix{\alpha\cr \mu\nu\cr}\right\}
\equiv{1\over 2}g^{\alpha\beta}\left(\partial_\mu g_{\nu\beta}
+\partial_\nu g_{\beta\mu}-\partial_\beta g_{\mu\nu}\right).
\eqno(2.3)$$ The transformation properties of (2.3) are those of a connection, just as in conventional general relativity. Therefore the Christoffel covariant derivative $$\widetilde{\nabla}_\mu X^\alpha\equiv \partial_\mu X^\alpha
+\left\{\matrix{\alpha\cr \mu\lambda\cr}\right\}X^\lambda
\eqno(2.4)$$ is a well-defined tensor. Hence, when we write down the equations describing a theory, each appearance of the covariant derivative $\nabla A$ of a tensor field $A$ is identical to the Christoffel derivative $\widetilde{\nabla}A$ plus interactions between the torsion and $A$. A theory with torsion is thus equivalent to a theory without torsion, plus an extra tensor field with certain couplings. (The fact that the torsion contribution to the connection is a tensor means that it is impossible, when the torsion is nonzero, to choose coordinates in which the coefficients $\Gamma^\alpha_{\mu\nu}$ vanish.) In other words, since the torsion transforms as an ordinary tensor field, its status as a “gravitational” field characterizing the geometry of spacetime has the nature of a semantic distinction which we may or may not choose to make. Nevertheless, we will suppose here that a theory of gravitation in which the connection is an independent variable will predict the existence of such a field (whatever we choose to call it), and that there are certain natural interactions for the field to have, given its origin as part of the covariant derivative on the tangent bundle.
With this philosophy in mind, the interaction between torsion and matter fields is straightforward to derive \[5,10\]. For scalar fields, the covariant derivative is equal to the partial derivative and hence does not involve the connection; there is therefore no interaction between scalars and torsion. The same result holds for gauge fields, although the reasoning is somewhat more subtle. (We are now speaking classically; quantum effects will change the situation, as we discuss below.) We consider for simplicity an abelian gauge field $A_\mu$. The only gauge invariant derivative of $A_\mu$ we may take is the field strength tensor $F_{\mu\nu}$, which is defined as an exterior derivative: $F\equiv({\rm d}A)$. In components this is the antisymmetric [*partial*]{} derivative, $$F_{\mu\nu}\equiv ({\rm d}A)_{\mu\nu}
=\partial_\mu A_\nu -\partial_\nu A_\mu\ .\eqno(2.5)$$ While this clearly does not involve the torsion, the mistake is sometimes made of defining the field strength as the antisymmetric [*covariant*]{} derivative. Such a definition suffices when the torsion vanishes, as (2.5) is then recovered; however, with nonzero torsion the antisymmetric covariant derivative induces a gauge non-invariant interaction between the torsion and $A_\mu$. There is in fact no reason for such a term to exist, as (2.5) is the correct definition even in curved space (for a full discussion, see \[10\]).
There is, in contrast, a direct interaction between torsion and fermions. The covariant derivative of a spinor field requires the introduction of the tetrad formalism and a spin connection, which we have been avoiding for simplicity; however, we can transcribe the result, which can be found in the literature \[5\]. In the presence of torsion the free Dirac Lagrangian for a massive fermion $\psi$ can be decomposed into a torsion-free part ${\cal L}_{TF}$ plus an interaction term ${\cal L}_I$: $$\eqalign{{\cal L}_{Dirac}&={i\over 2}\left(
\nabla_\mu\bar\psi\gamma^\mu\psi
-\bar\psi \gamma^\mu\nabla_\mu\psi\right)-m\bar\psi \psi \cr
&={\cal L}_{TF}+{i\over 8}T_{\mu\nu\lambda}
\bar\psi\gamma^{[\mu}\gamma^\nu\gamma^{\lambda]}\psi \ ,\cr}
\eqno(2.6)$$ where ${\cal L}_{TF}=i\bar\psi\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu\psi
-m\bar\psi\psi$ and we have set $g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}$. Since the gamma matrices are antisymmetrized, only the completely antisymmetric part of the torsion tensor enters the interaction. It is useful to define the vector which is dual to this antisymmetric part: $$T^\sigma\equiv{1\over{3!}}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma}
T_{\mu\nu\lambda} \ , \eqno(2.7)$$ which can be inverted to yield $T_{[\mu\nu\lambda]}=
\epsilon_{\sigma\mu\nu\lambda}T^\sigma$. We can then use the identity $\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\gamma^\lambda
\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma}=(i3!)\gamma_\sigma\gamma_5$ to write the interaction as $${\cal L}_I ={3\over 4}T_\mu j^\mu_5 \ ,\eqno(2.8)$$ where we have used the conventional definition of the fermion axial vector current, $j^\mu_5\equiv \bar\psi\gamma^\mu\gamma_5\psi$.
We see that the entire interaction between torsion and matter reduces to a coupling of the axial vector current to a torsion (pseudo-)vector $T_\mu$. In constructing the torsion-only Lagrangian ${\cal L}_T$, we shall therefore confine our attention to this single vector. While the other components of $T_{\mu\nu}{}^\lambda$ may interact with this vector, they do not couple directly to matter, and are therefore unlikely to yield observable effects. (In what follows we shall treat the vector $T_\mu$ as a fundamental field with respect to which we vary the action to obtain equations of motion. In the full theory the fundamental fields would be a vierbein and spin connection.)
It is straightforward to write down a Lagrangian for the torsion vector which contains all possible terms of no higher than second order in $T_\mu$ or derivatives of $T_\mu$. We may express it as $${\cal L}_T=a\partial_{[\mu}T_{\nu]}\partial^{[\mu}T^{\nu]}
+b(\partial_\mu T^\mu)^2 +cT_\mu T^\mu\ .\eqno(2.9)$$ A term involving the symmetric part of $\partial_\mu T_\nu$ can be absorbed, after integration by parts, into the first two terms above.[^4][We have written (2.9) in terms of $\partial_\mu$ rather than $\nabla_\mu$, which are not equal when the torsion is nonvanishing. This is justified since the covariant derivative $\nabla_\mu T_\nu$ is simply the partial derivative $\partial_\mu T_\nu$ plus interactions between $T_\mu$ and other components of the torsion tensor, which we are neglecting by hypothesis.]{} It is not possible to eliminate $a$, $b$ or $c$ by a field redefinition, since the interaction (2.8) contains no arbitrary constants. We recall that a vector field describes four degrees of freedom, which can be thought of as a single spin-0 field plus the three polarization modes of a spin-1 field. A simple calculation reveals that it is impossible for both the scalar and the spin-1 components to simultaneously exist as propagating degrees of freedom once we demand that the Hamiltonian of the theory be bounded below. In our notation, this means that the sign of $c$ must be negative for the scalar to be non-tachyonic, but positive for the spin-1 field to be non-tachyonic. Hence, in order for our theory to be well-defined, we may choose the parameters $a$, $b$ and $c$ such that either the scalar or the spin-1 modes propagate, but not both.[^5][We are, of course, using classical language; in a quantum theory we would say that it is impossible to have four propagating degrees of freedom without involving unphysical ghosts. The problem is present, however, even at the classical level.]{} Setting $a=0$, $b\ne 0$ results in a theory with a propagating scalar, while setting $b=0$, $a\ne 0$ corresponds to a massive spin-1 field. We shall look at the spin-0 theory more closely in the next section. An analysis similar to that given below should be able to provide constraints on the corresponding spin-1 theory.
The theories we consider differ from the conventional Einstein-Cartan theory, defined by $${\cal L}_{EC}=-M_P^2R\ ,\eqno(2.10)$$ where $R$ is the Ricci scalar $R=g^{\mu\nu}
R^\sigma{}_{\mu\sigma\nu}$ and $M_P$ is the Planck mass. Upon decomposing ${\cal L}_{EC}$ in terms of the metric and torsion, we find that $T_\mu$ enters only algebraically: $${\cal L}_{EC}=-M_P^2 T_\mu T^\mu +
{\rm non-}T_\mu{\rm\ terms}. \eqno(2.11)$$ Einstein-Cartan theory, therefore, corresponds to the choices $a=0$, $b=0$, and $c=-M_P^2$ in our equation (2.9). Since the interaction term (2.8) is also free of derivatives of $T_\mu$, varying the Einstein-Cartan action with respect to $T_\mu$ yields the constraint $T^\mu=(3/8M_P^2)j^\mu_5$. This constraint can then be substituted back into the Lagrangian, resulting in a new four-fermion interaction (suppressed by two powers of the Planck mass). It should be clear that this choice of action leads to no interesting long-range forces; however, we believe that there is no good reason to limit our attention to the Einstein-Cartan action. If the connection is our fundamental variable, it is unnatural to restrict the torsion degrees of freedom such that they do not propagate, unless it is found that theories with torsion are internally inconsistent or in conflict with experiment. We therefore turn to exploration of such a theory.
[**III. Consequences**]{}
The spin-0 Lagrangian ${\cal L}_0$ results from setting $a=0$ in (2.9), and adding the interaction given by (2.8): $${\cal L}_0=b(\partial_\mu T^\mu)^2 +cT_\mu T^\mu
+{3\over 4}T_\mu j^\mu_5 \ .\eqno(3.1)$$ To make the scalar nature of this theory more explicit, we can consider the equivalent expression ${\cal L}^\prime =
{\cal L}_0+{\cal L}_\lambda$, where $${\cal L}_\lambda = -b\left(\lambda-\partial_\mu T^\mu
\right)^2\ .\eqno(3.2)$$ Here, $\lambda$ is a field which functions as a Lagrange multiplier. Varying with respect to $\lambda$ yields the constraint $\lambda=\partial_\mu T^\mu$; substituting back into (3.2), we find that ${\cal L}_\lambda$ vanishes, so that ${\cal L}_0$ and ${\cal L}^\prime$ define identical theories. However, we may choose instead to keep $\lambda$ in the Lagrangian, and after an integration by parts we obtain $${\cal L}^\prime=cT_\mu T^\mu +{3\over 4}T_\mu j^\mu_5
-b\lambda^2 -2bT^\mu\partial_\mu\lambda\ .\eqno(3.3)$$ In this version there are no derivatives of the torsion, and it is $T_\mu$ which functions as a Lagrange multiplier (although the physics is, of course, still the same as (3.1)). Variation with respect to $T_\mu$ yields the constraint $$T_\mu = {b\over c}\partial_\mu\lambda -{3\over{8c}}
j_{\mu 5}\ .\eqno(3.4)$$ We can insert this back into (3.3) to obtain an expression solely in terms of $\lambda$ and $j^\mu_5$. To make things look conventional, we define $m^2\equiv -c/b$, $f\equiv(-8c/9)^{1/2}$, and $\phi\equiv(-2b^2/c)^{1/2}\lambda$, which gives $${\cal L}^\prime={1\over 2}(\partial_\mu\phi)^2 -{{m^2}
\over 2}\phi^2 + {1\over{2f}}\phi\partial_\mu
j^\mu_5 +{1\over{8f^2}}j_{\mu 5}j^\mu_5\ .\eqno(3.5)$$ Thus, this choice of torsion action is equivalent to a conventional pseudoscalar field with mass $m$ coupled to the divergence of the axial vector current, along with an induced four-fermion interaction. Notice that we must require that $b>0$ and $c<0$ to guarantee that the (mass)$^2$ of $\phi$ be positive and that $f$ be real.
While the Lagrangian (3.5) specifies the entire classical theory, quantum effects (in the matter sector) will lead to additional interactions. Specifically, there will be an interaction with gauge bosons, mediated by triangle diagrams, due to the chiral anomaly in the current $j^\mu_5$. The torsion scalar couples to the divergence of $j^\mu_5$, given by $$\partial_\mu j^\mu_5 = {{N_f \alpha}\over {4\pi}}F_{\mu\nu}
\widetilde F^{\mu\nu} + \sum_i m_{\psi_i}\bar\psi_i \gamma_5
\psi_i\ ,\eqno(3.6)$$ where $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the gauge field strength (we limit our attention to electromagnetism), $\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}\equiv
{1\over 2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}F_{\rho\sigma}$ is its dual, $N_f$ is the sum of the electric charges of the fermions $\psi_i$, $\alpha$ is the fine structure constant, and $m_{\psi_i}$ is the mass of $\psi_i$. Equation (3.6) induces an effective interaction Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{\phi
F\widetilde F}$ between torsion and gauge fields: $${\cal L}_{\phi F\widetilde F}={{N_f\alpha}\over{8\pi f}}
\phi F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}\ .\eqno(3.7)$$ Hence, while there is no interaction between torsion and gauge fields at the classical level, quantum effects (in the form of the chiral anomaly) induce a coupling, which may help to place constraints on the theory.
We now discuss potentially observable consequences of the theory defined by (3.5). In doing this, we may treat the two scales $m$ and $f$ as completely free parameters, and ask what values lead to detectable effects. However, there is good reason to expect that both $m$ and $f$ should be of order the Planck mass $M_P$. Indeed, if the Lagrangian includes the Ricci scalar constructed from the connection (the usual Einstein-Cartan choice) as well as pure torsion terms, there is automatically a contribution to $m^2$ of order $M_P^2$, as evidenced by (2.11). Thus, it would require a certain degree of fine tuning for $m$ to be much less than $M_P$. Similarly, since $f$ can be though of as $m$ times a dimensionless constant which we would expect to be of order unity, $m\sim f\sim M_P$ is a reasonable expectation. However, the resulting theory clearly leads to no observable phenomena. A scalar particle with a mass $M_P$ would not be produced in any conceivable experiment; furthermore, it would decay into fermions or gauge bosons with a lifetime $\tau\sim f^2/m^3 \sim M_P^{-1}$ \[11\], so any bosons produced in the early universe would quickly decay away. Thought of as a classical field, the effective range of $\phi$ is also given by $l\sim M_P^{-1}\sim 10^{-35}{\rm ~cm}$; no realistic source would give rise to a long-range field which might be observed. Hence, it is no surprise that torsion has not been detected by any experiment, and the lack of such detection should not be taken as strong evidence that torsion plays no role in the fundamental theory.
While it is reasonable to locate the parameters of the torsion theory in the Planck regime, it is nevertheless possible that they lie at much lower energies. Fortunately, the resemblance of the interactions in (3.5) to previously studied theories allows us to readily catalogue the limits on $m$ and $f$. These are presented in Fig. 1. It is clear that the constraints, while interesting, do not approach the Planck scale.
The four-fermion interaction $-(1/8f^2)j_{\mu 5} j^\mu_5$ allows us to place a limit on $f$, independent of $m$. Such terms have been studied in the context of composite models for quarks and leptons, in which the effective theories often include four-fermi interactions induced at the compositeness scale \[12\]. The interaction between two axial vector currents is parameterized by a mass scale $\Lambda_{AA}$, related to our $f$ by $f^2=\Lambda_{AA}^2/32\pi$. Constraints on $\Lambda_{AA}$ arise from electron-positron annihilation experiments, in which the four-fermion interaction contributes to a charge asymmetry over and above that expected in the standard model. The best current limits on such an interaction come from $e^+e^-\rightarrow q\bar q$ observations at TRISTAN \[13\]. These experiments yield a limit $\Lambda_{AA}\geq 3{\rm ~TeV}$, or $$f\geq 3\times 10^2{\rm ~GeV}\ .\eqno(3.8)$$ This limit is possible to circumvent, however, by adding a fundamental four-fermion interaction to the initial Lagrangian (3.1). The effect of such a term would be to alter the relation between the torsion coupling constant $f$ and the parameter $\Lambda_{AA}$ governing the strength of the four-fermion interaction, without changing any of the dynamics of the torsion scalar $\phi$. With this in mind, we have indicated the limit (3.8) by a dashed line in Fig. 1.
The interaction of $\phi$ with fermions also leads to constraints from laboratory experiments. The most effective limits come from searches for neutral bosons in $\Upsilon\rightarrow \phi +\gamma$ and $J/\psi \rightarrow \phi+\gamma$ events \[14\]. Current data enable us to place the limit $$m\geq 1\times 10^{-3}{\rm \ GeV}\ ,\eqno(3.9)$$ which however is only valid for $f\leq 10^3$ GeV. This enables us to rule out the bottom left corner of Fig. 1.
Astrophysical effects of the $\phi$ bosons lead to constraints in the $m - f$ plane for somewhat higher values of $f$. The interactions of $\phi$, as specified by (3.5) and (3.7), are precisely those of a pseudo-Goldstone boson (PGB) resulting from the spontaneous breakdown of a global symmetry at a scale $f$, followed by the explicit breakdown of the symmetry at a scale $\Lambda=\sqrt{mf}$. We can use this similarity to our advantage, by applying astrophysical constraints on PGB’s to the theory at hand; however, we wish to emphasize that the resemblance is (as far as we know) purely coincidental. There is no spontaneously broken symmetry for which $\phi$ is the pseudo-Goldstone boson; indeed, some of the essential physics is different.
Frieman and Jaffe \[11\] have presented a comprehensive list of astrophysical constraints on PGB’s; we summarize the processes most relevant to our purposes. In the regime left unconstrained by ground-based experiments, the most effective bounds come from processes in which PGB’s lead to energy loss in stars. Briefly, there may be a range of parameter space in which the mass of $\phi$ is low enough that it can be produced in a stellar interior and the coupling to ordinary matter is sufficiently strong that the rate of production is significant, while at the same time sufficiently weak that the PGB will often escape without further interaction, providing an additional channel for energy loss from the stellar core. Three distinct manifestations of this effect lead to interesting bounds: shortening the lifetime of helium-burning (horizontal branch) stars, preventing helium ignition in low-mass red giants, and shortening the duration of the neutrino pulse from supernova 1987A. The most effective bounds come from SN 1987A; in this case, the coupling of $\phi$ to nucleons can cool the supernova core and noticeably decrease the duration of the neutrino burst. This leads to the constraint $$m\ge 6\times 10^{-2}{\rm ~GeV}\ ,\eqno(3.10)$$ valid for $5\times 10^6{\rm ~GeV}\le f \le 10^{10}{\rm ~GeV}$. Larger masses would not affect the supernova, since in that case $m$ would be higher than the characteristic energy of the supernova core. (We are being somewhat loose in quoting these bounds; more precise information can be found in \[11\].) The resulting gap between $f=10^3
{\rm ~GeV}$ and $f=5\times 10^6{\rm ~GeV}$ can be closed using the effects on horizontal branch stars and red giants; the former arises because energy loss via the Primakoff process ($\phi\rightarrow
\gamma$ by scattering off electrons or nuclei) decreases the time a star will spend in the helium-burning stage, while the latter results when bremsstrahlung ($\phi$ production in electron-nucleus scattering) allows red giant cores to cool sufficiently to prevent helium ignition. Taken together, these phenomena lead to the bound $$m\ge 2\times 10^{-5}{\rm ~GeV}\ ,\eqno(3.11)$$ applicable for all $f\leq 10^9$ GeV. The astrophysical and laboratory constraints are summarized in Fig. 1. We also note that a seperate set of astrophysical effects are expected for very low-mass or long-range fields; details may be found in \[15\].
It is important to note that some of the most restrictive cosmological limits on PGB’s have no analogue in the torsion theory — specifically, those from production of PGB’s in the early universe via cosmic string decay and vacuum misalignment \[11,16\]. In each of these cases the constraint arises because, in certain regions of parameter space, PGB’s dominate the energy density of the Universe: $\Omega_\phi h^2 \geq 1$, where $\Omega$ is the density parameter of a Robertson-Walker universe and $h$ is the Hubble constant in units of 100 km/sec/Mpc. Determinations of the age of the universe imply that $\Omega_{tot}
h^2 \leq 1$, leading to limits on $m$ and $f$. However, the production of particles by string decay or vacuum misalignment depends intimately on the nature of $\phi$ as a pseudo-Goldstone boson, the angular degree of freedom in a tilted Mexican hat potential resulting from spontanteous symmetry breaking. The torsion theory, in contrast, leads to neither strings nor vacuum misalignment; hence, these constraints are inapplicable. (Conventional thermal production of $\phi$ particles can contribute significantly to the density parameter, but only in a small region of parameter space which is already excluded by the argument from SN1987A.)
[**IV. Discussion**]{}
We have discussed the empirical constraints on a theory of gravity with a propagating scalar torsion degree of freedom. This theory arises naturally out of a simple set of assumptions, and the associated spin-0 particle is likely to appear in a wide variety of Lagrangians with propagating torsion. Whereas a natural expectation would be for the mass scales characterizing the theory to approach the Planck scale, the region of parameter space accessible to experiment is naturally at much lower energies. From this point of view, it is not surprising that torsion-free general relativity is successful at explaining known observational data.
It is interesting to contrast the theory examined here with other proposals in the literature. Sezgin and van Nieuwenhuizen \[9\] have studied tacyhon-free gravitational theories, and present five Lagrangians involving the metric and torsion. Their theory 1 is Einstein-Cartan theory; theories 2, 4 and 5 propagate the massive scalar particle described in this paper (as well as others); and theory 3 propagates the massive vector particle correponding to the choices $b=0$, $a\neq 0$ in our Eq. (2.9). They did not discuss observational constraints on their theories, or couplings to matter.
Meanwhile, several papers have considered theories involving a scalar torsion field coupled to $\partial_\mu j^\mu_5$ or $F_{\mu\nu}\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}$. An early version of such a theory was proposed by Novello \[17\], who attempted to couple torsion to electromagnetism in a gauge-invariant fashion. He argued that this was possible if the dual torsion vector was restricted to be the gradient of a scalar, $T_\mu=\partial_\mu\phi$. A similar proposal was examined in greater detail by De Sabbata and Gasperini \[18\]. They computed the photon propagator in QED with a [*constant*]{} torsion background, and found that the result was equivalent to the introduction of an effective interaction $T_\mu A_\nu
\widetilde F^{\mu\nu}$. On the basis of this result and the desire to preserve gauge invariance, they imposed the restriction that the torsion vector be the gradient of a scalar. The component (2.11) of the Einstein-Cartan Lagrangian involving $T_\mu$ then becomes a conventional kinetic term for a scalar field, $\partial_\mu\phi \partial^\mu\phi$. Since the scalar field only appears in the form $\partial_\mu\phi$, it is massless, and the torsion can lead to long-range interactions. In a similar vein, Hammond \[19\] has proposed an antisymmetric two-index torsion potential $\psi_{\mu\nu}$, related to the torsion tensor by $T_{\mu\nu\sigma}=\partial_{[\sigma}\psi_{\mu\nu]}$ and coupled to electromagnetism through an interaction of the form $F^{\mu\nu}\psi_{\mu\nu}$. Finally, Duncan, Kaloper and Olive \[20\] have examined Einstein-Cartan theory with the addition of a constraining term $\phi\partial_\mu T^\mu$, where $\phi$ is treated as a Lagrange multiplier. This technique, without imposing any external restrictions on the form of $T_\mu$ or $\phi$, introduces a propagating massless scalar field which couples to $\partial_\mu
j^\mu_5$.
There are therefore two important distinctions between these investigations of the consequences of scalar torsion theories and the approach advocated in this paper. First, in defining the Lagrangian, we have been able to describe a propagating scalar torsion degree of freedom without imposing external restrictions on the form of the torsion tensor, nor changing the degree-of-freedom content by introducing auxilliary fields as Lagrange multipliers. (In this sense our approach is that of \[9\].) The second distinction, which is a direct consequence of the first, is that we have found that the resulting scalar should be massive, and indeed with a mass of order the Planck scale. This is not to say that the theories described above are necessarily incorrect; we believe that the approach followed in this paper is simple and natural, but at the current level of understanding this is purely a matter of taste.
The picture of torsion as an extremely short-range field runs somewhat counter to the intuitive conception of torsion as a part of spacetime geometry. More concretely, we are used to gauge theories giving rise to massless, long-range fields, and the status of torsion as part of the connection on the tangent bundle might lead us to expect the same in this case. This conflict with intuition may be resolved by noticing that the torsion is a tensor which is [*linear*]{} in the connection. It therefore becomes possible to construct gauge invariant interactions which give a mass to some of the connection degrees of freedom. This is in contrast with the pure metric theory, or with gauge theories on internal vector bundles, where all gauge invariant terms involve the curvature tensor, constructed from derivatives of the fundamental fields. Thus, despite its origin as part of the geometry of spacetime, the physical manifestation of torsion can be significantly different from that of other “geometrical” fields.
The possible existence of torsion is of interest both in the construction of quantum theories of gravity and in the experimental search for deviations from general relativity. The important lesson of this paper is that the absence of effects of torsion in experiments should not lead us to discount the possibility of torsion playing a role in the ultimate theory of gravity.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
It is a pleasure to thank Eric Blackman, Sidney Coleman, Edward Farhi, Roman Jackiw, and Ted Pyne for many useful discussions. This work was supported in part by NASA under Grants No. NAGW-931 and NGT-50850, by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY/92-06867, and by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-FC02-94ER40818.
**References**
[1.]{} R. M. Wald, [*General Relativity*]{} (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).
[2.]{} A. Ashtekar, [*Lectures on Nonperturbative Quantum Gravity*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991).
[3.]{} A. Achucarro and P.K. Townsend, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B229**]{}, 383 (1989); E. Witten, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B311**]{}, 80 (1990).
[4.]{} G. Grignani and G. Nardelli, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**45**]{}, 2719 (1992); D. Cangemi and R. Jackiw, [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**225**]{}, 229 (1993); J. D. Romano, [*Geometrodynamics Vs. Connection Dynamics*]{}, preprint UMDGR-93-129, gr-qc/9303032 (1993); P. Peldán, [*Actions for Gravity, with Generalizations: A Review*]{}, Göteborg preprint ITP 93-13, gr-qc/9305011 (1993).
[5.]{} F. W. Hehl, P. von der Heyde, G. D. Kerlick, and J. M. Nester, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**48**]{}, 393 (1976).
[6.]{} N. Straumann, [*General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984).
[7.]{} C. M. Will, [*Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics*]{} (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993).
[8.]{} D. E. Neville, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**18**]{}, 3535 (1978).
[9.]{}E. Sezgin and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**21**]{}, 3269 (1980).
[10.]{} I.M. Benn, T. Dereli, and R. W. Tucker, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**96B**]{}, 100 (1980).
[11.]{} J. A. Frieman and A. H. Jaffe, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**45**]{}, 2674 (1992).
[12.]{} E. J. Eichten, K. D. Lane, and M. E. Peskin, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**50**]{}, 811 (1983).
[13.]{} K. Abe [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**232B**]{}, 425 (1989); I. Adachi [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**255B**]{}, 613 (1991).
[14.]{} J. E. Kim, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**150**]{}, 2 (1987).
[15.]{} S.M. Carroll and G.B. Field, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**43**]{}, 3789 (1991); D. Harari and P. Sikivie, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**289B**]{}, 67 (1992); S. Mohanty and P.K. Panda, preprint hep-ph/9403205 (1994); W.D. Garretson and E.D. Carlson, preprint (1994).
[16.]{} D. Harari and P. Sikivie, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**195B**]{}, 361 (1987); R. Davis and P. Shellard, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B324**]{}, 167 (1989); A. Dabholkar and J. Quashnock, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B333**]{}, 815 (1990).
[17.]{} M. Novello, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**59A**]{}, 105 (1976).
[18.]{} V. De Sabbata and M. Gasperini, [*Phys. Lett*]{} [**77A**]{}, 300 (1980); V. De Sabbata and M. Gasperini, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**83A**]{}, 115 (1981).
[19.]{} R. T. Hammond, [*General Relativity and Gravitation*]{} [**23**]{}, 1195 (1991).
[20.]{} M. J. Duncan, N. Kaloper and K. A. Olive, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B387**]{}, 215 (1992).
**Figure Caption**
.4cm
Figure One. [*Limits on parameters characterizing the pseudoscalar torsion theory.*]{} This theory is specified by two constants $m$ and $f$, each with dimensions of mass. We have plotted the regions excluded by astrophysical and terrestrial data, as explained in the text. The solid lines represent inescapable limits, while the dashed line may be avoided by modification of the induced four-fermion interaction. The star in the upper right represents $m=f=M_P=10^{19}$ GeV, which we argued was a reasonable expectation. Clearly, the constraints are far removed from this point.
userdict /Adobe\_packedarray 5 dict dup begin put /initialize [ /packedarray where [ pop ]{} [ Adobe\_packedarray begin Adobe\_packedarray [ dup xcheck [ bind ]{} if userdict 3 1 roll put ]{} forall end ]{} ifelse ]{} def /terminate [ ]{} def /packedarray [ array astore readonly ]{} def /setpacking [ pop ]{} def /currentpacking [ false ]{} def currentdict readonly pop end Adobe\_packedarray /initialize get exec currentpacking true setpacking userdict /Adobe\_cmykcolor 4 dict dup begin put /initialize [ /setcmykcolor where [ pop ]{} [ userdict /Adobe\_cmykcolor\_vars 2 dict dup begin put /\_setrgbcolor /setrgbcolor load def /\_currentrgbcolor /currentrgbcolor load def Adobe\_cmykcolor begin Adobe\_cmykcolor [ dup xcheck [ bind ]{} if pop pop ]{} forall end end Adobe\_cmykcolor begin ]{} ifelse ]{} def /terminate [ currentdict Adobe\_cmykcolor eq [ end ]{} if ]{} def /setcmykcolor [ 1 sub 4 1 roll 3 [ 3 index add neg dup 0 lt [ pop 0 ]{} if 3 1 roll ]{} repeat Adobe\_cmykcolor\_vars /\_setrgbcolor get exec pop ]{} def /currentcmykcolor [ Adobe\_cmykcolor\_vars /\_currentrgbcolor get exec 3 [ 1 sub neg 3 1 roll ]{} repeat 0 ]{} def currentdict readonly pop end setpacking currentpacking true setpacking userdict /Adobe\_cshow 3 dict dup begin put /initialize [ /cshow where [ pop ]{} [ userdict /Adobe\_cshow\_vars 1 dict dup begin put /\_cshow def Adobe\_cshow begin Adobe\_cshow [ dup xcheck [ bind ]{} if userdict 3 1 roll put ]{} forall end end ]{} ifelse ]{} def /terminate [ ]{} def /cshow [ exch Adobe\_cshow\_vars exch /\_cshow exch put [ 0 0 Adobe\_cshow\_vars /\_cshow get exec ]{} forall ]{} def currentdict readonly pop end setpacking currentpacking true setpacking userdict /Adobe\_customcolor 5 dict dup begin put /initialize [ /setcustomcolor where [ pop ]{} [ Adobe\_customcolor begin Adobe\_customcolor [ dup xcheck [ bind ]{} if pop pop ]{} forall end Adobe\_customcolor begin ]{} ifelse ]{} def /terminate [ currentdict Adobe\_customcolor eq [ end ]{} if ]{} def /findcmykcustomcolor [ 5 packedarray ]{} def /setcustomcolor [ exch aload pop pop 4 [ 4 index mul 4 1 roll ]{} repeat 5 -1 roll pop setcmykcolor ]{} def /setoverprint [ pop ]{} def currentdict readonly pop end setpacking currentpacking true setpacking userdict /Adobe\_typography\_AI3 47 dict dup begin put /initialize [ /TZ where [ pop ]{} [ Adobe\_typography\_AI3 begin Adobe\_typography\_AI3 [ dup xcheck [ bind ]{} if pop pop ]{} forall end Adobe\_typography\_AI3 begin ]{} ifelse ]{} def /terminate [ currentdict Adobe\_typography\_AI3 eq [ end ]{} if ]{} def /modifyEncoding
/\_tempEncode exch ddef
/\_pntr 0 ddef
[ counttomark -1 roll dup type dup /marktype eq [ pop pop exit ]{} [ /nametype eq [ \_tempEncode /\_pntr dup load dup 3 1 roll 1 add ddef 3 -1 roll put ]{} [ /\_pntr exch ddef ]{} ifelse ]{} ifelse ]{} loop
\_tempEncode
def /TE [ StandardEncoding 256 array copy modifyEncoding /\_nativeEncoding exch def ]{} def /TZ
dup type /arraytype eq [/\_wv exch def]{} [/\_wv 0 def]{} ifelse /\_useNativeEncoding exch def pop pop
findfont \_wv type /arraytype eq [\_wv makeblendedfont]{} if dup length 2 add dict
begin
mark exch [ 1 index /FID ne [ def ]{} if cleartomark mark ]{} forall pop
/FontName exch def
counttomark 0 eq [ 1 \_useNativeEncoding eq [ /Encoding \_nativeEncoding def ]{} if cleartomark ]{} [ /Encoding load 256 array copy modifyEncoding /Encoding exch def ]{} ifelse FontName currentdict end
definefont pop
def /tr [ \_ax \_ay 3 2 roll ]{} def /trj [ \_cx \_cy \_sp \_ax \_ay 6 5 roll ]{} def /a0
/Tx [ dup currentpoint 3 2 roll tr \_psf newpath moveto tr \_ctm \_pss ]{} ddef /Tj [ dup currentpoint 3 2 roll trj \_pjsf newpath moveto trj \_ctm \_pjss ]{} ddef
def /a1
/Tx [ dup currentpoint 4 2 roll gsave dup currentpoint 3 2 roll tr \_psf newpath moveto tr \_ctm \_pss grestore 3 1 roll moveto tr sp ]{} ddef /Tj [ dup currentpoint 4 2 roll gsave dup currentpoint 3 2 roll trj \_pjsf newpath moveto trj \_ctm \_pjss grestore 3 1 roll moveto tr sp ]{} ddef
def /e0 [ /Tx [ tr \_psf ]{} ddef /Tj [ trj \_pjsf ]{} ddef ]{} def /e1 [ /Tx [ dup currentpoint 4 2 roll gsave tr \_psf grestore 3 1 roll moveto tr sp ]{} ddef /Tj [ dup currentpoint 4 2 roll gsave trj \_pjsf grestore 3 1 roll moveto tr sp ]{} ddef ]{} def /i0 [ /Tx [ tr sp ]{} ddef /Tj [ trj jsp ]{} ddef ]{} def /i1 [ W N ]{} def /o0 [ /Tx [ tr sw rmoveto ]{} ddef /Tj [ trj swj rmoveto ]{} ddef ]{} def /r0 [ /Tx [ tr \_ctm \_pss ]{} ddef /Tj [ trj \_ctm \_pjss ]{} ddef ]{} def /r1 [ /Tx [ dup currentpoint 4 2 roll currentpoint gsave newpath moveto tr \_ctm \_pss grestore 3 1 roll moveto tr sp ]{} ddef /Tj [ dup currentpoint 4 2 roll currentpoint gsave newpath moveto trj \_ctm \_pjss grestore 3 1 roll moveto tr sp ]{} ddef ]{} def /To [ pop \_ctm currentmatrix pop ]{} def /TO [ Te \_ctm setmatrix newpath ]{} def /Tp [ pop \_tm astore pop \_ctm setmatrix \_tDict begin /W def /h def ]{} def /TP [ end iTm 0 0 moveto ]{} def /Tr [ \_render 3 le [currentpoint newpath moveto]{} if dup 8 eq [pop 0]{} [dup 9 eq [pop 1]{} if]{} ifelse dup /\_render exch ddef \_renderStart exch get load exec ]{} def /iTm [ \_ctm setmatrix \_tm concat 0 \_rise translate \_hs 1 scale ]{} def /Tm [ \_tm astore pop iTm 0 0 moveto ]{} def /Td [ \_mtx translate \_tm \_tm concatmatrix pop iTm 0 0 moveto ]{} def /Te [ \_render -1 eq [\_renderEnd \_render get dup null ne [load exec]{} [pop]{} ifelse]{} ifelse /\_render -1 ddef ]{} def /Ta [ pop ]{} def /Tf [ dup 1000 div /\_fScl exch ddef exch findfont exch scalefont setfont ]{} def /Tl [ pop 0 exch \_leading astore pop ]{} def /Tt [ pop ]{} def /TW [ 3 npop ]{} def /Tw [ /\_cx exch ddef ]{} def /TC [ 3 npop ]{} def /Tc [ /\_ax exch ddef ]{} def /Ts [ /\_rise exch ddef currentpoint iTm moveto ]{} def /Ti [ 3 npop ]{} def /Tz [ 100 div /\_hs exch ddef iTm ]{} def /TA [ pop ]{} def /Tq [ pop ]{} def /TX [pop]{} def /Tk [ exch pop \_fScl mul neg 0 rmoveto ]{} def /TK [ 2 npop ]{} def /T\* [ \_leading aload pop neg Td ]{} def /T\*- [ \_leading aload pop Td ]{} def /T- [ \_hyphen Tx ]{} def /T+ def /TR [ \_ctm currentmatrix pop \_tm astore pop iTm 0 0 moveto ]{} def /TS [ 0 eq [Tx]{} [Tj]{} ifelse ]{} def currentdict readonly pop end setpacking currentpacking true setpacking userdict /Adobe\_IllustratorA\_AI3 61 dict dup begin put /initialize [ userdict /Adobe\_IllustratorA\_AI3\_vars 57 dict dup begin put /\_lp /none def /\_pf def /\_ps def /\_psf def /\_pss def /\_pjsf def /\_pjss def /\_pola 0 def /\_doClip 0 def /cf currentflat def /\_tm matrix def /\_renderStart \[/e0 /r0 /a0 /o0 /e1 /r1 /a1 /i0\] def /\_renderEnd \[null null null null /i1 /i1 /i1 /i1\] def /\_render -1 def /\_rise 0 def /\_ax 0 def /\_ay 0 def /\_cx 0 def /\_cy 0 def /\_leading \[0 0\] def /\_ctm matrix def /\_mtx matrix def /\_sp 16\#020 def /\_hyphen (-) def /\_fScl 0 def /\_cnt 0 def /\_hs 1 def /\_nativeEncoding 0 def /\_useNativeEncoding 0 def /\_tempEncode 0 def /\_pntr 0 def /\_tDict 2 dict def /Tx def /Tj def /CRender def /\_AI3\_savepage def /\_gf null def /\_cf 4 array def /\_if null def /\_of false def /\_fc def /\_gs null def /\_cs 4 array def /\_is null def /\_os false def /\_sc def /\_i null def Adobe\_IllustratorA\_AI3 begin Adobe\_IllustratorA\_AI3 [ dup xcheck [ bind ]{} if pop pop ]{} forall end end Adobe\_IllustratorA\_AI3 begin Adobe\_IllustratorA\_AI3\_vars begin newpath ]{} def /terminate [ end end ]{} def /\_ null def /ddef [ Adobe\_IllustratorA\_AI3\_vars 3 1 roll put ]{} def /xput [ dup load dup length exch maxlength eq [ dup dup load dup length 2 mul dict copy def ]{} if load begin def end ]{} def /npop [ [ pop ]{} repeat ]{} def /sw [ dup length exch stringwidth exch 5 -1 roll 3 index 1 sub mul add 4 1 roll 3 1 roll 1 sub mul add ]{} def /swj [ dup 4 1 roll dup length exch stringwidth exch 5 -1 roll 3 index 1 sub mul add 4 1 roll 3 1 roll 1 sub mul add 6 2 roll /\_cnt 0 ddef [1 index eq [/\_cnt \_cnt 1 add ddef]{} if]{} forall pop exch \_cnt mul exch \_cnt mul 2 index add 4 1 roll 2 index add 4 1 roll pop pop ]{} def /ss [ 4 1 roll [ 2 npop (0) exch 2 copy 0 exch put pop gsave false charpath currentpoint 4 index setmatrix stroke grestore moveto 2 copy rmoveto ]{} exch cshow 3 npop ]{} def /jss [ 4 1 roll [ 2 npop (0) exch 2 copy 0 exch put gsave \_sp eq [ exch 6 index 6 index 6 index 5 -1 roll widthshow currentpoint ]{} [ false charpath currentpoint 4 index setmatrix stroke ]{}ifelse grestore moveto 2 copy rmoveto ]{} exch cshow 6 npop ]{} def /sp [ [ 2 npop (0) exch 2 copy 0 exch put pop false charpath 2 copy rmoveto ]{} exch cshow 2 npop ]{} def /jsp [ [ 2 npop (0) exch 2 copy 0 exch put \_sp eq [ exch 5 index 5 index 5 index 5 -1 roll widthshow ]{} [ false charpath ]{}ifelse 2 copy rmoveto ]{} exch cshow 5 npop ]{} def /pl [ transform 0.25 sub round 0.25 add exch 0.25 sub round 0.25 add exch itransform ]{} def /setstrokeadjust where [ pop true setstrokeadjust /c [ curveto ]{} def /C /c load def /v [ currentpoint 6 2 roll curveto ]{} def /V /v load def /y [ 2 copy curveto ]{} def /Y /y load def /l [ lineto ]{} def /L /l load def /m [ moveto ]{} def ]{} [ /c [ pl curveto ]{} def /C /c load def /v [ currentpoint 6 2 roll pl curveto ]{} def /V /v load def /y [ pl 2 copy curveto ]{} def /Y /y load def /l [ pl lineto ]{} def /L /l load def /m [ pl moveto ]{} def ]{}ifelse /d [ setdash ]{} def /cf def /i [ dup 0 eq [ pop cf ]{} if setflat ]{} def /j [ setlinejoin ]{} def /J [ setlinecap ]{} def /M [ setmiterlimit ]{} def /w [ setlinewidth ]{} def /H def /h [ closepath ]{} def /N [ \_pola 0 eq [ \_doClip 1 eq [clip /\_doClip 0 ddef]{} if newpath ]{} [ /CRender [N]{} ddef ]{}ifelse ]{} def /n [N]{} def /F [ \_pola 0 eq [ \_doClip 1 eq [ gsave \_pf grestore clip newpath /\_lp /none ddef \_fc /\_doClip 0 ddef ]{} [ \_pf ]{}ifelse ]{} [ /CRender [F]{} ddef ]{}ifelse ]{} def /f [ closepath F ]{} def /S [ \_pola 0 eq [ \_doClip 1 eq [ gsave \_ps grestore clip newpath /\_lp /none ddef \_sc /\_doClip 0 ddef ]{} [ \_ps ]{}ifelse ]{} [ /CRender [S]{} ddef ]{}ifelse ]{} def /s [ closepath S ]{} def /B [ \_pola 0 eq [ \_doClip 1 eq gsave F grestore [ gsave S grestore clip newpath /\_lp /none ddef \_sc /\_doClip 0 ddef ]{} [ S ]{}ifelse ]{} [ /CRender [B]{} ddef ]{}ifelse ]{} def /b [ closepath B ]{} def /W [ /\_doClip 1 ddef ]{} def /\* [ count 0 ne [ dup type (stringtype) eq [pop]{} if ]{} if \_pola 0 eq [newpath]{} if ]{} def /u def /U def /q [ \_pola 0 eq [gsave]{} if ]{} def /Q [ \_pola 0 eq [grestore]{} if ]{} def /\*u [ \_pola 1 add /\_pola exch ddef ]{} def /\*U [ \_pola 1 sub /\_pola exch ddef \_pola 0 eq [CRender]{} if ]{} def /D [pop]{} def /\*w def /\*W def /‘ [ /\_i save ddef 6 1 roll 4 npop concat pop userdict begin /showpage def 0 setgray 0 setlinecap 1 setlinewidth 0 setlinejoin 10 setmiterlimit \[\] 0 setdash newpath 0 setgray false setoverprint ]{} def / [ end \_i restore ]{} def /O [ 0 ne /\_of exch ddef /\_lp /none ddef ]{} def /R [ 0 ne /\_os exch ddef /\_lp /none ddef ]{} def /g [ /\_gf exch ddef /\_fc [ \_lp /fill ne [ \_of setoverprint \_gf setgray /\_lp /fill ddef ]{} if ]{} ddef /\_pf [ \_fc fill ]{} ddef /\_psf [ \_fc ashow ]{} ddef /\_pjsf [ \_fc awidthshow ]{} ddef /\_lp /none ddef ]{} def /G [ /\_gs exch ddef /\_sc [ \_lp /stroke ne [ \_os setoverprint \_gs setgray /\_lp /stroke ddef ]{} if ]{} ddef /\_ps [ \_sc stroke ]{} ddef /\_pss [ \_sc ss ]{} ddef /\_pjss [ \_sc jss ]{} ddef /\_lp /none ddef ]{} def /k [ \_cf astore pop /\_fc [ \_lp /fill ne [ \_of setoverprint \_cf aload pop setcmykcolor /\_lp /fill ddef ]{} if ]{} ddef /\_pf [ \_fc fill ]{} ddef /\_psf [ \_fc ashow ]{} ddef /\_pjsf [ \_fc awidthshow ]{} ddef /\_lp /none ddef ]{} def /K [ \_cs astore pop /\_sc [ \_lp /stroke ne [ \_os setoverprint \_cs aload pop setcmykcolor /\_lp /stroke ddef ]{} if ]{} ddef /\_ps [ \_sc stroke ]{} ddef /\_pss [ \_sc ss ]{} ddef /\_pjss [ \_sc jss ]{} ddef /\_lp /none ddef ]{} def /x [ /\_gf exch ddef findcmykcustomcolor /\_if exch ddef /\_fc [ \_lp /fill ne [ \_of setoverprint \_if \_gf 1 exch sub setcustomcolor /\_lp /fill ddef ]{} if ]{} ddef /\_pf [ \_fc fill ]{} ddef /\_psf [ \_fc ashow ]{} ddef /\_pjsf [ \_fc awidthshow ]{} ddef /\_lp /none ddef ]{} def /X [ /\_gs exch ddef findcmykcustomcolor /\_is exch ddef /\_sc [ \_lp /stroke ne [ \_os setoverprint \_is \_gs 1 exch sub setcustomcolor /\_lp /stroke ddef ]{} if ]{} ddef /\_ps [ \_sc stroke ]{} ddef /\_pss [ \_sc ss ]{} ddef /\_pjss [ \_sc jss ]{} ddef /\_lp /none ddef ]{} def /A [ pop ]{} def currentdict readonly pop end setpacking /annotatepage [ ]{} def Adobe\_cmykcolor /initialize get exec Adobe\_cshow /initialize get exec Adobe\_customcolor /initialize get exec Adobe\_typography\_AI3 /initialize get exec Adobe\_IllustratorA\_AI3 /initialize get exec \[ 39/quotesingle 96/grave 128/Adieresis/Aring/Ccedilla/Eacute/Ntilde/Odieresis /Udieresis/aacute/agrave/acircumflex/adieresis/atilde/aring/ccedilla/eacute /egrave/ecircumflex/edieresis/iacute/igrave/icircumflex/idieresis/ntilde /oacute/ograve/ocircumflex/odieresis/otilde/uacute/ugrave/ucircumflex /udieresis/dagger/degree/cent/sterling/section/bullet/paragraph/germandbls /registered/copyright/trademark/acute/dieresis/.notdef/AE/Oslash /.notdef/plusminus/.notdef/.notdef/yen/mu/.notdef/.notdef /.notdef/.notdef/.notdef/ordfeminine/ordmasculine/.notdef/ae/oslash /questiondown/exclamdown/logicalnot/.notdef/florin/.notdef/.notdef /guillemotleft/guillemotright/ellipsis/.notdef/Agrave/Atilde/Otilde/OE/oe /endash/emdash/quotedblleft/quotedblright/quoteleft/quoteright/divide /.notdef/ydieresis/Ydieresis/fraction/currency/guilsinglleft/guilsinglright /fi/fl/daggerdbl/periodcentered/quotesinglbase/quotedblbase/perthousand /Acircumflex/Ecircumflex/Aacute/Edieresis/Egrave/Iacute/Icircumflex /Idieresis/Igrave/Oacute/Ocircumflex/.notdef/Ograve/Uacute/Ucircumflex /Ugrave/dotlessi/circumflex/tilde/macron/breve/dotaccent/ring/cedilla /hungarumlaut/ogonek/caron TE \[/\_Times-Italic/Times-Italic 0 0 1 TZ \[/\_Times-Roman/Times-Roman 0 0 1 TZ 0 A u u 0 R 0 G 0 i 0 J 0 j 1 w 4 M \[\]0 d 0 D 533 544.4375 m 533 288.4375 L 108 288.4375 L 108 544.4375 L 533 544.4375 L s 320.5 416.4375 m S U u 136 288.5625 m 136 297.0625 l S 164.5 288.5625 m 164.5 297.0625 l S 192.75 288.5625 m 192.75 297.0625 l S 221.25 288.5625 m 221.25 297.0625 l S 249.375 288.8125 m 249.375 297.3125 l S 277.875 288.8125 m 277.875 297.3125 l S 306.125 288.8125 m 306.125 297.3125 l S 334.625 288.8125 m 334.625 297.3125 l S 362.6875 288.5625 m 362.6875 297.0625 l S 391.1875 288.5625 m 391.1875 297.0625 l S 419.4375 288.5625 m 419.4375 297.0625 l S 447.9375 288.5625 m 447.9375 297.0625 l S 476.0625 288.8125 m 476.0625 297.3125 l S 504.5625 288.8125 m 504.5625 297.3125 l S U u 136.0312 535.875 m 136.0312 544.375 l S 164.5312 535.875 m 164.5312 544.375 l S 192.7812 535.875 m 192.7812 544.375 l S 221.2812 535.875 m 221.2812 544.375 l S 249.4062 536.125 m 249.4062 544.625 l S 277.9062 536.125 m 277.9062 544.625 l S 306.1562 536.125 m 306.1562 544.625 l S 334.6562 536.125 m 334.6562 544.625 l S 362.7187 535.875 m 362.7187 544.375 l S 391.2187 535.875 m 391.2187 544.375 l S 419.4687 535.875 m 419.4687 544.375 l S 447.9687 535.875 m 447.9687 544.375 l S 476.0937 536.125 m 476.0937 544.625 l S 504.5937 536.125 m 504.5937 544.625 l S U u 524.3437 522.8125 m 532.8437 522.8125 l S 524.3437 501.531 m 532.8437 501.531 l S 524.3437 480.4362 m 532.8437 480.4362 l S 524.3437 459.1547 m 532.8437 459.1547 l S 524.5937 438.1532 m 533.0937 438.1532 l S 524.5937 416.8717 m 533.0937 416.8717 l S 524.5937 395.7769 m 533.0937 395.7769 l S 524.5937 374.4954 m 533.0937 374.4954 l S 524.3437 353.5406 m 532.8437 353.5406 l S 524.3437 332.259 m 532.8437 332.259 l S 524.3437 311.1642 m 532.8437 311.1642 l S U u 108 522.8866 m 116.5 522.8866 l S 108 501.6051 m 116.5 501.6051 l S 108 480.5103 m 116.5 480.5103 l S 108 459.2288 m 116.5 459.2288 l S 108.25 438.2273 m 116.75 438.2273 l S 178.875 288.375 m 178.875 341.5 l 154.875 341.5 l 154.875 382 l 204.375 382 l 204.375 417 l 108.25 416.9458 l 116.75 416.9458 l S 108.25 395.851 m 116.75 395.851 l S 108.25 374.5695 m 116.75 374.5695 l S 108 353.6147 m 116.5 353.6147 l S 108 332.3332 m 116.5 332.3332 l S 108 311.2384 m 116.5 311.2384 l S U U \[5 5 5 \]0 d 178.875 335.25 m 533 335.25 l S u 1.079 w \[\]0 d 490.5083 519.3242 m 494.2993 507.6573 L 484.3746 514.8677 L 496.642 514.8682 L 486.7176 507.6571 L 490.5083 519.3242 L s U 0 To 1 0 0 1 138 395 0 Tp TP 0 Tr 0 O 0 g 1 w /\_Times-Roman 14 Tf 0 Ts 100 Tz 0 Tt 0 TA 0 0 5 TC 100 100 200 TW 0 0 0 Ti 0 Ta 0 Tq 0 0 Tl 0 Tc 0 Tw (Excluded) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 318 397 0 Tp TP 0 Tr (Allowed) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 98.75 269.75 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 112.75 276.75 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (-8) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 154.8601 269.8208 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 168.8601 276.8208 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (-4) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 212.555 269.5354 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 226.555 276.5354 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (0) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 268.6652 269.6062 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 282.6652 276.6062 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (4) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 326.1525 269.6427 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 340.1525 276.6427 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (8) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 382.2626 269.7135 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 396.2626 276.7135 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (12) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 439.9576 269.4281 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 453.9576 276.4281 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (16) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 496.0677 269.4989 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 510.0677 276.4989 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (20) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 78.9025 539.1427 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 92.9025 546.1427 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (22) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 79.0126 497.4635 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 93.0126 504.4635 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (18) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 78.9576 454.4281 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 92.9576 461.4281 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (14) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 79.0677 285.7489 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 93.0677 292.7489 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (-2) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 78.9025 411.8927 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 92.9025 418.8927 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 79.0126 369.7135 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 93.0126 376.7135 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (6) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 78.9576 328.4281 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 12 Tf (10) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 92.9576 335.4281 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 10 Tf (2) Tx () TX TO 0 To 1 0 0 1 261 246 0 Tp TP 0 Tr /\_Times-Roman 14 Tf (Mass ) Tx /\_Times-Italic 14 Tf ( m ) Tx /\_Times-Roman 14 Tf ($GeV$) Tx () TX TO 0 To 0 1 -1 0 66 352 0 Tp TP 0 Tr (Coupling ) Tx /\_Times-Italic 14 Tf (f ) Tx /\_Times-Roman 14 Tf ($GeV$) Tx () TX TO gsave annotatepage grestore showpage Adobe\_IllustratorA\_AI3 /terminate get exec Adobe\_typography\_AI3 /terminate get exec Adobe\_customcolor /terminate get exec Adobe\_cshow /terminate get exec Adobe\_cmykcolor /terminate get exec Adobe\_packedarray /terminate get exec
[^1]: $^*$
[^2]: $^1$
[^3]: $^2$
[^4]: $^3$
[^5]: $^4$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Adsorption of organic molecules on well-oriented single crystal coinage metal surfaces fundamentally affects the energy distribution curve of ultra-violet photoelectron spectroscopy spectra. New features not present in the spectrum of the pristine metal can be assigned as “interface states” having some degree of molecule-substrate hybridization. Here it is shown that interface states having molecular orbital character can easily be identified at low binding energy as isolated features above the featureless substrate $sp$-plateau. On the other hand much care must be taken in assigning adsorbate-induced features when these lie within the $d$-band spectral region of the substrate. In fact, features often interpreted as characteristic of the molecule-substrate interaction may actually arise from substrate photoelectrons scattered by the adsorbates. This phenomenon is illustrated through a series of examples of noble-metal single-crystal surfaces covered by monolayers of large $\pi$-conjugated organic molecules.'
author:
- 'L. Giovanelli'
- 'F. C. Bocquet'
- 'P. Amsalem'
- 'H.-L. Lee'
- 'M. Abel'
- 'S. Clair'
- 'M. Koudia'
- 'T. Faury'
- 'L. Petaccia'
- 'D. Topwal'
- 'E. Salomon'
- 'T. Angot'
- 'A. A. Cafolla'
- 'N. Koch'
- 'L. Porte'
- 'A. Goldoni'
- 'J.-M. Themlin'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: |
On the interpretation of valence band photoemission spectra\
at organic-metal interfaces
---
The nature of molecule-substrate interactions is of great relevance for the understanding of functional organic-inorganic hybrid systems[@Koch2008; @Yang2003; @Kakuta2007; @Scholl2010; @Ziroff2012; @Puschnig2009]. The bonding at the interface can be studied by looking at the modification of the physical and chemical properties of the two constituents: the molecule and the substrate. Ultra-violet photoelectron spectroscopy (UPS) from the valence band is often used since it can map the density of states (DOS) of the sample surface through the energy distribution curve (EDC). The interface-induced DOS is then inferred by comparing the data of a thin film (often one monolayer (ML)) to those of the clean substrate and a thick molecular film, in which only weak intermolecular interactions play a role, thus providing the intrinsic molecular DOS. In this way the presence of molecular states belonging to molecular units in direct contact with the substrate can be identified. As an example, the filling of the lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) level is detected as the appearance of new features at low binding energy in the EDC [@Koch2008; @Scholl2010; @Ziroff2012; @Puschnig2011; @Annese2007; @Kilian2008; @Kroger2010]. Such evidence is generally interpreted as charge transfer from the substrate to the molecules and can be corroborated by first principle calculations [@Ruiz2012].
More generally, when the molecules are adsorbed on noble metal substrates, studying the binding energy (BE) and line shape of frontier orbital levels is particularly useful in determining the molecule-substrate interaction [@Yamane2007; @Puschnig2011]. Given their relatively low BE, the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) levels often fall within the EDC of the rather featureless plateau of the single $sp$ electron band of the metal. By using angular-resolved photoemission this allows the angular distribution of photoelectrons to be probed, thus accessing properties such as the electron effective mass and interfacial orbital hybridization [@Yang2003; @Yamane2007; @Puschnig2009; @Puschnig2011].
The situation is more involved in the BE region of the metal $d$ band since possible molecular states are superposed to a very intense and structured metal-related EDC. Moreover, the scattering of substrate photoelectrons by the adsorbed layer can sensibly modify their spatial distribution and eventually their contribution to the spectrum [@Giovanelli2008; @Giovanelli2010]. Despite this difficulty several studies reported on the formation of hybrid molecule-substrate interface states within the single crystal substrates $d$ band BE region[@Mariani2002; @Evangelista2003; @Baldacchini2004; @Evangelista2004; @DiFelice2004; @Yamane2007; @Baldacchini2006; @Bussolotti2006; @Baldacchini2007; @DiCastro2002; @Evangelista2009; @Betti2010; @Gargiani2010; @Bussolotti2010; @Bussolotti2010bis].
The present paper focuses on the substrate contribution in the EDC of the adsorbed system and it highlights the importance of the interface scattering when interpreting the EDC of a thin layer of large, $\pi$-conjugated organic molecules on noble-metal single-crystals substrates. As will be shown in the following, the adsorption promotes the measurements of EDCs in photoemission that are reminiscent of the metal 3D-integrated DOS, i.e., EDCs that mimic polycrystalline metal surfaces. At 1 ML coverage this contribution dominates the EDC of the clean substrate and should not be mistaken when assigning features to molecule-substrate interface states.
The approach adopted here consists in comparing UPS spectra of several adsorbed molecular systems with spectra measuring the substrate 3D DOS –namely the UPS of noble metal polycrystals– thus revealing the striking similarities of the EDC of these two *a priori* completely different types of systems.
Experiment
==========
The data set presented is the result of various experimental runs performed on different ultra-high vacuum experimental systems. Experiments on silver surfaces were performed with synchrotron radiation at Elettra (BaDElPh beamline [@Petaccia2009]), BESSY (Suricat beamline) and Soleil (Antares beamline). When not otherwise stated, photoelectrons were collected in normal emission (NE) with linearly polarized light impinging at about 45 degrees from the sample surface normal. Samples were oriented with the high symmetry direction ($\Gamma$-X, $\Gamma$-K-X and $\Gamma$-L for (100), (110) and (111) surfaces respectively) in the scattering plane. Similar experimental geometries, but using unpolarized light from a He discharge lamp (He I line), were used for experiments performed on copper and gold. All spectra were recorded in angular integrated mode ($\pm 7^\circ$) with high resolution spectrometers. The BE scale is referenced to the substrate Fermi level. For data recorded with the He lamp, the contribution from satellite lines was subtracted from the spectra. Zinc-phthalocyanine (ZnPc), ZnPcF$_{8}$ and tetra(aminophenyl)porphyrin (TAPP) molecules were sublimated from quartz or tantalum crucibles onto single crystal substrates held at room temperature. The substrates were cleaned by several cycles of Ar ion sputtering and subsequent annealing. Molecular order was checked by low-energy electron diffraction (LEED) or scanning tunneling microscopy (STM).
![(color online). Normal emission, angle-integrated ($\pm 7^\circ$) photoemission spectra of 1 ML of ZnPc on Ag single-crystal surfaces. For every interface the clean sample spectrum is also displayed (thin curves). A blow up of the low binding energy region is shown to highlight the HOMO and LUMO contributions. For ZnPc/Ag(100) the low binding energy region is taken at $45^\circ$ emission angle. The spectrum of the clean Ag(100) is taken from Ref.[@Roloff1977]. The bottom and the top spectra correspond to a clean polycrystalline Ag sample and a multilayer of ZnPc, respectively. The spectra were normalized to their maximum intensity to ease the comparison. \[multiplot\] ](Graph0.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Results
=======
The study of the adsorption of ZnPc on Ag(110) and (100) has been reported in detail [@Amsalem2009; @Salomon2012]. The molecules adsorb with the macrocycle parallel to the surface adopting different geometrical structures depending on the coverage. In the present case the matrix transforming the substrate lattice vectors into the ones of the molecular superstructures are $\left(\begin{array}{cc}5 & 0 \\3 & 6\end{array}\right)$, $\left(\begin{array}{cc}4 & \pm2 \\2.5 & \mp3\end{array}\right)$ [@Amsalem2009], and $\left(\begin{array}{cc}1 & 5 \\-5 & 1\end{array}\right)$ [@Salomon2012] for adsorption of ZnPc on Ag(111), (110) and (100) respectively. Three sets of spectra corresponding to ordered MLs [@Amsalem2009; @Salomon2012] of Zn-phthalocyanine (Zn-Pc) on the three low-index single crystal surfaces of silver are shown in Fig.\[multiplot\], together with the spectrum of a thick layer of ZnPc/Ag(110) (top) and that of an Ag polycrystalline sample (bottom). For reasons that will become evident in the following, vertical lines are drawn throughout Fig. \[multiplot\] corresponding to the six main BE maxima features of the polycrystal spectrum. For each surface the clean substrate and the ZnPc ML spectra are shown. The spectra of the ZnPc multilayer grown on the three substrates (not shown) were virtually identical.
As expected, the spectra of the three clean single crystal surfaces are markedly different from each other. Direct transitions as well as 1D DOS features contribute to a different extent to the observed EDC [@Roloff1977]. The spectra reproduce very well previously reported high-resolution results [@Roloff1977]. The silver polycrystal spectrum is representative of the Ag 3D DOS [@hufner].
After the ZnPc ML adsorption the EDC of each sample is significantly modified. Interface molecular states (marked with an asterisk) are present at BE $< 4 eV$ superimposed on the flat *plateau* of the substrate $sp$ states. These features are due to frontier orbitals such as (from higher to lower BE) the HOMO-2, HOMO-1, HOMO and partially filled LUMO [@Giovanelli2010]. The presence of a filled LUMO (sometimes referred to as former-LUMO) means that interface bonding involves electron charge-transfer from the substrate to the molecules. Filling of the LUMO is thus taken as a sign of strong interaction (chemisorption). Other molecule-derived features are visible at BE higher than 7 eV, where the substrate contribution decreases. These are deep-lying molecular orbitals (MO) and in the present case do not participate in the molecule-substrate bonding. A shift to lower binding energy with respect to the thick film is observed for all MOs. This is due to the more effective final-state screening in the presence of the substrate metal electrons together with a redistribution of the MOs eigenenergies due to the filling of the LUMO.
EDC modifications are also very important within the BE range of the substrate 4$d$ band, that is from 4 eV to 7 eV BE. In fact in this region the three ML spectra are very similar, displaying six distinct features. Their BE and relative intensity coincide very well with that of the six features of the polycrystalline sample (vertical lines). This observation inhibits an assignment of the observed features as interface states and reveals that the substrate contribution to the measured EDC at the metal-molecule interface is that of a polycrystalline sample.
![(color online). Normal emission, angle-integrated ($\pm 7^\circ$) photoemission spectra of ZnPcF$_{8}$ deposited on Cu(110). From bottom to top: a Cu polycrystalline sample, the clean Cu(110) surface, 1 ML ZnPcF$_{8}$/Cu(110), multilayer of ZnPcF$_{8}$/Cu(110). \[multiCu\] ](Graph3.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
In Fig.\[multiCu\] the spectra of a single disordered ML of ZnPcF$_{8}$/Cu(110) is displayed together with the clean substrate, the thick film and the Cu polycrystalline spectrum. Three clear molecular interface states are visible in the spectrum: the HOMO appearing as a weak feature at about 1.5 eV BE and two other deeper-lying MOs at 6.4 and 7.8 eV BE. No charge transfer to the LUMO is detected for this system. The intensity of the Cu(110) 4$d$ band is strongly quenched upon adsorption of ZnPcF8 and the EDC signature of the clean substrate is completely lost. Apart from a different background, (also due to the presence of spectral intensity from adsorbate MOs), the $d$ band region now looks just like that of the polycrystalline sample with all seven features (vertical bars) well reproduced in terms of BE and relative intensity. As in the case of silver, such a close and striking resemblance indicates that the reported features are arising from a modified substrate contribution.
![(color online). Normal emission, angle-integrated ($\pm 7^\circ$) photoemission spectra of TAPP deposited on Au(111). From bottom to top: Au polycrystalline sample, clean Au(111) surface, 1 ML TAPP/Au(111), multilayer of TAPP/Au(111). \[multiAu\] ](Graph118.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Finally, an example of an organic molecule deposited on a gold single crystal is reported in Fig.\[multiAu\]. The spectra of a single disordered layer of TAPP on Au(111), the multilayer, the bare substrate and the polycrystalline sample are compared. The relevant features of the latter are marked with vertical bars. From low to high binding energies they occur at 2.67, 3.15, 3.95, 4.4, 4.9, 6.14 and 7.2 eV respectively. At 1 ML coverage emission from several MOs is present in the spectrum: i) the low-BE features appearing on top of the substrate $sp$ plateau; ii) a feature at high BE (centered at 8.3 eV); iii) another one visible within the metal 5$d$ band at 3.5 eV. The latter is the intense feature appearing at 3.85 eV in the thick film spectrum that has shifted to lower BE in the ML spectrum. Once more the substrate contribution has changed significantly from that of the clean Au(111). In fact, the features between 3.4 and 4.4 eV are no longer discernible. Moreover, four of the substrate features coincide very well with those of a Au polycrystal spectrum (the other three being masked by the adsorbate contribution to the EDC). Consequently, they can not be assigned to interface states: they are the substrate contribution to the spectrum which is reminiscent of that of a polycrystal.
Discussion
==========
The examples reported above are compelling evidence that adsorbing large $\pi$-conjugated organic molecules on noble-metal single crystals substantially changes the substrate contribution to the UPS spectrum. The latter should be considered as being close to that of a polycrystalline sample. Molecular levels are best detected at BEs where the substrate contributes the least, that is over the substrate $sp$ plateau and at BEs higher than the metal substrate $d$ band. Of course molecular features are also present within the BE region of the substrate $d$ band but their detection becomes more difficult because often they are masked by the overwhelming contribution of the substrate.
The fact that adsorbing a ML molecules transforms the EDC of the underlying single crystal to that of a polycrystalline sample can be understood as follows. Within the three-step model, photoemission in the UV occurs through direct transitions between bands in the crystal: the initial state is excited to a final unoccupied state lying at $h\nu$ eV higher energy, in the reduced zone scheme band structure. The reciprocal space vector through which the final-state band is back-folded guarantees momentum conservation. The electrons then travel to the surface and escape through the surface barrier before being detected by the analyzer in the vacuum. When atoms or molecules are adsorbed on a clean single crystal surface the escaping conditions of substrate photoelectrons are modified [@Anderson1976; @Larsson1983; @Lindgren1979; @Bocquet2011; @Giovanelli2010]. The overlayer –being ordered or disordered– acts as a scattering layer which is able to provide parallel momentum and thus to change the emission directions of the photoelectrons. A photoelectron whose emission direction is off NE in the clean substrate can then be found at NE in the ML spectrum. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as surface-umklapp [@Anderson1976; @Westphal1983; @Larsson1983]. Equivalently, it can also be explained by the back folding of bulk (or surface) substrate bands by the reciprocal lattice vector of the adsorbed organic lattice[@Ziroff2009].
When adsorbed on noble metal substrates, large $\pi$-conjugated organic molecules such as phthalocyanines or porphyrins normally orient with the molecular plane parallel to the surface. The typical lattice parameters are then about 1-2 nm. This corresponds to reciprocal lattice spacings of the order of 0.6-0.3 Å$^{-1}$, which are very small when compared to the reciprocal lattice vector of the substrate. The parallel momentum transfer for photoelectrons with kinetic energies in the 10 - 15 eV range can then occur in several, closely-spaced directions. Eventually this results in a complete loss of angular anisotropy of the emitted photoelectrons as observed in Fig.\[multiplot\] to \[multiAu\]. Moreover, as demonstrated for the case of atomic adsorption, incoherent, quasi-elastic scattering can also average out the angular distribution of substrate photoelectrons [@Lindgren1979]. Spectra from noble-metal polycrystalline samples are, on the other hand, the sum of contributions from randomly-oriented micro-crystals. The lack of order in these samples results in a EDC reflecting the 3D DOS of the bulk crystal [@hufner]. The fact that the polycrystalline spectra and the spectra of single layers of phthalocyanine or porphyrins deposited on single-crystal surfaces resemble each other so closely reveals the effectiveness of the scattering (umklapp) process on the substrate photoelectrons at these interfaces.
Interface scattering also affects the substrate $sp$ band emission [@Ziroff2009; @Bocquet2011] of angle-integrated spectra. Whether this will result in distinct peaks or a modified background depends on photon energy and analyzer integration angle. In a recent low-photon energy (7-11 eV) ARPES study of ZnPc/Ag(110), it was shown that direct transitions in the $sp$-bands occurring away from the $\Gamma$ point are diffracted by the reciprocal lattice vectors giving rise to new, intense peaks at low BE in angle-integrated spectra measured around NE [@Bocquet2011]. At higher photon energy (e.g. 21 eV) the angular dispersion of the $sp$-bands will reduce [@Ziroff2009]. When using an integration angle of $\pm 7^\circ$, diffracted (or back folded) $sp$-bands are unlikely to show distinct peaks. Instead they may modify the substrate background.
It is important to point out that interface scattering depends on the specific system under consideration through factors such as the adsorbate geometric order, the molecule-substrate interaction and the scattering power of the adsorbate [@Lindgren1979; @Larsson1983]. When large molecules are adsorbed, the presence of several orientational domains is rather common. The present study shows that in this case, as in the case of disordered systems, the adsorbate promotes real 3D polycrystalline contributions from the substrate. When single domains are studied the reciprocal space lattice will become sparser and diffraction through selected reciprocal space rods can be observed. The presence of true polycrystalline features will depend on the effectiveness of incoherent scattering [@Lindgren1979].
The evidence reported above has consequences for the interpretation of the EDC modification following adsorption of organic molecules on single crystals.
Molecule-substrate interaction between $\pi$-conjugated molecules and noble-metal substrates often occurs through hybridization of frontier MOs with low-lying metal states [@Koch2008; @Kilian2008; @Scholl2010; @Giovanelli2008; @Giovanelli2010]. Broadening of the HOMO and filling of the LUMO are often observed above the weak $sp$ band (see Fig. \[multiplot\]-\[multiAu\]). For high enough photon energies the $sp$ band generally contributes as a flat background in angle-integrated spectra. This has permitted the detailed study of the angular anisotropy of the molecular features giving insight into the details of molecule-substrate hybridization [@Puschnig2011].
The interaction of molecular states with metal $d$ electrons is harder to unveil. This is mostly due to the fact that possible hybridization between molecular and metal states is blurred by the substrate contribution to the UPS spectrum. Still several UPS and ARPES studies have reported on the formation of interacting and hybrid states at the organic/noble metal interface $\emph{within the substrate d-band region}$ [@Mariani2002; @Evangelista2003; @Baldacchini2004; @Evangelista2004; @DiFelice2004; @Yamane2007; @Baldacchini2006; @Bussolotti2006; @Baldacchini2007; @DiCastro2002; @Evangelista2009; @Betti2010; @Gargiani2010; @Bussolotti2010; @Bussolotti2010bis]. In these studies intense and sharp photoemission features were found upon the adsorption of large (M-Pc, pentacene) and smaller (anthracene, small thiols, adenine) organic molecules. $Ab-initio$ calculations, polarization dependent and angular-resolved measurements were also reported generally highlighting the interface character of the photoemission features. Depending on the system considered, interface states were attributed to hybridization states or interaction states. In the reported studies when M-Pc or pentacene are adsorbed on Au(110)-(1x2) new features are observed within the Au 5$d$ bands [@Evangelista2003; @Evangelista2004; @Evangelista2009; @Betti2010; @Gargiani2010]. Because the features were not present neither for the clean substrate nor for the thick layer, they were assigned to hybrid interface states. Nevertheless, in angular integrated spectra these features have BE that are coincident with those of the Au polycrystal spectrum (see Fig.\[multiAu\]) thus suggesting that their origin may arise from surface umklapp rather than molecule-metal hybridization.
When angular resolved experiments were performed on different M-Pc/Au(110)-(1x2), the dispersion of some of the features appearing at 1 ML coverage was assigned to mixed metal-molecule states and metal-mediated delocalization of molecular $\pi$-states [@Evangelista2009; @Betti2010; @Gargiani2010]. The fact that the dispersing features were coincident with that of polycrystalline Au was recognized but the diffraction of substrate photoelectrons was not addressed. It has to be noticed that angular dispersion from any “umklapped” state is expected in the case of well-ordered single-domain molecular super-structures [@Bocquet2011; @Ziroff2009]. Consequently, although angular dispersion from genuine molecule-metal mixed-states may take place in these systems, the modification of the EDC has to be benchmarked with a careful test on the role of interface diffraction from photoelectrons. This can be done, for instance, by measuring the ARPES spectra of the clean substrate at an angle corresponding to an overlayer reciprocal lattice vector (umklapp vector) [@Westphal1983].
The presence of interface states within the metal $d$ bands was reported also for the adsorption on single crystal Cu surfaces of smaller molecules such as adenine [@Bussolotti2010], anthracene [@Bussolotti2010bis] and 2-mercaptobenzoazole (MBO) [@Mariani2002; @DiCastro2002]. For MBO/Cu(100) the experimental study was followed by a detailed theoretical investigation [@DiFelice2004; @Ferretti2004]. If, on one hand, the bonding (dispersive) and anti-bonding (non-dispersive) states present at the sides of the Cu $d$ band were clearly identified, on the other, the origin of the features in between was less straightforward. Again, since their BE is coincident with that of the features of the Cu polycrystal spectrum (Fig.\[multiCu\] of present paper), their origin could reside in the surface-umklapp process.
In the case of anthracene and adenine adsorption on Cu(110) hybrid interface states were recently reported [@Bussolotti2010; @Bussolotti2010bis]. Among the features found at 1 ML coverage, those that were present neither in the clean Cu(110) nor in the thick film spectra were assigned to hybrid interface states. Interface hybridization lead to the conclusion that the molecules were chemisorbed. Actually, because their BE coincides with that of a polycrystalline spectrum (Fig.\[multiCu\] of present paper), it is very likely that interface diffraction plays a major role in the promotion of the observed features. Consequently the hybrid character should be proved with another investigative technique such as, for example, resonant photoemission.
Finally, it should also be recalled that generally the appearance of a 3D DOS is related to the scattering power of the adsorbate and to the number of scattering rods through which the photoelectron can diffract. In cases such as 1D super-structures or for small molecules the number of diffracting rods accessible to substrate photoelectrons decreases. Eventually, the 3D DOS contribution will be taken over by well-defined peaks arising from direct transitions along a few rods of the molecular reciprocal lattice. This effect was studied in detail for the case of extra-emission in the $d$ band of noble-metal after adsorption of atomic species [@Westphal1983] but has not yet been addressed for the case of organic molecules.
Conclusion
==========
By discussing several relevant examples it is proposed that interface scattering of substrate photoelectrons (surface-umklapp process or back folding of substrate bands) plays a crucial role in modifying the EDC when organic molecules are adsorbed on single crystal surfaces of noble metals. Particularly, in the case of large $\pi$-conjugated molecules the major effect is that the substrate contribution to the EDC becomes close to that of a polycrystalline sample. Diffraction of photoelectrons at organic-inorganic interfaces is expected to be always present and it has important implications for the interpretation of UPS spectra.
Aknowledgements
===============
PA and NK acknowledge financial support by the Helmholtz-Energie-Allianz “Hybridphotovoltaik” and the Sfb951 (DGF). AAC acknowledges financial support form Science Foundation Ireland (Grant number 09/IN.1/I2635)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[Developing students’ ability to troubleshoot is an important learning outcome for many undergraduate physics lab courses, especially electronics courses. In other work, metacognition has been identified as an important feature of troubleshooting. However, that work has focused primarily on *individual* students’ metacognitive processes or troubleshooting abilities. In contrast, electronics courses often require students to work in *pairs*, and hence students’ in-class experiences likely have significant social dimensions that are not well understood. In this work, we use an existing framework for socially mediated metacognition to analyze audiovisual data from think-aloud activities in which eight pairs of students from two institutions attempted to diagnose and repair a malfunctioning electric circuit. In doing so, we provide insight into some of the social metacognitive dynamics that arise during collaborative troubleshooting. We find that students engaged in socially mediated metacognition at multiple key transitions during the troubleshooting process. Reciprocated metacognitive dialogue arose when students were collectively strategizing about which measurements to perform, or reaching a shared understanding of the circuit’s behavior. In addition to elaborating upon these findings, we discuss implications for instruction, and we identify areas for potential future investigation.]{}'
author:
- 'Kevin L. Van De Bogart'
- 'Dimitri R. Dounas-Frazer'
- 'H. J. Lewandowski'
- 'MacKenzie R. Stetzer'
title: Investigating the role of socially mediated metacognition during collaborative troubleshooting of electric circuits
---
Introduction
============
Many undergraduate electronics lab courses are characterized by apprenticeship-style learning environments in which instructors coach pairs of students as they (the students) collaboratively design, build, and troubleshoot electric circuits [@Dounas-Frazer2017]. In particular, while the ability to troubleshoot is an important student learning outcome for undergraduate labs in general [@JTUPP2016; @AAPT2015], it is an especially important goal for electronics courses since the circuits that students are required to build often do not initially work as expected [@Dounas-Frazer2016b]. In most lab courses (and throughout this work), troubleshooting is defined as the process of diagnosing and repairing a malfunctioning apparatus in order to bring its actual performance into alignment with its expected performance. In this sense, troubleshooting is a type of problem solving where the solution state is known, but the nature of the problem is not [@Jonassen2006]. [Thus, many electronics courses regularly engage students in solving experimental physics problems. Moreover, students typically work in groups to collaboratively solve problems that inevitably arise.]{} Pairwise troubleshooting is a social aspect of learning that is one of the defining features of electronics courses. In the present work, we provide insight into some of the social dynamics that arise when pairs of students work together to troubleshoot a malfunctioning circuit. In particular, we focus on students’ [social mediation of metacognition]{} during multiple key transitions in the troubleshooting process.
Troubleshooting is a nonlinear and iterative problem solving task that involves frequent transitions between multiple subtasks (e.g., generating causal hypotheses and enacting potential repairs). Successful troubleshooting requires more than just sufficient content knowledge; troubleshooters also need to know how to use test and measurement equipment, and they must be able to strategically prioritize which measurements to make and in what order [@Jonassen2006; @Schaafstal2000; @Perez1991]. Metacognition—or “thinking about one’s own thinking"—has been shown to be an integral component of similarly complex problem solving scenarios in a wide range of mathematics and science contexts [@Schoenfeld1985; @Zohar2012; @Veenman2012], [including some aspects of problem solving in introductory physics labs [@LippmannKung2007]]{}. Hence, it is likely that metacognition also plays an important role in troubleshooting. For example, to diagnose a problem, troubleshooters must continually monitor their progress, evaluate new information, and incorporate that information into their decisions about how to proceed. Along these lines, in a review of research on teaching troubleshooting, Perez [@Perez1991] identified the development, planning, and evaluation of strategies for isolating faults as an example of metacognition specifically relevant to troubleshooting. However, research on the relationship between metacognition and troubleshooting is sparse (see, e.g., Refs. [@vanGog2005a; @Pate2011]), and we are unaware of work that explores this relationship in the context of upper-division physics lab courses.
[Some studies have explored metacognition that occurs during small group problem solving in physics [@LippmannKung2007] and mathematics [@Schoenfeld1989; @Goos2002] learning environments.]{} For example, Goos et al. [@Goos2002] reconceptualized metacognition as a social practice in their foundational work on the phenomenon of *socially mediated metacognition (SMM)*, i.e., the process through which metacognition is mediated by collaborative peer interaction. Their findings, which are situated in the context of high school mathematics problem solving, suggest that productive metacognitive decisions can be facilitated by discussions through which students make their thinking “public and open to critical scrutiny" (p. 219). As lab instructors and education researchers involved with teaching and learning in electronics courses, [we were interested in investigating whether]{} similar social dynamics might inform the collaborative troubleshooting that takes place when students work together to design, build, and repair circuits.
In the present work, we describe an exploratory qualitative study in which we adapt and apply Goos et al.’s SMM framework to investigate the social metacognitive dynamics that arise as pairs of students attempt to repair a malfunctioning electric circuit. We report on think-aloud interviews with eight pairs of students at two institutions. Preliminary results from this study have been reported elsewhere [@VanDeBogart2015]; here we provide a more comprehensive analysis. This study was designed to address two research questions:
1. Do pairs of students engage in socially mediated metacognition while troubleshooting a circuit?
2. What role does socially mediated metacognition play during the troubleshooting process?
This work not only helps clarify the relationship between metacognition and troubleshooting, it also represents an important step toward understanding the interplay of cognitive, metacognitive, and social aspects of learning in upper-division lab courses.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:background\], we highlight relevant background literature on troubleshooting and metacognition. We describe the theoretical frameworks underlying our investigation in Sec. \[sec:frameworks\], our data collection and analysis methods in Sec. \[sec:methods\], and the results from our analyses in Sec. \[sec:results\]. In Sec. \[sec:discussion\], we discuss our findings and identify implications for research and teaching. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\], we provide a brief summary our study.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
Our work resides in the intersection of three overlapping educational domains: electronics, troubleshooting, and metacognition. In order to situate our study in these broader contexts, we provide a brief summary of relevant research in these three areas, with a particular emphasis on research related to physics education.
Within the physics education literature, there is a broad spectrum of research on electronics at both introductory and upper-division levels. Some of this work has focused on the design or evaluation of electronics courses [@Coppens2016b; @Halstead2016; @Lewandowski2015; @Mazzolini2011; @Getty2009; @Shaffer1992], while other work has focused on student understanding of circuits, circuit components, or related concepts [@Papanikolaou2015; @Stetzer2013; @Coppens2012; @Kautz2011; @Engelhardt2004; @McDermott1992; @*McDermott1993]. Recently, two studies have explored instructor perspectives about teaching upper-division electronics lab courses: Coppens et al. [@Coppens2016a] surveyed students and instructors at multiple Belgian colleges about learning goals for electronics labs, and Dounas-Frazer and Lewandowski [@Dounas-Frazer2017; @Dounas-Frazer2016b] conducted an inter-institutional interview study with electronics instructors across the United States. The latter study focused on instructors’ perceptions and practices related to teaching students how to troubleshoot.
Dounas-Frazer and Lewandowski [@Dounas-Frazer2017] showed that, for the instructors in their study, developing students’ ability to troubleshoot was a central learning goal of electronics courses, in part because it makes students “useful in the lab" (p. 6). This finding complements a result from a related study: interviews with physics graduate students at a large research university suggest that knowing how to fix analog electronics is an important aspect of graduate-level experimental physics research [@Pollard2014]. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of research on physics students’ troubleshooting abilities in undergraduate electronics environments—one exception being our own previous work on students’ use of model-based reasoning while troubleshooting an electric circuit [@Dounas-Frazer2016a; @Dounas-Frazer2015]. In that work, we showed that modeling and troubleshooting are overlapping processes, and argued that “courses designed to develop students’ ability to troubleshoot should also emphasize students’ ability to model physical systems" [@Dounas-Frazer2016a] (p. 18).
Troubleshooting is common to numerous professional contexts, such as diagnosing illnesses and debugging computer programs. Accordingly, there is a large body of literature on troubleshooting across disciplines (see Refs. [@Jonassen2006; @Schaafstal2000; @Perez1991] for overviews). [In the domain of electric circuits and other electrical systems, common research foci related to troubleshooting instruction]{} include developing and evaluating training programs and educational interventions for high school students [@vanGog2008; @vanGog2006; @Kester2006; @Kester2004] and students in technical fields [@Ross2009; @Johnson1999; @MacPherson1998; @Estrada2012; @deCroock1998; @Johnson1993]. Given our interest in the role of metacognition in troubleshooting circuits, one study is particularly relevant: van Gog et al. [@vanGog2005a] observed that high school students tended to make ongoing assessments of their actions when troubleshooting a simulated circuit, and suggested this may be related to their metacognitive knowledge. However, no framework for metacognition was used in their analysis.
An extensive discussion of current research on metacognition can be found in Ref. [@Zohar2012]. Although social aspects of metacognition have not been a major research focus in the physics education literature, there have been some studies along these lines (see, for example, a recent study that focuses on students’ spontaneous metacognitive talk [@Sayre2015]). In the context of introductory physics labs, Lippmann Kung and Linder [@LippmannKung2007] found that groups of students regularly verbalized metacognitive statements, but that “more critical is *how* students react to this metacognition" (p. 54; italics in original). In their study, students’ metacognition did not always result in modified student approaches to lab activities. Accordingly, Lippmann Kung and Linder emphasized the importance of focusing on students’ reactions to metacognition, as we do here.
The frameworks that directly informed our study focus mostly on metacognitive regulation of either an individual’s thinking [@Schoenfeld1987] or a group’s thinking [@Goos2002]. Schoenfeld [@Schoenfeld1987] examined the role of self-regulation in undergraduate mathematics problem solving. His work focused on the task of managing oneself during the problem solving process, including the need for verifying one’s understanding of a problem, planning how to solve the problem, monitoring the effectiveness of a solution, and deciding how to allocate time [@Schoenfeld1987]. The need for a social framework for metacognition arose from an effort by Goos [@Goos1994] to study the metacognitive strategies employed by pairs of mathematics students working on introductory physics problems. Goos initially employed a methodology similar to that used by Schoenfeld [@Schoenfeld1985], segmenting and characterizing time in interviews according to when specific behaviors were demonstrated. However, Goos found that, while this approach captured macroscopic features of problem-solving, another framework was needed to describe the nature of the interactions between individuals [@Goos1994].
Using ideas from Vygotsky’s work [@Vygotsky1980], Goos and Galbraith [@Goos1996] expected that, through collaboration, students would complement and enhance one another’s knowledge, [establishing a zone of proximal development]{} and thus resulting in collaborative performance exceeding that of either student individually. Goos and Galbraith noted that both the quality of metacognitive decision-making and the nature of the social interactions between subjects significantly influenced the outcomes of problem solving activities. To further explore the latter interaction, Goos et al. [@Goos2002] developed the socially mediated metacognition framework, which we describe in detail in the following section.
Theoretical frameworks {#sec:frameworks}
======================
Throughout this work, we define troubleshooting as the process of diagnosing and repairing a malfunctioning apparatus. Our goal is to identify and describe examples of how students socially mediate their metacognition while collaboratively troubleshooting an electric circuit. As a result, the theoretical grounding of this work is rooted in two complementary perspectives: a cognitive task analysis of troubleshooting [@Jonassen2006; @Schaafstal2000; @Johnson1988], and the socially mediated metacognition framework, which describes the metacognitive dynamics that arise among students during group problem solving processes [@Goos2002]. In this section, we describe and synthesize each of these theoretical perspectives. When appropriate, we use examples from electronics to help illustrate [these]{} ideas.
Troubleshooting as a cognitive task {#sec:CTA}
-----------------------------------
Troubleshooting [typically]{} requires a high level of cognitive activity: making decisions and judgments, paying attention to details of models and apparatuses, analyzing and interpreting the results of measurements, and so on. Hence, troubleshooting is often interpreted as a cognitive task. Corresponding cognitive task analyses typically describe the subtasks and types of knowledge associated with troubleshooting [@Jonassen2006; @Schaafstal2000; @Johnson1988]. Indeed, we have relied on these aspects of troubleshooting in other studies of electric circuits [@Dounas-Frazer2016a] and electronics instruction [@Dounas-Frazer2017]. In this section, we summarize the cognitive elements of troubleshooting that are relevant for the present work.
The troubleshooting process can be subdivided into four subtasks: *formulating the problem description*, *generating causes*, *performing tests*, and *making and evaluating repairs* [@Schaafstal2000]. Formulating the problem description refers to the initial phase of troubleshooting, during which the troubleshooter performs preliminary inspections and measurements in order to determine which portions of the system work as expected and which do not. Generating causes involves forming causal hypotheses that may explain the circuit’s malfunctioning behavior. Hypotheses are tested by performing diagnostic measurements with oscilloscopes, multimeters, or other devices. Last, repairs to a circuit include rewiring erroneous connections, replacing faulty components, and other revisions to the apparatus. The performance of the revised circuit must be evaluated in order to determine whether the troubleshooting process is complete. If the circuit functions as expected, the troubleshooting process comes to a stop. Troubleshooters often engage in these subtasks in nonlinear and recursive ways. For example, depending on the outcome of diagnostic tests of a causal hypothesis, a troubleshooter may either generate additional causes (if the original hypothesis was incorrect) or enact a repair (if it was correct).
Troubleshooting is facilitated by multiple types of knowledge, including *domain*, *system*, *strategic*, and *metacognitive* knowledge [@Jonassen2006; @Pate2011; @vanGog2005a]. Domain knowledge refers to the theories and principles that underlie electric circuits, including models like Kirchhoff’s laws and concepts like equipotential surfaces. System knowledge refers to the structure and function of component blocks, and how they impact electron flow and voltage drops across interconnected circuit subsystems. Strategic knowledge is knowledge about how to act; it consists of heuristic techniques and methodical approaches to troubleshooting the system. One example of a strategy that is used by many students in our study is the *split-half strategy*. The split-half strategy reduces the problem space through a binary search; the circuit is divided into two subsystems, and diagnostic tests are performed in order to isolate one of the two subsystems as the source of fault. [Last, metacognitive knowledge includes knowledge about which strategy to use, when to use it, and why.]{}
[Metacognitive knowledge is only one aspect of metacognition; metacognition also consist of metacognitive skills, i.e., the ability to control one’s own problem-solving approaches [@Veenman2012]. For example, Perez [@Perez1991] defines metacognitive processes as “the knowledge *and* control a troubleshooter has over his or her own thinking and activities" (p. 121; emphasis added). Two categories of metacognitive skills are *self-monitoring* and *self-regulation* [@Perez1991; @Jacobs1987].]{} Self-monitoring includes not only understanding and communicating one’s own thought processes [@Jacobs1987], but also being aware of the strategies and resources needed to troubleshoot effectively [@Perez1991]. Self-regulation—which Schoenfeld [@Schoenfeld1987] argued is particularly relevant in the context of mathematical problem solving—involves consideration of how to perform long tasks and ensure their successful completion [@Jacobs1987; @Perez1991]; along these lines, van Gog et al. [@vanGog2005a] argue that metacognitive knowledge “is used to monitor \[the troubleshooting process\] by keeping track of the progress toward the goal state" (p. 237).
Our goal is to explore how metacognition is mediated by interaction among pairs of students collaboratively troubleshooting a circuit. Because social dynamics are omitted from the cognitive task analyses of troubleshooting with which we are familiar [@Jonassen2006; @Schaafstal2000; @Johnson1988], our study relies on the socially mediated metacognition framework.
Socially mediated metacognition {#sec:SMM}
-------------------------------
[Here, we provide an overview of socially mediated metacognition. We draw on the work of Goos et al. [@Goos2002], who developed the SMM framework in order to capture instances where metacognition is mediated by peer interaction. In this framework, mediation of metacognition occurs through discussion among students. Two grain sizes of discussion are relevant: (i) individual conversational turns, called “moves;" and (ii) exchanges between students that consist of multiple successive turns of dialogue, referred to as “clusters."]{}
[A single conversational turn may be characterized as a move that has a metacognitive function and/or a transactive quality; we refer to these as *metacognitive moves* and *transactive moves*, respectively.]{} The SMM framework distinguishes between two types of metacognitive moves: *new ideas* and *assessments*. A student contributes a new idea to the discussion when they [introduce]{} new and potentially useful information, or when they propose an alternative problem solving approach. A variety of assessments constitute metacognitive moves: whether a strategy is appropriate and being executed with care, whether a result is accurate and sensible, or whether one’s own knowledge and understanding are sufficient. Transactive moves are interpersonal by definition, and are meant to characterize how students interact with one another’s ideas. Drawing from work on peer collaboration [@Kruger1993], Goos et al. [@Goos2002] identify three types of transactive moves in the SMM framework: *self-disclosure*, *other-monitoring*, and *feedback requests*. Students making such moves seek to clarify, elaborate, or justify their own reasoning (self-disclosure) or that of their partners (other-monitoring). They may also solicit critiques of their own ideas (feedback requests). A given conversational turn can be metacognitive, transactive, both, or neither.
The extent to which transactive or metacognitive moves contribute to mediation of metacognition depends on the details of the discussion in which they occur. Within the SMM framework, the concepts of *metacognitive nodes* and *transactive clusters* help characterize the degree to which particular moves are connected through discussion about a common theme. Metacognitive nodes refer to instances of dialogue where a metacognitive move is either prompted by, or results in, a transactive move. Metacognitve and transactive moves that comprise a node are said to be “connected." Transactive clusters arise when a metacognitive move is connected to more than one transactive move.
When describing transactive clusters, Goos et al. suggest that such “discussion *around*, and generated by, individual metacognitive acts is crucial to the success of [the mathematical enterprise]{}" (p. 213; italics in original). Indeed, Goos et al. found significantly higher rates of transactive clusters among student groups that were successful at collaborative problem solving compared to those that were not. Transactive interactions around metacognitive decisions enabled student groups to notice errors in their reasoning and endorse fruitful problem solving strategies, ultimately facilitating successful navigation of challenges that arose during the problem solving process. Thus, in the SMM framework, the most impactful mediation of metacognition occurs through transactive clusters.
[Goos et al. originally developed the SMM framework to document metacognition that stems from group collaboration in mathematics. The framework has since proven to be flexible enough to be adapted to other contexts: middle school computer programming [@Werner2009] and an educational psychology course for teachers [@Siegel2012]. It also informed the work of Lippmann Kung and Linder [@LippmannKung2007], who focused on metacognition among groups of students in introductory physics labs. In this work, we map the SMM framework to yet another context: the cognitive task of troubleshooting.]{}
Synthesizing the frameworks {#sec:synth}
---------------------------
The cognitive task analysis of troubleshooting and the socially mediated metacognition framework each provide a distinct lens through which to understand collaborative troubleshooting of electric circuits. Nevertheless, these lenses are connected. In this section, we highlight synergies between the two perspectives by describing how SMM may arise during different troubleshooting subtasks, and how different types of troubleshooting knowledge may inform metacognitive and transactive moves.
[Any time a measurement is performed on a malfunctioning circuit, metacognitive moves through which one student brings to light new information may occur.]{} For example, when formulating the problem description, a student may verbalize the results of their initial visual inspection of the circuit. Similarly, they may contribute new information by announcing the results of a diagnostic or evaluative measurement performed during the testing or repair phase of troubleshooting. Any time new measurements or observations are performed, a student may also assess whether that information is sensible based on their understanding of the expected function of the circuit. Such assessments are grounded in the student’s domain and system knowledge, which inform expectations about the behavior of a functional circuit.
Other types of metacognitive moves may arise when generating causes. For example, based on previous tests or visual inspections, a student may propose new explanations for the observed behavior of the circuit. Alternatively, after assessing their own domain and system knowledge, the student may acknowledge that they do not know what to make of the available evidence, and hence cannot hypothesize about what may be causing the malfunction. During the testing phase, metacognitive moves include assessing whether the current strategy is appropriate or proposing a new strategy altogether. Such assessments and proposals rely on students’ strategic knowledge.
Transactive moves could likewise occur during any troubleshooting subtask. A student may feel the need to justify their reasoning to their partner when proposing a new hypothesis to explain the circuit’s behavior, a new strategy for performing tests, or a new idea about how to repair the circuit. Alternatively, a student may solicit feedback from their partner because they lack conviction in their proposal, which they may frame as speculative. In response, their partner may ask follow-up questions in order to better understand what was proposed, and why.
Because metacognitive and transactive moves likely occur in all troubleshooting subtasks, it is reasonable to expect that metacognitive nodes and transactive clusters also arise throughout the process. [In particular, nodes and clusters may arise when students must collaboratively decide what to do next (e.g., which measurement to perform or which component to replace). As we will show, such decisions occur during transitions between troubleshooting subtasks.]{} In the present work, we investigate whether and how SMM arises as pairs of students transition from one troubleshooting subtask to the next. We use the cognitive task analysis of troubleshooting to help us identify key episodes during students’ troubleshooting processes, and we use the SMM framework to capture students’ fine-grained metacognitive behaviors as they work together to repair the circuit.
Methods {#sec:methods}
=======
[To characterize the role of socially mediated metacognition in troubleshooting, we conducted an exploratory and qualitative study. We carried out interviews with eight pairs of physics students who were asked to diagnose and repair a malfunctioning electric circuit while thinking aloud.]{} We have previously used data from the participants in this study to explore connections between troubleshooting and students’ model-based reasoning [@Dounas-Frazer2016a; @Dounas-Frazer2015]. The present work focuses on social metacognitive dynamics that were beyond the scope of our prior efforts. Elsewhere, we have reported a preliminary analysis of students’ socially mediated metacognition [@VanDeBogart2015]. Here, we expand on that work by providing a more detailed analysis that aims to answer our research questions, RQ1 and RQ2: do pairs of students engage in SMM while troubleshooting a circuit, and what role does SMM play during the troubleshooting process?
In this section, we describe the study participants, design of the troubleshooting activity, think-aloud protocol, data analysis methodology, and coding scheme that we used for our study.
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
Participants and course context
-------------------------------
A detailed description of the participants and course context is presented in Ref. [@Dounas-Frazer2016a]. We present a more concise version here. Participants in this study were physics majors at either the University of Colorado Boulder (CU) or the University of Maine (UM). Eight pairs of students, four from CU and four from UM, were interviewed for this study, for a total of 16 unique participants. Commensurate with student demographics in the undergraduate programs at both institutions, participants were predominantly white men. All participants were enrolled in an upper-division electronics course during Fall 2014. That semester, the third and fourth authors taught the electronics courses at CU and UM, respectively, and the first author was a teaching assistant in the UM course.
The electronics courses at CU and UM are required for physics majors, and are typically taken in the third year of instruction. The courses are each one semester in length and cover a similar spectrum of topics, with an emphasis on analog components and devices such as diodes, transistors, and op-amps. Both courses meet three times per week: twice for 50-minute lectures, and once for lab (three hours at CU, two at UM). During lab, students work together in pairs to complete guided lab activities. At the time of this study, neither course included lectures on troubleshooting strategies. Consistent with the practices of other electronics instructors [@Dounas-Frazer2017], formal instruction about troubleshooting took place almost exclusively via apprenticeship-style interactions during lab activities.
In this study, participants were tasked with troubleshooting a circuit consisting of two operational amplifiers (op-amps). Both the CU and UM courses focus on op-amps and their use in a variety of practical applications. In these courses, students are taught that an op-amp is a high-gain differential amplifier with an inverting input, non-inverting input, a single output, and two power connections. The power connections are typically attached to positive and negative 15 V supplies, often referred to as power rails. Students are taught a first-order model of op-amps in circuits that employ negative feedback. This model describes the functional behavior of op-amps in such circuits via two *golden rules for op-amps*, articulated by Horowitz and Hill [@Horowitz1989] as: “I. The output attempts to do whatever is necessary to make the voltage difference between the inputs zero," and “II. The inputs draw no current" (p. 177). When used in conjunction with Kirchhoff’s laws, the golden rules are sufficient to predict the behavior of many op-amp circuits, including the circuit used in the present study. The golden rules are explicitly covered in both the CU and UM electronics courses.
Data collection
---------------
Participant recruitment took place near the end of the fall semester at CU and during the beginning of the following spring semester at UM. Students were invited to participate in the study via email and in-person requests. Students were allowed to select a partner if they wished. Those who did not do so were paired by the interviewers on the basis of availability. Participants were given small monetary incentives for their time, but involvement was strictly voluntary and no course credit was given in exchange for participation. During the interview, pairs of students were tasked with diagnosing and repairing a malfunctioning circuit while thinking aloud. Here, we describe the circuit design and interview protocol.
### Research task
In the interviews, students were asked to troubleshoot the inverting cascade amplifier shown in Fig. \[fig:schematic\]. The circuit can be divided into two distinct stages, each of which may be analyzed separately. Stage 1 of the circuit, consisting of the leftmost op-amp and resistors $R_1$ and $R_2$, is a non-inverting amplifier with a gain of $G_1\equiv(1 + R_2 / R_1) $. Stage 2, which consists of the rightmost op-amp and resistors $R_3$ and $R_4$, is an inverting amplifier with a gain of $G_2\equiv-R_4 / R_3$. In a functioning circuit, the output is proportional to the input, with a scaling factor (also called the *transfer function* of the circuit) equal to the product of the gains of each stage: $G=G_1G_2$. Hence the output is given by ${V_\mathrm{OUT}}= -(1+R_2/R_1)(R_4/R_3){V_\mathrm{IN}}$.
Given the nominal resistor values in Fig. \[fig:schematic\], the expected gains of the first and second stages are $G_1= 2$ and $G_2=-10$, and the nominal gain of the whole circuit is $G=-20$. Therefore, the amplitude of the output voltage signal is 20 times larger than that of the input. For ac signals, the output is $180^\circ$ out of phase with the input. The output voltage is constrained by the voltages of the power rails such that, in practice, the output voltage must always be slightly lower than the positive rail voltage, and slightly higher than the negative rail voltage. Any input voltages that would cause the output to exceed these limits will result in saturation (i.e., the output voltage will be truncated to within a volt or so of each power rail).
We intentionally built the cascade amplifier so that it would malfunction in a particular way. Two principles informed our design: [first, students should be able to engage in multiple iterations of troubleshooting; second, the split-half strategy should be a viable approach for troubleshooting the circuit]{}. In accordance with the first principle, we introduced two different faults. In accordance with the second, we located both faults in stage 2. Since the faults affected solely the performance of stage 2, a student could in principle isolate all problematic behavior to that stage alone.
The first fault (“fault 1" in Fig. \[fig:schematic\]) was that the resistor $R_3$ was an order of magnitude smaller than its prescribed value. Therefore, the actual gain of stage 2 (and hence of the whole circuit) was larger than the nominal gain by an order of magnitude. On its own, this fault could result in saturation even for a relatively small input voltage. We expected fault 1 to be relatively straightforward to diagnose, as the incorrectly colored bands on the resistor serve as a visible cue, making it possible to diagnose this fault through visual inspection of the circuit. The second fault (“fault 2" in Fig. \[fig:schematic\]) was that the op-amp was damaged in such a way that its output voltage was a constant dc voltage approximately equal to the negative rail voltage. The faulty op-amp did not obey the first golden rule.
### Think-aloud interviews
[We conducted interviews using a think-aloud protocol with pairs of students troubleshooting a pre-constructed circuit. Such protocols, in which subjects are asked to verbalize their thoughts concurrently with their actions, are relatively non-invasive in a paired setting since students frequently clarify their thinking to their partners while justifying differing opinions, etc. [@vanSomeren1994]. The students in this study were accustomed to working in pairs in their electronics labs and, during the interview, they engaged in discussions with one another with minimal outside intervention.]{}
We designed our study to be both *controlled* and *authentic*. It was controlled in the sense that each pair of students had similar academic preparation and used the same pre-assembled circuit, hence all participants were working from similar initial conditions. The study was authentic in the sense that the interview conditions were as similar to the students’ electronics lab experience as possible. Students at each university were presented with a physical setup (i.e., breadboard, components, voltage sources, and measurement equipment) that closely resembled what they had used in their respective courses. All groups had access to a multimeter, oscilloscope, function generator, power supply with variable and fixed voltages, and a suite of replacement components and wires. In addition, when constructing the circuit, we took care to ensure that the wiring was relatively easy to follow.
The interview itself began when the interviewer presented students with a schematic diagram of the circuit and a datasheet for the op-amp. The interviewer then gave a short introductory prompt to the activity, requesting students to approach the task as if their peers had built the malfunctioning circuit in the lab. (See Ref. [@Dounas-Frazer2016a] for the full text of this prompt.) Students were subsequently presented with the physical circuit and tasked with diagnosing and repairing the circuit. Students were asked to think aloud as they worked, and to act as though the interviewer was not present. If the students were silent for a significant length of time, the interviewer would prompt them to continue speaking. In practice, there was minimal intervention on the part of the interviewer. The activity ended either when the students had completed their repairs, or when roughly one hour had passed. The initial prompt from the interviewer was approximately two minutes in length, and students typically spent between 20 and 45 minutes on the troubleshooting activity. Seven of the eight groups were ultimately able to repair the circuit, while the remaining group ran out of time prior to completing the task. Video and audio data were collected for all interviews, and audio data were used to generate complete transcripts.
Data analysis
-------------
Our study was not designed to compare between pairs of students based on troubleshooting ability or quality of metacognitive discussion. Instead, it was designed to examine the presence and role of socially mediated metacognition during the troubleshooting process. To characterize students’ social metacognitive exchanges at different points in the troubleshooting activity, we developed an *a priori* coding scheme based on the SMM framework (Sec. \[sec:SMM\]) and applied it to four types of episodes that occurred across multiple pairs of students. We focused on episodes that correspond to transitions between troubleshooting subtasks because we anticipated that such episodes would provide rich examples of social metacognition (Sec. \[sec:synth\]). By analyzing multiple pairs’ dialogue in a given episode, we hoped to gain insight into the spectrum of moves and clusters that arose as students transitioned from one subtask to the next.
After identifying episodes, we performed within-episode and cross-episode analyses. Within each episode, we performed a line-by-line analysis of the corresponding transcribed dialogue to identify metacognitive and transactive moves; a detailed example of this approach is described elsewhere [@VanDeBogart2015]. We then analyzed successive moves for the presence of nodes and clusters, the latter of which have been associated with particularly impactful examples of metacognition in other group problem solving contexts [@Goos2002]. Thus, within-episode analyses address our first research question (RQ1) by determining whether students engaged in socially mediated metacognition in one or more transitions between troubleshooting subtasks. Across episodes, we looked for emergent patterns among the topics of conversation in which clusters arose. Such cross-episode analysis addresses our second research question (RQ2) by helping us understand, in broad strokes, the ways in which students engaged with one another’s ideas.
In this section, we define the four categories of episodes we analyzed, and we describe our within-episode and cross-episode analyses.
### Episode definitions
Metacognitive moves occurred throughout the duration of all interviews in our study. Students regularly contributed new ideas by announcing the result of a measurement and assessing whether that measurement aligned with their expectations. However, in this work, we are interested in instances where both metacognitive *and* transactive moves are frequent, and hence dialogue is likely to contain nodes and clusters. As we argued in Sec. \[sec:synth\], we anticipate that nodes and clusters will occur when students transition from one troubleshooting subtask to the next. For example, during transitions, one student may ask the other to justify or clarify their proposed testing strategy, hypothetical cause of malfunction, or suggestion for how to repair the circuit. Such instances would constitute nodes wherein one student monitored the other’s new idea. Therefore, in order to constrain our analyses to time intervals in which rich metacognitive dialogue was more likely to occur, we selected four categories of episodes to analyze in detail: *initial strategizing (IS)*, *discrepant output (DO)*, *split-half (SH)*, and *replacement decision (RD)* episodes. In Fig. \[fig:episodes\], we have illustrated how each of these episodes are connected to transitions between troubleshooting subtasks, and how they are related to one another temporally. Here, we provide a definition and rationale for each episode type:
- **IS:** Initial strategizing episodes captured how students first approached the task. These episodes began once the interviewer finished introducing the problem; they ended when students either began checking the circuit’s connectivity or making measurements. IS episodes were expected to be representative of a transition from formulating a description of the problem to performing tests. We identified IS episodes for all eight groups. Most of these episodes lasted from 30 to 60 s, though two IS episodes lasted about 3 min.
- **DO:** Discrepant output episodes captured how students responded to a mismatch between the expected output of the circuit and the measured output. These episodes began when students first observed that the output of the entire circuit was a constant dc value; they ended when students enacted a plan to make further measurements. DO episodes were expected to contain a transition from generating causes for their unexpected measurement to performing additional tests. We identified DO episodes for all eight groups, and the duration of these episodes ranged from 1.5 to 3.5 min.
- **SH:** Split-half episodes captured how students strategized after identifying a working stage in the circuit. These episodes began just after students had eliminated the first stage of the circuit as a source of faults; they ended when students enacted a plan to make further measurements. SH episodes were expected to represent another clear transition from generating causes (necessitated by partially localizing the fault) to performing further tests. Five of the eight groups employed a split-half strategy. Three of these episodes lasted from 1 to 2 min, and one SH episode lasted about 4.5 min.
- **RD:** Replacement decision episodes captured how students came to the decision to replace the faulty op-amp. These episodes began just after the completion of the last set of measurements made before students decided to replace the second op-amp; they ended when the op-amp was replaced. We focused on the replacement of the op-amp and not resistor $R_3$ for two reasons: decisions to replace the resistor neither coincided with extended dialogue between students, nor corresponded to a transition between cognitive tasks. For example, multiple groups replaced the resistor as part of their initial visual inspection of the circuit, a process that continued after the resistor was replaced. Replacement of the op-amp, on the other hand, corresponded to a transition from performing tests to repairing and evaluating the circuit. Seven of the eight groups successfully replaced the faulty op-amp. The duration of most episodes ranged from 1 to 2.5 min, though one episode lasted about 5 min.
The episodes in all four categories occurred in the same order (Fig. \[fig:episodes\]), unless a category was not present. The initial strategizing always occurred within the first few minutes of the interview, immediately after the nature of the task had been explained. The discrepant output episodes tended to occur after the first third but before the second half of the interview, while the discussions following a split-half strategy generally occurred in the final third of the interview. Replacement decisions were made in the final quarter of the episode.
[All four episode categories were present in three of the groups. Only three episodes were present in each of the other five groups: one group did not replace the faulty op-amp; one group replaced the op-amp immediately after employing a split-half strategy (this episode was categorized as an RD episode, not an SH episode); and three groups did not employ a split-half strategy]{}. In total, we identified 27 unique episodes across the eight participating groups. The cumulative duration of these 27 episodes was approximately one hour, accounting for roughly 20% of the aggregated interview time for all groups. For all 27 episodes, we coded the corresponding transcripts using the analysis frameworks described in the following sections.
### Within-episode analyses: *A priori* coding scheme {#sec:within-episode}
We initially developed operational code definitions based on the SMM framework (Sec. \[sec:SMM\]) and the coding scheme used by Goos et al. [@Goos2002]. Our operational definitions were refined through iterative cycles of collaborative coding by the first and second authors, and discussions with the research team as a whole. By “collaborative coding," we mean that the initial iteration of coding was performed simultaneously by the two coders. During subsequent iterations of coding, the first and second authors first applied codes independently and then resolved all discrepancies through discussion. The final version of our coding scheme deviated in minor ways from the original schemes presented by Goos et al. Here, we first present our final scheme and then note differences from the work of Goos et al.
Our SMM coding scheme involves coding individual conversational turns for their metacognitive function or transactive quality. Metacognitive moves are characterized by statements where one student introduces or assesses ideas. [We identified new ideas and assessments by directly coding for particular types of statements. We used the following scheme (code names in italics):]{}
- **New idea:** A student verbally expresses new information that is relevant to the situation. This may occur when the student is *suggesting an approach*; *suggesting an explanation* for the circuit’s behavior; *articulating a prediction* of the outcome of an event; *articulating an observation* about the circuit, measurement tools, handout, or datasheet; or *articulating a fact* relevant to the task at hand. Examples include: “I would start with just checking if the chips are working," “Maybe this red \[wire\], the power, is somehow touching the output?," and, “Oh, hey. Look. \[The voltage\] stabilized for some reason."
- **Assessment:** A student attempts to evaluate information. This may occur when the student is *assessing a result* of a measurement or prediction as reasonable; *assessing an approach* as appropriate; or *assessing their own understanding* of the problem at hand. Examples include: “The first \[stage\] is giving us a good voltage," “Yeah, I mean, \[replacing the op-amp\] will be like the brute force method of making sure it’s the right chip," and, “We have a good output for the first op-amp."
Transactive moves are characterized by statements that are verbal requests for interaction with the other participant, which may in turn prompt further dialogue. We coded for instances of self-disclosure, other-monitoring, feedback requests, and idea requests. [To code these instances of speech, we used the following scheme (code names in italics):]{}
- **Self-disclosure:** A student *clarifies* or *justifies* their own thinking. Examples include: “Well, I was just saying that, maybe if these two op-amps are oriented the same way, that the pins for the second one are connected correctly," and, “It should be a gain of 2 because you have a voltage divider here with the two \[resistors\]."
- **Other-monitoring:** One student responds to the other with the aim of critiquing, building upon, or inquiring about what the other student is thinking (*monitoring ideas*) or doing (*monitoring actions*). Examples include: [“\[Your suggested approach\] will be like the brute force method,"]{} and, “What are you looking for on the oscilloscope?"
- [***Feedback request*:** One student asks the other student to critique an idea or approach. For example: “\[The circuit\] should be inverting the signal and amplifying it, correct?"]{}
- [***Idea request*:** One student asks the other student to suggest a new idea or approach. For example: “What’s next?"]{}
After we coded the data for the presence of metacognitive and transactive moves, we examined [sequences of]{} the coded moves for the existence of nodes and clusters in order to systematically capture students’ social engagement in one another’s ideas. In our SMM scheme, we used the following operational definitions for nodes and clusters:
- **Node:** Two successive conversational turns, in which either the first turn is a metacognitive move and the second a transactive one, or vice versa. In a given node, the second move must be in reference to the same idea as the first.
- **Cluster:** A series of two or more overlapping nodes. Nodes are “overlapping" if a single conversational turn comprises both the second move of the first node and the first move of the second node. Clusters contain at least three unique turns of conversation, each of which functions as a metacognitive and/or transactive move.
Nodes and clusters are meant to capture back-and-forth interactions. [We are particularly interested in identifying and characterizing clusters since they constitute a reciprocated verbal exchange between two students.]{}
As an example of nodes and clusters, consider the following exchange between two students, G1 and G2, that took place after they finished discussing the circuit schematic:\
\
[\*[4]{}[l]{}X]{} 1. & & & G1: & Okay, what is on the sheet is correct.\
& & & G2: & Alright, the first thing to do is actually check the circuit for all the resistors, and—\
& & & G1: & Yeah, that’s what I’d start with. Check all the resistor values.\
4. & & & G2: & Yeah, make sure that they’re all connected.\
5. & & & G1: & Make sure that they’re all connected. Okay, so we’ll turn this on.\
\
Turn numbers are indicated on the left. Nodes are indicated with square brackets labeled with single letters. In this interaction, turns 2 through 4 form a cluster. Turns 1 and 5 are included to demonstrate the boundaries of the cluster. Whereas diagnostic approaches are the topic of conversation during the cluster, G1 is focused on the datasheet in turn 1 and shifts his attention to a piece of equipment in turn 5. Hence, turns 1 and 5 are not included in the cluster. Within the cluster, G2 suggested a general approach (“check … all the resistors"), G1 endorsed and built upon that suggestion by describing a more specific approach (“check all the resistor values"), and, finally, G2 responded to G1 by outlining another approach (“make sure that they’re all connected"). Turns 2 and 3 form node A, wherein G2’s metacognitive move (new idea) resulted in a move by G1 that was both transactive (other-monitoring) and metacognitive (new idea). Next, turns 3 and 4 form node B, in which G1’s transactive and metacognitive move was followed by a metacognitive move by G2. Because nodes A and B both have turn 3 in common, they overlap to form a cluster. Although G1 repeated G2’s new idea in turn 5, G1 was not obviously endorsing or critiquing that idea. Therefore, turn 5 does not constitute a transactive move and is not part of the cluster.
Our coding scheme was heavily informed by that originally developed by Goos et al. [@Goos2002], but is different in a few ways. Specifically, we made three minor changes to the original scheme when adapting it for use in our study. First, we coded for different subtypes of new ideas (suggesting an approach, making an observation, etc.), whereas Goos et al. did not. Second, the original framework identified three types of transactive moves: self-disclosure, other-monitoring, and feedback requests. [Because students in our study occasionally asked each other for new explanations or suggestions, our scheme includes a fourth type of transactive move: idea requests]{}. Third and last, Goos et al. distinguished between transactive moves that are double-coded as metacognitive moves and those that are not (referred to as “metacognitive transacts" and “non-metacognitive transacts," respectively). While our scheme allows for a single utterance to be double-coded in this way, we do not distinguish between metacognitive and non-metacognitive transacts in our analysis. Our focus is on reciprocated verbal exchanges between two students, not individual conversational turns. To this end, our operational definitions of nodes and clusters are sufficient to capture metacognitive back-and-forth interactions.
### Cross-episode analysis: Emergent themes
[Since there is limited research on SMM, we did not have any *a priori* predictions for how such social interactions would regulate the troubleshooting activity. Thus, after examining all 27 episodes and identifying a total of 23 clusters in student dialogue, we re-examined all of the clusters together to allow for the identification of common themes. To accomplish this, we employed a grounded theory approach in order to characterize the broad nature of discussions that occurred in clusters. Grounded theory is a data-driven methodology in which data are categorized on the basis of emergent themes, and then refined into more inclusive groupings [@Glaser1967; @Bryant2007]. Categorization was initially performed by the first author, verified by the second author, and was discussed by all project collaborators.]{}
[We identified two nonoverlapping categories of cluster:]{}
- [**Collective strategizing:** During each of these clusters, one or more approaches were critiqued, refined, and/or enacted.]{}
- [**Shared understanding:** During each of these clusters, both students agreed to accept or reject a prediction, explanation, or interpretation of an observation in response to an other-monitoring move.]{}
[Most clusters fit into one of these two categories, but some did not. For example, in one cluster, students were working together to interpret a confusing figure in the datasheet; since the students were not reasoning about the circuit itself, this cluster did not fit into either category. In the other cases, students were discussing explanations or predictions, but did not reach consensus on any ideas; since there was no consensus, these clusters did not fit into the shared understanding category.]{}
Results {#sec:results}
=======
We describe data and findings from two different qualitative analyses of students’ socially mediated metacognition. First, we provide an overview of students’ metacognitive behaviors within each category of episode. [Then, we look for patterns among clusters across all types of episodes.]{} Throughout our discussion, we refer to groups of students using letters A to H. Within a group, individuals are labeled A1 and A2, B1 and B2, and so on. After presenting transcripts of dialogue between two students, we directly map the dialogue to the framework for SMM described in in Sec. \[sec:within-episode\]. In doing so, we aim to address whether and how students engage in SMM while troubleshooting an electric circuit, which is the major focus of our research.
------------ -------------------------- ---- ---- ---- ----
Type Subtype IS DO SH RD
New idea Suggest approach 8 8 4 7
Articulate observation 6 8 2 6
Articulate fact 6 8 4 3
Articulate prediction 3 4 2 4
Suggest explanation 0 3 2 3
Assessment Assess result 3 8 3 7
Assess own understanding 3 2 2 3
Assess approach 1 4 0 0
------------ -------------------------- ---- ---- ---- ----
: \[tab:metacog\]Metacognitive moves. Shown are the numbers of groups engaging in dialogue in which at least one conversational turn was coded as a metacognitive move. Results are broken down by type and subtype of metacognitive move. IS episodes were identified in 8 groups, DO in 8 groups, SH in 4 groups, and RD in 7 groups.
Results from within-episode analyses
------------------------------------
The results of coding for metacognitive moves, transactive moves, and clusters are summarized in Tables \[tab:metacog\], \[tab:transact\], and \[tab:clusters\], respectively. Based on these results, several patterns can be discerned. For example, [students suggested at least one approach in every episode, but assessed them in relatively few episodes (Table \[tab:metacog\]). In addition, clarification was a common type of transactive move: it was observed at least once in all-but-one episode.]{} Meanwhile, students requested feedback from one another more frequently than they asked one another for new ideas (Table \[tab:transact\]). Discrepant output episodes yielded not only the largest diversity of metacognitive and transactive moves, but also the highest frequency of clusters across groups (Table \[tab:clusters\]).
During IS, SH, and RD episodes, some groups did not engage in dialogue that contained a cluster. In all but one such cases, no clusters were observed because the dialogue contained only non-overlapping nodes. Lack of node overlap was due to one of two patterns: students changing the topic of conversation between nodes, or successive conversational turns that were either both metacogntive or both transactive. In one case where no clusters were observed—the IS episode for group B—one student dominated the conversation. The non-dominant speaker was actively listening (e.g., by saying, “Okay," “Mhm," “Yes," “Right," and so on) rather than contributing to the conversation in metacognitive or transactive ways. Group B’s IS episode was the only episode in our data set that contained no nodes; nodes were present in all other episodes. [In all episodes in which no clusters were observed, students were not metacognitively engaging in each other’s ideas.]{}
Next, we discuss and further characterize all four categories of episodes to better illuminate how students engaged in socially mediated metacognition. We limit our discussion to excerpts of dialogue that contain clusters, [as they best capture instances of social mediation of metacognition]{}. Information added to the transcripts for clarity is indicated by square brackets.
------------------ ----------------- ---- ---- ---- ----
Type Subtype IS DO SH RD
Self-disclosure Clarify 6 8 4 7
Justify 3 4 2 5
Other-monitoring Monitor ideas 5 8 4 7
Monitor actions 2 4 1 4
Feedback request 7 6 2 6
Idea request 2 1 0 2
------------------ ----------------- ---- ---- ---- ----
: \[tab:transact\]Transactive moves. Shown are the numbers of groups engaging in dialogue in which at least one conversational turn was coded as a transactive move. Results are broken down by type and subtype of transactive move.
### Initial strategizing episode
Initial strategizing episodes were identified in all eight interviews. Each IS episode consisted of the first one or two minutes of the troubleshooting activity, starting just after students finished receiving instructions from the interviewer and ending when they began either making measurements or carrying out a detailed inspection of the circuit. During these episodes, students were transitioning from formulating the problem description to performing initial diagnostic tests. [The nature of this transition is consistent with the observed subtypes of metacognitive moves (Table \[tab:metacog\])]{}. Making observations, stating facts, and suggesting approaches were present in most or all IS episodes. Meanwhile, all subtypes of assessment were relatively infrequent. No students suggested explanations—potentially because students did not yet have information about the circuit’s performance and therefore had little to explain.
As can be seen in Table \[tab:clusters\], clusters were observed in three groups during IS episodes. The low frequency of IS clusters may be a reflection of the relative lack of information about the circuit’s performance at the start of the activity compared to other episodes, which took place after the students had performed diagnostic measurements. IS clusters focused on formulating the problem description and prioritizing future measurements.
The following exchange between E1 and E2 is an example of an IS cluster that focused on forming an initial understanding the circuit’s performance:\
\
[\*[4]{}[l]{}X]{} & & & E1: & Alright. Cool. Well, how do you want to start this out? We could work out theoretically what it should do to start.\
& & & E2: & They give us a pretty good transfer function right there \[on the schematic\].\
& & & & *E1 looks at the handout.*\
3. & & & E1: & Okay. Cool. That makes sense, just like inverting and not inverting smashed together.\
\
This exchange took place immediately after the interviewer finished introducing the task. Here, E1 initiated the conversation by asking a question about how to proceed [(1; idea request)]{} and suggesting an approach (1; new idea). E2 then remarked that the schematic included relevant information (2; new idea). Last, E1 stated that the schematic made sense to him (3; assessment) and elaborated his understanding of the circuit subsystems (3; self-disclosure). Through this discussion, the students supported each other in using the schematic to develop a model of the circuit as consisting of two distinct stages. Although this model did not inform further discussion during the initial strategizing episode, E1 and E2 later employed a split-half strategy, which relies on the identification of independently testable stages.
------------------------- ---- ---- ---- ----
Conversational theme IS DO SH RD
Collective strategizing 3 4 0 1
Shared understanding 1 4 4 2
Neither theme 0 1 1 1
------------------------- ---- ---- ---- ----
: \[tab:clusters\] [Clusters. Shown are the numbers of groups whose dialogue yielded at least one cluster, by theme.]{}
### Discrepant output episode
Discrepant output episodes were identified in all eight interviews. Each DO episode consisted of the discussions that followed immediately after students observed that the output of the circuit was a constant dc voltage, which did not match their expectations. [As can be seen in Tables \[tab:metacog\] and \[tab:transact\], every subtype of transactive and metacognitive moves was present in at least one DO episode]{}. All groups engaged in assessing results, suggesting strategies, and monitoring ideas; approach assessments were observed in half of DO episodes, compared to one or none in other episodes. Such conversational moves are consistent with the cognitive task transition that defines DO episodes: students transitioned from generating causes to performing additional diagnostic tests.
Most groups carried out actions that would further their understanding of the malfunctioning circuit. Some, however, did not appear to use the information gained from their observations to inform and constrain the investigations immediately following the episode. Specifically, [two groups]{} tested the signal with an ac input, but subsequently decided to measure resistor values. These groups did not consider that a problem with resistor values could not fully account for the faulty dc output signal they had observed. Similarly, [one group]{} made a decision to re-investigate the circuit, but this decision was not attached to a specific hypothesis as to how their course of action would help advance their understanding.
Clusters were observed in each DO episode (Table \[tab:clusters\]), and we highlight two examples here. In each of these examples, students’ metacognitive discussions directly informed the their subsequent investigations of the malfunctioning circuit.
Students C1 and C2 used an ac input voltage to test the circuit. To monitor the output signal, they used two separate cables that connected the output of stage 2 to two different channels of the oscilloscope. This excerpt begins just as the students observed the output signal for the first time:\
\
[\*[5]{}[l]{}X]{} & & & & C1: & That’s getting us a dc voltage. Or is that oscillating? That’s bizarre. Why is it—?\
& & & & C2: & Yep, these guys \[both channels\] are measuring the same dc.\
3. & & & & C1: & Is something just being a voltage divider or something? What’s that value?\
& & & & & *C1 and C2 adjust oscilloscope settings.*\
4. & & & & C2: & Fourteen volts.\
& & & & C1: & It’s probably saturated.\
& & & & C2: & No, if it was saturated it would still oscillate, right? It would just clip at the sides? So, I mean, more likely that 14 is pretty close to this guy \[the power supply\]. Maybe one of the \[breadboard\] rails is bad underneath. That’s certainly possible.\
\
In this exchange, C1 described the output of the circuit (1; new idea), called it “bizarre" (1; assessment), and questioned whether it was oscillating [(1; feedback request)]{}. C2 then confirmed C1’s initial description of the dc output (2; other-monitoring). Next, C1 questioned if this could have been the result of voltage division [(3; feedback request)]{} and suggested monitoring the value of the output (3; new idea). After engaging in this cluster, the students adjusted the oscilloscope settings to better read the signal, and C2 verbalized the value of the output voltage (4; new idea). C1 suggested saturation as a potential explanation for this dc value (5; new idea). In response, C2 critiqued C1’s explanation (6; other-monitoring) and clarified his criticism by describing the typical waveform of a saturated signal (6; self-disclosure). C2 went on to note the similar magnitude of the output signal and the power supply (6; new idea), ultimately suggesting an alternative explanation for the output (6; new idea). Nodes A to C form a cluster focused on the characteristics of the output signal. [Because turns 4 and 5 are both metacognitive moves, node D is separate from the cluster.]{} In this example, C2 monitored the explanatory power of his partner’s explanation and rejected an erroneous hypothesis about the circuit’s performance.
Students F1 and F2 also used an ac input voltage to test the circuit. This excerpt begins just as the the students were discussing what to do next, after having observed faulty behavior of the circuit:\
\
[\*[7]{}[l]{}X]{} & & & & & & F1: & Should we—? We should make sure that this \[the inverting input of op-amp 1\] is zero volts.\
& & & & & & F2: & Um, this should not be zero volts. It should be the same as ${V_\mathrm{IN}}$, I think. Right? It should be zero down here \[at ground\].\
3. & & & & & & F1: & Okay. But. Where is that coming from? The feedback or something?\
4. & & & & & & F2: & It’s just the golden rule of the op-amp that the inputs wanna be the same.\
5. & & & & & & F1: & Yeah, but how could the negative terminal be the same as the positive terminal at all times?\
6. & & & & & & F2: & I don’t know how it works.\
\
Here, F1 suggested that he and his partner perform a particular diagnostic measurement (1; new idea). F2 disagreed with an implicit assumption in F1’s suggestion (2; other-monitoring), and articulated alternative predictions about the circuit’s expected performance (2; new idea). In response, F1 asked F2 for more information about his ideas (3; other-monitoring), and asked if feedback might be a relevant mechanism [(3; feedback request)]{}. To justify his reasoning (4; self-disclosure), F2 recited one of the op-amp golden rules (4; new idea). Next F1 asked F2 for further explanation (5; other-monitoring), which F2 said he could not provide (6; assessment). Nodes A to E are all part of the same cluster. This excerpt highlights how students F1 and F2 explored the limitations of their own knowledge while they were simultaneously drawing upon that same knowledge to form predictions. Despite not having a complete explanation for the ideal behavior of an op-amp, they were able to use the golden rules to make concrete predictions later in the troubleshooting task.
### Split-half episode
Split-half episodes were identified in five interviews. Each SH episode consisted of the discussions that followed immediately after students successfully employed a split-half strategy, and ended when they began a new set of measurements. During SH episodes, students were transitioning from generating hypotheses (namely, the hypothesis that stage 1 was functional and hence any faults resided in stage 2) to performing additional tests. As can be seen in Tables \[tab:metacog\] and \[tab:transact\], several subtypes of metacognitive and transactive moves were present in all five SH episodes: suggesting approaches, articulating facts, clarifying one’s own ideas, and monitoring another’s ideas. Clusters were present in four of the five episodes (Table \[tab:clusters\]). In this section, we discuss a single SH episode in its entirety, noting that this episode was representative of most episodes within this category.
The episode we discuss begins immediately after students G1 and G2 agreed that stage 1 was functioning as expected (asterisks indicate simultaneous speech):\
\
[\*[5]{}[l]{}X]{} 1. & & & & G1: & So, we can isolate this part.\
& & & & G2: & So then this op-amp, so then, ahh let’s see. This right here \[the inverting input\] should be ground.\
& & & & G1: & Yeah, yeah, this is virtual ground—\
& & & & G2: & Virtual ground.\
& & & & G1: & —right here. No current’s going through here \[into the inverting input\]. So, from there, we can say current through here \[$R_3$\] is equal to current through there \[$R_4$\].\
4. & & & & G2: & So this resistor right here, the $R_3$, that should have a drop of 10 volts then. Because you have ground right here \[at the inverting input\].\
5a. & & & & G1: & Yeah, yeah, you’re right, because this \[the inverting input\] is zero volts, this \[stage 1’s output\] is 10 volts, so we should be losing—\
\* & & & & G2: & Ten volts across there.\
5b. & & & & G1: & —10 volts across that resistor. Okay so, I’ll look at, we should be losing 10 volts across here. Alright so let’s, let’s check it out.\
\
In the above exchange, we treat G1’s speech in turns 3a to 3b and 5a to 5b as a continuous conversational turn despite G2’s simultaneous speech. This SH episode started when G1 suggested that stage 2 could be isolated (1; new idea). G2 then examined the circuit and articulated a prediction about the voltage of the inverting input of stage 1 (2; new idea); this prediction is consistent with the first golden rule for op-amps. G1 endorsed G2’s idea (3a; other-monitoring) and further clarified that the input would be a “virtual" ground, which in this context indicates that it is not directly connected to ground (3b; self-disclosure). Next, G1 articulated a prediction that the currents through resistors $R_3$ and $R_4$ would be equal (3b; new idea); this prediction is consistent with the second golden rule for op-amps. G2 subsequently predicted the voltage drop across $R_3$ (4; new idea), and justified his prediction (4; self-disclosure). Last, G1 endorsed and built upon G2’s prediction (5a; other-monitoring), ultimately suggesting that they perform a particular measurement to test the prediction (5b; new idea).
Nodes A to C form a cluster. In this cluster, students combined their knowledge of the golden rules for op-amps and the output of stage 1 to make a testable prediction for the voltage across resistor $R_3$. Similar exchanges were documented and analyzed in three of the other four groups that employed a split-half strategy. The only outlier was group D. Students D1 and D2 began retesting the voltages in stage 2 without making new predictions about the circuit’s expected performance. We note that group D was ultimately unsuccessful in repairing the circuit within the time constraints of the interview.
### Replacement decision episode
Replacement decision episodes were identified in seven interviews. RD episodes focused on the decision to replace the op-amp in stage 2. The episodes began when students started discussing the last measurement made prior to the replacement, and ended when students began to replace the op-amp. Every group who replaced the op-amp had previously replaced resistor $R_3$. RD episodes constituted a transition from performing tests to repairing and evaluating the circuit. Each group that successfully replaced the op-amp considered, yet subsequently rejected, problems occurring elsewhere in the circuit. We discuss a single excerpt from group C that highlights the collaborative establishment and justification of the group’s decision to replace the op-amp.
Earlier in the interview, students C1 and C2 erroneously replaced the first op-amp. Just prior to the RD episode, they re-measured the input signal and the outputs of both stages. They noted that the first stage functioned as expected, but the output of stage 2 was still a large dc value. The excerpt below begins immediately after the students measured the inputs to second op-amp:\
\
[\*[5]{}[l]{}X]{} & & & & C2: & Pin three \[of the second op-amp\] is—\
& & & & C1: & Zero.\
& & & & C2: &—in fact zero. However pin two \[of the second op-amp\] is not zero, right? And that’s the problem. That’s the op-amp.\
& & && C1: & So that’s saying that we’re losing our— The op-amp is wrong, too?\
3. & & & & C2: & Yeah, it must be. That means the golden—I mean, the first one could’ve been fine, in retrospect—but certainly the second one is not working, because the golden rules are not being followed here.\
4. & & & & C1: & Okay, that’s not it. Want to switch that guy out?\
5. & & & & C2: & Yeah.\
\
Here, we treat C2’s speech in turns 1a and 1b as a continuous conversational turn. This exchange began when C2 observed the input voltages of the op-amp in stage 2 (1b; new idea), noting that there was a problem since the inputs had different values (1b; assessment). This assessment is consistent with the first golden rule for op-amps. C1 then asked whether this meant there was a problem with the op-amp in stage 2 [(2; feedback request)]{}. In response, C2 endorsed C1’s idea (3; other-monitoring), suggested they may have misdiagnosed the op-amp in stage 1 (3; assessment). C2 also justified C1’s tentative hypothesis about the op-amp in stage 2 by referencing the golden rules for op-amps (3; self-disclosure). In turn 4, it is unclear to the authors what C1 was referencing when he said, “Okay, that’s not it." However, he went on to suggest a repair, namely, the replacement of the op-amp in stage 2 (4; new idea). This suggested approach was taken up by C2.
In this excerpt, students C1 and C2 made sense of a new set of voltage measurements, with some confirming, but others superseding their earlier work. They used their results to justify replacing the second op-amp, and to reflect upon their earlier misdiagnosis of the first op-amp. Including group C, six of the seven groups who successfully repaired the circuit justified their decision to replace the op-amp in stage 2 by synthesizing information from their most recent measurements and those performed throughout the interview.
Results from cross-episode analysis
-----------------------------------
[In addition to identifying and describing examples of SMM in each episode category, we also looked for conversational themes among clusters from all groups and all episodes. We organized clusters into two separate categories: (i) collective strategizing about the troubleshooting process, and (ii) shared understanding of the circuit’s behavior. These emergent categories are consistent with the high rates of metacognitive moves in which new approaches were suggested (Table \[tab:metacog\]) and transactive moves focused on monitoring or clarifying ideas (Table \[tab:transact\]). Out of 23 total clusters in our dataset, 8 focused on collective strategizing, 11 on shared understanding, and 4 fit into neither category. A breakdown of the number of groups in which clusters of either kind were observed is provided in Table \[tab:clusters\]. In this section, we present one example of a cluster from each category.]{}
### Collective strategizing
Clusters about [collective strategizing]{} mostly occurred during the first half of the troubleshooting process, within initial strategizing and discrepant output episodes (Table \[tab:clusters\]). In these episodes, students were formulating the problem description via visual inspection of the circuit (IS episodes) and reacting to the first measurement of the malfunctioning circuit output (DO episodes). Both episodes involved transitions to the troubleshooting subtask of performing tests. Thus, rich metacognitive dialogue about approaches for repairing the circuit coincided with students’ early formative and diagnostic observations.
As an example, we present a cluster from a DO episode. In this excerpt, the students in group E had just observed that the output of the circuit was a constant dc voltage, and they began the process of deciding how to proceed in repairing the circuit:\
\
[\*[7]{}[l]{}X]{} & & & & & & E2: & Do we even check if these are the right chips? That would be kind of stupid.\
& & & & & & E1: & It would probably be a good call.\
3. & & & & & & E2: & Okay, I guess we do have— Can we just, like, pull that chip out and replace it?\
4. & & & & & & E1: & Yeah, I mean, it will be like the brute force method of making sure it’s the right chip. Pull it out and put the right one in.\
5. & & & & & & E2: & What we could do is get out a probe and we can just go through the first one and measure ${V_\mathrm{OUT}}$, and we could see if that’s what we expect it to be.\
6. & & & & & & E1: & Yeah, for sure. And then we’ll measure all the power to make sure it’s doing what it should be doing.\
\
Here, E2’s suggestions in turns 1 and 3 were phrased as questions. The exchange began when E2 suggested a potential strategy for troubleshooting the circuit (1; new idea). E1 affirmed that the strategy could be productive (2; assessment, other-monitoring). E2 then suggested a new, related strategy (3; new idea), which E1 called a “brute force method" (4; assessment, other-monitoring). We note that “brute force method" has a negative connotation in physics problem solving; it is often used to refer to an inelegant approach. In response, E2 suggested yet another approach for testing the circuit’s performance (5; new idea). Based on the context, ${V_\mathrm{OUT}}$ refers to the output of stage 1 in turn 5. E1 endorsed and built upon this idea (6; other-monitoring) by suggesting different, additional tests (6; new idea).
Together, nodes A to E form a single cluster in which the students proposed and evaluated four different approaches: checking if the chips were correct (turn 1), replacing a chip (turn 3), measuring the output of stage 1 (turn 5), and measuring the voltage of the power rails (turn 6). The suggestions related to checking or replacing the op-amp chips were discarded, and the students began measuring voltages after this exchange.
### Shared understanding
Clusters about shared understanding mostly occurred after the initial strategizing episode, i.e., during the discrepant output, split-half, and replacement decision episodes (Table \[tab:clusters\]). In these episodes, students were generating causal hypotheses about the source of malfunction in the circuit (DO and SH episodes) and proposing a potential repair (RD episodes). Thus, [reaching consensus on predictions, explanations, and interpretations of observations]{} through back-and-forth metacognitive exchanges occurred when one student was unsure of what claims were being made by a partner, or when both students were working together to understand the actual performance of the circuit.
As an example, we present a cluster from an RD episode. In this excerpt, the students in group A were interpreting a measurement of the negative power rail:\
\
[\*[4]{}[l]{}X]{} & & & A1: & And that’s at 15 and a half.\
& & & A2: & That’s at plus 15 and a half? Oh, did you measure it backwards?\
& & & A1: & Yeah.\
& & & A2: & Did you have the leads flipped?\
3. & & & A1: & Yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s fine.\
\
At the beginning of this excerpt, A1 verbalized the measured value of the negative rail voltage (1; new idea). A2 questioned the reported value (2a; other-monitoring), asked if his partner had measured the voltage backwards (2a; other-monitoring), and clarified what he meant by “backwards" (2b; self-disclosure). A1 affirmed that he did attach the leads of the multimeter backwards and that the measurement was in fact consistent with expectations (3; assessment).
In this interaction, nodes A and B form a cluster during which the students collaboratively clarified that A1’s measurement was not the result of an actual flaw in the circuit, but rather stemmed from an incorrect measurement procedure. After the exchange, A2 began inspecting the connections of the circuit to ensure that it was constructed properly, indicating that he no longer questioned the measurement[; hence, A1 and A2 were in agreement about the interpretation of the original measurement]{}.
Discussion and Limitations {#sec:discussion}
==========================
Our results provide insight into whether and how students engage in socially mediated metacognition while troubleshooting a malfunctioning op-amp circuit. Here, we focus on two major findings of this work, each corresponding to one of our research questions. First, in our study, students did indeed engage in SMM when troubleshooting a circuit (RQ1). [Second, reciprocated metacognitive dialogue (i.e., clusters) arose when students were [collectively strategizing about which measurements to perform, or reaching a shared understanding of the circuit’s behavior]{} (RQ2).]{} In addition to elaborating upon these findings, we draw on relevant studies to help contextualize our work and identify areas for potential future investigation.
[We observed multiple groups engaging in SMM in each of four strategic and evaluative episodes during the troubleshooting process:]{} (i) developing initial troubleshooting strategies, (ii) observing the discrepant output of the circuit for the first time, (iii) employing the split-half strategy to isolate the source of malfunction to one part of the circuit, and (iv) deciding to replace a faulty component. Multiple examples of metacognitive moves, transactive moves, nodes, and clusters were observed during peer interactions among all eight pairs of students in our study. Clusters occurred most frequently after students made measurements of the malfunctioning behavior of the whole circuit (discrepant output episodes) or the functional behavior of the first subsystem (split-half episodes). In these episodes, students were drawing on the new information provided by their measurements to generate causal hypotheses about the circuit’s performance; then, based on these new ideas about the circuit, they were deciding which tests to perform.
By focusing on students’ metacognitive discussions during transitions from one cognitive troubleshooting subtask to another, we were further able to gain insight into the role of SMM in repairing the circuit. Across all four categories of episodes, we observed that back-and-forth metacognitive exchanges facilitated troubleshooting in two major ways. First, students engaged in SMM when jointly deciding upon which troubleshooting approaches to employ. These decisions involved collaborative formation of hypotheses, predictions, and strategies for testing the circuit. Second, students engaged in SMM when trying to understand or refute each other’s insufficiently substantiated ideas or incomplete analyses. In both cases, SMM was coupled to students’ recognition that greater clarity was needed in order to know how to proceed with investigating the circuit. Such realizations prompted students to revisit each other’s reasoning, refute erroneous ideas, and endorse productive suggestions—an inherently social metacognitive process.
When interpreting these findings, it is important to keep in mind two major limitations of our study. First, our participant pool was small and homogenous: of 16 students, most were white men, all had completed similar electronics lab courses, and all were enrolled in selective, predominantly white, research-intensive universities. [Therefore, additional studies with more diverse populations may identify different metacognitive social dynamics that arise during students’ collaborative troubleshooting of malfunctioning apparatuses.]{} Second, the theoretical foundations of our study focus primarily on cognitive and metacognitive social dynamics. However, other work has emphasized that troubleshooting is a frustrating task that requires perseverance, creativity, confidence, patience, and a belief that troubleshooting is a normal part of physics experiments [@Dounas-Frazer2017; @Dounas-Frazer2016b; @Estrada2012; @MacPherson1998]. In this sense, our study does not fully capture the troubleshooting experience. With these limitations in mind, we identify implications for research and instruction.
In a previous study [@Dounas-Frazer2016a], we used data from the participants in the present study to investigate whether and how they used model-based reasoning when troubleshooting an electric circuit. We found that students “engaged in multiple, distinct iterations of model-based reasoning while navigating the cognitive" subtasks of the troubleshooting process (p. 18), and we argued that students’ ability to troubleshoot and their ability to model physical systems are complementary experimental physics skills. [Given that socially mediated metacognition arises when students troubleshoot]{}, it is likely that metacognitive dialogue arises when work together to construct and refine models and apparatuses in contexts other than repairing a malfunctioning system. Future work could explore the theoretical and empirical connections between the SMM framework and frameworks for model-based reasoning.
The social environment of many instructional settings is not only due to interactions among students, but also to those between students and instructors. Indeed, Goos et al. [@Goos2002] argued that “the teacher has a crucial role to play in orchestrating fruitful collaboration," by, for example, scaffolding “students’ selection of strategies, identification of errors, and evaluation of answers" (p. 220). Along these lines, Dounas-Frazer and Lewandowski [@Dounas-Frazer2017] found that electronics lab instructors’ self-reported practices for teaching students how to troubleshoot align well with the cognitive apprenticeship paradigm of instruction: asking students to articulate their own understanding, coaching students about different troubleshooting strategies, and/or modeling their (instructors’) own approaches to troubleshooting by verbalizing their thought processes while repairing a circuit in front of student observers who watch and listen. Although these interactions occur between students and instructors rather than among student groups, they are nevertheless examples of social metacognitive dynamics. Hence, the SMM framework could be a useful tool for characterizing and evaluating instructors’ teaching practices in electronics and other lab courses.
Finally, we note that teaching students how to troubleshoot circuits may benefit from explicit classroom norms about collaboration—especially in lab courses that require students to work in groups. Cognitive apprenticeship teaching practices, which are well suited to developing students’ competence with cognitive aspects of troubleshooting, could be supplemented by deliberate efforts to support students’ metacognitive regulation of their lab partners’ thinking. For example, lab instructors could encourage students to ask themselves *and each other*, “What are you doing, why are you doing it, and how does it help?" (cf. Schoenfeld [@Schoenfeld1992]).
Summary {#sec:conclusion}
=======
We developed a troubleshooting activity in which students attempted to diagnose and repair a malfunctioning op-amp circuit. Audiovisual data were collected for eight pairs of students from two separate institutions. We analyzed transcripts of student dialogue using an *a priori* framework for socially mediated metacognition and an emergent thematic analysis of clusters, [a form of reciprocated peer-to-peer metacognitive regulation]{}.
Our findings demonstrate a good mapping between students’ performance of an experimental physics task and the SMM framework, which was originally developed by Goos et al. [@Goos2002] in the context of high school students solving physics-based math problems. In addition, our findings align well with the recommendations of Lippmann Kung and Linder [@LippmannKung2007], who stressed the importance of documenting not just whether students engage in metacognition, but how their metacognition informs their subsequent actions when working on physics lab activities. We have shown how the SMM framework can be coupled with other frameworks (in this case, a cognitive task analysis of troubleshooting) to provide a rich picture of students’ reactions to metacognitive dialogue: which claims are accepted, which strategies are adopted, which measurements are performed, and how those claims, strategies, and measurements facilitate transitions between different phases of problem solving. This suggests that the SMM framework can be a productive tool for analyzing other types of collaborative experimental physics problem solving.
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions made by members of the UMaine Physics Education Research Laboratory for their input on framing and interpreting some of these results. [Benjamin Pollard and Jessica Hoehn provided useful feedback on the manuscript.]{} This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. DUE-1245313, DUE-1323101, DUE-1323426, PHY-1125844, and DUE-0962805.
[58]{}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/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.010102) @noop [**]{}, edited by and (, , ) @noop [**]{} (, ) in @noop [**]{}, (, ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/s10648-006-9001-8) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1518/001872000779656570) in @noop [**]{}, (, , ) pp. @noop [**]{} (, ) and , eds., @noop [**]{} (, ) in @noop [**]{}, (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1007/s11409-007-9006-9) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.237) [****, ()](\doibase
10.5032/jae.2011.01120) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90017-7) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1023/A:1016209010120) in [**](\doibase 10.1119/perc.2015.pr.080), (, ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020121) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4953346) in [**](\doibase 10.1119/perc.2015.pr.043), (, ) pp. @noop [****, ()]{} in [**](\doibase
10.1109/FIE.2009.5350849) () pp. [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.16979) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4934600) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4773293) in @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1614813) [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.17003) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.17448) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0020720915598993) in [**](\doibase 10.1119/perc.2014.pr.035), (, ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010137) in [**](\doibase 10.1119/perc.2015.pr.021), (, ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.003) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.003) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.04.002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/69032000072809) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/s11423-007-9047-4) [****, ()](http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v37n1/john.html) [****, ()](http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v35n4/macpherson.html) in [**](https://peer.asee.org/21386) (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(98)00005-3) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/1049482930030303) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020121) in @noop [**]{}, (, , ) p. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF03217269) @noop [**]{}, edited by , , , and (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF00304567) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1988.tb00021.x) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00012.x) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1080/15391523.2009.10782540) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1007/s10956-011-9326-z) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , ) @noop [**]{} (, , ) @noop [****, ()]{} and , eds., @noop [**]{} (, , ) in @noop [**]{}, (, , ) p.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The Narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxy (NLS1) IRAS 13224$-$3809 is known to exhibit significant X-ray spectral variation, a sharp spectral drop at $\sim$ 7 keV, strong soft excess emission, and a hint of iron L-edge feature, which is very similar to the NLS1 1H 0707$-$495. We have proposed the “Variable Double Partial Covering (VDPC) model” to explain the energy spectra and spectral variability of 1H 0707$-$495 (Mizumoto, Ebisawa and Sameshima 2014, PASJ, 66, 122). In this model, the observed flux/spectral variations below 10 keV within a $\sim$day are primarily caused by change of the partial covering fraction of patchy clouds composed by double absorption layers in the line of sight. In this paper, we apply the VDPC model to IRAS 13224$-$3809. Consequently, we have found that the VDPC model can explain the observed spectral variations of IRAS 13224–3809 in the 0.5–10 keV band. In particular, we can explain the observed Root Mean Square (RMS) spectra (energy dependence of the fractional flux variation) in the entire 0.5 –10 keV band. In addition to the well-known significant drop in the iron K-band, we have found intriguing iron L-peaks in the RMS spectra when the iron L-edge is particularly deep. This feature, which is also found in 1H 0707–495, is naturally explained with the VDPC model, such that the RMS variations increase at the energies where optical depths of the partial absorbers are large. The absorbers have a larger optical depth at the iron L-edge than in the adjacent energy bands, thus a characteristic iron L-peak appears. On the other hand, just below the iron K-edge, the optical depth is the lowest and the RMS spectrum has a broad dip.'
author:
- 'Hiroki <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Yamasaki</span> , Misaki <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mizumoto</span> , Ken <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ebisawa</span> , and Hiroaki <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sameshima</span>'
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: 'Origin of the Characteristic X-ray Spectral Variations of IRAS 13224$-$3809'
---
Introduction
============
Among Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs), Narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s) are characterized by their particular X-ray spectral and timing properties. A strong soft excess below $\sim$2 keV and remarkable X-ray variations are often observed, and high-energy spectral drops at $\sim$7 keV and seemingly broadened and skewed iron emission lines are found in several objects (e.g., @boller03). These spectra are often explained by either the “relativistic disk-line" model or the “partial covering" model. According to the “relativistic disk-line" model, their spectra may be interpreted by relativistically blurred inner-disk reflection around extreme Kerr black holes (e.g., @fabi04). On the other hand, the “partial covering" model may also explain their spectra as due to partial covering of the central X-ray source by intervening absorbers in the line of sight (e.g., @matsu90; @ino03; @millerl08). Furthermore, @nod11 [@nod13] suggests that the spectral continuum of AGNs may be more complex than previously considered. From the static spectral aspect alone, we cannot judge which model is more reasonable. To scrutinize the validity of these models in more detail, we need to explain not only the static spectral features but also their spectral variations.
NLS1s are also characterized by significant X-ray time variation. In particular, their Root Mean Square (RMS) spectra (energy dependence of the fractional variation) tend to drop at the iron line energy band, which is most remarkably observed in the NLS1 MCG$-$6$-$30$-$15[^1] (@fabi02; @matsumo03). The “relativistic disk-line" model explains the rapid spectral variations primarily by changes of the geometry in the very vicinity of the black hole, such as height of the illuminating source above the black hole (e.g., @mini04). In this model, the disk-reflected photons are much less variable than the direct photons due to relativistic reverberation (e.g., @fabi03), thus the characteristic RMS spectra are explained. In addition, [@fabi09] reported soft lags from the NLS1 1H 0707$-$495 and interpreted them as due to reverberation from the accretion disk, where the reflection component responds to variation in the X-ray corona with the corresponding time-lag. To the contrary, [@mil10] proposed that the soft X-ray lags of 1H 0707$-$495 can be accounted for by reverberation due to much more distant matter. Up to now, similar soft lags are detected in a number of NLS1s (e.g., @kara15), but their origins are not fully understood.
Meanwhile, @mizu14 (hereafter, Paper I) successfully explained the rapid variation of 1H 0707$-$495 by the “variable double partial covering" (VDPC) model in the 0.5–10 keV. In this model, intrinsic X-ray luminosity and spectral shape of the central X-ray source below $\sim10$ keV are not significantly variable in timescales less than $\sim$day, and apparent X-ray variation is primarily caused by variation of the partial covering fraction by intervening absorbers composed of two different ionization layers. Spectral variations in $\sim2-10$ keV and the RMS spectra of 21 Seyfert galaxies including MCG$-$6$-$30$-$15 observed with Suzaku are also explained by the VDPC model successfully (@miya12 [@iso16]). We aim to examine whether the VDPC model can explain spectral variations of other NLS1s in wider energy ranges.
In this paper, we apply the VDPC model to IRAS 13224$-$3809, which is characterized by the soft lag, significant time variation, a sharp spectral drop at $\sim$ 7 keV, strong soft excess emission, and a hint of an iron L-edge feature, being very similar to 1H 0707$-$495 (e.g., @gallo04; @fabi13).
Observation and Data Reduction
==============================
We use all the available XMM-Newton [@jan01] and Suzaku [@mit07] archival data of IRAS 13224$-$3809 taken from 2001 to 2011. These observation IDs, observation dates, exposure times and observational modes are shown in Table \[tab1\]. In the following, an “observation sequence” corresponds to a row in Table \[tab1\]. In the analysis of the XMM-Newton data, we use the data from the European Photon Imaging Camera(EPIC)-PN [@str01] in 0.5$-$10 keV and the reflection grating spectrometer (RGS: @den01) in 0.4–1.5 keV. The data are reduced using the XMM-Newton Software Analysis System ([SAS]{}, v.13.5.0) and the latest calibration files, following the Users guide[^2]. The event files are filtered with the conditions [PATTERN<=4]{} and [FLAG==0]{}. High background intervals when the count rates in the 10$-$12 keV band with [PATTERN==0]{} are higher than 0.4 cts/s, are excluded. The source spectra and light-curves are extracted from circular regions of a radius of 35$^{\prime\prime}$ centered on the source. The background is made from the outer region in the same CCD chip not containing the source signals and avoiding the CCD edges. The background subtracted light-curves are generated with the task [epiclccorr]{}. We apply [applyabsolutecorr=yes]{} to the sources. The RGS data were processed with [rgsproc]{}.
In the analysis of the Suzaku data, we focus on two front-illuminated CCDs (XIS0 and XIS3) data of all the observations in 0.5$-$10 keV. We did not use the hard X-ray detector (HXD) PIN diode data because the source signals were hardly detected above 10 keV. We reduce the Suzaku data by using the HEASoft version 6.16. As for the XIS, we screen the data with [XSELECT]{} using the standard criterion [@koya07]. The source events are extracted from circular regions of a radius of 3$^{\prime}$ centered on the sources. The background events are extracted from an annulus of 4$^{\prime}-7^{\prime}$ in radii to avoid source regions. The response matrices and ancillary response files are generated for each XIS using [xisrmfgen]{} and [xissimarfgen]{} [@ishi07]. When we use the ARF generator, we select the number of input photons as 400,000 with the “estepfile” parameter “full”. The two XIS FI spectra and responses are combined by [addascaspec]{}.
In Section 4.2, we will show the Suzaku observation results of Ark 564 to compare with IRAS 13224$-$3809. Its observation ID, start date, exposure time and observational mode are shown in Table \[ark564\_log\]. The data reduction procedure is the same as above.
Results
=======
Paper I successfully explained spectral variations of 1H 0707$-$495 at various timescales with the VDPC model. In this paper, we try to explain those of IRAS 13224$-$3809, following the procedure in Paper I. In addition, we try to explain the RMS spectra in 0.5$-$10 keV with the VDPC model. We use the X-ray spectral fitting package [xspec]{} version 12.8.1 for spectral analysis. In the following, the [xspec]{} model names used in the spectral fitting are indicated with the courier fonts.
Spectral Models
---------------
According to Paper I, the VDPC model is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1}
F=A_{I}(1-\alpha+\alpha W_{n} )(1-\alpha+\alpha W_{k})(P+B),\end{aligned}$$ where $P$ is the power-law spectrum, $B$ is the spectrum from an accretion disk ([diskbb]{}), $\alpha$ is the partial covering fraction, $A_{I}$ is the effect of interstellar absorption ([phabs]{}), and $W_{n}$ and $W_{k}$ are the thinner/hotter partial absorber and the thicker/colder partial absorber, respectively. A remarkable character of the VDPC model is that the two partial absorbers have the same partial covering fraction. Each absorber has two parameters; the hydrogen column density $N_\mathrm{H}$, and the ionization parameter $\xi$, such that $W_{i}=\exp(-\sigma (E,\xi_{i})N_{\mathrm{H},i})$, where $\sigma (E,\xi)$ is the photo-absorption cross-section. In order to model the warm absorber, we use a table-grid model calculated with XSTAR [@kal04], which is the same as the one in @miya12. The Fe L- and K-shell edges in the observed energy spectrum are mostly explained by $W_{n}$ and $W_{k}$, while the observed L-edge is found to be deeper than that predicted by the model from time to time. Also, we found absorption line features at $\sim$8 keV, which is likely to be due to a strong Cu emission line in the outer background region (§\[sec3.2\]). Consequently, the model we use to fit IRAS 13224–3809 spectra is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2}
F=A_{I}(1-\alpha+\alpha W_{n} e^{-\tau_{1}})(1-\alpha+\alpha W_{k})(P+B)+G,\end{aligned}$$ where $e^{-\tau_{1}}$ is the additional edge component to account for the strong Fe L-edge, and $G$ is a negative Gaussian.
Spectral Fitting to the Average Spectra {#sec3.2}
---------------------------------------
First, we try to fit the VDPC model given in Equation \[eq2\] to the time-average spectra for the individual observations in Table \[tab1\]. The interstellar absorption is fixed at the foreground absorption value from the Leiden-Argentice-Bonn 21 cm survey [@kalb05]. Errors are quoted at the statistic 90% level throughout the paper.
The fitting results are shown in Figure \[fig1\] and Table \[IRAS\_para1\]. For all the spectra, the model fit is reasonable ($\chi_{r} < 1.38$). Complex iron L- and K-features at $\sim 1.0$ keV and $\sim 7.0$ keV are mostly explained by the partial covering of the thinner/hotter absorber ($W_{n}$) and the thicker/colder absorber ($W_{k}$), respectively, as expected. The iron L-edge feature is also seen in the RGS spectra. Figure \[xmm1\_RGS\] shows the RGS spectra of XMM1 data. When we fit the spectra with a power-law component, we can see a sharp drop at $\sim 1.0$ keV. When we adopt the best-fit model of the EPIC data, we can explain the spectral feature. This situation is similar throughout all the XMM observations.
Strong negative Gaussians at $\sim 8.0$ keV are needed in all the spectra. There exists a strong Cu K$\alpha$ background line, of which strength is dependent on position of the CCD. If we over-subtract the background spectra, absorption line features may be seen. Figure \[xmm1\_bkg\] shows the spectra of the source/background region (green/red) and the background-subtracted spectrum (black) of XMM1 data, which suggests that the observed negative Gaussian is an artifact. This situation is similar in all the XMM observations. In fact, we found the background Cu line is stronger in outer CCD area than in the central area by visually inspecting the image created only using the Cu line band.
Spectral Fitting of the Intensity-sliced Spectra
------------------------------------------------
Next, we apply the VDPC model to the “intensity-sliced spectra” within each observation sequence in order to investigate spectral variations. The method to create the intensity-sliced energy spectra is as follows: (1) We create light-curves with a bin-width of 512 sec in the 0.5$-$10 keV band for each observation sequence (see Figure \[fig4\]). (2) We define the four intensity ranges that contain almost equal counts (the horizontal lines in Figure \[fig4\]). (3) From the time-periods corresponding to the four intensity ranges, we create four intensity-sliced energy spectra for each observation sequence.
At first, we fitted the intensity-sliced spectra within each observation sequence, varying not only the partial covering fraction $\alpha$ but also the normalizations of $P$ and $B$. As a result, we found little variations in the normalizations of $P$ and $B$, whereas $\alpha$ varies significantly. This situation is the same as in Paper I, where the spectral variation below $\sim$10 keV is mostly explained by change of $\alpha$ within a timescale below a $\sim$day. Thus, we also made an assumption that the intrinsic source luminosity and the spectral shape are invariable within a $\sim$day below 10 keV, and that only change of the partial covering fraction causes the apparent spectral variation in this energy band. Figure \[IRAS\_slice\] and Table \[IRAS\_slice\_tab\] show the fitting results, where we can fit the four variable spectra in 0.5–10 keV only changing the covering fraction. We also find that parameters of the disk blackbody component and the power-law component significantly differ depending on different observation sequences, indicating that the intrinsic luminosity and spectra are variable in timescales longer than $\sim$ days.
We emphasize that the spectral shape is certainly variable. Figure \[alphafreeze1\] shows the fitting result of XMM1 when the normalization is variable whereas the covering fraction is fixed. We notice significant residuals in the 1–2 keV band, which are found in all the other observation sequences. The $\chi_{r}$ is 1.84 (d.o.f.$=688$), which is much worse than that in Table \[IRAS\_slice\_tab\].
Energy Dependent Light Curves
-----------------------------
In the precedent subsection, the intensity-sliced spectra in 0.5–10 keV are explained by only change of the covering fraction, where the luminosity is invariable within a $\sim$ day. Next, following Paper I, we try to explain shorter timescale variations with the VDPC model. To that end, we create simulated light-curves using the VDPC model for several different energy bands, and compare the model light-curves with the observed ones.
The method to calculate the simulated light-curve is as follows: (1) For each observation sequence, we fix all the model parameters but the partial covering fraction at the best-fit values obtained from the intensity-sliced spectral analysis in Section 3.3. (2) For each light-curve bin, which is 512 sec long, the partial covering fraction value is calculated so that the observed counting rate in 0.5$-$10 keV and the model counting rate match. (3) Given the partial covering fraction value thus determined for each light-curve bin, we create the simulated spectrum using [fakeit]{} command in xspec, and calculate the simulated count-rates in 0.5$-$1.0 keV (soft), 1.0$-$3.0 keV (medium), and 3.0$-$10 keV (hard) respectively. (4) We compare the simulated light-curves in the three bands with the observed ones.
In Figure \[IRAS-fig4\], we compare the observed light-curves with the model light-curves. For all the observation sequences, the VDPC model almost perfectly reproduces the observed light-curves in the soft band, whereas the agreement goes less satisfactory toward higher energy bands; this situation is exactly the same as 1H 0707–495. In the hard band, the spectral variation is not fully described by only change of the partial covering fraction, and the residual is considered to be intrinsic variation in the hard energy band. This situation seems to be consistent with the assumption in the “optxagn” model [@don12], where the hard power-law component is produced by variable hot/thin coronal emission, whereas the soft component is associated with the warm/thick Comptonizing layer on the disk surface that up-scatters the intrinsic disk emission. In this scenario, the hard power-law component is more variable than the soft component.
The Root-mean-square (RMS) spectra
----------------------------------
Next, we calculate the RMS spectra from the VDPC model to compare with the observed ones. @miya12 and @iso16 successfully explained the RMS spectra of MCG$-$6$-$30$-$15 and other $\sim$20 Seyfert galaxies in 2–10 keV by the VDPC model. In particular, the characteristic iron Fe-K feature, significant drop of the fractional variation at the broad iron line energy, was accounted for. Here, we also calculate the RMS spectra including not only the Fe-K band but also the Fe-L band. The method to calculate the RMS spectra is as follows; (1) Following the analysis in section 3.3 and 3.4, we create the observed and simulated light-curves in 16 energy bands. (2) Following @edel02, RMS variations from the observed light-curves are calculated with a time-bin width of $2.3\times 10^{4}$ sec[^3] in 0.5$-$10 keV in each of the 16 energy bands. (3) The simulated RMS spectra are calculated from the simulated light-curves to compare with the observed ones.
In Figure \[IRAS\_rms\_spe\], we show the observed RMS spectra and the model RMS spectra for each observation. The observed RMS spectra are explained by the VDPC model. In addition to the well-known Fe-K feature, we find characteristic peaks at around 1.1 keV, the iron L-edge energy band. This feature is most clearly seen when the iron L-edge is particularly deep in the intensity-sliced spectra (XMM1 in Figure \[IRAS\_slice\] ).
Discussion
==========
Interpretation of the spectral variations {#sec:4.1}
-----------------------------------------
In Section 3.4, we aimed to explain the observed 0.5–10 keV light-curves in a timescale shorter than a $\sim$ day with only change of the partial covering fraction by the VDPC model. As a result, the observed light-curves below 3 keV can be explained by the VDPC model. Meanwhile, above 3 keV, the observed light-curves tend to show slight deviations from the simulated ones, and the difference is greater in the high energy band. This result is exactly the same as in the case of 1H 0707–495 (Paper I), suggesting that intrinsic variation of the hard spectral component ($P$ in Equation \[eq2\]) is not negligible above 3 keV. Consequently, the observed X-ray spectra variation is explained presumably by two independent variations of physical parameters; the partial covering fraction, which accounts for most of the soft X-ray spectral variations, and the intrinsic variation of the hard spectral component, which is more significant above $\sim3$ keV.
In order to study both variations of the partial covering fractions and the hard spectral component, we need to analyze the data in wider energy band. In the hard X-ray energy band ($>20$ keV), effect of the partial covering is negligible, thus the observed flux variation shall represent the intrinsic luminosity variation of the hard component. In fact, simultaneous observations of NuSTAR and XMM-Newton of MCG$-$6$-$30$-$15 suggests that the apparently complicated spectral variations in 0.2$-$60 keV in timescales less than $\sim$day are naturally explained by independent variations of the partial covering fraction and normalization of the hard spectral component (Kusunoki et al. in prep.).
We also point out that the observed apparently strong iron spectral features can be explained with a solar abundance absorber in our model, whereas some papers have argued extreme iron-overabundance (more than 10 times) in this AGN (see, e.g.@fabi13 [@chi15]). This is because the particular spectral shape of the VDPC model (eq.\[eq2\]) has strong spectral troughs at iron L- and K-edges even with the solar abundance.
Interpretation of the Root-mean-square Spectra
----------------------------------------------
In the RMS spectra of IRAS 13224$-$3809 (Figure \[IRAS\_rms\_spe\]), we have found characteristic peaks at $\sim1.1$ keV. Similar peaks at $\sim1.1$ keV are also recognized in Figure 3 of @pon10 and Figure 11 of @fabi13 on the same target. The iron L-feature must be responsible for this RMS peak because they are in the same energy range. In order to investigate effect of the iron L-edge to the RMS spectra, we create RMS spectra of 1H 0707–495, which has a strong iron L-edge, and Ark 564, which has hardly iron L-feature, in their energy spectra. As a result, we find that 1H 0707–495 also has an iron L-peak in the RMS spectra, whereas that of Ark 564 show no structure around iron L-energy band at all (Figure \[1H0707\]). A similar RMS peak is also seen in NGC 5548, which has a sharp iron L-edge in the energy spectrum [@cap16]. Thus, the characteristic RMS peak is certainly originated from the iron L-edge. In addition, broad dips are seen at $\sim7$ keV both in the RMS spectra of IRAS 13224–3809 and 1H 0707–495, which are due to iron K-structure (see, e.g.Figure 9 of @matsumo03).
In Figure \[IRAS\_rms\_spe\] and \[1H0707\], the RMS spectra in 0.5–10 keV are successfully explained by the VDPC model. What makes the characteristic structures of the RMS spectra, the iron L-peak and K-dip, in the VDPC model? In the VDPC model, spectral variation below $\sim10$ keV is primarily caused by change of the partial covering fraction. When the intrinsic source luminosity and the spectrum are not variable, the observed spectral variation, $F_{obs}(E, t)$, due to variable covering fraction, $\alpha(t)$, may be expressed as (see eq.\[eq1\]), $$\begin{aligned}
{\scriptstyle F_{obs}(E, t)} &\propto& {\scriptstyle \left(1 - \alpha(t) + \alpha(t) \; e^{-\tau_n(E)} \right) \left(1 - \alpha(t) + \alpha(t) \; e^{-\tau_k(E)}\right) \label{eqa}} \\
& = & {\scriptstyle \left(1 - \alpha(t) (1 - e^{-\tau_n(E)}) \right) \left(1 - \alpha(t) (1- \; e^{-\tau_k(E)})\right) \label{eqb}} \\
& \approx &{\scriptstyle \left(1 - \alpha(t)\: \tau_n(E) \right) \left(1 - \alpha(t) (1-\; e^{-\tau_k(E)})\right)\; {\rm when}\; \tau_n(E) \ll 1 \label{eqc}} \\
& \approx & {\scriptstyle \left(1 - \alpha(t) (1 - e^{-\tau_n(E)}) \right) (1 - \alpha(t)) \; {\rm when}\; \tau_k(E) \gg 1, \label{eqd} }\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_n(E)$ and $\tau_k(E)$ are optical depths of the thinner (hotter) and thicker (colder) absorbers, which primarily responsible for the observed iron L-edge and K-edge, respectively. The upper panel of Figure \[RMSsimulation\] shows the model spectra where the covering fraction is variable from 0.01 to 0.99.
Let’s consider energy dependence of the spectral variation due to variation of $\alpha(t)$. From Eq. (\[eqb\]), we see that the spectral variation tends to be larger at the energies where absorbers are optically thick. At around the iron K-band, where $\tau_n(E) \ll 1$, the spectral variation is represented as Eq. (\[eqc\]). From lower energies toward the iron K-edge energy, $\tau_n(E)$ continuously decreases, and at the iron K-edge, $\tau_k(E)$ suddenly increases. Consequently, the spectral variation will be minimum just before the iron K-edge, where the broad trough appears in the simulated RMS spectrum (Figure \[RMSsimulation\] bottom). To the contrary, in lower energy range where $\tau_k(E) \gg 1$, the spectral variation is represented as Eq. (\[eqd\]). At the iron-L edge, where $\tau_n(E)$ is the largest, spectral variation is most significant; thus a characteristic broad peak appears in the RMS spectrum at around iron L-edge (Figure \[RMSsimulation\] bottom).
Also, we point out that many peaks are expected in the RMS spectrum corresponding to absorption lines in the energy spectrum (Figure \[RMSsimulation\] bottom). If absorbers are static, we do not see such peaks in the RMS spectra. In this manner, by studying RMS variation of individual absorption lines, we may distinguish multiple absorption layers having different variation timescales. This method can be applicable to the data with higher energy resolution such as those taken by RGS on XMM, or, more effectively, by future microcalorimeter instruments (Mizumoto & Ebisawa, in prep.).
Conclusion
==========
We have studied spectral variations of NLS1 IRAS 13224$-$3809, using all the currently available XMM-Newton and Suzaku archival data. Following Paper I, we examined if the observed spectral variation is explained by the Variable Double Partial Covering (VDPC) model. Consequently, we have found that the VDPC model can successfully explain the averaged and intensity-sliced spectra of IRAS 13224$-$3809 in 0.5$-$10 keV within a $\sim$ day only changing the partial covering fraction. The model can explain the light-curves within a $\sim$day mostly by only change of the partial covering fraction, whereas some intrinsic variation above $\sim$ 3 keV is additionally recognized. We have successfully explained the observed RMS spectra in the entire 0.5$-$10 keV band with the VDPC model. In addition to the well-known significant drop in the iron K-band, we have found such intriguing broad iron L-peaks in the RMS spectra (as well as 1H 0707$-$495), that is particularly significant when the iron L absorption edge is deep in the energy spectra. These RMS spectral features can be explained by only change of the partial covering fraction, such that the RMS variation increases at the energies where the optical depth of the partial absorbers is large, and vice versa. The optical depth is minimum just below the iron K-edge and suddenly increases at the iron K-edge, thus the broad dip structure is produced. Around the iron L-energy band, the optical depth is the largest, thus the characteristic peak appears.
This research has made use of public Suzaku data obtained through the Data ARchives and Transmission System (DARTS), provided by Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS) at Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). This work is also based on observations obtained with XMM-Newton, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA (NASA), and the XMM-Newton data obtained through the XMM-Newton Science Archive at ESA. For data reduction, we used software provided by the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center at NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. MM and KE are financially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI Grant Number 15J07567 and 16K05309, respectively. We acknowledge the referee, Dr. J. Reeves, for valuable comments.
Name Observation ID Date Exposure Obs. Mode
---------- ---------------- ------------ ------------- --------------
XMM1 0110890101 2001-01-19 60.9$\ $ks Full Frame
XMM2 0673580101 2011-07-19 126.1$\ $ks Full Frame
XMM3 0673580201 2011-07-21 125.1$\ $ks Large Window
XMM4 0673580301 2011-07-25 125.0$\ $ks Large Window
XMM5 0673580401 2011-07-29 127.5$\ $ks Large Window
Suzaku1 701003010 2007-01-26 198.0$\ $ks Full Window
\[tab1\]
: Suzaku and XMM-Newton observations of IRAS 13224$-$3809. Observation IDs, start dates, exposure times and the observation modes of XMM/PN and Suzaku/XIS are indicated. The exposure time of Suzaku is that of XIS 0.
Observation ID Date Exposure Obs. Mode
----------------- ------------ ------------- ------------- --
702117010 2007-06-26 100.0$\ $ks Full Window
\[ark564\_log\]
: Suzaku observation of Ark 564. Observation ID, start date, valid exposure time and the observation mode of XIS are indicated. The exposure time is that of XIS 0.
XMM1 XMM2 XMM3 XMM4 XMM5 Suzaku1
---------- --------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------------- -- --
A$_{I}$ $N_{\rm H}$ ($10^{20}\ \rm cm^{-2}$) 5.34(fix) 5.34(fix) 5.34(fix) 5.34(fix) 5.34(fix) 5.34(fix)
W$_{k}$ $N_{\rm H}$ ($10^{23}\ \rm cm^{-2}$) $5.9_{-1.5}^{+2.3}$ $>12$ $6.3_{-1.4}^{+1.9}$ $6.1_{-1.9}^{+2.2}$ $7.5_{-0.7}^{+3.2}$ $>10$
$\log \xi$ $1.7^{+0.4}_{-1.1}$ $0.36^{+0.12}_{-0.19}$ $0.10_{-0.10}^{+0.08}$ $0.10_{-0.10}^{+0.09}$ $0.1\pm0.1$ $0.36_{-0.13}^{+0.09}$
W$_{n}$ $N_{\rm H}$ ($10^{23}\ \rm cm^{-2}$) $0.99^{+1.95}_{-0.39}$ $2.8^{+6.1}_{-2.6}$ $0.21_{-0.13}^{+0.70}$ $3.5_{-2.6}^{+2.7}$ $0.25_{-0.16}^{+1.55}$ $8.8_{-4.5}^{+3.2}$
$\log \xi$ $2.95^{+0.12}_{-0.05}$ $3.6^{+0.9}_{-0.2}$ $2.95_{-0.04}^{+0.17}$ $3.05_{-0.21}^{+0.05}$ $2.95_{-0.08}^{+0.19}$ $3.14_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$
Edge $E_{\rm cut}$ (keV) $1.09^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ $1.06\pm 0.01$ $1.11\pm0.01$ $1.067\pm 0.009$ $1.08\pm 0.01$ $1.07\pm 0.01$
$\tau$ $1.4^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ $0.43\pm 0.05$ $0.73_{-0.09}^{+0.08}$ $2.0_{-0.4}^{+0.7}$ $0.7\pm0.1$ $1.0_{-0.3}^{+0.8}$
$P$ Photon index $3.0\pm0.2$ $2.65^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$ $2.90\pm 0.07$ $2.9\pm 0.2$ $2.7\pm 0.1$ $2.5\pm 0.1$
norm$^{a}$ $2.3^{+0.8}_{-0.6}$ $2.6^{+0.6}_{-0.9}$ $1.79_{-0.18}^{+0.07}$ $1.2_{-0.4}^{+0.5}$ $1.3_{-0.2}^{+0.4}$ $1.2_{-0.3}^{+0.4}$
$B$ $T_{\rm in}$ (keV) $0.167^{+0.011}_{-0.007}$ $0.167\pm0.003$ $0.162_{-0.003}^{+0.004}$ $0.152\pm0.004$ $0.159_{-0.002}^{+0.003}$ $0.160_{-0.006}^{+0.008}$
norm$^{b}$ $1.2 \pm 0.4 \times 10^{3}$ $1.7^{+0.4}_{-0.6} \times 10^{3}$ $1.11_{-0.05}^{+0.07}\times 10^{3}$ $1.2\pm0.3\times 10^{3}$ $1.3\pm0.2 \times 10^{3}$ $1.0_{-0.3}^{+0.5}\times 10^{3}$
$\alpha$ $0.74^{+0.09}_{-0.07}$ $0.75^{+0.03}_{-0.14}$ $0.70_{-0.07}^{+0.04}$ $0.73\pm 0.06$ $0.63_{-0.07}^{+0.11}$ $0.60_{-0.12}^{+0.09}$
$G$ E (keV) $8.45^{+0.05}_{-1.04}$ $8.02^{+0.29}_{-0.05}$ $7.83_{-0.05}^{+0.13}$ $8.10\pm 0.05$ $8.48_{-0.05}^{+0.03}$ $7.87_{-0.22}^{+0.15}$
Sigma (keV) 0.01(fix) 0.01(fix) 0.01(fix) 0.01(fix) 0.01(fix) 0.01(fix)
Norm ($10^{-6} \rm \ photons \ s^{-1} \ cm^{-2}$) $-3.3^{+1.7}_{-1.1}$ $-1.8\pm0.8$ $-1.1\pm 0.5$ $-1.4\pm0.6$ $-2.5\pm0.7$ $-0.5\pm0.4$
Reduced chisq (d.o.f) 1.38(254) 1.18(326) 0.97(325) 0.96(222) 1.12(307) 1.05(482)
: Results of the average spectral fitting for IRAS13224$-$3809. []{data-label="IRAS_para1"}
\
$^{a}$Photon flux at 1 keV in units of $10^{-3} \rm \ photons \ s^{-1} \ cm^{-2}$.\
$^{b}$Diskbb normalization, $((R_{{\rm in}})/({\rm km})/(D/10 \ {\rm kpc}))^{2} \cos \theta$.
\[IRAS\_slice\_tab\]
XMM1 XMM2 XMM3 XMM4 XMM5 Suzaku1
---------- --------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- -- --
A$_{I}$ $N_{\rm H}$ ($10^{20}\ \rm cm^{-2}$) 5.34(fix) 5.34(fix) 5.34(fix) 5.34(fix) 5.34(fix) 5.34(fix)
W$_{k}$ $N_{\rm H}$ ($10^{23}\ \rm cm^{-2}$) $10\pm2$ $>13$ $14.3_{-0.5}^{+3.0}$ $14.5_{-0.5}^{+0.9}$ $12.1_{-0.4}^{+0.8}$ $14_{-1}^{+4}$
$\log \xi$ $0.1_{-0.1}^{0.4}$ $0.1\pm0.1$ $0.4 \pm 0.1$ $0.36\pm0.04$ $0.36_{-0.05}^{+0.08}$ $0.36_{-0.09}^{+0.10}$
W$_{n}$ $N_{\rm H}$ ($10^{23}\ \rm cm^{-2}$) $8.3_{-3.7}^{+4.1}$ $8.9_{-3.0}^{+3.6}$ $0.5_{-0.3}^{+2.1}$ $2.9_{-2.3}^{+1.8}$ $11_{-1}^{+2}$ $6.3_{-2.9}^{+3.2}$
$\log \xi$ $3.08_{-0.05}^{+0.03}$ $3.13_{-0.03}^{+0.02}$ $3.0\pm 0.1$ $3.06_{-0.14}^{+0.04}$ $3.11\pm 0.01$ $3.12_{-0.03}^{+0.02}$
Edge $E_{\rm cut}$ (keV) $1.06 \pm 0.01$ $1.08 \pm 0.01$ $1.10 \pm 0.01$ $1.071_{-0.004}^{+0.007}$ $1.077\pm 0.006$ $1.07\pm 0.01$
$\tau$ $3.4_{-0.5}^{+0.7}$ $1.2_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$ $0.65\pm 0.06$ $1.4\pm0.1$ $1.51_{-0.10}^{+0.09}$ $0.9\pm 0.1$
$P$ Photon index $2.7 \pm0.2 $ $2.68_{-0.06}^{+0.08}$ $2.58_{-0.08}^{+0.11}$ $2.54_{-0.09}^{+0.06}$ $2.77_{-0.03}^{+0.06}$ $2.58_{-0.03}^{+0.07}$
norm$^{a}$ $1.5_{-0.3}^{+0.5}$ $1.6\pm0.1$ $1.7_{-0.3}^{+0.5}$ $1.5_{-0.2}^{+0.1}$ $2.5_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$ $1.58_{-0.05}^{0.08}$
$B$ $T_{\rm in}$ (keV) $0.168_{-0.004}^{+0.005}$ $0.175\pm 0.003$ $0.164 \pm0.003$ $0.151 \pm0.003$ $0.172_{-0.003}^{+0.002}$ $0.156_{-0.002}^{+0.007}$
norm$^{b}$ $9_{-2}^{+1}\times 10^{2} $ $6.4_{-0.8}^{+0.7}\times 10^{2}$ $1.6_{-0.2}^{+0.4}\times 10^{3}$ $2.8\pm0.3 \times 10^{3}$ $9.7 _{-0.5}^{+0.7}$ $1.42_{-0.09}^{+0.26}$
$\alpha$ $0.76\pm0.02$ $0.712_{-0.006}^{+0.007}$ $0.86\pm 0.01$ $0.934_{-0.009}^{+0.004}$ $0.871\pm 0.02$ $0.823_{-0.032}^{0.008}$
$0.61\pm0.04$ $0.534_{-0.007}^{+0.01}$ $0.75\pm0.04$ $0.82_{-0.02}^{+0.01}$ $0.701\pm0.04$ $0.62_{-0.06}^{+0.02}$
$0.48\pm0.05 $ $0.424_{-0.007}^{+0.013}$ $0.67_{-0.05}^{+0.07}$ $0.74_{-0.03}^{+0.01}$ $0.465\pm0.006$ $0.533_{-0.079}^{+0.009}$
$0.33\pm 0.06$ $0.25_{-0.25}^{+0.02}$ $0.51_{-0.07}^{+0.09}$ $0.65_{-0.04}^{+0.03}$ $0.300_{-0.300}^{+0.003}$ $0.38_{-0.10}^{+0.02}$
$G$ E (keV) $8.1_{-0.1}^{+1.3}$ $7.98_{-0.07}^{+0.22}$ $8.2\pm0.8$ $8.18_{-0.44}^{+0.07}$ $8.09_{-0.06}^{+0.64}$ $7.63_{-0.15}$
Sigma (keV) 0.01(fix) 0.01(fix) 0.01(fix) 0.01(fix) 0.01(fix) 0.01(fix)
Norm (10$^{-6}$ photons s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$) $-2.1\pm2.1$ $-1.8\pm0.8$ $-1.5\pm0.6$ $-1.3_{-0.8}^{+0.7}$ $-1.7_{-0.7}^{+0.6}$ $-0.6\pm0.6$
Reduced chisq (d.o.f) 1.20(688) 1.12(998) 1.19(927) 1.12(615) 1.31(848) 1.03(496)
: Results of the slice spectral fitting for IRAS13224$-$3809. See the caption of Table \[IRAS\_para1\] for the explanation of parameters.[]{data-label="IRAS_para2"}
\
$^{a}$Photon flux at 1 keV in units of $10^{-3} \rm \ photons \ s^{-1} \ cm^{-2}$.\
$^{b}$Diskbb normalization, $((R_{{\rm in}})/({\rm km})/(D/10 \ {\rm kpc}))^{2} \cos \theta$.
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
[^1]: Some authors argue that MCG$-$6$-$30$-$15 is a Seyfert 1 galaxy, but we treat it as NLS1 because it satisfies the properties of NLS1 [@Mchardy05].
[^2]: http://xmm.esac.esa.int/external/xmm\_user\_support/documentation/sas\_usg/USG/
[^3]: Corresponding to four times the Suzaku orbital period. Following @iso16, we choose this time-bin width to minimize the influence of the discontinuity of data.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Chih Lee and Chun-Hsi Huang[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'tfbs.bib'
title: Negative Example Aided Transcription Factor Binding Site Search
---
[Lee and Huang: Negative Example Aided TFBS Search]{}
Introduction
============
of genes followed by translation of their transcripts into proteins determines the type and functions of a cell. Expression of certain genes even initiates or suppresses differentiation of stem cells. It is therefore crucial to understand the mechanisms of transcriptional regulation. Among them, transcription factor (TF) binding is the one that has been given considerable attention by computational biologists for the past decade and is still being actively researched. A TF is a protein or protein complex that regulates transcription of one or more genes by binding to the double-stranded DNA. A first step in computational identification of target genes regulated by a TF is to pinpoint its binding sites in the genome. Once the binding sites are found, the putative target genes can be searched and located in flanking regions of the binding sites.
In general, there are two approaches to computational transcription factor binding site (TFBS) identification, motif discovery and TFBS search. The former assumes that a set of sequences is given and each of the sequences may or may not contain TFBS’s. An algorithm then predicts the locations and lengths of TFBS’s. The term motif refers to the pattern that are shared by the discovered TFBS’s. This kind of algorithms relies on no prior knowledge of the motif and hence is known as *de novo* motif discovery algorithms. The latter assumes that, in addition to a set of sequences, the locations and lengths of TFBS’s are known. An algorithm then learns from these examples and predicts TFBS’s in new sequences. Such algorithms are also called supervised learning algorithms since they are guided by the given sequences with known TFBS’s.
Plenty of efforts have been devoted to the *de novo* motif discovery problem [@Vil00; @Bar01; @Buh02; @Sin02; @Tak04; @Raj05; @Bal06; @LiN06; @Zas06; @Yan09; @Geo10]. Comprehensive evaluation and comparison of the developed tools have been performed by Tompa *et al.* [@Tom05] and Hu *et al.* [@HuJ05]. In this study, we focus on the problem of TFBS search. We refer readers interested in the motif discovery problem to the evaluation and review articles [@Tom05; @HuJ05; @San06] and references therein.
A typical TFBS search method searches for the binding sites of a particular transcription factor in the following manner. It scans a target DNA sequence and compare each $l$-mer to the binding site profile of the TF, where $l$ is the length of a binding site. Each of the $l$-mer is scored when comparing to the profile. A cut-off score is then set by the method to select candidate TF binding sites. The position-specific scoring matrix is a widely used profile representation, where the binding sites of a TF are encoded as a $4 \times l$ matrix. Column $i$ of the matrix stores the scores of matching the $i^{\text{th}}$ letter in an $l$-mer to nucleotides A, C, G and T, respectively. Depending on the method of choice, the score of A at position $i$ can be the count of A at position $i$ in the known TFBS’s, the log-transformed probability of observing A at position $i$, or any other reasonable number.
Plenty of novel methods were based on this simple scoring method. Osada *et al.* [@Osa04] extended this scoring approach by considering pairs of nucleotides and weighting nuclueotide and nucleotide pairs by information content. Extensive leave-one-out (LOO) cross-validation (CV) experiments were conducted on 35 TF’s with totally 410 binding sites. The results showed significant improvement regardless of the model used for motif representation. In a recent study, Salama and Stekel[@Sal10] showed correlations between two nucleotides within a TFBS by plotting the mutual information matrix of a motif, reinforcing the findings reported in [@Osa04]. A novel scoring method called the ungapped likelihood under positional background (ULPB) method was proposed in this study. The ULPB method models a TFBS by two first-order Markov chains and scores a candidate binding site by likelihood ratio produced by the two Markov chains. LOO results on 22 TF’s with 20 or more binding sites showed that ULPB is superior to the methods compared in their work.
Explicit use of negative examples in the TFBS search problem is hindered by the vast amount of non-binding sites of a transcription factor. This is further aggravated by the low specificity of some transcription factors, where a binding site may be more similar to a non-binding site than some other binding sites. Due to these issues, previous studies involving negative examples are limited and the roles of negative examples remain unclear. In a review article, Hannenhalli [@Han08] surveyed work on improved motif models and integrative methods. None of these reviewed studies [@Han08], however, investigated the use of negative examples on top of true TFBS’s. While introducing improved benchmarks for computational motif discovery, Sandve *et al.* [@San07] described algorithms for finding optimal motif models using both positive and negative TFBS’s. Three models were compared using the proposed benchmarks. However, no methods relying on only positive examples were compared. Recently, Do and Wang [@DoH09] formulated the TFBS search problem as a classification problem, proposed a novel similarity measure, and investigated three classification techniques. Five-fold CV results showed that learning vector quantization performed better than P-Match [@Che05], which requires only positive examples. The evaluation, however, was done on only 8 human transcription factors and 8 artificial ones. It is not clear how the results on the small set of 8 real TF’s can be related to other TF’s. The goal of this study is to investigate the inclusion of negative examples in addition to positive ones in TFBS search. We propose and characterize two novel extensions of the centroid method introduced in [@Osa04]. Besides the sequence similarity measures employed in [@Osa04], we also incorporate the novel similarity measure in [@DoH09] into an extension of the centroid method. We compare our proposed methods to methods that do not rely upon negative examples, that is, the centroid method, the ULPB method [@Sal10] and the well-known position-specific scoring matrix method. Performance of a method is assessed by LOO CV experiments on two data sets of 35 and 26 transcription factors, respectively. Moreoever, we discuss the situations when the proposed methods can accurately differentiate binding sites from non-binding sites. Advantages of coupling motif subtype identification with the proposed methods are also discussed.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:method\], we introduce existing methods compared in this study and describe two novel methods proposed in this work. Leave-one-out cross-validation results on two data sets are presented in Section \[sec:results\]. In Section \[sec:discussion\], properties of the proposed methods are studied and discussed. Connections between the proposed methods and the other compared methods are established. Finally, we give the concluding remarks in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Methods {#sec:method}
=======
Data sets {#sec:dataset}
---------
For ease of comparison, we conduct experiments on two data sets used in previous work.The first set was collected by Osada *et al.* [@Osa04], which consists of 410 binding sites of 35 TF’s with flanking regions located in the *E. coli* K-12 genome (version M54 of strain MG1655[@Bla97]). The statistics of this data set are listed in Table \[tab:dataset1\]. The second one also contains binding sites of TF’s in the *E. coli* K-12 genome and was considered in [@Sal10]. We downloaded the latest data (release 6.8) from RegulonDB [@Gam08] and kept only 26 TF’s with 17 or more known binding sites. We summarize the data set in Table \[tab:dataset2\].
Name Length \# TFBS’s Name Length \# TFBS’s
------ -------- ----------- ------ -------- -----------
araC 48 6 arcA 15 13
argR 18 17 cpxR 15 12
crp 22 49 cspA 20 4
cytR 18 5 dnaA 15 8
fadR 17 7 fis 35 19
fnr 22 13 fruR 16 12
fur 18 9 galR 16 7
gcvA 20 4 glpR 20 13
hipB 30 4 ihf 48 26
lexA 20 19 lrp 25 14
malT 10 10 metJ 16 15
metR 15 8 nagC 23 6
narL 16 10 ntrC 17 5
ompR 20 9 oxyR 39 4
phoB 22 15 purR 26 22
soxS 35 14 torR 10 4
trpR 24 4 tus 23 6
tyrR 22 17
: Statistics of the first data set with 35 TF’s[]{data-label="tab:dataset1"}
Name Length \# TFBS’s Name Length \# TFBS’s
------- -------- ----------- ------ -------- -----------
MetJ 8 29 Lrp 12 62
SoxS 18 19 H-NS 15 37
FlhDC 16 20 AraC 18 20
Fis 15 206 ArcA 15 93
IHF 13 101 OmpR 20 22
PhoB 20 17 GlpR 20 23
OxyR 17 41 CpxR 15 37
NarL 7 90 CRP 22 249
TyrR 18 19 NarP 7 20
Fur 19 81 LexA 20 40
NtrC 17 17 FNR 14 87
MalT 10 20 PhoP 17 21
ArgR 18 32 NsrR 11 37
: Statistics of the second data set with 26 TF’s[]{data-label="tab:dataset2"}
The centroid and 2-centroid methods {#sec:centroid}
-----------------------------------
We introduce the centroid method proposed by Osada *et al.* [@Osa04] in a different manner. We first define the similarity measure between two sequences $s$ and $t$ of length $l$. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Sim}(s, t) = \sum_{i = 1}^l w_i \mathcal{I}_{s_i}(t_i)\label{eq:sim},\end{aligned}$$ where $s_i$ ($t_i$) is the $i^{\text{th}}$ letter of $s$ ($t$), $w_i$ denotes the weight on the $i^{\text{th}}$ letter and $\mathcal{I}_{s_i}(\cdot)$ is the indicator function given by $$\mathcal{I}_{s_i}(t_i) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
1 & \text{if }t_i = s_i,\\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{array} \right.$$ In this work, $w_i$ is set to either $1$ or the information content at position $i$ defined as $$\label{eq:IC}
IC_i = 2 + \sum_{u \in \{\text{A, C, G, T}\}} f_i(u)\log_2\left[f_i(u)\right],$$ where $f_i(u)$ is the probability of observing letter $u$ at position $i$. When $w_i = 1$ for all $i$, $\mathrm{Sim}(s, t)$ simply counts the number of letters shared between $s$ and $t$. When pairs of nucleotides are taken into account, the similarity measure is defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Sim2}(s, t) = \mathrm{Sim}(s, t)
+ \sum_{k = 1}^K\sum_{i = 1}^{l-k} w_{i, j} \mathcal{I}_{s_is_{j}}(t_it_{j})\label{eq:sim2},\end{aligned}$$ where $j = i + k$ and $\mathcal{I}_{s_i s_j}(\cdot)$ is the indicator function given by $$\mathcal{I}_{s_i s_j}(t_i t_j) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
1 & \text{if }t_i = s_i \text{ and } t_j = s_j,\\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{array} \right.$$ Similarly, $w_{i,j}$ is set to either $1$ or the information content of the nucleotide pair at $(i, j)$ given by $$\label{eq:IC_P}
IC_{i, j} = 4 + \sum_{u,v \in \{\text{A, C, G, T}\}}f_{i, j}(u, v)\log_2\left[ f_{i, j}(u, v) \right],$$ where $f_{i,j}(u, v)$ is the probability of observing letters $u$ and $v$ at positions $i$ and $j$, respectively. We consider only pairs that are at most 2 nucleotides apart ($K = 2$) according to the results reported in [@Osa04].
To facilitate similarity computation, an [*l*]{}-mer $s$ can be easily embedded in $\mathbb R^{4l}$ while preserving the similarity measure in (\[eq:sim\]) by the dot product between two vectors. That is, letter $s_i$ is converted to 4 dummy variables – $\sqrt{w_i}\mathcal{I}_{\text A}(s_i), \sqrt{w_i}\mathcal{I}_{\text C}(s_i),
\sqrt{w_i}\mathcal{I}_{\text G}(s_i) \text{ and } \sqrt{w_i}\mathcal{I}_{\text T}(s_i)$ for $i=1, 2, \ldots, l$. Fig. \[fig:embedding\] illustrates the transformation of an $l$-mer into a $4l$-element vector when $w_i = 1$ for $i = 1, 2, \ldots, l$. Similarly, an [*l*]{}-mer can be transformed into a $(36l - 48)$-element vector such that the similarity measure in (\[eq:sim2\]) with $K=2$ is preserved, where a pair of nucleotides is converted to 16 dummy variables. Consequently, the similarity between two sequences $s$ and $t$, can be computed by $\bm s{^{\mathrm T} }\bm t$, where $\bm s$ and $\bm t$ denote sequences $s$ and $t$, respectively, embedded in the Euclidean space. In the rest of the paper, we denote a sequence $s$ embedded in the Euclidean space by the same symbol in bold, i.e., $\bm s$.
Consider a set $S$ of $n_+$ binding sites of length $l$ for a TF. The centroid method scores an [*l*]{}-mer $t$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Score}(t)
= \frac{1}{n_+}\sum_{s \in S} \bm s{^{\mathrm T} }\bm t
= \left(\frac{1}{n_+}\sum_{s \in S} \bm s \right){^{\mathrm T} }\bm t
= \bm \mu_+{^{\mathrm T} }\bm t\label{eq:centroid_score},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm \mu_+ = \frac{1}{n_+}\sum_{s \in S} \bm s$ is the centroid of the binding sites in $S$.
Now, with a set $N$ of $n_-$ non-binding sites of length $l$ for the TF, a natural extension of the centroid method scores an [*l*]{}-mer $t$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Score}(t)
&= \bm \mu_+{^{\mathrm T} }\bm t - \frac{1}{n_-}\sum_{s \in N} \bm s{^{\mathrm T} }\bm t
= \bm \mu_+{^{\mathrm T} }\bm t - \left(\frac{1}{n_-}\sum_{s \in N} \bm s \right){^{\mathrm T} }\bm t\notag\\
&= (\bm \mu_+ - \bm \mu_-){^{\mathrm T} }\bm t\label{eq:centroid_neg_score},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bm \mu_- = \frac{1}{n_-}\sum_{s \in N} \bm s$ is the centroid of the non-binding sites in $N$. We refer to this method as the 2-centroid method in the rest of the paper since it employs the centroids of the binding sites and the non-binding sites. Fig. \[fig:glpR\_2centroids\] illustrates the centroid and 2-centroid methods when non-TFBS’s as well as TFBS’s are available. Alternatively, $\mathrm{Score}(t)$ in (\[eq:centroid\_neg\_score\]) can be interpreted as follows: It measures the average similarity of $t$ to all the binding sites, measures the average similarity of $t$ to all the non-binding sites and calculates the difference.
We note that $\mathrm{Score}(t)$ in (\[eq:centroid\_score\]) is proportional to $\mathrm{Score}(t) / ||\bm \mu_+||$ , where $||\bm \mu_+||$ is the length of $\bm \mu_+$. Moreover, by virtue of the equality $$\bm \mu_+{^{\mathrm T} }\bm t = ||\bm \mu_+|| \,\, ||\bm t|| \cos \theta,$$ we know $\mathrm{Score}(t) / ||\bm \mu_+||$ equals the orthogonal projection of $\bm t$ onto $\bm \mu_+$, where $\theta$ is the angle formed by vectors $\bm \mu_+$ and $\bm t$ (see Fig. \[fig:projection\] for an illustration). The computation of $\mathrm{Score}(t)$ is therefore equivalent to computation of the orthogonal projection of $\bm t$ onto $\bm \mu_+$. Similarly, the computation of $\mathrm{Score}(t)$ in (\[eq:centroid\_neg\_score\]) is equivalent to computation of the orthogonal projection of $\bm t$ onto $\bm \mu_+ - \bm \mu_-$.
Optimal scoring function {#sec:ODV}
------------------------
It can be seen that the scoring functions in (\[eq:centroid\_score\]) and (\[eq:centroid\_neg\_score\]) take the following form: $$\label{eq:scoring_function}
\mathrm{Score}(t) = \bm \beta{^{\mathrm T} }\bm t,$$ where $\bm \beta = \bm \mu_+$ for the centroid method and $\bm \beta = \bm \mu_+ - \bm \mu_-$ for the 2-centroid method. Therefore, an “optimal” $\bm \beta$ gives rise to an optimal scoring function with the most discriminating power.
We describe a way of finding an optimal $\bm \beta$. Suppose that $|S| = n_+$ and $|N| = n_-$, that is, there are $n_+$ binding sites and $n_-$ non-binding sites for a particular TF. Let $S = \{t_{(1)}, t_{(2)}, \ldots, t_{(n_+)}\}$ and $N = \{t_{(n_+ + 1)}, t_{(n_+ + 2)}, \ldots, t_{(n)}\}$ , where $t_{(i)}$ denotes the $i^{\text{th}}$ [*l*]{}-mer in $S \cup N$ and $n = n_+ + n_-$. We find the optimal $\bm \beta$ by solving the following minimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{\bm \beta, b, \bm \xi}\,\, &\frac{1}{2}||\bm \beta||^2
+ \frac{C}{n_+}\sum_{i=1}^{n_+}\xi_i + \frac{C}{n_-}\sum_{i=n_+ + 1}^{n}\xi_i\label{eq:obj_function}\\
\text{subject to } & \frac{ \mathrm{Score}(t_{(i)}) } {||\bm \beta||} \geq
\frac{ b + 1 - \xi_i }{||\bm \beta||} \text{ for } t_{(i)} \in S,\label{eq:constraint1}\\
& \frac{ \mathrm{Score}(t_{(i)}) }{||\bm \beta||}
\leq \frac{ b - 1 + \xi_i }{||\bm \beta||} \text{ for } t_{(i)} \in N,\label{eq:constraint2}\\
& \xi_i \geq 0 \,\,\forall i\label{eq:constraint3}.\end{aligned}$$ The constraint in (\[eq:constraint1\]) ensures that the projection of a TFBS $t_{(i)}$ onto the vector $\bm \beta$, $\frac{\mathrm{Score}(t_{(i)})}{||\bm \beta||}$, exceeds the threshold $\frac{b+1}{||\bm \beta||}$. On the other hand, the constraint in (\[eq:constraint2\]) ensures that the projection of a non-TFBS $t_{(i)}$ onto $\bm \beta$ stays below the threshold $\frac{b-1}{||\bm \beta||}$. Flexibility is given to the thresholds by introducing $\xi_i$’s with cost captured by the last two terms in (\[eq:obj\_function\]), where $C$ is a positive parameter. Finally, to clearly distinguish TFBS’s from non-TFBS’s, the squared difference between the two thresholds ($\frac{b+1}{||\bm \beta||}$ and $\frac{b-1}{||\bm \beta||}$) is made as large as possible. This amounts to maximizing $\left( \frac{2}{||\bm \beta||} \right)^2$ or, equivalently, minimizing $\frac{1}{2}||\bm \beta||^2$, which is the first term in (\[eq:obj\_function\]). We call this approach the optimal discriminating vector (ODV) method.
PSSM and ULPB
-------------
We briefly describe the PSSM (position-specific scoring matrix) methods used in [@Osa04; @Sal10] and the ungapped likelihood under positional background method proposed by Salama and Stekel [@Sal10]. Consider a specific TF with binding sites of length $l$. The PSSM method used in [@Sal10] scores an $l$-mer $t$ by $$\label{eq:PSPM}
\sum_{i=1}^l \log\left[ f_i(t_i) \right], $$ where no pair of nucleotides was considered for this model in [@Sal10]. We refer to this method as the position-specific *probability* matrix (PSPM) method to distinguish it from the PSSM used in [@Osa04].
The PSSM method given in [@Osa04] takes into account background probabilities and scores an $l$-mer by $$\label{eq:PSSM}
\sum_{i=1}^l \log\left( \frac{f_i(t_i)}{f(t_i)} \right) w_i,$$ where $f(u)$ is the probability of observing nucleotide $u \in \{$A, C, G, T$\}$. When nucleotide pairs are considered, the score becomes $$\label{eq:PSSM_P}
\sum_{i=1}^l w_i \log\left( \frac{f_i(t_i)}{f(t_i)} \right)
+ \sum_{k = 1}^K \sum_{i=1}^{l-k} w_{i,j} \log\left( \frac{f_{i,j}(t_i, t_j)}{f_k(t_i, t_j)} \right),$$ where $j = i + k$, $K = 2$ and $f_k(u, v)$ is the background probability of observing letters $u$ and $v$ separated by $k-1$ arbitrary letters in between. For this method, we estimate the background probabilities using only the TFBS sequences as in [@Osa04].
The ULPB models a TFBS by a first-order Markov chain and models the background by another first-order Markov chain. The former depends on position-specific transition probability $f_i(v|u)$, which gives the probability of observing $v$ at the $(i+1)^{\text{th}}$ position given $u$ has been seen at position $i$, where $u, v \in \{\text{A, C, G, T}\}$ and $i = 1, 2, \ldots, l-1$. The latter depends on background transition probability $f(v|u)$, the probability of observing $v$ given $u$ has been observed at the previous position, where $u, v \in \{\text{A, C, G, T}\}$. For this method, the background transition probabilities are estimated using the entire genome of a species. The ULPB method scores an $l$-mer by $$\label{eq:ULPB}
\log f_1(t_1) + \sum_{i = 1}^{l-1} \log \left( \frac{f_i(t_{i+1}|t_i)}{f(t_{i+1}|t_i)} \right).$$ Although Salama and Stekel [@Sal10] did not consider background probability in the first term of (\[eq:ULPB\]), the score is approximately the log-likelihood ratio of the two Markov chains.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
In this section, we show results of experiments conducted on the two data sets introduced in Section \[sec:dataset\]. Results on the first data set are presented in Section \[sec:LOO\] through Section \[sec:LOO2\], while results on the second set are summarized in Sections \[sec:ULPB\_comp\].
Leave-one-out cross-validation {#sec:LOO}
------------------------------
We conducted LOO CV experiments on the data set introduced in the previous section. To allow comparison of our results to those obtained by Osada *et al.* [@Osa04], we closely followed the steps described in [@Osa04]. We briefly describe the LOO CV procedure adopted in [@Osa04] since only the TFBS’s are left out in the process.
Consider a TF with $n_+$ TFBS’s of length $l$ with flanking regions on both sides. A set of negative examples, $N_{\text{test}}$, called the *test negatives* is constructed from the TFBS’s of the other 34 TF’s as in [@Osa04]. Another set of negative examples, $N_{\text{train}}$, called the *training negatives* is collected from sequences embedding the $n_+$ binding sites. It comprises all the [*l*]{}-mers except for the TFBS’s and two neighboring [*l*]{}-mers of each TFBS.
At each iteration of LOO CV, one of the $n_+$ TFBS’s called the *test TFBS* is left out. The rest of the TFBS’s are therefore called the *training TFBS’s*. A scoring function is then obtained using the training TFBS’s and 5% of non-TFBS’s randomly sampled from the training negatives. The test TFBS along with the non-TFBS’s in $N_{\text{test}}$ are then scored by the scoring function. To score a test sequence, both the forward and reverse strands are scored and, in case the test sequence is longer or shorter than $l$, the [*l*]{}-mer producing the highest score is used. The rank of the test TFBS is then recorded and the average rank over the CV process is computed, where the rank of a TFBS $t$ is defined as $1 + |\{s \in N_{\text{test}} | \mathrm{Score}(s) \geq \mathrm{Score}(t)\}|$.
In this study, the weight on nucleotide $i$, $w_i$, is set to either 1 or its information content given in (\[eq:IC\]). Similarly, the weight on a nucleotide pair, $w_{i,j}$ is set to either 1 or its information content defined in (\[eq:IC\_P\]). Fig. \[fig:boxplot\_LOOCV\] shows the LOO CV results as box plots without and with information content, respectively. The best run over 10 runs is listed for a method utilizing the training negatives. Results on the centroid and PSSM methods reported in [@Osa04] were faithfully reproduced here. Moreover, from the box plots, we can see that methods utilizing negative examples perform better than methods considering only positive examples.
To test whether the 2-centroid and ODV methods produced lower average ranks than the centroid and PSSM methods, we adopted the testing procedure used in [@Osa04]. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test [@Wil45] was performed on four pairs of methods. They are (centroid, 2-centroid), (PSSM, 2-centroid), (centroid, ODV) and (PSSM, ODV). Multiple testing was corrected by the Holm-Bonferroni method [@Hol79]. The testing was done for each of the 4 similarity measures, i.e., $\mathrm{Sim}$ and $\mathrm{Sim2}$ in (\[eq:sim\]) and (\[eq:sim2\]), respectively, with or without weighting by information content. Results showed that, at 5% significance level, the following relationships can be justified for each similarity measure: 2-centroid $\rightarrow$ centroid, 2-centroid $\rightarrow$ PSSM, ODV $\rightarrow$ centroid and ODV $\rightarrow$ PSSM, where “$\rightarrow$” denotes “has a lower average rank than”. Fig. \[fig:Wilcox\] and \[fig:Wilcox\_IC\] show the $p$-values of the tests on 4 pairs of methods without IC and with IC, respectively.
The 2-centroid method with a novel similarity measure
-----------------------------------------------------
Do and Wang [@DoH09] proposed a novel distance measure by first transforming a sequence of length $l$ into an $(l-1)$-element vector. To measure the distance between two sequences $s$ and $t$, $t$ can be shifted to the left or to the right (with penalty) to find the best alignment between $s$ and $t$. Since shifting is implicitly done in scoring a non-binding site in our CV experiments, we use the distance measure without considering shifting: $$\label{eq:dist}
\mathrm{Dist}(\bm s, \bm t) = \sum_{i=1}^{l-1} |s_i - t_i|,$$ where $\bm s = \begin{pmatrix}s_1 & s_2 & \ldots & s_{l-1}\end{pmatrix}$ and $\bm t = \begin{pmatrix}t_1 & t_2 & \ldots & t_{l-1}\end{pmatrix}$ are the sequences $s$ and $t$ embedded in $\mathbb R^{l-1}$, respectively. One can see that this is essentially the Manhattan distance between $\bm s$ and $\bm t$. To compute the similarity between $s$ and $t$, we take the negative distance as the similarity.
This similarity measure is then used along with our 2-centroid method. Fig. \[fig:comp\] compares the performance of the similarity measures $\mathrm{Sim}$ in (\[eq:sim\]) ($w_i = 1, \,\,\forall i$) and $\mathrm{Sim2}$ in (\[eq:sim2\]) ($w_i = 1, \,\,\forall i$ and $w_{i,j} = 1, \,\,\forall i, j$) to the one proposed in [@DoH09]. The TF’s are ordered by their median information content across the $l$ nucleotides, i.e., the median of $\{IC_i| i = 1, 2, \ldots, l\}$. A general trend can be observed, that is, the performance of a method improves as the median information content increases. Looking at individual TF’s, we can see that the similarity measure by Do and Wang gave the lowest average rank on TF lrp, performed equally well on TF’s hipB and trpR, but produced the highest average ranks on all the other TF’s.
{width="\textwidth"}
Yet another LOO CV {#sec:LOO2}
------------------
Two different sets of negative examples were used in the LOO CV experiments presented above since no prior knowledge of the test negatives was assumed. We now show that, with the knowledge of non-binding sites, a small representative set of negative examples can be found by a slightly different LOO CV procedure. To avoid ambiguity, we constantly refer to sets defined in Section \[sec:LOO\]. Consider a particular TF with $n_+$ known TFBS’s of length $l$. Suppose that the goal is to search for sites to which this TF binds but avoid known binding sites of other TF’s. That is, the binding sites of the other 34 TF’s are assumed known. We first randomly sample a representative set of $10n_+$ [*l*]{}-mers, $N_{\text{rep}}$, from $N_{\text{test}}$ since $10n_+ \approx 0.05 |N_{\text{train}}|$. For each iteration of LOO CV, the test TFBS is left out. A scoring function is obtained using the $n_+ - 1$ training TFBS’s and $N_{\text{rep}}$. The rank of the test TFBS is then calculated based on its score and the scores of the non-TFBS’s in $N_{\text{test}}$. The average rank of this TF is computed at the end of the LOO CV procedure. A good representative set of $10n_+$ negative examples can be found by repeating this LOO CV procedure multiple times.
We sampled a representative set of negative examples for each TF by repeating the LOO CV procedure 32 times. Fig. \[fig:boxplot\_IC2\] compares average ranks resulted from the LOO CV procedure described in this section to those obtained in the first set of LOO CV experiments. Results of the first LOO CV procedure are marked with suffix “\_1”, while those of the LOO CV experiments described in this section are marked with suffix “\_2”. As expected, the average ranks obtained from the second set of LOO CV experiments are lower or comparable to those obtained from the first set. Looking at the medians of ODV\_P\_1 and ODV\_P\_2, it may appear that ODV\_P\_2 performed worse than ODV\_P\_1. However, a statistical test [@Wil45] indicates that overall ODV\_P\_2 has lower average ranks than ODV\_P\_1 ($p$-value: 0.06975).
ULPB versus other methods {#sec:ULPB_comp}
-------------------------
Since the ungapped likelihood under positional background method was evaluated by Salama and Stekel [@Sal10] on a data set collected from RegulonDB, we conducted LOO CV experiments using the second data set described in Section \[sec:dataset\]. The methods compared to ULPB include the position-specific probability matrix (PSPM) method, the position-specific scoring matrix method with nucleotide pairs (PSSM\_P), the 2-centroid method with nucleotide pairs (2-centroid\_P) and the optimal discriminating vector with nucleotide pairs (ODV\_P). PSPM was chosen because it was one of the methods compared in [@Sal10]. PSSM\_P was included because it does not require non-TFBS’s and it is similar to ULPB in that nucleotide pairs are considered. ODV\_P and 2-centroid\_P were compared because they employ non-TFBS’s explicitly. Information content was not used in all the methods compared in this section.
The methods were evaluated under the same LOO CV framework described in Section \[sec:LOO\]. Overall performance of the compared methods is summarized in Fig. \[fig:boxplot\_Sal10\]. The box plots show that overall PSPM gave the highest average ranks, which is consistent with the results reported in [@Sal10] that ULPB performed better than PSPM. In terms of median marked by the horizontal bar inside a box, ULPB appears to be worse than PSSM\_P, 2-centroid\_P and ODV\_P. Fig. \[fig:comp\_Sal10\] shows performance of the 4 methods on individual TF’s. We can see that PSSM\_P performed better than ULPB on 15 out of 26 TF’s and 2-centroid\_P/ODV\_P performed better than ULPB on 14 out of 26 TF’s. To gauge the significance of these observations, statistical tests [@Wil45] were performed on all the 6 pairs of methods. The results however only support that 2-centroid\_P outperformed PSPM ($p$-value: 0.000722), ODV\_P outperformed PSPM ($p$-value: 0.03344) and PSSM\_P outperformed PSPM ($p$-value: 0.006476). The $p$-values of the other tests are all greater than 5%, the usual significance cut-off. Similar to Fig. \[fig:comp\], the relation between performance and median information content can be observed as well.
{width="\textwidth"}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
No best method for all TF’s
---------------------------
We have shown in the previous section that overall methods utilizing negative examples perform better than methods using only positive examples. One may be tempted to identify the method that gives the lowest average rank for all the TF’s. From the results of our LOO CV experiments, however, we found that there’s no combination of method and similarity measure that is optimal for all the TF’s in the data sets. That is, introducing pairs of nucleotide in similarity computation or incorporating non-binding sites lowers the average ranks for most of the TF’s but increases the average ranks for a few of them. Fig. \[fig:comp\] serves as an example. It shows that the similarity measure proposed by [@DoH09] gives the highest average ranks for most of the TF’s but is the best one among the three measures for TF lrp when the 2-centroid method is used. It also shows that $\mathrm{Sim2}$ yields lower average ranks than $\mathrm{Sim}$ except for a few TF’s such as cytR and fur when used along with the 2-centroid method. Therefore, instead of finding the combination of similarity measure and method that is optimal for all the TF’s. It is more reasonable and practical to search for the best combination of similarity measure and method for a particular TF of interest, which can be achieved by CV experiments.
Complexity of transcription factor binding sites
------------------------------------------------
Results presented in Fig. \[fig:comp\] and \[fig:comp\_Sal10\] indicate correlation between the “complexity” of a TF and its median information content across nucleotides. Therefore, we attempted to establish the relationship between average rank and three factors: the length, number of known TFBS’s and median information content. The average ranks on the second data set produced by 2-centroid\_P in Fig. \[fig:comp\_Sal10\] were linearly regressed [@Rav01] on the three factors. Aside from the intercept, only the median information content was found significant ($p$-value: $2.89 \times 10^{-7}$). A simple linear regression was then performed to obtain the linear relationship between average rank and median information content. Fig. \[fig:regression\] shows a scatter plot of average rank versus median information content for the 26 TF’s in the second data set. The straight line represents the relationship between average rank and median information content found by simple linear regression. The median information content can be viewed as a measure of conservedness of binding sites of a TF. This reasonably implies that the binding sites of a TF are easier to predict when they are more conserved.
Properties of Investigated Methods {#sec:pairwise_comp}
----------------------------------
To reveal properties of methods, we performed pair-wise comparisons on some of the methods investigated in this work. Fig. \[fig:pairwise\_comp\] shows the pair-wise comparisons of centroid\_P, PSSM\_P, 2-centroid\_P and ODV\_P with information content on the first data set. For each pair of methods, the 35 TF’s were divided into two groups depending on the performance of the methods. We then looked for statistical difference between the two groups in terms of three factors, that is, the number of known TFBS’s, the median IC and the length of binding sites. The comparison between centroid\_P and PSSM\_P indicates that PSSM\_P performs better than centroid\_P on 21 TF’s, i.e., there are 21 TF’s in one group and 14 TF’s in the other. Moreover, when PSSM\_P performs better, the median IC of a TF is on average 1.10095, which is significantly ($p$-value $< 5\%$) greater than 0.74928, the average median IC of a TF when centroid\_P performs better. Similar interpretations lead to additional comments as follows. 2-centroid\_P requires significantly less known TFBS’s than PSSM\_P. ODV\_P performs better than PSSM\_P or 2-centroid\_P when a TF has higher median IC and shorter binding sites.
Comparisons were also made between the four comparable methods, ODV\_P, 2-centroid\_P, PSSM\_P and ULPB, on the second data set of 26 TF’s. Fig. \[fig:pairwise\_comp\_Sal10\] shows the bar plots. The plots suggest that 2-centroid\_P performs better than PSSM\_P when a TF has higher median IC and shorter binding sites. 2-centroid\_P performs better than ODV\_P when a TF has more known TFBS’s, ODV\_P outperforms ULPB when a TF has less known TFBS’s and higher median IC, and ODV\_P performs better than PSSM\_P when a TF has less known TFBS’s.
From the observations above, we can see that methods utilizing negative examples tend to perform better on TF’s with higher median information content. This suggests that the proposed 2-centroid and ODV methods are well-suited for identifying eukaryotic transcription factor binding sites. Fig. \[fig:hist\_JASPAR\] shows the distribution of median IC of 459 eukaryotic transcription factors in the JASPAR database [@Bry08], where 75% (344 out of 459) of the TF’s have median IC above 1.02. According to our analysis shown in Fig. \[fig:pairwise\_comp\] and \[fig:pairwise\_comp\_Sal10\], the 2-centroid and ODV methods perform significantly better than other compared methods when a TF has relatively high median IC.
Moreover, properties revealed in Fig. \[fig:pairwise\_comp\] and \[fig:pairwise\_comp\_Sal10\] can potentially help improve our 2-centroid and ODV methods. We can see in Fig. \[fig:regression\] that the median information content of a TF can be as low as 0.05. We suspect that the motif of such TF is actually a mixture of two or more motif subtypes, which contributes to its low median IC. We expect the motif subtypes of a TF to have higher median IC. Thus, a method can first identify motif subtypes contained in the known TFBS’s of a TF and then search for individual subtypes.
Motif Subtypes Improve the 2-centroid Method
--------------------------------------------
It has been shown that the binding sites of a TF can be better represented by 2 motif subtypes than by a single motif [@Han05; @Geo06]. In search for new binding sites, two position-specific scoring matrices are used to score an $l$-mer and the higher score of the two is assigned to this $l$-mer. Searching with two PSSM’s was shown to be superior to searching with a single PSSM by cross-species conservation statistics in these studies.
To validate our hypothesis proposed in Section \[sec:pairwise\_comp\], we coupled motif subtypes with the centroid method as well as the 2-centroid method. Our approach to motif subtype identification is slightly different from those in previous work [@Han05; @Geo06], while the idea is similar. As usual, all the $l$-mers were first embedded in the Euclidean space as described in Section \[sec:centroid\]. The known binding sites of a TF were clustered into two subtypes by the $k$-means algorithm [@deH04]. The centroids of these two subtypes, $\bm{\mu}_{+1}$ and $\bm{\mu}_{+2}$, were then computed. The centroid method coupled with motif subtypes is denoted by centroid\_C and it scores an $l$-mer $t$ by $$\max\left\{\bm{\mu}_{+1}{^{\mathrm T} }\bm t, \bm{\mu}_{+2}{^{\mathrm T} }\bm t \right\},$$ where $\bm t$ denote the $l$-mer $t$ embedded in the Euclidean space. On the other hand, the 2-centroid method coupled with motif subtypes is denoted by 2-centroid\_C and it score an $l$-mer $t$ by $$\max\left\{\left(\bm{\mu}_{+1} - \bm{\mu}_- \right){^{\mathrm T} }\bm t, \left(\bm{\mu}_{+2} - \bm{\mu}_- \right){^{\mathrm T} }\bm t \right\},$$ where $\bm{\mu}_-$ is the centroid of the non-binding sites.
We assessed and compared centroid\_C and 2-centroid\_C to their counterparts without motif subtypes by leave-one-out cross-validation on the second data set of 26 TF’s. Results summarized as box plots are shown in Fig. \[fig:boxplot\_subtypes\], where Pair denotes the use of nucleotide pairs and IC indicates weighting nucleotides and nucleotide pairs with information content. In all the four cases, significant improvement was observed when motif subtypes were taken into account. Table \[tab:subtype\] elucidates the impact of motif subtype identification on our 2-centroid method. The first column shows that, before introducing motif subtypes, the improvement of 2-centroid over centroid is only statistically significant in the first row. The second column displays significant improvement of centroid\_C over centroid, which was anticipated and consistent with the results reported in [@Han05; @Geo06]. The third column shows significant improvement of 2-centroid\_C over 2-centroid in all four cases. We observed that the improvement of 2-centroid\_C over 2-centroid is always more significant than the improvement of centroid\_C over centroid. This implies that our 2-centroid method benefitted even more from the identification of motif subtypes. The last column indicates that, after the introduction of motif subtypes, 2-centroid\_C significantly outperforms centroid\_C in all cases. These results confirmed our hypothesis that, for TF’s with low median IC, methods employing non-binding sites should be coupled with motif subtype identification.
{width="\textwidth"}
---------------- ---------------- ----------- ------------------------------- ----------- ------------------------ ----------- ------------------------ ----------- ------------------------
Pair IC \# better $p$-value \# better $p$-value \# better $p$-value \# better $p$-value
$\Box$ $\Box$ 19 $2.793 \times 10^{-2}$ 18 $5.093 \times 10^{-3}$ 21 $2.205 \times 10^{-5}$ 21 $1.205 \times 10^{-3}$
$\Box$ $\blacksquare$ 18 $\bm{ 5.037 \times 10^{-2} }$ 19 $3.727 \times 10^{-4}$ 22 $1.135 \times 10^{-5}$ 19 $5.983 \times 10^{-3}$
$\blacksquare$ $\Box$ 17 $\bm{ 9.937 \times 10^{-2} }$ 16 $3.757 \times 10^{-2}$ 23 $6.661 \times 10^{-6}$ 18 $2.806 \times 10^{-3}$
$\blacksquare$ $\blacksquare$ 17 $\bm{ 1.185 \times 10^{-1} }$ 17 $7.003 \times 10^{-3}$ 20 $2.325 \times 10^{-4}$ 19 $8.807 \times 10^{-3}$
---------------- ---------------- ----------- ------------------------------- ----------- ------------------------ ----------- ------------------------ ----------- ------------------------
Whether a method uses nucleotide pairs.
Whether a method weights nucleotide and nucleotide pairs with information content.
The number of TF’s supporting the relationship being tested.
$p$-value of the relationship produced by a statistical test [@Wil45].
Suffix \_C denotes coupling a method with motif subtypes.
Fig. \[fig:FlhDC\_P\] illustrates the application of 2-centroid\_C with nucleotide pairs to transcription factor FlhDC in the second data set. It can be seen in Fig. \[fig:FlhDC\_logos\_before\] that the information content of FlhDC is low at all the 16 positions. After motif subtype identification, the two subtypes display distinct patterns and the information content of the two subtypes was greatly improved as seen in Fig. \[fig:FlhDC\_logos\_after\]. Fig. \[fig:FlhDC\_scatter\] shows a scatter plot of binding sites, non-binding sites and their respective centroids, while Fig. \[fig:FlhDC\_clust\_scatter\] shows a scatter plot of binding sites belonging to two subtypes, non-binding sites and their respective centroids after motif subtype identification. Many binding sites are not distinguishable from non-binding sites in Fig. \[fig:FlhDC\_scatter\]. However, after motif subtype identification, TFBS’s became separable from non-TFBS’s as seen in Fig. \[fig:FlhDC\_clust\_scatter\], resulting in 1.7-fold improvement in average rank.
\
Connection between ODV and PSSM/ULPB {#sec:connection}
------------------------------------
Finally, we elucidate the relation between ODV and PSSM/ULPB. We first derive the connection between the optimal discriminating vector method and the position-specific scoring matrix method. Without loss of generality, we do not include nucleotide pairs in the derivation for simplicity reasons. We abuse notations for a moment and let $\beta_i(\text A) = \beta_{4i-3}$, $\beta_i(\text C) = \beta_{4i-2}$, $\beta_i(\text G) = \beta_{4i-1}$ and $\beta_i(\text T) = \beta_{4i}$. (\[eq:scoring\_function\]) then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\bm \beta{^{\mathrm T} }\bm t &= \sum_{i=1}^l \beta_i(t_i)\sqrt{w_i}
= \sum_{i=1}^l \log\left( \frac{f_i(t_i)k_i}{f(t_i)} \right) w_i\notag\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^l \log\left( \frac{f_i(t_i)}{f(t_i)} \right) w_i + \sum_{i=1}^lw_i\log k_i,\label{eq:ODV_PSSM}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_i(t_i) = \frac{1}{k_i}\exp\left(\frac{\beta_i(t_i)}{\sqrt{w_i}}\right)f(t_i)$ is the position-specific nucleotide frequency for $t_i$ induced by $\beta_i(\cdot)$ and $$k_i = \sum_{u \in \{\text{A, C, G, T}\}} \exp\left(\frac{\beta_i(u)}{\sqrt{w_i}}\right)f(u) > 0$$ is a scaling factor for position $i$ since ODV does not impose the constraints $\sum_{u \in \{\text{A, C, G, T}\}} f_i(u) = 1, \,\,\forall i$. From (\[eq:ODV\_PSSM\]), we note that $\sum_{i=1}^lw_i\log k_i$ does not depend on $t$ and thus $\bm \beta$ is optimal if and only if $\{f_i(u)|u \in \{\text{A, C, G, T}\} \text{ and }i = 1, 2, \ldots, l\}$, is optimal. Therefore, an optimal PSSM can be obtained from our ODV method.
The ungapped likelihood under positional background method is similar to the PSSM\_P method in that both methods score nucleotides and nucleotide pairs. The ULPB method scores a $l$-mer $s$ by looking at the first nucleotide $s_1$ and all the $l-1$ adjacent nucleotide pairs $s_1s_2, s_2s_3, \ldots, s_{l-1}s_l$. Therefore, we can embed $s$ in $\mathbb R^{20l - 16}$ by transforming $s_1$ into 4 dummy variables and each of the $l-1$ pairs into 16 dummy variables as described in Section \[sec:centroid\]. An optimal discriminating vector $\bm \beta \in \mathbb R^{20l - 16}$ can then be found by applying our ODV method described in Section \[sec:ODV\]. Following similar arguments, we can see that there is a one-to-one correspondence between elements of $\bm \beta$ and $\left\{f_1(u), f_i(v|u)| u, v \in \{\text{A, C, G, T}\} \text{ and } i = 1, 2, \ldots, l-1 \right\}$ in (\[eq:ULPB\]). Hence, an optimal ULPB can also be obtained from our ODV method.
One direct implication of the connection established above is that a vector obtained by the centroid, 2-centroid or ODV methods can be compared to a PSSM model in the same framework. As an example, Fig. \[fig:logo\] shows two sequence logos [@Cro04] of TF MalT in the second data set. The top logo represents the signature of the known binding sites, while the bottom one is obtained by converting the centroid $\bm \mu_+$ to a PSSM model as in (\[eq:ODV\_PSSM\]) with $\bm \beta = \bm \mu_+$. The two logos display distinct patterns of the two methods, implying difference in performance. The PSSM method gave an average rank of 233.9, while the centroid method gave an average rank of 69.8. Clearly, the performance difference lies in the difference between the two logos. We can see that the two logos are very different at positions 3, 5, 6 and 10. Position 3 indicates that down-weighting letter T results in better performance. Position 10 shows that the influence of letter A is underestimated in the PSSM model. Other positions can be similarly compared and interpreted as well.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this work, we investigated the use of negative examples in the TFBS search problem. To utilize negative examples, we proposed the 2-centroid and ODV methods, which are natural extensions of the centroid method. The proposed methods were compared to state-of-the-art methods relying purely on positive examples as well as a method considering negative examples. Comprehensive LOO CV results showed that non-TFBS’s are indeed helpful for TFBS search. The large number of non-binding sites can be significantly reduced by sampling a small representative set by LOO CV.
Not surprisingly, there is no single best TFBS search method or similarity measure for all the TF’s. The best combination of similarity measure and search method can be found for a particular TF by CV experiments. Nevertheless, pair-wise comparisons between methods revealed interesting properties of methods compared in this work. In particular, we showed that the 2-centroid and ODV methods are significantly better than the other methods when a TF has relatively high median information content. Even for TF’s with low median information content, preceded by motif subtype identification, the 2-centroid method was shown to be effective in searching for binding sites belonging to individual subtypes. The ODV method can be easily coupled with motif subtype identification as well and we believe significant improvement can be expected.
All the experiments in this work were conducted on prokaryotic transcription factors, i.e., TF’s in the *E. coli* K-12 genome. We claim that the proposed 2-centroid and ODV are well-suited for eukaryotic transcription factor binding site search as well. This is based on characteristics of the proposed methods and summary statistics of 459 eukaryotic transcription factors in the JASPAR database. Finally, we derived the connection between our ODV method and the PSSM method, showing that an optimal vector in ODV implies an optimal scoring matrix in PSSM and vice versa. Properly embedding an $l$-mer in an Euclidean space, the same connection between ODV and ULPB can be established as well.
The effects of negative examples on eukaryotic transcription factor binding site search will be investigated. Our future work also aims for extending our proposed methods to handling known binding sites of variable lengths. We will seek to approach this problem without resorting to multiple sequence alignment, which is notoriously time-consuming. In the meantime, we will also seek to identify better similarity measures than those investigated in this study.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation \[grant number CCF-0755373\].
[Chih Lee]{}
[Chun-Hsi Huang]{}
[^1]:
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
[^1] $^{a\,b}$, Alan $\acute{\rm{O}}$ Cais $^{a\,c}$, Waseem Kamleh $^{a}$, B.G. Lasscock $^{a}$, Derek B. Leinweber $^{a}$, Anthony G. Williams $^{a}$\
Special Research Centre for the Subatomic Structure of Matter, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia, and Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia.\
Department of Physics, Rajshahi University, Rajshahi 6205, Bangladesh.\
Cyprus Institute, Guy Ourisson Builiding, Athalassa Campus, PO Box 27456, 1645 Nicosia, Cyprus.\
E-mail:
title: |
(0,0) (400,130)[[ADP-09-13/T691]{}]{}
Low-lying positive-parity excited states of the nucleon
---
Introduction
============
The first positive-parity excited state of the nucleon, known as the Roper resonance, $N^{{\frac{1}{2}}^{+}}$(1440 MeV) ${\rm P}_{11}$, has been a long-standing puzzle since its discovery in the 1960’s due to its lower mass compared to the adjacent negative parity, $N^{{\frac{1}{2}}^{-}}$(1535 MeV) ${\rm S}_{11}$, state. In constituent quark models with harmonic oscillator potentials, the lowest-lying odd parity state naturally occurs below the ${\rm P}_{11}$ state (with principal quantum number $N=2$) [@Isgur:1977ef; @Isgur:1978wd], whereas, in nature the Roper resonance is almost 100 MeV below the ${\rm S}_{11}$ state.
Lattice QCD is very successful in computing many properties of hadrons from first principles. In particular, in hadron spectroscopy, the ground states of the hadron spectrum are now well understood. However, the excited states still prove a significant challenge. The first detailed analysis of the positive parity excitation of the nucleon was performed in Ref. [@Leinweber:1994nm] using Wilson fermions and an operator product expansion spectral ansatz. Since then several attempts have been made to address these issues in the lattice framework, but in many cases no potential identification of the Roper state has been made. Recently, however, in the analysis of Refs. [@Lee:2002gn; @Mathur:2003zf; @Sasaki:2005ap] a low-lying Roper state has been identified using Bayesian techniques.
Another state-of-the-art approach in hadron spectroscopy is the ‘variational method’ [@Michael:1985ne; @Luscher:1990ck], which is based on a correlation matrix analysis. The identification of the Roper state with this method wasn’t successful in the past. However, very recently, in Ref. [@Mahbub:2009aa] a low-lying Roper state has been identified with this approach employing a diverse range of smeared-smeared correlation functions.
Here we discuss the new correlation matrix construction for isolating the puzzling Roper state [@Mahbub:2009aa] and present our Roper results in the context of the previous results reported by other groups in recent times.
Variational Method
==================
The two point correlation function matrix for $\vec{p} =0$ can be written as, $$\begin{aligned}
G_{ij}(t) &= (\sum_{\vec x}{\rm Tr}_{\rm sp}\{ \Gamma_{\pm}\langle\Omega\vert\chi_{i}(x)\bar\chi_{j}(0)\vert\Omega\rangle\}), \\
&=\sum_{\alpha}\lambda_{i}^{\alpha}\bar\lambda_{j}^{\alpha}e^{-m_{\alpha}t},\end{aligned}$$ where, Dirac indices are implicit. Here, $\lambda_{i}^{\alpha}$ and $\bar\lambda_{j}^{\alpha}$ are the couplings of interpolators $\chi_{i}$ and $\bar\chi_{j}$ at the sink and source respectively and $\alpha$ enumerates the energy eigenstates with mass $m_{\alpha}$. $\Gamma_{\pm}$ projects the parity of the eigenstates.\
Since the only $t$ dependence comes from the exponential term, one can seek a linear superposition of interpolators, ${\bar\chi}_{j}u_{j}^{\alpha}$, such that, $$\begin{aligned}
G_{ij}(t+\triangle t)\, u_{j}^{\alpha} & = e^{-m_{\alpha}\triangle
t}\, G_{ij}(t)\, u_{j}^{\alpha},\end{aligned}$$ for sufficiently large $t$ and $t+\triangle t$. More detail can be found in Refs. [@Melnitchouk:2002eg; @Mahbub:2009nr; @Blossier:2009kd]. Multiplying the above equation by $[G_{ij}(t)]^{-1}$ from the left leads to an eigenvalue equation, $$\begin{aligned}
[(G(t))^{-1}G(t+\triangle t)]_{ij}\, u^{\alpha}_{j} & = c^{\alpha}\, u^{\alpha}_{i},
\label{eq:right_evalue_eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $c^{\alpha}=e^{-m_{\alpha}\triangle t}$ is the eigenvalue. Similar to Eq.(\[eq:right\_evalue\_eq\]), one can also solve the left eigenvalue equation to recover the $v^{\alpha}$ eigenvector, $$\begin{aligned}
v^{\alpha}_{i}\, [G(t+\triangle t)(G(t))^{-1}]_{ij} & = c^{\alpha}v^{\alpha}_{j}.
\label{eq:left_evalue_eq}\end{aligned}$$ The vectors $u_{j}^{\alpha}$ and $v_{i}^{\alpha}$ diagonalize the correlation matrix at time $t$ and $t+\triangle t$ making the projected correlation matrix, $$\begin{aligned}
v_{i}^{\alpha}G_{ij}(t)u_{j}^{\beta} & \propto \delta^{\alpha\beta}.
\label{projected_cf} \end{aligned}$$ The parity projected, eigenstate projected correlator, $$\begin{aligned}
G^{\alpha}_{\pm}& \equiv v_{i}^{\alpha}G^{\pm}_{ij}(t)u_{j}^{\alpha} ,
\label{projected_cf_final}\end{aligned}$$ is then analyzed using standard techniques to obtain masses of different states.
Lattice Details
===============
Our lattice ensemble consists of 200 quenched configurations with a lattice volume of $16^{3}\times 32$. Gauge field configurations are generated using the DBW2 gauge action [@Takaishi:1996xj; @deForcrand:1999bi] and an ${\mathcal{O}}(a)$-improved FLIC fermion action [@Zanotti:2001yb] is used to generate quark propagators. The lattice spacing is $a=0.1273$ fm, as determined by the static quark potential, with the scale set using the Sommer scale, $r_{0}=0.49$ fm [@Sommer:1993ce]. In the irrelevant operators of the fermion action we apply four sweeps of stout-link smearing. Various sweeps (1, 3, 7, 12, 16, 26, 35, 48) of gauge invariant Gaussian smearing [@Gusken:1989qx] are applied at the source (at $t=4$) and at the sink. The analysis is performed on ten different quark masses corresponding to pion masses $m_{\pi}=\{0.797,0.729,0.641,0.541,0.430,0.380,0.327,0.295,0.249,0.224\}$ GeV. Error analysis is performed using a second-order single elimination jackknife method, where the ${\chi^{2}}/{\rm{dof}}$ is obtained via a covariance matrix analysis method. Our fitting method is discussed extensively in Ref. [@Mahbub:2009nr].\
The nucleon interpolator we consider is the local scalar-diquark interpolator [@Leinweber:1994nm; @Leinweber:1990dv], $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_1(x) &= \epsilon^{abc}(u^{Ta}(x)\, C{\gamma_5}\, d^b(x))\,
u^{c}(x).
\label{eqn:chi1_interpolator}\end{aligned}$$
Results
=======
We consider several $4\times 4$ correlation matrices. Each matrix is constructed with different sets of correlation functions, each set element corresponding to a different number of sweeps of gauge invariant Gaussian smearing at the source and sink of the $\chi_{1}\bar\chi_{1}$ correlators. This provides a large basis of operators with a wide range of overlaps among energy states.
{height="80.00000%"}
We consider seven smearing combinations {1=(1,7,16,35), 2=(3,7,16,35), 3=(1,12,26,48),\
4=(3,12,26,35), 5=(3,12,26,48), 6=(12,16,26,35), 7=(7,16,35,48)} of $4\times 4$ matrices. In Ref. [@Mahbub:2009nr] it was shown that one cannot isolate a low-lying excited eigenstate using a single fixed-size source smearing. The superposition of states manifested itself as a smearing dependence of the effective mass.
In Fig.\[fig:mass\_for\_all\_combinations\_Q1\], masses extracted from all the combinations of $4\times 4$ matrices (from $1^{\rm st}$ to $7^{\rm
th}$) are shown for the pion mass of 797 MeV. Some dependence of the excited states on smearing sweep count is observed here as in Ref. [@Mahbub:2009nr] for a few of the interpolator basis smearing sets. However the ground and first excited states are robust against changes in the interpolator basis, providing evidence that an energy eigenstate has been isolated. It should be noted that the highest excited state (the third excited state) is influenced more by the level of smearing than the lower excited states. This is to be expected as this state must accommodate all remaining spectral strength and this is dependent on smearing.
The $1^{\rm{st}}$ combination in Fig.\[fig:mass\_for\_all\_combinations\_Q1\] provides heavier excited states as this basis begins with a low number of smearing sweeps (a sweep count of 1) and also contains another low smearing set of 7 sweeps. The first and second excited states sit a little high in comparison with the other bases. This is also evident in Fig.\[fig:mass\_for\_all\_combinations\_Q6\] for the lighter quark mass. Hence, extracting masses with this basis is not as reliable as other sets containing a great diversity of large numbers of smearing sweeps. The $2^{\rm{nd}}$ combination also contains elements with a small smearing sweep count (3 and 7), hence this basis also provides heavier excited states and shows some systematic drift in the second excited state. However, this basis has reduced contamination from the excited states when compared with the first basis.
{height="80.00000%"}
{height="80.00000%"}
We can observe at this point that including basis elements with 2 consecutive low smearing sweep counts (for instance, consecutive low numbers of smearing sweeps 1,7 of $1^{\rm{st}}$ combination and 3,7 of $2^{\rm{nd}}$ combination, respectively), provides a basis which does not span the space well. We also observe that the inclusion of basis elements with 2 consecutive high levels of smearing (for instance, a sweep count of 35, 48 as in the $7^{\rm th}$ combination) does not span the space well and gives rise to larger uncertainties.
The $3^{\rm rd}$, $4^{\rm th}$ and $5^{\rm th}$ combinations are well spread over the given range of smearing sweeps. They don’t include successive lower smearing sweep counts. The $5^{\rm
th}$ combination contains the basis element with a sweep count of 48 but has only slightly larger statistical errors than the $4^{\rm th}$ basis choice. All these bases provide diversity. It is observed that the $3^{\rm rd}$ through the $6^{\rm th}$ combinations provide consistent results for the first and second excited states. An analysis is performed to calculate the systematic errors associated with the choice of basis over the preferred four combinations (from $3^{\rm rd}$ to $6^{\rm th}$) with $\sigma_{b}=\sqrt{{\frac{1}{N_{b}-1}}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{b}}(M_{i}-\bar{M})^{2}}$, where, $N_{b}$ is the number of bases, in this case equal to 4. The statistical and systematic errors due to basis choices are added in quadrature, $\sigma=\sqrt{\bar{\sigma}_{s}^{2}+\sigma_{b}^{2}}$, which is shown in Figs. \[fig:paper\_m.avg\_4com.x1x1.4x4.sqrt\_erravg\_4combs\_errbasis\_4combs.2states.allQ.NEW\] and \[fig:nucleon.mass.spectrum.world.NEW\].
{height="98.00000%"}
In Fig. \[fig:paper\_m.avg\_4com.x1x1.4x4.sqrt\_erravg\_4combs\_errbasis\_4combs.2states.allQ.NEW\], it is interesting to note that the observed lattice Roper state sits lower than the P-wave $N+\pi$, indicative of attractive $\pi {\rm N}$ interactions producing a resonance at physical quark masses.
In Fig. \[fig:nucleon.mass.spectrum.world.NEW\], the ground state results are consistent for all the reported works. However, significant differences are readily observed in the results of the first positive parity excited (Roper) state. In Ref. [@Mathur:2003zf], Mathur ${\it et \, al.}$ used a constrained curve fitting method. In Ref. [@Sasaki:2005ap], Sasaki $\it{et \,
al}.$ used the Maximum Entropy Method. In Ref. [@Guadagnoli:2004wm], Guadagnoli $\it{et \, al}.$ used a modified correlator technique. Refs. [@Mahbub:2009aa; @Melnitchouk:2002eg; @Brommel:2003jm; @Lasscock:2007ce; @Burch:2006cc; @Basak:2006ww] all used the variational approach. Brommel $\it{et \, al}.$ [@Brommel:2003jm] considered standard nucleon interpolators $\chi_{1} \, ,\chi_{2}$ and $\chi_{3}$ and employ Jacobi smeared sources. They have performed simulations in a range of pion masses of 270-866 MeV and used $3\times 3$ correlation matrices. They reported results that are too high to be interpreted as the Roper state. The early analysis of CSSM Collaboration by Melnitchouk $\it{et \, al}.$ [@Melnitchouk:2002eg] used $\chi_{1}$ and $\chi_{2}$ interpolators and used a single Gaussian source smearing of 20 sweeps. They found no evidence for the Roper state as the energy states of their $2\times 2$ correlation matrix analysis also proved too high to be interpreted as the Roper resonance. The results from Lasscock $\it{et \, al}.$ [@Lasscock:2007ce] from $3\times 3$ correlation matrix analysis of standard interpolators also sits as high as those of Brommel and Melnitchouk, and cannot be interpreted as the Roper state. Burch $\it{et \, al}.$ [@Burch:2006cc] considered the alternative approach of using Jacobi smeared sources of two different widths (narrow and wide) to increase the basis of operators and performed $6\times6$ correlation matrix analysis for a pion mass down to 450 MeV. Though their lightest quark mass results sit slightly above our results labeled Mahbub $\it{et \,
al}.$ in Fig. \[fig:nucleon.mass.spectrum.world.NEW\] [@Mahbub:2009aa], in the heavy quark-mass region the significant overlap between the results of Burch $\it{et \, al}.$ and ours is apparent. Basak $\it{et \, al}.$ [@Basak:2006ww] used non-local operators to form the basis of their correlation matrix and simulated at a pion mass of 490 MeV. Their results are also high. They reported that they did not find any Roper like positive-parity excitation. Using smeared-smeared correlators to construct a basis of correlation matrices, we identified a low-lying Roper state with significant curvature apparent at lighter quark masses [@Mahbub:2009aa].
Conclusions
===========
Through the use of a variety of smeared-smeared correlation functions in constructing correlation matrices, the first positive parity excited state of the nucleon $N^{{\frac{1}{2}}^{+}}$, the Roper state, has been observed for the first time using the variational analysis [@Mahbub:2009aa]. The current status of results for the Roper resonance from a number of groups are reviewed. Our lattice Roper state has a tendency to approach the physical Roper state showing a significant curvature as the chiral limit is approached [@Mahbub:2009aa]. This work signifies the importance of using a diverse range of smeared-smeared correlation functions when constructing correlation matrices for the identification of the elusive Roper state. This robust approach should also be applied for larger dimensions of the correlation matrices not only built from the $\chi_{1}\bar\chi_{1}$ correlators but also using $\chi_{1}\bar\chi_{2}$ and in the negative parity channel. This will be the subject of future investigations.
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefixhref \#1\#2[\#2]{} \#1[\#1]{}
N. Isgur, G. Karl, Phys. Lett. B72 (1977) 109. N. Isgur, G. Karl, Phys. Rev. D19 (1979) 2653. D. B. Leinweber, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 6383–6393, [[\[nucl-th/9406001\]]{}]{}.
F. X. Lee, et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 119 (2003) 296–298, [[\[hep-lat/0208070\]]{}]{}.
N. Mathur, et al., Phys. Lett. B605 (2005) 137–143, [[\[hep-ph/0306199\]]{}]{}.
K. Sasaki,S. Sasaki, T. Hatsuda, Phys. Lett. B623 (2005) 208–217, [[\[hep-lat/0504020\]]{}]{}.
C. Michael, Nucl. Phys. B259 (1985) 58.
M. Luscher, U. Wolff, Nucl. Phys. B339 (1990) 222–252.
M. S. Mahbub, et al., Phys. Lett. B679 (2009) 418–422, [[\[arXiv:0906.5433\]]{}]{}. W. Melnitchouk, et al., Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 114506, [[\[hep-lat/0202022\]]{}]{}.
M. S. Mahbub, et al., Phys. Rev. [D80]{} (2009) 054507, [[\[arXiv:0905.3616\]]{}]{}. B. Blossier,M. Della Morte,G. von Hippel,T. Mendes, R. Sommer, JHEP 04 (2009) 094, [[\[arXiv:0902.1265\]]{}]{}. T. Takaishi, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 1050–1053. P. de Forcrand, et al., Nucl. Phys. B577 (2000) 263–278, [[\[hep-lat/9911033\]]{}]{}. J. M. Zanotti, et al., Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 074507, [[\[hep-lat/0110216\]]{}]{}.
R. Sommer, Nucl. Phys. B411 (1994) 839–854, [[\[hep-lat/9310022\]]{}]{}. S. Gusken, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 17 (1990) 361–364.
D. B. Leinweber,R. M. Woloshyn, T. Draper, Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 1659–1678.
D. Guadagnoli,M. Papinutto, S. Simula, Phys. Lett. B604 (2004) 74–81, [[\[hep-lat/0409011\]]{}]{}.
D. Brommel, et al., Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 094513, [[\[hep-ph/0307073\]]{}]{}.
B. G. Lasscock, et al., Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 054510, [[\[arXiv:0705.0861\]]{}]{}. T. Burch, et al., Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 014504, [[\[hep-lat/0604019\]]{}]{}.
S. Basak, et al., [[\[hep-lat/0609052\]]{}]{}.
[^1]: We thank C.B. Lang for useful comments and discussions on our Roper results at the lattice 2009 conference. We thank the NCI National Facility and eResearch SA for generous grants of supercomputing time which have enabled this project. This research is supported by the Australian Research Council.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Michele Ancona [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'arti.bib'
date: '27/07/2017'
title: Expected number and distribution of critical points of real Lefschetz pencils
---
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
We give an asymptotic probabilistic real Riemann-Hurwitz formula computing the expected real ramification index of a random covering over the Riemann sphere. More generally, we study the asymptotic expected number and distribution of critical points of a random real Lefschetz pencil over a smooth real algebraic variety.
Introduction
============
The Riemann-Hurwitz formula says that the total ramification index $R$ of a branched covering $f:\Sigma\rightarrow \Sigma'$ of degree $d$ between two compact Riemann surfaces is $R=d\chi(\Sigma')-\chi(\Sigma)$. In particular, if $\Sigma'={\mathbb{C}}P^1$, $R=2d+2g-2$, where $g$ is the genus of $\Sigma$.\
More generally, if $p:X\dashrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}P^1$ is a Lefschetz pencil on a complex manifold $X$ of dimension $n$, then $$(-1)^n\#crit(p)=\chi(X)-2\chi(F)+\chi(Y)$$ where $F$ is a smooth fiber of $p$ and $Y$ is the base locus of $p$.
The questions that motivate this paper are the following: *how do these critical points distribute on the variety? When $p$ is defined over ${\mathbb{R}}$, what about the number of real critical points of a real Lefschetz pencil?*\
We answer these questions by computing the asymptotic expected number of real critical points of real Lefschetz pencils and also the asymptotic distribution of such points.
The chosen random setting has already been considered by Schiffman and Zelditch in [@sz] to study the integration current over the common zero locus of $k$ independent random global sections of a line bundle over a complex projective manifold.
In the real case Kac [@kac], Kostlan [@ko] and Shub and Smale [@ss] computed the expected number of real roots of a random real polynomial.\
In higher dimensions, Podkorytov [@pod] and Bürgisser [@bur] computed the expected Euler characteristic of random real algebraic submanifolds, Gayet and Welschinger estimated the Betti numbers [@gw1], [@GW2], [@gw3]. (See also [@let], [@ns] and [@ll]).
In [@nic] Nicolaescu computed the expected number of critical of a random smooth function on a Riemannian manifold have and how they distruibute.
Statements of the results {#statements-of-the-results .unnumbered}
-------------------------
Let $X$ be a smooth real projective manifold of dimension $n$, that is a complex projective manifold equipped with an anti-holomorphic involution $c_X$.\
We denote by ${\mathbb{R}}X=Fix(c_X)$ its real locus. Let $(L,h)$ be a positive real hermitian line bundle. Then, for large $d$, for almost every $(\alpha,\beta)\in H^0(X;L^d)^2 $ (resp. ${\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2)$ the map $u_{\alpha\beta}:X\dashrightarrow {\mathbb{C}}P^1$ defined by $x\mapsto [\alpha(x):\beta(x)]$ is a Lefschetz pencil (resp. real Lefschetz pencil) (see Prop. \[lefpen\]).
We denote the set of critical points of $u_{\alpha\beta}$ by ${\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})$ and by ${\mathbb{R}}{\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})={\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})\cap {\mathbb{R}}X$ the set of real critical points.
The number of real critical points of a Lefschetz pencil depends on the pair $(\alpha, \beta)$. The main theorem of this article is the computation of the expected value of this number.
\[num\] Let $X$ be a smooth real projective manifold of dimension $n$, let $(L,h)$ be a positive real hermitian line bundle over $X$. Then
$$\lim_{d\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}^n}\mathbb{E}[\#{\mathbb{R}}crit(u_{\alpha,\beta})]=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{n!!}{(n-1)!!}e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)\frac{\pi}{2}{\textrm{Vol}}_h({\mathbb{R}}X) &\textrm{if n is odd}
\\\frac{n!!}{(n-1)!!}e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)\textrm{Vol}_h({\mathbb{R}}X)& \textrm{if n is even}.
\end{array}\right.$$
In this theorem ${\textrm{Vol}}_h({\mathbb{R}}X)$ is the volume of ${\mathbb{R}}X$ with respect to the Riemannian volume $dvol_h$ induced by the metric $h$. The probability we consider is a natural Gaussian probability on ${\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)$ (see Section 2.1) and $e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)$ is the expected value of (the absolute value) of the determinant of real symmetric matrices (for the explicit values of $e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)$, see [@GW2 Section 2]).\
We recall that $e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(1)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}$, then we have:
Let $(\Sigma,c_{\Sigma})$ be a real Riemann surface and $(L,h)$ a real holomorphic line bundle of degree $1$. Then, for every pair $(\alpha,\beta)\in{\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2$ without common zeros, $u_{\alpha\beta}$ is a degree $d$ branched covering between $\Sigma$ and ${\mathbb{C}}P^1$. Then the expected real total ramification index is equivalent to $$\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}Vol_h({\mathbb{R}}\Sigma)\sqrt{d}$$ as $d$ tends to $+\infty$.\
Theorem \[num\] will be a consequence of a more precise equidistribution result.\
We define $ \nu_{\alpha\beta}=\displaystyle \sum_{x\in {\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})} \delta_x$ (resp. ${\mathbb{R}}\nu_{\alpha\beta}=\sum_{x\in {\mathbb{R}}{\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})} \delta_x$) the Dirac measure on the (real) critical set.
\[eqreal\] Let $X$ be a smooth real projective manifold of dimension $n$ and $(L,h)$ be a positive real hermitian line bundle over $X$. Then
$$\lim_{d\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}^n}\mathbb{E}[{\mathbb{R}}\nu_{\alpha\beta}]=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{n!!}{(n-1)!!}e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)\frac{\pi}{2}dvol_h &\textrm{if n is odd}
\\\frac{n!!}{(n-1)!!}e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)dvol_h& \textrm{if n is even}.
\end{array}\right.$$ weakly in the sense of distributions.
Theorem \[eqreal\] says that for all continuous function $\varphi\in C^0({\mathbb{R}}X)$ $$\lim_{d\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}^n}\mathbb{E}[{\mathbb{R}}\nu_{\alpha\beta}](\varphi)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{n!!}{(n-1)!!}e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)\frac{\pi}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}X}\varphi dvol_h &\textrm{if n is odd}
\\\frac{n!!}{(n-1)!!}e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)\int_{{\mathbb{R}}X}\varphi dvol_h & \textrm{if n is even}.
\end{array}\right.$$ where $\mathbb{E}[{\mathbb{R}}\nu_{\alpha\beta}](\varphi)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2}\sum_{x\in {\mathbb{R}}crit(u_{\alpha\beta})}\varphi(x)d\mu(\alpha,\beta)$.
The following equidistribution result in the complex case follows along the same lines.
\[eqcom\] Let $X$ be a smooth complex projective manifold of dimension $n$, let $(L,h)$ a positive hermitian line bundle over $X$. Then
$$\lim_{d\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{1}{d^n}\mathbb{E}[\nu_{\alpha\beta}]=(n+1)!dvol_h$$ weakly in the sens of distribution.
As before, Theorem \[eqcom\] says that for all continuous function $\varphi$ on $X$, we have
$$\lim_{d\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{1}{d^n}\mathbb{E}[\nu_{\alpha\beta}](\varphi)=(n+1)n!\int_X\varphi dvol_h$$ where $dvol_h$ is the Kählerian volume associated to $h$.
### Organisation of the paper {#organisation-of-the-paper .unnumbered}
In Section 2.1 we introduce the Gaussian measure on $H^0(X;L^d)$ associated to a Hermitian line bundle $(L,h)$ over a complex manifold $X$ (see also [@sz], [@gw1], [@GW2]).\
In Section 2.2 we present some classical results about Lefschetz pencils on complex manifolds.\
In the rest of the Chapter 2 we introduce our main tools, namely the Hörmander peak sections (see also [@GW2], [@tian]) and the incidence variety (see [@ss]).
Chapter 3 is completely devoted to the proofs of the Theorems \[num\], \[eqreal\] and \[eqcom\]. In Sections 3.1 and 3.2 we prove the equidistribution of critical points of a (real) Lefschetz pencil over a (real) algebraic variety $X$. This will be done using coarea formula and peak sections. These ideas are taken from [@GW2].\
In Section 3.3 we will compute the universal constant by direct computation.
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
I am very grateful to my advisor Jean-Yves Welschinger for all the time he devoted to me and for all the fruitful discussions we had.
This work was performed within the framework of the LABEX MILYON (ANR-10-LABX-0070) of Université de Lyon, within the program “Investissements d’Avenir” (ANR-11-IDEX-0007) operated by the French National Research Agency (ANR).
Definitions and main tools
==========================
Notations
---------
Let $X$ be a smooth complex projective manifold of dimension $n$. Let $L\rightarrow X$ be a holomorphic line bundle equipped with a Hermitian metric $h$ of positive curvature $\omega\in\Omega^{(1,1)}(X,{\mathbb{R}})$. The curvature form induces a Kähler metric on $X$ and a volume form $dvol_h=\frac{\omega^n}{n!}$. Let $dx=\frac{\omega^n}{\int_X\omega^n}$ be the normalized volume form.\
The Hermitian metric $h$ induces a Hermitian metric $h^d$ on $L^d$ for every integer $d>0$ and also a $L^2$-Hermitian product on the space $H^0(X;L^d)$ of global holomorphic sections of $L^d$ denoted by $\langle, \rangle$ and defined by $$\langle\alpha,\beta\rangle=\int_Xh^d(\alpha,\beta)dx$$ for all $\alpha,\beta$ in $H^0(X;L^d)$.\
This Hermitian product induces a Gaussian measure on $H^0(X;L^d)$ defined by
$$\mu(A)=\frac{1}{\pi^{N_d}}\int_Ae^{-\parallel s\parallel}ds$$ for all open subset $A\subset H^0(X;L^d)$ where $ds$ is the Lebesgue measure associated to $\langle,\rangle$ and $N_d=dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}H^0(X;L^d)$.\
A Lefschetz pencil on $X$ is a rational map $p:X\dashrightarrow\mathbb{C}P^1$ having only non degenerated critical points and defined by two sections of a holomorphic line bundle with smooth and transverse vanishing loci.\
All these definitions have a real counterpart. Let $X$ a smooth real projective manifold of dimension $n$, that is a smooth complex projective manifold equipped with an anti-holomorphic involution $c_X$. We denote by\
$\mathbb{R}X=Fix(c_X)$ its real locus.\
A real holomorphic line bundle $p:L\rightarrow X$ is a line bundle equipped with an anti-holomorphic involution $c_L$ such that $p\circ c_L=c_X\circ p$ and $c_L$ is complex-antilinear in the fibers. We denote by ${\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L)$ the real vector space of real global section of $L$, i.e. sections $s\in H^0(X;L)$ such that $s \circ c_X=c_L\circ s$ . A real Hermitian metric on $L$ is a Hermitian metric $h_L$ such that $c_L^*h_L=\bar{h}_L$. If $(L,h_L)$ is a line bundle over $X$ with positive curvature $\omega$, then $\omega(.,i.)$ is a Hermitian metric over $X$ which restricts to a Riemannian metric over ${\mathbb{R}}X$. With a slight abuse of notation, we denote also the Riemannian volume form by $dvol_h$. The $L^2$-Hermitian product $\langle,\rangle$ on $H^0(X;L^d)$ restricts to a $L^2$-scalar product on ${\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)$, denoted also by $\langle,\rangle$. Then, as in the complex case, also in the real case we have a natural Gaussian measure on ${\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)$ defined by
$$\mu(A)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}^{N_d}}\int_Ae^{-\parallel s\parallel}ds$$ for all open subset $A\subset {\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)$ where $ds$ is the Lebesgue measure associated to $\langle,\rangle$ and $N_d=\dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}H^0(X;L^d)=\dim_{{\mathbb{R}}}{\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)$.\
If $(X,c_X)$ is a smooth real projective manifold then a real Lefschetz pencil is a Lefschetz pencil $p:X\dashrightarrow{\mathbb{C}}P^1$ such that $p\circ c_X=conj\circ p$.\
We conclude this section by introducing some notation on symmetric matrices.
\[mat\] For every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, denote by $Sym(n,{\mathbb{R}})$ the real vector space of real symmetric matrices of size $n\times n$. The vector of dimension of these vector spaces is $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ and we equip them with the basis $\mathcal{B}$ given by $\tilde{E}_{jj}$ and $\tilde{E}_{ij}=E_{ij}+E_{ji}$ for $1\leqslant i<j\leqslant n$, where for every $k,l$ with $1\leqslant k,l\leqslant n$, $E_{kl}$ is the elementary matrix whose entry at the $i$-th row and $j$-th column equals $1$ if $(i,j)=(k,l)$ and $0$ otherwise.
We equip $Sym(n,{\mathbb{R}})$ with the scalar product turning $\mathcal{B}$ into an orthonormal basis. Let $\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}}$ the associated Gaussian probability measure. We then set $$e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)=\int_{A\in Sym(n,{\mathbb{R}})}\mid \det A\mid d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}}(A).$$
Lefschetz pencils
-----------------
In this section, we compute the asymptotic value of the number of critical points of a Lefschetz pencil (see also [@gw1 Section 1]).\
Recall that a Lefschetz fibration is a map $X\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}P^1$ with only non degenerate critical points. The following proposition is a kind of Riemann-Hurwitz formula for Lefschetz pencils, for a proof see for example Proposition 1 of [@gw1].
\[hurlef\] Let $X$ be a smooth complex projective manifold of positive dimension $n$ equipped with a Lefschetz fibration $p:X\rightarrow{\mathbb{C}}P^1$ and let $F$ be a regular fiber of $p$. Then we have the following equality: $$\chi(X)=2\chi(F)+(-1)^n\#{\textrm{crit}}(p).$$
Remark that if $p:X\dashrightarrow{\mathbb{C}}P^1$ a Lefschetz pencil and we blow-up the base locus $Base(p)\doteqdot Y$, then we obtain a Lefschetz fibration $\tilde{p}:\tilde{X}\doteqdot Bl_YX\rightarrow{\mathbb{C}}P^1$. By additivity of the Euler characteristic, we have that $\chi(\tilde{X})=\chi(X)+\chi(Y)$, then by Proposition \[hurlef\] we have $$\chi(X)=2\chi(F)-\chi(Y)+(-1)^n\#{\textrm{crit}}(p).$$
\[asymlef\] Let $L$ be an ample line bundle over a complex manifold $X$ of dimension $n$. For almost all global sections $\alpha, \beta\in H^0(X;L^d)$, the map $u_{\alpha\beta}$ defined as $x\mapsto [\alpha(x):\beta(x)]$ is a Lefschetz pencil (see Prop. \[lefpen\]).\
Then, as $d$ goes to infinity, we have
$$\#{\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})=(n+1)\left(\int_Xc_1(L)^n\right)d^n+O(d^{n-1}).$$
We will follow the lines of Lemma 2, Lemma 3 and Proposition 4 of [@gw1].\
We have $\chi(F)=\int_F c_{n-1}(F)$ and $\chi(Y)=\int_Y c_{n-2}(Y)$.\
We remark that the base locus is the intersection of the zero locus of $\alpha$ and $\beta$, that is $Y=Z_{\alpha}\cap Z_{\beta}$.\
A regular fiber $F$ over $[a,b]\in{\mathbb{C}}P^1$ is the zero locus of the section $b\alpha-a\beta\in H^0(X;L^d)$, thus the normal bundle $N_{X/F}$ is $L^d_{\mid F}$ To compute $\chi(F)$ we will use the adjunction formula. We have $$0\rightarrow TF\rightarrow TX_{\mid F} \rightarrow N_{X/F}\rightarrow 0$$ then we have $c(X)_{\mid F}=c(F)\wedge c(L^d)_{\mid F}$, i.e. $(1+c_1(X)+...+c_n(X))_{\mid F}=(1+c_1(F)+...+c_{n-1}(F))\wedge(1+dc_1(L))$.\
If we develop this we have $c_1(X)=c_1(F)+dc_1(L)$ and, for $j\in \{2,...,n-1\}$, we have $c_j(X)_{\mid F}=c_j(F)+dc_1(L)_{\mid F}\wedge c_{j-1}(F).$\
Then, summing up the term,
$$c_j(F)=\sum_{k=0}^j(-1)^kd^kc_1(L)^k_{\mid F}\wedge c_{j-k}(X)_{\mid F}.$$ In particular, for $j=n-1$ we have
$$c_{n-1}(F)=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(-1)^kd^kc_1(L)^k_{\mid F}\wedge c_{n-k-1}(X)_{\mid F}.$$ Then $\chi(F)$ is equal to $\int_F\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(-1)^kd^kc_1(L)^k)_{\mid F}\wedge c_{n-k-1}(X)_{\mid F}$\
But, for $\alpha\in H_{dR}^{2n-2}(X)$, we have that
$$\int_F\alpha_{\mid F}=\int_X\alpha\wedge c_1(L^d)$$ so, $$\chi(F)=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\int_X(-1)^kd^{k+1}c_1(L)^{k+1}\wedge c_{n-k-1}(X)$$ and asymptotically $$\chi(F)\sim(-1)^{n-1}(\int_Xc_1(L)^n)d^n.$$ For $Y=Z_{\alpha}\cap Z_{\beta}$, the same argument gives us
$$c_j(Y)=\sum_{k=0}^j(-1)^kd^kc_1(L)^k_{\mid Y}\wedge c_{j-k}(Z_{\alpha})_{\mid Y}.$$ But, as before, $$c_{j-k}(Z_{\alpha})=\sum_{h=0}^{j-k}(-1)^hd^hc_1(L)^h\wedge c_{j-k-h}(X).$$ and so, replacing in the above equation $$c_j(Y)=\sum_{k=0}^j(-1)^kd^kc_1(L)^k_{\mid Y}\wedge (\sum_{h=0}^{j-k}(-1)^hd^hc_1(L)^h_{\mid Y}\wedge c_{j-k-h}(X)_{\mid Y})$$ For $j=n-2$ we have $$c_{n-2}(Y)=
\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}(-1)^kd^kc_1(L)^k_{\mid Y}\wedge (\sum_{h=0}^{n-2-k}(-1)^hd^hc_1(L)^h_{Y}\wedge c_{n-2-k-h}(X)_{\mid Y})$$ and this is equivalent to $$\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}(-1)^{n-2}d^{n-2}c_1(L)^{n-2}_{\mid Y}
=
(-1)^{n-2}(n-1)d^{n-2}c_1(L)^{n-2}_{\mid Y}$$ as $d\rightarrow\infty$.\
So we have,as $d\rightarrow\infty$, $$\chi(Y)\sim
(-1)^{n-2}(n-1)d^{n-2}\int_Yc_1(L)^{n-2}_{\mid Y}=$$ $$=(-1)^{n-2}(n-1)d^{n-1}\int_{Z_{\alpha}}c_1(L)^{n-2}\wedge c_1(L)=$$ $$=(-1)^{n-2}(n-1)(\int_Xc_1(L)^n)d^n.$$ Combining this with $\chi(X)=2\chi(F)-\chi(Y)+(-1)^n\#{\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})$ we obtain the result.
Hörmander’s peak sections
-------------------------
Here we introduce the Hörmander’s peak sections, an essential tool for our proofs of Theorems \[eqreal\] and \[eqcom\] (see also [@hor], [@tian], [@GW2]). Let $L$ be a holomorphic line bundle over a smooth complex projective manifold equipped with a Hermitian metric $h$ of positive curvature $\omega$ and let $dx=\frac{\omega^n}{\int_X\omega^n}$ be the normalized volume form. Let $x$ be a point of $X$. There exists, in the neighborhood of $x$, a holomorphic trivialization $e$ of $L$ such that the associated potential $\phi=-\textrm{log} h(e,e)$ reaches a local minimum at $x$ with Hessian of type $(1,1)$. The following result was proved in [@tian] (see also [@GW2]) .
\[peak\] Let $(L,h)$ be a holomorphic Hermitian line bundle of positive curvature $\omega$ over a smooth complex projective manifold $X$. Let $x\in X$, $(p_1,...,p_n)\in\mathbb{N}^n$ and $p'>p_1+...+p_n$. There exists $d_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for every $d>d_0$, the bundle $L^d$ has a global holomorphic section $\sigma$ satisfying $\int_Xh^d(\sigma,\sigma)dx=1$ and $$\int_{X\setminus B(x,\frac{\log d}{\sqrt{d}})}h^d(\sigma,\sigma)dx=O(\frac{1}{d^{2p'}})$$
Moreover, if $(x_1,...,x_n)$ are local holomorphic coordinates in the neighborhood of $x$, we can assume that in a neighborhood of $x$, $$\sigma(x_1,...,x_n)=\lambda(x_1^{p_1}\cdot\cdot\cdot x_n^{p_n}+O(\mid x\mid^{2p'}))e^d(1+O(\frac{1}{d^{2p'}}))$$ where $$\lambda^{-2}=\int_{B(x,\frac{\log d}{\sqrt{d}})}\mid x_1^{p_1}\cdot\cdot\cdot x_n^{p_n}\mid^2 h^d(e^d,e^d)dx$$ and $e$ is a holomorphic trivialization of $L$ in the neighborhood of $x$ whose potential $\phi=-\log h(e,e)$ reaches a local minimum at $x$ with Hessian equal to $\pi\omega(.,i.)$.
Here is an analogue of Lemma \[peak\] in the real case:
\[realpeak\] Let $(L,h)$ be a real holomorphic Hermitian line bundle of positive curvature $\omega$ over a smooth rel projective manifold $X$. Let $x\in \mathbb{R}X$, $(p_1,...,p_n)\in\mathbb{N}^n$ and $p'>p_1+...+p_n$. There exists $d_0\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for every $d>d_0$, the bundle $L^d$ has a global holomorphic section $\sigma$ satisfying $\int_Xh^d(\sigma,\sigma)dx=1$ and $$\int_{X\setminus B(x,\frac{\log d}{\sqrt{d}})}h^d(\sigma,\sigma)dV_h=O(\frac{1}{d^{2p'}})$$ Moreover, if $(x_1,...,x_n)$ are local real holomorphic coordinates in the neighborhood of $x$, we can assume that in a neighborhood of $x$, $$\sigma(x_1,...,x_n)=\lambda(x_1^{p_1}\cdot\cdot\cdot x_n^{p_n}+O(\mid x\mid^{2p'}))e^d(1+O(\frac{1}{d^{2p'}}))$$ where $$\lambda^{-2}=\int_{B(x,\frac{\log d}{\sqrt{d}})}\mid x_1^{p_1}\cdot\cdot\cdot x_n^{p_n}\mid^2 h^d(e^d,e^d)dx$$ and $e$ is a real trivialization of $L$ in the neighborhood of $x$ whose potential $\phi=-\log h(e,e)$ reaches a local minimum at $x$ with Hessian $\pi\omega(.,i.)$.
This real counterpart follows from Lemma \[peak\] by averaging the peak sections with the real structure.\
Let $\sigma_0$ be the section given by the Lemma \[realpeak\] with $p'=3$ and $p_i=0$ for all $i$, $\sigma_i$ the section given by Lemma \[realpeak\] with $p'=3$ and $p_j=\delta_{ij}$, $\sigma_{ij}$ the section given by Lemma \[realpeak\] with $p_i=p_j=1$ and $p_k=0$ otherwise and $\sigma_{kk}$ the section given by the Lemma \[realpeak\] with $p_k=2$ and $p_l=0$ for $l\neq k$.\
These sections are called *peak sections*. Their Taylor expansions are:
$$\sigma_0(y)=(\lambda_0+O(\parallel y\parallel^6))e^d(1+O(\frac{1}{d^6}));$$ $$\sigma_i(y)=(\lambda_iy_i+O(\parallel y\parallel^6))e^d(1+O(\frac{1}{d^6})) \hspace{3 mm} \forall i;$$ $$\sigma_{ij}(y)=(\lambda_{ij}y_iy_j+O(\parallel y\parallel^6))e^d(1+O(\frac{1}{d^6}))\hspace{3 mm} \forall i\neq j;$$ $$\sigma_{kk}(y)=(\lambda_{kk}y_k^2+O(\parallel y\parallel^6))e^d(1+O(\frac{1}{d^6})) \hspace{3 mm} \forall k.$$ The following lemma provides the asymptotic of the constants $\lambda_0$, $\lambda_i$, $\lambda_{ij}$ et $\lambda_{kk}$.
[@GW2 Lemma 2.5]\[limpeak\] Under the hypothesis of Lemma \[peak\] or \[realpeak\], we have $$\lim_{d\longrightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}^{n}}\lambda_0=\sqrt{\delta_L}$$ $$\lim_{d\longrightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}^{n+1}}\lambda_i=\sqrt{\pi}\sqrt{\delta_L}$$ $$\lim_{d\longrightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}^{n+2}}\lambda_{ij}=\pi\sqrt{\delta_L}$$ $$\lim_{d\longrightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}^{n+2}}\lambda_{kk}=\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\delta_L}$$ for the $L^2$-product induced by $dx=\frac{\omega^n}{\int_X\omega^n}$ where $\delta_L=\int_X c_1(L)^n$ is the degree of the line bundle $L$.
Let $$H_{2x}=\{s\in H^0(X;L^d) \mid s(x)=0, \nabla s(x)=0,\nabla^2s(x)=0\}$$ $$\left(\textrm{resp.}\quad{\mathbb{R}}H_{2x}=\{s\in {\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d) \mid s(x)=0, \nabla s(x)=0,\nabla^2s(x)=0\}\right).$$
This space is formed by sections whose $2$-jet vanishes at $x$. The sections $(\sigma_i)_{0\leq i\leq n}$ $(\sigma_{ij})_{1\leq i\leq j\leq n}$ provide a basis of a complement of $H_{2x}$. This basis is not orthonormal and its spanned subspace is not orthogonal to $H_{2x}$. However, this basis is aymptotically an orthonormal basis and its spanned subspace is asymptotically orthonormal to $H_{2x}$, in the following sense:
[@tian Lemma 3.1]\[ortpeak\] The section $(\sigma_i)_{0\leq i\leq n}$ and $(\sigma_{ij})_{1\leq i\leq j\leq n}$ have $L^2$-norm equal to $1$ and their pairwise scalar product are $O(\frac{1}{d})$. Likewise, their scalar products with every unitary element of $H_{2x}$ are $O(\frac{1}{d^{3/2}})$.
Incidence varieties
-------------------
Following [@ss] we define an incidence variety associated to the complex (resp. real) manifold $X$ and to the (real) positive line bundle $L$. We will use this incidence variety to prove that, for global sections $\alpha, \beta\in H^0(X;L^d)$ (resp. $\alpha, \beta\in{\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)$), the map $u_{\alpha\beta}$ defined as $x\mapsto [\alpha(x):\beta(x)]$ is almost surely a Lefschetz pencil (Proposition \[asymlef\]).
Let $(L,h)$ be a real Hermitian line bundle with positive curvature $\omega$ over a real manifold $X$ of dimension $n$.\
Let $\alpha, \beta\in H^0(X;L^d)$ (resp. ${\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)$) be (resp. real) global sections such that the map $x\mapsto [\alpha(x):\beta(x)]$ is a Lefschetz pencil. We define
1. the *base locus* of a Lefschetz pencil as the points $x$ such that\
$\alpha(x)=\beta(x)=0$;
2. the *critical points* as the points $x\in X\setminus Base(u_{\alpha\beta})$ such that\
$(\alpha\nabla\beta-\beta\nabla\alpha)(x)=0 $ (this expression doesn’t depend on the choice of a connexion $\nabla$ on $L$).\
We denote by ${\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})$ the set of critical points of $(u_{\alpha\beta})$ and by\
${\mathbb{R}}{\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})={\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})\cap{\mathbb{R}}X$ the set of real critical points)
We denote by $\Delta$ (resp.${\mathbb{R}}\Delta$) the set of $(\alpha, \beta,x)\in H^0(X;L^d)^2\times X$ (resp. ($\alpha, \beta,x)\in {\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2\times{\mathbb{R}}X$) such that $\alpha(x)=\beta(x)=0$. Set $$\mathcal{I}=\{(\alpha,\beta,x)\in (H^0(X;L^d)^2 \times X)\backslash\Delta\mid x\in crit(u_{\alpha\beta}) \}$$ $$(\mathrm{resp.} \quad {\mathbb{R}}\mathcal{I}=\{(\alpha,\beta,x)\in ({\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2 \times {\mathbb{R}}X)\backslash{\mathbb{R}}\Delta\mid x\in {\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta}) \})$$
Let $L$ a (real) holomorphic line bundle over a smooth complex (resp. real) projective manifold $X$. If $L^d$ is $1$-ample, that is if the $1$-jet map $$H^0(X;L^d)\times X\rightarrow J^1(L^d)$$ $$(s,x)\mapsto j^1_x(s)=(s(x),\nabla s(x))$$ is surjective, then $\mathcal{I}$ (resp. ${\mathbb{R}}\mathcal{I}$) is a manifold of complex (resp. real) dimension $2N_d$, where $N_d=\dim H^0(X;L^d)$.
We study the differential of the map $$q:(H^0(X;L^d)^2 \times X)\backslash\Delta\rightarrow T^*X\otimes L^{2d}$$ defined by $$(\alpha,\beta,x)\mapsto(\alpha\nabla\beta-\beta\nabla\alpha)(x)\in T_x^*X\otimes L_x^{2d}$$ defining $\mathcal{I}$. If we prove that $0$ is a regular value, then, by Implicit Function Theorem, we have the result. Now, for $(\alpha,\beta,x)\in\mathcal{I}$ we have $$d_{\mid(\alpha,\beta,x)}q\cdot(\dot{\alpha},\dot{\beta},\dot{x})=(\dot{\alpha}\nabla\beta-\beta\nabla\dot{\alpha}
+\alpha\nabla\dot{\beta}-\dot{\beta}\nabla\alpha
+\alpha\nabla^2_{(\dot{x},.)}\beta-\beta\nabla^2_{(\dot{x},.)}\alpha
+\nabla_{\dot{x}}\alpha\nabla\beta-\nabla_{\dot{x}}\beta\nabla\alpha)(x).$$ Let $\eta\in T_x^*X\otimes L_x^{2d}$ we have to prove that there exists $(\dot{\alpha},\dot{\beta},\dot{x})$ such that $d_{\mid(\alpha,\beta,x)}q\cdot(\dot{\alpha},\dot{\beta},\dot{x})=\eta$. As $(\alpha,\beta,x)\not\in\Delta$, we know that at least one between $\alpha(x)$ and $\beta(x)$ is not zero. Without loss of generality, suppose that $\alpha(x)\neq 0$, then, as $L^d$ is $1$-ample, there exists $\dot{\beta}$ such that $\dot{\beta}(x)=0$ and $\alpha(x)\nabla\dot{\beta}(x)=\eta$, then $d_{\mid(\alpha,\beta,x)}q\cdot(0,\dot{\beta},0)=\eta$.
If $L$ is ample, then, for large $d$, $L^d$ is $1$-ample. So, in our case $\mathcal{I}$\
(resp. ${\mathbb{R}}\mathcal{I}$ ) is a smooth variety for large $d$, called the *incidence variety*. The tangent space of $\mathcal{I}$ at $(\alpha,\beta,x)$ is
$$\begin{gathered}
T_{(\alpha,\beta,x)}\mathcal{I}=\left\{\right.
(\dot{\alpha},\dot{\beta},\dot{x})\in H^0(X;L^d)\times H^0(X;L^d)\times T_xX\mid \\
\left(\dot{\alpha}\nabla\beta-\beta\nabla\dot{\alpha}
+\alpha\nabla\dot{\beta}-\dot{\beta}\nabla\alpha
+\alpha\nabla^2_{(\dot{x},.)}\beta-\beta\nabla^2_{(\dot{x},.)}\alpha\right)
\left.(x)=0\right\}.\end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{gathered}
\left(\textrm{resp.}\right.
\quad T_{(\alpha,\beta,x)}{\mathbb{R}}\mathcal{I}=\left\{(\dot{\alpha}\right.
,\dot{\beta},\dot{x})\in {\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)\times {\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)\times T_x{\mathbb{R}}X\mid \\
\left(\dot{\alpha}\nabla\beta-\beta\nabla\dot{\alpha}\right.
+\alpha\nabla\dot{\beta}-\dot{\beta}\nabla\alpha
+\alpha\nabla^2_{(\dot{x},.)}\beta-\beta\nabla^2_{(\dot{x},.)}\alpha
\left. \right)
\left.(x)=0\right\}
\left. \right).\end{gathered}$$
- In the equation defining the tangent space there is also the term\
$(\nabla_{\dot{x}}\alpha\nabla\beta-\nabla_{\dot{x}}\beta\nabla\alpha)
(x)$ but it equals zero both in the complex and real case because on $\mathcal{I}$ and ${\mathbb{R}}\mathcal{I}$ we have the condition $(\alpha\nabla\beta-\beta\nabla\alpha)(x)=0$ and then\
$\left(\nabla_{\dot{x}}\alpha\nabla\beta-\nabla_{\dot{x}}\beta\nabla
\alpha\right)(x)=\left((\nabla_{\dot{x}}\alpha\frac{\beta}{\alpha}-\nabla_{\dot{x}}\beta)\nabla\alpha\right)
(x)=0.$
- The incidence variety comes equipped with two natural projections
$$\pi_H:\mathcal{I}\rightarrow H^0(X;L^d)\times H^0(X;L^d)\quad\textrm{and}\quad \pi_{X}:\mathcal{I}\rightarrow X$$
$$\left(\textrm{resp.}\quad\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}:{\mathbb{R}}\mathcal{I}\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)\times {\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)\quad\textrm{and}\quad\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}X}:\mathcal{{\mathbb{R}}I}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}X\right)$$
\[lefpen\] Let $L$ an ample holomorphic line bundle (resp. real holomorphic) over a smooth complex projective manifold $X$ (resp. real projective). For every couple $\alpha,\beta \in H^0(X;L^d)$ (resp. $\in{\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)$) the map $$u_{\alpha\beta}:X\dashrightarrow\mathbb{C}P^1$$ $$x\mapsto [\alpha(x):\beta(x)].$$ is, for large $d$, almost surely a Lefschetz pencil (resp. real Lefschetz pencil).
The critical points of $\pi_H$ (resp. $\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}$) are exactly the triples $(\alpha,\beta,x)$ such that $(\alpha\nabla^2\beta-\beta\nabla^2\alpha)(x)$ is degenerate. By Sard’s theorem ${\textrm{valcrit}}(\pi_H)$ has zero Lebesgue and Gaussian measure. Also, for large $d$, the set $\Gamma$ composed by the pairs $(\alpha,\beta)\in H^0(X;L^d)\times H^0(X;L^d) $ such that $\{x\in X, \alpha(x)=\beta(x)=0\}$ is not smooth has zero Lebesgue and Gaussian measure (see for example [@let Section 2.2]).\
Then $(\Gamma\cup {\textrm{valcrit}}(\pi_H))$ has zero measure and its complement is exactly the set of couple of sections defining a Lefschetz pencil.
Proof of the theorems
=====================
In this chapter we prove Theorems \[num\], \[eqreal\] and \[eqcom\].
Coarea formula
--------------
Here we will use the incidence variety defined in Section 2.4 and the coarea formula to see the expected distribution of critical points of a (real) Lefschetz pencil as an integral over $X$ (resp. ${\mathbb{R}}X$).
The *normal jacobian* ${\textrm{Jac}}_Nf$ of a submersion $f:M\rightarrow N$ between Riemannian manifolds is the determinant of the differential of the map restricted to the orthogonal of its kernel. Equivalently, if $df_p$ is the differential of $f$ at $p$, then the normal jacobian is equal to $\sqrt{\det(df_pdf_p^*)}$, where $df_p^*$ is the adjoint of $df_p$ with respect to the scalar product on $T_pM$ and $T_{f(p)}N$.
Let $X$ be a smooth complex (resp. real) projective manifold of dimension $n$ and $(L,h)$ be a (real) holomorphic line bundle of positive curvature $\omega$.
We define a Dirac measure for (real) critical points of a (real) Lefschetz pencil $u_{\alpha\beta}$ associated to a couple $(\alpha,\beta) \in H^0(X;L^d)^2$\
(resp. $\in{\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2$) by $$\nu_{\alpha\beta}=\displaystyle \sum_{x\in {\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})} \delta_x \qquad (\textrm{resp}.\quad {\mathbb{R}}\nu_{\alpha\beta}=\sum_{x\in {\mathbb{R}}{\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})} \delta_x).$$
Let $\varphi$ be a continuous function on ${\mathbb{R}}X$. Then, by definition,
$$\mathbb{E}[{\mathbb{R}}\nu_{\alpha\beta}](\varphi)=\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2}\sum_{x\in crit(u_{\alpha\beta})}\varphi(x)d\mu(\alpha,\beta).$$
Following the notation of Section 2.4, we have $$\label{realcoarea}\mathbb{E}[{\mathbb{R}}\nu_{\alpha\beta}](\varphi)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}X}\varphi(x)\int_{\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}\frac{1}{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}_N(\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}X})\mid}d\mu_{\mid\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}dvol_h.$$ where the measure $d\mu_{\mid\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}$ is the following: first we restrict the scalar product $\langle,\rangle$ on ${\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2$ to $\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))$, that is a codimension $n$ submanifold, then we consider the Riemannian measure associated to this metric, and finally we multiply it by the factor $\frac{1}{\pi^{N_d}}e^{-\parallel\alpha\parallel^2-\parallel\beta\parallel^2}$, where $N_d=\dim H^0(X;L^d)$.
We pull-back the integral $$\mathbb{E}[{\mathbb{R}}\nu_{\alpha\beta}](\varphi)=\int_{ {\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2}\sum_{x\in {\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})}\varphi(x)d\mu(\alpha,\beta)$$ on the incidence variety ${\mathbb{R}}\mathcal{I}$ and we obtain $$\mathbb{E}[{\mathbb{R}}\nu_{\alpha\beta}](\varphi)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}\mathcal{I}}(\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}X}^*\varphi)(\alpha,\beta,x)(\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}^*d\mu)(\alpha,\beta,x).$$ Here $\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}^*d\mu$ is well defined because $\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}$ is (almost everywhere) a local isomorphism.\
Now we use the coarea formula (see [@fed Lemma 3.2.3] or [@ss Theorem 1]) for the map $\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}X}$ and we obtain $$\mathbb{E}[{\mathbb{R}}\nu_{\alpha\beta}](\varphi)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}X}\varphi(x)\int_{\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x)}\frac{1}{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}_N(\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}X})\mid}(\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}^*d\mu)_{\mid\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X(x)}}dvol_h$$ where the measure $(\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}^*d\mu)_{\mid\pi^{-1}_X(x)}$ is the following: first we restrict the (singular) metric $\pi_H^*\langle,\rangle$ on ${\mathbb{R}}\mathcal{I}$ to $\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x)$, that is a codimension $n$ submanifold, then we consider the Riemannian measure associated to this metric, and finally we multiply it by the factor $\frac{1}{\pi^{N_d}}e^{-\parallel\alpha\parallel^2-\parallel\beta\parallel^2}$, where $N_d=\dim H^0(X;L^d)$.\
Then another application of coarea formula gives us the result.
The space $\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))$ is formed by pairs $(\alpha,\beta)\in {\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2$ such that $x\in {\mathbb{R}}{\textrm{crit}}(u_{\alpha\beta})$. In the next section we will identify this space with an intersection of some quadrics in the vector space ${\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2$.\
In the complex case, the same argument gives us, for every continous function $\varphi$ on $X$
$$\label{coarea}\mathbb{E}[\nu_{\alpha\beta}](\varphi)=\int_{X}\varphi(x)\int_{\pi_H(\pi^{-1}_{X}(x))}\frac{1}{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}_N(\pi_{X})\mid}d\mu_{\mid\pi_H(\pi^{-1}_{X}(x))}dvol_h.$$
Computation of the normal jacobian
----------------------------------
In this section we compute the normal jacobian that appears in (\[realcoarea\]) and (\[coarea\]). We follow the notations of Sections 2.1, 2.4 and 3.1. The main result of this section is the following proposition:
\[espform\] Following the notation of Sections 2.4 and 3.1, under the hypothesis of Theorem \[eqreal\], we have: $$\mathbb{E}[{\mathbb{R}}\nu_{\alpha\beta}](\varphi)=
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}X}\varphi(x)R_d(x)dvol_h,$$ where $$R_d(x)=(\sqrt{\pi d}^n)(\int_{Q}
\frac{\mid \det(a_0b_{ij}-b_0a_{ij})\mid}{\sqrt{\det\left((a_ia_j+b_ib_j)+(a_0^2+b_0^2)Id\right)}}
d\mu_Q +O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}))$$ and $Q\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{2(n+1)+n(n+1)}$ is the product of the intersection of quadrics $$\tilde{Q}=\{(a_0,b_0,...,a_n,...,b_n)\in {\mathbb{R}}^{2(n+1)}\mid a_0b_i-a_ib_0=0\quad\forall i=1,...,n\}$$ with the vector space ${\mathbb{R}}^{n(n+1)}$ of coordinates $a_{ij}$ and $b_{ij}$ for $1\leq i\leq j\leq n$ and $d\mu_Q=
\frac{e^{-\sum_ia_i^2-\sum_i
b_i^2-\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}^2-\sum_{i,j}b_{ij}^2}}{\pi^{n+1+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}dvol_Q$.
The remaining part of this section is devoted to the proof of this proposition. Our main tool will be the peak sections defined in Section 2.3.
We fix a point $x\in X$ (resp. $x\in{\mathbb{R}}X$) and want to compute the integral $$\label{codensity}\int_{\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}\frac{1}{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}_N(\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}X})\mid}d\mu_{\mid\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}$$ that appears in (\[realcoarea\]).
We recall that the tangent space of $\mathcal{I}$ (resp. ${\mathbb{R}}\mathcal{I}$) at $(\alpha,\beta,x)$ is $$\begin{gathered}
\{(\dot{\alpha},\dot{\beta},\dot{x})\in H^0(X;L^d)\times H^0(X;L^d)\times T_xX\mid \\
(\dot{\alpha}\nabla\beta-\beta\nabla\dot{\alpha}
+\alpha\nabla\dot{\beta}-\dot{\beta}\nabla\alpha
+\alpha\nabla^2_{(\dot{x},.)}\beta-\beta\nabla^2_{(\dot{x},.)}\alpha)(x)=0\}\end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{gathered}
(\textrm{resp.}\quad \{(\dot{\alpha},\dot{\beta},\dot{x})\in {\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)\times {\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)\times T_x{\mathbb{R}}X\mid \\
(\dot{\alpha}\nabla\beta-\beta\nabla\dot{\alpha}
+\alpha\nabla\dot{\beta}-\dot{\beta}\nabla\alpha
+\alpha\nabla^2_{(\dot{x},.)}\beta-\beta\nabla^2_{(\dot{x},.)}\alpha)(x)=0)(x)=0\}.\end{gathered}$$
We remark that $d\pi_{H\mid(\alpha,\beta,x)}$ is (almost everywhere) an isometry, because on $\mathcal{I}$ we put the (singular) metric $\pi_H^*\langle ,\rangle$. We compute ${\textrm{Jac}}_N(\pi_X)$ (resp. ${\textrm{Jac}}_N(\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}X})$) at ${(\alpha,\beta,x)}$ using the following two linear maps:
$$\label{a} A:H^0(X;L^d)\times H^0(X;L^d)\rightarrow T_x^*X\otimes L_x^{2d}$$
$$(\textrm{resp.}\quad A:{\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)\times {\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}(T^*X\otimes L^{2d})_x)$$ and $$\label{b} B:T_x X\rightarrow T_x^*X\otimes L_x^{2d}$$ $$\left(\textrm{resp.}\quad B:T_x{\mathbb{R}}X\rightarrow \right.
\left. {\mathbb{R}}(T^*X\otimes L^{2d})_x\right)$$ defined by $$A(\dot{\alpha},\dot{\beta})=
(\dot{\alpha}\nabla\beta-\beta\nabla\dot{\alpha}
+\alpha\nabla\dot{\beta}-\dot{\beta}\nabla\alpha)(x)$$ and $$B(\dot{x})=
\left(\alpha\nabla^2_{(\dot{x},.)}\beta-\beta\nabla^2_{(\dot{x},.)}\alpha\right)(x)$$ On $T_x^*X\otimes L_x^{2d}$ (resp. ${\mathbb{R}}(T^*X\otimes L^{2d})_x$) we have the Hermitian (resp. scalar) product induced by $h$.
Following the notation of Sections 2.4 and 3.1, we have, for all $(\alpha,\beta,x)\in\mathcal{I}$ (resp. ${\mathbb{R}}\mathcal{I}$), ${\textrm{Jac}}_N(\pi_X)=\frac{{\textrm{Jac}}_N(A)}{{\textrm{Jac}}(B)}.$
We have $d\pi\mid_{(\alpha,\beta,x)}=B^{-1}\circ A$ and this implies $d\pi\mid_{(\alpha,\beta,x)}\mid_{(kerA)^{\perp}}=B^{-1}\circ A\mid_{(kerA)^{\perp}}$. It follows that ${\textrm{Jac}}(d\pi\mid_{(\alpha,\beta,x)}\mid_{(kerA)^{\perp}})={\textrm{Jac}}(B^{-1}){\textrm{Jac}}(A\mid_{(kerA)^{\perp}})$ Now, ${\textrm{Jac}}(B^{-1})={\textrm{Jac}}(B)^{-1}$ and ${\textrm{Jac}}(A\mid_{(kerA)^{\perp}})={\textrm{Jac}}_N(A)$.
Fix real holomorphic coordinates $(x_1,...,x_n)$ in a neighborhood of a point $x\in{\mathbb{R}}X$ such that $(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1},...,\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n})$ is an orthonormal basis of $T_xX$ (resp. $T_x{\mathbb{R}}X$). We want to compute the integral $$\label{codensity}\int_{\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}\frac{1}{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}_N(\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}X})\mid}d\mu_{\mid\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}$$ that appears in (\[realcoarea\]).
Let $(\alpha,\beta) \in H^0(X;L^d)^2$ (resp. ${\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2$) then $$\alpha=\sum_{i=0}^n a_i\sigma_i+\sum_{1\leqslant k\leqslant l\leqslant n}a_{kl}\sigma_{kl}+\tau$$ $$\beta=\sum_{i=0}^n b_i\sigma_i+\sum_{1\leqslant k\leqslant l\leqslant n}b_{kl}\sigma_{kl}+\tau'$$ where $\tau, \tau'\in kerJ^2_x$ and $\sigma_i,\sigma_{kl}$ are the peak section of Lemma \[realpeak\].\
We remark that $(\alpha,\beta)\in\pi_H(\pi^{-1}_X(x))$ if and only if $a_0b_i-a_ib_0=0$ $\forall i=1,...,n$, and also that the definition of ${\textrm{Jac}}_N(\pi_{X})$ involves only the $2$-jets of sections. With this remark in mind we define the following spaces:
- $K_2\doteqdot(KerJ^2_x\times KerJ^2_x)\subset H^0(X;L^d)^2$ (resp. ${\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2$);
- $H_2\doteqdot Vect\{(\sigma_i,0),(\sigma_{kl},0),(0,\sigma_i),(0,\sigma_{kl})\} \subset H^0(X:L^d)^2$ (resp. ${\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2$) for $i=0,...,n$ and $1\leq l\leq k\leq n$;
- $Q=H_2\cap \pi_H(\pi^{-1}_X(x))$.
We see $Q$ as the product of the intersection of quadrics: $$\tilde{Q}=\{(a_0,b_0,...,a_n,b_n)\in {\mathbb{R}}^{2(n+1)}\mid a_0b_i-a_ib_0=0\quad\forall i=1,...,n\}$$ with the vector space ${\mathbb{R}}^{n(n+1)}$ of coordinates $a_{ij}$ and $b_{ij}$ for $1\leq i\leq j\leq n$.\
Let $\pi_2:K_2^{\perp}\rightarrow H_2$ be the orthogonal projection. A consequence of Proposition \[ortpeak\] is that, for large $d$, $\pi_2$ is invertible.\
Following the notation of Section 2.4 and 3.1, let $A$ and $B$ be the linear application defined in (\[a\]) and (\[b\]). Then, in the complex case, under the hypothesis of Theorem \[eqcom\],
$$(\pi_2^{-1})_*{\textrm{Jac}}_N(A)=
\det((\pi\delta^2_Ld^{2n+1})
((a_i\bar{a}_j+b_i\bar{b}_j)E_{ij}
+(\mid a_0\mid^2+\mid b_0\mid^2)Id+O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}))$$ $$(\pi_2^{-1})_*{\textrm{Jac}}(B)=\mid \det
(\pi\delta_L\sqrt{d}^{2n+2})((a_0b_{ij}-b_0a_{ij})\tilde{E}_{ij}
+O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}))\mid^2$$ and, in the real case, under the hypothesis of the Theorem \[eqreal\],
$$(\pi_2^{-1})_*{\textrm{Jac}}_N(A)=
\sqrt{\det(\pi\delta_L^2d^{2n+1})
((a_ia_j+b_ib_j)E_{ij}+(a_0^2+b_0^2)Id+O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}))}$$ $$(\pi_2^{-1})_*{\textrm{Jac}}(B)=\det
((\pi\delta_L\sqrt{d}^{2n+2})((a_0b_{ij}-b_0a_{ij})\tilde{E}_{ij}
+O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}})))$$
where $\tilde{E}_{ij}$ for $1\leqslant i\leqslant j\leqslant n$ and $E_{ij}$ for $i,j=1,...,n$ are the matrices defined in Definition \[mat\].
Let $e$ be a local trivialization of $L$ at $x$ as in Section 2.2 and let $(\sigma_i)_{i=0,...,n}$, $(\sigma_{kl})_{1\leqslant k\leqslant l\leqslant n}$ as in Lemma \[peak\] (resp. Lemma \[realpeak\]).\
Let $(\alpha,\beta) \in H^0(X;L^d)^2$ (resp. ${\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2$) then $$\alpha=\sum_{i=0}^n a_i\sigma_i+\sum_{1\leqslant k\leqslant l\leqslant n}a_{kl}\sigma_{kl}+\tau$$ $$\beta=\sum_{i=0}^n b_i\sigma_i+\sum_{1\leqslant k\leqslant l\leqslant n}b_{kl}\sigma_{kl}+\tau'$$ where $\tau, \tau'\in kerJ^2_x.$\
In particular we have $$\alpha(x)=a_0\sigma_0(x),\qquad \beta(x)=b_0\sigma_0(x),$$ $$\nabla\alpha(x)=\sum_{i=0}^na_i\nabla\sigma_i(x),\qquad\nabla\beta(x)=\sum_{i=0}^nb_i\nabla\sigma_i(x),$$ $$\nabla^2\alpha(x)=\sum_{i=0}^na_i\nabla^2\sigma_i(x)+\sum_{k,l}
a_{kl}\nabla^2\sigma_{kl}(x),\quad\nabla^2\beta(x)=\sum_{i=0}^nb_i\nabla^2\sigma_i(x)+\sum_{k,l}
b_{kl}\nabla^2\sigma_{kl}(x).$$ As basis for $T_xX$ and $T^*_xX\otimes L^{2d}_x$ (resp. $T_x{\mathbb{R}}X$ and ${\mathbb{R}}(T^*_xX\otimes L^{2d}_x)$) we choose $(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1},...,\frac{\partial}{\partial x_n})$ and $(dx_1\otimes e^{2d},...,dx_n\otimes e^{2d})$ respectively. We choose $(\sigma_i,0)$ and $(0,\sigma_i)$, $i=0,...,n$, as a basis of a complement of $ker J_x^1\times ker J^1_x$. Thanks to Lemma \[ortpeak\], this basis is asymptotically orthonormal for the $L^2$-Hermitian product $\langle,\rangle$. By definition it is an orthonormal basis for the scalar product $(\pi_2^{-1})_*\langle,\rangle$ restricted to $H_2$ . Then we obtain, using Lemma \[limpeak\], $$\left\langle A(\sigma_0,0),dx_j\otimes e^{2d}\right\rangle
=b_j\sqrt{\pi}\delta_L\sqrt{d}^{2n+1}+O(\sqrt{d}^{2n});$$ $$\left\langle A(\sigma_i,0),dx_j\otimes e^{2d}\right\rangle=
-b_0\sqrt{\pi}\delta_L\sqrt{d}^{2n+1}\delta_{ij}+O(\sqrt{d}^{2n}) \quad\textrm{for}\quad i=1,...n;$$ $$\left\langle A(0,\sigma_0),dx_j\otimes e^{2d}\right\rangle=
-a_j\sqrt{\pi}\delta_L\sqrt{d}^{2n+1}+O(\sqrt{d}^{2n});$$ $$\left\langle A(0,\sigma_i),dx_j\otimes e^{2d}\right\rangle=
a_0\sqrt{\pi}\delta_L\sqrt{d}^{2n+1}\delta_{ij}+O(\sqrt{d}^{2n})
\quad\textrm{for}\quad i=1,...n;$$ $$\left\langle B(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}),dx_j\otimes e^{2d}\right\rangle
=(a_0b_{ij}-b_0a_{ij})\pi\delta_L\sqrt{d}^{2n+2}+O(\sqrt{d}^{2n+1}) \quad\textrm{for}\quad i\neq j;$$ $$\left\langle B(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}),dx_k\otimes e^{2d}\right\rangle
=\sqrt{2}(a_0b_{kk}-b_0a_{kk})\pi\delta_L\sqrt{d}^{2n+2}+O(\sqrt{d}^{2n+1}).$$ where the Hermitian (resp. scalar) product on $T^*_xX\otimes L^{2d}_x$\
(resp. ${\mathbb{R}}(T^*_xX\otimes L^{2d}_x)$) is induced by $h$.\
What we have just computed are the coefficients of the matrices of $A$ and $B$ with respect to our choice of basis and with respect to the scalar product $(\pi_2^{-1})_*\langle,\rangle$. We recall that $B$ is a square matrix and that ${\textrm{Jac}}_N(A)=\sqrt{{\textrm{Jac}}(AA^*)}$.\
More precisely, as $d\rightarrow \infty$ , $A$ is equivalent to the following matrix:
$$\sqrt{\pi}\delta_L\sqrt{d}^{2n+1}
\begin{bmatrix}
b_1 & -b_0 &0 & \dots & 0 & -a_1 & a_0 & 0 &\dots& 0
\\
b_2 & 0 & -b_0 & \dots & 0 & -a_2 & 0 & a_0 & \dots& 0
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots& \dots& \dots
\\
b_n & 0 & 0 & \dots& -b_0 & -a_n & 0 &0 &\dots& a_0
\end{bmatrix}$$ and $B$ to the following one: $$\pi\delta_L\sqrt{d}^{2n+2}
\begin{bmatrix}
\sqrt{2}(a_0b_{11}-b_0a_{11}) & a_0b_{12}-b_0a_{12} & \dots & a_0b_{1n}-b_0a_{1n}
\\
a_0b_{21}-b_0a_{21} & \sqrt{2}(a_0b_{22}-b_0a_{22}) & \dots &a_0b_{2n}-b_0a_{2n}
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots
\\
a_0b_{n1}-b_0a_{n1} & a_0b_{n2}-b_0a_{n2} & \dots & \sqrt{2}(a_0b_{nn}-b_0a_{nn})
\end{bmatrix}$$
A direct computation shows us that $AA^*$ is the matrix $$(\pi\delta^2_Ld^{2n+1})
((a_i\bar{a}_j+b_i\bar{b}_j)E_{ij}
+(\mid a_0\mid^2+\mid b_0\mid^2)Id+O(\frac{1}{d}).$$ The results follows.
The last proposition implies
$$(\pi_2^{-1})_*\frac{1}{{\textrm{Jac}}_N(\pi_{X})}=
(\pi d)^n
(
\frac{{\textrm{Jac}}_{{\mathbb{R}}}((a_0b_{ij}-b_0a_{ij})\tilde{E}_{ij})}{\det((a_i\bar{a}_j+b_i\bar{b}_j)E_{ij}+
(\mid a_0\mid^2+\mid\ b_0\mid^2)Id)}
+O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}))$$
$$(\pi_2^{-1})_*\frac{1}{{\textrm{Jac}}_N(\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}X})}=
(\sqrt{\pi d}^n)
\left(\right.
\frac{\det((a_0b_{ij}-b_0a_{ij})\tilde{E}_{ij})}{\sqrt{\det\left((a_ia_j+b_ib_j)E_{ij}+(a_0^2+b_0^2)Id\right)}}
+O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}))$$ We want to integrate this quantity over $\pi_H(\pi^{-1}_X(x))$. We recall that the measure $d\mu_{\mid\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}$ is the following one: first we restrict the scalar product $\langle,\rangle$ on ${\mathbb{R}}H^0(X;L^d)^2$ to $\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))$, that is a codimension $n$ submanifold, then we consider the Riemannian measure associated to this metric, and finally we multiply it by the factor $\frac{1}{\pi^{N_d}}e^{-\parallel\alpha\parallel^2-\parallel\beta\parallel^2}$, where $N_d=\dim H^0(X;L^d)$. Then (\[codensity\]) is equal to
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{dens}
\int_{\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}\frac{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}(B)\mid}{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}_N(A)\mid}d\mu\mid_{\pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}
=\\
=\int_{K_2^{\perp}\cap \pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))\oplus K_2}\frac{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}(B)\mid}{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}_N(A)\mid}d\mu\mid_{\pi_H(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}=\\
=\int_{K_2^{\perp}\cap \pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}\frac{\mid Jac(B)\mid}{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}_N(A)\mid}d\mu\mid_{K_2^{\perp}\cap \pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}
=\\
=\int_Q(\pi_2^{-1})_*\frac{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}(B)\mid}{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}_N(A)\mid}(\pi_{2*}d\mu\mid_{K_2^{\perp}\cap \pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))}).\end{gathered}$$
Thanks to the Proposition \[ortpeak\], the pushforward measure $(\pi_2)_*(\mu_{\mid K_2^{\perp}})$ on $H_2$ coincides with the Gaussian measure associated to the orthonormal basis $\{(\sigma_i,0),(\sigma_{kl},0),(0,\sigma_i),(0,\sigma_{kl})\}$ up to a $O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}})$ term. As a consequence we have that $(\pi_{2*}d\mu\mid_{K_2^{\perp}\cap \pi_{{\mathbb{R}}H}(\pi^{-1}_{{\mathbb{R}}X}(x))})$ is equal to $\frac{e^{-\sum_ia_i^2-\sum_i
b_i^2-\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}^2-\sum_{i,j}b_{ij}^2}}{\pi^{n+1+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}dvol_Q$ up to a $O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}})$ term. We then have that (\[dens\]) is equal to
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{quadric}
\int_Q(\pi_2^{-1})_*\frac{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}(B)\mid}{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}_N(A)\mid}d\mu_Q+O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}})=
\\=\int_{\begin{array}{l} a_i,b_i,a_{ij},b_{ij}\\ a_0b_i-b_0a_i=0\end{array}}(\sqrt{\pi d}^n)
(\frac{\mid \det((a_0b_{ij}-b_0a_{ij})\tilde{E}_{ij})\mid}{\sqrt{\det\left((a_ia_j+b_ib_j)E_{ij}+(a_0^2+b_0^2)Id\right)}}
d\mu_Q +O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}))\end{gathered}$$
where $d\mu_Q=
\frac{e^{-\sum_ia_i^2-\sum_i
b_i^2-\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}^2-\sum_{i,j}b_{ij}^2}}{\pi^{n+1+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}dvol_Q$.\
Putting (\[quadric\]) in (\[realcoarea\]), we obtain Proposition \[espform\].
Computation of the universal constant
-------------------------------------
The purpose of this section is the explicit computation of the function $R_d(x)$ that appears in Proposition \[espform\]. We use the notation of Section 3.2.
To understand $R_d(x)$, we have to compute $$\sqrt{\pi d}^n\int_{Q}\frac{\mid \det((a_0b_{ij}-b_0a_{ij})\tilde{E}_{ij})\mid}{\sqrt{\det((a_ia_j+b_ib_j)E_{ij}+(a_0^2+b_0^2)Id)}}
\frac{e^{-\sum_ia_i^2-\sum_i
b_i^2-\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}^2-\sum_{i,j}b_{ij}^2}}{\pi^{n+1+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}dvol_Q.$$ The main result of this section is the following computation:
\[unconst\] Let $Q$ be as in Proposition \[espform\]. Then $$\sqrt{\pi d}^n\int_Q\frac{\mid \det((a_0b_{ij}-b_0a_{ij})\tilde{E}_{ij})\mid}{\sqrt{det((a_ia_j+b_ib_j)E_{ij}+(a_0^2+b_0^2)Id)}}
\frac{e^{-\sum_ia_i^2-\sum_i
b_i^2-\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}^2-\sum_{i,j}b_{ij}^2}}{\pi^{n+1+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}dvol_Q$$ is equal to $$\label{univ}\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{n!!}{(n-1)!!}e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{d}^n &\textrm{if n is odd}
\\\frac{n!!}{(n-1)!!}e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)\sqrt{d}^n & \textrm{if n is even}.
\end{array}\right.$$ where $\tilde{E}_{ij}$ and $E_{ij}$ are the matrices of Definition \[mat\] and $e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)$ is the expected value of the determinant of (the absolute value of) the real symmetric matrices.
We recall that $Q\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{2(n+1)+n(n+1)}$ is the product of the intersection of quadrics: $$\tilde{Q}=\{(a_0,b_0,...,a_n,...b_n)\in {\mathbb{R}}^{2(n+1)}\mid a_0b_i-a_ib_0=0\quad\forall i=1,...,n\}$$ with ${\mathbb{R}}^{n(n+1)}$ of coordinates $a_{ij}$ and $b_{ij}$ for $1\leq i\leq j\leq n$. We consider the parametrization $\psi:{\mathbb{R}}^{(n+2)}\rightarrow \tilde{Q}$ defined by $$\psi(a,b,t_1,...,t_n)=(a,b,at_1,bt_1,...,at_n,bt_n).$$
We have ${\textrm{Jac}}(\psi)=\sqrt{1+\sum_it_i^2}\sqrt{(a^2+b^2)}^n$.
A computation gives us $${\textrm{Jac}}\psi {\textrm{Jac}}\psi^t=\det
\begin{bmatrix}
1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2 & 0 & t_1a & t_2a & \dots& \dots & t_na
\\
0 & 1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2 & t_1b & t_2b & \dots & \dots& t_nb
\\
t_1a & t_1b & a^2+b^2 & 0 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
t_2a & t_2b & 0 & a^2+b^2 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots
\\
t_na & t_nb & 0& 0 & \dots& \dots &a^2+b^2
\end{bmatrix}$$ We develop the last line and we obtain $$(a^2+b^2)\det
\begin{bmatrix}
1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2 & 0 & t_1a & t_2a & \dots& \dots & t_{n-1}a
\\
0 & 1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2 & t_1b & t_2b & \dots & \dots& t_{n-1}b
\\
t_1a & t_1b & a^2+b^2 & 0 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
t_2a & t_2b & 0 & a^2+b^2 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots
\\
t_{n-1}a & t_{n-1}b & 0& 0 & \dots& \dots &a^2+b^2
\end{bmatrix}$$ $$+(-1)^{n}t_nb\det
\begin{bmatrix}
1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2 & t_1a & t_2a & \dots& \dots & t_na
\\
0 & t_1b & t_2b & \dots & \dots& t_nb
\\
t_1a & a^2+b^2 & 0 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
t_2a & 0 & a^2+b^2 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
t_{n-1}a & 0& 0 & \dots& a^2+b^2 &0
\end{bmatrix}$$ $$+(-1)^{n+1}t_na\det
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & t_1a & t_2a & \dots& \dots & t_na
\\
1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2 & t_1b & t_2b & \dots & \dots& t_nb
\\
t_1b & a^2+b^2 & 0 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
t_2b & 0 & a^2+b^2 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
t_{n-1}b & 0& 0 & \dots& a^2+b^2 &0
\end{bmatrix}$$ For the second matrix we have:
$$\det
\begin{bmatrix}
1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2 & t_1a & t_2a & \dots& \dots & t_na
\\
0 & t_1b & t_2b & \dots & \dots& t_nb
\\
t_1a & a^2+b^2 & 0 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
t_2a & 0 & a^2+b^2 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
t_{n-1}a & 0& 0 & \dots& a^2+b^2 &0
\end{bmatrix}$$
$$=(1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2)\det
\begin{bmatrix}
t_1b & t_2b & \dots & \dots&\dots& t_nb
\\
a^2+b^2 & 0 & \dots & \dots & 0&0
\\
0 & a^2+b^2 & \dots & \dots & 0&0
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots &\dots
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & a^2+b^2 & 0&0
\\
0& \dots & \dots &0& a^2+b^2 &0
\end{bmatrix}$$ $$=(-1)^{n+1}(1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2)t_nb(a^2+b^2)^{n-1}.$$ where the first equality is obtained by developping the first column and remarking that, in the development, each time we clear the $i$-th line, the $(i-1)$-th column and the last column are linearly equivalent.
Similarly, $$\det
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & t_1a & t_2a & \dots& \dots & t_na
\\
1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2 & t_1b & t_2b & \dots & \dots& t_nb
\\
t_1b & a^2+b^2 & 0 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
t_2b & 0 & a^2+b^2 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
t_{n-1}b & 0& 0 & \dots& a^2+b^2 &0
\end{bmatrix}$$ $$=(-1)^n(1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2)t_na(a^2+b^2)^{n-1}.$$ Then we have $${\textrm{Jac}}\psi {\textrm{Jac}}\psi^t=(a^2+b^2)\det
\begin{bmatrix}
1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2 & 0 & t_1a & t_2a & \dots& \dots & t_{n-1}a
\\
0 & 1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2 & t_1b & t_2b & \dots & \dots& t_{n-1}b
\\
t_1a & t_1b & a^2+b^2 & 0 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
t_2a & t_2b & 0 & a^2+b^2 & \dots & \dots & 0
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots
\\
\dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots & \dots
\\
t_{n-1}a & t_{n-1}b & 0& 0 & \dots& \dots &a^2+b^2
\end{bmatrix}$$ $$-(1+\sum_{i=1}^{n}t_i^2)t_n^2(a^2+b^2)^n.$$ Continuing to develop in the same way, we obtain by induction $${\textrm{Jac}}\psi {\textrm{Jac}}\psi^t=(1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2)^2(a^2+b^2)^n-(1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2)
\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2(a^2+b^2)^n=(1+\sum_{i=1}^nt_i^2)(a^2+b^2)^n.$$ Passing to the square root we obtain the result.
In the following we will not write the symbols $\tilde{E}_{ij}$ $E_{ij}$ to simplify the notation.
After this change of variables, we have:
$$\sqrt{\pi d}^n\int_{Q}\frac{\mid \det(a_0b_{ij}-b_0a_{ij})\mid}{\sqrt{det((a_ia_j+b_ib_j)+(a_0^2+b_0^2)Id)}}
\frac{e^{-\sum_ia_i^2-\sum_i
b_i^2-\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}^2-\sum_{i,j}b_{ij}^2}}{\pi^{n+1+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}dvol_Q=$$ $$=\sqrt{\pi d}^n\int_{a,b,a_{ij},b_{ij},t_i\in{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{\mid \det(ab_{ij}-ba_{ij})\mid}{\sqrt{\det((a^2+b^2)((t_it_j)+Id))}}\times$$ $$\times\frac{e^{-(1+\sum_it_i^2)(a^2+b^2)-\sum_{i,j}(a_{ij}^2+ b_{ij}^2)}}{\pi^{n+1+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}\sqrt{(1+\sum_it_i^2})\sqrt{(a^2+b^2)}^ndadbda_{ij}db_{ij}dt_i$$ Now $\det((a^2+b^2)((t_it_j)+Id))=(1+\sum_it_i^2)(a^2+b^2)^n$ so we obtain
$$\sqrt{\pi d}^n\int_{a,b,a_{ij},b_{ij},t_i\in{\mathbb{R}}}\mid \det(ab_{ij}-ba_{ij}))\mid
\frac{e^{-(1+\sum_it_i^2)(a^2+b^2)-\sum_{i,j}(a_{ij}^2+ b_{ij}^2)}}{\pi^{n+1+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}dadbda_{ij}db_{ij}dt_i.$$ It is more practical to see $(a,b)$ as a complex number $c\in{\mathbb{C}}$ and also $(a_{ij},b_{ij})$ as $e_{ij}\in{\mathbb{C}}$. With a slight abuse of notation, we denote $dc$ and $de_{ij}$ instead of $\frac{-1}{2i}dcd\bar{c}$ and $\frac{-1}{2i}de_{ij}d\bar{e}_{ij}$. Then we have
$$\sqrt{\pi d}^n\int_{c\in{\mathbb{C}},e_{ij}\in{\mathbb{C}},t_i\in{\mathbb{R}}}\mid \det({{\rm Im}\,}(\bar{c}e_{ij}))\mid
\frac{e^{-(1+\sum_it_i^2)\mid c \mid^2-\sum_{i,j}\mid e_{ij}\mid^2}}{\pi^{n+1+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}dcde_{ij}dt_i.$$
Now, set $\tilde{c}=(\sqrt{1+\sum_it_i^2})c$ and then $\tilde{c}=re^{i\vartheta}$. We obtain
$$\sqrt{\pi d}^n\int_{\tilde{c}\in{\mathbb{C}},e_{ij}\in{\mathbb{C}}}\mid \det({{\rm Im}\,}(\bar{\tilde{c}}e_{ij}))\mid\frac{e^{-\mid \tilde{c}\mid^2-\sum_{i,j}\mid e_{ij}\mid^2}}{\pi^{1+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}d\tilde{c}de_{ij}$$ $$\times\int_{t_i\in{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{1}{\pi^{n}\sqrt{1+\sum_it_i^2}^{n+1}}
dt_i=$$ $$\sqrt{\pi d}^n\int_{\vartheta\in (0,2\pi],e_{ij}\in{\mathbb{C}}}\mid \det({{\rm Im}\,}(e^{-i\vartheta}e_{ij}))\mid\frac{e^{-\sum_{i,j}\mid e_{ij}\mid^2}}{\pi^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}de_{ij}d\vartheta$$ $$\times\int_{r=0}^{+\infty}\frac{r^{n+1}e^{-r^2}}{\pi}dr\\
\times\int_{t_i\in{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{1}{\pi^{n}\sqrt{1+\sum_it_i^2}^{n+1}}
dt_i.$$
so we have to compute these three integrals. For the first term, we have $$\int_{\vartheta\in (0,2\pi],e_{ij}\in{\mathbb{C}}}\mid \det({{\rm Im}\,}(e^{-i\vartheta}c_{ij}))\mid\frac{e^{-\sum_{i,j}\mid e_{ij}\mid^2}}{\pi^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}de_{ij}d\vartheta=$$ $$=2\pi\int_{e_{ij}\in{\mathbb{C}}}\mid \det({{\rm Im}\,}e_{ij})\mid\frac{e^{-\sum_{i,j}\mid e_{ij}\mid^2}}{\pi^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}de_{ij}=$$ $$=2\pi\int_{b_{ij}\in{\mathbb{R}}}\mid \det(b_{ij})\mid\frac{e^{-\sum_{i,j}b_{ij}^2}}{\sqrt{\pi}^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}db_{ij}=2\pi e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n).$$ Here, $e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)=\int_{B\in Sym(n,{\mathbb{R}})}\mid \det B\mid d\mu_{{\mathbb{R}}}(B)$ (see the end of Section 2.1). For the explicit value of $e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)$, see [@GW2 Section 2].\
For the second term, we consider the change of variable $r^2=\rho$ and we obtain $$\int_{r=0}^{+\infty}\frac{r^{n+1}e^{-r^2}}{\pi}dr=
\frac{1}{2}\int_{\rho=0}^{+\infty}\frac{\rho^{\frac{n}{2}e^{-\rho}}}{\pi}d\rho=\frac{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2}+1)}{2\pi}$$ where $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function. For the third term we use spherical coordinates and we obtain
$$\int_{t_i\in{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\sum_it_i^2}^{n+1}}
dt_i={\textrm{Vol}}(S^{n-1})\int_{t=0}^{+\infty}\frac{t^{n-1}}{\sqrt{(1+t^2)}^{n+1}}dt.$$ where $${\textrm{Vol}}(S^{n-1})=\frac{2\pi^{\frac{n}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}$$ is the volume of the $(n-1)$-dimensional sphere. For $$\int_{t=0}^{+\infty}\frac{t^{n-1}}{(\sqrt{1+t^2})^{n+1}}dt=
\int_{t=0}^{+\infty}\sqrt{\frac{t^2}{(1+t^2)}}^{n-1}\frac{1}{1+t^2}dt$$
we change $\frac{t^2}{1+t^2}=1-u^2$ and we obtain $$\int_0^1 \sqrt{1-u^2}^{n-2}du.$$ Finally, set $u=sin\theta$ and we have
$$\int_0^{\pi/2}cos^{n-1}\theta d\theta.$$ The formula $$\int cos^{n-1}(\theta)du=\frac{sin(\theta)cos^{n-2}(\theta)}{n-1}+\frac{n-2}{n-1}\int cos^{n-3}(\theta)du$$ tells us that $\int_0^{\pi/2}cos^{n-1}\theta d\theta$ is equal to $$\frac{(n-2)!!}{(n-1)!!}$$ if $n$ is even and it is equal to
$$\frac{(n-2)!!}{(n-1)!!}\frac{\pi}{2}$$ if $n$ is odd. Putting together all these values and using that $$\frac{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2}+1)}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}=\frac{n}{2},$$ we obtain Proposition \[unconst\].
End of the proofs
-----------------
From Proposition \[espform\] we have $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{E}[{\mathbb{R}}\nu_{\alpha\beta}](\varphi)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}X}\varphi(x)(\int_Q\frac{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}_N(A)\mid}{\mid {\textrm{Jac}}(B)\mid}d\mu(a_i,b_i,a_{kl},b_{kl})+O(\frac{1}{d}))dvol_h=
\\=\int_{\begin{array}{l} a_i,b_i,a_{ij},b_{ij}\\ a_0b_i-b_0a_i=0\end{array}}(\sqrt{\pi d}^n)
\left(\right.
\frac{\det(a_0b_{ij}-b_0a_{ij})}{\sqrt{det\left((a_ia_j+b_ib_j)+(a_0^2+b_0^2)Id\right)}}
+O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}})d\mu_Q) dvol_h\end{gathered}$$ where $d\mu_Q=
e^{-\sum_ia_i^2-\sum_ib_i^2-\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}^2-\sum_{i,j}b^2_{ij}}
dvol_Q$.
In Section 3.3 we proved that (see Proposition \[unconst\] eq. \[univ\]) $$\sqrt{\pi d}^n\int_Q\frac{\mid \det(a_0b_{ij}-b_0a_{ij})\mid}{\sqrt{\det((a_ia_j+b_ib_j)+(a_0^2+b_0^2)Id)}}
\frac{e^{-\sum_ia_i^2-\sum_i
b_i^2-\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}^2-\sum_{i,j}b_{ij}^2}}{\pi^{n+1+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}}dvol_Q$$ is equal to $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{n!!}{(n-1)!!}e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)\frac{\pi}{2}\sqrt{d}^n &\textrm{if n is odd}
\\\frac{n!!}{(n-1)!!}e_{{\mathbb{R}}}(n)\sqrt{d}^n & \textrm{if n is even}.
\end{array}\right.$$ Theorem \[eqreal\] is obtained by dividing by $\sqrt{d}^n$ and by passing to the limit.\
Theorem \[num\] is Theorem \[eqreal\] for $\varphi=1$.\
The proof of Theorem \[eqcom\] is similar to the proof of Theorem \[eqreal\]. For the computation of the universal constant we put $\varphi=1$ and use Proposition \[asymlef\].
[^1]: Institut Camille Jordan, Umr Cnrs 5208, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1. [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Nested parentheses are forms in an algebra which define orders of evaluations. A class of well-formed sets of associated opening and closing parentheses is well studied in conjunction with Dyck paths and Catalan numbers. Nested parentheses also represent cuts through circles on a line. These become topologies of non-intersecting circles in the plane if the underlying algebra is commutative.
This paper generalizes the concept and answers quantitatively—as recurrences and generating functions of matching rooted forests—the questions: how many different topologies of nested circles exist in the plane if (i) pairs of circles may intersect, or (ii) even triples of circles may intersect. That analysis is driven by examining the symmetry properties of the inner regions of the fundamental type(s) of the intersecting pairs and triples.
address: 'Max-Planck Institute of Astronomy, Königstuhl 17, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany'
author:
- 'Richard J. Mathar'
bibliography:
- 'all.bib'
title: 'Topologically Distinct Sets of Non-intersecting Circles in the Plane'
---
Paired Parentheses and Catalan Numbers {#sec.P}
======================================
In a (non-commutative) algebra, opening and closing parentheses prescribe the order of grouping and evaluating expressions.
A string of parentheses is *well-formed* if the total number of opening parentheses equals the number of closing parentheses, and if the subtotal count of opening parentheses is always larger than or equal to the subtotal count of closing parentheses while parsing the string left-to-right.
Equivalently one may demand that the subtotal of closing parentheses is always larger or equal to the subtotal of opening parentheses while parsing the string right-to-left.
The well-formed nested parentheses form sets $\mathbb{P}_N$ of expressions with $N$ pairs of parentheses.
$\mathbb{P}_N$ is the set of all well-formed expressions with $N$ pairs of parentheses.
There are expressions that can be *factored*—in the algebra—by cutting the string at some places such that the left and right substrings are also well-formed. The number $f$ of their factors puts the elements of $\mathbb{P}_N$ into disjoint subsets:
$\mathbb{P}_N^{(f)}$ is the set of all well-formed expressions with $N$ pairs of parentheses and $1\le f\le N$ factors.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}_N &=& \bigcup_f \mathbb{P}_N^{(f)};\\
|\mathbb{P}_N| &=& \sum_{f=1}^N |\mathbb{P}_N^{(f)}|.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}_1 &=& \mathbb{P}_1^{(1)}=\{()\}; \\
\mathbb{P}_2^{(1)} &=& \{(())\}; \\
\mathbb{P}_2^{(2)} &=& \{()()\}; \\
\mathbb{P}_3^{(1)} &=& \{((())), (()())\}; \\
\mathbb{P}_3^{(2)} &=& \{(())(), ()(())\}; \\
\mathbb{P}_3^{(3)} &=& \{()()()\}; \\
\mathbb{P}_4^{(1)} &=& \{(((()))), ((()())), ((())()), (()(())), (()()())\};\end{aligned}$$
The opening and closing parentheses are the two letters in an alphabet of words, with a grammar that recursively admits words
1. that are the empty word,
2. that are concatenations of two words,
3. that are concatenations of the first letter, a word, and the second letter.
If the opening parentheses are replaced by U and the closing parentheses replaced by D an equivalence with Dyck paths arises; the number of returns to the horizontal line in the paths is equivalent to the number of factors in the expression. This leads straight to the well-known Catalan triangle [@EIS A033184] of Table \[tab.P\]. The set sizes $|\mathbb{P}_N|$ are the Catalan numbers [@Comtet §1.15][@EIS A000108][@DonagheyJCTB22].
$N$ $ |\mathbb{P}_N|$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
----- ------------------- ------ ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ---- --- --- --
1 1 1
2 2 1 1
3 5 2 2 1
4 14 5 5 3 1
5 42 14 14 9 4 1
6 132 42 42 28 14 5 1
7 429 132 132 90 48 20 6 1
8 1430 429 429 297 165 75 27 7 1
9 4862 1430 1430 1001 572 275 110 35 8 1
: Catalan triangle: The number of nested expressions with $N$ pairs of parentheses: the total count $|\mathbb{P}_N|$ and the number of nested expressions with $1\le f\le N$ factors, $|\mathbb{P}^{(f)}_N|$. []{data-label="tab.P"}
Because an expression distributes $N$ left parenthesis at $2N$ places, the set size is limited by $|\mathbb{P}_N|<\binom{2N}{N}$, the central binomial coefficients. Actually one of them must be placed at the leftmost place and none can be placed at the rightmost place, which leaves $2N-2$ places to distribute $N-1$ of them: $|\mathbb{P}_N|<\binom{2N-2}{N-1}$.
\[rem.bits\] A computer representation uses the two binary digits `1` and `0` to represent the opening and the closing parenthesis in the aforementioned alphabet of two letters [@EIS A063171,A014486]. (Then the most-significant bit is always 1. The swapped mapping is less useful because it needs to deal with the numerical representation of leading zeros in the binary number.) Because the rightmost part is absent for the unique case of missing parentheses, $N=0$, or a closing parenthesis, all these representations are even numbers. This representation by non-negative integers induces a strict ordering in the set of nested parentheses.
$() = 10\_2$; $()() = 1010\_2$; $(()) = 1100\_2$; $()()() = 101010\_2$ ; $()(()) = 101100\_2$ ; $(())() = 110010\_2$ ; $(()()) = 110100\_2$ ; $((())) = 111000\_2$.
The expressions with one factor are given by embracing any expression with one pair less at the left and right end with a pair of matching parentheses: $$|\mathbb{P}_N^{(1)}| = |\mathbb{P}_{N-1}|.
\label{eq.Pf1}$$
The number of expressions with $f$ factors is given by considering any concatenated “word” of factorizations [@KlarnerJCT9], $$|\mathbb{P}_N^{(f)}| = \sum_{C(N): N=N_1+N_2+\cdots+N_f}
|\mathbb{P}_{N_1}^{(1)}|
|\mathbb{P}_{N_2}^{(1)}|
\cdots
|\mathbb{P}_{N_f}^{(1)}|,
\quad f\ge 2,
\label{eq.Pf}$$ where the sum is over all compositions (“ordered” partitions) of $N$ into positive parts $N_j$ such that subexpressions do not factor any further.
A well-formed expression of parentheses represents a set of $N$ nested circles if we join the upper and lower end of each associated pair of parentheses. The radii of the circles are growing functions of their spatial distance in the expressions; their mid points are on a straight line, and no perimeters of any pair of circles intersect. The string of opening and closing parentheses is a record of entering or leaving a circle while poking from the outside along the line through all circles. For each pair of circles (i) either the smaller one is entirely immersed in the larger one or (ii) they have no common points.
\[exa.2d\] $(()())() \mapsto$
(7,1.5) (1.0,0.5) (1.7,0.5) (1.35,0.5) (2.5,0.5)
Nonintersecting Circle Sets in the Plane {#sec.C}
========================================
Nested Circle Sets
------------------
If the algebra of Section \[sec.P\] is a commutative algebra, some sets of nested parentheses are no longer considered distinct, because the order of the factors does no longer matter.
$\mathbb{C}_N$ is the set of well-formed expressions of $N$ pairs of parentheses where the order within factorizations does not matter.
$\mathbb{C}_N^{(f)}$ is the set of well-formed expressions of $N$ pairs of parentheses with $f$ factors where the order within factorizations does not matter.
The number of factors still is a unique parameter of each well-formed set of expressions, so $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{C}_N &=& \bigcup_f \mathbb{C}_N^{(f)};\\
|\mathbb{C}_N| &=& \sum_{f=1}^N |\mathbb{C}_N^{(f)}|;\quad |\mathbb{C}_0|=1.
\label{eq.Cunion}\end{aligned}$$ We “lose” some of the sets of parenthesis relative to Section \[sec.P\], because for example now the expressions $()(())$ and $(())()$ are considered the same: $|\mathbb{C}_N|\le |\mathbb{P}_N|$. This reduction in the admitted expressions applies recursively to all sub-expressions that are obtained by “peeling” the surrounding pair of parentheses off expressions with a single factor.
The reduction of equivalent expressions to a single representation requires some convention of which ordering of the factors is the admitted one. One convention is to map each factor to an integer with the representation of Remark \[rem.bits\], to put these factors into non-increasing or non-decreasing numerical order, and to concatenate their binary representations left-to-right to define the representative.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{C}_1 &=& \mathbb{C}_1^{(1)}=\{()\}; \\
\mathbb{C}_2^{(1)} &=& \{(())\}; \\
\mathbb{C}_2^{(2)} &=& \{()()\}; \\
\mathbb{C}_3^{(1)} &=& \{((())), (()())\}; \\
\mathbb{C}_3^{(2)} &=& \{(())()\}; \\
\mathbb{C}_3^{(3)} &=& \{()()()\}; \\
\mathbb{C}_4^{(1)} &=& \{(((()))), ((()())), ((())()), (()()())\};\end{aligned}$$
Table \[tab.C\] shows $\mathbb{C}_N^{(f)}$ and their sums $|\mathbb{C}_N|$. The values are bootstrapped as follows:
$N$ $ |\mathbb{C}_N|$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
----- ------------------- ------ ------ ------ ----- ----- ----- ---- ---- --- ---- ---- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 1 1
2 2 1 1
3 4 2 1 1
4 9 4 3 1 1
5 20 9 6 3 1 1
6 48 20 16 7 3 1 1
7 115 48 37 18 7 3 1 1
8 286 115 96 44 19 7 3 1 1
9 719 286 239 117 46 19 7 3 1 1
10 1842 719 622 299 124 47 19 7 3 1 1
11 4766 1842 1607 793 320 126 47 19 7 3 1 1
12 12486 4766 4235 2095 858 327 127 47 19 7 3 1 1
: The counts $|\mathbb{C}_N|$ and $|\mathbb{C}_N^{(f)}|$ of nested nonintersecting circles [@EIS A033185,A000081]. []{data-label="tab.C"}
The consideration leading to Equation (\[eq.Pf1\]) leads also to $$|\mathbb{C}_N^{(1)}| =
|\mathbb{C}_{N-1}|.
\label{eq.CN1}$$ The decomposition of an expression with $f$ factors needs to consider the number of ways of distributing the $N$ pairs of parentheses over elements that do not factorize further. We partition $N$ as $\pi(N): N=\{N_1^{c_1};N_2^{c_2};\ldots N_f^{c_f}\}=\sum_{j=1}^f {c_jN_j}$ meaning that the expression contains $c_1$ factors with elements of $\mathbb{C}_1^{(1)}$, $c_2$ factors with elements of $\mathbb{C}_2^{(1)}$, and so on. For each part $N_j$ with repetition $c_j$ we compute the number of lists of $c_j$ elements taken from a set of $|\mathbb{C}_{N_j}^{(1)}|$, possibly selecting some elements more than once or not at all. This is the number of weak compositions of $c_j$ into $C_{N_j}^{(1)}$ parts of non-negative integers. This equals the number of compositions of $c_j+|\mathbb{C}_{N_j}^{(1)}|$ into $|\mathbb{C}_{N_j}^{(1)}|$ parts of positive integers, which is $\binom{c_j+|\mathbb{C}_{N_j}^{(1)}|-1}{c_j}$ [@Stanley §1.2]. $$|\mathbb{C}_N^{(f)}| = \sum_{\pi(N): N=\{N_1^{c_1};N_2^{c_2};\ldots N_f^{c_f}\}}
\binom{|\mathbb{C}_{N_1}^{(1)}|+c_1-1}{c_1}
\binom{|\mathbb{C}_{N_2}^{(1)}|+c_2-1}{c_2}
\cdots
\binom{|\mathbb{C}_{N_f}^{(1)}|+c_f-1}{c_f}.
\label{eq.CNf}$$
Table \[tab.C\] shows the phenomenon that at large $N$ the values at large $f$ converge to the sequence $$|\mathbb{C}_N^{(N-i)}|=1,1,3,7,19,47,127,330,889,2378,\ldots, \quad i\ge 0,\quad N\to \infty,$$ the *envelope* as Knopfmacher and Mays call it [@KnopfmacherAC53]. This is the Euler transform of $|\mathbb{C}_N|$ [@AgnewAJM66] and means that if the number of factors is large, most of the factors are the element $\mathbb{C}_1{(1)}=\{()\}$ and only few combinations remain to exhaust the others.
Returning to the interpretation of $\mathbb{P}_N$ as non-intersecting circles on a line, considering the order of factorizations unimportant means that $\mathbb{C}_N$ contains topologically distinct sets of non-intersecting circles that are free to move away from the line—as long as they stay within the boundaries of their surrounding circles. The two circles inside the bigger circle in Example \[exa.2d\] are allowed to bump around within the bigger circle, and the big and the outer small circle may also jointly move to other places.
This is a planetary model of the circles in the sense that each circle can “rotate” inside its surrounding circle, and all these geometries are considered equivalent.
The generating function for the number of nested expressions in the commutative algebra is $$C(z)=\sum_{N\ge 0} |\mathbb{C}_N|z^N.
\label{eq.Cz}$$
It satisfies [@Flajolet I.5.2][@PolyaAA68; @CayleyPMag4] $$C(z)= \exp\left(\sum_{j\ge 1} z^jC(z^j)/j\right).$$
Nested Circles Embedded in the Sphere Surface
---------------------------------------------
If the $N$ circles are not embedded in the plane but embedded in the surface of a three-dimensional sphere, the topologies are counted by the unlabeled trees with $N+1$ nodes as stated by Reshetnikov [@EIS A000055]: $$1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 6, 11,23,47,106,\ldots\quad N\ge 0.$$ Each unlabeled tree can be mapped to a circle set topology by constructing the line graph of the tree, associating circles with nodes of the line graph, and arranging the circles on the sphere such that they can touch (by moving them on the sphere and changing radii) iff they are connected in the line graph. The tree is a connectivity diagram of the regions on the sphere surface: an edge in the tree indicates one must cross a circle boundary to enter a different region.
Any expression of nested circles in the plane can be interpreted as a set of circles embedded in a sphere surface: draw a big circumscribing circle around the set of all circles and interpret it as an equator of the sphere. This defines a mapping of sets of circle topologies of the plane onto one circle topology of the sphere, because topologies that are related by flipping the interior and exterior region of a circle are no longer distinct on the sphere. In our notation of nested parentheses, such a flip starts with a nested expression `A ( B )`, where `A` and `B` are well-formed (potentially empty) subexpressions. After embedding in the sphere, the closing parenthesis can be torn across the back surface of the sphere to the opposite side, ending up with ` ( A ) B`. There are as many flip operations as there are factors in the expression because one can move any of them to the right before the flip—although some of their images may be the same because factors may be equal, and although in some cases the image may be the same as the original expression.
The flip operation on `()()()` gives `(()())`.
The flip operation on `(())()` gives `((()))` if the `()` factor is flipped. It gives `()(())` when the `(())` factor is flipped; in that case the image is the same as the original, because the order of the two factors does not matter here.
Figures \[fig.C4\]–\[fig.C6\] illustrate for $N=4$–$6$ how expressions transform under the flip-transform: edges in the graphs mean that the expression on one node is transformed to the expression of the other node by a flip-transformation.
![The 3 clusters of grouping the $|\mathbb{C}_4|=9$ expressions with 4 pairs of parentheses into clusters of expressions equivalent under the flip transform. []{data-label="fig.C4"}](C4.eps)
![The 6 clusters of grouping the $|\mathbb{C}_5|=20$ expressions with 5 pairs of parentheses into clusters. []{data-label="fig.C5"}](C5.eps)
![The 11 clusters of grouping the $|\mathbb{C}_6|=48$ expressions with 6 pairs of parentheses into clusters. []{data-label="fig.C6"}](C6.eps)
So the $\mathbb{C}_N$ circle sets in the plane can be sorted into clusters which assemble all expressions that are mutually convertible by a chain of flip transformations. The number of clusters in $\mathbb{C}_N$ equals the number of topologically distinct circle sets embedded in the sphere surface.
Sets of Nested Circles and Squares
----------------------------------
If the geometric figures have $k$ distinct hollow shapes— for example circles and squares with $k=2$—the methods of circumscribing and placing side by side generalize the rules. There are $k$ different ways of forming a single compound object from a set of objects with one element less because there are $k$ options for the outermost shape. An upper-left index $k$ specifies how many shapes are available. (\[eq.CN1\]) and (\[eq.CNf\]) turn into $$|^k\mathbb{C}_N^{(1)}|=k|^k\mathbb{C}_{N-1}|,
\label{eq.CNkof1}$$ $$|^k\mathbb{C}_N^{(f)}| = \sum_{\pi(N): N=\{N_1^{c_1};N_2^{c_2};\ldots N_f^{c_f}\}}
\prod_{j=1}^f
\binom{|^k\mathbb{C}_{N_j}^{(1)}|+c_j-1}{c_j}.$$ The implicit equation of the generating function for the total number of topologies in the plane is [@LerouxASMQ16] $$^kC(z)= \exp\left(k\sum_{j\ge 1} z^j\,\,{^kC(z^j)}/j\right).$$
For $k=2$, $|^2\mathbb{C}_2|=7$ configurations exist: a circle inside a circle, a circle inside a square, a square inside a circle, a square inside a square, two disjoint circles, two disjoint squares, or a separated square and circle.
The case with $k=2$ shapes is further illustrated in Table \[tab.C2\], the case with $k=3$ shapes in Table \[tab.C3\]. The values on the diagonals are $$|^k\mathbb{C}_N^{(N-1)}|=\binom{N+k-1}{k-1}.$$ Row sums $|^k\mathbb{C}_N|$ are Euler transforms of the columns $|^k\mathbb{C}_N^{(1)}|$.
$N$ $ |^2\mathbb{C}_N|$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
----- --------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ ----- ----- ---- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 2 2
2 7 4 3
3 26 14 8 4
4 107 52 38 12 5
5 458 214 160 62 16 6
6 2058 916 741 288 86 20 7
7 9498 4116 3416 1408 416 110 24 8
8 44947 18996 16270 6856 2110 544 134 28 9
9 216598 89894 78408 34036 10576 2812 672 158 32 10
: The counts $|^2\mathbb{C}_N|$ and $|^2\mathbb{C}_N^{(f)}|$ of nested nonintersecting circles and squares [@EIS A000151,A038055,A271878]. []{data-label="tab.C2"}
$N$ $ |^3\mathbb{C}_N|$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
----- --------------------- --------- --------- --------- -------- ------- ------- ------ ----- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 3 3
2 15 9 6
3 82 45 27 10
4 495 246 180 54 15
5 3144 1485 1143 405 90 21
6 20875 9432 7704 2856 720 135 28
7 142773 62625 52731 20682 5385 1125 189 36
8 1000131 428319 369969 150282 40914 8730 1620 252 45
9 7136812 3000393 2638332 1104702 309510 68400 12891 2205 324 55
: The counts $|^3\mathbb{C}_N|$ and $|^3\mathbb{C}_N^{(f)}|$ of nested nonintersecting circles, squares and triangles [@EIS A006964,A038059,A271879]. []{data-label="tab.C3"}
Topologically Distinct Circle Sets, One Circle Marked {#sec.M}
=====================================================
Base-4 Notation
---------------
In Section \[sec.C\] the circles are moving without intersecting and qualitatively equal. We move on to the combinatorics of circle sets where one of them is marked (for example by a unique color, by morphing it into an ellipse or replacing it by a square). The equivalent modification in the commutative algebra is to introduce another symbol, a pair of brackets `[]`, to locate the modified evaluation of a subexpression. Factorization is defined as before, and the marked circle is not intersecting with any of the other circles as before.
$\mathbb{M}_N^{(f)}$ is the set of $N$ circles with $f$ factors, one of these circles marked.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{M}_N &=& \bigcup_{f=1}^N \mathbb{M}_N^{(f)};\\
|\mathbb{M}_N| &=& \sum_{f=1}^N |\mathbb{M}_N^{(f)}|;\quad |\mathbb{M}_0|=1.\end{aligned}$$
\[exa.M\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{M}_1 &=& \mathbb{M}_1^{(1)} = \{[]\}; \\
\mathbb{M}_2^{(1)} &=& \{[()], ([])\}; \\
\mathbb{M}_2^{(2)} &=& \{[]()\}; \\
\mathbb{M}_3^{(1)} &=& \{ (([])), ([()]), ([]()), [()()], [(())] \}; \\
\mathbb{M}_3^{(2)} &=& \{ ([])(), [()](), [](()) \}; \\
\mathbb{M}_3^{(3)} &=& \{ []()() \}; \\
\mathbb{M}_4^{(1)} &=& \{
((())[]),
((([]))),
(([()])),
(([])()),
(([]())),
([()()]), \nonumber \\
&&
([()]()),
([(())]),
([]()()),
[()()()],
[(())()],
[(()())],
[((()))]
\}; \\
\mathbb{M}_4^{(2)} &=& \{
(()())[],
((()))[],
(([]))(),
([()])(),
([])(()), \nonumber \\ &&
([]())(),
[()()](),
[()](()),
[(())]()
\};\end{aligned}$$
Recurrences
-----------
$N$ $ |\mathbb{M}_N|$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
----- ------------------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 1 1
2 3 2 1
3 9 5 3 1
4 26 13 9 3 1
5 75 35 26 10 3 1
6 214 95 75 30 10 3 1
7 612 262 214 91 31 10 3 1
8 1747 727 612 268 95 31 10 3 1
9 4995 2033 1747 790 284 96 31 10 3 1
10 14294 5714 4995 2308 848 288 96 31 10 3 1
11 40967 16136 14294 6737 2506 864 289 96 31 10 3 1
: The number of nonintersecting circles with one of them marked. $|\mathbb{M}_N|$ are the row sums and $|\mathbb{M}_N^{(f)}|$ the entries with $f$ factors [@EIS A000243,A000107]. []{data-label="tab.M"}
An overview of how many distinct arrangements exist is given in Table \[tab.M\]. The set of $\mathbb{M}_N^{(1)}$ is created by either (i) wrapping an expression without a marked sphere into a bracket, or by (ii) wrapping an expression that already contains a marked sphere into a pair of parentheses: $$|\mathbb{M}_N^{(1)}|
=
|\mathbb{C}_{N-1}|
+
|\mathbb{M}_{N-1}|.
\label{eq.Mrec1}$$
For expressions with $f\ge 2$ factors we may always move the factor with the bracket to some pivotal (say the leftmost) factor because the order of factors does not matter in Sections \[sec.C\] and \[sec.M\]. That pivotal factor needs, say, $N'$ pairs of parentheses (including the marked), and all the other factors may be varied as a set of the $\mathbb{C}$ type: $$|\mathbb{M}_N^{(f)}|
=
\sum_{N'=1}^{N-1}
|\mathbb{M}_{N'}^{(1)}|\,
|\mathbb{C}_{N-N'}^{(f-1)}|,\quad f\ge 2
.
\label{eq.Mrec}$$
The generating function of the topologies of non-intersecting circles with one marked is $$M(z)=\sum_{N\ge 0} |\mathbb{M}_N|z^N .
\label{eq.Mz}$$
If we sum on both sides of (\[eq.Mrec\]) over $f$, insert (\[eq.Cunion\]) for the sum over the $\mathbb{C}$ and (\[eq.Mrec1\]) to eliminate the $\mathbb{M}_{N'}^{(1)}$ on the right hand side, Jovovic’s relation shows up [@EIS A000243] $$M(z)=1+\frac{zC^2(z)}{1-zC(z)}.$$
For sufficiently large $N$ the count with $N-1$ factors is $|\mathbb{M}_N^{(N-1)}|=3$ because the set contains the expressions of the form $[()]()()\cdots$, $([])()()\cdots$, and $[](())()()\cdots$.
Inner Void Circle
-----------------
There is a subset of expressions $\mathbb{M}_N^{(v)}\subseteq \mathbb{M}_N$—indicated with an upper $v$ like *void*—where the bracket does not contain any subexpression with parentheses, i.e., where the marked circle does not circumscribe any other circle.
$\mathbb{M}_N^{(f,v)}$ is the set of $N$ circles with $f$ factors, where one of these circles is marked and does not contain other circles.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{M}_N^{(v)} &=& \bigcup_{f=1}^N \mathbb{M}_N^{(f,v)} \subseteq \mathbb{M}_N^{(f)};\\
|\mathbb{M}_N^{(v)}| &=& \sum_{f=1}^N |\mathbb{M}_N^{(f,v)}|.\end{aligned}$$
Removing in Example \[exa.M\] the expressions where the bracket pair embraces other parentheses yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{M}_1^{(v)} &=& \mathbb{M}_1^{(1,v)} = \{[]\}; \\
\mathbb{M}_2^{(1,v)} &=& \{([])\}; \\
\mathbb{M}_2^{(2,v)} &=& \{[]()\}; \\
\mathbb{M}_3^{(1,v)} &=& \{ (([])), ([]()), \}; \\
\mathbb{M}_3^{(2,v)} &=& \{ ([])(), [](()) \}; \\
\mathbb{M}_3^{(3,v)} &=& \{ []()() \}; \\
\mathbb{M}_4^{(1,v)} &=& \{
((())[]),
((([]))),
(([])()),
(([]())),
([]()()),
\}; \\
\mathbb{M}_4^{(2,v)} &=& \{
(()())[],
((()))[],
(([]))(),
([])(()),
([]())()
\}.\end{aligned}$$
$N$ $ |\mathbb{M}_N^{(v)}|$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
----- ------------------------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1 1 1
2 2 1 1
3 5 2 2 1
4 13 5 5 2 1
5 35 13 13 6 2 1
6 95 35 35 16 6 2 1
7 262 95 95 46 17 6 2 1
8 727 262 262 128 49 17 6 2 1
9 2033 727 727 364 139 50 17 6 2 1
10 5714 2033 2033 1029 401 142 50 17 6 2 1
11 16136 5714 5714 2930 1147 412 143 50 17 6 2 1
12 45733 16136 16136 8344 3299 1184 415 143 50 17 6 2 1
: The number of nonintersecting circles, one marked. $|\mathbb{M}_N^{(v)}|$ and $|\mathbb{M}_N^{(f,v)}|$ for $N,f \ge 1$ [@EIS A000107]. []{data-label="tab.Mv"}
The topologies with that scenario are counted in Table \[tab.Mv\]. With the same argument as in Equation (\[eq.Mrec\]), scenarios with an empty bracket need to locate the bracket at some fixed factor, and let the other factors generate all possible diagrams with the remaining parentheses: $$|\mathbb{M}_N^{(f,v)}|
=
\sum_{N'=1}^{N-1}
|\mathbb{M}_{N'}^{(1,v)}|\,
|\mathbb{C}_{N-N'}^{(f-1)}|
.
\label{eq.Mrecv}$$
On the diagonals of Tables \[tab.M\] and \[tab.Mv\] we find $$|\mathbb{M}_N^{(N)}|
=
|\mathbb{M}_N^{(N,v)}|
=1,$$ because the only expressions with as many factors as circles is the product of singletons, $\mathbb{M}_N^{(N)} = \mathbb{M}_N^{(N,v)} = \{[]()()\cdots ()\}$.
The number in column $\mathbb{M}_N^{(1)}$ in Table \[tab.Mv\] duplicates the total of the previous row: $$|\mathbb{M}_N^{(1,v)}|=|\mathbb{M}_{N-1}^{(v)}|
.$$ This is easily understood because each element of the set $\mathbb{M}_N^{(1)v}$ is created by surrounding the expression of an element of the set $\mathbb{M}_{N-1}^{(v)}$ by a pair of (non-marked) parentheses, so the “void” within the bracket is conserved.
In a similar manner $|\mathbb{M}_N^{(1,v)}| =
|\mathbb{M}_N^{(2,v)}|$ is understood by “peeling off” the outermost pair of parentheses of the element of $\mathbb{M}_N^{(1,v)}$ and placing it as an extra factor $()$ aside from the peeled expression. This association works because the outermost pair of parentheses is never the bracket.
In summary, all entries of Table \[tab.M\] and \[tab.Mv\] can be recursively generated from Table \[tab.C\] with the aforementioned 4 formulas.
The serialized representation of the circle sets with two types of parentheses on a computer is possible by moving from the binary digit representation of Sections \[sec.P\] and \[sec.C\] to a base-4 representation $)\mapsto 0$, $(\mapsto 1$, $]\mapsto 2$, $[\mapsto 3$. The mapping is $[[]]\mapsto 3322_4$, $([[()]]())\mapsto 1331022100_4$, for example.
Circle Sets With One Pair intersecting
======================================
Serialized Notation {#sec.Xser}
-------------------
Another derivative of the non-intersecting circle sets of Section \[sec.C\] are circle sets where exactly one pair of circles intersects at two points of their rims.
These two intersecting circles are a natural reference frame for the other $N-2$. In the serialized notation we introduce the expression $[[]]$ with two bracket pairs to indicate crossing of the rims of the first, then of the second circle, then leaving the first and finally leaving the second. The notation provides 5 regions that host the $N-2$ remaining circles. The well-formed general expression is *reg4*$[$*reg3*$[$*reg2*$]$*reg1*$]$*reg0* if the regions are enumerated 0–4.
$\textit{reg4}[\textit{reg3}[\textit{reg2}]\textit{reg1}]\textit{reg0}\mapsto$
(6,1.5) (0.5,0.8)[reg4]{} (2.2,0.8) (1.7,1.0)[reg]{} (1.7,0.7)[3]{} (2.3,0.8)[reg]{} (2.4,0.5)[2]{} (2.9,0.8) (2.9,0.9)[reg]{} (3.0,0.6)[1]{} (4.5,0.8)[reg0]{}
The serialized notation is well-suited for computerized managing, but again has the drawback that the freedom of moving circle sets around as long as no new intersections are induced is not strictly enforced. We add the following constraints to the serialized notation to avoid over-counting those circle sets with two intersections:
1. The regions *reg1*, *reg2* and *reg3* host members of the $\mathbb{C}_N$ collection. This basically ensures that their circle sets do not introduce intersections by peeking beyond the enclosures defined by the bracket pair. Note that no such rule is enforced on *reg0* and *reg4* because we allow the crossing circles to be inside other circles; so an expression like $([[]])$ is well-formed, although the isolated left and right parentheses are not individually members of $\mathbb{P}$.
2. If the entire core region of the crossing circles is removed—leaving the concatenated expression *reg4reg0*—this must be a well-formed $\mathbb{P}$ expression. This ensures that circles that rotate in the space outside the crossing circles are considered equivalent; eventually expressions like $(()[[]])$ and $([[]]())$ for example are counted only once.
3. From the two expressions obtained by swapping *reg1* and *reg3* only one is admitted. These are the regions inside one of the intersecting circles but not in the intersection. The rule ensures that a sort of mirror operation at the center of the intersection—which does not change the topology—is admitted only once in the circle sets.
$\mathbb{X}_N^{(f)}$ is the set of $N$ circles with $f$ factors, two circle rims intersecting in two points.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{X}_N &=& \bigcup_{f=1}^N \mathbb{X}_N^{(f)};\\
|\mathbb{X}_N| &=& \sum_{f=1}^N |\mathbb{X}_N^{(f)}|; \quad |\mathbb{X}_1|=0.\end{aligned}$$
$([[]])() \mapsto$
(6,1.5) (1.2,0.5) (1.5,0.5) (1.35,0.5) (2.5,0.5)
$([[]()]) \mapsto$
(6,1.5) (1.1,0.5) (1.6,0.5) (1.35,0.5) (1.7,0.5)
$[[]](()) \mapsto$
(6,1.5) (1.1,0.5) (1.6,0.5) (2.6,0.5) (2.6,0.5)
$[[()]()]() \mapsto$
(6,1.5) (1.1,0.5) (1.8,0.5) (2.9,0.5) (2.1,0.5) (1.45,0.5)
\[ex.X\] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{X}_2&=& \mathbb{X}_2^{(1)} = \{[[]]\}; \\
\mathbb{X}_2^{(2)} &=& \{\};\\
\mathbb{X}_3^{(1)} &=&
\{([[]]),
[[()]],
[[]()]\}; \\
\mathbb{X}_3^{(2)} &=&
\{[[]]()\}; \\
\mathbb{X}_3^{(3)} &=& \{\};\\
\mathbb{X}_4^{(1)} &=&
\{(([[]])),
([[()]]),
([[]()]),
([[]]()),
\nonumber \\ &&
[()[]()],
[[()()]],
[[()]()],
[[(())]],
[[]()()],
[[](())]\}; \\
\mathbb{X}_4^{(2)} &=&
\{([[]])(),
[[()]](),
[[]()](),
[[]](())\}; \\
\mathbb{X}_4^{(3)} &=&
\{[[]]()()\}; \\
\mathbb{X}_4^{(4)} &=& \{\};\end{aligned}$$
Recurrences {#sec.Xnrecur}
-----------
Table \[tab.X\] shows how many expressions are in the sets $\mathbb{X}_N$ and $\mathbb{X}_N^{(f)}$. The first three values of $|\mathbb{X}_N|$ are mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences [@EIS A261070].
$N$ $|\mathbb{X}_N|$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
----- ------------------ ------- ------- ------ ------ ----- ----- ---- ---- --- ---- --- -- -- --
2 1 1 0
3 4 3 1 0
4 15 10 4 1 0
5 50 30 15 4 1 0
6 162 91 50 16 4 1 0
7 506 268 162 55 16 4 1 0
8 1558 790 506 185 56 16 4 1 0
9 4727 2308 1558 594 190 56 16 4 1 0
10 14227 6737 4727 1878 617 191 56 16 4 1 0
11 42521 19609 14227 5825 1970 622 191 56 16 4 1 0
: Topologically distinct sets of $N$ circles with one pair intersecting, total (row sums) $|\mathbb{X}_N|$ and $|\mathbb{X}_N^{(f)}|$ classified according to number of factors $1\le f\le N$.[]{data-label="tab.X"}
Obviously $|\mathbb{X}_N^{(N)}|=0$ and $|\mathbb{X}_N^{(N-1)}|=1$ because we always spend two circles in the bracket—which does not factorize—and the expression $[[]]()()()\cdots$ is the only member of $\mathbb{X}_N^{(N-1)}$.
For sufficiently large $N$ there are $|\mathbb{X}_N^{(N-2)}|=4$ expressions, namely $[[()]]()()\cdots$, $[[]()]()()\cdots$, $[[]](())()\cdots$, and $([[]])()()\cdots$ with $N-3$ trailing isolated circles.
The argument of isolating the factor that contains the bracket pair that led to Equation (\[eq.Mrec\]) remains valid, so $$|\mathbb{X}_N^{(f)}|
=
\sum_{N'=1}^{N-1}
|\mathbb{X}_{N'}^{(1)}|\,
|\mathbb{C}_{N-N'}^{(f-1)}|,\quad f\ge 2
.
\label{eq.Xoff}$$
The dismantling of the sole factor of an expression of $\mathbb{X}_N^{(1)}$ that contains the two brackets shows two variants: if the outer parentheses are the round parenthesis, the expression has been formed by embracing any expression with $N-1$ circles, which contributes $|\mathbb{X}_{N-1}|$. If alternatively the expression is of the form stripped down to where *reg4* and *reg0* are empty, we count the number of ways of construction *reg3*, *reg2* and *reg1* with a total of $N-2$ circles by a function $D_{n-2}$: $$|\mathbb{X}_N^{(1)}| = |\mathbb{X}_{N-1}| + D_{N-2}.
\label{eq.XofD}$$ $$D_N = 1, 2, 6, 15, 41, 106, 284, 750, 2010, 5382, 14523, 39290\ldots;\quad N\ge 0.$$
The 6 expressions that contribute to $D_2=6$ are $ [[]()()]$, $[[](())]$, $[[()]()]$, $[()[]()]$, $[[(())]]$, and $[[()()]]$.
The distribution of the $N$ circles over *reg3*, *reg2* and *reg1* has no further restrictions to place any member of $\mathbb{C}$ into *reg2*, which reduces $D$ by composition to another function $\hat D$ of the form $$D_N=\sum_{N'=0}^{N} |\mathbb{C}_{N'}| \hat D_{N-N'}.
\label{eq.DNsplit}$$ $\hat D_N$ counts the number of ways of placing $N$ circles in total into *reg3* and *reg1* such that each expression is a member of $\mathbb{C}$ and such that the third rule of Section \[sec.Xser\] of counting only the “ordered” pairs is obeyed. If $N$ is odd, the expressions in two regions necessarily differ because they must have a different number of circles, so the rule may for example be implemented by putting always the expression with the lower number into one region: $$\hat D_{N,odd} = \sum_{N'=0}^{\lfloor N/2\rfloor} |\mathbb{C}_{N'}|\,|\mathbb{C}_{N-N'}|.$$ If $N$ is even, an additional format appears where the expressions in *reg3* and *reg1* have the same number of circles. Because these elements of $|\mathbb{C}_{N/2}|$ may be put into a strict order, the triangular number with that argument counts the “non-ordered” pairs of these: $$\hat D_{N,even} = \sum_{N'=0}^{N/2} |\mathbb{C}_{N'}|\,|\mathbb{C}_{N-N'}|
+ \frac{|\mathbb{C}_{N/2}|(|\mathbb{C}_{N/2}|+1)}{2}.$$ In terms of the generating functions (\[eq.Cz\]), (\[eq.Mz\]) and $$\hat D(z) = \sum_{N\ge 0} \hat D_N z^N,\quad
D(z) = \sum_{N\ge 0} D_N z^N,\quad$$ this type of half convolution in the previous two equations may be summarized as [@EIS A027852] $$\hat D(z)=\frac12[C(z)^2+C(z^2)].
\label{eq.Dogf}$$
The symmetry enforced to the contents of *reg1* and *reg3* is the symmetry of the cyclic group of order 2. The cycle index for this group is $(t_1^2+t_2)/2$ [@Flajolet I60]. Substitution of $t_j\mapsto C(z^j)$ gives the same result [@Comtet p. 252]. \[rem.cycC2\]
$$\hat D_N = 1, 1, 3, 6, 16, 37, 96, 239, 622, 1607, 4235, 11185, 29862\ldots ;\quad N\ge 0.$$
The convolution (\[eq.DNsplit\]) turns into a product of the generating functions: $$D(z)= C(z)\hat D(z).$$
$\hat D_1=1$ is the size of the set $\{[[]()]\}$.
$\hat D_2=3$ is the size of the set $\{[()[]()], [[]()()],[[](())]\}$. \[exa.hatD2\]
$\hat D_3=6$ is the size of the set $\{
[[]()()()],
[[](())()],$ $[[]((()))],$ $[[](()())],$ $[()[]()()],$ $[()[](())]
\}$. \[exa.hatD3\]
Summing (\[eq.Xoff\]) over $f$ and using (\[eq.XofD\]) leads to $$X(z) =1+\frac{z^2D(z)C(z)}{1-zC(z)}.
\label{eq.Xogf}$$
Pair of Touching Circles
------------------------
If there are no further circles in the area of the intersection, the two intersecting circles may be moved apart until they touch in a single point. These borderline cases are destilled from the previous analysis by counting expressions only where the two inner brackets appear side by side, i.e, where *reg2* is empty. We call these sets of configurations $\mathbb{X}_N^{(f,t)}$ where the label $t$ indicates touching.
$\mathbb{X}_N^{(f,t)}$ is the set of $N$ circles with $f$ factors, two circle rims touching at one point.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{X}_N^{(t)} &=& \bigcup_{f=1}^N \mathbb{X}_N^{(f,t)}\subseteq \mathbb{X}_N;\\
|\mathbb{X}_N^{(t)}| &=& \sum_{f=1}^N |\mathbb{X}_N^{(f,t)}| \le |\mathbb{X}_N|;\end{aligned}$$
If we remove the expressions from Example \[ex.X\] where other circles appear within the innermost of the two square brackets, the following list emerges: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{X}_2^{(t)}&=& \mathbb{X}_2^{(1,t)} = \{[[]]\}; \\
\mathbb{X}_2^{(2,t)} &=& \{\};\\
\mathbb{X}_3^{(1,t)} &=&
\{([[]]),
[[]()]\}; \\
\mathbb{X}_3^{(2,t)} &=&
\{[[]]()\}; \\
\mathbb{X}_3^{(3,t)} &=& \{\};\\
\mathbb{X}_4^{(1,t)} &=&
\{(([[]])),
([[]()]),
([[]]()),
\{[()[]()],
[[]()()],
[[](())]\}; \\
\mathbb{X}_4^{(2,t)} &=&
\{([[]])(),
[[]()](),
[[]](())\}; \\
\mathbb{X}_4^{(3,t)} &=&
\{[[]]()()\}; \\
\mathbb{X}_4^{(4)} &=& \{\};\end{aligned}$$
Table \[tab.Xt\] shows how many expressions are in the sets $\mathbb{X}_N^{(t)}$ and $\mathbb{X}_N^{(f)t}$.
$N$ $|\mathbb{X}_N^{(t)}|$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
----- ------------------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ----- ---- ---- --- ---- --- -- -- --
1 0 0
2 1 1 0
3 3 2 1 0
4 10 6 3 1 0
5 30 16 10 3 1 0
6 91 46 30 11 3 1 0
7 268 128 91 34 11 3 1 0
8 790 364 268 108 35 11 3 1 0
9 2308 1029 790 327 112 35 11 3 1 0
10 6737 2930 2308 992 344 113 35 11 3 1 0
11 19609 8344 6737 2962 1055 348 113 35 11 3 1 0
: Topologically distinct sets of $N$ circles with one pair touching, total and classified according to number of factors $1\le f\le N$ [@EIS A269800].[]{data-label="tab.Xt"}
As before $$|\mathbb{X}_N^{(N,t)}|=0;\quad |\mathbb{X}_N^{(N-1,t)}|=1.$$ The strategy of isolating the factor with the brackets that lead to (\[eq.XofD\]) remains valid: $$|\mathbb{X}_N^{(f,t)}|
=
\sum_{N'=1}^{N-1}
|\mathbb{X}_{N'}^{(1,t)}|\,
|\mathbb{C}_{N-N'}^{(f-1)}|,\quad f\ge 2
.$$ The formula that distributed the $N-2$ circles within the three regions in the intersecting circles now needs to skip the cases where some of them are in *reg2*. And instead of (\[eq.XofD\]) we immediately skip to $$|\mathbb{X}_N^{(1,t)}| = |\mathbb{X}_{N-1}^{(t)}| + \hat D_{N-2}
\label{eq.XNof1t}$$ and replace (\[eq.Xogf\]) by the generating function $$X^{(t)}(z) = \sum_{N\ge 0}X^{(t)}_N z^N=1+\frac{z^2\hat D(z)C(z)}{1-zC(z)}.$$
One or More Intersecting Pairs {#sec.tree}
------------------------------
The topologies of the members of the sets $\mathbb{X}_N$ are mapped onto rooted trees representing the dependence of “being a circle inside another” as “being a branch of a node that represents the enclosing circle.” The plane is the root of the tree. There is no limit of how many branches a node can have. Moving around circle clusters freely means that the nodes are counted without a notion of order. The sole exception—which distinguishes $\mathbb{C}_N$ from $\mathbb{X}_N$—is that the tree must have a single node representing the intersecting circle pair which has up to three nodes (the three regions) that partially respect order because the circle clusters in *reg2* are topologically considered different from circle clusters in *reg1* or *reg3*.
If one chops the node representing the plane off the tree, it becomes a rooted forest, where the number of rooted trees is the factor $f$ of the interpretation as nested parentheses.
The natural extension of these rules is to symmetrize the rules for the branches in that rooted forest, i.e., to allow circles and the three regions in the intersecting circle pair to host any number of intersecting circle clusters or intersecting circle pairs. The restriction that remains is that intersection of more than two circles are still not considered.
$^2\mathbb{X}_N$ is the set of topologies of $N$ nested circles in the plane where each circle intersects with at most one other circle. $^2\mathbb{X}_N^{(f)}$ is the set of topologies of $N$ nested circles with $f$ factors, i.e., with $f$ of these objects that are not inside any other of these objects.
The generating function is $$^2X(z) = \sum_{N\ge 0} |^2\mathbb{X}_N| z^N.$$
This is a circle bundle in $^2\mathbb{X}_7^{(1)}$ which is not in $\mathbb{X}_7$:
(6,1.5) (1.0,0.9) (1.6,0.9) (1.35,0.9) (2.5,0.7) (2.6,1.0) (3.0,0.7) (2.6,0.9)
The outer pair of 2 intersecting circles contains another pair of 2 intersecting circles (amongst others) in one of its three regions.
The grand book-keeping of placing these objects side by side works as before, and the empty plane is the unique way of not having any circles: $$^2\mathbb{X}_N = \bigcup_{f=1}^N{} ^2\mathbb{X}_N^{(f)};
\quad
|^2\mathbb{X}_N| = \sum_{f=1}^N |^2\mathbb{X}_N^{(f)}|;
\quad
|^2\mathbb{X}_0| = 1.$$ $$|^2\mathbb{X}_N^{(f)}| = \sum_{\pi(N): N=\{N_1^{c_1};N_2^{c_2};\ldots N_f^{c_f}\}}
\prod_{j=1}^f
\binom{|^2\mathbb{X}_{N_j}^{(1)}|+c_j-1}{c_j};\quad f\ge 2.$$ The difference starts where the objects at $f=1$ are dismantled. These are not the two types considered in (\[eq.Mrec1\]), (\[eq.XofD\]) or (\[eq.XNof1t\]) nor the $k$ types as in (\[eq.CNkof1\]). The compound object is either a circle that hosts the same type of objects with one circle less, or a pair of intersecting circles with other objects of the same type in their regions: $$|^2\mathbb{X}_N^{(1)}|
= |^2\mathbb{X}_{N-1}| + \bar D_{N-2}.
\label{eq.X2of1}$$ $\bar D_{N-2}$ is the number of ways of distributing objects of the $^2\mathbb{X}$ type with a total of $N-2$ circles into three regions with the symmetry rules of Section \[sec.Xnrecur\].
With the splitting rule of Section \[sec.Xnrecur\] the overlapping *reg2* may contain any number of the elements of $^2\mathbb{X}$ and the other two regions share the remaining number of circles as if the set was ordered. Copying from (\[eq.DNsplit\]) and (\[eq.Dogf\]), $$\bar D_N = \sum_{N'=0}^N |^2\mathbb{X}_{N'}| \, \tilde D_{N-N'};
\label{eq.Dbardef}$$ $$\tilde D(z) = \sum_{N\ge 0} \tilde D_N z^N
= \frac12[^2X(z)^2+{}^2X(z^2)].$$
$N$ $ |^2\mathbb{X}_N|$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
----- --------------------- -------- ------- ------- ------ ------ ----- ----- ---- --- --- --- -- -- --
1 1 1
2 3 2 1
3 8 5 2 1
4 27 16 8 2 1
5 90 53 26 8 2 1
6 330 189 100 30 8 2 1
7 1225 694 375 115 30 8 2 1
8 4729 2642 1473 453 120 30 8 2 1
9 18554 10270 5823 1827 473 120 30 8 2 1
10 74234 40747 23479 7432 1936 479 120 30 8 2 1
11 300828 164033 95618 30622 7954 1961 479 120 30 8 2 1
: The number of topologies of nested $N$ circles intersecting at most as binaries, $|^2\mathbb{X}_N|$, and the subcounts with $f$ factors, $|^2\mathbb{X}_N^{(f)}|$, $1\le f\le N$. The row sums are the Euler transform of the column $f=1$. []{data-label="tab.X2"}
$$\bar D_N =
1, 2, 8, 26, 99, 364, 1417, 5541, 22193, 89799, 368160, 1523020,
\ldots, N\ge 0.$$
The number of ways of distributing $N$ circles over *reg1* and *reg3* of two intersecting circles is $$\tilde D_N =
1, 1, 4, 11, 41, 141, 537, 2041, 8042, 32028, 129780, 531331, 2198502,
\ldots N\ge 0.$$
$\tilde D_2=4$ counts the three ways of Example \[exa.hatD2\] plus the one way of putting two intersecting circles in one of the two regions.
$\tilde D_3=11$ counts the six ways of Example \[exa.hatD3\] plus the following five ways that are new in $^2\mathbb{X}_N$:
1. putting $[[]]()$ in one region,
2. putting $[[]]$ in one region and $()$ in the other,
3. putting $([[]])$ in one region,
4. putting $[[]()]$ in one region,
5. putting $[[()]]$ in one region.
Outlook: 3-circle Intersections
===============================
6 New Topologies
----------------
Adding 3-circle intersections introduces 6 new topologies beyond those of $^2\mathbb{X}_N$ [@EIS A250001]:
1. The “RGB spot diagram” $^{3,1}\mathbb{X}_3$:
(4,2.5) (1.0,0.5) (2.0,0.5) (1.5,1.5) (2.0,0.5)[1]{} (1.5,1.5)[2]{} (1.0,0.5)[3]{}
The 7 regions inside the circles may be labeled by the circles that cover them: *1*, *12*, *2*, *23*, *3*, *13*, *123*. The symmetry of the diagram is established by three mirror lines that pass through *12*, *23* and *13*, and a symmetry for rotations by multiples of 120$^\circ$ around the center. The symmetry group is the noncyclic group of order 6. A permutation representation is (1)(23) for the first generator and (123) for the second [@MatharVixra1504]. The elements are
- the unit element (1)(2)(3) which contributes $t_1^3$ to the cycle polynomial,
- the first generator which contributes $t_1t_2$,
- the second generator which contributes $t_3$,
- the square of the second generator, (132), which contributes $t_3$,
- the element (12) which contributes $t_1t_2$, and
- the element (13) which contributes $t_1t_2$.
The cycle index is $(t_1^3+3t_1t_2+2t_3)/6$.
2. The torn version of this with an uncovered central area $^{3,2}\mathbb{X}_3$:
(4,2.5) (1.0,0.5) (2.0,0.5) (1.5,1.6) (2.0,0.5)[1]{} (1.5,1.5)[2]{} (1.0,0.5)[3]{}
The 7 regions inside the circles may be labeled by the circles that cover them: *1*, *12*, *2*, *23*, *3*, *13*, *$\notin{\textit{123}}$*. The symmetry is the same as for $^{3,1}\mathbb{X}_3$ above.
3. A linear chain $^{3,3}\mathbb{X}_3$:
(4,1.5) (1.0,0.5) (1.0,0.5)[3]{} (2.0,0.5) (2.0,0.5)[2]{} (3.,0.5) (3.0,0.5)[1]{}
The 5 regions inside the circles may be labeled by the circles that cover them: *1*, *12*, *2*, *23*, *3*. The symmetry is the same left-right mirror symmetry as in Remark \[rem.cycC2\]; the cycle index is $(t_1^2+t_2)/2$.
4. The left-right compressed version of the previous diagram, $^{3,4}\mathbb{X}_3$:
(5,1.5) (0.9,0.5) (1.5,0.5) (2.1,0.5) (2.3,0.5)[1]{} (1.4,0.9)[2]{} (0.5,0.5)[3]{}
The 7 regions inside the circles may be labeled by the circles that cover them: *1*, *12*, *123*, *23*, *3*, *$\overline{\textit{2}}$*, *$\underline{\textit{2}}$*, using overline and underline to register the upper and lower regions of the pieces of circle 2. The appearance of the regions $\overline{\textit{2}}$ and $\underline{\textit{2}}$ introduces an additional up-down mirror symmetry. The symmetry group is the noncyclic group of order 4, which has the generators (34) and (12) [@MatharVixra1504]. The elements are
- the unit element (1)(2)(3)(4) which contributes $t_1^4$ to the cycle polynomial,
- the first generator which contributes $t_1^2t_2$,
- the second generator which contributes $t_1^2t_2$,
- the element (12)(34) which contributes $t_2^2$.
The cycle index is $(t_1^4+2t_1^2t_2+t_2^2)/4$. This is replaced by the direct product $(t_1^2+t_2)/2\times ({t'_1}^2+t'_2)/2$ as we wish to represent the combined regions $\textit{1}\cup \textit{12}$ and $\textit{3}\cup \textit{23}$ that are related by one of the $C_2$ symmetries differently from the regions $\overline{\textit 2}$ and $\underline{\textit 2}$ by the other $C_2$ symmetry.
5. The previous diagram with a shrunk center circle, $^{3,5}\mathbb{X}_3$:
(5,1.3) (1.4,0.5) (2.0,0.5) (2.6,0.5) (2.8,0.5)[1]{} (1.9,0.5)[2]{} (1.0,0.5)[3]{}
The 7 regions inside the circles may be labeled by the circles that cover them: *1*, *12*, *123*, *23*, *3*, *$\overline{\textit{13}}$*, *$\underline{\textit{13}}$*, using overline and underline to register the upper and lower regions. The symmetry is the same as in the preceding diagram $^{3,4}\mathbb{X}_3$.
6. The asymmetric bundle $^{3,6}\mathbb{X}_3$:
(3,1.5) (1.0,0.5) (1.1,0.5) (2.0,0.5) (2.0,0.5)[1]{} (0.5,0.5)[2]{} (1.1,0.5)[3]{}
The 5 regions inside the circles may be labeled by the circles that cover them: *1*, *12*, *123*, *23*, *2*. The cycle index is $t_1$.
Let $^3\mathbb{X}_N\supseteq {}^2\mathbb{X}_N$ denote the arrangements of $N$ nested circles which admit the topologies of simple circles, the one topology of two-circle intersections and the six topologies of three-circle intersections in the subregions.
This is an element of $^3\mathbb{X}_{10}^{(2)}$ which is not in $^2\mathbb{X}_N$:
(3,1.5) (1.0,0.5) (1.1,0.5) (1.0,0.5) (1.1,0.4) (2.0,0.5) (2.0,0.3) (2.2,0.6) (2.0,0.9) (3.0,0.8) (3.0,0.8)
Recurrences {#recurrences-1}
-----------
Generating function of the topologies with up-to-three intersections: $$\sum_N |^3\mathbb{X}_N| z^N={}^3X(z).$$
The multiset interpretation as a forest of rooted trees with non-factoring elements $^3\mathbb{X}_N^{(1)}$ in the roots holds again: $$|^3\mathbb{X}_N^{(f)}| = \sum_{\pi(N): N=\{N_1^{c_1};N_2^{c_2};\ldots N_f^{c_f}\}}
\prod_{j=1}^f
\binom{|^3\mathbb{X}_{N_j}^{(1)}|+c_j-1}{c_j}.$$ There is one type of compound objects constructed by wrapping a circle around others, one type of covering them with two intersecting circles, and six types of covering them with three intersecting circles. Because the two types $^{3,1}\mathbb{X}$ and $^{3,2}\mathbb{X}$ of the 3-circles have the same number of regions and the same symmetry, we count the first type twice and drop the second; because types $^{3,4}\mathbb{X}$ and and $^{3,5}\mathbb{X}$ have the same number of regions and the same symmetry, we also count $^{3,4}\mathbb{X}$ twice and drop $^{3,5}\mathbb{X}$. The upgrade of (\[eq.X2of1\]) is $$|^3\mathbb{X}_N^{(1)}|
= |^3\mathbb{X}_{N-1}| +{}^2D_{N-2}
+2\,{}^{3,1}D_{N-3}
+{}^{3,3}D_{N-3}
+2\, {}^{3,4}D_{N-3}
+{}^{3,6}D_{N-3}.$$ The generating functions are defined in the obvious way preserving the upper left type indices: $\sum_{N\ge 0}{}\, ^{...}D_N z^N=\,{}^{...}D(z)$. They are all anchored at $^{...}D_0=1$ and zero for negative $N$.
1. The three regions in $^2\mathbb{X}_N$ are populated as before, but now also accepting elements of $^3\mathbb{X}$ in their subregions such that their values differ from the values of $\bar D_N$ of Equation (\[eq.Dbardef\]): $$^2D(z) = \frac12\, {}^3X(z)[^3X^2(z)+\,^3X(z^2)].$$
2. In $^{3,1}\mathbb{X}_N$ region *123* is populated without restriction. The remaining 6 regions associated via symmetry are then incorporated with $t_j\mapsto{}\, ^3X^2(z^j)$, $j\ge 1$, in the cycle index, so $$^{3,1}D(z) = \frac16\, ^3X(z)[^3X^6(z)+3\,{} ^3X^2(z)\, ^3X^2(z^2)+2\,{} ^3X^2(z^3)].$$
3. Region *2* in $^{3,3}\mathbb{X}_N$ is populated without restrictions, which contributes a factor $^3X(z)$. The pair regions $1$ and $12$ are populated without restrictions with is represented by $f(z)={}\,^3X^2(z)$. The regions $3$ and $23$ associated to them via symmetry are then incorporated with $t_j\mapsto f(z^j)$ in the cycle index, so $$^{3,3}D(z) = \frac12\, ^3X(z)[^3X^4(z)+\,{}^3X^2(z^2)].$$
4. In $^{3,4}\mathbb{X}_N$ region *123* is populated without restriction which contributes a factor $^3X(z)$. Regions *1* and *12* are represented by $f(z)$ and $\overline{\textit{2}}$ is represented by $^3X(z)$. Substituting $t_j=f(z^j)$, $t'_j ={}\,^3X(z)$ in the cycle index yields $$^{3,4}D(z) =
\frac14 \,^3X(z)[^3X^4(z)+\,{} ^3X^2(z^2)] [^3X^2(z)+\,{} ^3X(z^2)]
.$$
5. The five regions in $^{3,6}\mathbb{X}_N$ are populated without restrictions: $$^{3,6}D(z) =\, ^3X^5(z).$$
$N$ $ |^3\mathbb{X}_N|$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
----- --------------------- -------- -------- -------- ------- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- --- --- -- -- --
1 1 1
2 3 2 1
3 14 11 2 1
4 61 44 14 2 1
5 252 169 66 14 2 1
6 1019 609 323 70 14 2 1
7 4127 2253 1431 356 70 14 2 1
8 17242 8779 6320 1695 361 70 14 2 1
9 74007 36319 27420 8081 1739 361 70 14 2 1
10 325615 157297 119821 37849 8455 1745 361 70 14 2 1
11 1458604 701901 528557 176894 40549 8510 1745 361 70 14 2 1
: The number of topologies of nested $N$ circles intersecting at most as triples, $|^3\mathbb{X}_N|$, and the subcounts with $f$ factors, $|^3\mathbb{X}_N^{(f)}|$, $1\le f\le N$. The row sums are the Euler transform of the column $f=1$. []{data-label="tab.X3"}
The numerical evaluation of the recurrences leads to Table \[tab.X3\]. The first difference in comparison to Table \[tab.X2\] is where the 6 additional topologies offer new branches as soon as at least 3 circles are involved: $|^3\mathbb{X}_3^{(1)}|
=|^2\mathbb{X}_3^{(1)}|+6$.
In a wider context one would like to construct and count all circle sets of $N$ circles with an arbitrary number of intersections [@EIS A250001]. That is out of reach of this paper; in Table \[tab.X3\] that analysis is only complete up to $N=3$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a calculation of the leading order hadronic contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon for a dynamical simulation of 2+1 flavour QCD using domain wall fermions. The electromagnetic 2-point function is evaluated on the RBC-UKQCD lattice gauge configurations and this is fitted to a continuous form motivated by models of vector dominance. We determine a robust and reliable technique for performing this fit, allowing us to extract the most accurate results possible from our ensembles. This combined with data at very light quark masses produces the result $$a_\mu^{(2)had}=641(33)(32)\times 10^{-10}$$ at the physical point, where the first uncertainty is statistical, and the second is an estimate of systematics, which is in agreement with previous results. We outline various methods by which this calculation can and will be improved in order to compete with the accuracy of alternative techniques of deducing this quantity from experimental scattering data.'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
---
[Edinburgh 2011/19]{}
[**Lattice Determination of the Hadronic Contribution to the Muon $g-2$ using Dynamical Domain Wall Fermions**]{}\
0.8cm
[**Peter Boyle, Luigi Del Debbio, Eoin Kerrane, & James Zanotti**]{}\
[*School of Physics and Astronomy,\
University of Edinburgh,\
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ,\
Scotland\
E-mail: [[<[email protected]>]{}]{}, [[<[email protected]>]{}]{}, [[<[email protected]>]{}]{}, [[<[email protected]>]{}]{}* ]{}
.6cm
Introduction
============
The anomalous magnetic moment $a$ of a lepton, is half the discrepancy from 2 ($a=\frac{g-2}{2}$) of $g$, the gyromagnetic ratio or Landé $g$-factor, which relates the spin $\vec{S}$ of the lepton to its magnetic moment $\vec{\mu}$ as $$\vec{\mu}=g\frac{e}{2m}\vec{S}.$$ It is given the name “anomalous” because it is a purely quantum effect and so is zero in a classical theory.
The one-loop computation of the electron anomalous magnetic moment $a_e$ by Schwinger [@Schwinger:1948iu] was one of the first such calculations, and provided strong evidence in support of the young theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED) by explaining observed hyper-fine phenomena which were not well understood. Since then $a_e$ has become possibly the most accurately determined quantity in science, being known to a precision better than one part per billion [@Hanneke:2008tm]. The corresponding theoretical calculation has achieved similar accuracy [@Laporta:2008zz]. Because of the relatively light mass of the electron, the calculation is strongly dominated by QED contributions with virtual electrons, which are known to a good accuracy to four-loops. Using an independent determination of the fine-structure constant $\alpha$ from atomic interferometry results in a value of $a_e$ which agrees with the experimental result, with an uncertainty over 30 times greater. Combining the experimental and theoretical results for $a_e$ in terms of the fine structure constant $\alpha$ provides the most accurate available determination of $\alpha$ [@Hanneke:2008tm].
Because of its heavier mass, $\frac{m_\mu^2}{m_e^2}\simeq40000$, the muon anomalous magnetic moment $a_\mu$ is far more sensitive to contributions from other sectors of the standard model, as well as to any potential new-physics contributions. This makes it a far more robust test of the standard model, and a much more interesting searching-ground for signals of new physics. The current experimental result, while not nearly as accurate as that for $a_e$ is still remarkably precise [@Bennett:2006fi]: $$a_\mu=11 659 208.0(6.3) \times 10^{-10},$$ which remains a precision of better than one part per million.
Obtaining a theoretical result for $a_\mu$ of comparable precision has proved a more difficult task than in the case of $a_e$ [@Jegerlehner:2009ry]. This is because, as stated above, the contributions from other sectors of the standard model are more significant. However the calculation has been brought to a point where the uncertainty is of the same order as the experimental uncertainty. Interestingly however, there is a discrepancy between the two values which exceeds the current uncertainty. This has attracted a huge amount of interest to $a_\mu$ and lead to significant efforts to calculate contributions from potential new-physics sectors.
The current uncertainty in $a_\mu$ is strongly dominated by hadronic contributions, specifically the leading order hadronic, and hadronic light-by-light contributions. The light-by-light contribution has attracted significant theoretical interest, and has recently become the focus of considerable work using lattice simulations [@Hayakawa:2005eq; @Blum:2009zz].
This work involves the leading order hadronic contribution, which we denote as $a_\mu^{(2)had}$, the best estimate of which is currently obtained by relating the hadronic vacuum polarisation of the photon to the cross section for $e^+ e^-$ decay into hadrons, allowing a dispersive integral over experimental data for the cross section [@Jegerlehner:2008zz].
Despite the apparent accuracy of the results obtained from this procedure, there remain discrepancies between results from different data sets, and these discrepancies carry over to the total result for $a_\mu^{(2)had}$, and depending on the choice of method can result in a $\sim 3\sigma$ or $\sim 1\sigma$ discrepancy between the theoretical and experimental result for $a_\mu$. As a result, it is not clear if this method of obtaining the vacuum polarisation is under good control [@Jegerlehner:2009ry; @Jegerlehner:2008zz]. In addition, the discrepancy of $a_\mu$ is an important input for new-physics model builders when constraining their models. As such an independent first-principles calculation of $a_\mu^{(2)had}$ could have a large impact on efforts to discern the nature of physics at and above the electro-weak scale.
Attempts have been made to estimate this quantity using models of low energy QCD [@deRafael:1993za], however for a truly robust first-principles evaluation of this quantity we must turn to lattice field theory techniques.
This quantity was first tackled through lattice computation in quenched simulations first with domain wall fermions [@Blum:2002ii] , followed by a calculation with improved Wilson fermions [@Gockeler:2003cw]. The first dynamical simulation followed [@Blum:2003se; @Aubin:2006xv] using 2+1 flavour staggered quarks, and several studies of this quantity are ongoing, using 2 flavours of improved Wilson fermions [@DellaMorte:2010sw] and twisted mass fermions [@Feng:2011zk]. We present a calculation of $a_\mu^{(2)had}$ from a dynamical simulation of 2+1 flavour QCD with domain wall fermions.
Background
==========
The Landé $g$-factor of a fermion can be expressed in terms of the electromagnetic form factors $F_1$ and $F_2$ as $$g=2\left[F_1(0)+F_2(0)\right].$$ These form factors are defined in the effective electromagnetic scattering vertex whereby the expression for the tree-level graph\
$$\parbox{25mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{ammm1}
\begin{fmfgraph*}(60,60)
\fmftop{in}
\fmfbottom{up,down}
\fmf{photon,tension=2}{in,v1}
\fmf{fermion}{up,v1}
\fmf{fermion}{v1,down}
\fmflabel{$q,\,\mu$}{in}
\fmflabel{$p$}{up}
\fmflabel{$p^\prime$}{down}
\end{fmfgraph*}
\end{fmffile}
}=-ie\gamma_\mu$$\
is replaced by its equivalent including all quantum corrections\
$$\parbox{25mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{ammm2}
\begin{fmfgraph*}(60,60)
\fmftop{in}
\fmfbottom{up,down}
\fmf{photon,tension=2}{in,v1}
\fmfblob{100}{v1}
\fmf{fermion}{up,v1}
\fmf{fermion}{v1,down}
\fmflabel{$q,\,\mu$}{in}
\fmflabel{$p$}{up}
\fmflabel{$p^\prime$}{down}
\end{fmfgraph*}
\end{fmffile}
}=-ie\Gamma_\mu(p^\prime,p)\equiv-ie\left[\gamma_\mu F_1(q^2)+\frac{i\sigma^{\mu\nu}q_\nu}{2m}F_2(q^2)\right].\label{formfac}$$\
From the Born approximation it can be seen that $F_1(0)=1$ to all orders, and so $$a=\frac{g-2}{2}=F_2(0).$$ We seek to compute the effect of hadronic vacuum polarisation contributions to $a_\mu$ which are obtained by calculating contributions to the graph in (\[formfac\]) of the form\
$$\parbox{25mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{ammm3}
\begin{fmfgraph*}(60,60)
\fmftop{in}
\fmfbottom{up,down}
\fmf{photon,tension=1}{in,v1}
\fmf{fermion,tension=.5}{v2,v1}
\fmf{fermion,tension=.5}{v1,v3}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.15}{v2,v4,v3}
\fmfv{label=had,label.dist=0,decor.size=180,decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=empty}{v4}
\fmf{fermion}{up,v2}
\fmf{fermion}{v3,down}
\fmflabel{$q,\,\mu$}{in}
\fmflabel{$p$}{up}
\fmflabel{$p^\prime$}{down}
\end{fmfgraph*}
\end{fmffile}
}.\label{hadvacpol}$$\
As described in [@Blum:2002ii] the contribution to $a_\mu$ from the one-loop diagram equivalent to the graph (\[hadvacpol\]) with the hadronic blob removed can be expressed as $$\parbox{25mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{ammm4}
\begin{fmfgraph*}(60,60)
\fmftop{in}
\fmfbottom{up,down}
\fmf{photon,tension=1}{in,v1}
\fmf{fermion,tension=0.5}{v2,v1}
\fmf{fermion,tension=0.5}{v1,v3}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.03}{v2,v3}
\fmf{fermion,tension=0.5}{up,v2}
\fmf{fermion,tension=0.5}{v3,down}
\end{fmfgraph*}
\end{fmffile}
}\longrightarrow a_\mu^{(1)}=\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dQ^2\,f(Q^2)$$ where the kernel function $f(Q^2)$ is divergent as $Q^2\rightarrow0$ and can be expressed\
$$\begin{aligned}
f(Q^2)=\frac{m_\mu^2Q^2Z(Q^2)^3(1-Q^2Z(Q^2))}{1+m_\mu^2Q^2Z(Q^2)^2}
& &Z(Q^2)=-\frac{Q^2-\sqrt{Q^4+4m_\mu^2Q^2}}{2m_\mu^2Q^2}.\end{aligned}$$\
From this, the expression for the hadronic vacuum polarisation contribution can be obtained with the insertions:\
$$\parbox{25mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{ammm5}
\begin{fmfgraph*}(60,60)
\fmftop{in}
\fmfbottom{up,down}
\fmf{photon,tension=1}{in,v1}
\fmf{fermion,tension=.5}{v2,v1}
\fmf{fermion,tension=.5}{v1,v3}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.15}{v2,v4,v3}
\fmfv{label=had,label.dist=0,decor.size=180,decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=empty}{v4}
\fmf{fermion}{up,v2}
\fmf{fermion}{v3,down}
\end{fmfgraph*}
\end{fmffile}
}\longrightarrow a_\mu^{(2)had}=\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^2\int_0^\infty dQ^2\,f(Q^2)\times\hat{\Pi}(Q^2)
\label{hadvacint}$$ where $\hat{\Pi}(Q^2)$ is the infra-red subtracted transverse part of the hadronic vacuum polarisation $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Pi}(Q^2)=\Pi(Q^2)-\Pi(0)&&\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)=(q^2g_{\mu\nu}-q_\mu q_\nu)\Pi(q^2)\label{transverse}\end{aligned}$$ $$\parbox{30mm}{
\begin{fmffile}{ammm6}
\begin{fmfgraph*}(60,60)
\fmfleft{in}
\fmfright{out}
\fmf{photon,tension=1}{in,v1}
\fmf{photon,tension=1}{v1,out}
\fmfv{label=had,label.dist=0,decor.size=180,decor.shape=circle,decor.filled=empty}{v1}
\fmflabel{$q,\,\mu$}{in}
\fmflabel{$q,\,\nu$}{out}
\end{fmfgraph*}
\end{fmffile}
}\equiv i\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)
$$ at Euclidean momentum $Q^2=-q^2$. The hadronic vacuum polarisation function $\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)$ can be computed as the Fourier-transformed two-point correlator $$\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)=\int d^4x \,e^{iq\cdot (x-y)}\langle J_\mu(x)
J_\nu(y)\rangle\label{vacpolcorr}$$ involving the electromagnetic current $$J_\mu(x)=\sum_iQ_i\bar{\psi}^i\gamma_\mu\psi^i$$ where $\psi^i$ is the quark field of flavour $i$ and $Q^i$ is its charge. The path-integral used in the expectation value in (\[vacpolcorr\]) will involve only hadronic fields, i.e. quarks and gluons.
Simulation
----------
Our computation is performed using configurations generated by the RBC & UKQCD collaborations as part of their program of investigation using 2+1 flavours of domain-wall fermions. We investigate three lattice volumes, each with several ensembles at different values of the light quark mass $m_u$. The parameters of these ensembles are given in Table \[tab:param\]. The ensembles at $\beta=1.75$ have been generated using a dislocation suppressing determinant ratio (DSDR) in conjunction with the Iwasaki gauge action, with a fifth dimension whose extent is $L_5$=32 [@Ohta:2011nv; @Kelly:2011up]. The lighter of these ensembles is very near to the physical point with a pion mass of $m_\pi\simeq 180$ MeV. The other ensembles used only the Iwasaki action and $L_5=16$ [@Allton:2008pn; @Aoki:2010dy].
$V$ $\beta$ $a^{-1} $ GeV $\hat{q}^2_{min}$ GeV$^2$ $am_h$ $am_u$
---------------- --------- --------------- --------------------------- -------- --------
$24^3\times64$ 2.13 1.73(2) 0.028 0.04 0.02
$24^3\times64$ 2.13 1.73(2) 0.028 0.04 0.01
$24^3\times64$ 2.13 1.73(2) 0.028 0.04 0.005
$32^3\times64$ 2.25 2.28(3) 0.05 0.03 0.008
$32^3\times64$ 2.25 2.28(3) 0.05 0.03 0.006
$32^3\times64$ 2.25 2.28(3) 0.05 0.03 0.004
$32^3\times64$ 1.75 1.375(9) 0.018 0.045 0.0042
$32^3\times64$ 1.75 1.375(9) 0.018 0.045 0.001
: Parameters of the lattice ensembles used in our study.[]{data-label="tab:param"}
$\beta$ $am_u$ $Z_V$ $am_\mathrm{V}$ $am_\mathrm{PS}$ $af_\mathrm{V}$
--------- -------- ----------- ----------------- ------------------ -----------------
2.13 0.02 0.696(2) 0.579(6) 0.3227(7)
2.13 0.01 0.700(2) 0.529(5) 0.2422(5)
2.13 0.005 0.699(2) 0.505(6) 0.1904(6)
2.25 0.008 0.7380(5) 0.388(6) 0.1727(4) 0.078(6)
2.25 0.006 0.7385(6) 0.366(5) 0.1512(3) 0.076(5)
2.25 0.004 0.7387(7) 0.356(6) 0.1269(4) 0.070(11)
1.75 0.0042 0.664(5) 0.570(25) 0.1809(3) 0.102(6)
1.75 0.001 0.669(8) 0.558(44) 0.1249(3) 0.105(15)
: Relevant observables measured on our lattices. Results on the $\beta=1.75$ lattices are preliminary and will be outlined in a forthcoming publication [@Kelly:2011up], results for $f_\mathrm{V}$ on the $64\times 24^3$ lattices are currently unavailable.[]{data-label="tab:obsv"}
Vacuum polarisation {#vacpol}
-------------------
We compute the lattice vacuum polarisation as $$\widetilde{\Pi}_{\mu\nu}(x)=Z_V\sum_i
Q_i^2 a^6\langle
\mathcal{V}^i_\mu(x)V^i_\nu(0)\rangle,$$ where we have omitted the flavour-nondiagonal terms as they contain only “disconnected” contributions which are expected to be sub-dominant, as will be discussed further below.
At the sink we use the DWF conserved vector current [@Furman:1994ky] $$ \mathcal{V}^i_\mu(x)=\sum_{s=1}^{L_5}\frac{1}{2}\left[\bar{\psi}^i(x+\hat{\mu},s)(1+\gamma_\mu)U_\mu^\dagger(x)\psi^i(x,s)-\bar{\psi}^i(x,
s)(1-\gamma_\mu)U_\mu(x)\psi^i(x+\hat{\mu},s)\right]$$ while at the source we have the local vector current $V^i_\nu(x)=\bar{q}^i(x)\gamma_\nu q^i(x)$ where $q^i(x)=P_+\psi^i(x,L_5-1)+P_-\psi^i(x,0)$, and $P_\pm=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm\gamma_5)$. Because of the use of the local vector current, a factor of the vector current renormalisation constant, $Z_V$, is included in our definition of the vacuum polarisation. The values of $Z_V$ used on each ensemble are given in Table \[tab:obsv\], as measured in [@Aoki:2010dy].
These correlators were generated for, and used in, the measurement of the QCD contribution to the electro-weak S-parameter [@Boyle:2009xi]. However, they will prove perfectly sufficient for our purposes, as long as we are mindful of Ward Identity violations, which will be discussed in Sec. \[sec:ward\].
Of the two Wick-contractions arising from this correlator, we compute only the connected one. We leave the evaluation of the disconnected contribution for future work, but note that it is expected to be suppressed relative to the connected contribution [@DellaMorte:2010aq]. This argument is also the motivation for neglecting the flavour-nondiagonal terms, and we will make an estimate of the systematic uncertainty that results in our conclusions.
We Fourier transform into momentum space: $$\widetilde{\Pi}_{\mu\nu}(\hat{q})\equiv Z_V\sum_i Q_i^2\sum_x e^{iqx}a^6\langle
\mathcal{V}^i_\mu(x)V^i_\nu(0)\rangle\label{correlator}$$ using the discrete momenta $q_\mu=\frac{2\pi n_\mu}{L_\mu}$ where $n_\mu$ is a 4-tuple of integers, and $L_\mu$ is the length of the lattice in the $\mu$ direction. From here, we will use the lattice momentum $$\hat{q}_\mu=\frac{2}{a}\sin\left(\frac{\pi n_\mu}{L_\mu}\right).$$ We associate the quantity $\hat{q}^2=\sum_\mu\hat{q}_\mu^2$ with the continuum momentum $Q^2$.
Ward identities {#sec:ward}
---------------
In order to ensure that this reproduces a vacuum polarisation of the form (\[transverse\]) we must verify that this lattice correlator satisfies the Ward identity $q_\mu\Pi_{\mu\nu}=0$ which in general is not the case, as although both operators $\mathcal{V}^i$ and $V^i$ have the correct continuum limit $$\mathcal{V}_\mu^i,V_\mu^i\stackrel{a\rightarrow0}{\longrightarrow}J^i=\bar{\psi}^i\gamma_\mu\psi^i$$ the additional irrelevant operators introduced into the lattice action modify the Ward identity for $\widetilde{\Pi}_{\mu\nu}$. In coordinate space, the Schwinger Dyson equation for $\widetilde{\Pi}_{\mu\nu}$ reads $$\langle(\Delta_\mu
\mathcal{V}^i_\mu(x))V_\nu^i(0)\rangle+\left\langle\left(\frac{
V_\nu^i(0)\overleftarrow{\partial}}{\partial\psi^i(x)}
\psi^i(x)\right)-\left(\bar{\psi}^i(x)\frac
{\vec{\partial}V_\nu^i(0)}{\partial\bar{\psi}^i(x)}\right)\right\rangle=0
\label{sdeq}$$ where $\Delta_\mu$ is the backward lattice derivative. Because the local current used is not point-split, the second term in (\[sdeq\]) vanishes and we have as a result that $e^{\frac{iaq_\mu}{2}}\hat{q}_\mu\widetilde{\Pi}_{\mu\nu}=0$.
This is illustrated in Fig. \[wardplots\] where we see that it is necessary to include the factor $e^{i\frac{aq_\mu}{2}}$ in the Ward identity for the first index of $\widetilde{\Pi}_{\mu\nu}$, while there is no fulfilled Ward identity for the second index.
Decomposing the vacuum polarisation {#decomp}
-----------------------------------
We must extract from $\widetilde{\Pi}_{\mu\nu}(\hat{q})$ the scalar vacuum polarisation $\widetilde{\Pi}(\hat{q}^2)$ which, corresponding to the continuum (\[transverse\]), are related by
$$\widetilde{\Pi}_{\mu\nu}(\hat{q})=(\hat{q}^2\delta_{\mu\nu}-\hat{q}_\mu\hat{q
}_\nu)\widetilde{\Pi}(\hat{q}^2)$$
In practice, in order to avoid any longitudinal contribution which might arise due to the non-conservation of Ward identities, for each momentum orientation we choose directions $\mu$ such that $\hat{q}_\mu=0$ and compute
$$\widetilde{\Pi}(\hat{q}^2)=\frac{\widetilde{\Pi}_{\mu\mu}(\hat{q})}{\hat{q}
^2}$$
where in the above there is no sum over $\mu$.
In Fig. \[platplots\] we show an example of the resulting vacuum polarisation function, and compare this to the large $Q^2$ expansion of the three-loop continuum perturbation theory result from [@Chetyrkin:1996cf], using two massless flavours of quarks and one massive flavour which we associate with the strange quark. This result is quoted in the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ scheme and as such we require the strange quark mass in our simulations expressed in $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$. For this we use the non-perturbative renormalization factor $Z^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}_{mh}=0.1533(6)(33)$ determined in [@Aoki:2010dy]. The factor is quoted in the limit of vanishing light quark mass, but it is also illustrated that the mass dependence is extremely slight, and so we see this as satisfactory.
![Vacuum polarisation function $\Pi(Q^2)$ as measured on $64\times32^3$ lattice at $\beta=2.25$ and $am_u=0.004$.[]{data-label="platplots"}](pert.pdf)
Deducing $a^{(2)had}_\mu$
=========================
In order to infer the value of $a^{(2)had}_\mu$ from our data we must carry out the integral (\[hadvacint\]) which we split into high and low momentum regions at some momentum cut $Q_C^2$
$$a_\mu^{(2)had}=4\alpha^2\left[\int_0^{Q^2_C}\,dQ^2f(Q^2)\times\hat{\Pi}
(Q^2)+\int_{Q^2_C}^\infty\,dQ^2f(Q^2)\times\hat{\Pi}(Q^2)\right]\label{eq:integral}.$$
A continuous description of $\Pi(Q^2)$ at low momenta is obtained by performing a fit to our lattice data, which allows us to perform the low $Q^2$ integral. The value of $\Pi(0)$ from this fit combined with a high-momentum description of $\Pi(Q^2)$ from perturbation theory allows us to perform the high momentum integral. As we shall see, the integral is strongly dominated by the low momentum contribution.
Fitting the low $Q^2$ region
----------------------------
We have attempted to fit a continuous form to our lattice data for the vacuum polarisation using a number of different fit forms. The effect that the choice of fit function can have on the result for $a_\mu^{(2)had}$ has been highlighted in previous studies [@Aubin:2006xv], and this behoves us to ensure that the systematics with regard to this choice are under control.
The suitability of a given fit-form should be judged on two main criteria:
- Firstly, the chosen expression must describe the data closely, and must do so regardless of the range of data included in the fit. As such we require the reduced $\chi^2$ of the fit to be consistently low as a function of $Q_C^2$ which defines the range of data in the fit.
- Secondly, in order to deduce that the fit-form results in an integral over momentum which is relatively stable, we desire that the result for $a_\mu^{(2)had}$ is again relatively stable as a function of $Q_C^2$.
Ref. [@Aubin:2006xv] also illustrated the use of a fit form originating in the expression for the vacuum polarisation calculated in chiral perturbation theory. The dominant component of this expression is due to the vector meson contribution, which at tree-level is $$\Pi_V^{tree}(Q^2)=\frac{2}{3}\frac{f_V^2}{Q^2+m_V^2}\label{eq:vecpole}$$ where the vector decay constant $f_V$ is defined $$\langle\Omega|J_\mu|V,p,\epsilon\rangle=m_Vf_V\epsilon_\mu(p).$$
Motivated by this expression the fit-form we use is closely related, differing only in the inclusion of the contribution of an additional vector resonance, $$\Pi(Q^2)=A-\frac{F_1^2}{Q^2+m_1^2}-\frac{F_2^2}{Q^2+m_2^2}\label{eq:twovec}.$$ The one-loop contribution from the pseudoscalar sector, shown in [@Aubin:2006xv] to have small momentum dependence, will not strongly affect our results and so, in our effort to make a continuous description of the lattice data, it will be omitted from our fit ansatz.
We fit the lattice vacuum-polarisation data in two ways:
- Firstly using $A$, $F_{1,2}$ and $m_{1,2}$ as free parameters.
- Also, fixing the parameter $m_1$ to the mass of the vector meson $m_\mathrm{V}$ as measured in [@Aoki:2010dy]. This we do by constraining $m_1$ to lie in the one-sigma band defined by the estimate of $m_\mathrm{V}$ and its variance. This method was found to maintain the stability of the fit routine, while incorporating the extra information provided by $m_\mathrm{V}$. In this fit $A$, $F_{1,2}$ and $m_2$ remain as true free parameters.
The behaviour of such fits are shown in Fig. \[fig:twovec\].
![Properties of fits to the lattice vacuum polarisation using the ansatz (\[eq:twovec\]) on the $\beta=2.25$ lattice at $am_u=0.004$.[]{data-label="fig:twovec"}](32_0_004_twovec.pdf)
Clearly such a form is a very good representation of the data, over practically the whole range of $Q_C^2$. In addition the results for $a_\mu^{(2)had}$ using such fits are very stable as the fit range is varied, allowing far greater confidence in the reliability of the result. In particular we conclude that using a fit form (\[eq:twovec\]) with the mass of the first pole fixed to the ground-state vector meson mass to be the optimal method of describing the lattice data for the hadronic vacuum polarisation.
In Fig. \[fig:mv\] we see the value of the fit parameter $m_1$ from (\[eq:twovec\]) as determined from fits to the lattice vacuum polarisation. The value of $m_\mathrm{V}$ obtained in [@Aoki:2010dy] is shown in green, and this defines the band in which $m_1$ was constrained to reside in the fixed version of this fit.
![Value of the fit parameter $am_1$ in fits using the ansatz (\[eq:twovec\]) on the $\beta=2.25$ lattice at $am_u=0.004$. The vector mass $am_\mathrm{V}$ as determined on this lattice is shown in green. Note in the fit where $m_1$ was fixed, it was only constrained to lie within the green band. It is clear that for a high $Q_C^2$, $m_1$ will emerge at the upper limit of the band, indicating some tension between the fit-form and the data, but as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:twovec\], this has very little impact on the goodness of the fit.[]{data-label="fig:mv"}](32_0_004_twovec_mv.pdf)
We have not attempted to model $O(4)$ breaking effects present in our data. Though such effects do appear to be present to a moderate degree on certain ensembles, they do not prevent the extraction of a reasonable signal from our data at this point. These effects could also be alleviated by the use of twisted boundary conditions [@Arthur:2010ht].
Evaluation of (\[eq:integral\])
-------------------------------
Illustrations of the integrand can be seen in Fig. \[fig:ints\]. Because the integrand is dominated by contributions in the low momentum region, we change our integration measure to better sample the region of interest. To do this, we make the change of variables
$$t=\frac{1}{1+\log{\frac{Q_C^2}{Q^2}}}$$
and so the integral over the low-momentum region becomes
$$\int_0^{Q_C^2}\,dQ^2f(Q^2)\times\hat{\Pi}(Q^2)\longrightarrow\int_0^1\,dt\,f(Q^2)\times\hat{\Pi}(Q^2)\times\frac{Q^2}{t^2}
\label{moment2}.$$
Overlaid on the depiction of the integrand in Fig. \[fig:ints\] is the appropriately subtracted and rescaled vacuum polarisation data. We see from this that, while a large portion of the constraint on the fit is consistently derived from data at higher momentum, the fit is always consistent with the data at low momentum, the region where the integral receives the dominant contribution.
In particular in Fig.\[dsdrint\] we see that on the larger lattices at $\beta=1.75$ using the Iwasaki+DSDR action, the data point at the lowest momentum sits exactly where the integrand reaches a maximum, and there are numerous data points in the dominant region, constraining the fit. Clearly using lattices of such size will help in obtaining a precise result for this quantity, and this must be combined with the use of twisted boundary conditions [@DellaMorte:2010sw] in order to access data at lower values of the lattice momentum.
Results
=======
We extract our final results from the fit using (\[eq:twovec\]) with the first mass fixed to that of the vector meson as measured on each ensemble. Observing the behaviour of the reduced $\chi^2$ as the fit range is varied, we choose a suitable value for $Q_C^2$ for each ensemble which provides the most reliable result. We attempt to choose a cut which provides a low reduced $\chi^2$ preferably where the parameter $m_1$ agrees without tension with $m_\mathrm{V}$. This produces the results shown in Table \[tab:results\], where we also quote the reduced $\chi^2$ of the fit, and the resulting values of the remaining associated free parameters.
These results are also shown as a function of $m_\pi^2$ in Fig. \[resplot\], where we compare them to previous 2+1 flavour results from [@Aubin:2006xv]. Also shown is an extrapolation to the physical point, using a quadratic chiral ansatz. This produces a final result for the leading order hadronic vacuum polarisation contribution the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon $$a_\mu^{(2)had}=641(33)\times 10^{-10}\label{eq:standres}.$$
![Integrated result for $a_\mu^{(2)had}$ as a function of the pseudoscalar mass squared.[]{data-label="resplot"}](ammm2_comparison.pdf)
We have also investigated the effect of modifying the kernel function in the integrand (\[hadvacint\]) in the manner outlined in [@Feng:2011zk], where in an effort to moderate the variation of the outcome of the integral as a function of the quark mass, the momentum argument of the kernel function is rescaled by a factor of the ratio of the value of a relevant observable $H$ (the mass of the vector meson appears to be an optimal choice) measured at the simulated quark mass to its physical value. This effectively defines the calculation of a new quantity which approaches the desired $a_\mu^{(2)had}$ in the physical limit. We show the results of such a calculation in Fig. \[fig:jansena\], along with an accompanying chiral extrapolation. The chiral variation in this redefined quantity is such that it allows for a linear extrapolation in quark mass. For the lightest point in our simulation we include the unmodified result outlined in Table \[tab:results\] since for this ensemble the measured vector mass $m_V$ is consistent with the physical value. This method does indeed moderate the chiral behaviour of the result, however it has little effect on our data at light quark masses, primarily because the lattice vector meson masses are very near that of the physical $\rho$ meson, and, as of now, are not determined to any great precision on these lattices. As such this technique does not improve our chiral fit at this time, producing a compatible result with a similar uncertainty: $$a_\mu^{(2)had}=605(24)\times 10^{-10}\label{eq:janres}$$ In Fig.\[fig:jansenb\] we compare both chiral extrapolations, with $H=1$ denoting the standard method, and $H=m_V$ indicating the modified prescription of [@Feng:2011zk] using the vector mass $m_V$.
In Fig. \[rescompplot\], our result (\[eq:standres\]) including a 5% statistical error arising from the chiral extrapolation (estimated from the discrepancy between (\[eq:standres\]) and (\[eq:janres\]) ) is compared to recent 2+1 flavour lattice results [@Aubin:2006xv] along with recent result arising from dispersion integrals over experimental data from scattering data. Our result is in rough agreement with other results bearing in mind that we have neglected the disconnected contributions to our correlators, producing a systematic deviation which is bounded to be of the order of 10%. At this time we are not in a position to improve on previous theoretical evaluations of $a_\mu^{(2)had}$ and so cannot comment on the scale of the discrepancy between the measured value of $a_\mu$ and the Standard Model prediction. However it is clear that the next iteration of this calculation with planned improvements is very likely to be in a position to begin clarifying the situation concerning this discrepancy.
In Table \[tab:fv\] we attempt a comparison of the value of $F_1$ (defined in (\[eq:twovec\]) ) resulting from our fit, to the vector decay constant as measured on each lattice, according to the relation expressed in (\[eq:vecpole\]). Note, we do not have a result for $f_V$ on the $64\times 24^3$ lattices at this time, although the ratio of the vector coupling to the vector and tensor currents was studied in [@Donnellan:2007xr]. We also make the comparison suggested by the one-loop correction to (\[eq:vecpole\]) as computed in [@Aubin:2006xv] whereby the relation $F_1^2\sim\frac{2}{3}f_V^2$ is replaced by $F_1^2\sim\frac{2}{3}f_V^2\times C^2$ where $$C^2=1-\frac{6}{(4\pi f_\pi)^2}\left[m_\pi^2 \log\left(\frac{m_\pi^2}{\mu^2}\right)+m_K^2 \log\left(\frac{m_K^2}{\mu^2}\right)\right]$$ with $m_\pi$ and $m_K$ the pion and kaon meson masses, $f_\pi$ the pion decay constant, and $\mu$ the chiral scale, taken as 1 GeV. We note that in our fits we have not included the one-loop contribution from the pseudoscalar sector, and so this comparison can only serve as a rough indication, and we do not necessarily expect close agreement. We observe that the value of $F_1$ emerging from our fits is on the correct scale when compared to the measured $f_V$, simply supporting the credibility of our fits.
Conclusions
===========
We present a fully dynamical calculation of the leading-order hadronic vacuum polarisation contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, using a 2+1 flavour simulation lattice QCD using domain wall fermions. Although we have an expensive fermion discretisation, we improve the accuracy of our result by convolving an accurate determination of the ground-state vector meson mass with our determination of the lattice hadronic vacuum polarisation in order to suppress the systematic uncertainty associated with the choice of fit ansatz. Our chiral extrapolation involves lattices at different bare couplings, and thus different lattice spacings, however at this level of precision we do not detect any significant discretisation, or finite volume errors in our result. Our final result we take to be $$a_\mu^{(2)had}=641(33)(32)\times 10^{-10}\label{eq:finalres}$$ where the first error is statistical and the second is an estimate of the systematic error arising from the extrapolation to the chiral limit, taken as 5%, motivated by the variation between the results (\[eq:standres\]) and (\[eq:janres\]). Our largest systematic uncertainty arises from the omission of the disconnected contributions and is of the order of 10% [@Juttner:2009yb]. In order to obtain a more comprehensive and accurate result, we must include the disconnected contributions in our calculation. Furthermore, this being a first effort at deducing this quantity from our lattices, we have plans to improve it in a number of ways. In addition to the enhancement of our statistics, we would like to obtain a higher momentum resolution through the use of twisted boundary conditions, and also to explore the use of stochastic sources to further enhance our signal. With these improvements we would hope to decrease the uncertainty in our result significantly and thus begin to clarify the true discrepancy, if any, between the actual value of $a_\mu$ and its prediction from the Standard Model.
$\beta$ $am_u$ $Q_C^2$ GeV$^2$ $\frac{\chi^2}{n.d.f}$ $a_\mu^{(h)}\times10^{10}$ $aF_1$ $am_2$ $aF_2$
--------- -------- ----------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------- ----------- ---------- ----------
$2.13$ 0.02 4 0.38(17) 345(16) 0.114(4) 1.48(19) 0.31(5)
$2.13$ 0.01 3.5 0.07(6) 430(22) 0.110(4) 1.50(23) 0.32(7)
$2.13$ 0.005 3.5 0.14(5) 436(50) 0.097(14) 1.16(18) 0.24(3)
$2.25$ 0.008 6 0.18(11) 452(23) 0.079(2) 1.14(4) 0.26(1)
$2.25$ 0.006 6 0.10(6) 484(33) 0.075(3) 1.07(7) 0.24(2)
$2.25$ 0.004 9 0.06(3) 568(29) 0.079(2) 1.23(3) 0.28(6)
$1.75$ 0.0042 2.5 0.16(9) 536(36) 0.108(20) 1.27(20) 0.26(3)
$1.75$ 0.001 2.5 0.27(13) 646(55) 1.06(11) 1.58(61) 0.37(27)
: Results for the hadronic contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment.[]{data-label="tab:results"}
$\beta$ $am_u$ $f_V$ MeV $\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}F_1$ MeV $\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\frac{F_1}{C}$ MeV
--------- -------- ----------- ----------------------------- ---------------------------------------
2.13 0.02 242(10) 179(7)
2.13 0.01 234(8) 166(6)
2.13 0.005 205(30) 144(20)
2.25 0.008 178(13) 221(6) 155(5)
2.25 0.006 174(11) 211(10) 147(7)
2.25 0.004 160(26) 222(5) 155(4)
1.75 0.0042 140(9) 192(27) 129(19)
1.75 0.001 144(20) 179(18) 127(12)
: Comparison of the vector decay constant as measured on our lattices, to the amplitude of the lowest resonance contribution emerging from our fit to the lattice vacuum polarisation.[]{data-label="tab:fv"}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The calculations reported here were performed on the QCDOC computers [@Boyle:2005gf; @Boyle:2003mj] at Columbia University, Edinburgh University, and at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Argonne Leadership Class Facility (ALCF) BlueGene/P resources at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), and also the resources of the STFC-funded DiRAC facility. We wish to acknowledge support from STFC grant ST/H008845/1. At BNL, the QCDOC computers of the RIKEN-BNL Research Center and the USQCD Collaboration were used. The very large scale capability of the ALCF (supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357) was critical for carrying out the challenging calculations reported here. EK is supported by SUPA (The Scottish Universities Physics Alliance). JZ is supported by STFC grant ST/F009658/1. This work was supported in part by EU grant 238353 (STRONGnet). Data used at $\beta=1.75$ is to be presented in an upcoming publication [@Kelly:2011up], and we offer thanks to Chris Kelly for supplying preliminary results on these lattices.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Probabilistic methods for point set registration have demonstrated competitive results in recent years. These techniques estimate a probability distribution model of the point clouds. While such a representation has shown promise, it is highly sensitive to variations in the density of 3D points. This fundamental problem is primarily caused by changes in the sensor location across point sets. We revisit the foundations of the probabilistic registration paradigm. Contrary to previous works, we model the underlying structure of the scene as a latent probability distribution, and thereby induce invariance to point set density changes. Both the probabilistic model of the scene and the registration parameters are inferred by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence in an Expectation Maximization based framework. Our density-adaptive registration successfully handles severe density variations commonly encountered in terrestrial Lidar applications. We perform extensive experiments on several challenging real-world Lidar datasets. The results demonstrate that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art probabilistic methods for multi-view registration, without the need of re-sampling. Code is available at <https://github.com/felja633/DARE>.'
author:
- |
Felix Järemo Lawin, Martin Danelljan, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, Per-Erik Forssén, Michael Felsberg\
Computer Vision Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Linköping University, Sweden\
{`felix.jaremo-lawin`, `martin.danelljan`, `fahad.khan`, `per-erik.forssen`, `michael.felsberg`}`@liu.se`
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Density Adaptive Point Set Registration
---
Introduction
============
![Two example Lidar scans (top row), with significantly varying density of 3D-points. State-of-the-art probabilistic method [@DanelljanCVPR2016] (middle left) only aligns the regions with high density. This is caused by the emphasis on dense regions, as visualized by the Gaussian components in the model (black circles in bottom left). Our method (right) successfully exploits essential information available in sparse regions, resulting in accurate registration.](vps1.png "fig:"){height="32mm"} ![Two example Lidar scans (top row), with significantly varying density of 3D-points. State-of-the-art probabilistic method [@DanelljanCVPR2016] (middle left) only aligns the regions with high density. This is caused by the emphasis on dense regions, as visualized by the Gaussian components in the model (black circles in bottom left). Our method (right) successfully exploits essential information available in sparse regions, resulting in accurate registration.](vps2.png "fig:"){height="32mm"} ![Two example Lidar scans (top row), with significantly varying density of 3D-points. State-of-the-art probabilistic method [@DanelljanCVPR2016] (middle left) only aligns the regions with high density. This is caused by the emphasis on dense regions, as visualized by the Gaussian components in the model (black circles in bottom left). Our method (right) successfully exploits essential information available in sparse regions, resulting in accurate registration.](cppsr_vpsout.png "fig:"){height="31mm"} ![Two example Lidar scans (top row), with significantly varying density of 3D-points. State-of-the-art probabilistic method [@DanelljanCVPR2016] (middle left) only aligns the regions with high density. This is caused by the emphasis on dense regions, as visualized by the Gaussian components in the model (black circles in bottom left). Our method (right) successfully exploits essential information available in sparse regions, resulting in accurate registration.](ours_vpsout.png "fig:"){height="31mm"} ![Two example Lidar scans (top row), with significantly varying density of 3D-points. State-of-the-art probabilistic method [@DanelljanCVPR2016] (middle left) only aligns the regions with high density. This is caused by the emphasis on dense regions, as visualized by the Gaussian components in the model (black circles in bottom left). Our method (right) successfully exploits essential information available in sparse regions, resulting in accurate registration.](cppsr_gmm.png "fig:"){height="32mm"} ![Two example Lidar scans (top row), with significantly varying density of 3D-points. State-of-the-art probabilistic method [@DanelljanCVPR2016] (middle left) only aligns the regions with high density. This is caused by the emphasis on dense regions, as visualized by the Gaussian components in the model (black circles in bottom left). Our method (right) successfully exploits essential information available in sparse regions, resulting in accurate registration.](DAR_gmm.png "fig:"){height="31mm"}
\[fig:intro\]
3D-point set registration is a fundamental problem in computer vision, with applications in 3D mapping and scene understanding. Generally, the point sets are acquired using a 3D sensor, a Lidar or an RGBD camera. The task is then to align point sets acquired at different positions, by estimating their relative transformations. Recently, probabilistic registration methods have shown competitive performance in different scenarios, including pairwise [@myronenko2010point; @HoraudPAMI11; @GMMregPAMI11] and multi-view registration [@evangelidis2014generative; @DanelljanCVPR2016].
In this work, we revisit the foundations of the probabilistic registration paradigm, leading to a reformulation of the Expectation Maximization (EM) based approaches [@evangelidis2014generative; @DanelljanCVPR2016]. In these approaches, a Maximum Likelihood (ML) formulation is used to simultaneously infer the transformation parameters, and a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) of the point distribution. Our formulation instead minimizes the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the mixture model and a latent scene distribution.
Common acquisition sensors, including Lidar and RGBD cameras, do not sample all surfaces in the scene with a uniform density (figure \[fig:intro\], top row). The density of 3D-point observations is highly dependent on (1) the distance to the sensor, (2) the direction of the surface relative to the sensor, and (3) inherent surface properties, such as specularity. Despite recent advances, state-of-the art probabilistic methods [@myronenko2010point; @evangelidis2014generative; @DanelljanCVPR2016; @GMMregPAMI11; @HoraudPAMI11] struggle under varying sampling densities, in particular when the translational part of the transformation is significant.
The density variation is problematic for standard ML-based approaches since each 3D-point corresponds to an observation with equal weight. Thus, the registration focuses on regions with high point densities, while neglecting sparse regions.
This negligence is clearly visible in figure \[fig:intro\] (bottom left), where registration has been done using CPPSR [@DanelljanCVPR2016]. Here the vast majority of Gaussian components (black circles) are located in regions with high point densities. A common consequence of this is inaccurate or failed registrations. Figure \[fig:intro\] (middle right) shows an example registration using our approach. Unlike the existing method [@DanelljanCVPR2016], our model exploits information available in both dense and sparse regions of the scene, as shown by the distribution of Gaussian components (figure \[fig:intro\], bottom right).
Contributions
-------------
We propose a probabilistic point set registration approach that counters the issues induced by sampling density variations. Our approach directly models the underlying structure of the 3D scene using a novel density-adaptive formulation. The probabilistic scene model and the transformation parameters are jointly inferred by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence with respect to the latent scene distribution. This is enabled by modeling the acquisition process itself, explicitly taking the density variations into account. To this end, we investigate two alternative strategies for estimating the acquisition density: a model-based and a direct empirical method. Experiments are performed on several challenging Lidar datasets, demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach in difficult scenarios with drastic variations in the sampling density.
Related work
============
The problem of 3D-point set registration is extensively pursued in computer vision. Registration methods can be coarsely categorized into local and global methods. Local methods rely on an initial estimate of the relative transformation, which is then iteratively refined. The typical example of a local method is the Iterative Closest Point (ICP) algorithm. In ICP, registration is performed by iteratively alternating between establishing point correspondences and refining the relative transformation. While the standard ICP [@ICP_PAMI92] benefits from a low computational cost, it is limited by a narrow region of convergence. Several works [@segal2009generalized; @Softassign97; @TriICP_IVC05] investigate how to improve the robustness of ICP.
Global methods instead aim at finding the global solution to the registration problem. Many global methods rely on local ICP-based or probabilistic methods and use, , multiple restarts [@ICP_restarts], graph optimization [@theiler2015globally], branch-and-bound [@Campbell_2016_CVPR] techniques to search for a globally optimal registration. Another line of research is to use feature descriptors to find point correspondences in a robust estimation framework, such as RANSAC [@raguram2008comparative]. Zhou [@zhou2016fast] also use feature correspondences, but minimize a Geman-McClure robust loss. A drawback of such global methods is the reliance on accurate geometric feature extraction.
Probabilistic registration methods model the distribution of points as a density function. These methods perform alignment either by employing a correlation based approach or using an EM based optimization framework. In correlation based approaches [@tsin2004correlation; @GMMregPAMI11], the point sets are first modeled separately as density functions. The relative transformation between the points set is then obtained by minimizing a metric or divergence between the densities. These methods lead to nonlinear optimization problems with non-convex constraints. Unlike correlation based methods, the EM based approaches [@myronenko2010point; @evangelidis2014generative] find an ML-estimate of the density model and transformation parameters.
Most methods implicitly assume a uniform density of the point clouds, which is hardly the case in most applications. The standard approach [@rusu20113d] to alleviate the problems of varying point density is to re-sample the point clouds in a separate preprocessing step. The aim of this strategy is to achieve an approximately uniform distribution of 3D points in the scene. A common method is to construct a voxel grid and taking the mean point in each voxel. Comparable uniformity is achieved using the Farthest Point Strategy [@eldar1997farthest], were points are selected iteratively to maximize the distance to neighbors. Geometrically Stable Sampling (GSS) [@gelfand2003geometrically] also incorporates surface normals in the sample selection process. However, such re-sampling methods have several shortcomings. First, 3D scene information is discarded as observations are grouped together or removed, leading to sparsification of the point cloud. Second, the sampling rate, voxel size, needs to be hand picked for each scenario as it depends on the geometry and scale of the point cloud. Third, a suitable trade-off between uniformity and sparsity must be found. Thus, such preprocessing steps are complicated and their efficacy is questionable. In this paper, we instead explicitly model the density variations induced by the sensor.
There exist probabilistic registration methods that tackle the problem of non-uniform sampling density [@campbell2015adaptive; @hermans2011robust]. In [@campbell2015adaptive], a one class support vector machine is trained for predicting the underlying density of partly occluded point sets. The point sets are then registered by minimizing the L2 distance between the density models. In [@latecki2006new], an extended EM framework for modeling noisy data points is derived, based on minimizing the KL divergence. This framework was later exploited for outlier handling in point set registration [@hermans2011robust]. Unlike these methods, we introduce a latent distribution of the scene and explicitly model the point sampling density using either a sensor model or an empirical method.
Method
======
In this work, we revisit probabilistic point cloud registration, with the aim of alleviating the problem of non-uniform point density. To show the impact of our model, we employ the Joint Registration of Multiple Point Clouds (JRMPC) [@evangelidis2014generative]. Compared to previous probabilistic methods, JRMPC has the advantage of enabling joint registration of multiple input point clouds. Furthermore, this framework was recently extended to use color [@DanelljanCVPR2016], geometric feature descriptors [@DanelljanICPR2016] and incremental joint registration [@evangelidis2017]. However, our approach can be applied to a variety of other probabilistic registration approaches. Next, we present an overview of the baseline JRMPC method.
Probabilistic Point Set Registration {#sec:pcreg}
------------------------------------
Point set registration is the problem of finding the relative geometric transformations between $M$ different sets of points. We directly consider the general case where $M \geq 2$. Each set $\mathcal{X}_i = \{x_{ij}\}_{j=1}^{N_i}, i = 1,\ldots, M$, consists of 3D-point observations $x_{ij} \in \reals^3$ obtained from, e.g., a Lidar scanner or an RGBD camera. We let capital letters $X_{ij}$ denote the associated random variables for each observation. In general, probabilistic methods aim to model the probability densities $p_{X_i}(x)$, for each point set $i$, using for instance Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs).
Different from previous approaches, JRMPC derives the densities $p_{X_i}(x)$ from a global probability density model $p_V(v|\theta)$, which is defined in a reference coordinate frame given parameters $\theta$. The registration problem can then be formulated as finding the relative transformations from point set $\mathcal{X}_i$ to the reference frame. We let $\phi(\cdot; \omega) : \reals^3 \rightarrow \reals^3$ be a 3D transformation parametrized by $\omega \in \reals^D$. The goal is then to find the parameters $\omega_i$ of the transformation from $\mathcal{X}_i$ to the reference frame, such that $\phi(X_{ij}; \omega_i) \sim p_V$. Similarly to previous works [@evangelidis2014generative; @DanelljanCVPR2016], we focus on the most common case of rigid transformation $\phi(x;\omega) = R_\omega x + t_\omega$. In this case, the density model of each point set is obtained as $p_{X_i}(x|\omega_i,\theta) = p_V(\phi(x;\omega_i)|\theta)$.
The density $p_V(v|\theta)$ is composed by a mixture of Gaussian distributions, $$\label{eq:GMM}
p_V(v|\theta) = \sum_{k=1}^K \pi_k \norm (v;\mu_k, \Sigma_k) \,.$$ Here, $\norm (v;\mu, \Sigma)$ is a Gaussian density with mean $\mu$ and covariance $\Sigma$. The number of components is denoted by $K$ and $\pi_k$ is the prior weight of component $k$. The set of all mixture parameters is thus $\theta = \{\pi_k, \mu_k, \Sigma_k\}_{k=1}^K$.
Different from previous works, the mixture model parameters $\theta$ and transformation parameters $\omega$ are inferred jointly in the JRMPC framework, assuming independent observations. This is achieved by maximizing the log-likelihood function, $$\label{eq:ML}
\mathcal{L}(\Theta;\mathcal{X}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{X}_M) = \sum_{i}^M \sum_j^{N_i} \log (p_V(\phi(x_{ij};\omega_i)|\theta))\,.$$ Here, we denote the set of all parameters in the model as $\Theta = \{\theta, \omega_1, \ldots, \omega_M\}$. Inference is performed with the Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm, by first introducing a latent variable $Z \in \{1, \ldots, K\}$ that assigns a 3D-point $V$ to a particular mixture component $Z=k$. The complete data likelihood is then given by $p_{V,Z}(v,k|\theta) = p_Z(k|\theta) p_{V|Z}(v|k,\theta)$, where $p_Z(k|\theta) = \pi_k$ and $p_{V|Z}(v|k,\theta) = \norm (v;\mu_k, \Sigma_k)$. The original mixture model is recovered by marginalizing the complete data likelihood over the latent variable $Z$.
The E-step in the EM algorithm involves computing the expected complete-data log likelihood, $$\label{eq:CDL}
Q(\Theta;\!\Theta^n)\!=\!\!\sum_{i}^M \sum_j^{N_i} E_{Z|x_{ij},\Theta^n}\!\!\left[ \log (p_{V,Z}(\phi(x_{ij};\omega_i),Z|\theta)) \right].$$ Here, the conditional expectation is taken over the latent variable given the observed point $x_{ij}$ and the current estimate of the model parameters $\Theta^n$. In the M-step, the model parameters are updated as $\Theta^{n+1} = \argmax_\Theta Q(\Theta; \Theta^n)$. This process is then repeated until convergence.
Sampling Density Adaptive Model
-------------------------------
To tackle the issues caused by non-uniform point densities, we revise the underlying formulation and model assumptions. Instead of modeling the density of 3D-points, we aim to infer a model of the actual 3D-structure of the scene. To this end, we introduce the latent probability distribution of the scene $q_V(v)$. Loosely defined, it is seen as a uniform distribution on the observed surfaces in the scene. Intuitively, $q_V(v)$ encodes all 3D-structure, i.e. walls, ground, objects etc., that is measured by the sensor. Different models of $q_V(v)$ are discussed is section \[sec:sampling-func\]. Technically, $q_V$ might not be absolutely continuous and is thus regarded a probability measure. However, we will denote it as a density function to simplify the presentation.
Our goal is to model $q_V(v)$ as a parametrized density function $p_V(v|\theta)$. We employ a GMM and minimize the Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence from $p_V$ to $q_V$, $$\text{KL}(q_V||p_V) = \int \!\log\left(\frac{q_{V}(v)}{p_V(v|\theta)}\right) q_V(v) \,\diff v \,.
\label{eq:KL}$$ Utilizing the decomposition of the KL-divergence $\text{KL}(q_V||p_V) = H(q_V, p_V) - H(q_V)$ into the cross entropy $H(q_V, p_V)$ and entropy $H(q_V)$ of $q_V$, we can equivalently maximize, $$\label{eq:objective}
\mathcal{E}(\Theta) = -H(q_V, p_V) = \int \!\log\left(p_V(v|\theta)\right) q_V(v) \diff v$$
In , the integration is performed in the reference frame of the scene. On the other hand, the 3D points $x_{ij}$ are observed in the coordinate frames of the individual sensors. As in section \[sec:pcreg\], we relate these coordinate frames with the transformations $\phi(\cdot; \omega_i)$. By applying the change of variables $v = \phi(x; \omega_i)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:objective_x}
\mathcal{E}(\Theta) = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{i=1}^{M} \int_{\reals^3} & \!\log\left(p_V(\phi(x; \omega_i)|\theta)\right) \cdot \\
&q_V(\phi(x; \omega_i)) |\!\det(D\phi(x;\omega_i))| \,\diff x \,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $|\!\det(D\phi(x;\omega_i))|$ is the determinant of the Jacobian of the transformation. From now on, we assume rigid transformations, which implies $|\!\det(D\phi(x;\omega_i))| = 1$.
We note that if $\{x_{ij}\}_{i=1}^{N_i}$ are independent samples from $q_V(\phi(x; \omega_i))$, the original maximum likelihood formulation is recovered as a Monte Carlo sampling of the objective . Therefore, the conventional ML formulation relies on the assumption that the observed points $x_{ij}$ follow the underlying uniform distribution of the scene $q_V$. However, this assumption completely neglects the effects of the acquisition sensor. Next, we address this problem by explicitly modeling the sampling process.
In our formulation, we consider the points in set $i$ to be independent samples $x_{ij} \sim q_{X_i}$ of a distribution $q_{X_i}(x)$. In addition to the 3D structure $q_V$ of the scene, $q_{X_i}$ can also depend on the position and properties of the sensor, and the inherent properties of the observed surfaces. This enables more realistic models of the sampling process to be employed. By assuming that the distribution $q_V$ is absolutely continuous [@durrett2010probability] w.r.t. $q_{X_i}$, eq. can be written, $$\label{eq:objective_q}
\mathcal{E}(\Theta) \!= \!\sum_{i=1}^{M}\! \int_{\reals^3} \!\!\!\!\log\left(p_V(\phi(x; \omega_i)|\theta)\right) \!\frac{q_V(\phi(x; \omega_i))}{q_{X_i}(x)} q_{X_i}(x) \,\diff x .$$ Here, we have also ignored the factor $1/M$. The fraction $f_i(x) = \frac{q_V(\phi(x; \omega_i))}{q_{X_i}(x)}$ is known as the Radon-Nikodym derivative [@durrett2010probability] of the probability distribution $q_V(\phi(x; \omega_i))$ with respect to $q_{X_i}(x)$.
Intuitively, $f_i(x)$ is the ratio between the density in the latent scene distribution and the density of points in point cloud $\mathcal{X}_i$. Since it weights the observed 3D-points based on the local density, we term it the *observation weighting function*. In section \[sec:sampling-func\], we later introduce two different approximations of $f_i(x)$ to model the sampling process itself.
Inference {#sec:inference}
---------
In this section, we describe the inference algorithm used to minimize . We show that the EM-based framework used in [@evangelidis2014generative; @DanelljanCVPR2016] also generalizes to our model. As in section \[sec:pcreg\], we apply the latent variable $Z$ and the complete-data likelihood $p_{V,Z}(v,k|\theta)$. We define the expected complete-data cross entropy as, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:EM1}
&\mathcal{Q}(\Theta,\Theta^n) = \\
&\sum_{i=1}^{M}\! \int_{\reals^3} \!\!\!E_{Z|x,\Theta^n}\! \left[\log\left(p_{V,Z}(\phi(x; \omega_i),Z|\theta)\right) \right] f_i(x) q_{X_i}(x) \,\diff x . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Theta^n$ is the current estimate of the parameters. The E-step involves evaluating the expectation in , taken over the probability distribution of the latent variable, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:latent_posterior}
p_{Z|X_i}(k|x,\Theta) &= \frac{p_{X_i,Z}(x,k|\Theta)}{\sum_{k=1}^{K} p_{X_i,Z}(x,k|\Theta)} \nonumber\\
& = \frac{\pi_k \norm (\phi(x;\omega_k); \mu_k, \Sigma_k)}{\sum_{l=1}^K \pi_l \norm (\phi(x;\omega_l); \mu_l, \Sigma_l)} \,.\end{aligned}$$
To maximize in the M-step, we first perform a Monte Carlo sampling of . Here we use the assumption that the observations are independent samples drawn from $x_{ij} \sim q_{X_i}$. To simplify notation, we define $\alpha_{ijk}^n = p_{Z|X_i}(k|x_{ij},\Theta^n)$. Then is approximated as, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:EM2}
\mathcal{Q}&(\Theta,\Theta^n) \approx Q(\Theta,\Theta^n) = \\
&\sum_{i=1}^{M} \frac{1}{N_i} \sum_{j=1}^{N_i} \sum_{k=1}^{K} \alpha_{ijk}^n f_i(x_{ij}) \log\left(p_{V,Z}(\phi(x_{ij}; \omega_i),k|\theta)\right) \,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Please refer to the supplementary material for a detailed derivation of the EM procedure.
The key difference of compared to the ML case , is the weight factor $f_i(x_{ij})$. This factor effectively weights each observation $x_{ij}$ based on the local density of 3D points. Since the M-step has a form similar to , we can apply the optimization procedure proposed in [@evangelidis2014generative]. Specifically, we employ two conditional maximization steps [@meng1993], to optimize over the mixture parameters $\theta$ and transformation parameters $\omega_i$ respectively. Furthermore, our approach can be extended to incorporate color information using the approach proposed in [@DanelljanCVPR2016].
Observation Weights {#sec:sampling-func}
-------------------
We present two approaches of modeling the observation weight function $f_i(x)$. The first is based on a sensor model, while the second is an empirical estimation of the density.
### Sensor Model Based {#sec:sensor_model}
Here, we estimate the sampling distribution $q_{X_i}$ by modeling the acquisition sensor itself. For this method we therefore assume that the type of sensor (e.g. Lidar) is known and that each point set $\mathcal{X}_i$ consists of a single scan. The latent scene distribution $q_V$ is modeled as a uniform distribution on the observed surfaces $S$. That is, $S$ is a 2-dimensional manifold consisting of all observable surfaces. Thus, we define $q_V(A) = \frac{1}{|S|}\int_{S \cap A} \diff S$ for any measurable set $A \subset \reals^3$. For simplicity, we use the same notation $q_V(A) = \mathbb{P}(V \in A)$ for the probability measure $q_V$ of $V$. We use $|S| = \int_{S} \diff S$ to denote the total area of $S$.
We model the sampling distribution $q_{X_i}$ based on the properties of a terrestrial Lidar. It can however be extended to other sensor geometries, such as time-of-flight cameras. We can without loss of generality assume that the Lidar is positioned in the origin $x=0$ of the sensor-based reference frame in $\mathcal{X}_i$. Further, let $S_i = \phi_i^{-1}(S)$ be the scene transformed to the reference frame of the sensor. Here, we use $\phi_i(x) = \phi(x,\omega_i)$ to simplify notation. We note that the density of Lidar rays is decreasing quadratically with distance. For this purpose, we model the Lidar as light source emitting uniformly in all directions of its field of view. The sampling probability density at a visible point $x \in S_i$ is then proportional to the absorbed intensity, calculated as $\frac{\hat{n}_x\tp \hat{x}}{\|x\|^2}$. Here, $\hat{n}_x$ is the unit normal vector of $S_i$ at $x$, $\|\cdot\|$ is the Euclidean norm and $\hat{x} = x/\|x\|$.
The sampling distribution is defined as the probability of observing a point in a subset $A \subset \reals^3$. It is obtained by integrating the point density over the part of the surface $S$ intersecting $A$, $$\label{eq:sensor_model}
q_{X_i}(A) \!=\! \int_{S_i\cap A} \hspace{-1mm} \frac{g_i}{|S|} \, \diff S_i , \hspace{2mm} g_i(x) \!=\! \begin{cases} a \frac{\hat{n}_x\tp \hat{x}}{\|x\|^2} \hspace{-3mm}&, x \in S_i \cap F_i \\ \varepsilon &, \text{otherwise} \end{cases}
%\int_A g_i \diff (q_V \circ \phi_i)$$ Here, $F_i \subset \reals^3$ is the observed subset of the scene, $\varepsilon$ is the outlier density and $a$ is a constant such that the probability integrates to 1. Using the properties of $q_V$, we can rewrite as $q_{X_i}(A) = \int_A g_i \,\diff (q_V \circ \phi_i)$. Here, $q_V \circ \phi_i$ is the composed measure $q_V(\phi_i(A))$. From the properties of the Radon-Nikodym derivative [@durrett2010probability], we obtain that $f_i = \frac{\diff (q_V \circ \phi_i)}{\diff q_{X_i}} = \frac{1}{g_i}$. In practice, surface normal estimates can be noisy, thus promoting the use of a regularized quotient $f_i(x) = a \frac{\|x\|^2}{\gamma \hat{n}_x\tp \hat{x} + 1 - \gamma}$, for some fix parameter $\gamma \in [0,1]$. Note that the calculation of $f_i(x)$ only requires information about the distance $\|x\|$ to the sensor and the normal $\hat{n}_x$ of the point cloud at $x$. For details and derivations, see the supplementary material.
{width="0.48\columnwidth"} {width="0.48\columnwidth"} {width="0.4\columnwidth"}
\[fig:observation\_weights\]
### Empirical Sample Model {#sec:empirical_model}
As an alternative approach, we propose an empirical model of the sampling density. Unlike the sensor-based model in section \[sec:sensor\_model\], our empirical approach does not require any information about the sensor. It can thus be applied to arbitrary point clouds, without any prior knowledge. We modify the latent scene model $q_V$ from sec. \[sec:sensor\_model\] to include a 1-dimensional Gaussian distribution in the normal direction of the surface $S$. This uncertainty in the normal direction models the coarseness or evenness of the surface, which leads to variations orthogonal to the underlying surface. In the local neighborhood of a point $\bar{v} \in S$, we can then approximate the latent scene distribution as a 1-dimensional Gaussian in the normal direction $q_V(v) \approx \frac{1}{|S|} \norm ( \hat{n}_{\bar{v}}\tp(v - \bar{v}); 0, \sigma_{\hat{n}}^2(\bar{v}))$. It is motivated by a locally planar approximation of the surface $S$ at $\bar{v}$, where $q_V(v)$ is constant in the tangent directions of $S$. Here, $\sigma_{\hat{n}}^2(\bar{v})$ is the variance in the normal direction.
To estimate the observation weight function $f(x) = \frac{q_V(\phi(x))}{q_X(x)}$, we also find a local approximation of the sampling density $q_X(x)$. For simplicity, we drop the point set index $i$ in this section and assume a rigid transformation $\phi(x) = Rx+t$. First, we extract the $L$ nearest neighbors $x_1, \ldots, x_L$ of the 3D point $x$ in the point cloud. We then find the local mean $\bar{x} = \frac{1}{L} \sum_l x_l$ and covariance $C = \frac{1}{L-1} \sum_l (x_l-\bar{x})\tp (x_l-\bar{x})$. This yields the local sampling density estimate $q_X(x) \approx \frac{L}{N} \norm (x; \bar{x}, C)$. Let $C = B D B\tp$ be the eigenvalue decomposition of $C$ with $B = (\hat{b}_1, \hat{b}_2, \hat{b}_3)$ and $D = \text{diag} (\sigma_1^2, \sigma_2^2, \sigma_3^2)$, and eigenvalues sorted in descending order. Since we assume the points to originate from a locally planar region, we deduce that $\sigma_1^2, \sigma_2^2 \gg \sigma_3^2$. Furthermore, $\hat{b}_3$ and $\sigma_3^2$ approximate the normal direction of the surface and the variance in this direction. We utilize this information for estimating the local latent scene distribution, by setting $\bar{v} = \phi(\bar{x})$, $\hat{n}_{\bar{v}} = R \hat{b}_3$ and $\sigma^2_{\hat{n}}(\bar{v}) = \sigma_3^2$. We then obtain, $$\label{eq:empirical_weights}
f(x) = \frac{q_V(\phi(x))}{q_X(x)} \propto \sigma_1 \sigma_2 e{\raisebox{7pt}{\scriptsize$\frac{1}{2} (x - \bar{x})\tp B
{\tiny\arraycolsep=0.2\arraycolsep\ensuremath{ \begin{pmatrix}
\sigma_1^{-2}&0&0 \\ 0&\sigma_2^{-2}&0 \\ 0&0&0
\end{pmatrix}}}
B\tp (x - \bar{x})$}} .$$ Here, we have omitted proportionality constants independent of the point location $x$ in $f(x)$, since they do not influence the objective . A detailed derivation is provided in the supplementary material. In practice, we found $f(x) \propto \sigma_1 \sigma_2$ to be a sufficiently good approximation since $\sigma_1^{-2}, \sigma_2^{-2} \approx 0$ and $\bar{x} \approx x$.
Note that the observation weights $f_i(x_{ij})$ in can be precomputed once for every registration. The added computational cost of the density adaptive registration method is therefore minimal and in our experiments we only observed an increase in computational time of $2 \%$ compared to JRMPC. In figure \[fig:observation\_weights\], the observation weights $f_i(x_{ij})$ are visualized for both the sensor based model (left) and empirical method (right).
Experiments
===========
We integrate our sampling density adaptive model in the probabilistic framework JRMPC [@evangelidis2014generative]. Furthermore, we evaluate our approach, when using feature information, by integrating the model in the color based probabilistic method CPPSR [@DanelljanCVPR2016].
First we perform a synthetic experiment to highlight the impact of sampling density variations on point set registration. Second, we perform quantitative and qualitative evaluations on two challenging Lidar scan datasets: Virtual Photo Sets [@VPSoutdoor] and the ETH TLS [@theiler2015globally]. Further detailed results are presented in the supplementary material.
Experimental Details {#sec:exp_det}
--------------------
Throughout the experiments we randomly generate ground-truth rotations and translations for all point sets. The point sets are initially transformed using this ground-truth. The resulting point sets are then used as input for all compared registration methods. For efficiency reasons we construct a random subset of 10k points for each scan in all the datasets. The experiments on the point sets from VPS and ETH TLS are conducted in two settings. First, we perform direct registration on the constructed point sets. Second, we evaluate all compared registration methods, except for our density adaptive model, on re-sampled point sets. The registration methods without density adaptation, however, are sensitive to the choice of re-sampling technique and sampling rate. In the supplementary material we provide an exhaustive evaluation of FPS [@eldar1997farthest], GSS [@gelfand2003geometrically] and voxel grid re-sampling at different sampling rates. We then extract the best performing re-sampling settings for each registration method and use it in the comparison as an empirical upper bound in performance.
**Method naming:** We evaluate two main variants of the density adaptive model. In the subsequent performance plots and tables, we denote our approach using the sensor model based observation weights in section \[sec:sensor\_model\] by DARS, and the empirical observation weights in section \[sec:empirical\_model\] by DARE.
**Parameter settings:** We use the same values for all the parameters that are shared between our methods and the two baselines: the JRMPC and CPPSR. As in [@evangelidis2014generative], we use a uniform mixture component to model the outliers. In our experiments, we set the outlier ratio $0.005$ and fix the spatial component weights $\pi_k$ to uniform. In case of pairwise registration, we set the number of spatial components $K=200$. In the joint registration scenario, we set $K=300$ for all methods to increase the capacity of the model for larger scenes. We use 50 EM iterations for both the pairwise and joint registration scenarios. In case of color features, we use 64 components as proposed in [@DanelljanCVPR2016].
In addition to the above mentioned parameters, we use the $L=10$ nearest neighbors to estimate $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ in section \[sec:empirical\_model\]. To regularize the observation weights $f_i(x_{ij})$ (section \[sec:sampling-func\]) and remove outlier values, we first perform a median filtering using the same neighborhood size of $L=10$ points. We then clip all the observation weights that exceed a certain threshold. We fix this threshold to 8 times the mean value of all observation weights within a point set. In the supplementary material we provide an analysis of these parameters and found our method not to be sensitive to the parameter values. For the sensor model approach (section \[sec:sensor\_model\]) we set $\gamma = 0.9$. We keep all parameters fix in all experiments and datasets.
**Evaluation Criteria:** The evaluation is performed by computing the angular error (the [*geodesic distance*]{}) between the found rotation, $R$, and the ground-truth rotation, $R_\text{gt}$. This distance is computed via the Frobenius distance $d_F(R,R_\text{gt})$, using the relation $d_G(R_1,R_2)=2\sin^{-1}(d_F(R_1,R_2)/\sqrt{8})$, which is derived in [@hartley13]. To evaluate the performance in terms of robustness, we report the failure rate as the percentage of registrations with an angular error greater than 4 degrees. Further, we present the accuracy in terms of the mean angular error among inlier registrations. In the supplementary material we also provide the translation error.
![The synthetic 3D scene. Left: Rendering of the scene. Right: Top view of re-sampled point set with varying density.[]{data-label="fig:synt"}](scen-renderad-gamma.jpg "fig:"){width="0.69\columnwidth"} ![The synthetic 3D scene. Left: Rendering of the scene. Right: Top view of re-sampled point set with varying density.[]{data-label="fig:synt"}](sim.png "fig:"){width="0.3\columnwidth"}
Synthetic Data
--------------
We first validate our approach on a synthetic dataset to isolate the impact of sampling density variations on pairwise registration. We construct synthetic point clouds by performing point sampling on a polygon mesh that simulates an indoor 3D scene (see figure \[fig:synt\] left). We first sample uniformly, and densely. We then randomly select a virtual sensor location. Finally, we simulate Lidar sampling density variations by randomly removing points according to their distances to the sensor position (see figure \[fig:synt\] right). In total the synthetic dataset contains 500 point set pairs.
Figure \[fig:synthetic\_recall\] shows the recall curves, plotting the ratio of registrations with an angular error smaller than a threshold. We report results for the baseline JRMPC and our DARE method. We also report the results when using the ideal sensor sample model to compute the observation weights $f_i(x_{ij})$, called DAR-ideal. Note that the same sampling function was employed in the construction of the virtual scans. This method therefore corresponds to an upper performance bound of our DARE approach.
The baseline JRMPC model struggles in the presence of sampling density variations, providing inferior registration results with a failure rate of 85 $\%$. Note that the JRMPC corresponds to setting the observation weights to uniform $f_i(x_{ij})=1$ in our approach. The proposed DARE, significantly improves the registration results by reducing the failure rate from 85 $\%$ to 2 $\%$. Further, the registration performance of DARE closely follows the ideal sampling density model, demonstrating the ability of our approach to adapt to sampling density variations.
\[fig:synthetic\]
\[tab:full\]
Pairwise Registration {#sec:pairwise}
---------------------
We perform pairwise registration experiments on the joint Virtual Photo Set (VPS) [@VPSoutdoor] and the TLS ETH [@theiler2015globally] datasets. The VPS dataset consists of Lidar scans from two separate scenes, each containing four scans. The TLS ETH dataset consists of two separate scenes, with seven and five scans respectively. We randomly select pairs of different scans within each scene, resulting in total 3720 point set pairs. The ground-truth for each pair is generated by first randomly selecting a rotation axis. We then rotate one of the point sets with a rotation angle (within 0-90 degrees) around the rotation axis and apply a random translation, drawn from a multivariate normal distribution with standard deviation 1.0 meters in all directions.
{width="0.8\columnwidth"}
\[fig:joint\_color\]
Table \[fig:joint\_vpstls\] shows pairwise registration comparisons in terms of angular error on the joint dataset. We compare the baseline JRMPC [@evangelidis2014generative] with both of our sampling density models: DARE and DARS. We also show the results for DARS without using normals, setting $\gamma = 0$ in section \[sec:sensor\_model\], in the DARS-g0 curve. All the three variants of our density adaptive approach significantly improve over the baseline JRMPC [@evangelidis2014generative]. Further, our DARE model provides the best results. It significantly reduces the failure rate from 90.4$\%$ to 43.3$\%$, compared to the JRMPC method.
We also compare our empirical density adaptive model with several existing methods in the literature. Table \[tab:full\] shows the comparison of our approach with the JRMPC [@evangelidis2014generative], ICP[^1] [@ICP_PAMI92], and CPD [@myronenko2010point] methods. We present numerical values for the methods in terms of average inlier angular error and the failure rate.
Additionally, we evaluate the existing methods using re-sampling. In the supplementary material we provide an evaluation of different re-sampling approaches at different sampling rates. For each of the methods JRMPC [@evangelidis2014generative], ICP [@ICP_PAMI92], and CPD [@myronenko2010point], we select the best performing re-sampling approach and sampling rate. In practical applications however, such comprehensive exploration of the re-sampling parameters is not feasible. In this experiment, the selected re-sampling settings serve as empirical upper bounds, denoted by *-eub* in the method names in table \[tab:full\].
From table \[tab:full\] we conclude that regardless of re-sampling approach, our DARE still outperforms JRMPC, both in terms of robustness and accuracy. The best performing method overall was the empirical upper bound for CPD with re-sampling. However, CPD is specifically designed for pairwise registration, while JRMPC and our approach also generalize to multi-view registration.
Multi-view registration
-----------------------
We evaluate our approach in a multi-view setting, by jointly registering all four point sets in the VPS indoor dataset. We follow a similar protocol as in the pairwise registration case (see supplementary material). In addition to the JRMPC, we also compare our color extension with the CPPSR approach of [@DanelljanCVPR2016]. Table \[tab:multi\] and figure \[fig:joint\_color\] shows the multi-view registration results on the VPS indoor dataset. As in the pairwise scenario, the selected re-sampled versions are denoted by *-eub* in the method name. We use the same re-sampling settings for JRMPC and CPPSR as for JRMPC in the pairwise case. Both JRMPC and CPPSR have a significantly lower accuracy and a higher failure rate compared to our sampling density adaptive models. We further observe that re-sampling improves both JRMPC and CPPSR, however, not to the same extent as our density adaptive approach. Figure \[fig:multi\] shows a qualitative comparison between our color based approach and the CPPSR method [@DanelljanCVPR2016]. In agreement with the pairwise scenario (see figure \[fig:intro\]) CPPSR locks on to the high density regions, while our density adaptive approach successfully registers all scans, producing an accurate reconstruction of the scene. Further, we provide additional results on the VPS outdoor dataset in the supplementary material.
Conclusions
===========
We investigate the problem of sampling density variations in probabilistic point set registration. Unlike previous works, we model both the underlying structure of the 3D scene and the acquisition process to obtain robustness to density variations. Further, we jointly infer the scene model and the transformation parameters by minimizing the KL divergence in an EM based framework. Experiments are performed on several challenging Lidar datasets. Our proposed approach successfully handles severe density variations commonly encountered in real-world applications. **Acknowledgements**: This work was supported by the EU’s Horizon 2020 Programme grant No 644839 (CENTAURO), CENIIT grant (18.14), and the VR grants: EMC2 (2014-6227), starting grant (2016-05543), LCMM (2014-5928).
**Supplementary Material**
In this supplementary material we provide derivations of the proposed EM procedure and the observation weight function, based on both the empirical estimates and the sensor model. We also provide an evaluation of re-sampling methods and an analysis of the parameters introduced by our proposed model. Further, we present additional results and examples.
Derivation of EM procedure
==========================
We will here describe how the proposed objective in equation in the paper, can be maximized using Expectation Maximization. To simplify the derivation, we first study the maximization of a single term $i$ in the objective in the paper and drop the index $i$ to avoid clutter. We denote the likelihood in the local coordinate system of the point set as $p_{X}(x|\Theta) = p_{X}(x|\omega,\theta) = p_V(\phi(x;\omega)|\theta)$. The objective is then to maximize, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:objective_qs}
&\mathcal{E}(\Theta) = \int_{\reals^3} \!\log\left(p_V(\phi(x; \omega)|\theta)\right) \!\frac{q_V(\phi(x; \omega))}{q_{X}(x)} q_{X}(x) \,\diff x = \int_{\reals^3} \!\log\left(p_X(x| \Theta)\right) \!\frac{q_V(\phi(x; \omega))}{q_{X}(x)} q_{X}(x) \,\diff x \,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $f(x) = \!\frac{q_V(\phi(x; \omega))}{q_{X}(x)}$ is the observation weight function. We now introduce a latent random variable $Z \in \{1, \ldots, K\}$ that assigns a 3D-point $V$ to a particular mixture component $k$. Using the relation $\log p_X(x|\Theta) = \log(p_{Z,X}(k,x|\Theta)) - \log(p_{Z|X}(k|x,\Theta))$, equation can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:objective_q2}
&\mathcal{E}(\Theta) =\int_{\reals^3} \!\log\left(p_{Z,X}(k,x|\Theta)\right) \!f(x) q_{X}(x) \,\diff x + \int_{\reals^3} \! -\log\left(p_{Z|X}(k|x,\Theta)\right) \! f(x) q_{X}(x) \,\diff x\end{aligned}$$
Following the derivation in [@bishop2006pattern] we first take the expectation of both sides in equation with respect to a distribution $Z \sim \tilde{p}(k)$. We then add and subtract $\int_{\reals^3} \sum_k {\tilde p(k)} \log\left({\tilde p(k)}\right) f(x) q_{X}(x) \,\diff x$ on the right hand side of . Since the left hand side does not depend on $Z$, and ${\tilde p(k)}$ sums to one we get:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:objective_q3}
\mathcal{E}(\Theta) &= \int_{\reals^3} \underbrace{\sum^K_{k=1} {\tilde p(k)}\log\left(\frac{p_{Z,X}(k,x| \Theta)}{\tilde p(k)}\right)}_{=: \mathcal{L}({\tilde p},\Theta)} f(x) q_{X}(x) \,\diff x + \int_{\reals^3} \! \underbrace{-\sum_{k=1}^{K} {\tilde p(k)}\log\left(\frac{p_{Z|X}(k|x, \Theta)}{\tilde p(k)}\right)}_{= \text{KL}({\tilde p}||p)} f(x) q_{X}(x) \,\diff x \nonumber \\
&= \int_{\reals^3} \! \mathcal{L}({\tilde p},\Theta) f(x) q_{X}(x) \,\diff x+ \int_{\reals^3}\text{KL}({\tilde p}||p) f(x) q_{X}(x) \,\diff x\,,\end{aligned}$$
where $\text{KL}({\tilde p}||p)$ is the KL divergence from ${\tilde p}$ to the posterior distribution $p_{Z|X}(k|x, \Theta)$. We know that $\text{KL}({\tilde p}||p) \geq 0$ with equality if and only if ${\tilde p}(k)=p_{Z|X}(k|x, \Theta)$. Hence, $\int_{\reals^3} \! \mathcal{L}({\tilde p},\Theta) f(x) q_{X}(x) \,\diff x$ is a lower bound of $\mathcal{E}(\Theta)$. In the E-step we maximize the lower bound by setting ${\tilde p}=p$ given the current parameters $\Theta^n$. This leads to equality between the objective $\mathcal{E}(\Theta)$ and the lower bound at the current parameter estimate $\mathcal{E}(\Theta^n) = \mathcal{Q}(\Theta^n,\Theta^n) + D$. Here, $D = \int_{\reals^3} -\sum^K_{k=1} {\tilde p(k)}\log\left(\tilde p(k)\right) f(x) q_{X}(x) \,\diff x$, and with ${\tilde p}(k)=p_{Z|X}(k|x, \Theta^n)$, $\mathcal{Q}(\Theta,\Theta^n)$ is obtained as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mstep}
\mathcal{Q}(\Theta,\Theta^n) &= \int_{\reals^3} \sum_{k=1}^{K} p_{Z|X}(k|x, \Theta^n) \log\left(p_{Z,X}(k,x| \Theta)\right)f(x) q_{X}(x) \,\diff x \nonumber \\
&= \int_{\reals^3} \!E_{Z|x,\Theta^n} \left[\log\left(p_{X,Z}(x,Z|\Theta)\right) \right] f(x) q_{X}(x) \,\diff x \,.\end{aligned}$$
In the M-step we maximize the lower bound with respect to $\Theta$ to update the parameters by $\Theta^{n+1} = \argmax_\Theta \mathcal{Q}(\Theta,\Theta^n)$.
Since the exact value of the integral in is intractable, we treat the observations $x_j$ as a Monte Carlo sampling. This results in an approximation of the lower bound, $$\label{eq:mstep2}
\mathcal{Q}(\Theta,\Theta^n) \approx Q(\Theta,\Theta^n) =
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \sum_{k=1}^{K} \alpha_{jk}^n f(x_{j}) \log\left(p_{X,Z}(x_{j},k|\Theta)\right) \,,$$ where $\alpha_{jk}^n = p_{Z|X}(k|x_{j},\Theta^n)$. As described in the paper, with independent point samples we obtain the latent posteriors as $$\label{eq:latent_posteriors}
p_{Z|X}(k|x,\Theta) = \frac{p_{X,Z}(x,k|\Theta)}{\sum_{k=1}^{K} p_{X,Z}(x,k|\Theta)} = \frac{\pi_k \norm (\phi(x;\omega_k); \mu_k, \Sigma_k)}{\sum_{l=1}^K \pi_l \norm (\phi(x;\omega_l); \mu_l, \Sigma_l)} \,.$$ Maximizing the lower bound will cause $\mathcal{E}(\Theta)$ to increase unless it is at a maximum. Note that, during the whole procedure described above, we only evaluated the observation weight function $f(x)$ at the Monte Carlo sampling of $\mathcal{Q}(\Theta,\Theta^n)$. Although, $f(x)$ affects the maximization of $\mathcal{Q}(\Theta,\Theta^n)$, we see that it does not influence the derivation of the EM algorithm.
The derivation can trivially be generalized to multiple point sets.
In this case, the M-step extends to, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:EM2s}
\mathcal{Q}(\Theta,\Theta^n) \approx Q(\Theta,\Theta^n) =\sum_{i=1}^{M} \frac{1}{N_i} \sum_{j=1}^{N_i} \sum_{k=1}^{K} \alpha_{ijk}^n f_i(x_{ij}) \log\left(p_{V,Z}(\phi(x_{ij}; \omega_i),k|\theta)\right) \,.\end{aligned}$$ We then apply the optimization procedure proposed in [@evangelidis2014generative] to maximize .
Derivation of sensor model
==========================
Here, we derive the expression for the sensor model described in section \[sec:sensor\_model\] in the paper. We denote the measures $q_V(A) = \mathbb{P}(V \in A)$ and $q_{X_i}(A) = \mathbb{P}(V_i \in A)$ for the latent scene distribution $q_V$ and the sampling density $q_{X_i}$ respectively. By changing the variables in the integral to the reference frame $v = \phi_i(x)$, the measure $q_{X_i}(A)$ can be written as, $$\label{eq:sensor_model1}
q_{X_i}(A) = \int_{S_i\cap A} \! \frac{g_i}{|S|} \, \diff S_i = \int_{\phi_i(S_i\cap A)} g_i \circ \phi^{-1}_i \, \frac{\diff S}{|S|} = \int_{S \cap \phi_i(A)} g_i \circ \phi^{-1}_i \, \frac{\diff S}{|S|} \,.$$ Here, we have used the fact that $\phi_i(x) = R_i x + t_i$ is an isometric bijection.
From the definition $q_V(A) = \frac{1}{|S|}\int_{S \cap A} \diff S$, we see that $\frac{\diff q_V}{\diff S} = \frac{1}{|S|}$ on $S$ and zero elsewhere. From we thus obtain, $$\label{eq:sensor_model2}
q_{X_i}(A) = \int_{\phi_i(A)} g_i \circ \phi^{-1}_i \frac{\diff q_V}{\diff S} \diff S = \int_{\phi_i(A)} g_i \circ \phi^{-1}_i \diff q_V = \int_A g_i \,\diff (q_V \circ \phi_i)\,.$$ In the last equality in , we have performed another change of variables back to the sensor-based coordinate frame. Here, $q_V \circ \phi_i(A) = q_V(\phi_i(A))$ denotes the composed measure.
Since, $q_V$ is derived from the Lebesgue measure on the surface $dS$, it is $\sigma$-finite [@durrett2010probability]. Furthermore, we also see that $q_V \circ \phi_i$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $q_{X_i}$, since the definition of $g_i$ (eq. in the paper) guarantees that $q_{X_i}(A) = 0 \implies q_V \circ \phi_i(A) = 0$. We also see that $q_{X_i}(A)$ is $\sigma$-finite since $g_i$ is bounded everywhere except for the singularity in the origin of the sensor reference frame (the sensor position). The singularity of $g_i$ in the origin is not a problem if we assume that $S_i$ do not intersect the sensor center. From we obtain the Radon-Nikodym derivative $\frac{\diff q_{X_i}}{\diff (q_V \circ \phi_i)} = g_i$. We can thus conclude, from the properties of the Radon-Nikodym derivative [@durrett2010probability], that $f_i = \frac{\diff (q_V \circ \phi_i)}{\diff q_{X_i}} = \frac{1}{g_i}$.
Derivation of empirical sample model
====================================
Here, we add more details to the description of the empirical sensor model in section 3.4.2. As it is sufficient to study a single point set, we drop the index $i$. The observation weight function that we estimate is $f(x) = \frac{q_V(\phi(x))}{q_X(x)}$. In the local neighborhood of a point on a surface $\bar{v} \in S$ we approximate the latent scene distribution as a Gaussian distribution in the normal direction $$\label{eq:ng}
q_V(v) \approx \frac{1}{|S|} \norm ( \hat{n}_{\bar{v}}\tp(v - \bar{v}); 0, \sigma_{\hat{n}}^2(\bar{v})) \,.$$ Assuming a rigid transformation $v = \phi(x) = R x + t$ we can write as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ng2}
q_V(\phi(x)) &\approx \frac{1}{|S|} \norm ( \hat{n}_{\phi(\bar{x})}\tp(\phi(x) - \phi(\bar{x})); 0, \sigma_{\hat{n}}^2(\phi(\bar{x}))) = \frac{1}{|S|} \norm ( {\underbrace{(R\tp\hat{n}_{\phi(\bar{x})})}_{\hat{n}_x}}\tp(x - \bar{x}); 0, \sigma_{\hat{n}}^2(\phi(\bar{x}))) = \\
&= \frac{1}{|S| \sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_{\hat{n}_{\bar{x}}}^2(\bar{x})}} e^{- \frac{1}{2\sigma_{\hat{n}_{\bar{x}}}^{2}(\bar{x})}(x - \bar{x})\tp \hat{n}_x \hat{n}_x\tp(x - \bar{x})}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{n}_{\bar{x}}$ is the surface normal vector at $\bar{x}$ in the reference frame of the point set $\mathcal{X}$.
For each 3D point $x$ in the point cloud we approximate the sampling density as a Gaussian distribution from the $L$ nearest neighbors $$\label{eq:sg}
q_X(x) \approx \frac{L}{N} \norm ( x; \bar{x}, C) \,.$$ Here, the covariance matrix is calculated as $C = \frac{1}{L-1} \sum_{j} (x_j-\bar{x})(x_j-\bar{x})\tp $ and $\bar{x}$ is the mean of the $L$ nearest neighbors. We now perform an eigenvalue decomposition of $C$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
C = B D B\tp = (\hat{b}_1, \hat{b}_2, \hat{b}_3)
\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma_1^2&0&0 \\ 0&\sigma_2^2&0 \\ 0&0&\sigma_3^2
\end{pmatrix}
(\hat{b}_1, \hat{b}_2, \hat{b}_3)\tp = \sum_{i=1}^3 \sigma_i^2 \hat{b}_i \hat{b}_i\tp \quad \text{and} \\
C ^{-1} = (\hat{b}_1, \hat{b}_2, \hat{b}_3)
\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma_1^{-2}&0&0 \\ 0&\sigma_2^{-2}&0 \\ 0&0&\sigma_3^{-2}
\end{pmatrix}
(\hat{b}_1, \hat{b}_2, \hat{b}_3)\tp = \sum_{i=1}^3 \sigma_i^{-2} \hat{b}_i \hat{b}_i\tp\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the eigenvalues are sorted in descending order. The sample distribution in can be expanded to $$\label{eq:qxn}
q_X(x) = \frac{L}{N \sqrt{2 \pi \det C}} e^{-\frac{1}{2}(x - \bar{x})\tp C^{-1} (x - \bar{x})} = \frac{L}{N \sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_1^2 \sigma_2^2 \sigma_3^2}} e^{-\frac{1}{2}(x - \bar{x})\tp \left(\sum_{i=1}^3 \sigma_i^{-2} \hat{b}_i \hat{b}_i\tp\right)(x - \bar{x})}\,.$$
The eigenvector $\hat{b}_3$ corresponding to the smallest eigenvalue $\sigma_3$ approximates the surface normal, and the squared eigenvalue corresponds to the variance in this direction. We set $\hat{n}_{\bar{x}} = \hat{b}_3$ and $\sigma_{\hat{n}}^2(\bar{v}) = \sigma_3^2$. By inserting this into we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ng3}
& q_V(\phi(x)) \approx \frac{1}{|S| \sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_3^2}} e^{-\frac{1}{2}(x - \bar{x})\tp {\sigma_3^{-2}}\hat{b}_3 \hat{b}_3\tp(x - \bar{x})} \,,\end{aligned}$$ The observation weight function can now be calculated from and $$\begin{aligned}
f(x) &= \frac{q_V(\phi(x))}{q_X(x)} \approx \frac{N \sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_1^2 \sigma_2^2 \sigma_3^2}}{L |S| \sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_3^2}} e^{\frac{1}{2}(x - \bar{x})\tp \left(\sum_{i=1}^3 \sigma_i^{-2} \hat{b}_i \hat{b}_i\tp\right) (x - \bar{x})-\frac{1}{2}(x - \bar{x})\tp {\sigma_3^{-2}}\hat{b}_3 \hat{b}_3\tp(x - \bar{x})} = \nonumber \\
&=\frac{N \sigma_1 \sigma_2}{L |S|} e^{\frac{1}{2}(x - \bar{x})\tp \left(\sum_{i=1}^2 \sigma_i^{-2} \hat{b}_i \hat{b}_i\tp\right) (x - \bar{x})} = \frac{N \sigma_1 \sigma_2}{L |S|} e^{\frac{1}{2}(x - \bar{x})\tp \left(\sum_{i=1}^2 \sigma_i^{-2} \hat{b}_i \hat{b}_i\tp\right) (x - \bar{x})} \nonumber \\ &\propto \sigma_1 \sigma_2 e^{\frac{1}{2}(x - \bar{x})\tp \left(\sum_{i=1}^2 \sigma_i^{-2} \hat{b}_i \hat{b}_i\tp\right) (x - \bar{x})}\,.\end{aligned}$$ This is equivalent to equation in the paper.
Experiments
===========
In this section we present more detailed results and analysis, complementary to the experiments provided in the main paper. We provide an evaluation of different re-sampling methods at varying sampling rate. Further, we analyze the impact of the parameters introduced by our proposed model. We present additional results for both pairwise and multi-view registration.
For quantitative comparison between different methods we provide recall curves for both pairwise and multi-view registration. In addition to rotation error recall curves (see section \[sec:exp\_det\] in the main paper for description), we also provide recall curves for the translation error. The translation error is calculated as the Euclidean norm of the difference between the ground truth and the found translation.
Re-sampling evaluation {#sec:rs}
----------------------
In the main paper we compare our approach to existing methods with re-sampling preprocessing. However, the selection of re-sampling technique is cumbersome and depends both on the dataset and the registration method. We evaluate JRMPC [@evangelidis2014generative], ICP [@ICP_PAMI92] and CPD [@myronenko2010point], using FPS [@eldar1997farthest], GSS [@gelfand2003geometrically] and the voxel grid re-sampling at different sampling rates. The evaluation is performed for pairwise registration on the same dataset as in the main paper, with a reduced number of pairs compared to the experiment in the main paper. This includes the facade and office datasets from TLS ETH and the indoor and outdoor dataset from VPS. In figure \[fig:ds\_fps\]-\[fig:ds\_gss\], we present the performance both in terms of failure rate and mean inlier error as a function over the sampling rate.
Figure \[fig:ds\_fps\] shows the performance of the registration methods using FPS re-sampling for different sampling rates. For JRMPC the robustness increases as the sampling rate decreases, with the lowest failure rate at sampling rate $0.05$ (see figure \[fig:fps\_failr\]). In \[fig:fps\_acc\] we see that the average inlier error increases as the sampling rate is significantly reduced. The best performance gains are observed for CPD, both in terms of robustness and accuracy, while ICP is only marginally affected.
Further, figure \[fig:ds\_grid\] shows the robustness and accuracy for the registration methods using voxel grid re-sampling. We varied the voxel side length between 0 to 1.5 meters. For JRMPC we observe similar performance as in the FPS case, with the lowest failure rate at a voxel side length of $1.0$ meters. As in the FPS case, the accuracy is degrading for low sampling rate (e.g large voxel side length). CPD strongly benefited from the voxel grid re-sampling for large voxel sizes, with the best performance recorded at 1.25 meters.
Finally, the GSS re-sampling method did not improve the robustness for JRMPC and CPD as we see in figure \[fig:ds\_gss\]. With a sampling rate at 0.5, we observe a small improvement in robustness for ICP.
From the results of the re-sampling evaluation we deduce that both the choice of sampling rate and the re-sampling approach have a significant impact on the performance of point set registration methods. The best performing re-sampling setting for JRMPC is FPS with a sampling rate of 0.05. For CPD and ICP the best performance is achieved using voxel grid re-sampling, with voxel side length 1.25 and 0.5 meters respectively. In the following experiments, we denote the methods using these re-sampling settings as the empirical upper bounds.
\[fig:ds\_fps\]
\[fig:ds\_grid\]
\[fig:ds\_gss\]
Parameter analysis
------------------
Our density adaptive approach introduces two additional parameters to the JRMPC framework. First, we introduce a threshold $T$, which is used for clipping all observation weights larger than $T$ times the mean of the weights. This way we reduce the impact of potential outliers. Second, we introduce $L$, which is the number of neighbors used for calculating the empirical observation weights.
Table \[tab:param\] shows the performance of our method in terms of average inlier error and failure rate for different values on $T$ and $L$. The experiment was performed for pairwise registration on the facade and office datasets from TLS ETH, the VPS indoor dataset, and the VPS outdoor dataset, with a reduced number of pairs compared to the experiment in the main paper. We see that by increasing $T$ the robustness is slightly improved, to the cost of lower accuracy. By increasing the number of neighbors $L$ the accuracy is improved, to the cost of reduced robustness. We set $T=8$ and $L=10$ for the experiments in the main paper.
In the experiments we have observed that our DARE approach occasionally benefits from re-sampling when $T$ is set to a lower value. This is expected, since a lower $T$-value leads to a behavior more similar to JRMPC.
Pairwise Registration {#sec:pairwise_s}
---------------------
In table \[tab:full\] in the main paper we present numerical values for the methods in terms of average inlier angular error and the failure rate on the combined VPS and TLS ETH dataset. In figure \[fig:full\_cr\] we provide the corresponding recall plot. For all methods, the results are also presented using empirically optimized re-sampling for each method from the experiment in section \[sec:rs\]. Methods using empirically optimized re-sampling denoted by adding *-eub* in the method name. We see that our density adaptive method consistently improves over the baseline JRMPC with and without re-sampling, both in with respect to the rotation and translation error.
Complementary to the results on the combined VPS and TLS ETH dataset, we present recall plots for each dataset separately. We provide results for the facade dataset in TLS ETH, office dataset in TLS ETH, VPS indoor dataset, and VPS outdoor dataset. Our approach (DARE) is compared with the following methods: JRMPC [@evangelidis2014generative], ICP [@ICP_PAMI92] and CPD [@myronenko2010point]. The recall curves for the separated datasets are collected in figure \[fig:all\].
Figure \[fig:facqual\] shows a qualitative comparison of our approach, when performing pairwise registration, on the facade dataset in TLS ETH. The baseline JRMPC method fails to register the point clouds. Our approach successfully performs the registration task on this dataset. We also provide a situation where our approach fails to align the point sets. Figure \[fig:failedreg\] shows a pairwise registration example on the VPS outdoor dataset. In this example, the point sets had a very limited overlap due to the placement of the Lidar sensor during acquisition. As we can see in figure \[fig:failedreg\], both the baseline JRMPC and our approach struggle, since none of the methods is designed to handle these extreme cases.
\[fig:full\_cr\]
\
\[fig:facqual\]
\[fig:failedreg\]
Another failure case for our DARE method is shown in figure \[fig:failtrans\]. In this example the registration procedure has converged in a local minimum, where two of the aligned walls in the office room are shifted. This partly explains the reduced recall with respect to the translation error in comparison to the recall with respect to the rotation error, seen in figure \[fig:full\_cr\].
![Failure example for our DARE method on the office dataset. The registration procedure has converged in a local minimum, where two of the aligned walls in the office room are are shifted, leading to a large translation error.[]{data-label="fig:failtrans"}](failure_rot){width="0.4\columnwidth"}
Multi-view registration
-----------------------
Finally, we present results, in case of multi-view registration, on the VPS indoor dataset. We compare our DARE approach with JRMPC and our color based approach DARE-color to CPPSR [@DanelljanCVPR2016]. We also compare our approaches to JRMPC and CPPSR with the optimal re-sampling settings from \[sec:rs\].
The evaluation is performed over 500 registrations. The ground-truth is generated by first selecting a random rotation axis for each point set. We then rotate the point sets with rotation angles within 0-45 degrees around the rotation axes and apply random translations drawn from a multivariate normal distribution with standard deviation 1.0 in all directions. Figures \[fig:multi\_view\_vps\] and \[fig:multi\_view\_vpsout\] shows recall curves on the VPS indoor and outdoor datasets respectively. Our DARE method provides improved registration results compared to both CPPSR and JRMPC.
\[fig:multi\_view\_vps\]
\[fig:multi\_view\_vpsout\]
[^1]: We use the built-in Matlab implementation of ICP.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The contributions of scalar leptoquarks in lepton flavor violating (LFV) processes of type $l_i\to l_j \gamma$ are investigated in frame of the minimal model with the four color symmetry and Higgs mechanism of quark and lepton mass generation. It is shown that experimental data on the decays $\mu\to e \gamma$, $\tau \to \mu \gamma$, $\tau\to e \gamma$ allow the existence of light scalar leptoquarks of type under consideration, with masses of order 1 TeV or below.'
author:
- |
A. V. Povarov$^a$[^1], A. D. Smirnov$^{a}$[^2]\
$^a$ [Division of Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics,]{}\
[Yaroslavl State University, Sovietskaya 14,]{}\
[150000 Yaroslavl, Russia.]{}
title: '**Scalar Leptoquark Contributions into $l_i\to l_j\gamma$ Processes**'
---
One of the possible variant of new physics beyond the SM can be the variant induced by the four color symmetry between quarks and leptons of Pati-Salam type [@PS]. The minimal realization this symmetry MQLS model [@AD1] is predicted the existence doublets scalar leptoquarks, which appear to be some kind of partner of the standard Higgs doublet. Current limits on masses from direct search of scalar leptoquarks are small $M_{LQ} \sim 200-300$ GeV[@PDG], Indirect limits from $K_L^0\to \mu^\pm e^\mp$[@AD2009], $S,T,U$ parameters[@PovSm4], $g-2$ [@Pov06] and others are close to direct limits. Other source limit on the masses scalar leptoquark can be LFV processes. Exist strong experimental limits on LFV processes $$Br(\mu\to e\gamma)< 1.2\cdot 10^{-11} \qquad \mbox{\cite{Ahmed:2002}},$$ $$Br(\tau\to \mu\gamma)< 4.5\cdot 10^{-8} \qquad \mbox{\cite{Hayasaka}},$$ $$Br(\tau\to e\gamma)< 3.3\cdot 10^{-8} \qquad \mbox{\cite{Guido:2010yn}}.$$
The topic of my talk is investigated the contributions new physics into processes with lepton flavor violation in framework the minimal four color symmetry model.
MQLS model is based on the group $$G=SU_V(4)\times SU_L(2)\times U_R(1).$$ In the MQLS model the basic left- (L) and right- (R) handed quarks $Q'^{L,R}_{i a \alpha}$ and leptons $l'^{L,R}_{i a} $ form the fundamental quartets of $SU(4)$ color group, and can be written, in general, as superpositions of the quark and lepton mass eigenstates $Q^{L,R}_{i a \alpha}$ and $l^{L,R}_{i a}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{L,R}_{i a \alpha}=
{Q'}^{L,R}_{i a \alpha} = \sum_j \left ( A^{L,R}_{Q_a} \right )_{i j}
Q^{L,R}_{j a \alpha} , \,\, %\qquad
\psi^{L,R}_{i a 4}=
{l'}^{L,R}_{i a} = \sum_j \left ( A^{L,R}_{l_a} \right )_{i j}
l^{L,R}_{j a},
\nonumber \label{eq:ql}\end{aligned}$$ where i=1,2,3 are the generation indices $ a=1,2$ are the $SU_L(2)$ indices and $A=\alpha,4$- $SU_V(4)$ indices $\alpha=1,2,3$ are the $SU_c(3)$ color indices. The unitary matrices $A^{L,R}_{Q_a}$ and $A^{L,R}_{l_a}$ describe the fermion mixing and diagonalize the mass matrices of quarks and leptons. This matrices combined $C_Q = (A^L_{Q_1})^+ A^L_{Q_2}$ the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix, which is know to be due to the distinction between the mixing matrices $A^{L}_{Q_1}$ and $A^{L}_{Q_2}$ in(\[eq:ql\]) for up and down left-handed quarks, $C_l = (A^L_{l_1})^+ A^L_{l_2}$ the matrix that is analog its in the lepton sector and is not diagonal, this evident from neutrino oscillation, which is due to the possible distinction between the mixing matrices $A^{L}_{l_1}$ and $A^{L}_{l_2}$ and $K^{L,R}_a = (A^{L,R}_{Q_a})^+ A^{L,R}_{l_a}$ unitary matrices additional fermion mixing in model. (that are due to the possible distinctions between the quarks and leptons mixing matrices $A^{L,R}_{Q_a}$ and $A^{L,R}_{l_a}$).
In gauge sector model predicted of two vector leptoquarks $V^{\pm}_{\alpha \mu} (\alpha=1,2,3)$ and of additional neutral $Z'$ boson.
The scalar sector of the model, contains four multiplets, which transformed according to $ (4,1,1), \quad (1,2,1), \quad (15,2,1), \quad (15,1,0)$ representations with respectively $\eta_1$, $\eta_2$, $\eta_3$, $\eta_4$ – VEV.
The MQLS model is based on the Higgs mechanism of splitting of the quarks and leptons masses and predicted in addition to vector leptoquarks, the existence of the doublets of scalar leptoquarks. In this approach, the SM Higgs doublet $\Phi^{(SM)}$ appearing to be superposition of the doublets $\Phi^{(2)}_a$ and $\Phi^{(3)}_{15,a}$ representation (1.2.1) and (15.2.1) with VEV $\eta_2$ and $\eta_3$, corresponding. and colorless doublets $\Phi^{(3)}_{15}$, that mixing with the doublet $\Phi^{(2)}_{a}$ from the representation (1,2,1) give Higgs doublets SM and additional doublets $\Phi'$. Here $\eta=\sqrt{\eta_2^2+\eta_3^2}$ is the SM VEV.
In particular, the representation (15,2,1) is kept two doublets SLQs $$\begin{aligned}
(15.2.1)
\left ( \begin{array}{c} S_{1\alpha}^{(+)} \\
S_{2\alpha}^{(+)}\end{array} \right );
\left ( \begin{array}{c} S_{1\alpha}^{(-)} \\
S_{2\alpha}^{(-)}\end{array} \right ),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
with electric charges of the component scalar doublets $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{em}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
\left ( \begin{array}{c} 5/3 \\
2/3\end{array} \right );
\left ( \begin{array}{c} 1/3 \\
- 2/3\end{array} \right ).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The scalar leptoquarks with electric charge 2/3 are superpositions three physical scalar leptoquarks $S_1,S_2,S_3$ and Goldstone mode $S_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
S_2^{(+)}&=&\sum_m C_m^{(+)}S_m, \
\starup {S_2^{(-)}}=\sum_m C_m^{(-)}S_m.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $C^{(\pm)}_m$ are the elements of the complex unitary matrices the mixing of scalar leptoquarks of electric charge 2/3.
In the unitary gauge the physical leptoquarks fields are as follows: two of up component doublets leptoquark $S_1^{(+)}$ and $S_1^{(-)}$ of electric charge 5/3 and -1/3, respectively, and three scalar leptoquarks $S_m (m=1,2,3)$ of electric charge 2/3.
The lagrangian interaction scalar leptoquarks with quarks and charge leptons can be written in the following form [@PovSm1], $$\begin{aligned}
L_{ulS^{(+)}_1} &=& \bar u_{i\alpha } \Big [ ( h^L_+)_{ij}P_L +
(h^R_+)_{ij}P_R \Big ] l_{j} S_{1\alpha}^{(+)} + {\rm h.c.},
\nonumber\\
L_{dl S_m} &=& \bar d_{i\alpha} \Big [ (h^L_{2m})_{ij}P_L+(h^R_{2m})_{ij}P_R
\Big ] l_{j} S_{m\alpha} +{\rm h.c.}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ here, $u,\,\, d,\,\, l,$ are, relatively, up- and down- quarks, charge leptons of the generation $i$, $P_{L,R}$ are the left and right projection operators, $h^{L,R}$ are the coupling constant matrices for generations.
The expression for coupling constant because of Higgs origin are proportional to the ratios of fermion masses to the SM VEV. This ratios are quite small for first and second generation fermion $m_u/\eta,m_d/\eta,m_s/\eta\sim 10^{-5}$ and $m_c/\eta,m_b/\eta\sim 10^{-2}$, but the ratio of the t-quark is not small $m_t/\eta\sim 0.7$. Therefore general contributions into couplings constants give ratio of the t-quark mass to SM VEV. We neglected in coupling constant all fermionic masses, except mass t-quark.
The dominant contribution in the coupling constant can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
(h^L_+)_{3j} &=& \frac{\sqrt 6 \, m_t}{2 \eta \sin\beta} \,
(K_1^LC_l)_{3j} \,
\nonumber \\
(h^R_+)_{3j} &=& - \frac{\sqrt 6 \, m_b}{2 \eta \sin\beta} \, (C_Q)_{33}
( K^R_2 )_{3j}
\nonumber \\
(h^{L,R}_{2m})_{3j} &=& - \frac{\sqrt 6 \, m_b}{2 \eta \sin\beta}
(K_2^{L,R})_{3j} \, c_m^{(\mp)}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Take notice, that SLQ of MQLS model are like LQ of 3-$d$ generation [@PPSMPLA].
The contribution of scalar leptoquarks into the $l_i\to l_j \gamma$ Processes: is described by the two diagrams in figure 1. Contributions of $S_m$ and $b$-quark in the amplitude $l_i\to l_j \gamma$ suppress by $m_b^2/m_t^2$ comparing with ones of $S^{(+)}_1$ and $t$-quark.
=.80
In general, the total one-loop contribution from this diagrams can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
M &=& -\frac{ |e|}{64\pi^2m_{LQ}^2}\bar l_j \sigma^{\mu\nu}q^\nu
\Bigg [
m_i\bigg ( Q_kF_4(x) - Q_s F_2(x) \bigg )
\bigg ( (|h^L|^2)_{ji}P_R +
(|h^R|^2)_{ji}P_L \bigg ) \nonumber\\ & + &
2m_k\bigg ( Q_kF_3(x) -
Q_s F_3(x) \bigg )
\bigg ( (\krup{h^L}h^R)_{ji}P_R +
(\krup{h^R}h^L)_{ji}P_L \bigg ) \Bigg ]l_i \epsilon^\mu ,
\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_k$, $Q_S$ are electric charge of $q_k$-quark and LQ, and $x=m_k^2/m_{LQ}^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
F_2(x)&=&\frac{1}{6(1-x)^4}(1-6x+3x^2+2x^3-6x^2\ln x), \nonumber \\
F_3(x)&=&\frac{1}{(1-x)^3}(1-x^2+2x\ln x), \nonumber \\
F_5(x)&=&\frac{1}{6(1-x)^4}(2+3x-6x^2+x^3-6x\ln x), \nonumber \\
F_6(x)&=&\frac{1}{(1-x)^3}(-3+4x-x^2-2\ln x). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ As can be seen from amplitude the first term is proportional to the initial lepton mass, ( whereas the second term is proportional to the quark mass.)
The probability this processes can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
W(l_i \to l_j\gamma)&=&
\frac{9\alpha m_i }{256(4\pi)^4} (\frac{m_i}{\eta})^4 x^2
\bigg ( B_1^2(x) k^{(1)}_{ij} + 4(\frac{m_b}{m_i})^2 B_2^2(x) k^{(2)}_{ij}
\nonumber
\\ &-& 2\frac{m_b}{m_i}B_1(x)B_2(x)Re(k_{ij}^{(12)})
\bigg), \nonumber \\
B_1(x)&=&Q_k F_4(x)- Q_SF_2(x), \hspace{10mm}
B_2(x)=Q_kF_3(x)-Q_SF_1(x), \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ here we proposes that there are t-quark in loop, and $k_{ij}$ is the matrices of mixing parameter in the model $$\begin{aligned}
k^{(1)}_{ij}&=&\frac{|(K^L_1C_l)_{3j}|^2
|(K^L_1C_l)_{3i}|^2}{\sin^4\beta},\,\,\,\, \nonumber\\
k^{(2)}_{ij}&=&\frac{1}{\sin^4\beta}\bigg (
|(K^L_1C_l)_{3j}|^2|(K_2^R)_{3i}|^2 + (i \leftrightarrow j)
\bigg ), \nonumber \\
k^{(12)}_{ij}&=&\frac{1}{\sin^4\beta}\bigg (
(|(K^L_1C_l)_{3j}|^2 + |(K_2^R)_{3j}|^2)\times \nonumber \\
&\times & ((K^L_1C_l)^*_{3i}(K_2^R)_{3i} +
(K_2^R)^*_{3i}(K^L_1C_l)_{3i})
+ (i \leftrightarrow j) \bigg ).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In probability decay second term are proportional ratios of b-quark mass to the initial lepton mass (therefore this term give large contribution in numerical calculations).
Substituting the numerical values into eqnarray we obtain following expressions $$\begin{aligned}
Br(\mu\to e\gamma)&=& 1.1 \times 10^{-4} x^2 \bigg ( B_1^2(x) k^{(1)}_{\mu e} +
\nonumber\\ &+&7056 B_2^2(x) k^{(2)}_{\mu e} -
84B_1(x)B_2(x)Re(k_{\mu e}^{(12)})
\bigg),\label{eq:n1}\\
Br(\tau \to e\gamma) &= & 2.2\times 10^{-5}
x^2 \bigg ( B_1^2(x) k^{(1)}_{\tau e} +\nonumber\\
&+& 20 B_2^2(x) k^{(2)}_{\tau e} -
4.8B_1(x)B_2(x)Re(k_{\tau e}^{(12)})
\bigg), \nonumber\\
Br(\tau \to \mu\gamma)&= & 2.2\times 10^{-5}
x^2 \bigg ( B_1^2(x) k^{(1)}_{\tau \mu} + \nonumber\\
&+& 20 B_2^2(x) k^{(2)}_{\tau \mu} -
4.8B_1(x)B_2(x)Re(k_{\tau \mu}^{(12)})
\bigg). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By virtue of the fact that experimental restrictions on the $\tau$ – decays are weaker than on the $\mu$ – decay, as results of the corresponding limitation on the masses SLQ are small. Thus we examine in the beginning $\mu$ – decay.
[**I)**]{} The General Contribution: we retain only the second term in eqnarray (\[eq:n1\]) in our numerical calculations, then this expression can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
Br(\mu\to e\gamma) =0.7 x^2B_2^2(x)k^{(2)}_{\mu e},
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
k^{(2)}_{\mu e}=\frac{1}{\sin^4\beta}\bigg (
|(K^L_1C_l)_{3e}|^2|(K_2^R)_{3\mu}|^2 + (\mu \leftrightarrow e)
\bigg ). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The expression are simple for analysis. The lower limit on masses scalar leptoquark $S_1^{(+)}$ from decay $\mu\to e\gamma$ for different value parameter $k_{\mu e}^{(2)}$ shown on picture 2.
=.75
As show mass scalar leptoquark $S_1^{(+)}$ can be below 1 TeV if matrix element $(K^R_2)_{13},(K^L_1C_l)_{13}
\sim 10^{-3}$ and $(K^R_2)_{23},(K^L_1C_l)_{23}\sim 10^{-2}$.
[**II)**]{} In particular case, matrix $K^R_2=I$, we retain only the first term in eqnarray (\[eq:n1\]): $$\begin{aligned}
Br(\mu\to e\gamma) =1.1\times 10^{-4} x^2B_1^2(x)k^{(1)}_{\mu e},
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
k^{(1)}_{\mu e}&=&\frac{|(K^L_1C_l)_{3e}|^2
|(K^L_1C_l)_{3\mu}|^2}{\sin^4\beta}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
=.75
In figure 3 shown, the region possible parameters $m_{S^{(+)}_1}$ and $k_{\mu e}^{(1)}$ resulting from $BR(\mu\to e\gamma)$ with $K^R_2=I$. As show masses LQ can be below 1 TeV if matrix element $(K^L_1C_l)_{13}
\sim 10^{-2},$ $(K^L_1C_l)_{23}\sim 0.1$, this restriction is weak that in previous Variant.
[**IIa)**]{} In particular case $K_2^L=K_2^R=I$ mixing parameter $k_{\mu e}^{(1)}$ can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
k^{(1)}_{\mu e}&=&\frac{|(U)_{13}|^2
|(U)_{23}|^2}{\sin^4\beta}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\krup{C_l}=U_{PMNS}\equiv U$ is Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix and $U_{13}$ is its unknown element.
In table 1 for example given up limit value matrix element $U_{13}$ for different mass scalar leptoquarks and model parameter $\sin\beta=\eta_3/\eta$. As can be seen value in model lower than experimental restriction $U_{13}<0.16$ In figure 4 shown the up limit matrix element $|U_{13}|^2$ as function mass scalar leptoquark. The current experimental limit are $|U_{13}|^2< 0.032$[@Fogli06].
As can be seen scalar leptoquarks with arbitrary masses not restrict from $|U_{13}|^2$. [**III)**]{} Variant where matrix elements $(K^L_1C_l)_{13}$, $(K^R_2)_{13}$ are zero. When only processes $\tau\to\mu\gamma$ exist and from its experimental restriction $Br(\tau\to \mu\gamma)< 4.5\cdot 10^{-8}$ we obtain corresponding limits. Lower limit on the mass scalar leptoquark $S_1^{(+)}$ resulting from $\tau\to \mu\gamma $ in dependence on different parameter $k_{\tau\mu}^{(a)}, a=1,2,12$ shown in table 2.
As shown this restriction is small.
[**IV)**]{} Interaction of scalar leptoquark $S_m$ $(Q=2/3)$ and $b$-quark gives the lower limit on $m_{S_m}$ from $\mu\to e\gamma$ weaker than the current experimental ones. [**V)**]{} The Case of the chiral interaction of scalar leptoquarks $S_1^{(+)}$ with fermions gives the limits which coincide with those of the \[Variant II\].
The contributions of scalar leptoquarks $S^{(+)}_1$, $S_m$ from the MQLS model in $l_i\to l_j \gamma$ decays are analyzed in comparison with experimental data on $\mu\to e \gamma,\,\,\tau\to \mu \gamma,\,\,\tau\to e \gamma$ decays. It is shown that in the appropriate region of the mixing parameters relatively light scalar leptoquarks (with masses of order 1 TeV or below) do not contradict current experimental restrictions on LFV processes.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
This work was supported in part by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation in the framework of realization of the Federal Target Program “Scientific and Pedagogic Personnel of the Innovation Russia” for 2009 - 2013 (project no. P-795).
[99]{} J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{}, 275 (1974). A. D. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B [**346**]{}, 297 (1995); Physics of Atomic Nuclei [**58**]{}, 2137 (1995). C. Amsler et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys.Lett. B [**667**]{}, 1 (2008). A. D. Smirnov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A[**22**]{}, 2353 (2007). A. V. Povarov, A. D. Smirnov, YaF [**66**]{}, 2259 (2003); (Physics of Atomic Nuclei [**66**]{}, 2208 (2003)). A. V. Povarov, Physics of Atomic Nuclei [**69**]{}, 903 (2006). M. Ahmed et al. \[MEGA Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 112002. 14 K. Hayasaka et al. \[Belle Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 666 (2008) 16. E.Guido (on behalf of the BaBar collaboration) arXiv:1005.2333 \[hep-ex\]. A. V. Povarov, A. D. Smirnov, YaF [**64**]{}, 78 (2001); (Physics of Atomic Nuclei [**64**]{}, 74 (2001)). P. Yu. Popov, A. V. Povarov, A. D. Smirnov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**20**]{}, 3003 (2005); G. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone and A. Palazzo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57, 742 (2006)
M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and C. Pena-Garay, Phys. Rev. D. [**68**]{}, 093003 (2003).
[^1]: [**e-mail**]{}: [email protected]
[^2]: [**e-mail**]{}: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the Josephson effect in a quantum spin Hall system coupled to a localized magnetic impurity. As a consequence of the fermion parity anomaly, the spin of the combined system of impurity and spin-Hall edge alternates between half-integer and integer values when the superconducting phase difference across the junction advances by $2\pi$. This leads to characteristic differences in the splittings of the spin multiplets by exchange coupling and single-ion anisotropy at phase differences, for which time-reserval symmetry is preserved. We discuss the resulting $8\pi$-periodic (or $\mathbb{Z}_4$) fractional Josephson effect in the context of recent experiments.'
author:
- Yang Peng
- 'Yuval Vinkler-Aviv'
- 'Piet W. Brouwer'
- 'Leonid I. Glazman'
- Felix von Oppen
title: Parity anomaly and spin transmutation in quantum spin Hall Josephson junctions
---
[*Introduction.—*]{}The fractional Josephson effect [@kitaev01; @kwon04; @fu09] constitutes one of the most striking effects heralding topological superconductivity [@review1; @review2]. In Josephson junctions of conventional superconductors, the Josephson current is carried by Cooper pairs and is $2\pi$ periodic in the phase difference applied to the junction. When the junction connects topological superconductors [@fu08; @lutchyn10; @oreg10; @alicea11], the coupling of Majorana bound states across the junction allows a Josephson current to flow by coherent transfer of single electrons, resulting in $4\pi$ periodicity in the phase difference. Robust $4\pi$ periodicity requires that time-reversal symmetry be broken through proximity coupling to a magnetic insulator or an applied magnetic field [@fu08]. A fractional Josephson effect can occur in time-reversal-symmetric junctions as a consequence of electron-electron interactions [@zhang2014; @orth15]. In the limit of strong interactions, this $8\pi$-periodic effect can be understood in terms of domain walls carrying $\mathbb{Z}_4$ parafermions, enabling tunneling of $e/2$ quasiparticles between the superconductors.
Recent experiments on superconductor – quantum spin Hall – superconductor junctions show intriguing evidence for $4\pi$-periodic Josephson currents. One experiment probes Shapiro steps and shows that the first Shapiro step is absent [@bocquillon16]. A second experiment reports that the Josephson radiation emitted by a biased junction is also consistent with $4\pi$ periodicity [@deacon16]. These results are surprising as both experiments were performed without explicitly breaking time-reversal symmetry so that basic theory would predict a dissipative $2\pi$-periodic behavior when neglecting electron-electron interactions, or an $8\pi$-periodic behavior when taking interactions into account.
These expectations are based on considering pristine quantum spin Hall Josephson junctions with a fully gapped bulk and a single helical channel propagating along its edges. Density modulations in actual quantum spin Hall samples are widely believed to induce puddles of electrons in addition to the helical edge channels [@varyrynen13]. When these puddles host an odd number of electrons, charging effects turn them into magnetic impurities which are exchange coupled to the helical edge channels. In this paper, we discuss the fractional Josephson effect in realistic quantum spin Hall Josephson junctions which include such magnetic impurities.
The effects of magnetic impurities on quantum spin Hall edge channels have been intensively studied in the absence of superconductivity [@maciejko09; @tanaka11; @cheianov13; @altshuler13]. In the high-temperature limit, a magnetic impurity induces backscattering between the Kramers pair of helical edge channels and thus deviations from a quantized conductance in a two-terminal measurement. As the temperature is lowered, the impurity spin is increasingly Kondo screened by the helical edge channel and perfect conductance quantization is recovered when the temperature is low compared to the Kondo temperature $T_K$. In the presence of superconductivity, the Kondo effect is quenched by the superconducting gap $\Delta$ so that one may expect that magnetic impurities field more prominent consequences [@balatsky06]. Here, we assume that $T_K\ll\Delta$ so that we can safely neglect the effects of Kondo screening.
We find that magnetic impurities alter the behavior of quantum spin Hall Josephson junctions qualitatively. The Josephson current becomes $8\pi$ periodic, replacing the dissipative $2\pi$-periodic effect in pristine junctions. This can be viewed as a variant of the $\mathbb{Z}_4$ Josephson effect. Indeed, unlike its classical counterpart, coupling to a quantum spin preserves time-reversal symmetry and interactions are effectively included through the local-moment formation. This is quite reminiscent of the ingredients of the $\mathbb{Z}_4$ fractional Josephson effect. Thus, our results show that this remarkable effect is considerably more generic than one might have previously thought.
Moreover, the present setting emphasizes a remarkable mechanism for producing an $8\pi$-periodic fractional Josephson effect. As a result of the fermion parity anomaly [@fu09], the spin of the helical edge effectively changes by $\hbar/2$ when the superconducting phase difference is advanced by $2\pi$. This adiabatically transmutes the combined spin of helical edge and magnetic impurity between half-integer and integer values, with their characteristically different behavior in the presence of time-reversal symmetry as described by the Kramers theorem.
[*Quantum spin Hall Josephson junctions.—*]{}We first review the Andreev spectrum of pristine quantum spin Hall Josephson junctions [@fu09]. Consider a quantum spin Hall edge with edge modes counterpropagating at velocity $v$, placed in between two superconductors at a distance $L$ whose phases differ by $\phi$. This junction is described by the Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonian $$\mathcal{H}=vp\sigma_{z}\tau_{z}+\Delta(x) \tau_+ + \Delta^*(x)\tau_{-},$$ where $\sigma_j$ and $\tau_j$ are Pauli matrices in spin and Nambu (particle-hole) space, respectively. The subgap spectrum as a function of $\phi$ is shown in Fig. 1.
![Andreev spectrum of quantum spin Hall Josephson junctions of different lengths. (a) $ L = 0$; (b) $ L = 0$ in the presence of backscattering due to a Zeeman field; (c) $L = 0.8 \hbar v/\Delta$; (d) $ L=(\pi/2)\hbar v/\Delta$; (e) $ L = 2\hbar v/\Delta$. The green curves correspond to Andreev states consisting of a superposition of an up-spin electron and an Andreev-reflected hole. The orange curves are for the particle-hole conjugated states.[]{data-label="fig:ABS"}](ABS){width="48.00000%"}
For short junctions ($L\to 0$), the subgap spectrum contains a particle-hole symmetric pair of Andreev states \[see Fig. \[fig:ABS\](a)\]. Both Andreev levels emanate from and merge into the quasiparticle continuum. An applied bias voltage $V$ advances the phase difference at a rate $\dot\phi=2eV/\hbar$ and leads to the generation of continuum quasiparticles above the superconducting gap. These can diffuse away from the junction which causes dissipation. Thus, the junction exhibits an $ac$ Josephson effect with conventional frequency and energy dissipation rate $(2\Delta) (\dot\phi/2\pi)$.
The dissipative nature of the Josephson effect is closely related to the absence of backscattering. When introducing backscattering into the junction by breaking time-reversal symmetry through an applied magnetic field or proximity coupling to a magnetic insulator, the Andreev levels no longer merge with the quasiparticle continuum \[see Fig. \[fig:ABS\](b)\]. Now, the quasiparticles generated by the advancing phase difference remain at subgap energies and localized at the junction, which quenches dissipation in the small-voltage limit [@fu08]. Moreover, the $ac$ Josephson effect occurs at half the conventional frequency, i.e., at $eV/\hbar$, as fermion number parity is conserved. Indeed, the level crossing at $\phi=\pi$ is protected by fermion number parity so that the individual Andreev levels are $4\pi$ periodic in the phase difference $\phi$. This can be viewed as a consequence of the fermion parity anomaly (see [@suppl] for more details): As a result of the quantum spin Hall effect, the parity of the fermion number of the edge changes when the superconducting phase difference is advanced by $2\pi$, requiring a phase change of $4\pi$ for a full period.
Additional subgap levels appear for longer junctions, see Figs. \[fig:ABS\](c) and (d). The level crossings in these spectra are not only controlled by fermion number parity, but also by time-reversal symmetry. While time reversal is broken by the phase difference across the junction (causing a nonzero Josephson current to flow), it remains unbroken when $\phi$ is an integer multiple of $\pi$.
[*Coupling to magnetic impurity.—*]{}We now consider the coupling of the edge channel to a magnetic impurity with spin S. Generically, disorder in conjunction with the strong spin-orbit coupling will remove any symmetry other than time reversal which we assume to be broken only by the applied superconducting phase difference. Thus, we focus on the general Hamiltonian $$H_S = \sum_{\alpha,\beta} J_{\alpha\beta} \hat S^\alpha \hat \sigma^\beta(0) + \sum_\alpha D_\alpha (\hat S^\alpha)^2
\label{H}$$ for the impurity spin $\hat{\mathbf S}$. The first term describes the exchange coupling between the impurity spin and the helical edge, with $\hat\sigma^\alpha(0) = \sum_{i,j} \psi_i^\dagger(0) (\sigma^\alpha)_{ij}\psi_j(0)$ denoting the local spin density of the edge at the position $x=0$ of the impurity. The operator $\psi_i(x)$ annihilates an electron with spin projection $i$ at position $x$. The second term describes a single-ion anisotropy of the impurity spin with strengths $D_\alpha$. Time reversal implies that the exchange couplings are real, but otherwise arbitrary.
![(a) Generic many-body spectrum for the quantum spin Hall Josephson junction ($L=(\pi/2)\hbar v/\Delta$) without (left) and with coupling to the impurity spin (right; for parameters see Ref. [@suppl]). The red solid and blue dashed curves indicate even and odd fermion number parity, respectively. The discontinuity in fermion number parity at $\phi=\pi$ originates from the merging of Andreev levels with the continuum, see Fig. \[fig:ABS\](d). The crossings at and near $\phi = \pi$ (black circles) are between states of opposite fermion number parity. The crossings between states with even fermion number parity at $\phi=0$ and $2\pi$ (red dashed circles) are protected by time reversal. The arrows indicate the impurity-spin polarization along the $z$-axis. (b) Fourier transforms of the many-body ground state energy (equivalently: Josephson current) (upper panel) and of the expectation value of the impurity spin $\braket{S_{z}}$ (lower panel) as a function of the phase difference $\phi$. The $8\pi$-periodic harmonics are indicated by the vertical dashed lines.[]{data-label="fig:S=half"}](S-half){width="45.00000%"}
[*Josephson effect.*]{}—Analyzing the Josephson effect of the quantum spin Hall edge channel coupled to the magnetic impurity is greatly simplified by the discrete nature of the subgap spectrum. For definiteness, consider an intermediate-length junction whose subgap spectrum has exactly two positive-energy subgap states $\epsilon_n(\phi)$ ($n=1,2$) at all values of the phase difference as in Fig. \[fig:ABS\](d). (This convenient choice is used in our numerical illustrations but not essential for our results.) Then, we can analyze the low-energy (many-body) spectrum of the junction in the finite-dimensional space of low-energy states spanned by the product of occupation states of the two subgap Bogoliubov quasiparticles (yielding four basis states) and the $2S+1$ spin states of the spin-$S$ impurity. The low-energy many-body spectrum effectively decouples from the quasiparticle continuum when the Kondo temperature is small compared to the superconducting gap [@foot]. The corresponding Hamiltonian is readily derived by retaining only the contributions of the two positive-energy subgap Bogoliubov operators $\gamma_n$ to the edge-state electron operators (see [@suppl] for details). In this limit, the total Hamiltonian can be approximated as $H=H_e+H_S$ with $$H_e = \sum_n \epsilon_{n}(\phi) \left(\gamma_{n}^\dagger \gamma_n - \frac{1}{2} \right)
\label{eq:Hbare}$$ the Hamiltonian of the bare edge.
Consider coupling the quantum spin Hall edge states to a spin-1/2 impurity. Figure \[fig:S=half\](a) shows the many-body spectrum of $H_e$ in Eq. (\[eq:Hbare\]), i.e., of the bare edge (left panel), and of $H = H_e+H_S$ for a generic choice of exchange couplings $J_{\alpha\beta}$ (right panel). The spectrum of the coupled edge is best understood by analyzing the nature of the degeneracies at phase differences equal to integer multiples of $\pi$. The degeneracies at and near $\phi=\pi$ are protected by fermion number parity. Here, level crossings occur between states with even and odd occupations of the Bogoliubov quasiparticles of the edge. In contrast, the level crossings at $\phi=0$ and $\phi=2\pi$ occur between states of the same fermion number parity and are Kramers degeneracies reflecting time-reversal symmetry.
In the present system, a Kramers degeneracy appears when the Bogoliubov quasiparticles $\gamma_n$ of the edge are either both empty or both occupied, leading to a half-integer spin of the combined system of edge and impurity. Specifically, the lower (higher) energy crossing in Fig. \[fig:S=half\](a) corresponds to states in which the quasiparticle states are both empty (occupied). Away from $\phi=0$ and $2\pi$, time reversal is broken and the Kramers degeneracies are lifted. This interpretation is corroborated by further restricting the Hamiltonian $H$ for small $\phi$ to the low-energy subspace of empty quasiparticle states. In this limit, the spin density $\hat\sigma^\alpha(0)$ of the edge only has a nonzero $z$ component $\hat\sigma^z(0)=-\epsilon\phi/[2\hbar v(1+\kappa L)^2]$ and the Hamiltonian simplifies to $$H \simeq -\sum_\alpha B^{\alpha}S^\alpha + {\rm const}$$ with the effective Zeeman field ${\bf B} = [\epsilon\phi/2\hbar v(1+\kappa L)^2] \sum_\alpha J_{\alpha z} {\bf \hat e}_\alpha$. Here, we use the subgap energy $\epsilon=\Delta\cos(\epsilon L/(\hbar v))$ and $\kappa = \sqrt{\Delta^2-\epsilon^2}/(\hbar v)$.
The four nondegenerate states at intermediate energies for $\phi=0$ \[see Fig. \[fig:S=half\](a)\] have overall single occupation of the quasiparticle states, leading to a combined edge-impurity system with integer spin. Unlike in the odd-integer spin case, time reversal does not enforce a degeneracy of the many-body spectrum in this case. Writing the Hamiltonian for small $\phi$ in this subspace using the basis $|\uparrow\rangle = \gamma_1^\dagger |{\rm gs}\rangle$ and $|\downarrow\rangle = \gamma_2^\dagger |{\rm
gs}\rangle$ (with the junction ground state $\ket{\rm gs}$ such that $\gamma_1 |{\rm gs}\rangle=\gamma_2 |{\rm gs}\rangle=0$) for the states of the edge (with corresponding Pauli matrices $\rho_\alpha$), we find the effective Hamiltonian $$H\simeq \frac{\kappa}{2(1+\kappa L)} \left[\sum_\alpha J_{\alpha +}S^\alpha \rho_+ + {\rm h.c.}\right]$$ Generically, this Hamiltonian has no degeneracies.
With this understanding, the many-body spectrum in Fig. \[fig:S=half\](a) reveals a remarkable fact: Adiabatically advancing the superconducting phase difference by $2\pi$ connects the low-energy Kramers doublet at $\phi=0$ to states of the totally lifted spin quartet at $\phi=2\pi$. Thus, adiabatic quantum dynamics changes the total spin of the edge-impurity system between half-integer and integer values. This spin transmutation is a direct consequence of the fermion parity anomaly (see also [@suppl]): As the phase difference changes by $2\pi$, the fermion number parity of the edge changes by virtue of the quantum spin Hall effect. Consequently, also the spin of the edge changes by $\hbar/2$. This change in spin has important consequences for the periodicity of the Josephson effect. Indeed, adiabatically following the energy levels in Fig. \[fig:S=half\](a), we find that they are $8\pi$ periodic, corresponding to an $ac$ Josephson frequency of $eV/2\hbar$. Due to the spin transmutation, the system passes through successive Kramers degeneracies only after advancing the superconducting phase difference by $4\pi$, requiring a phase change of $8\pi$ for completing a full period. Note that starting with the ground state at $\phi=0$, the many-body state remains well below the quasiparticle continuum for all $\phi$, so that the $ac$ Josephson effect is nondissipative at a sufficiently small bias.
The polarization of the impurity spin varies with the superconducting phase difference in an $8\pi$-periodic manner. When adiabatically varying $\phi$, the spin orientation remains unchanged at the Kramers crossings and flips in the vicinity of the avoided crossings where the edge-impurity system is in an integer-spin state. This variation of the spin with $\phi$ is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:S=half\](a).
![Many-body spectrum for a quantum spin Hall edge coupled to an $S=1$ impurity (for explicit parameters, see [@suppl]). The red solid and blue dashed curves correspond to many-body states with even and odd fermion number parity, respectively. Spectra correspond to (a) vanishing single-ion anisotropy, (b) easy-plane anisotropy $D_z>0$, (c) easy-axis anisotropy $D_{z}<0$, and (d) generic single-ion anisotropy with $D_{x},D_{y},D_{z}\neq 0$. The degeneracies at $\phi=2\pi$ (blue dashed circles) and their partners at $\phi=0$ are Kramers degeneracies. Red circles highlight degeneracies which are lifted by generic single-ion anisotropy. The number of arrows indicates subsequent $2\pi$ periods when adiabatically advancing $\phi$.[]{data-label="fig:S=1"}](S-1){width="45.00000%"}
These results for $S=1/2$ impurities persist for higher-spin impurities. Results for an $S=1$ impurity are shown in Fig. \[fig:S=1\]. Panel (d) shows results for generic values of $J_{\alpha\beta}$ and $D_\alpha$. Unlike in the $S=1/2$ case, the low-energy states now have integer spin and are nondegenerate, while the intermediate-energy states have half-integer spin and are Kramers degenerate at $\phi=0$ and $2\pi$. Nevertheless, the $8\pi$ periodicity remains intact.
Different periodicities occur for nongeneric $D_\alpha$. Without single-ion anisotropy \[see Fig. \[fig:S=1\](a)\], the spectrum does not decouple from the quasiparticle continuum and the Josephson effect becomes dissipative and $2\pi$ periodic. The same results for easy-plane anisotropy, with one of the single-ion anisotropies being positive and the others equal to zero, see Fig. \[fig:S=1\](b). Finally, easy-axis anisotropy makes the junction nondissipative and $4\pi$ periodic as shown in Fig. \[fig:S=1\](c).
[*Discussion.—*]{}We find that generically, coupling to a magnetic impurity makes the Josephson effect in quantum spin Hall systems $8\pi$ periodic, corresponding to a frequency $eV/2\hbar$ of the $ac$ Josephson effect. The $8\pi$ periodicity relies only on time-reversal symmetry, the parity anomaly, and the absence of fine tuning such as the absence of interactions or the presence of spin conservation. It can be thought of as resulting from the coupling of $\mathbb{Z}_4$ parafermions across the junction.
This general conclusion requires two comments. First, the $8\pi$-periodic Josephson current may not be the dominant Fourier component in experiment. Indeed, as is evident from Fig. \[fig:S=half\], the $8\pi$-periodic cycle consists of two rather similar $4\pi$ sections. The splitting between the two sections is controlled by the exchange coupling. When the exchange splitting is small compared to the superconducting gap, the dominant Fourier component of the Josephson current is $4\pi$ periodic. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:S=half\](b), together with the Fourier components of the impurity spin polarization which has a dominant $8\pi$-periodic harmonic. It is interesting to note that this result for the Josephson current is different from the realization of the $\mathbb{Z}_4$ Josephson effect discussed by Zhang and Kane [@zhang2014] which has a dominant $8\pi$-periodic Fourier component.
Second, our results so far consider only the electronic system. Coupling to other degrees of freedom such as phonons or the electromagnetic environment introduces inelastic relaxation processes which may crucially affect the experimentally observed periodicity. While relaxation between states of opposite fermion number parity may be slow, parity-conserving relaxation processes should be considerably more efficient. Observation of the $8\pi$ periodicity requires that the latter relaxation processes be slow compared to the time in which the $8\pi$ cycle is traversed. Indeed, the two $4\pi$ sections of the $8\pi$ cycle involve states of the same fermion number parity. Thus, the system always remains in the lower-energy state if the cycle is traversed slowly on the time scale of parity-conserving relaxation processes. This makes the observed Josephson effect $4\pi$ rather than $8\pi$ periodic.
[|C[1.5cm]{}|C[2cm]{}|C[2.4cm]{}|C[2.4cm]{}|]{} Josephson effect & $S=0$, $B=0$ & any $S$, $B\neq0$ & $S\neq0$, $B=0$ $dc$ & $2\pi$ & $2\pi$ & $2\pi$ $ac$ & diss., $2\pi$ & non-diss., $4\pi$ & non-diss., $8\pi$
It is interesting to compare these results to the recent experiments on quantum spin Hall junctions which observe Shapiro steps and Josephson radiation consistent with $4\pi$ periodicity [@bocquillon16; @deacon16]. Our results provide an intriguing scenario that is consistent with these observations. However, this is not the only explanation of a $4\pi$-periodic Josephson effect in this system. An alternative scenario considers relaxation processes in a pristine quantum spin Hall junction. Consider an intermediate-length junction with at least two positive-energy Andreev states for any phase difference. When both of these Andreev states are occupied, the two quasiparticles can relax inelastically by recombining into a Cooper pair. Two positive-energy quasiparticles are created every time the phase difference advances by $4\pi$. Thus, if recombination into a Cooper pair is an efficient process, one would also observe a $4\pi$-periodic Josephson effect. It is an interesting problem to devise experiments which distinguish between these alternative scenarios. Such efforts may benefit from the considerable recent progress in directly probing the subgap spectrum of Josephson junctions by microwave spectroscopy and switching current measurements [@bretheau13; @bretheau13nature; @yale15; @peng2016; @delft16].
Finally, our results suggest probing the Josephson effect of a quantum spin Hall edge which is intentionally coupled to a quantum dot. Such a setup would allow one to tune the quantum dot in and out of the local moment regime and to control the exchange coupling between dot and edge. In addition to the Josephson periodicity, such a setup might provide access to the $8\pi$ periodicity of the impurity spin (see Table \[table\]) and would be a promising setup for detecting $\mathbb{Z}_4$ parafermions.
[*Acknowledgments.—*]{}We acknowledge financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (CRC 183 as well as Priority Program 1666), the Minerva Foundation, the Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation, and NSF Grant DMR-1603243. Part of this work was performed at the Aspen Center for Physics, which is supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY-1066293.
[18]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1140/epjb/e2004-00066-4) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.161408) [**** (), 10.1088/0034-4885/75/7/076501](\doibase 10.1088/0034-4885/75/7/076501) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.096407) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.077001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.177002) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphys1915) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.036401) C. P. Orth, R. P. Tiwari, T. Meng, T. L. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 081406(R) (2015). E. Bocquillon, R. S. Deacon, J. Wiedenmann, P. Leubner, T. M. Klapwijk, C. Brüne, K. Ishibashi, H. Buhmann and L. W. Molenkamp, Nature Nanotech. **159** (2016). @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.216402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.256803) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.236402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.206803) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.086401) A. V. Balatsky, I. Vekhter, Jian-Xin Zhu, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**78**]{}, 373 (2006). Supplemental material available online. Strictly speaking, the quasiparticle continuum also contributes to the Josephson effect. However, this contribution is necessarily $2\pi$ periodic so that any fractional Josephson effect originates from the subgap spectrum. [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.257003) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevX.3.041034) [****, ()](\doibase
doi:10.1038/nature12315) J. I. Vayrynen, G. Rastelli, W. Belzig, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 134508 (2015). [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.94.085409) D. J. van Woerkom, A. Proutski, B. van Heck, D. Bouman, J. I. Vayrynen, L. I. Glazman, P. Krogstrup, J. Nygard, L. P. Kouwenhoven, A. Geresdi, arXiv:1609.00333 (2016).
Supplemental Material {#supplemental-material .unnumbered}
=====================
Fermion number parity {#fermion-number-parity .unnumbered}
=====================
For the benefit of general readers, we include a brief review of the concept of fermion number parity and its application to topological Josephson junctions. Pairing Hamiltonians (i.e., Hamiltonians describing superconductors within mean-field theory) include terms which change the number of particles of the system by two. This can be thought of as describing the addition or removal of Cooper pairs from the system. As a result, these Hamiltonians break particle number conservation but preserve particle number modulo two. Consequently, systems with even and odd numbers of electrons decouple and fermion number parity is a good quantum number. One refers to systems with even (odd) electron number as having even (odd) fermion number parity.
The Hamiltonian of a Josephson junction based on a quantum spin Hall edge also conserves fermion number parity. We can label the many body eigenstates of the system by fermion number parity and states with different fermion number parity cannot anticross, but must exhibit a true level crossing. This explains the level crossings in the many-body spectra near a phase difference of $\pi$, see Fig. 2(a) of the main text.
While the spectrum behaves as if fermion number parity is a good quantum number, it is not conserved in the quantum dynamics. This is referred to as an anomaly (or more specifically the fermion parity anomaly): While the fermion number parity is conserved classically, it is not in the quantum dynamics. In the absence of an anomaly, the fermion number parity has to remain unchanged when changing any parameter in the (fermion-parity-conserving) Hamiltonian. As a corollary, this also implies that the spin has to remain integer or half-integer at all times, and transmutation between integer and half-integer spin is forbidden.
Nevertheless, in the present case, the system transmutes between integer and half-integer spin (and even and odd fermion parity) when the superconducting phase difference is advanced by $2\pi$. When the phase difference advances adiabatically, the system follows a specific eigenstate. Due to the crossings near $\phi=\pi$ protected by fermion parity, the system passes, say, from a half-integer Kramers doublet at zero phase difference to a state which is part of a completely lifted integer-spin quartet at $\phi=2\pi$, see Fig. 2(b) of the main text. Thus, the adiabatic quantum dynamics does indeed violate fermion parity conservation.
Physically, the fermion parity anomaly can be understood as follows. In a Corbino geometry, changes in the superconducting phase difference can be effected by changing the magnetic flux piercing the hole of the Corbino disk. Changes in flux induce an azimuthal electric field circulating around the Corbino disk. By virtue of the quantum spin Hall effect, this azimuthal electric field drives a radial spin Hall current. It is a simple exercise to compute the total spin change of the inner and outer edges of the Corbino disk when the superconducting phase is advanced by $2\pi$ and one finds that it is exactly $\hbar/2$. It is by this mechanism that the spin of the edge states transmutes between integer and half integer spins.
Andreev Bound States {#andreev-bound-states .unnumbered}
====================
The Hamiltonian for the quantum spin Hall Josephson junction takes the form $H=\frac{1}{2}\Psi^\dagger \mathcal{H} \Psi$ with Nambu spinor $\Psi=(\psi_{\uparrow},\psi_{\downarrow},\psi_{\downarrow}^{\dagger},-\psi_{\uparrow}^{\dagger})^{T}$ in terms of electron operators and the Bogoliubov-de Gennes Hamiltonian $$\mathcal{H}=vp\sigma_{z}\tau_{z}+\Delta(x)\tau_{x},$$ where $x$ ($p$) denotes the coordinate (momentum) along the quantum spin Hall insulator edge, $v$ is the edge-mode velocity, and $\sigma_j$ and $\tau_j$ are Pauli matrices in spin and Nambu (particle-hole) space, respectively. The proximity-induced superconducting gap $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(x)=&\Delta\left[ \theta(-x-L/2)+e^{i\phi\tau_z}\theta(x-L/2)\right] \nonumber \\
&= \Delta\theta({\left| x \right|}-\frac{L}{2}) e^{i\varphi(x)\tau_z} \end{aligned}$$ has strength $\Delta>0$ and a phase difference $\phi$ across the junction region of length $L$. We have introduced a spatially dependent phase $$\varphi(x)= \frac{\phi}{L}(x+\frac{L}{2})\theta(\frac{L}{2}-{\left| x \right|}) + \theta(x-\frac{L}{2})\phi.$$ for convenience. We set $\hbar=1$ in this supplemental material.
We introduce a local gauge transformation $U=e^{i\varphi(x)\tau_z/2}$ to eliminate the spatial dependence of the superconducting phase, and obtain the transformed Hamiltonian $$U^{\dagger}\mathcal{H}U= -iv\partial_{x}\sigma_{z}\tau_{z} + \frac{v\varphi^\prime(x)\sigma_z}{2} + \Delta\theta({\left| x \right|}-\frac{L}{2})\tau_x,$$ where the prime denotes a derivative with respect to $x$. We will denote $U^{\dagger}\mathcal{H}U$ as $\mathcal{H}$ in the following.
To solve for the Andreev bound states, we follow the approach detailed in Ref. [@peng2016] to rearrange the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation ${\cal H}\psi = \epsilon\psi$ as $$i\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial x} = -\frac{1}{v}\sigma_z\tau_z\left[ \epsilon-\Delta\theta({\left| x \right|}-\frac{L}{2})\tau_x -\frac{v\varphi^\prime(x)}{2}\sigma_z \right] \psi.$$ The solution can be written as $\psi(x) = U(x,x_0) \psi(x_0)$ in terms of the state at some reference point $x_0$. In particular, we have $$U(\frac{L}{2},-\frac{L}{2}) = \exp\left\{\frac{i}{v} \sigma_z \tau_z \int_{-\frac{L}{2}}^{\frac{L}{2}}dx'\,
\left[\epsilon - \frac{v\varphi^\prime(x')}{2}\sigma_z \right] = \exp\left(\frac{iEL}{v}\sigma_z\tau_z-\frac{\phi}{2}\tau_z\right)
\right\}$$ which connects the states $\psi(L/2) = U(L/2,-L/2) \psi(-L/2)$. We match the properly decaying solutions of the Bogoliubov de-Gennes equation on the left and right of the junction, and obtain the bound state wave functions in the two spin sectors: $$\Psi_{\uparrow}(x)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
a_{\uparrow}A_{\uparrow}\\
0\\
A_{\uparrow}\\
0
\end{array}\right)e^{\kappa_{\uparrow}(x+\frac{L}{2})}\theta(-x-\frac{L}{2})+\left(\begin{array}{c}
a_{\uparrow}A_{\uparrow}e^{-i(\frac{\phi}{2}-\frac{\epsilon}{v}L)}\\
0\\
A_{\uparrow}e^{i(\frac{\phi}{2}-\frac{\epsilon}{v}L)}\\
0
\end{array}\right)e^{-\kappa_\uparrow(x-\frac{L}{2})}\theta(x-\frac{L}{2})+\left(\begin{array}{c}
a_{\uparrow}A_{\uparrow}e^{-i(\frac{\phi}{2L}-\frac{\epsilon}{v})(x+\frac{L}{2})}\\
0\\
A_{\uparrow}e^{i(\frac{\phi}{2L}-\frac{\epsilon}{v})(x+\frac{L}{2})}\\
0
\end{array}\right)\theta(\frac{L}{2}-{\left| x \right|})$$ and $$\Psi_{\downarrow}(x)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
A_{\downarrow}\\
0\\
a_{\downarrow}A_{\downarrow}
\end{array}\right)e^{\kappa_\downarrow(x+\frac{L}{2})}\theta(-x-\frac{L}{2})+\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
A_{\downarrow}e^{-i(\frac{\phi}{2}+\frac{\epsilon}{v}L)}\\
0\\
a_{\downarrow}A_{\downarrow}e^{i(\frac{\phi}{2}+\frac{\epsilon}{v}L)}
\end{array}\right)e^{-\kappa_\downarrow(x-\frac{L}{2})}\theta(x-\frac{L}{2})+\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
A_{\downarrow}e^{-i(\frac{\phi}{2L}+\frac{\epsilon}{v})(x+\frac{L}{2})}\\
0\\
a_{\downarrow}A_{\downarrow}e^{i(\frac{\phi}{2L}+\frac{\epsilon}{v})(x+\frac{L}{2})}
\end{array}\right)\theta(\frac{L}{2}-{\left| x \right|})$$ where $$\label{eq:A_updown}
a_{\sigma} = \frac{\epsilon}{\Delta} - i\frac{\sqrt{\Delta^{2} - \epsilon_{\sigma}^2}}{\Delta},\qquad {\left| A_{\sigma} \right|}^{2}=\frac{\kappa_{\sigma}}{2(1+L\kappa_{\sigma})},\qquad\kappa_{\sigma}=\frac{\sqrt{\Delta^{2}-\epsilon_{\sigma}^{2}}}{v}$$ with $\sigma = \uparrow, \downarrow$, and $\epsilon_{\sigma}$ is the positive eigenvalue in each spin sector given by the relation $$\epsilon_{\uparrow}/\Delta=\begin{cases}
\cos(\frac{\phi}{2}-\frac{\epsilon_\uparrow}{v}L) & \sin(\frac{\phi}{2}-\frac{\epsilon_\uparrow}{v}L)<0\\
-\cos(\frac{\phi}{2}-\frac{\epsilon_\uparrow}{v}L) & \sin(\frac{\phi}{2}-\frac{\epsilon_\uparrow}{v}L)>0
\end{cases}
\label{eq:up_spin}$$ and $$\epsilon_{\downarrow}/\Delta=\begin{cases}
\cos(\frac{\phi}{2}+\frac{\epsilon_\downarrow}{v}L) & \sin(\frac{\phi}{2}+\frac{\epsilon_\downarrow}{v}L)>0\\
-\cos(\frac{\phi}{2}+\frac{\epsilon_\downarrow}{v}L) & \sin(\frac{\phi}{2}+\frac{\epsilon_\downarrow}{v}L)<0
\end{cases}.
\label{eq:down_spin}$$
For $\phi$ around $2n\pi,n\in\mathbb{Z}$, solutions in both spin sectors can exist simultaneously for $L>0$. We will consider the situation when at most one solution in each spin sector exists, and write the subgap effective Hamiltonian as $$H_{e}=\sum_{\sigma}\epsilon_{\sigma}(\phi)(\gamma_{\sigma}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\sigma}-\frac{1}{2}),$$ where $\gamma_{\sigma}$ is the Bogoliubov quasiparticle annihilation operator for the Andreev bound state with spin $\sigma$. When projected onto the subspace spanned by the subgap Andreev bound states, the electron annihilation operators for both spins can be written approximately as $$\begin{gathered}
\psi_{\uparrow}=a_{\uparrow}A_{\uparrow}e^{-ik_{\uparrow}L/2}\gamma_{\uparrow}-a_{\downarrow}^{*}A_{\downarrow}^{*}e^{-ik_{\downarrow}L/2}\gamma_{\downarrow}^{\dagger} \nonumber \\
\psi_{\downarrow}=A_{\downarrow}e^{-ik_{\downarrow}L/2}\gamma_{\downarrow}+A_{\uparrow}^{*}e^{-ik_{\uparrow}L/2}\gamma_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}\nonumber \\
k_{\uparrow,\downarrow}=\frac{\varphi}{2L}\mp\frac{\epsilon_{\sigma}}{v}.\end{gathered}$$
Coupling of an edge channel to a magnetic imurity {#coupling-of-an-edge-channel-to-a-magnetic-imurity .unnumbered}
=================================================
![\[fig.QSHJ\] Setup for the quantum spin Hall Josephson junction in which the helical edge state is coupled to a charge puddle formed by a potential variation in the bulk. Due to charging effects, the charge puddle may effectively act as a magnetic impurity as indicated by the black arrow in the figure. The left/right moving electrons of the helical edges with opposite spins are depicted in different colors. ](QSHJ){width="50.00000%"}
Consider the Hamiltonian describing the coupling of the edge channel to a magnetic impurity with spin S (see setup in Fig. \[fig.QSHJ\]) $$H_S = \sum_{\alpha,\beta} J_{\alpha\beta} \hat S^\alpha \hat \sigma^\beta(0) + \sum_\alpha D_\alpha (\hat S^\alpha)^2,$$ in which the spin density of the helical edge can be written in term of the Bogoliubov operators $$\begin{gathered}
\hat{\sigma}^{+} = \psi_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}\psi_{\downarrow} = \left(a_{\uparrow}^{*}e^{i\Delta kL/2}+a_{\downarrow}e^{-i\Delta kL/2}\right)A_{\uparrow}^{*}A_{\downarrow}\gamma_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\downarrow} \nonumber \\
\hat{\sigma}^{-} = \psi_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}\psi_{\uparrow}=\left(a_{\uparrow}e^{-i\Delta kL/2}+a_{\downarrow}^{*}e^{i\Delta
kL/2}\right)A_{\uparrow}A_{\downarrow}^{*}\gamma_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\uparrow} \nonumber \\
\hat{\sigma}^{x} = \left(\hat{\sigma}^{+} + \hat{\sigma}^{-}\right)/2, \quad \hat{\sigma}^{y} = \left(\hat{\sigma}^{+} + \hat{\sigma}^{-}\right)/2i \nonumber \\
\hat{\sigma}^{z}=\psi_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}\psi_{\uparrow}-\psi_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}\psi_{\downarrow}=\left({\left| A_{\uparrow} \right|}^{2}(2\gamma_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\uparrow}-1)-{\left| A_{\downarrow} \right|}^{2}(2\gamma_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\downarrow}-1)\right)+(a_{\uparrow}^{*}a_{\downarrow}^{*}e^{i\Delta
kL/2}-e^{-i\Delta kL/2})A_{\uparrow}^{*}A_{\downarrow}^{*}\gamma_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\uparrow}^{\dagger} \nonumber \\
+(a_{\uparrow}a_{\downarrow}e^{-i\Delta kL/2}-e^{i\Delta
kL/2})A_{\uparrow}A_{\downarrow}\gamma_{\uparrow}\gamma_{\downarrow},\end{gathered}$$ where $$\Delta k=k_{\uparrow} - k_{\downarrow}=-\frac{\epsilon_{\uparrow}+\epsilon_{\downarrow}}{v}.$$
Note that we can also write $$\begin{gathered}
a_{\uparrow}=\operatorname{Sgn}{\sin(\frac{\epsilon_{\uparrow}L}{v}-\frac{\phi}{2})}e^{-i\frac{\epsilon_{\uparrow}L}{v}}e^{i\phi/2},\quad
a_{\downarrow}=\operatorname{Sgn}{\sin(\frac{\epsilon_{\downarrow}L}{v}+\frac{\phi}{2})}e^{-i\frac{\epsilon_{\downarrow}L}{v}}e^{-i\phi/2},\end{gathered}$$ then we have
$$\begin{gathered}
\hat{\sigma}^{+}=\left(\operatorname{Sgn}{\sin(\frac{\epsilon_\uparrow L}{v}-\frac{\phi}{2})}+\operatorname{Sgn}{\sin(\frac{\epsilon_\downarrow L}{v}+\frac{\phi}{2})}\right)e^{i\frac{(\epsilon_\uparrow -
\epsilon_\downarrow) L}{2v}}e^{-i\phi/2}A_{\uparrow}^{*}A_{\downarrow}\gamma_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\downarrow}\\
\hat{\sigma}^{-}=\left(\operatorname{Sgn}{\sin(\frac{\epsilon_\uparrow L}{v}-\frac{\phi}{2})}+\operatorname{Sgn}{\sin(\frac{\epsilon_\downarrow L}{v}+\frac{\phi}{2})}\right)
e^{-i\frac{(\epsilon_\uparrow-\epsilon_\downarrow)L}{2v}}e^{i\phi/2}A_{\uparrow}A_{\downarrow}^{*}\gamma_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\uparrow} \end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}^{z}&=\left({\left| A_{\uparrow} \right|}^{2}(2\gamma_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\uparrow}-1)-{\left| A_{\downarrow} \right|}^{2}(2\gamma_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\downarrow}-1)\right)
\nonumber \\
&+\left[\operatorname{Sgn}{\sin(\frac{\epsilon_\uparrow L}{v}-\frac{\phi}{2})}\operatorname{Sgn}{\sin(\frac{\epsilon_\downarrow L}{v}+\frac{\phi}{2})}-1\right]\left(e^{i\frac{(\epsilon_\uparrow +\epsilon_\downarrow)L}{2v}}
A_{\uparrow}^{*}A_{\downarrow}^{*}\gamma_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}+e^{-i\frac{(\epsilon_\uparrow+\epsilon_\downarrow)L}{2v}}A_{\uparrow}A_{\downarrow}
\gamma_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\uparrow}^{\dagger} \right). \end{aligned}$$
![\[fig.L\_finite\]Generic many body spectrum for the quantum spin Hall Josephson junction coupled to a spin-$1/2$ impurity with $\Delta L/v=0.8$. The red solid and blue dashed curves indicate that the corresponding many-body states have even and odd fermion parity, respectively. The coupling between the impurity and the edge and the single-ion anisotropy are chosen to be the same as in Fig. 2 of the main text, see Eq. (\[eq:J\]).](S=half_L=0_8){width="50.00000%"}
Parameters for the coupling matrix used in Figs. 2 and 3 of the main text {#parameters-for-the-coupling-matrix-used-in-figs.2-and-3-of-the-main-text .unnumbered}
=========================================================================
In Fig. 2 of the main text, the coupling matrix between edge and spin-1/2 impurity was chosen as $$\frac{J^{S=1/2}}{2\pi v}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0.2041 & 0.124268 & 0.33448 \\
0.197511 & -0.185256 & 0.0733386 \\
0.394004 & 0.0849569 & 0.288134 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\label{eq:J}$$ The single-ion anisotropy was set to zero since it is only a constant shift in energy for spin-$1/2$ impurities. A similar figure for a shorter junction with the same parameters is shown in Fig. \[fig.L\_finite\].
In Fig. 3 of the main text, the coupling matrix between edge and spin-1 impurity was chosen as $J^{S=1} = J^{S=1/2}/2$. In Fig. 3(b), $D_z = 0.1\Delta$. In Fig. 3(c), $D_z=-0.1\Delta$. In Fig. 3(d), $D_x=0.3, D_y=0.2, D_z=0.1$.
Analysis around $\phi=0$ {#analysis-around-phi0 .unnumbered}
========================
In the case $\Delta L/v \in [0,\pi/2]$, and for $\phi$ close to $0$ we have $$\operatorname{Sgn}\sin(\frac{\epsilon_{\downarrow}L}{v} - \frac{\phi}{2} ) = \operatorname{Sgn}\sin(\frac{\epsilon_{\uparrow}L}{v} + \frac{\phi}{2})=1.
\label{eq:condition}$$
Let us first focus on the case when $\phi = 0$, we have $$\epsilon_{\uparrow} = \epsilon_{\downarrow} = \Delta \cos\left(\frac{\epsilon_{\uparrow,\downarrow}L}{v}\right).$$ Let us denote the common solution as $\epsilon$.
Now we consider $\phi\ll 1$ and denote $\delta \epsilon=\epsilon_{\uparrow} - \epsilon_{\downarrow}$. By Eq. (\[eq:up\_spin\]) and (\[eq:down\_spin\]) and condition (\[eq:condition\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \epsilon &= \Delta \left[\cos(\frac{\epsilon_\uparrow}{v}L-\frac{\phi}{2}) -
\cos(\frac{\epsilon_\downarrow L}{v}+\frac{\phi}{2})\right] \nonumber \\
&= \Delta\cos\frac{\phi}{2}\left(\cos\frac{\epsilon_\uparrow L}{v} - \cos\frac{\epsilon_\downarrow L}{v} \right)
+ \Delta\sin\frac{\phi}{2}\left( \sin\frac{\epsilon_\uparrow L}{v} + \sin\frac{\epsilon_\downarrow L}{v} \right)
\nonumber \\
&\simeq \Delta \sin(\frac{\epsilon L}{v}) \phi = \kappa v \phi, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\kappa = \frac{\sqrt{\Delta^2 - \epsilon^2}}{v}.$$ This is valid up to first order in $\phi$.
In this situation, the operators $\hat{\sigma}^{+}$, $\hat{\sigma}^-$ and $\hat{\sigma}^z$ get simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\sigma}^+ &= 2\exp\left[i\left(\kappa L - 1\right)\frac{\phi}{2} \right]
A_{\uparrow}^{*}A_{\downarrow}\gamma_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\downarrow} \\
\hat{\sigma}^- &= 2\exp\left[-i\left(\kappa L - 1\right)\frac{\phi}{2} \right]
A_{\uparrow}A_{\downarrow}^*\gamma_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\downarrow} \\
\hat{\sigma}^z &=
{\left| A_{\uparrow} \right|}^{2}(2\gamma_{\uparrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\uparrow}-1)-{\left| A_{\downarrow} \right|}^{2}(2\gamma_{\downarrow}^{\dagger}\gamma_{\downarrow}-1).\end{aligned}$$
Because of this, the total occupation number $N = \gamma_{\uparrow}^\dagger \gamma_\uparrow +
\gamma_{\downarrow}^\dagger \gamma_\downarrow$ becomes a good quantum number, namely $[N,H]=0$ where $H = H_e + H_S$. The many body Hilbert space is spanned by the states $\ket{N\alpha}=\ket{N}\otimes\ket{\alpha}$ with $N=0,1,2$ labeling the occupation number of the Andreev bound state and $\alpha=+,-$ labeling the eigenstates of $S_z$ of the impurity spin.
The subspace for $N=0$ is spanned by $\ket{0+}$, and $\ket{0-}$. The Hamiltonian $H$ in this subspace is represented by a $2$ by $2$ matrix $$H^{N=0} = -\epsilon - \frac{{\left| A_\uparrow \right|}^2 - {\left| A_\downarrow \right|}^2}{2}\left(J_{zz}\tau_z + J_{+z}\tau_{+} +
J_{+z}^*\tau_- \right)$$ where $\tau_{\pm} = (\tau_x \pm i \tau_y)/2$ with $\tau_{x,y,z}$ are Pauli matrices in this two dimensional subspaces.
By using Eq. (\[eq:A\_updown\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| A_\uparrow \right|}^2-{\left| A_{\downarrow}^2 \right|} &\simeq -
\frac{\epsilon}{2v(1+L\kappa)^2} \phi.\end{aligned}$$
The subspace with $N=1$ is spanned by $\ket{\uparrow +}$, $\ket{\downarrow+}$, $\ket{\uparrow-}$, $\ket{\downarrow-}$. The Hamiltonian in this case can be written as $$H^{N=1} = 2\exp\left[i\left(\kappa L
-1\right)\frac{\phi}{2}\right]A_{\uparrow}^{*}A_{\downarrow}(J_{z+}\tau_{z}+J_{++}\tau_{+}+J_{-+}\tau_{-})\rho_{+}+h.c.$$ where $\rho_{\pm} = (\rho_x \pm i\rho_y)/2$ and $\rho_{x,y,z}$ are Pauli matrices in ${\ket{\uparrow},
\ket{\downarrow}}$ space, and we have neglected terms linear in $\phi\simeq 0$.
An unitary transformation $U=e^{-i\eta\rho_{z}/2}$ for some $\eta\in[0,\pi/2]$ can always be chosen such that $$\begin{aligned}
UH^{N=1}U^{\dagger}&=\frac{\kappa}{2(1+\kappa
L)}\left[(J_{z+}\tau_{z}+J_{++}\tau_{+}+J_{-+}\tau_{-})\rho_z+h.c.\right] \end{aligned}$$ which has the same spectrum as $H^{N=1}$. The four eigenvalues are generically nondegenerate.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider Canonical Gibbsian ensembles of Euler point vortices on the 2-dimensional torus or in a bounded domain of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. We prove that under the Central Limit scaling of vortices intensities, and provided that the system has zero global space average in the bounded domain case (neutrality condition), the ensemble converges to the so-called Energy-Enstrophy Gaussian random distributions. This can be interpreted as describing Gaussian fluctuations around the mean field limit of vortices ensembles of [@clmp92; @KieWan2012], and it generalises the result on fluctuations of [@bodineau]. The main argument consists in proving convergence of partition functions of vortices and Gaussian distributions.'
address:
- 'Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei Cavalieri, 7, 56126 Pisa, Italia'
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 5, 56127 Pisa, Italia'
author:
- Francesco Grotto
- Marco Romito
title: A Central Limit Theorem for Gibbsian Invariant Measures of 2D Euler Equations
---
Introduction
============
The close resemblance between Onsager’s point vortices ensembles and Energy-Enstrophy Gaussian invariant measures for the two dimensional Euler flow is known since the works of Kraichnan on two-dimensional turbulence, [@kraichnan]. In the present paper, we rigorously establish this connection, as we now outline. On a two dimensional domain $D$, which in the following will be the two dimensional torus ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ or a bounded domain of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, Euler equations in vorticity form are given by $$\begin{cases}
\partial_t \omega + u\cdot \nabla \omega =0,\\
\nabla\cdot u=0,\\
\nabla^\perp \cdot u=\omega,
\end{cases}$$ where $\nabla^\perp=(\partial_2,-\partial_1)$. Since $u$ is a divergence-less vector field in dimension 2, it can be expressed as $u=\nabla^\perp \phi$; the *stream function* $\phi$ then must satisfy $\Delta \phi= \omega$, and one can thus recover the velocity field from vorticity by $u=\nabla^\perp \phi=-\nabla^\perp (-\Delta)^{-1}\omega$. The equations have to be complemented with a gauge choice, that is null space average on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ and Dirichlet boundary conditions on $\phi$ in the case $D\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$. Euler equations are known to be well posed for initial data $\omega_0\in L^\infty(D)$ (see [@marchioropulvirenti]), and smooth solutions preserve the first integrals *energy* and *enstrophy*, $$\label{firstintegrals}
E=\int_D |u|^2dx, \qquad S=\int_D \omega^2dx.$$ The Gaussian field associated to the quadratic form $\beta E+\gamma S$ on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$, the *energy-enstrophy measure* formally defined as $$\label{energyenstrophymeasure}
d\mu_{\beta,\gamma}(\omega)=\frac1{Z_{\beta,\gamma}}e^{-\beta E(\omega)-\gamma S(\omega)}d\omega,$$ is thus a natural candidate as an invariant measure of the flow. However, the field is only supported on spaces of quite rough distributions –not even measures– so that making sense of Euler equations in this setting is not trivial: this problem has been effectively tackled both by means of Fourier analysis, see for instance [@ardfhk; @albeveriocruzeiro], and approximation by point vortices systems, [@flandoli; @flandoliluo17; @flandoliluo19; @grotto]. The latter ones are defined, let us say first on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$, as systems of $N$ point particles with positions $x_i\in D$ and intensities $\xi_i\in{\mathbb{R}}$, satisfying the system of ordinary differential equations $$\dot x_{i,t}=-\sum_{j\neq i} \xi_j \nabla^\perp G(x_{i,t},x_{j,t}),$$ where the interacting potential is given in terms of the Green function $G$ of the Laplace operator $-\Delta$, subject to the aforementioned boundary conditions. The vorticity distribution $\omega=\sum \xi_i \delta_{x_i}$ solves Euler equations in weak sense, see [@marchioropulvirenti]: indeed, it is driven by the vector field $u=\nabla^\perp G\ast \omega$, which, as already noted above, is the equivalent Biot-Savart formulation of $\omega=\nabla^\perp\cdot u$. The system is Hamiltonian with respect to the conjugate coordinates $(\xi_i x_{i,2},x_{i,1})$, and Hamiltonian function $$H(x_1,\dots,x_n)=\sum_{i< j}^N \xi_i\xi_j G(x_i,x_j),$$ that is the interaction energy of the vortices. On a bounded domain, the presence of an impermeable boundary produces self interaction terms, which have to be added to the Hamiltonian in order for the system to satisfy (in weak sense) Euler dynamics (see [@marchioropulvirenti Section 4.1]). In both cases, notwithstanding the singularity of the interaction potential, a slight modification of the arguments in [@marchioropulvirenti] -which are set on the whole ${\mathbb{R}}^2$- shows that the system is well-posed for almost every initial condition $(x_i,\xi_i)_{i=1,\dots N}$ with respect to product Lebesgue measure, the latter being preserved according to Liouville theorem. Euler point vortices also preserve the *canonical Gibbs ensemble* at inverse temperature $\beta\geq 0$, $$\nu_{\beta,N}(dx_1,\dots,dx_n)= \frac{1}{Z_{\beta,N}} \exp{\left(-\beta H(x_1,\dots,x_n)\right)}dx_1,\dots,dx_n.$$ This measure was first introduced by Onsager in this context, [@onsager]. Equilibrium ensembles at high kinetic energy, which exhibit the tendency to cluster vortices of same sign intensities expected in a turbulent regime, were proposed by Onsager allowing negative values of $\beta$. Unfortunately, we will not be able to treat the case $\beta<0$ with our arguments.
As our main result, we obtain the Gaussian energy-enstrophy measure as a limit of Gibbsian point vortices ensembles, in a sort of Central Limit Theorem. Namely, we will consider increasingly many vortices sending $N\rightarrow\infty$, while decreasing their intensities $\xi_i=\frac{\sigma_i}{\sqrt{\gamma N}}$, with $\gamma>0$ and $\sigma_i=\pm 1$, as in the familiar central limit scaling. We will prove that, if positions of vortices $x_1,\dots,x_N$ have joint distribution $\nu_{\beta,N}$ on ${\mathbb{T}}^{2N}$, the random measure $$\sum_{i=1}^N \xi_i (\delta_{x_i}-1)\xrightarrow{N\rightarrow\infty} \mu_{\beta,\gamma}$$ converges in law to the energy-enstrophy measure. On ${\mathbb{T}}^2$, the result does not depend on the choice of signs $\sigma_i$: to each Dirac delta representing a vortex we are subtracting its space average, so that the global average vanishes and we are thus looking at fluctuations around a null profile. In fact, our result can be regarded as an investigation of Gaussian fluctuations around the well-known mean-field limit, in the case where the latter vanishes, see below. This is the reason why we will need to impose (asymptotic) neutrality of the global intensity on bounded domains $D$, that is, to ensure that the limit in the law of large numbers scaling is naught, since in that case it is not possible to renormalise Dirac deltas because of the boundary condition.
Most of the underlying physical understanding of the topic goes back to classical works: we mainly refer to the ones of Kraichnan and Onsager, see respectively [@kraichnan; @onsager] and references therein. The monography [@marchioropulvirenti] covers the basic theory of point vortices systems, especially in its dynamical aspects. We mostly refer to [@clmp92; @clmp95; @lionsbook] and related works for the statistical mechanics of equilibrium ensembles of point vortices. Our result in a sense completes the one of [@bpp], in which the same scaling limit of point vortices was performed, but with a smoothed interaction potential. We also mention that a Central Limit Theorem for fluctuations of point vortices in the case where $D$ is a disk was derived at the end of [@bodineau]: that result is unfortunately incomplete, since it proves convergence of integrals of the fluctuation field against a restricted set of test functions. Both [@bpp; @bodineau] emphasise the relevance of a good control of partition functions, which in fact is crucial in the present work. Finally, we mention the Central Limit Theorem of [@serfaty18], concerning a different, *mesoscopic* scaling regime.
General Outline and Notation
----------------------------
In we discuss in detail our main result in the case where $D={\mathbb{T}}^2$ is the 2-dimensional torus. First, rigorous definitions and properties of Gibbsian ensembles of point vortices and Gaussian invariant measures of Euler equation are recalled. As already mentioned, the core argument is a uniform bound for partition functions of canonical Gibbs measures, the strategy being the following:
- we split the interaction potential, the Laplacian Green function, into a regular, *long range* part and a singular, *short range* part, the latter being the Green function of the operator $m^2-\Delta$ (*2-dimensional Yukawa potential*);
- the contribution of the regular part can be interpreted as an exponential integral of a regular Gaussian field: since the covariance kernel corresponds to a fourth order operator, no normal ordering is required;
- on the other hand, the contribution of the (pointwise vanishing) singular part is controlled by estimating the partition function of vortices interacting by Yukawa potential with diverging mass $m\rightarrow\infty$.
is the main result of . In principle, it could be extended to compact Riemannian surfaces $D$: we do not pursue such generality, and we only consider two other physically relevant geometries, namely the 2-dimensional sphere ${\mathbb{S}}^2$ and bounded domains of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. The former, being a compact surface without boundary, is completely analogous to the case on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$, and it is briefly discussed in . In we show how to adapt the previous arguments to the case of a bounded domain, the main issue being the self-interaction terms in the Hamiltonian due to the presence of a boundary. Finally in , as concluding remarks, we outline how our result compares to the well established literature on mean field limits for point vortices.
Throughout the paper, the symbols $\simeq, \lesssim$ denote (in)equalities up to uniform multiplicative factors. The symbol $\sim$ denotes equality in law of random variables. The letter $C$ denotes possibly different constants, depending only on its eventual subscripts. Finally, $\chi_A$ is the indicator function of the set $A$.
The Periodic Case {#sec:clttorus}
=================
Let ${\mathbb{T}}^2={\mathbb{R}}^2/{\mathbb{Z}}^2$ be the 2-dimensional torus, and denote $d(x,y)$ the distance between two points $x,y\in{\mathbb{T}}^2$. We work in the zero average setting, that is we only consider functions (or distributions) having zero average on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$: we keep it in mind denoting with $\dot L^p({\mathbb{T}}^2), \dot H^\alpha({\mathbb{T}}^2)$ Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces of zero averaged functions. It will be convenient to work with Fourier series: let $e_k(x)=e^{2\pi\operatorname{i}k\cdot x}$, for $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0={\mathbb{Z}}^2\setminus{\left\{0\right\}}$, $x\in{\mathbb{T}}^2$, be the orthonormal basis of $\dot L^2({\mathbb{T}}^2)$ diagonalising the Laplace operator, and recall that Sobolev spaces (of zero average distributions) are characterised as follows: $$\forall \alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}, \quad \dot H^\alpha({\mathbb{T}}^2)=
{\left\{u\in C^\infty({\mathbb{T}}^2)': {\left\|u\right\|}_{\dot H^\alpha}^2=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0} |k|^{-2\alpha} |\hat u_k|^2<\infty\right\}},$$ where $\hat u_k={\left\langleu,e_k\right\rangle}$, the brackets denoting (complex) $\dot L^2$-based duality couplings from now on. We will also denote by ${\mathcal{M}}({\mathbb{T}}^2)$ the linear space of finite signed measures on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$, which is continuously embedded in $H^\alpha({\mathbb{T}}^2)$ for any $\alpha<-1$, since Fourier coefficients of measures are uniformly bounded by 1.
The Green function of the Laplace operator with zero average, $G=(-\Delta)^{-1}$, is the unique solution of $$\forall x,y\in{\mathbb{T}}^2 \quad -\Delta_x G(x,y)=\delta_y(x)-1, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} G(x,y)dx=0;$$ we recall that $G$ is a symmetric function, and moreover it is translation invariant. It has the explicit representation in Fourier series $$G(x,y)=G(x-y)=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0} \frac{e_k(x-y)}{4\pi^2|k|^2},$$ and moreover it can be expressed as the sum of Green’s function on the whole plane and a bounded function, $$\label{greentorus}
G(x,y)=-\frac{1}{2\pi} \log d(x,y) +g(x,y),$$ with $g(x,y)\in C^0_{sym}({\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2})$. The latter representation holds more generally on any compact Riemannian surface without boundary (see [@aubin]), and it can be recovered comparing the $G(x,y)$ to the solution of $-\Delta_x u(x)=\delta_y(x)$ on a small ball centred in $y$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions.
Canonical Gibbs Ensembles of Point Vortices {#ssec:gibbsensembles}
-------------------------------------------
We now define a Gibbsian canonical ensemble for point vortices distributions of vorticity. Let $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ (the number of vortices), $\gamma>0$, $\beta\geq 0$ (the *inverse temperature*), $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_N\in{\mathbb{R}}$ (the intensities of vortices), $x_1,\dots,x_N\in{\mathbb{T}}^2$ (the positions of vortices) and the Hamiltonian $$H(x_1,\dots,x_N)=\sum_{i< j}^N \xi_i\xi_j G(x_i,x_j)$$ on the phase space ${\mathbb{T}}^{2\times N}$. In what follows, intensities will always be given as $\xi_i=\frac{\sigma_i}{\sqrt{\gamma N}}$, with signs $\sigma_i=\pm1$, according to the central limit scaling. The arguments of the present Section works for any choice of the sequence of signs $\sigma_1^N,\dots \sigma_N^N=\pm 1$ for $N\geq 1$: we assume that such a choice is performed once and for all, and drop the apex $N$ to ease notation. Let us consider the measure on ${\mathbb{T}}^{2\times N}$ defined by $$\label{gibbsmeasure}
\nu_{\beta,\gamma,N}(dx_1,\dots,dx_N)= \frac{1}{Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}} \exp{\left(-\beta H(x_1,\dots,x_N)\right)}dx_1,\dots,dx_N,$$ with $Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}$, the *partition function*, being the constant such that $\nu_{\beta,\gamma,N}$ is a probability measure. Notice that, even if it is not made explicit, the partition function depends also on the choice of signs $\sigma_i$. The measure $\nu_{\beta,\gamma,N}$ is usually referred to as the *canonical Gibbs’ measure*. Since the potential $G$ has a logarithmic singularity, the existence of such measure, or equivalently the finiteness of $Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}$, is not completely trivial. For the sake of completeness, and since we could not find a reference matching our setting, we report the proof. The issue is addressed in [@lionsbook] on bounded domains of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ for vortices with equal intensities. The technique we apply was first introduced in [@deutschlavaud] in the similar case of a log-gas: a more refined computation deriving the asymptotics in $N$ in the latter setting can be found in [@gunsonpanta].
\[prop:zgreentorus\] For any choice of $\gamma>0$, $\beta\geq0$, and signs $\sigma_i=\pm 1$ as above, if $N>\frac{\beta}{\pi\gamma}$ then $Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}<\infty$, and the measure $\nu_{\beta,\gamma,N}$ is thus well-defined.
By (\[greentorus\]) and Hölder’s inequality, $$Z_{\beta,\gamma,N} \leq {\left(\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} \prod_{i<j} d(x_i,x_j)^{\frac{\beta\xi_i\xi_j}{\pi}}\right)}^{1/2}
{\left(\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} \prod_{i<j} e^{-2\beta\xi_i\xi_jg(x_i,x_j)}\right)}^{1/2},$$ where the second factor on the right-hand side is bounded (by a constant depending on all parameters including $N$) since $g$ is. Let us now turn to the first term. We relabel the variables as follows: $y_1,\dots y_k$ are the ones with positive intensities, and $z_1,\dots z_{n-k}$ the negative ones; moreover, $y_i$ and $z_i$ are couples of closest positive-negative neighbours, so that $$\label{minimaldipoles}
d(y_i,z_i)\leq d(y_i,z_j)\wedge d(y_j,z_i) \quad \forall j\geq i.$$ We accordingly split $$\prod_{i<j} d(x_i,x_j)^{\frac{\beta \sigma_i \sigma_j}{\pi \gamma N}}
={\left(\frac{\prod_{i<j} d(y_i,y_j)
\prod_{i<j} d(z_i,z_j)}
{\prod_{i,j} d(y_i,z_j)}\right)}^{\frac{\beta}{\pi \gamma N}},$$ the indices running over all admissible values. By definition and the triangular inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
d(y_i,y_j)&\leq d(y_i,z_i)+d(y_j,z_i)\leq 2d(y_j,z_i),\\
d(z_i,z_j)&\leq d(y_i,z_i)+d(y_i,z_j)\leq 2d(y_j,z_i),
\end{aligned}$$ so that we can use the terms in the numerator to cancel all terms in the denominator save for the ones corresponding to closest neighbours (if $k\neq N/2$ some terms in the numerator are left over, and we bound them with constants): $$\prod_{i<j} d(x_i,x_j)^{\frac{\beta \sigma_i \sigma_j}{\pi \gamma N}}
\leq C {\left(\prod_{1\leq i\leq k\wedge n-k} d(y_i,z_i)\right)}^{-\frac{\beta}{\pi \gamma N}},$$ where $C$ is again a constant depending on all parameters. As soon as $N>\frac{\beta}{2\pi\gamma}$, factors of the latter product are integrable, thus concluding the proof.
The random measure $\mu_{\beta,\gamma}^N$ is the law of $$\omega_{\beta,\gamma}^N=\sum_{i=1}^N \xi_i (\delta_{x_i}-1),$$ as a random variable taking values in ${\mathcal{M}}({\mathbb{T}}^2)$, where positions $x_1,\dots x_n$ are sampled under $\nu_{\beta,\gamma,N}$, whenever the latter is well-defined.
In dealing with limits as $N$ goes to infinity, Gibbs measure will always be (ultimately) defined, so we will ignore the issue henceforth in this section. Finally, let us note that $\omega_{\beta,\gamma}^N$ can be regarded as random variables in $\dot H^s({\mathbb{T}}^2)$ for all $s<-1$, since signed measures have uniformly bounded Fourier coefficients.
Energy-Enstrophy Gaussian Measures {#ssec:energyenstrophy}
----------------------------------
For $\gamma>0$ and $\beta\geq 0$, let $\omega_{\beta,\gamma}$ be the centred, zero averaged, Gaussian random field on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ with covariance $$\forall f,g\in \dot L^2({\mathbb{T}}^2), \quad
{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left\langle\omega_{\beta,\gamma},f\right\rangle}{\left\langle\omega_{\beta,\gamma},g\right\rangle}\right]}={\left\langlef,Q_{\beta,\gamma}g\right\rangle},
\quad Q_{\beta,\gamma}=(\gamma-\beta\Delta)^{-1}.$$ Equivalently, $\omega_{\beta,\gamma}$ is a centred Gaussian stochastic process indexed by $\dot L^2({\mathbb{T}}^2)$ with the specified covariance. Since the embedding of $Q_{\beta,\gamma}^{1/2}\dot L^2({\mathbb{T}}^2)$ into $\dot H^s({\mathbb{T}}^2)$ is Hilbert-Schmidt for all $s<-1$, $\omega_{\beta,\gamma}$ can be identified with a random distribution taking values in the latter spaces (see [@dpz]). The special case $\beta=0$ ($\gamma=0$ will not be included in our discussion) is the *white noise* on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$. We will denote by $\mu_{\beta,\gamma}$ the law of $\omega_{\beta,\gamma}$ on $\dot H^s({\mathbb{T}}^2)$, any $s<-1$. This measure is the one we formally defined in (\[energyenstrophymeasure\]): we will provide a rigorous interpretation of that expression in this paragraph. The Gaussian random distributions we just introduced are best understood in terms of Fourier series: we can write $$\omega_{\beta,\gamma}=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0} \hat\omega_{\beta,\gamma,k} e_k,
\quad \text{ where }
\hat\omega_{\beta,\gamma,k}={\left\langle\omega_{\beta,\gamma},e_k\right\rangle}\sim N_{\mathbb{C}}{\left(0,\frac{4\pi^2 |k|^2}{\beta+4\pi^2 |k|^2\gamma}\right)}$$ are independent ${\mathbb{C}}$-valued Gaussian variables, and the Fourier expansion thus converges in $L^2{\left(H^s({\mathbb{T}}^2),\mu_{\beta,\gamma}\right)}$ for $s<-1$. The measure $\mu_{\beta,\gamma}$ is also characterised by its Fourier transform (characteristic function) on $\dot H^s({\mathbb{T}}^2)$: for any $f\in \dot H^{-s}({\mathbb{T}}^2)$, $$\label{gaussianchartorus}
\int e^{\operatorname{i}{\left\langle\omega,f\right\rangle}} d\mu_{\beta,\gamma}(\omega)=\exp{\left(-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0}
\frac{4\pi^2 |k|^2 |\hat f_k|^2}{\beta+4\pi^2 |k|^2\gamma}\right)}.$$
The main result of this section is convergence of Gibbs ensemble of vortices $\mu_{\beta,\gamma}^N$ defined above to the energy-enstrophy measure $\mu_{\beta,\gamma}$. Let us first provide some further insight on the analogy between those random measures, first pointed out by Kraichnan ([@kraichnan]). We begin by recalling an equivalent definition of $\mu_{\beta,\gamma}$: for a smooth vorticity distribution $\omega$, energy is given by $$2E(\omega)=-{\left\langle\omega,\Delta^{-1}\omega\right\rangle}=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0} \frac{|\hat \omega_k|^2}{4\pi^2|k^2|},$$ which does not make sense as a random variable if instead $\omega$ has white noise law $\mu_{0,\gamma}=\mu_\gamma$, since in that case $\hat\omega_k$’s are i.i.d. Gaussian variables, and the series diverges almost surely. However, one can define a *renormalised energy* by means of normal ordering: $$\label{normenergy}
2{:\mathrel{E}:}=\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty} \sum_{|k|\leq K} \frac{{:\mathrel{\hat \omega_k\hat\omega_k^\ast}:}}{4\pi^2|k^2|}=
\lim_{K\rightarrow\infty} \sum_{|k|\leq K} {\left(\frac{|\hat \omega_k|^2}{4\pi^2|k^2|}
-\int \frac{|\hat \omega_k|^2}{4\pi^2|k^2|} d\mu_\gamma(\omega)\right)}$$ where the limit holds in $L^2(\mu_{\gamma})$ (see [@ardfhk] and below), and it defines an element of the second Wiener chaos $H^{{:\mathrel{2}:}}(\mu_{\gamma})$. As a consequence, ${:\mathrel{E}:}$ can be expressed as a double Itō-Wiener stochastic integral with respect to the white noise $\mu_{\gamma}$, the kernel being naturally Green’s function $G$: $$2{:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega)=\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2}} G(x,y) {:\mathrel{d\omega(x)d\omega(y)}:}.$$
\[lem:energyenstrophy\] The probability measure on $\dot H^s({\mathbb{T}}^2)$, any $s<-1$, defined by density as $$\label{normenergymeasure}
d\tilde\mu_{\beta,\gamma}=\frac{1}{Z_{\beta,\gamma}}e^{-\beta{:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega)}d\mu_\gamma(\omega),
\quad Z_{\beta,\gamma}=\int e^{-\beta{:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega)}d\mu_\gamma(\omega),$$ is well-posed. It coincides with the energy-enstrophy measure, $\tilde\mu_{\beta,\gamma}=\mu_{\beta,\gamma}$.
The computations we perform in the forthcoming proof find analogues in the infinite product representations of energy-enstrophy measures given for instance in [@albeveriocruzeiro; @bpp].
The variable ${:\mathrel{E}:}$ has exponential moments because it belongs to the second Wiener chaos, so the partition function is finite and the measure well-defined. If characteristic functionals ${\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\operatorname{i}{\left\langlef,\omega\right\rangle}}\right]}$ coincide for all $f\in \dot H^{-s}({\mathbb{T}}^2)$, the two measures coincide. Since under $\mu_{0,\gamma}$ the Fourier modes $\hat \omega_k$ are independent centred ${\mathbb{C}}$-valued Gaussian variables with variance $\gamma^{-1}$, we can compute $$\begin{aligned}
\int e^{\operatorname{i}{\left\langlef,\omega\right\rangle}-\beta{:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega)}d\mu_\gamma
&= \int \exp{\left(\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0} \operatorname{i}\hat f_k \hat \omega_k^\ast
-\beta\frac{|\hat\omega_k|^2-\gamma^{-1}}{8\pi^2 |k|^2}\right)} d\mu_\gamma\\
&=\prod_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0} \int_{\mathbb{C}}\frac{\gamma}{2\pi}\exp{\left(\operatorname{i}\hat f_k z^\ast
-\beta\frac{|z|^2-\gamma^{-1}}{8\pi^2 |k|^2}-\frac{\gamma|z|^2}{2}\right)} dz\\
&=\prod_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0} \frac{4\pi^2 \gamma |k|^2}{\beta+4\pi^2 \gamma |k^2|}e^{\frac{\beta}{8\pi^2 |k^2|}}
\exp{\left(-\frac{|\hat f_k|^2}{2} \cdot \frac{4\pi^2|k|^2 }{4\pi^2\gamma |k^2|+\beta}\right)},
\end{aligned}$$ and since the partition function $Z_{\beta,\gamma}$ can be evaluated setting $f\equiv 0$ in the latter formula, $$Z_{\beta,\gamma}^{-1}\int e^{\operatorname{i}{\left\langlef,\omega\right\rangle}-\beta{:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega)}d\mu_\gamma=
\prod_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0}\exp{\left(-\frac{|\hat f_k|^2}{2} \cdot \frac{4\pi^2|k|^2 }{4\pi^2\gamma |k^2|+\beta}\right)},$$ where the right-hand side is the characteristic function of $\mu_{\beta,\gamma}$, (\[gaussianchartorus\]).
Looking back at point vortices, the Hamiltonian function $H$ can be seen as a renormalised energy to the extent that it includes all mutual interactions save the ones of vortices with themselves. To make this intuition more precise, let us first recall that in the Gaussian case $\omega\sim\mu_{0,1}$ (white noise), the double Itō-Wiener integral of a smooth function $h\in C^\infty({\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2})$ is given by $$\label{doubleintegralsmooth}
\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2}}h(x,y){:\mathrel{d\omega(x)d\omega(y)}:}=\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2}}h(x,y)d\omega(x)d\omega(y)-\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^2}h(x,x)dx,$$ where integration against $d\omega(x)d\omega(y)$ is understood as the (almost surely defined) integral against the tensor product of the random distribution $\omega$ with itself (see [@janson Chapter 7], which includes a discussion on how Wick ordering in double stochastic integrals can be seen as removing singular self-interactions, *cf.* Remark 7.27). By continuity on $L^2({\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2})$ of the double Itō integral, the renormalised energy can be expressed as $$\label{energyitotorus}
2{:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega)
=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2}} G_n(x,y)d\omega(x)d\omega(y),\\$$ where $G_n\in C^\infty({\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2})$ are symmetric and vanish on the diagonal, $G_n$ converge to $G$ in $L^2({\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2})$, and the limit holds in $L^2(\mu_{\gamma})$.
In the case of a point vortices cluster $\omega^N\sim \mu_{0,\gamma}^N$, one can define renormalised double integrals in an analogous way. Considering centred distributions (as it is $\mu_{0,1}$) is essential in the forthcoming Lemma, and in the case of point vortices on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ the condition is ensured if we consider the zero average setting.
\[lem:vorticesisometry\] Let $\omega^N\sim \mu_{0,\gamma}^N$. On continuous functions $h\in C({\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2})$ with zero average in both variables and vanishing on the diagonal, *i.e.* $h(x,x)=0$ for all $x$, define the map $$h\mapsto \int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2}}h(x,y)d\omega^N(x)d\omega^N(y)=\sum_{i\neq j}\xi_i\xi_j h(x_i,x_j).$$ Since it holds $${\mathbb{E}\left[{\left(\sum_{i\neq j}\xi_i\xi_j h(x_i,x_j)\right)}^2\right]}\leq C_\gamma {\left\|h\right\|}^2_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2})}$$ with $C_\gamma$ a constant independent of $N$, the map takes values in $L^2(\mu_{0,1}^N)$, and it extends by density to a bounded linear map which we will denote $$\dot L^2({\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2}) \ni f\mapsto \int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2}}f(x,y){:\mathrel{d\omega^N(x)d\omega^N(y)}:} \in L^2(\mu_{0,1}^N).$$
For any function $h$ as above it holds $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left(2\sum_{i<j}^N \xi_i\xi_j h(x_i,x_j)\right)}^2\right]}
= 4 \sum_{i<j}^N\sum_{\ell<k}^N \xi_i\xi_j \xi_\ell \xi_k {\mathbb{E}\left[h(x_i,x_j)h(x_\ell,x_k)\right]}\\
&\quad =\frac{4}{ \gamma^2 N^2}\sum_{i<j}^N \int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2}} h(x,y)^2dxdy
=2\frac{N-1}{\gamma^2 N}\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2}} h(x,y)^2dxdy,
\end{aligned}$$ where the middle passage makes essential use of the zero average condition: all summands except the ones with $i=\ell,j=k$ vanish.
This construction is analogous to the one of double stochastic integrals with respect to Gaussian measures (Itō-Wiener integrals) and Poisson point process; the above computation is also an important tool in [@flandoli]. Define, in analogy with , the renormalised energy in the vortices ensemble $\mu_\gamma^N$ case as the renormalised double integral of the potential $G$ with respect to $\mu_{\gamma}^N$, that is as a random variable in $L^2(\mu_{\gamma}^N)$: by , considering approximations $G_n$ of $G$ as above, we actually recover the Hamiltonian: $$2{:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega^N)=\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2}} G(x,y){:\mathrel{d\omega^N(x)d\omega^N(y)}:}=\sum_{i\neq j} \xi_i \xi_j G(x_i,x_j)=2H(x_1,\dots x_n).$$ The convergence of Hamiltonian functions of point vortices to the renormalised Gaussian energy in the case $\beta=0$ is an important part in the proof of the forthcoming main result of this Section.
\[thm:clttorus\] Let $\beta/\gamma\geq 0$. It holds:
1. $\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}=Z_{\beta,\gamma}$;
2. the sequence of ${\mathcal{M}}$-valued random variables $\omega^N\sim\mu_{\beta,\gamma}^N$ converges in law on $\dot H^s({\mathbb{T}}^2)$, any $s<-1$, to a random distribution $\omega\sim \mu_{\beta,\gamma}$, as $N\rightarrow\infty$;
3. the sequence of real random variables $H(\omega^N)$ converges in law to ${:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega)$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$, with $\omega^N,\omega$ as in point (2).
In we needed to impose that $\beta/\gamma$ be small in order for the Gibbs measure to exist. Let us remark once again that the constraint depended on $N$, and was always satisfied for large enough $N$.
Potential Splitting and the Sine-Gordon transformation {#ssec:sinegordon}
------------------------------------------------------
In this paragraph we introduce the key tools in the proof of . The main issue is the logarithmic singularity of the Green function $G$. To deal with it we will decompose $G$ in two parts, a smooth approximation of $G$ and a remainder retaining logarithmic singularity: for $m>0$, $$\label{potentialsplitting}
G=-\Delta^{-1}={\left(-\Delta^{-1}-(m^2-\Delta)^{-1}\right)}+(m^2-\Delta)^{-1}:= V_m+W_m.$$ Physically, the smooth part $V_m$ corresponds to the long-range part of the potential, and the singular part $W_m$ to short-range interactions. We will also denote $$H=H_{V_m}+H_{W_m}=\sum_{i< j}^N \xi_i\xi_j V_m(x_i,x_j) + \sum_{i< j}^N \xi_i\xi_j W_m(x_i,x_j),$$ the relative splitting of the Hamiltonian. In terms of Fourier series, $$W_m(x,y)=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0} \frac{e_k(x-y)}{m^2+4\pi^2|k|^2}, \quad
V_m(x,y)=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0} \frac{m^2 e_k(x-y)}{4\pi^2|k|^2(m^2+4\pi^2|k|^2)}.$$ The Green function $W_m$ is called the 2-dimensional *Yukawa potential* or *screened Coulomb potential* with mass $m$ (as opposed to the *Coulomb potential* $G$).
We will regard the regular part of the Hamiltonian corresponding to $V_m$ as the covariance of a Gaussian field. The idea, dating back to [@samuel], originated as a connection between the classical Coulomb gas theory and sine-Gordon field theory (hence the name): it will allow us to analyse the convergences in by standard Gaussian computations, up to a remainder term involving the Yukawa potential $W_m$ (whose associated partition function we bound in ). We thus define $F_m$ as the centred Gaussian field on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ with covariance kernel $V_m$, that is $$\forall f,g\in \dot L^2({\mathbb{T}}^2), \quad
{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left\langleF_m,f\right\rangle}{\left\langleF_m,g\right\rangle}\right]}={\left\langlef,{\left(-\Delta^{-1}-(m^2-\Delta)^{-1}\right)} g\right\rangle}.$$ The remainder of this paragraph deals with properties of $F_m$. The reproducing kernel Hilbert space is $$\sqrt{-\Delta^{-1}-(m^2-\Delta)^{-1}}\dot L^2({\mathbb{T}}^2)\subseteq \dot H^2({\mathbb{T}}^2),$$ so that $F_m$ has a $\dot H^s({\mathbb{T}}^2)$-valued version for all $s<1$, into which $\dot H^2({\mathbb{T}}^2)$ has Hilbert-Schmidt embedding. As a consequence, by Sobolev embedding, $F_m$ has a version taking values in $\dot L^p({\mathbb{T}}^2)$ for all $p\geq 1$.
The field $F_m$ can also be evaluated at points $x\in{\mathbb{T}}^2$: the coupling $F_m(x):={\left\langle\delta_x,F_m\right\rangle}$ is defined as the series, converging in $L^2(F_m)$ *uniformly in* $x\in{\mathbb{T}}^2$, $${\left\langle\delta_x,F_m\right\rangle}=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0} e^{2\pi \operatorname{i}x\cdot k} \hat F_{m,k},
\quad \hat F_{m,k}={\left\langlee_k,F_m\right\rangle}\sim N_{\mathbb{C}}{\left(0,\frac{m^2}{4\pi^2 |k|^2{\left(m^2+4\pi^2|k|^2\right)}}\right)}.$$ In other terms, $x\mapsto F_m(x)$ is a measurable random field, and $F_m(x)$ are centred Gaussian variables of variance $V_m(x,x)=V_m(0,0)$. A straightforward application of Kolmogorov continuity theorem shows that there exists a version of $F_m(x)$ which is $\alpha$-Hölder for all $\alpha<1/2$.
\[lem:Fboundstorus\] For any $\alpha>0$, $p\geq 1$ and $m\rightarrow \infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Fmomentstorus}
{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left\|F_m\right\|}_p^p\right]}&\simeq_p (\log m)^{p/2}\\
\label{Fexpmomentstorus}
{\mathbb{E}\left[\exp{\left(-\alpha{\left\|F_m\right\|}_2^2\right)}\right]}&\simeq m^{-\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Let us begin with moments: by Fubini-Tonelli theorem, $${\mathbb{E}\left[{\left\|F_m\right\|}_p^p\right]}=\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2}}{\mathbb{E}\left[|F_m(x)|^p\right]}dx=c_p \int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2}}V_m(x,x)^{p/2}dx=c_p V_m(0,0)^{p/2},$$ where $V_m(0,0)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\log m+o(\log m)$ can be checked by explicit computation in Fourier series. As for exponential moments, a standard Gaussian computation (see [@dpz Proposizion 2.17]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}\left[\exp{\left(-\alpha {\left\|F_m\right\|}_2^2\right)}\right]}
&=\exp {\left\{-\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{Tr}{\left(\log{\left(1+2\alpha {\left(-\Delta^{-1}-(m^2-\Delta)^{-1}\right)}\right)}\right)}\right\}}\\
&=\exp{\left(-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0}\log {\left(1+\frac{2\alpha m^2}{4\pi^2 |k|^2 (m^2+4\pi^2|k|^2)}\right)}\right)}\\
&>\exp {\left(-\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0}\frac{\alpha m^2}{4\pi^2 |k|^2 (m^2+4\pi^2|k|^2)}\right)}\\
&=\exp{\left(-\alpha V_m(0,0)\right)}\simeq m^{-\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}},
\end{aligned}$$ the other inequality descending from analogous computations using $\log(1+x)>x-\frac{x^2}{2}$, $x>0$, instead of the inequality $\log(1+x)<x$ we just applied.
Since it holds, for $s,t\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $${\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\operatorname{i}s F_m(x)} e^{\operatorname{i}t F_m(y)}\right]}=e^{-\frac{s^2+t^2}{2}V_m(0,0)}e^{-stV_m(x,y)},$$ (and analogous expressions for $n$-fold products) we can transform the partition function relative to the regular part of the Hamiltonian $H_{V_m}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sinegordontorus}
\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} & e^{-\beta H_{V_m}} dx_1\cdots dx_n\\ \nonumber
&= \int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} \exp{\left(-\beta\sum_{i\neq j}^{N} \frac{\sigma_i\sigma_j}{2\gamma N} V_m(x_i,x_j)\right)}dx_1\cdots dx_n\\ \nonumber
&=e^{\frac{\beta}{2\gamma}V_m(0,0)}
{\mathbb{E}\left[\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} \exp{\left(-\operatorname{i}\sqrt{\frac{\beta}{\gamma N}}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sigma_i F_m(x_i)\right)}dx_1\cdots dx_n\right]}.\end{aligned}$$ Rewriting the partition function in these terms is the first step in the analysis of $Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}$, the next one being a control of the singular part of the potential, which we could not transform. We deal with $W_m$ in the next paragraph: let us conclude the present one with the estimate we will use on complex exponentials of $F_m$. It relies essentially on:
\[lem:exponentialintegral\] If $f\in \dot L^4({\mathbb{T}}^2)$, then $${\left|\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} e^{\operatorname{i}f(x)} dx-e^{-\frac{1}{2}{\left\|f\right\|}^2_{2}}\right|}\leq \frac{{\left\|f\right\|}^3_3}{6}+\frac{{\left\|f\right\|}^4_2}{8}.$$
Thanks to the zero average condition, we can expand $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} e^{\operatorname{i}f(x)} dx-e^{-\frac{1}{2}{\left\|f\right\|}^2_{2}}\\
& \quad = \int_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} {\left(e^{i f(x)}-1-\operatorname{i}f(x)+\frac{f(x)^2}{2}\right)} dx
-{\left(e^{-\frac{1}{2}{\left\|f\right\|}^2_{2}}-1+\frac{{\left\|f\right\|}^2_2}{2}\right)}
\end{aligned}$$ and then apply Taylor expansions $${\left|e^{it}-1-it+\frac{t^2}{2}\right|}\leq \frac{t^3}{6}, \quad {\left|e^{-t}-1+t\right|}\leq\frac{t^2}{2}.$$
\[prop:Fcomplexboundstorus\] For any $\beta,\gamma>0$ and integer $p\geq 1$, if $m=m(N)$ grows at most polynomially in $N$, then it holds $$\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} e^{-\beta H_{V_m}} dx_1\cdots dx_n
\leq C_{\beta,\gamma,p} {\left(1+\frac{m^{\frac{\beta}{4\pi\gamma}}{\left(\log m\right)}^{2p}}{N^{p/2}}\right)}$$ uniformly in $N$.
To ease notation, in the following argument we will denote $$E_j=\int_{\mathbb{T}_2}e^{\operatorname{i}\xi_j\sqrt{\beta}F_m(x_j)}\,dx_j,
\qquad {\mathscr{E}}=e^{-\frac{\beta}{2N\gamma}\|F_m\|_{L^2}^2},$$ (notice that both depend on $N,m$) and thus write as $$\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} e^{-\beta H_{V_m}} dx_1\cdots dx_n =e^{\frac{\beta}{2\gamma}V_m(0,0)}
{\mathbb{E}\left[\prod_{j=1}^N E_j\right]}$$ In sight of , we expect the $0$-th order term (in $1/N$) to be $e^{\frac{\beta}{2\gamma}V_m(0,0)}{\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathscr{E}}^N\right]}$, which is $O(1)$ as shown above in . The forthcoming proof applies the Taylor expansion of to further and further orders.
For $p=1$, we expand the product $\prod_{j=1}^N E_j$ by means of the algebraic identity $$\label{algfirstorder}
\prod_{j=1}^N E_j={\mathscr{E}}^N+\sum_{k=1}^{N}(E_k-{\mathscr{E}}){\mathscr{E}}^{N-k}{\left(\prod_{j=1}^{k-1} E_j\right)},$$ from which we can estimate $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{E}\left[\prod_{j=1}^N E_j\right]}
={\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathscr{E}}^N\right]}+ \sum_{k=1}^{N} {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left(\prod_{j=1}^{k-1} E_j\right)}(E_k-{\mathscr{E}}){\mathscr{E}}^{N-k}\right]}\\
&\qquad\leq {\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathscr{E}}^N\right]}+ \sum_{k=1}^{N} {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|E_k-{\mathscr{E}}\right|}\right]}\\
&\qquad\leq {\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathscr{E}}^N\right]}
+N\cdot {\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{1}{6}{\left(\frac{\beta}{\gamma N}\right)}^{3/2}{\left\|F_m\right\|}_3^3+\frac{1}{8}{\left(\frac{\beta}{\gamma N}\right)}^2 {\left\|F_m\right\|}_2^4\right]}\\
&\qquad \leq C_{\beta,\gamma} {\left(m^{-\frac{\beta}{4\pi\gamma}} +\frac{(\log m)^2}{\sqrt{N}}\right)}.
\end{aligned}$$ The higher order terms (in $1/N$) have been dealt with in the following way: exponential factors have been bounded with $|E_j|,|{\mathscr{E}}|\leq 1$, only leaving differences $E_k-{\mathscr{E}}$ from which smallness is obtained. The third step is the crucial application of , and the last one is and Hölder inequality. The thesis now follows recalling once again that $V_m(0,0)\simeq \frac{1}{2\pi}\log m$.
For $p=2$, by iterating we get the identity $$\prod_{j=1}^N E_j = {\mathscr{E}}^N + {\mathscr{E}}^{N-1}\sum_{k=1}^N(E_k-{\mathscr{E}})
+ \sum_{k=2}^N\sum_{\ell=1}^{k-1}(E_\ell-{\mathscr{E}})(E_k-{\mathscr{E}}){\mathscr{E}}^{N-\ell-1}
{\prod_{j=1}^{\ell-1}E_j}.$$ Taking expectations and controlling separately the summands, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}\left[\prod_{j=1}^N E_j\right]}
&\leq {\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathscr{E}}^N\right]}+ \sum_{k=1}^{N} {\mathbb{E}\left[|E_k-{\mathscr{E}}|{\mathscr{E}}^{N-k}\right]}
+\sum_{k=2}^N\sum_{\ell=1}^{k-1} {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|E_\ell-{\mathscr{E}}\right|}{\left|E_k-{\mathscr{E}}\right|}\right]}\\
&\leq {\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathscr{E}}^N\right]}+N {\mathbb{E}\left[{\mathscr{E}}^{2(N-k)}\right]}^{1/2} {\mathbb{E}\left[|E_1-{\mathscr{E}}|^2\right]}^{1/2}\\
&\quad +\frac12 N(N-1){\mathbb{E}\left[|E_1-{\mathscr{E}}|^2\right]}\\
&\lesssim m^{-\frac{\beta}{4\pi\gamma}} + m^{-\frac{\beta(N-k)}{4\pi\gamma N}} N^{-1/2}(\log m)^{3/2}+N^{-1}(\log m)^3.
\end{aligned}$$ In the latter computation, the second step is Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, while the third combines Hölder inequality and to control $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}\left[|E_k-{\mathscr{E}}|^2\right]}\lesssim {\mathbb{E}\left[{\left(N^{-3/2} {\left\|F_m\right\|}_3^3 + N^{-2} {\left\|F_m\right\|}_2^4\right)}^2\right]}\lesssim N^{-3}(\log m)^3.
\end{aligned}$$ The thesis for $p=2$ is obtained, since we have shown that $$\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} e^{-\beta H_{V_m}} dx_1\cdots dx_n\lesssim 1+ N^{-1/2}(\log m)^{3/2}+ m^{\frac{\beta}{4\pi\gamma}} N^{-1}(\log m)^3,$$ where the middle term is always $o(1)$ because we are assuming that $m(N)$ grows at most polynomially.
Further iterations of to expand products of $E_j$ produce in a completely analogous manner the required estimate for arbitrary $p\geq 1$. Let us only report, as an example, the third order iteration of : $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{j=1}^N E_j
&= {\mathscr{E}}^N
+ {\mathscr{E}}^{N-1}\sum_{k=1}^N(E_k-{\mathscr{E}})
+ {\mathscr{E}}^{N-2}\sum_{k=2}^N\sum_{\ell=1}^{k-1}(E_\ell-{\mathscr{E}})(E_k-{\mathscr{E}})\\
&\quad + \sum_{k=3}^N\sum_{\ell=2}^{k-1}\sum_{m=1}^{\ell-1}
(E_k-{\mathscr{E}})(E_\ell-{\mathscr{E}})(E_m-{\mathscr{E}}){\mathscr{E}}^{N-m-2}
\Bigl(\prod_{j=1}^{m-1}E_j\Bigr). \qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
Controlling Partition Functions {#ssec:partitionfunctions}
-------------------------------
We want to analyse separately the contributions of regular and singular parts of the potential to the partition function $$Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}=\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} e^{-\beta H_{V_m}} e^{-\beta H_{W_m}}dx^N.$$ The core idea is that if we send $m(N)\rightarrow\infty$ along $N\rightarrow\infty$ with a suitable rate, the contribution of the Yukawa part of the potential, $W_m$, becomes irrelevant, and we can bound $Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}$ uniformly in $N$. With a uniform bound at hand, identifying the limit becomes quite simple: we will do so in the next Section, reducing ourselves to the case $\beta=0$.
Let us thus focus on $W_m$. Its free version $W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}$, that is the Green function of $m^2-\Delta$ on the whole plane, can be expressed in term of the modified Bessel function of the second kind $K_0$ as $$\label{yukawagreenplane}
W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(x,y)=W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(|x-y|)=\frac{1}{2\pi}K_0(m|x-y|), \quad x,y\in{\mathbb{R}}^2,$$ where $K_0$ is the positive solution of $$r^2 K_0''(r)+r K_0'(r)-r^2 K_0(r)=0, \quad r\geq 0,$$ with logarithmic divergence in $r=0$ and exponential decay for large $r$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{klogsingular}
K_0(r)&=-\log(r)+O(1), &r\rightarrow 0,\\
\label{kexpdecay}
K_0(r)&\leq \frac{\sqrt\pi e^{-r}}{\sqrt 2 r}, &\forall r>0\end{aligned}$$ (see [@abramowitz]). Unlike $G_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}(x)=-\frac{1}{2\pi}\log|x|$, $W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}\in L^1({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, hence by Poisson summation formula it holds, for any distinct $x,y\in{\mathbb{T}}^2$, $$\label{yukawaquotient}
W_m(x,y)=\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2} W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(|x+k-y|)-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(|x|)dx,$$ the integral on right-hand side taking care of the space average. Notice that, since $K_0$ is positive, so is the first summand in . This representation allows for a quite precise control of $W_m$, which we now use to control the rate at which the partition function relative to Yukawa potential goes to 1 as $m\rightarrow\infty$.
\[prop:zyukawatorus\] Let $N\geq 1$, $\beta/\gamma> -8\pi$ and $m>0$. There exists a constant $C_{\beta,\gamma}>0$ such that $$\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} e^{-\beta H_{W_m}}dx_1\cdots dx_n \leq {\left(1+C_{\beta,\gamma}\frac{(\log m)^2}{m^2}\right)}^N$$ (uniformly with respect to the choice of signs $\sigma_i$).
As a first step we produce an estimate on $W_m(x)=W_m(x,0)$ which separates the short-range, relevant part and a long range remainder. We do so by means of the representation (\[yukawaquotient\]), so first we have to take a closer look at $W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}$. We choose a small radius $\frac{1}{m}\ll r_m=\frac{2\log m}{m} \ll 1$, below which we control $W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}$ with logarithm: by (\[kexpdecay\]), and since $K_0$ is decreasing, $W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(x)\leq \frac{C}{m^2}$ when $|x|\geq r_m$ ($C$ will denote possibly different positive constants throughout this proof). Inside the ball $B(0,r_m)$, by comparison principle, $$\label{comparisonprinciple}
\forall x\in \bar B(0,r_m) \quad W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(x)\leq -\frac{1}{2\pi}\log{\left(\frac{|x|}{r_m}\right)}+\frac{C}{m^2}$$ since the right-hand side is the solution to the problem $$\begin{cases}
-\Delta u=\delta_0 &\text{in }B(0,r_m)\\
u=\frac{C}{m^2} &\text{in }\partial B(0,r_m)\\
\end{cases}.$$ Applying we can bound $$\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0} W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(|x+k|)\leq C \sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2_0} e^{-m|k|}\leq \frac{C}{m^2},$$ so going back to , we control separately the summand $k=0$ with and the others as above, to get $$\label{Wexpansiontorus}
0<\sum_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^2} W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(|x+k|)=\leq -\frac{1}{2\pi}\log{\left(\frac{d(x,0)}{r_m}\right)}\chi_{B(0,r_m)}(x)+\frac{C}{m^2}$$ (compare with the expansion ). Change of variables and show that also $$\label{Waverage}
0<\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(|x|)dx \leq \frac{C}{m^2}.$$
We now apply Hölder’s inequality to obtain the thesis in the regime $|\beta/\gamma|<8\pi$. Keeping in mind that $W_m$ is translation invariant, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} e^{-\beta H_{W_m}}dx_1\cdots dx_n
&=\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} \prod_{i=1}^{N} \prod_{j\neq i, j=1}^{N} \exp{\left(-\frac{\beta \sigma_i\sigma_j}{2\gamma N} W_m(x_i,x_j)\right)}
dx_1\cdots dx_n\\
&\leq \prod_{i=1}^{N} {\left( \prod_{j\neq i, j=1}^{N} \int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2}}
\exp{\left(-\frac{\beta \sigma_i\sigma_j}{2\gamma} W_m(x_j,0)\right)} dx_j\right)}^{1/N},
\end{aligned}$$ so we can restrict ourselves to the case of two particles. Since we are already neglecting possible cancellations due to signs (and allowing for negative inverse temperatures $\beta$), they are irrelevant: let us say they are opposite to fix ideas. Applying the above pointwise estimates then leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Wsingleintegral}
\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2}}\exp{\left(\frac{\beta}{2\gamma} W_m(x)\right)} dx
&\leq {\left(1+\int_{d(x,0)\leq r_m}
{\left(\frac{d(x,0)}{r_m}\right)}^{\frac{\beta}{4\pi\gamma}}dx\right)}e^{C/m^2}\\ \nonumber
&\leq {\left(1+C r_m^2\right)}e^{C/m^2}= 1+O{\left(\frac{(\log m)^2}{m^2}\right)}
\end{aligned}$$ as soon as $\frac{\beta}{\gamma}<8\pi$ for integrability, from which the thesis follows.
To cover all positive temperatures $\beta/\gamma\geq 0$, we resort instead to the technique employed in . Assume first that positive and negative vortices are in equal number, and relabel them by minimal distance dipoles as in (see , whose notation we employ in the following). Then we can group the summands of the Hamiltonian function as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{coupling}
H_{W_m}
&= \frac1{\gamma N}\sum_{i<j}(W_m(y_i-y_j)-W_m(z_i,y_j))\\ \nonumber
&\quad + \frac1{\gamma N}\sum_{i<j}(W_m(z_i-z_j)-W_m(y_i,z_j))
- \frac1{2\gamma N}\sum_i W_m(y_i,z_i).
\end{aligned}$$ The first and second term in the formula above are similar, so we only look at the first one. There are two possible cases to consider. For $i<j$,
- if $d(z_i,y_j)>\frac{r_m}{2}$, by and it holds $$\begin{aligned}
W(z_i,y_j) - W_m(y_i,y_j) \leq -\frac1{2\pi}\log{\left(\frac{d(z_i,y_j)}{r_m}\right)}+\frac{C}{m^2}\lesssim \frac1{m^2};
\end{aligned}$$
- if $d(z_i,y_j)\leq \frac{r_m}{2}$, then it must be $d(y_i,z_i)\leq \frac{r_m}{2}$, and thus $$d(y_i,y_j)\leq d(y_i,z_i)+d(z_i,y_j)\leq 2 d(z_i,y_j)\leq r_m,$$ so that we can bound, again by and , $$\begin{aligned}
W(z_i,y_j) - W_m(y_i,y_j)
&\leq -\frac1{2\pi}\log{\left(\frac{d(z_i,y_j)}{r_m}\right)}
+ \frac1{2\pi}\log{\left(\frac{d(y_i,y_j)}{r_m}\right)} +\frac{C}{m^2}\\
&\leq \frac1{2\pi}\log{\left(\frac{d(y_i,y_j)}{d(z_i,y_j)}\right)}+\frac{C}{m^2} \leq C.
\end{aligned}$$
We conclude that, in either case, $$W(z_i,y_j) - W_m(y_i,y_j)\leq C{\left(\chi_{d(y_i,z_i)\leq r_m/2}+\frac1{m^2}\right)}$$ Applying these estimates to the first and second sums in , we can control the Gibbsian exponential density by $$e^{-\beta H_{W_m}}
\leq
\prod_{i=1}^N e^{\frac{\beta}{2\gamma N} W_m(y_i,z_i)}
e^{C_{\beta,\gamma}{\left(\chi_{d(y_i,z_i)\leq r_m/2}+\frac1{m^2}\right)}},$$ so that, integrating over all variables, $$\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}}e^{-\beta H_{W_m}}dx^N
\leq{\left(\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^4} e^{\frac{\beta}{2\gamma N} W_m(y,z)}
e^{C{\left(\chi_{d(y,z)\leq r_m/2}+\frac1{m^2}\right)}}dydz\right)}^N.$$ We are now able to control the two exponentials separately by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and , . If $0<\delta<\frac{4\pi \gamma}{\beta}$, the same computation of leads to $$\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{4}} e^{\frac\beta{\gamma N}W_m(y,z)}\,dy\,dz
\leq {\left(\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{4}}e^{\frac{\delta \beta}{\gamma}W_m(y,z)} \,dy\,dz\right)}^{\frac1{\delta N}}
\leq {\left(1+C r_m^2\right)}^{\frac1{\delta N}}e^{\frac{C}{Nm^2}},$$ while the second factor to control is $$\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} e^{C{\left(\chi_{d(y,z)\leq r_m/2}+\frac1{m^2}\right)}}dydz \leq (1+C r_m^2) e^{\frac{C}{m^2}}.$$ The thesis now follows collecting all estimates. The case in which there are more positive than negative vortices, or vice-versa, is readily settled as follows. Let $P_N$ and $Q_N$ be the numbers of positive and negative vortices, say $Q_N < P_N$. Then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{posandneg}
H_{W_m} &= \frac1{\gamma N}\sum_{i=1}^{Q_N}\sum_{j=i+1}^{P_N}(W_m(y_i-y_j)-W_m(z_i,y_j))\\ \nonumber
&+ \frac1{\gamma N}\sum_{i=1}^{Q_N}\sum_{j=i+1}^{Q_N}(W_m(z_i-z_j)-W_m(y_i,z_j))
- \frac1{2 \gamma N}\sum_{i=1}^{Q_N} W_m(y_i,z_i)\\ \nonumber
&+ \frac1{\gamma N}\sum_{i=Q_N+1}^{P_N}\sum_{j=i+1}^{P_N}W_m(y_i-y_j).
\end{aligned}$$ Since it is always $W_m\gtrsim -\frac1{m^2}$, the new term appearing in –the fourth one in the right-hand side– contributes at most with a factor $\exp{\left(C_{\beta,\gamma}N/m^2\right)}$ to the exponential integral, so the proof carries on as before.
\[cor:zuniformbound\] If $N\geq 1$, $\beta/\gamma\geq 0$, $Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}$ is uniformly bounded in $N$ by a constant depending only on $\beta,\gamma$.
Let $a>0$, $m(N)=N^a$ and $p\geq 1$ an integer, then by and we have $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}&=\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} e^{-\beta H_{V_m}} e^{-\beta H_{W_m}}dx^N\\
&\leq {\left(\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} e^{-2\beta H_{V_m}}dx^N\right)}^{1/2} {\left(\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} e^{-2\beta H_{W_m}}dx^N\right)}^{1/2}\\
&\leq C_{\beta,\gamma,p} {\left(1+N^{\frac{a \beta}{4\pi\gamma}-\frac{p}{2}}a^{2p}\right)}
{\left(1+C_{\beta,\gamma}\frac{a^2}{N^{2a}}\right)}^N.
\end{aligned}$$ The partition function $Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}$ is then uniformly bounded in $N$ as soon as $$\frac{\beta}{4\pi\gamma}a<\frac{p}{2},\qquad 1-2a<0.$$ Since, for any given $\beta/\gamma>0$, we can choose $p\geq 1$ in large enough for the interval $\frac12<a<\frac{2\pi\gamma}{\beta} p$ not to be empty, the thesis follows.
The separation of long-range relevant interaction and singular short range ones in $G=V_m+W_m$ may in fact be obtained in a variety of ways: a notable mention is the decomposition $G=V_{\varepsilon}+W_{\varepsilon}$, with $$V_{\varepsilon}=e^{-{\varepsilon}\Delta}\ast G=\int_{\varepsilon}^\infty e^{-t\Delta}dt, \quad W_{\varepsilon}=G-V_{\varepsilon}=\int_0^{\varepsilon}e^{-t\Delta}dt$$ (in fact, $V_{\varepsilon}$ is the smoothed potential considered in [@bpp]). The singular part $W_{\varepsilon}$ admits the representation , with Bessel’s function $K_0$ replaced by the exponential integral function $E_1$. The latter behaves very similarly to $K_0$: it diverges logarithmically in the origin and decays exponentially for large arguments. Indeed, this decomposition is completely equivalent to the one we chose for our purposes.
Bounds on partition functions of point vortices -or the closely related 2-dimensional Coulomb gas ensembles- are a central part in many works on the topic. We refer for instance to the ones obtained in [@deutschlavaud; @gunsonpanta; @bodineau]. However, the uniform bound we obtain with our particular scaling of intensities does not seem to be obtainable from their estimates. A remarkable consequence of the results in [@serfaty17] is an asymptotic expansion in $N$ of 2-dimensional log-gas partition function, for fixed $\beta$ and charge intensities: even though their expansion does not provide straightforwardly the uniform bound we obtain in our scaling, a careful analysis of their arguments might provide an alternative proof.
Proof of Central Limit Theorem {#ssec:proofclt}
------------------------------
We are now able to conclude the proof of . The first step is the case $\beta=0$, which in fact does not rely on the above arguments, and is essentially due to [@flandoli].
The statement on partition functions is trivial in this case. Convergence in law of $\omega^N\sim\mu_{\gamma}^N$ to $\omega\sim \mu_{\gamma}$ on $\dot H^s({\mathbb{T}}^2)$, any $s<-1$, is ensured by a straightforward application of the Central Limit Theorem for sums of independent variables on Hilbert spaces. As for the convergence of the Hamiltonian: let $G_n$ converge to $G$ in $L^2({\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2})$, with $G_n$ vanishing on the diagonal, and split $$\begin{aligned}
\int G(x,y)& {:\mathrel{d\omega^N(x)d\omega^N(y)}:}-\int G(x,y) {:\mathrel{d\omega(x)d\omega(y)}:}\\
&=\int G(x,y) {:\mathrel{d\omega^N(x)d\omega^N(y)}:}-\int G_n(x,y) d\omega^N(x)d\omega^N(y)\\
&\quad +\int G_n(x,y) d\omega^N(x)d\omega^N(y)-\int G_n(x,y) d\omega(x)d\omega(y)\\
&\quad +\int G_n(x,y) d\omega(x)d\omega(y)-\int G(x,y) {:\mathrel{d\omega(x)d\omega(y)}:}.
\end{aligned}$$ The $L^2(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}})$-norms of the differences on the right-hand side vanish in the limit. Indeed, thanks to , the first one is controlled uniformly in $N$ by $${\mathbb{E}\left[{\left|\int G(x,y) {:\mathrel{d\omega^N(x)d\omega^N(y)}:}-\int G_n(x,y) d\omega^N(x)d\omega^N(y)\right|}^2\right]}
\lesssim_\gamma {\left\|G-G_n\right\|}_{\dot L^2({\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2})}^2,$$ and the very same estimate holds for the third summand by Gaussian Itō isometry, *cf.* (\[energyitotorus\]). The second moment of the middle term vanishes as $N\rightarrow\infty$ since we have already proved that $\omega^N$ converges in law on $H^s({\mathbb{T}}^2)$ for $s<-1$, so that $\omega^N\otimes \omega^N$ converges in law on $H^{2s}({\mathbb{T}}^{2\times 2})$ (uniform integrability descends again by the above estimate and Itō isometry).
Consider variables $\omega_\gamma^N\sim\mu_{\gamma}^N$ converging to $\omega_\gamma\sim\mu_{\gamma}$ as above. We have just seen that if $\beta=0$ the Hamiltonian $H(\omega_\gamma^N)$ converges to ${:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega_\gamma)$ in $L^2(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}})$. Since $x\mapsto e^{-\beta x}$ is a continuous function on ${\mathbb{R}}$, this implies that $e^{-\beta H(\omega_\gamma^N)}$ converges in probability to $e^{-\beta {:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega_\gamma)}$ for all $\beta\in{\mathbb{R}}$. If $e^{-\beta H(\omega_\gamma^N)}$ is uniformly integrable in $N$, then its expected value $Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}$ converges to $Z_{\beta,\gamma}={\mathbb{E}\left[e^{-\beta {:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega_\gamma)}\right]}$. By , $${\mathbb{E}\left[{\left(e^{-\beta H(\omega_\gamma^N)}\right)}^p\right]}=Z_{p\beta,\gamma,N}$$ is uniformly bounded in $N$ for all $p\beta/\gamma\geq 0$. As a consequence, $e^{-\beta H(\omega_\gamma^N)}$ is uniformly integrable if $\beta/\gamma\geq 0$, thus proving point (1).
Since $(e^{-\beta H(\omega_\gamma^N)},\omega_\gamma^N)$ converges in law to $(e^{-\beta{:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega_\gamma)},\omega_\gamma)$ on the Polish space ${\mathbb{R}}\times \dot H^s({\mathbb{T}}^2)$, any $s<-1$, we deduce the convergence on $\dot H^s({\mathbb{T}}^2)$ of the probability distributions $$d\mu_{\beta,\gamma}^N(\omega)=e^{-\beta H(\omega)}d\mu_\gamma^N(\omega)\rightarrow
e^{-\beta{:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega)}d\mu_{\gamma}(\omega)=d\mu_{\beta,\gamma}(\omega)$$ for all $\beta\geq 0$. We are only left to prove convergence of the Hamiltonian $H(\omega_{\beta,\gamma}^N)$ for $\omega_{\beta,\gamma}^N\sim\mu_{\beta,\gamma}^N$. Since its Laplace transform is given by $${\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\alpha H(\omega_{\beta,\gamma}^N) }\right]}
=\int e^{\alpha H(\omega)}\frac{e^{-\beta H(\omega)}}{Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}}d\mu_{\gamma}^N
=\frac{Z_{\beta-\alpha,\gamma,N}}{Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}},$$ convergence of partition functions and show that $${\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\alpha H(\omega_{\beta,\gamma}^N)}\right]}\xrightarrow{N\rightarrow\infty} {\mathbb{E}}_{\mu_{\beta,\gamma}}{\left[e^{\alpha {:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega)}\right]}$$ with $\omega_{\beta,\gamma}\sim\mu_{\beta,\gamma}$, for any $\alpha$ in a neighbourhood of $0$ ($\beta/\gamma$ as above), and we can conclude by Lévy continuity theorem (see [@kallenberg Theorem 4.3]).
The Case of the 2-dimensional Sphere {#sec:sphere}
====================================
Consider the 2-dimensional sphere ${\mathbb{S}}^2={\left\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^3:|x|=1\right\}}$ as an embedded surface in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, its tangent spaces as subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ and gradients of scalar functions as vectors of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. On ${\mathbb{S}}^2$ we consider the uniform measure $d\sigma$ such that $\int_{{\mathbb{S}}^2}d\sigma=1$. The expressions $x\cdot y,x\times y$ respectively denote in this section the scalar and vector products in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$.
Euler equations on ${\mathbb{S}}^2$ are given by, for $x\in{\mathbb{S}}^2$, $$\begin{cases}
\partial_t \omega(x,t)=x\cdot {\left(\nabla\psi(x,t)\times\nabla\omega(x,t)\right)},\\
-\Delta \psi(x,t)=\omega(x,t).
\end{cases}$$ Here $\Delta$ denotes the Laplace-Beltrami operator, and we have to supplement the Poisson equation for the *stream function* $\psi$ with the zero average condition (just as we did on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$). The Green function of $-\Delta$, $$-\Delta G(x,y)=\delta_y(x)-1$$ has the simple form $$G(x,y)=-\frac1{2\pi} \log |x-y|+c,$$ with $|\cdot|$ the Euclidean distance of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ between $x,y\in{\mathbb{S}}^2$ and $c$ a constant. Just like in the case of flat geometries, smooth solutions preserve energy and enstrophy (\[firstintegrals\]). The definition of point vortices dynamics is also completely analogous to the case on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$: the vorticity distribution $\omega=\sum_1^N \xi_i \delta_{x_i}$ evolves according to the Hamiltonian dynamics (*Helmholtz law*) $$\dot x_i=\frac1{2\pi}\sum_{i< j}^N\xi_j \frac{x_j\times x_i}{|x_i-x_j|^2},$$ with Hamiltonian function corresponding to the (renormalised) energy of the configuration, $$H(x_1,\dots x_N)=\sum_{i< j}^N \xi_i\xi_j G(x_i,x_j).$$ We refer to [@polvanilorenzodritschel] for a more complete discussion of this setting.
The similarity with the periodic case is such that almost the whole applies to ${\mathbb{S}}^2$: the very same statement of holds on ${\mathbb{S}}^2$, with all the involved objects defined as in that case. The proof proceeds analogously, splitting $G=V_m+W_m$ as in (\[potentialsplitting\]). The content of subsections \[ssec:gibbsensembles\] to \[ssec:sinegordon\] and \[ssec:proofclt\] only needs the replacement of Fourier basis $e_k$ (which we used in Gaussian computations) with spherical harmonics. In fact, the only argument in the proof of which needs to be adapted to the case on ${\mathbb{S}}^2$ is the control on Yukawa partition function of . A careful analysis of the proof of reveals that it is sufficient to prove the following bound on $W_m=(m^2-\Delta)^{-1}$.
The distance between $x,y\in{\mathbb{S}}^2$ on the surface is given by the angle $\theta\in[0,\pi]$ formed by the vectors $x,y\in{\mathbb{R}}^3$; therefore, by rotation invariance, $G(x,y)=G(\theta)$ and $W_m(x,y)=W_m(\theta)$.
\[prop:expansionsphere\] Let $r_m=c\frac{\log m}{m}$ with $c\geq 0$ large enough. It holds, as $m\rightarrow\infty$, uniformly in $\theta\in[0,\pi]$, $$W_m(\theta)= {\left(-\frac1{2\pi}\log\frac\theta{r_m}+ O(1)\right)}\chi_{\theta\leq r_m}+ O(m^{-2}).$$
On ${\mathbb{T}}^2$, we relied on an explicit representation of $W_m$. Here, we seize the opportunity to present a more robust argument, based on the well-known representation $$\label{sphereheatrep}
W_m(x,y) = \int_0^\infty e^{-m^2 t}p(t,x,y)dt.$$ in terms of the heat kernel $p(t,x,y)$. Indeed, the following arguments work more generally on compact Riemannian surfaces without boundary. We nevertheless prefer to keep using the terminology of ${\mathbb{S}}^2$, for the sake of simplicity. We will make use of the following properties of the heat kernel $p(t,x,y)=p(t,\theta)$, for which we refer to [@molcanov; @nowac].
It holds, for any $\theta\in[0,2\pi]$, $$\begin{aligned}
p(t,\theta)&\leq C,&t\geq1,\label{e:stima1}\\
p(t,\theta)&\leq \frac C{t\sqrt{\pi-\theta+t}}e^{-\frac{\theta^2}{4t}},&t\leq 1,\label{e:stima2}
\end{aligned}$$ with $C>0$ independent from $t$. Moreover, for small $t$, uniformly on $\theta$ on compact sets of $[0,\pi)$, $$\label{e:expansion}
p(t,\theta)= q_t(\theta)H(\theta) + O(1), \quad q_t(\theta)= \frac1{4\pi t}e^{-\frac{\theta^2}{4t}},\quad
H(\theta)= \frac\theta{\sin\theta}.$$
It is not difficult to see, using the estimates (\[e:stima1\]) and (\[e:stima2\]), that $$\int_{r_m^2}^\infty e^{-m^2 t}p(t,\theta)dt+ \chi_{\{\theta\geq r_m\}}\int_0^{r_m^2}e^{-m^2 t}p(t,\theta)dt =O(m^{-2}),$$ so we focus on the main term, $\chi_{\theta\leq r_m}\int_0^{r_m^2}e^{-m^2 t}p(t,\theta)dt$. Thanks to , we have $$\int_0^{r_m^2}e^{-m^2 t}p(t,\theta)dt = H(\theta)\int_0^{r_m^2}e^{-m^2 t}q_t(\theta)dt+ O(1).$$ Integrating by parts, straightforward computations show that $$\int_0^{r_m^2}e^{-m^2 t}q_t(\theta)dt=\frac1{4\pi} \int_0^1 \exp{\left(-c^2 \log^2m-\frac{\theta^2}{r_m^2}\right)}\frac{ds}{s}
= -\frac1{2\pi}\log \frac{\theta}{r_m}+O(1),$$ and since $H(0)=1$ and $H$ is differentiable in $0$, the thesis follows.
The Case of a Bounded Domain {#sec:cltdomain}
============================
In this Section, $D\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a bounded domain with smooth boundary, $G(x,y)$ is the Green function of $-\Delta$ on $D$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions. The naught subscript refers to boundary conditions: $H^\alpha_0(D)$, $\alpha>0$, are the (fractional) $L^2(D)$-based Sobolev spaces defined as the closure of compactly supported functions $C^\infty_c(D)$ with respect to the norm $${\left\|u\right\|}_{H^\alpha_0(D)}={\left\|(1-\Delta)^{\alpha/2}u\right\|}_{L^2(D)},$$ whereas $H^{-\alpha}(D)=H^\alpha_0(D)'$. The Green function $G$ can be represented as the sum of its free version $G_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}(x,y)=-\frac{1}{2\pi}\log|x-y|$ and the harmonic extension in $D$ of the values of $G_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}$ on $\partial D$, $$\label{greendomain}
G(x,y)=-\frac{1}{2\pi}\log|x-y|+g(x,y), \quad
\begin{cases}
\Delta g(x,y)=0 & x\in D\\
g(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\log|x-y| &x\in \partial D
\end{cases}$$ for all $y\in D$. Both $G$ and $g$ are symmetric, and maximum principle implies that $$\label{harmoniccontbound}
\frac{1}{2\pi}\log(d(x)\vee d(y))\leq g(x,y)\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \log\operatorname{diam}(D),$$ with $d(x)$ the distance of $x\in D$ from the boundary $\partial D$.
Gibbs Ensembles and Gaussian Measures
-------------------------------------
The motion of a system of $N$ vortices with intensities $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_N\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and positions $x_1,\dots,x_N\in D$ is governed by the Hamiltonian function $$H(x_1,\dots,x_n)=\sum_{i< j}^N \xi_i\xi_j G(x_i,x_j)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\xi_i^2 g(x_i,x_i).$$ The additional (with respect to the cases with no boundary) self-interaction terms involving $g$ are due to the presence of an impermeable boundary: it is thanks to these terms that the system satisfies (in weak sense) Euler’s equations. We refer again to [@marchioropulvirenti Section 4.1] for further details. We will consider intensities $\xi_i=\frac{\sigma_i}{\sqrt{\gamma N}}$ with signs $\sigma_i=\pm1$ as in the previous section. We denote by $dx$ the normalized Lebesgue measure on $D$, and for $\gamma>0$, $\beta\geq 0$ we define $$\label{boundsg}
\nu_{\beta,\gamma,N}(dx_1,\dots,dx_n)= \frac{1}{Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}} \exp{\left(-\beta H(x_1,\dots,x_n)\right)}dx_1,\dots,dx_n.$$
\[prop:zgreendomain\] For any choice of $\gamma>0$, $\beta\in{\mathbb{R}}$, and signs $\sigma_i=\pm 1$, if $$-8\pi\frac{N}{\max(n_+,n_-)}
< \frac\beta\gamma
< 4\pi\frac{N}{1+\min(n_+,n_-)},$$ then $Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}<\infty$, and the measure $\nu_{\beta,\gamma,N}$ is thus well-defined, where $n_+,n_-$ are, respectively, the number of vortices with positive and negative intensity.
Let us denote by $H_i$ the interaction part and by $H_s$ the self-interaction part of the Hamiltonian $H$, $$H_i
=\sum_{i< j}^N\xi_i\xi_j G(x_i,x_j), \quad H_s=\frac12\sum_{i=1}^N\xi_i^2g(x_i,x_i).$$
If $\beta<0$, $-\beta H_s$ is bounded from above by . Since $G\geq0$, we can neglect in $H_i$ the contribution of vortices with different sign and $$\beta H_i
\leq -\frac{\beta}{2\gamma N}\sum_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j>0}G(x_i,x_j)
-\frac{\beta}{2\gamma N}\sum_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j<0}G(x_i,x_j)
\vcentcolon= -\beta H_i^+ - \beta H_i^-$$ The terms $H_i^+$, $H_i^-$ are functions on disjoint sets of variables, so the integral of their exponential factorizes in the product of two integrals. We analyse the first integral, the estimate of the second will follow likewise. Let $I_+=\{i:\sigma_i>0\}$. Again by , the self-interaction terms is bounded, therefore $$\int {D^{i_+}} e^{-\beta H_i^+}
\lesssim \int_{D^{i_+}}\prod_{i\in I_+}\prod_{j\in I_+,j\neq i}|x_i-x_j|^{\frac\beta{4\pi\gamma N}}
\leq \prod_{i\in I_+}\Bigl(\int_D \,dx_i\prod_{j\in I_+,j\neq i}
\int_D |x_i-x_j|^{\frac\beta{4\pi\gamma N}n_+}\,dx_j\Bigr)^{\frac1{n_+}}$$ The integrals above are finite if $\frac\beta{4\pi\gamma N}n_+>-2$. Likewise, for $H_i^-$ we obtain $\frac\beta{4\pi\gamma N}n_->-2$.
We turn to the case $\beta>0$. By the Hölder inequality with conjugate exponents $p$ and $q$, we can bound separately the contributions of $H_i$ and $H_s$
Thanks to , it holds $$\int_{D^N}e^{-\beta qH_s(x_1,\dots,x_N)}dx_1\dots dx_N \leq {\left(\int_D d(x)^{-\frac{\beta q}{4\pi\gamma N}}dx\right)}^N <\infty$$ as soon as $\frac{\beta}{4\pi\gamma}<\frac Nq$. As for the interaction term, since $G$ is positive and $g$ is uniformly bounded from above, $$-p\beta H_i
\leq -\frac{\beta p}{2\pi\gamma N}\sum_{\sigma_i\cdot\sigma_j<0}^N\log|x_i-x_j| + C N.$$ Assume without loss of generality that $n_-\leq n_+$, then by the Hölder inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{D^N}e^{-\beta H_i}
&\lesssim \int_{D^{n_-}}\prod_{i\in I_+}\Bigl(
\int_D \prod_{j\in I_-}|x_i-x_j|^{-\frac{p\beta}{2\pi\gamma N}}
\,dx_i\Bigr)\\
&= \int_{D^{n_-}}\Bigl(\int_D \prod_{j\in I_-}|y-x_j|^{-\frac{p\beta}{2\pi\gamma N}}
\,dy\Bigr)^{n_+}\\
&\leq \int_{D^{n_-}}\prod_{j\in I_-}\Bigl(\int_D
|y-x_j|^{-\frac{p\beta}{2\pi\gamma N}n_-}\,dy\Bigr)^{\frac{n_+}{n_-}}.
\end{aligned}$$ The right-hand side is finite if $\frac{p\beta}{2\pi\gamma}n_-<2$. Combining the two conditions on $p,q$ we get the announced restriction on $\beta/\gamma$.
The reader will notice that, unlike in , when $N\rightarrow\infty$ we still have a restriction on the values of $\beta/\gamma$. See for more details.
We define the probability $\mu_{\beta,\gamma}^N$ on finite signed measures ${\mathcal{M}}(D)$ as the law of $$\omega_{\beta,\gamma}^N=\sum_{i=1}^N \xi_i \delta_{x_i},$$ with $x_1,\dots x_n$ sampled under $\nu_{\beta,\gamma,N}$. In the case of a bounded domain we will assume the *neutrality condition* $$\label{neutral}
\sum_{i=1}^N \sigma_i
= 0,$$ so that $\omega_{\beta,\gamma}^N$ has zero average.
The limiting Gaussian random field should also have zero space average. Since the constant function $1$ does not belong to the spaces in which we set the problem (it does not satisfy the Dirichlet b.c.), the definition is somewhat more involved than it was on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$. Define the bounded linear operator $$M:L^2(D)\rightarrow L^2(D), \quad Mf(x)=f(x)-\int_{D} f(y)dy.$$ For $\gamma>0$ and $\beta\geq 0$, let $\omega_{\beta,\gamma}$ be the centred Gaussian random field on $D$ with covariance $$\forall f,g\in L^2(D), \quad
{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left\langle\omega_{\beta,\gamma},f\right\rangle}{\left\langle\omega_{\beta,\gamma},g\right\rangle}\right]}={\left\langlef,Q_{\beta,\gamma}g\right\rangle},
\quad Q_{\beta,\gamma}=M^*(\gamma-\beta\Delta)^{-1}M.$$ Equivalently, $\omega_{\beta,\gamma}$ is a centred Gaussian stochastic process indexed by $L^2(D)$ with the specified covariance. Analogously to the torus case, $\omega_{\beta,\gamma}$ can be identified with a random distribution taking values in $H^s(D)$ for all $s<-1$.
Renormalised energy of the vorticity distribution $\mu_{\beta,\gamma}$ is defined just as in (\[normenergy\]), and the equivalent definition of $\mu_{\beta,\gamma}$ provided by still applies in this context. In fact, all Gaussian computations in Fourier series of the last Section still work on domains $D\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ if one considers an orthonormal basis of $L^2(D)$ diagonalising the Laplace operator: for $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $$-\Delta e_n=\lambda_n e_n, \quad \lambda_n\sim n,$$ the latter being the well known Weyl’s law. The main difference is that explicit expression in Fourier series on $D$ are complicated by the presence of the zero-averaging operator $M$ in the covariance. We are now able to state the main result of the Section, a perfect analogue of the Central Limit Theorem we proved above on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$.
\[thm:cltdomain\] Let $\beta/\gamma\in [0,8\pi)$, assume the neutrality condition , and set $\bar g=\int_{D} g(y,y)dy$. It holds:
1. $\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}=e^{\beta \bar g}Z_{\beta,\gamma}$;
2. the sequence of ${\mathcal{M}}$-valued random variables $\omega^N\sim\mu_{\beta,\gamma}^N$ converges in law on $H^s(D)$, any $s<-1$, to a random distribution $\omega\sim \mu_{\beta,\gamma}$, as $N\rightarrow\infty$;
3. the sequence of real random variables $H(\omega^N)-\bar g$ converges in law to ${:\mathrel{E}:}(\omega)$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$, with $\omega^N,\omega$ as in point (2).
Minor modifications of our arguments allow to replace the neutrality condition on intensities with the hypothesis $\sum_{i=1}^N \xi_i=o((\log N)^{-1/2})$. Moreover, it is possible to consider random signs $\sigma_i$ taking values $\pm1$ with probability $1/2$, or more generally i.i.d. bounded signs with zero expected value. Such generalisations are in fact inessential from the physical point of view, namely we are still dealing with fluctuations around a null profile (see ): we omit details.
We conclude this paragraph proving the case $\beta=0$ (and $\gamma=1$, for notational simplicity): if we can then provide a uniform bound for partition functions $Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}$, the content of completely carries on to the domain case. In the remainder of this Section we show out how to adapt the strategy we used in the torus case to control partition functions.
The expression (\[doubleintegralsmooth\]) of double stochastic integrals with respect to white noise still holds, and so does in the following form:
Let $\omega^N\sim \mu_{0,\gamma}^N$. On continuous functions $h\in C(D^2)$ vanishing on the diagonal, *i.e.* $h(x,x)=0$ for all $x$, define the map $$h\mapsto \int_{D^2}h(x,y)d\omega^N(x)d\omega^N(y)=\sum_{i\neq j}\xi_i\xi_j h(x_i,x_j).$$ Since it holds $${\mathbb{E}\left[{\left(\sum_{i\neq j}\xi_i\xi_j h(x_i,x_j)\right)}^2\right]}\leq C_\gamma {\left\|h\right\|}^2_{L^2(D^2)}$$ with $C_\gamma$ a constant independent of $N$, the map takes values in $L^2(\mu_{0,1}^N)$, and it extends by density to a bounded linear map from $\dot L^2(D^2)$ to $L^2(\mu_{0,1}^N)$ which we will denote by $$f\mapsto \int_{D^2}f(x,y){:\mathrel{d\omega^N(x)d\omega^N(y)}:}.$$
The proof only differs from the one on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$ in that is uses neutrality of total intensity in place of the zero average condition. In considering the relation between the Hamiltonian and renormalised energy, another relevant difference with respect to the torus case appears: defining the renormalised energy of point vortices as in , $$\begin{aligned}
2{:\mathrel{E}:}&=\int_{D^2} G(x,y){:\mathrel{d\omega^N\otimes d\omega^N}:}=\sum_{i\neq j}\xi_i\xi_j G(x_i,x_j)\\
&=2H-\sum_{i=1}^N \xi_i^2 g(x_i,x_i).\end{aligned}$$ This is why we need corrections depending on $\bar g=\int_{D}g(y,y)dy$ in points (1) and (3) of : the Hamiltonian $H$ alone is not a centred variable, and its mean value is $$\sum_{i=1}^N \xi_i^2 g(x_i,x_i)=\frac1{N} \sum_{i=1}^N g(x_i,x_i),$$ which converges by the law of large numbers to $\bar g$. That being said, proceeding as in straightforwardly concludes the proof of the case $\beta=0$.
Potential Splitting on Bounded Domains
--------------------------------------
We want to decompose $G=V_m+W_m$ as in , with $V_m$ a regular (*long range*) potential converging to $G$ as $m\rightarrow\infty$, and $W_m$ a singular but vanishing remainder. In order for our strategy to work we need to rewrite the part of $H$ corresponding to $V_m$ as sum of covariances (in particular, positive terms) of a regular Gaussian field with zero space average. At the same time, we will need a quite precise description of $W_m$. We thus choose $W_m$ as the Green function of $m^2-\Delta$ on $D$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions, that is $$\label{yukawapotentialdomain}
W_m(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi}K_0(m|x-y|)+w_m(x,y), \quad
\begin{cases}
(m^2-\Delta) w_m(x,y)=0 & x\in D\\
w_m(x,y)=-\frac{1}{2\pi}K_0(m|x-y|) &x\in \partial D
\end{cases}$$ for all $y\in D$, and where we notice that $\frac{1}{2\pi}K_0(m|x-y|)=W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(x,y)$ is the Green function of $m^2-\Delta$ on the whole plane. We then set $$V_m=G-W_m, \quad v_m=g-w_m.$$ Unfortunately, $V_m$ is not zero averaged, so we need to further define the potential $$\label{definitionvzero}
V_m^0(x,y)=V_m(x,y)-\int_D V_m(x,y)dy-\int_D V_m(x,y)dx+\int_{D^2} V_m(x,y)dxdy,$$ which we will use as covariance kernel for the Gaussian field $F_m$: indeed, notice that, as an integral kernel, $$V_m^0=M^*m^2(-\Delta(m^2-\Delta))^{-1}M,$$ thus $V_m^0$ is positive definite and zero averaged.
Looking now at the corresponding decomposition of the Hamiltonian, $$\begin{aligned}
H&=\sum_{i<j}^N \xi_i\xi_j W_m(x_i,x_j)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\xi_i^2 w_m(x_i,x_i)
+\sum_{i<j}^N \xi_i\xi_j V_m(x_i,x_j)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\xi_i^2 v_m(x_i,x_i)\\
&:=H_{W_m}+H_{V_m},\end{aligned}$$ a simple computation exploiting the neutrality condition yields $$\sum_{i,j}^N \xi_i\xi_j V_m(x_i,x_j)=\sum_{i,j}^N \xi_i\xi_j V_m^0(x_i,x_j)-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\xi_i^2 V_m(x_i,x_i),$$ so that, since $V_m+v_m=V_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}$ (the Green function of $-m^{-2}\Delta(m^2-\Delta)$), we can rewrite $$H_{V_m}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j}^N \xi_i\xi_j V_m^0(x_i,x_j)-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\xi_i^2 V_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(x_i,x_i).$$ One can easily show that $V_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}$ is a regular, symmetric, translation invariant function; moreover, it has a global maximum in $V_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(0,0)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\log m+o(\log m)$, as it is shown by taking the difference of $$G_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}(x,y)=-\frac{1}{2\pi}\log |x-y|, \quad W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(x,y)=\frac{1}{2\pi}K_0(m|x-y|)\sim -\frac{1}{2\pi}\log(m|x-y|),$$ for close $x,y\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$. This, together with (\[definitionvzero\]), implies that for all $x\in D$ we also have $V_m^0(x,x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\log m+o(\log m)$ .
\[lem:Fboundsdomain\] Let $F_m$ be the centred Gaussian field on $D$ with covariance kernel $V_m^0$. There exists a version of $F_m(x)$ which is $\alpha$-Hölder for all $\alpha<1/2$, and moreover for any $\alpha>0$, $p\geq 1$ and $m\rightarrow \infty$, it holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Fmomentsdomain}
{\mathbb{E}\left[{\left\|F_m\right\|}_p^p\right]}&\simeq_p (\log m)^{p/2}\\
\label{Fexpmomentsdomain}
{\mathbb{E}\left[\exp{\left(-\alpha{\left\|F_m\right\|}_2^2\right)}\right]}&\lesssim m^{-\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Hölder property descends from Kolmogorov continuity theorem since $V_m$ is continuously differentiable (and so is $V_m^0$). The estimate of $p$-moments is the same as in the periodic case, so let us turn to exponential moments. Identifying kernels and their associated integral operators, it holds $${\mathbb{E}\left[\exp{\left(-\alpha {\left\|F_m\right\|}_2^2\right)}\right]}
=\exp {\left\{-\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{Tr}{\left(\log{\left(1+2\alpha V_m^0\right)}\right)}\right\}}.$$ Hence, we only need to compute the asymptotic behaviour in $m$ of $\operatorname{Tr}V_m^0$, since then we can apply the inequalities $x-\frac{x^2}{2}<\log(1+x)<x$ and conclude as in . We resort again to Fourier series: by definition of the kernel $V_m^0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Tr}V_m^0 &= \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\int_{D^2} V_m^0(x,y)e_n(x)e_n(y)dxdy\\
&=\operatorname{Tr}V_m -2 \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \bar e_n \int_{D^2} V_m(x,y)e_n(x)dxdy+\int_{D^2} V_m(x,y)dxdy\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \bar e_n^2\\
&=\operatorname{Tr}V_m-\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{m^2 \bar e_n^2}{\lambda_n(m^2+\lambda_n)}= \operatorname{Tr}V_m+ O(1), \quad m\rightarrow\infty,
\end{aligned}$$ where we denoted $\bar e_n$ the space averages of $e_n(x)$ (that is, the Fourier coefficients of the constant function 1). The last passage is a consequence of $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{m^2 \bar e_n^2}{\lambda_n(m^2+\lambda_n)}
&\leq {\left(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{m^4}{\lambda_n^2(m^2+\lambda_n)^2}\right)}^{1/2}
\lesssim {\left(\int_1^\infty \frac{m^4}{x^2(m^2+x)^2}dx\right)}^{1/2}\\
&={\left(\frac{m^2+2}{m^2+1}-\frac{2 \log(m^2+1)}{m^2}\right)}^{1/2}=O(1), \quad m\rightarrow\infty,
\end{aligned}$$ where we used ${\left(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\bar e_n^4\right)}^{1/2}\leq \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\bar e_n^2={\left\|1\right\|}^2_{L^2(D)}=1$ and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. We conclude by noting that $$\operatorname{Tr}V_m=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{m^2}{\lambda_n(m^2+\lambda_n)}=V_m(0,0).\qedhere$$
We can now apply the transformation $$e^{-\beta H_{V_m}}=e^{\frac{\beta}{2\gamma}V_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(0,0)} {\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\operatorname{i}\sqrt{\beta} \sum_{i=1}^N \xi_i F_m(x_i)}\right]}$$ and proceed as in the previous Section. The proof of in the bounded domain setting is just the same, thanks to . We are only left to prove the analogue of , from which a uniform bound on partition functions is derived as in .
\[prop:zyukawadomain\] Let $N\geq 1$, $|\beta/\gamma|\leq 8\pi$ and $m>0$. There exists a constant $C_{\beta,\gamma}>0$ such that $$\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^{2N}} e^{-\beta H_{W_m}}dx_1\cdots dx_n \leq {\left(1+C_{\beta,\gamma}\frac{(\log m)^2}{m^2}\right)}^N.$$
As in the first part of the proof of , we reduce by means of Hölder inequality to bound the integral $$I=\int_{D^2} e^{\frac{\beta}{2\gamma}W_m(x,d)}dxdy.$$ We thus proceed to bound pointwise the interaction potential $W_m(x,y)=W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(x,y)+w_m(x,y)$. Let us first fix $x$, and consider the small radius $r_m=\frac{2\log m}{m}$, as we did in . For $m$ large enough, $B(x,r_m)\subseteq D$, and we have showed in that for all $x,y\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, $$W_{m,{\mathbb{R}}^2}(x)\leq -\frac{1}{2\pi}\log{\left(\frac{|x-y|}{r_m}\right)}\chi_{B(x,r_m)}(y)+ \frac{C}{m^2}.$$ We are thus left to bound $w_m(x,y)$: by definition (\[yukawapotentialdomain\]) and the maximum principle, it holds, for all $x$ uniformly in $y$, $$w_m(x,y)\leq \frac{1}{2\pi}K_0(m d(x)) \leq -\frac{1}{2\pi}\log{\left(\frac{d(x)}{r_m}\right)}\chi_{d(x)<r_m}+ \frac{C}{m^2}.$$ Going back to $I$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
I&\leq e^{C/m^2}\int_{B(x,r_m)} {\left(1+{\left(\frac{|x-y|}{r_m}\right)}^{-\frac{\beta}{4\pi\gamma}}\right)}dy \cdot
\int_D {\left(1+{\left(\frac{d(x)}{r_m}\right)}^{-\frac{\beta}{4\pi\gamma}}\right)}dx\\
&\leq e^{C/m^2} {\left(1+C r_m^2\right)}^2,
\end{aligned}$$ which concludes just as in .
\[rmk:restriction\] The technical reason behind the parameter restriction in and above could be avoided if a local decomposition of the Yukawa potential as in is available for a general domain $D$ with smooth enough boundary. Indeed, in that case, one could deduce that $Z_{\beta,\gamma,N}<\infty$, and thus that the meaure $\nu_{\beta,\gamma,N}$ is well defined for all values of $\beta>0$, $\gamma>0$. Likewise, and in turns would hold woithout restrictions.
A way to prove a local decomposition for the Yukawa potential is to use the same strategy of , namely the general representation , that holds beyond the geometry of the sphere. Through the point of view of the heat kernel, the role of the geometry of the domain and of its boundary becomes apparent in terms of the divergence in time of the heat kernel, whose behaviour depends on the number of geodetics and their intersection with the boundary. We refer to the fundamental [@molcanov] for further details. We notice in particular that if the intrinsic geometry of the domain is geodesically convex, that in the flat metric means that the domain is convex, the same estimates, in particular [@molcanov Theorem 2.1], of the case without boundary such as the sphere or the torus, hold. This justify the following corollary, that fully generalizes the central limit theorem of [@bodineau] from the sphere to general convex domains.
Assume the neutrality condition . If $D$ is a convex domain, then the conclusions of hold for all $\beta>0$ and $\gamma>0$.
Concluding Remarks: a Comparison with Mean Field Theory {#sec:meanfield}
=======================================================
In this Section we reinterpret our results in sight of the mean field limit studied by [@clmp92; @clmp95; @Kie1993] (see also [@lionsbook]). Those works cover the case of vortices with identical intensities, while [@bodineau; @neri] consider vortices with (random) intensities of different signs. Vortices with random intensities on $\mathbb{S}^2$ have been analyzed in [@KieWan2012]. We also mention results on vorticity filaments in dimension 3, [@michele17; @michele19].
The scaling of intensities $|\xi|\sim N^{-1}$, is dictated by energy considerations, in order for the dominant (infinite) self-interaction term to vanish. It is *not* the scaling we assumed in the previous Sections, as it corresponds to the law of large number scaling. The scaling of inverse temperature $\beta\sim N$ is chosen so that the limit is non-trivial, see [@marchioropulvirenti]. The resulting Hamiltonian on a bounded domain $D\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$, with parameters of order one up to rescaling, is $$\frac1{N}\sum_{i< j}\sigma_i\sigma_j G(x_i,x_j)
+ \frac1{2N}\sum_{i=1}^N\sigma_i^2 g(x_i,x_i),$$ with $\sigma_i$ uniformly bounded. The corresponding Gibbs measure coincides with our $\nu_{\beta}^N=\nu_{\beta,1}^N$.
In the case of a bounded domain, for vortices with the same intensity, [@clmp92] proved that the single vortex distribution, that is the one dimensional marginal of $\nu_{\beta}^N$, converges to a superposition of solutions to the Mean Field Equation, $$\label{mfe}
\omega= \frac{e^{-\beta\psi}}{\int_D e^{-\beta\psi}dx}, \quad -\Delta\psi = \omega,$$ with the Poisson equation for the stream function $\psi$ being complemented with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Solutions to (\[mfe\]) are particular steady solutions of the Euler equations that minimize the energy-entropy functional $\beta E+S$ (defined in (\[firstintegrals\])). A unique minimum exists when $\beta>0$ (and for $\beta\leq 0$ close enough to $0$), so that $\nu_{\beta}^N$ converges, in the sense of finite dimensional distributions, to an infinite product measure (*propagation of chaos*). Connections of the mean field equation with the microcanonical ensemble and equivalence with the canonical ensemble are considered in [@clmp95].
The case of intensities with different signs is studied in [@bodineau] through a large deviations approach. Under the assumption that the empirical measure of intensities converges to a probability distribution $\mu$, the joint empirical measure of intensities and positions satisfies a large deviation principle with speed $N^{-1}$, and the extended energy-entropy functional as rate function: $$\label{freeenergy}
H(\nu)+ \frac{\beta}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2\times D^2} \sigma\sigma' G(x,x')\nu(d\sigma,dx)\nu(d\sigma',dx'),$$ where $H$ is the relative entropy of $\nu$ with respect to the product of $\mu$ and the normalized Lebesgue measure on $D$. The mean field equation satisfied by the density (corresponding to the Euler-Lagrange equation for the minimisation problem of the rate function) is $$\rho(\sigma,x) = \frac{1}{Z}e^{-\beta\sigma\psi},$$ with $Z$ a normalising constant and $\psi$ is the averaged stream function, $$\label{stream}
\psi(x)= \int \sigma G(x,y)\rho(\sigma,y)\mu(d\sigma)dy.$$ Similar statement also hold in the periodic case.
Looking back to our setting, in both the case of zero average vortices on ${\mathbb{T}}^2,{\mathbb{S}}^2$, and the one of vortices in a bounded domain $D$ with neutral global intensity, for $\beta\geq 0$, the free energy (\[freeenergy\]) is non-negative and attains the value zero on the $N$-fold product uniform measure. Moreover, the stream function (\[stream\]) is null. The large deviations principle of [@bodineau] implies a law of large numbers, while our and provide the convergence of fluctuations with respect to the null average. We mention again the central limit theorem derived in [@bodineau], which is however restricted to a disk domain and to a small class of test function.
[10]{}
Milton Abramowitz and Irene A. Stegun. , volume 55 of [*National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series*]{}. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1964.
S. Albeverio, M. Ribeiro de Faria, and R. H[ö]{}egh-Krohn. Stationary measures for the periodic [E]{}uler flow in two dimensions. , 20(6):585–595, 1979.
Sergio Albeverio and Ana Bela Cruzeiro. Global flows with invariant ([G]{}ibbs) measures for [E]{}uler and [N]{}avier-[S]{}tokes two-dimensional fluids. , 129(3):431–444, 1990.
Thierry Aubin. . Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.
G. Benfatto, P. Picco, and M. Pulvirenti. On the invariant measures for the two-dimensional [E]{}uler flow. , 46(3-4):729–742, 1987.
Hakima Bessaih, Michele Coghi, and Franco Flandoli. Mean field limit of interacting filaments and vector valued non-linear [PDE]{}s. , 166(5):1276–1309, 2017.
Hakima Bessaih, Michele Coghi, and Franco Flandoli. Mean field limit of interacting filaments for 3[D]{} [E]{}uler equations. , 174(3):562–578, 2019.
Thierry Bodineau and Alice Guionnet. About the stationary states of vortex systems. , 35(2):205–237, 1999.
E. Caglioti, P.-L. Lions, C. Marchioro, and M. Pulvirenti. A special class of stationary flows for two-dimensional [E]{}uler equations: a statistical mechanics description. , 143(3):501–525, 1992.
E. Caglioti, P.-L. Lions, C. Marchioro, and M. Pulvirenti. A special class of stationary flows for two-dimensional [E]{}uler equations: a statistical mechanics description. [II]{}. , 174(2):229–260, 1995.
Giuseppe Da Prato and Jerzy Zabczyk. , volume 152 of [ *Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 2014.
C. Deutsch and M. Lavaud. Equilibrium properties of a two-dimensional [C]{}oulomb gas. , 9:2598–2616, Jun 1974.
Franco Flandoli. Weak vorticity formulation of 2[D]{} [E]{}uler equations with white noise initial condition. , 43(7):1102–1149, 2018.
Franco [Flandoli]{} and Dejun [Luo]{}. . 175(3–4): 783–832, 2019.
Franco [Flandoli]{} and Dejun [Luo]{}. . , page arXiv:1902.09338, Feb 2019.
Francesco [Grotto]{}. . , page arXiv:1901.06744, January 2019.
J. Gunson and L. S. Panta. Two-dimensional neutral [C]{}oulomb gas. , 52(3):295–304, 1977.
Svante Janson. , volume 129 of [*Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
Olav Kallenberg. . Probability and its Applications (New York). Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 2002.
Michael K.-H. Kiessling. Statistical mechanics of classical particles with logarithmic interactions. , 46(1):27–56, 1993.
Michael K.-H. Kiessling and Yu Wang. Onsager’s ensemble for point vortices with random circulations on the sphere. , 148(5):896–932, 2012.
Robert H. Kraichnan. Remarks on turbulence theory. , 16:305–331, 1975.
Thomas Leblé and Sylvia Serfaty. Fluctuations of two dimensional [C]{}oulomb gases. , 28(2):443–508, 2018.
Thomas Leblé, Sylvia Serfaty, and Ofer Zeitouni. Large deviations for the two-dimensional two-component plasma. , 350(1):301–360, 2017.
Pierre-Louis Lions. . Cattedra Galileiana. \[Galileo Chair\]. Scuola Normale Superiore, Classe di Scienze, Pisa, 1998.
Carlo Marchioro and Mario Pulvirenti. , volume 96 of [*Applied Mathematical Sciences*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994.
S. A. Molčanov. Diffusion processes, and [R]{}iemannian geometry. , 30(1(181)):3–59, 1975. English translation: Russian Math. Surveys **30** (1975), no. 1, 1–63.
Cassio Neri. Statistical mechanics of the [$N$]{}-point vortex system with random intensities on a bounded domain. , 21(3):381–399, 2004.
Adam Nowak, Peter Sj[ö]{}gren, and Tomasz Z. Szarek. Sharp estimates of the spherical heat kernel. , 2018.
L. Onsager. Statistical hydrodynamics. , 6(Supplemento, 2 (Convegno Internazionale di Meccanica Statistica)):279–287, 1949.
Lorenzo M. Polvani and David G. Dritschel. Wave and vortex dynamics on the surface of a sphere. , 255:35–64, 1993.
Stu Samuel. Grand partition function in field theory with applications to sine-[G]{}ordon field theory. , 18:1916–1932, Sep 1978.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Recent results from NLO QCD calculations for inclusive jet cross sections in $\gamma^*\gamma$-scattering at $e^+e^-$ colliders, especially for LEP, are reported. The virtuality $Q^2$ of the virtual photon is non-zero and can be unlimited large. The virtuality of the second photon is zero and the spectrum is calculated with the Weizsäcker-Williams approximation. Four components of the cross sections have to be distinguished, involving direct and resolved real and virtual photon contributions. Since $Q^2$ is non-zero, the virtual photon structure function is needed to calculate the contributions involving a resolved virtual photon.'
address: |
II. Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Hamburg, Luruper Chaussee 149,\
D-22761 Hamburg, Germany (e-mail: [email protected])
author:
- 'B. Pötter[^1]'
title: 'Jet Cross Sections in $\gamma^*\gamma$-Scattering at $e^+e^-$ Colliders in NLO QCD'
---
Introduction
============
Jet production in $\gamma\gamma$-scattering is an interesting field, both to study perturbative QCD and to obtain information about the partonic structure of the photon. Jet production from two photons can be obtained at $e^+e^-$-colliders as a subprocess to the reaction $e^+e^- \to e^+e^- + X$. The leptons both radiate photons that, in the simplest case, couple to a quark-antiquark pair which produces jets with high $E_T$ in the final state. In the case that both leptons disappear undetected in the beam pipe the photons are quasi-real. This case has been studied at TRISTAN [@01] and LEP [@02] experiments. The presence of a large scale ($E_T$) allows perturbative QCD calculations. These have been performed [@1; @2; @3; @3b] and the agreement of the predictions with experimental data is good (see e.g. [@4]). Recently it has become possible to detect one of the leptons to perform a single-tag experiment [@05]. The detection of the lepton allows to reconstruct the virtuality ($Q^2$) of the radiated photon and it is thus possible to obtain data on jet production for the case of scattering of virtual on real photons.
It is well-known that the real photon can not only couple directly to the charge of the bare quarks but can also fluctuate into a bound state und thus serve as a source of quarks and gluons. This resolved component is described by a parton distribution function (PDF) of the real photon. Thus, the scattering of photons also provides a possibility to study the parton contents of the photon. The resolved component of the virtual photon deviates from that of the real photon in that it has a $Q^2$-dependence. At large $Q^2$ the resolved component of the virtual photon is believed to be negligable. Since so far only limited data exist for the structure of the virtual photon [@11], the modeling of the $Q^2$-behaviour of the virtual photon PDF is still rather ambiguous. Mainly two LO parametrizations of the virtual photon PDF exist, namely those of Glück, Reya and Stratmann [@grs], and of Schuler and Sjöstrand [@sas].
Cross sections have been calculated for $\gamma^*\gamma$-scattering at LO accuracy some time ago [@10], but LO calculations suffer from rather large scale and scheme dependences. Thus, it is desirable to perform these calculations in NLO, which has been achieved recently [@10b].
Partonic Cross Section in NLO QCD
=================================
(122,36) (-10,5) (30,5) (-10,-22) (30,-22)
We will consider $e^+e^-$-scattering cross sections with the $\gamma^*\gamma$-scattering subprocess $$\gamma^*_a(Q^2) + \gamma_b(P^2=0) \to \mbox{jet}_1 + \mbox{jet}_2 +
\mbox{X}$$ The interaction of a virtual with a real photon can happen in four different ways, depending on whether the photon interacts directly or resolved, which is depicted in Fig. 1. The variables $y_a,y_b$ in the following describe the momentum fraction of the photon $a,b$ in the electron and $x_a,x_b$ describes the momentum fraction of the parton in the photon $a,b$.
Taking into account both the transverse and longitudinal polarizations of the virtual photon, the cross section $d\sigma_{e^+e^-}$ for $e^+e^-$-scattering is conveniently written as the convolution $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma_{e^+e^-}}{dQ^2dy_ady_b} = \sum_{a,b} \int dx_adx_b
F_{\gamma /e^-}(y_b) f_{b/\gamma}(x_b) \nonumber \\
\times \frac{\alpha}{2\pi Q^2} \left[ \frac{1+(1-y_a)^2}{y_a}
f^U_{a/\gamma^*}(x_a)d\sigma_{ab} \right. \nonumber \\
+ \left. \frac{2(1-y_a)}{y_a} f^L_{a/\gamma^*}(x_a)d\sigma_{ab}
\right] \label{e+e-}\end{aligned}$$ The PDF’s of the real and the virtual photon are $f_{b/\gamma}(x_b)$ and $f^{U,L}_{a/\gamma^*}(x_a)$, respectively, where $U$ and $L$ denote the unpolarized and longitudinally polarized photon contributions, respectively. The direct photon interactions are included in formula (\[e+e-\]) through delta functions. For the direct virtual photon one has the relation $f^{U,L}_{a/\gamma^*}d\sigma_{ab} = \delta
(1-x_a)d\sigma^{U,L}_{\gamma^*b}$, whereas for the direct real photon the relation is $f_{a/\gamma}d\sigma_{ab} = \delta
(1-x_b)d\sigma_{\gamma b}$, where $d\sigma_{ab}$ refers to the partonic cross section. The function $F_{\gamma/e^-}(y_b)$ describes the spectrum of the real photons emitted from the electron according to the Weizsäcker-Williams approximation [@wwill].
The partonic cross sections in LO consist of two final state particles. The NLO corrections consist of the virtual and real corrections, which both exhibit characteristic divergencies. The real corrections for the different subprocesses D, SR, SR$^*$ and DR have been calculated with the phase-space slicing method and are available in the literature in NLO [@3; @10b; @graudenz]. The sum of real and virtual corrections is finite after factorization of singularities from the initial state. Of special importance here is the $\gamma^*\to q\bar{q}$ splitting term. In the limit of the $q\bar{q}$-pair being collinear the logarithm $$M = \ln\left( 1 + \frac{y_ss}{zQ^2}\right) P_{q\leftarrow\gamma}(z)$$ (where $y_s$ is the phase-space-slicing parameter and $s$ is the partonic cms energy) can be factorized from the cross section, which is singular for $Q^2=0$. This singularity is absorbed into the PDF of the virtual photon with virtuality $Q^2$ in such a way that the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ factorization result of the real photon is obtained in the limit $Q^2\to 0$ [@23].
Results for Jet Cross Sections
==============================
The different subprocesses D, SR, SR$^*$ and DR have been implemented into the computer program [JetViP]{} [@jv] which allows to calculate jet cross sections in $\gamma^*\gamma$-scattering using the Snowmass jet algorithm [@21].
(122,95) (-2,-16) (-2,-68) (37,87)[(a)]{} (37,35)[(b)]{}
For producing our plots we assume kinematical conditions that will be encountered at LEP2, where the photons are emitted by colliding electrons and positrons, both having the energy of $E_e=83.25$ GeV. We choose the configuration, where the virtual photon travels in the positive $z$-direction. We consider only the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$-GRS [@grs] parametrization of the photon PDF here. We use the PDF of GRS for both, the real and the virtual photon. We have set the number of flavors to $N_f=4$, adding the contributions from photon-gluon fusion by fixed order perturbation theory. The renormalization and factorization scales are set equal, with $\mu_R=M_\gamma =M_{\gamma^*}=E_T$.
In Fig. \[10\] a and b the $E_T$ spectra for the virtualities $Q^2=0.058$ and $1.0$ GeV$^2$ for the cross section $d^3\sigma /dE_Td\eta dQ^2$ are shown, integrated over the interval $-2\le \eta \le 2$. The value $Q^2_{eff}=0.058$ GeV$^2$ is chosen as to reproduce the $Q^2\simeq 0$ case. The SR (lower full) and SR$^*$ (dash-dotted) curves coincide in Fig.\[10\] a, where the real photon is approximated by the integrated Weizsäcker-Williams formula and the virtual photon has the value of $Q^2_{eff}$. The full cross section (upper full curve) is dominated by the DR component in the small $E_T$ range for the small $Q^2$ value. For $Q^2=1.0$ GeV$^2$, the DR and D contributions are of the same order around $E_T=4$ GeV, but the DR component falls off quickly for the higher $E_T$’s, leaving the D component as the dominant contribution. This is expected, since the point-like coupling of the photons is more important for larger $E_T$ and $Q^2$. Since the virtual photon contribution is suppressed for larger $Q^2$ the SR$^*$ contribution falls below the SR curve when going to higher values of $Q^2$. In all curves, both SR contributions do not play an important role for the full cross section. Of course, all contributions decrease with increasing $Q^2$.
(122,90) (4,-12) (78,-12) (4,-65.5) (78,-65.5) (16,91)[(a)]{} (90,91)[(b)]{} (16,38)[(c)]{} (90,38)[(d)]{}
We turn to the $\eta$-distribution of the single-jet cross section for fixed $E_T=10$ GeV between $-2\le \eta \le 2$ for the virtualities $Q^2=0.058, 1, 5$ and $9$ GeV$^2$, plotted in Fig. \[11\] a–d. The D and DR distributions for the lowest virtuality $Q^2_{eff}$ are almost symmetric, because of the identical energies of the incoming leptons. The SR curve falls off for negative $\eta$, whereas the SR$^*$ component is suppressed for positive $\eta$. Going to higher $Q^2$ values, the D contribution stays more or less symmetric and dominates the full cross section, as we have already seen in Fig. \[10\] for the larger $E_T$ values. The components containing contributions from the resolved virtual photon DR and SR$^*$ fall of in the region of negative $\eta$ so that they become more and more asymmetric. This is clear, since we have chosen the virtual photon to be incoming from the positive $z$-direction and the resolved virtual photon contribution is decreasing for higher virtualities. The DR and SR contributions are of the same magnitude in the negative $\eta$ region and the DR component is dominant for the larger $\eta$ values, where the resolved photon is more important. The same holds for the D and SR$^*$ distributions in the negative $\eta$ region, only here the D component is far more dominant than the SR$^*$ component in the whole $\eta$ region.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
I am grateful to G. Kramer for interesting discussions.
H. Hayashi et al., TOPAZ Collaboration, Phys. Lett. [ **B314**]{} (1993) 149; B.J. Kim et al., AMY Collaboration, Phys. Lett. [**B325**]{} (1994) 248.
K. Ackerstaff et al., OPAL Collaboration, Z. Phys. [**C73**]{} (1997) 433.
P. Aurenche, J.-Ph. Guillet, M. Fontannaz, Y. Shimizu, J. Fujimoto, K. Kato, Progr. Theor. Phys. [**92**]{} (1994) 175.
L.E. Gordon, Nucl. Phys. [**B419**]{} (1994) 25.
T. Kleinwort, G. Kramer, Nucl. Phys. [**B477**]{} (1996) 3; M. Klasen, T. Kleinwort, G. Kramer, EPJ direct [**1**]{} (1998) 1.
T. Kleinwort, report DESY 96-165 (thesis).
T. Kleinwort, G. Kramer, Phys. Lett. [**B370**]{} (1996) 141; Z. Phys. [**C75**]{} (1997) 489.
J. Lauber (OPAL), G. Cowan (ALEPH), private communication.
Ch. Berger et al., PLUTO Collaboration, Phys. Lett. [ **B142**]{} (1984) 119.
M. Glück, E. Reya, M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. [**D51**]{} (1995) 3220.
G.A. Schuler, T. Sjöstrand, Z. Phys. [**C68**]{} (1995) 607; Phys. Lett. [**B376**]{} (1996) 193.
A.C. Bawa, W.J. Stirling, Z. Phys. [**C57**]{} (1993) 165.
B. Pötter, report DESY 97-138 \[hep-ph/9707319\] (thesis); B. Pötter, report DESY 98-052 \[hep-ph/9805436\].
C.F. v. Weizsäcker, Z. Phys. [**88**]{} (1934) 612; E.J. Williams, Kgl. Danske Vidensk. Selskab. Mat-Fiz. Medd. [**13**]{} (1935) N4.
D. Graudenz, Phys. Rev [**D49**]{} (1994) 3291.
M. Klasen, G. Kramer, B. Pötter, Eur. Phys. J. [**C1**]{} (1998) 261.
B. Pötter, [JetViP]{} 1.1, report DESY 98-071 \[hep-ph/9806437\].
J.E. Huth et al., Proc. of the 1990 DPF Summer Study on High Energy Physics, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by E.L. Berger, World Scientific, Singapore, 1992, p. 134.
[^1]: Supported by the Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie, Bonn, Germany, under Contract 05 7 HH 92P (0), and by EEC Program [*Human Capital and Mobility*]{} through Network [*Physics at High Energy Colliders*]{} under Contract CHRX–CT93–0357 (DG12 COMA).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.